Why is the EVO X so slow???
Dec 7, 2007, 05:32 AM
#19
Evolved Member
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 1,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you look at Turb0flat4 Location: Singapore that may explain the higher that normal US numbers he is quoting. Also, he may be thinking in metric units too?
There are a lot of diffs between these two continents.
There are a lot of diffs between these two continents.
Dec 7, 2007, 06:33 AM
#20
Evolving Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: nc
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess I'm missing something, but I don't know how 0-60 in 5.0 sec can be deemed slow. The new X is a bigger and heavier car, with just a modest increase in power.
The old EVO is crude and feels like a tin can at times. Losing a few tenths of a second is not that bad to get a far better every-day driving car with all the technology upgrades. People make it out to seem that Honda Minavans are going to outrun the new EVO.
It's unrealistic expectations. People want an all-new EVO for 35 grand that does 0-60 in 4.2 seconds.
And you can't keep comparing REAR WHEEL DRIVE cars to all wheel drive. AWD is always going to be a few tenths slower.
The new STI was clocked around 4.8, so if the EVO is 5.0, I guess you can complain a little about that. But I'm personally not going to lose sleep over it and not buy and EVO X for .20 of a second.
The old EVO is crude and feels like a tin can at times. Losing a few tenths of a second is not that bad to get a far better every-day driving car with all the technology upgrades. People make it out to seem that Honda Minavans are going to outrun the new EVO.
It's unrealistic expectations. People want an all-new EVO for 35 grand that does 0-60 in 4.2 seconds.
And you can't keep comparing REAR WHEEL DRIVE cars to all wheel drive. AWD is always going to be a few tenths slower.
The new STI was clocked around 4.8, so if the EVO is 5.0, I guess you can complain a little about that. But I'm personally not going to lose sleep over it and not buy and EVO X for .20 of a second.
Dec 7, 2007, 09:56 AM
#25
EvoM Community Team Leader
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: chicago, michigan, arkansas
Posts: 3,135
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
I guess I'm missing something, but I don't know how 0-60 in 5.0 sec can be deemed slow. The new X is a bigger and heavier car, with just a modest increase in power.
The old EVO is crude and feels like a tin can at times. Losing a few tenths of a second is not that bad to get a far better every-day driving car with all the technology upgrades. People make it out to seem that Honda Minavans are going to outrun the new EVO.
It's unrealistic expectations. People want an all-new EVO for 35 grand that does 0-60 in 4.2 seconds.
And you can't keep comparing REAR WHEEL DRIVE cars to all wheel drive. AWD is always going to be a few tenths slower.
The new STI was clocked around 4.8, so if the EVO is 5.0, I guess you can complain a little about that. But I'm personally not going to lose sleep over it and not buy and EVO X for .20 of a second.
The old EVO is crude and feels like a tin can at times. Losing a few tenths of a second is not that bad to get a far better every-day driving car with all the technology upgrades. People make it out to seem that Honda Minavans are going to outrun the new EVO.
It's unrealistic expectations. People want an all-new EVO for 35 grand that does 0-60 in 4.2 seconds.
And you can't keep comparing REAR WHEEL DRIVE cars to all wheel drive. AWD is always going to be a few tenths slower.
The new STI was clocked around 4.8, so if the EVO is 5.0, I guess you can complain a little about that. But I'm personally not going to lose sleep over it and not buy and EVO X for .20 of a second.
Dec 7, 2007, 10:10 AM
#26
Newbie
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
+1. why the big fuss over "slowness" of the evo. r u really going to be racing around the tracks every single day to care enough for a few tenths of a second slower? if you are then my advice to you is to save up and buy the gtr if you want an unbeatable 4wd car
Dec 7, 2007, 11:11 AM
#27
Newbie
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: OK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well here's my view of it:
Few months back, I wanted to get an evo IX. I finally got enough saved, would be able to make payments, everything would be fine. Unfortunately, the closest dealership to me (Dallas - 270 mi from me) sold out all of them, and I really didn't feel like driving to the coast to pick one up. My alternatives were either get a used one (and hope that the engine wasn't raped, even though they can take punishment), or just wait for the X.
Well, I chose to wait, save more money and what not. During this time the IX's became even harder to get (or maybe I just wans't looking hard enough?). I want an evo.
The big misconception is that people seem to thing that they made the car slower on purpose. LOl. Well no. They made an awesome car into something that they could bring to a bigger group of people. They've added some stuff (sat nav, stereo) and whatnots, and that made the car a bit heavier, hence a bit slower.
