Road and Track Ultimate Track Test
Aug 8, 2008, 07:19 AM
#35
Evolving Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Igloo
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every Evo owner should be flattered to be compared to such great machines. 
I think Mitsubishi will continue to refine the new platform. I would not be surprised if they tweak it within a few years to once again surprise the "giants."
Personally, I think they should strive to keep the GSR where it's at (in price and performance), then put all R&D and tuning into the MR and let the price tag go up. Mitsubishi has established the EVO nameplate well within the American market. They need to exploit this by keeping the base Evo affordable, while pushing the top model performance through the roof.
I think Mitsubishi will continue to refine the new platform. I would not be surprised if they tweak it within a few years to once again surprise the "giants."
Personally, I think they should strive to keep the GSR where it's at (in price and performance), then put all R&D and tuning into the MR and let the price tag go up. Mitsubishi has established the EVO nameplate well within the American market. They need to exploit this by keeping the base Evo affordable, while pushing the top model performance through the roof.
Aug 8, 2008, 07:32 AM
#36
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern MD
Posts: 1,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's great how everyone here whines about how the Evo lost because it was cheaper and less powerful than all the other cars. Who cares?? Obviously R&T holds it in high enough regard to include it in a test with all these other crazy expensive and fast cars, so be proud that you have a serious performance car for a budget price. It was within seconds of other cars that had nearly double the HP and 2-6 times the price. Quit complaining and just enjoy the damn article.
Um, the ACR is a factory tuned maniac of a car. It's pretty much a street legal race car by any definition, so why is it a surprise to see it beat out a bunch of other street cars. Its got a lot of aftermarket racing parts including KW coilovers, carbon fiber aero mods, 2 piece rotors, and Pirelli Corsa R compound tires. Of course, its also got 600hp, more than any other car in the test. It was pretty much a given that the Lambo and ACR would be at the top. Just because you think it's a POS doesn't mean it is, it means you probably can't afford it.
Um, the ACR is a factory tuned maniac of a car. It's pretty much a street legal race car by any definition, so why is it a surprise to see it beat out a bunch of other street cars. Its got a lot of aftermarket racing parts including KW coilovers, carbon fiber aero mods, 2 piece rotors, and Pirelli Corsa R compound tires. Of course, its also got 600hp, more than any other car in the test. It was pretty much a given that the Lambo and ACR would be at the top. Just because you think it's a POS doesn't mean it is, it means you probably can't afford it.
Aug 8, 2008, 08:11 AM
#37
Evolved Member
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 2,427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree^^^ I would expect the ACR Viper to be on top. Though the phrase "street legal race car" has been beaten to death, it REALLY describes the ACR Viper to a tee.
Aug 8, 2008, 08:44 AM
#39
It's great how everyone here whines about how the Evo lost because it was cheaper and less powerful than all the other cars. Who cares?? Obviously R&T holds it in high enough regard to include it in a test with all these other crazy expensive and fast cars, so be proud that you have a serious performance car for a budget price. It was within seconds of other cars that had nearly double the HP and 2-6 times the price. Quit complaining and just enjoy the damn article.
Um, the ACR is a factory tuned maniac of a car. It's pretty much a street legal race car by any definition, so why is it a surprise to see it beat out a bunch of other street cars. Its got a lot of aftermarket racing parts including KW coilovers, carbon fiber aero mods, 2 piece rotors, and Pirelli Corsa R compound tires. Of course, its also got 600hp, more than any other car in the test. It was pretty much a given that the Lambo and ACR would be at the top. Just because you think it's a POS doesn't mean it is, it means you probably can't afford it.
Um, the ACR is a factory tuned maniac of a car. It's pretty much a street legal race car by any definition, so why is it a surprise to see it beat out a bunch of other street cars. Its got a lot of aftermarket racing parts including KW coilovers, carbon fiber aero mods, 2 piece rotors, and Pirelli Corsa R compound tires. Of course, its also got 600hp, more than any other car in the test. It was pretty much a given that the Lambo and ACR would be at the top. Just because you think it's a POS doesn't mean it is, it means you probably can't afford it.
