MotorTrend EVO 0-60 and 1/4 variations
#17
Yeah this is the first time I have considered cancelling my Motor Trend subscription. These guys each month are giving different numbers for cars and its just BS. Maybe Mitsubishi forgot to pay Motor Trend for the month so they threw in a Joe Blow driver and those are the numbers that were attained
#18
way to much money for what you get, but I think we all know that. And those Times from MotorTrend are very strange, I have never seen a 1/4 mile time that slow from a EVO. Maybe there test car no longer has a clutch. It has some problem for sure with that crap *** time.
#19
Re: MotorTrend EVO 0-60 and 1/4 variations
Originally posted by caymandiver75
Stock EVO from MotorTrend October 2003
0-60 : 5.4 seconds
1/4 mile : 14.09@94.05
Braking 60-0 ft : 111
600-ft slalom, mph 68.9
Stock EVO from MotorTrend June 2003
0-60 : 4.59
1/4 mile : 13.08@105.1
Braking 60-0 ft : 106
600-ft slalom, mph 71.4
I can understand different numbers coming in from different magazines, but come on.... this is the same magazine with numbers completely different. 0-60 is off by more than 1 second, 1/4 is off by more than 1 second and the mph differs by 11mph in the 1/4 Heck even the 600-ft slalom mph speed decreased by almost 3mph!!
Have a look below
Stock EVO from MotorTrend October 2003
0-60 : 5.4 seconds
1/4 mile : 14.09@94.05
Braking 60-0 ft : 111
600-ft slalom, mph 68.9
Stock EVO from MotorTrend June 2003
0-60 : 4.59
1/4 mile : 13.08@105.1
Braking 60-0 ft : 106
600-ft slalom, mph 71.4
I can understand different numbers coming in from different magazines, but come on.... this is the same magazine with numbers completely different. 0-60 is off by more than 1 second, 1/4 is off by more than 1 second and the mph differs by 11mph in the 1/4 Heck even the 600-ft slalom mph speed decreased by almost 3mph!!
Have a look below
The avg stock Evo is a mid-high 13-sec car in the quarter and a low-mid 5 sec car to 60. So there are a handful of cars out there that are faster, and some slower...expecting to hit 105 mph traps in a stock Evo because of one MT article is not a reasonable expectation. At least four magazine reviews (Autoweek, SCC, MT, latest R&T) and have gotten 14 second quarter mile times. Autoweek I can understand, but you expect decent launches from SCC and MT.
TRS
Last edited by trs94; Sep 3, 2003 at 09:27 AM.
#21
Originally posted by Noize
I agree that stock, the production ones WILL NOT trap 105mph. But although your car is obviously quick, you're outdriving your roomate if you can holeshot him. If you have street tires on that AMG, I'd put at least a car and a half on you from a complete stop. Experienced AWD drivers don't need VHT from the track to launch their cars with authority and duplicate 1.70 short times on the street.
I agree that stock, the production ones WILL NOT trap 105mph. But although your car is obviously quick, you're outdriving your roomate if you can holeshot him. If you have street tires on that AMG, I'd put at least a car and a half on you from a complete stop. Experienced AWD drivers don't need VHT from the track to launch their cars with authority and duplicate 1.70 short times on the street.
and that was on his first two runs.... stock....
i could see 105-106 with the right conditions/driver
#22
For $15,000, I would see 400+ whp, have some serious rotor upgrades, new wheels, etc. PLUS Dalene Kurtis from NOPI TV on my jock...
Seriously there is something wrong here. I have 300+ whp now with just bolt-ons and some ECU work. If I had a 2835 alone, another 80+ would be no sweat. Come on. Seems like someone at HKS is trying to lure some kids with deep pockets to come and play.
Seriously there is something wrong here. I have 300+ whp now with just bolt-ons and some ECU work. If I had a 2835 alone, another 80+ would be no sweat. Come on. Seems like someone at HKS is trying to lure some kids with deep pockets to come and play.
#23
13.409 @ 102mph with mine.... it was fairly warm (around 82F) sometime in early August at Maple Grove in Reading PA.
I think MT sucks also! 94mph trap speed..... maybe they started in 2nd or 3rd gear.?
I think MT sucks also! 94mph trap speed..... maybe they started in 2nd or 3rd gear.?
#24
Originally posted by Scot
13.409 @ 102mph with mine.... it was fairly warm (around 82F) sometime in early August at Maple Grove in Reading PA.
I think MT sucks also! 94mph trap speed..... maybe they started in 2nd or 3rd gear.?
13.409 @ 102mph with mine.... it was fairly warm (around 82F) sometime in early August at Maple Grove in Reading PA.
I think MT sucks also! 94mph trap speed..... maybe they started in 2nd or 3rd gear.?
Are you stock? What technique did you use at the track? launch, rpm shift point etc
#26
Hello, interesting topic about the MotorTrend EVO 60ft and 1/4 mile times. Just remember, this is the same car that all of the other magazines tested so by the time it came back to Motor Trend you can imagine the condition of the clutch not to mention the warmer weather. I remember the article did say something about why the times were different, but I can't put my finger on it. As far as 105 mph 1/4 mile times. I've laid down a couple 104 mph trap speeds with a best of 104.5. Also a best of 13.185 1/4 mile time (1.74 60ft). This equates to a 4.6, 0-60mph time. Just like trs94 stated, "there are a handful of cars that are faster".
#27
Originally posted by Silencer
Hello, interesting topic about the MotorTrend EVO 60ft and 1/4 mile times. Just remember, this is the same car that all of the other magazines tested so by the time it came back to Motor Trend you can imagine the condition of the clutch not to mention the warmer weather. I remember the article did say something about why the times were different, but I can't put my finger on it. As far as 105 mph 1/4 mile times. I've laid down a couple 104 mph trap speeds with a best of 104.5. Also a best of 13.185 1/4 mile time (1.74 60ft). This equates to a 4.6, 0-60mph time. Just like trs94 stated, "there are a handful of cars that are faster".
Hello, interesting topic about the MotorTrend EVO 60ft and 1/4 mile times. Just remember, this is the same car that all of the other magazines tested so by the time it came back to Motor Trend you can imagine the condition of the clutch not to mention the warmer weather. I remember the article did say something about why the times were different, but I can't put my finger on it. As far as 105 mph 1/4 mile times. I've laid down a couple 104 mph trap speeds with a best of 104.5. Also a best of 13.185 1/4 mile time (1.74 60ft). This equates to a 4.6, 0-60mph time. Just like trs94 stated, "there are a handful of cars that are faster".
#29
Originally posted by caymandiver75
Not that I doubt you, but can you post a scan of your timeslip? I really want to believe you got those times. I'll feel a lot better knowing I have a 13 second car and not a 14 second car. I'm just asking because I have never seen an actual time slip posted on this forum.
Not that I doubt you, but can you post a scan of your timeslip? I really want to believe you got those times. I'll feel a lot better knowing I have a 13 second car and not a 14 second car. I'm just asking because I have never seen an actual time slip posted on this forum.