But honestly. Okay, the car won't be as "raw" as the IX, but I'm pretty sure that it will still be a blasty-blast on the track, and I'm pretty sure that it will be a much more comfortable daily driver.
As far as the mods go. Yeah, you won't have all of the options available right away, but seriously - does it really take them *that* long to come up with new ones? I'll say it'll be just a few months when we'll start seeing some serious mods. And the few fraction's of a second that the new evo is loosing will be made up with the simple mods. I'm a n00b when it comes to mods, but I think that the few hp/tq that you'll get with a better intake/exhaust, chip/tune up will easily make up for it (read, spending extra 2g's probably). And with the improved handling that this car is supposed to have, it's going to be super awesome to drive. That's at least my plan when I'll get one.
Just my 2 cents.
Few months back, I wanted to get an evo IX. I finally got enough saved, would be able to make payments, everything would be fine. Unfortunately, the closest dealership to me (Dallas - 270 mi from me) sold out all of them, and I really didn't feel like driving to the coast to pick one up. My alternatives were either get a used one (and hope that the engine wasn't raped, even though they can take punishment), or just wait for the X.
Well, I chose to wait, save more money and what not. During this time the IX's became even harder to get (or maybe I just wans't looking hard enough?). I want an evo.
The big misconception is that people seem to thing that they made the car slower on purpose. LOl. Well no. They made an awesome car into something that they could bring to a bigger group of people. They've added some stuff (sat nav, stereo) and whatnots, and that made the car a bit heavier, hence a bit slower.
But honestly. Okay, the car won't be as "raw" as the IX, but I'm pretty sure that it will still be a blasty-blast on the track, and I'm pretty sure that it will be a much more comfortable daily driver.
As far as the mods go. Yeah, you won't have all of the options available right away, but seriously - does it really take them *that* long to come up with new ones? I'll say it'll be just a few months when we'll start seeing some serious mods. And the few fraction's of a second that the new evo is loosing will be made up with the simple mods. I'm a n00b when it comes to mods, but I think that the few hp/tq that you'll get with a better intake/exhaust, chip/tune up will easily make up for it (read, spending extra 2g's probably). And with the improved handling that this car is supposed to have, it's going to be super awesome to drive. That's at least my plan when I'll get one.
Just my 2 cents.
Dec 7, 2007, 12:09 PM
#28
Evolving Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: LA
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wtf are you talking about? I wasnt referring to the op's post, people were questioning IX's putting down 260-270whp on djs and I was showing them where they could find that info. Maybe you shouldnt jump to conclusions and attack me without reading the thread a.s.shole.
Dec 10, 2007, 06:25 AM
#29
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Diamond Bar, California
Posts: 3,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, those whp numbers are ridiculous. On a Dyno Dynamics, stock evo 9s run about 235 whp, which is about the same as an sti. I have a 2004 STi and my buddy has an evo 9, and we had them dyno'd at the same shop on the same dyno. Dyno Dynamics, btw, are way more accurate, and conservative in their readings than dyno jets. My car with intake, tbe, and a reflash runs 280 whp, and my friend has the same mods, and he makes about 290. My car with the exact same tune and mods runs about 310 on a dyno jet, which always read way higher than what the car is actually making. Dyno Jets are garbage. And for the record, the reason that the evos of the past are so fast is not that they were way underrated, although they were a bit. It's that the power stays so flat all the way to redline, unlike the sti's power band plumetting before redline. My dyno graph compared to my friend's proves this point. It's why even though we are making about the same power, he pulls me every time. Such is the case more with the evo 9 than the 8, but is true for both. The sti launches a little harder than the evo, which is the only reason that it puts down a comparable 0-60 time. But in the real world, where most races are done from a roll, the EVO is king. At least it used to be.
1) When a USDM EVO X is officially tested by a magazine it will run mid 13s and trap around 100mph. I know gearing and other factors come into play, but the biggest factor is simply power to weight. And while heavier, the EVO X still should have enough power to run 13s and trap in the 100mph range.
2) The USDM EVO X runs 14s in the 96mph to 98mph range which proves that something is amiss. The EVO X is eighter rated accurately or overrated, and isn't making the power of a EVO IX, this would be disappointing to say the least. I know EVO IXs are underrated from the factory, and I was assuming the EVO X would be the same, with an extra bumb in power, but if it is running this slow my assumptions are not correct.