Mustangs are POS's too
Aug 8, 2008, 08:48 AM
#40
you're right, my mistake... it was 2 seconds SLOWER than the track record in second place @ 7:29
http://jalopnik.com/386017/nissan-gt...9-makes-us-wet
http://jalopnik.com/386017/nissan-gt...9-makes-us-wet
Aug 8, 2008, 11:37 PM
#41
The article was not really fair to the Evo X in my honest opinion. It would most likely have the edge against every car in it's price range, but when you compare it to "super cars" costing 3-4 times the price of the X MR, then it's just not right. If Road & Track compared the Evo to cars costing twice the price of the X MR, then it would make much more sense. The Evo X is not a bad performance car by any means, but it was made to look bad in front of very expensive super cars. The Evo was clearly overshadowed. 
Aug 9, 2008, 08:49 AM
#42
Evolving Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: in my office
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but that's what made the EVO so special before the X. it would run with cars costing 3times as much and keep up if not win. the X has no shot. it's overweight and underpowered. granted, these problems can be fixed in the aftermarket, but they shouldn't have to be. mitsu should have made it faster and better in every way than the car it replaced. otherwise, what's the point? why should i have to spend 40k on a car, then another 3-5k to make it the car it should have been stock?
All of you are forgetting that Mitsubishi ws completely successful in what they set out to do with the Evo X. They wanted to make it more refined, and upscale feeling and less "boy-racer" so that the target demographic was broader. You also forget that not so long ago Mitsubishi was in serious trouble as a manufacturer and they needed something to help keep them viable. I believe the EvoX has really kept them on the radar of the general public and there are more people that know and appreciate Evos now than ever before. And they are definitely closer in terms of quality to the competition they intended the Evo to have, i.e. the BMW, Audi etc.
So to say that Mistubishi should have made the car what it should have been without having to spend $3-4K on aftermarket stuff, doesn't hold up. Considering their goals and the exceptional performance of the Evox X (even though it is heavier and slower in a straight line) They have made it exactly what it should have been. Just one more step in the Evolution. Again, I don't see why so mnay of you don't realize that it's a pretty big deal just to be included in this group of cars for this test. That puts the Evo X in some oustanding company.
Aug 9, 2008, 05:01 PM
#43
All of you are forgetting that Mitsubishi ws completely successful in what they set out to do with the Evo X. They wanted to make it more refined, and upscale feeling and less "boy-racer" so that the target demographic was broader. You also forget that not so long ago Mitsubishi was in serious trouble as a manufacturer and they needed something to help keep them viable. I believe the EvoX has really kept them on the radar of the general public and there are more people that know and appreciate Evos now than ever before. And they are definitely closer in terms of quality to the competition they intended the Evo to have, i.e. the BMW, Audi etc.
So to say that Mistubishi should have made the car what it should have been without having to spend $3-4K on aftermarket stuff, doesn't hold up. Considering their goals and the exceptional performance of the Evox X (even though it is heavier and slower in a straight line) They have made it exactly what it should have been. Just one more step in the Evolution. Again, I don't see why so mnay of you don't realize that it's a pretty big deal just to be included in this group of cars for this test. That puts the Evo X in some oustanding company.
So to say that Mistubishi should have made the car what it should have been without having to spend $3-4K on aftermarket stuff, doesn't hold up. Considering their goals and the exceptional performance of the Evox X (even though it is heavier and slower in a straight line) They have made it exactly what it should have been. Just one more step in the Evolution. Again, I don't see why so mnay of you don't realize that it's a pretty big deal just to be included in this group of cars for this test. That puts the Evo X in some oustanding company.
yeah, they succeeded in making the car into something it was never meant to be in the first place. a performance sedan... it's always been a road going rally car. basically a street legal race car. not a high performance high end sedan. they are trying to target people who are never going to buy the car anyway, and in the process pissing off the people who would. nobody is going to turn down a BMW to pay 40k for a mitsubishi. especially now that it doesn't have the performance to back up the price tag. before we could excuse the noises, rattles, cheap interior, crappy sound system, and other faults because it was so fast that none of that mattered. but now they took away from the performance to focus on all of that, and it's still cheaply made, still has a lot of the problems the old car had, but it doesn't have the performance to cover it up. thank you Mitsubishi for making the IX MR
Last edited by ODUB; Aug 9, 2008 at 09:34 PM.
