WOW what a disappointment!!!!
Dec 3, 2007, 01:18 PM
#61
Evolved Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe. I've always been partial to the STi over the EVO until the X prototype was released. I also like the fact that the STi looks smaller.
Dec 3, 2007, 01:55 PM
#62
Evolving Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
im no expert and i dont have any evos but i read this forum left and right.
according to what i read, evo x is about 0.5 seconds slower 0-60 and a whole 2 seconds faster around the track.
a lot of ppl dont track every week so their "race" is a quickie in the street against some poor kid in his ford focus.
the evo improved in EVERY aspect except weight and power. it got more weight and got some more power (not enough according to most of you)
lets be real here, if you want some hardcore performance car wait for the skyline and if u dont got the money you gotta suck it up and buy something slower.
all in all, evo x is a better car over all. if you really want the extra power you can always add it... if mitsu has to work harder to pull off crazyness then they gotta raise the price. if the price goes too high it will compete with better cars that it has no chance with overall.
think about it, mitsu giving us a BETTER car. a tiny bit slower but over all better in every way in the same price range.
i too wish it would of turned out differently but i cant hate cause they did their job... besides, theres still time and there might be some changes.
a lot of companies lie to throw ppl off (even though its a little late for that, never know untill its out)
according to what i read, evo x is about 0.5 seconds slower 0-60 and a whole 2 seconds faster around the track.
a lot of ppl dont track every week so their "race" is a quickie in the street against some poor kid in his ford focus.
the evo improved in EVERY aspect except weight and power. it got more weight and got some more power (not enough according to most of you)
lets be real here, if you want some hardcore performance car wait for the skyline and if u dont got the money you gotta suck it up and buy something slower.
all in all, evo x is a better car over all. if you really want the extra power you can always add it... if mitsu has to work harder to pull off crazyness then they gotta raise the price. if the price goes too high it will compete with better cars that it has no chance with overall.
think about it, mitsu giving us a BETTER car. a tiny bit slower but over all better in every way in the same price range.
i too wish it would of turned out differently but i cant hate cause they did their job... besides, theres still time and there might be some changes.
a lot of companies lie to throw ppl off (even though its a little late for that, never know untill its out)
Dec 3, 2007, 02:29 PM
#64
Newbie
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been anxiously awaiting the Evo X and after reading most of the available reviews on the web I have come to the conclusion that this car is a serious disappointment. 
should have considered giving this car some more power considering the weight, the fact that a 23,000 caliber srt 4 will have a substantially higher trap speed in the quarter mile puts this in perspective. I'm ok with the looks of the car, a wingless GSR would be pretty hot IMO, the chassis also seems top notch, but those aren't my favorite aspects of the evo; straight line performance is where my heart lies and this car just isn't prepared to preform like it should at it's current weight.
Am I being to harsh.......
God , give this car 300hp AT LEAST!
should have considered giving this car some more power considering the weight, the fact that a 23,000 caliber srt 4 will have a substantially higher trap speed in the quarter mile puts this in perspective. I'm ok with the looks of the car, a wingless GSR would be pretty hot IMO, the chassis also seems top notch, but those aren't my favorite aspects of the evo; straight line performance is where my heart lies and this car just isn't prepared to preform like it should at it's current weight.Am I being to harsh.......
God
, give this car 300hp AT LEAST!Last edited by mball75; Dec 3, 2007 at 02:31 PM.
Dec 3, 2007, 02:45 PM
#65
Evolving Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: pa
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dec 3, 2007, 02:48 PM
#66
Evolving Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: pa
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dec 3, 2007, 02:48 PM
#67
all in all, evo x is a better car over all. if you really want the extra power you can always add it... if mitsu has to work harder to pull off crazyness then they gotta raise the price. if the price goes too high it will compete with better cars that it has no chance with overall.
Dec 3, 2007, 03:58 PM
#69
Newbie
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole "two seconds faster" was a JDM X against a USDM IX, not a USDM X - which will be significantly heavier and, as a result of increased heft, slower.
No, an increase of 5 hp does not offset 300+lbs of weight gain.
The IX is a hardcore performance car and did not cost 70g's like the GTR does.
You should not have to mod your new Evo X to make it as fast as your old Evo IX. They could have spent more R&D on the engine and power delivery to make the power/weight ratio better rather than spending a fortune on this SST semi-auto tranny. It would have also lowered cost of production and lowered price.
"BETTER" why? Cause it has navigation and is less-communicative than the IX? Please...
They did their job? What was their job...to make this Evo slower than its predecessor? Well, mission accomplished.
About the only thing they lied about was the original speculation that this was going to have over 300hp and run 4.5 0-60 times.
No, an increase of 5 hp does not offset 300+lbs of weight gain.
The IX is a hardcore performance car and did not cost 70g's like the GTR does.
You should not have to mod your new Evo X to make it as fast as your old Evo IX. They could have spent more R&D on the engine and power delivery to make the power/weight ratio better rather than spending a fortune on this SST semi-auto tranny. It would have also lowered cost of production and lowered price.
"BETTER" why? Cause it has navigation and is less-communicative than the IX? Please...
They did their job? What was their job...to make this Evo slower than its predecessor? Well, mission accomplished.
About the only thing they lied about was the original speculation that this was going to have over 300hp and run 4.5 0-60 times.
Dec 3, 2007, 04:20 PM
#70
Evolving Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Alabama
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dec 3, 2007, 04:26 PM
#72
Evolving Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the bay, Cali
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...0zx-turbo.html
http://www.caranddriver.com/bestcars...50z-page2.html
Last edited by EzeE1o; Dec 3, 2007 at 04:32 PM.
Dec 3, 2007, 04:37 PM
#73
Evolving Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Alabama
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nope, the 300 was actually heavier than the 350
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...0zx-turbo.html
http://www.caranddriver.com/bestcars...50z-page2.html
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...0zx-turbo.html
http://www.caranddriver.com/bestcars...50z-page2.html
Last edited by kilgoja; Dec 3, 2007 at 04:43 PM.
Dec 3, 2007, 09:04 PM
#74
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes but the 300zx was at a different time in the 90's
that was the time of the rx7, supra and 3000gt...the impractical car wars. This was before the japanese became fixated on being more german
that was the time of the rx7, supra and 3000gt...the impractical car wars. This was before the japanese became fixated on being more german
Dec 3, 2007, 10:19 PM
#75
I'm just sad. I've defended the X all along, and I just can't do it anymore. The best motoring tests killed it for me. WTF!? All the magazine reviews made it out to be the "far better handling" car, which in a lot of ways it is, but it doesn't pay big dividends on a race track like they implied, because as soon as the straight opens up, the old evos and stis pull past it, giving them the overall faster lap time. I think that on a super-twisty track with no long straights, that the evo x would in fact be faster. However most tracks have at least one decent straight, and this is where the X gets killed. I'm still going to buy the car, because what other car for the money can pull .99 Gs on the skidpad? It's incredible, it's just not fast in the straights, and that's what pains me. If it tied the old model in the straights, not even beat...but just tied, then the car would be a triumph. But, I think that mitsu knew the only was to do that was to offset the added weight by adding 40 more hp, and they just didn't want to do that. Maybe it was fear of raising the price to high. Maybe they were affraid that if the car ended up costing 40,000 that it would be competing with cars that targeted the kind of buyer who wouldn't be interested in an EVO, which is probably true. Who knows...