WOW what a disappointment!!!!
Dec 5, 2007, 01:07 PM
#121
Evolved Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JDM IX -> USDM IX
vs.
JDM X -> USDM X
Dec 5, 2007, 02:04 PM
#123
How exactly is a longer and heavier chassis better than the IX? Or are you basing this claim on the "% less flex" marketing fluff?
Where do you see a better suspension design? Still mac-strut up front, and semi-trailing arm rear. Unless you know something we don't about changes to the actual geometry between the X and IX, if so some of us would love to hear it.
And pleeeeaaaase drop the "modded vs. unmodded/modded" argument.
Where do you see a better suspension design? Still mac-strut up front, and semi-trailing arm rear. Unless you know something we don't about changes to the actual geometry between the X and IX, if so some of us would love to hear it.
And pleeeeaaaase drop the "modded vs. unmodded/modded" argument.
The EVO has always been a tuner car, all this crying over the stock straight line speed will become null once people start modding them.
Dec 5, 2007, 02:11 PM
#124
Misused words, I meant better AWD system, especially here in the USA. The chassis is much better no denying that, weight distribution is a little better, looks are much better, interior is leaps and bounds above that of the last generation. Most of the weight came from safety equipment, sound deadening, etc so dont blame it all on the chassis being heavy. It's a fact of life as the years go on, safety standards keep going up and up and with that comes added weight.
The EVO has always been a tuner car, all this crying over the stock straight line speed will become null once people start modding them.
The EVO has always been a tuner car, all this crying over the stock straight line speed will become null once people start modding them.
They have to conform to the same safety regulations that Evo X does. Fact is, you can still make a relatively "light" car these days regardless of the safety features. The problem is, 
built a pig of a car. Heck, the base Lancer weighs nearly 3000lbs.I think we need a little "piggy" emoticon thingy so we can use that to describe the X
EDIT: found a little piggy on Google...
Evo X =
Last edited by atombomb33; Dec 5, 2007 at 02:15 PM.
Dec 5, 2007, 02:19 PM
#125
Not necessarily true. If that's the case, why did the new STI only gain 22lbs They have to conform to the same safety regulations that Evo X does. Fact is, you can still make a relatively "light" car these days regardless of the safety features. The problem is, built a pig of a car. Heck, the base Lancer weighs nearly 3000lbs.
I think we need a little "piggy" emoticon thingy so we can use that to describe the X
EDIT: found a little piggy on Google...
Evo X =
They have to conform to the same safety regulations that Evo X does. Fact is, you can still make a relatively "light" car these days regardless of the safety features. The problem is, built a pig of a car. Heck, the base Lancer weighs nearly 3000lbs.I think we need a little "piggy" emoticon thingy so we can use that to describe the X
EDIT: found a little piggy on Google...
Evo X =
Dec 5, 2007, 02:28 PM
#126
Evolving Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Santa Monica, California
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dec 5, 2007, 02:31 PM
#127
The EVO IX was not a 07 car, therefore it didnt have to conform to the same safety standards that the 07 STI did. Between the 06-07 the STI gained weight, and now from the 07-08 the STI has gained weight again. We all know the IX was more raw than the STI thus, it had less weight from sound deadener, safety equipment, crash bars, etc and now it gained all of that in the X and now you see a big increase in weight.
Anyway you look at it, the Evo X is an overweight
Dec 5, 2007, 03:06 PM
#130
The new Evo weighs the same as a BMW 5 series!!! Wow
I agree that the Evo X IS A PIG of a car. Imagine when you are not at the 3500+rpm and the low compression 2.0 engine has to move almost 3600lbs of a car...
btw...
JDM Evo 9 maxTQ@3000rpm
USDM Evo 9 maxTQ@3500rpm
USDM Evo 10 maxTQ@4400rpm
http://www.mitsubishimotors.com/medi...al%20Specs.pdf
I agree that the Evo X IS A PIG of a car. Imagine when you are not at the 3500+rpm and the low compression 2.0 engine has to move almost 3600lbs of a car...
btw...
JDM Evo 9 maxTQ@3000rpm
USDM Evo 9 maxTQ@3500rpm
USDM Evo 10 maxTQ@4400rpm
http://www.mitsubishimotors.com/medi...al%20Specs.pdf
Last edited by k270kmh; Dec 5, 2007 at 03:09 PM.
Dec 5, 2007, 03:20 PM
#131
Misused words, I meant better AWD system, especially here in the USA. The chassis is much better no denying that, weight distribution is a little better, looks are much better, interior is leaps and bounds above that of the last generation. Most of the weight came from safety equipment, sound deadening, etc so dont blame it all on the chassis being heavy. It's a fact of life as the years go on, safety standards keep going up and up and with that comes added weight.
The EVO has always been a tuner car, all this crying over the stock straight line speed will become null once people start modding them.
The EVO has always been a tuner car, all this crying over the stock straight line speed will become null once people start modding them.
The only thing worse than bench racing is bench racing modded cars.
Dec 5, 2007, 05:27 PM
#132
Explain why the chassis is better? Better for what? Better in a crash? maybe. Better for performance? No - weight is the enemy when it comes to performance. Please show where it says that 250 - 300 extra lbs came from "safety" equipment? The new car is a pig, and that makes it less of a performer than it could have been had Mitsu made an effort to keep the weight down, that is the only thing that is undeniable. The rest are subjective (looks).
The only thing worse than bench racing is bench racing modded cars.
The only thing worse than bench racing is bench racing modded cars.
did their best to keep weight down. The weight discrepency between the old base lancer (2745lbs) and the Evo IX (3285) was actually greater (540lb difference) than the weight discrepency between the current Lancer (3032) and the Evo X (3517lbs - difference of 485lbs). Proof of their effort is that the weight discrepency is less, yet there are more airbags, drivetrain parts, and other various luxury-esque weight inducing parts. The problem was that the base lancer was already so d*mn big and heavy (3000+ lbs for an econo-car!), it is just physically impossible to decrease the weight anymore than it already is without significantly increasing the price by using more exotic materials.Where Mitsu failed is the motor. 291hp sucks for a car that weights as much as the Evo does. They should have put more R&D into power delivery versus the SST b.s.
.
Dec 5, 2007, 06:37 PM
#135
Evolving Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: S. Houston ClearLake
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Explain why the chassis is better? Better for what? Better in a crash? maybe. Better for performance? No - weight is the enemy when it comes to performance. Please show where it says that 250 - 300 extra lbs came from "safety" equipment? The new car is a pig, and that makes it less of a performer than it could have been had Mitsu made an effort to keep the weight down, that is the only thing that is undeniable. The rest are subjective (looks).
The only thing worse than bench racing is bench racing modded cars.
The only thing worse than bench racing is bench racing modded cars.
Here is what an Evo should look like on the scales, not 3500-3600! My RS with a recaro baby seat, a book of old CD's, sorta heavy 18 inchers, stock battery, 4 speaker stereo system and half a tank of gas................