Dec 10, 2007, 07:17 AM
#30
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Diamond Bar, California
Posts: 3,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
*Off Topic*
I think a dyno is simply a tuning tool, and it really doesn't matter which is more accurate, a DD, Dynapack, Mustang, or a Dyno Jet. The gains are what really matter. But when comparing numbers from car to car, I have always prefered a dyno jet. Why? Well it is pretty simple, whether you want to believe it or not, the Dyno Jet is the king of dynos. I am not saying it is the most accurate or the best, but it is with out the doubt the most heavily used type of dyno through out the automotive world (in the United States). I would love to sit and compare DD dynos, but the fact remains the data from DJs are just more plentiful and can be used easily to compare numbers from car to car. For instance an EVO IX with a FPGreen turbo puts out 425whp on a Dyno Jet given a 20% loss for AWD (some people measure loss differently) that translates to about 510hp. That EVO should run low 11 to mid 11s at 120-122mph (depends on driver and track conditions). The Corvette Z06 also is rated at 505hp and runs mid 11s at 122-124mph on the average. Given the difference in gearing, weight, and aerodynamics the Z06 has a higher trap and faster in tripple digits from a roll. But as you can see even the factory power ratings for a car are usually more suited for a DJ. Maybe this will start to change in the future, especially with so many cars being underrated, but as it stands now the DJ is the best correlation to factory ratings.
Also my truest feelings, I think a DD dyno is the most accurate, but when I got like for example two or three DD 335i dynos compared to like 30+ DJ 335i dynos, what do you think I should use to compare? Pretty simple to me.
Last thing to prove my case further. One thing I have always like about DJs when using to compare different cars, is that they are fairly consistent from car to car. Don't get me wrong, there is that occasional odd ball, but more often than not cars fall within a certain range, where you can legitimatly say that if your making such power on a Dyno Jet and weighs a certain amount you should be within a certain speed range. Sadly I cannot say the same for other Dynos, some may be more accurate, but they miss out on being consistent with one another. A perfect example of this is something I enjoy doing. When I have a couple of minutes of free time, I enjoy going to youtube and watching the street or highway races people have posted. I love when people put the power numbers before a race. There could be a race between a Cobra and EVO, and the poster may put a 515whp (Dyno Jet) Cobra vs. 455whp (Dyno Jet) EVO. Seeing that, I know to expect a pretty close race, and 8 out of 10 times it is just that, a pretty decent race. Now if the video involves a 515whp (Dyno Jet) Cobra and for example a 455whp (Mustang Dyno) EVO, honestly haven't the slightest idea what to expect. First question that comes to my mind, is who's Mustang dyno is it?
I think a dyno is simply a tuning tool, and it really doesn't matter which is more accurate, a DD, Dynapack, Mustang, or a Dyno Jet. The gains are what really matter. But when comparing numbers from car to car, I have always prefered a dyno jet. Why? Well it is pretty simple, whether you want to believe it or not, the Dyno Jet is the king of dynos. I am not saying it is the most accurate or the best, but it is with out the doubt the most heavily used type of dyno through out the automotive world (in the United States). I would love to sit and compare DD dynos, but the fact remains the data from DJs are just more plentiful and can be used easily to compare numbers from car to car. For instance an EVO IX with a FPGreen turbo puts out 425whp on a Dyno Jet given a 20% loss for AWD (some people measure loss differently) that translates to about 510hp. That EVO should run low 11 to mid 11s at 120-122mph (depends on driver and track conditions). The Corvette Z06 also is rated at 505hp and runs mid 11s at 122-124mph on the average. Given the difference in gearing, weight, and aerodynamics the Z06 has a higher trap and faster in tripple digits from a roll. But as you can see even the factory power ratings for a car are usually more suited for a DJ. Maybe this will start to change in the future, especially with so many cars being underrated, but as it stands now the DJ is the best correlation to factory ratings.
Also my truest feelings, I think a DD dyno is the most accurate, but when I got like for example two or three DD 335i dynos compared to like 30+ DJ 335i dynos, what do you think I should use to compare? Pretty simple to me.
Last thing to prove my case further. One thing I have always like about DJs when using to compare different cars, is that they are fairly consistent from car to car. Don't get me wrong, there is that occasional odd ball, but more often than not cars fall within a certain range, where you can legitimatly say that if your making such power on a Dyno Jet and weighs a certain amount you should be within a certain speed range. Sadly I cannot say the same for other Dynos, some may be more accurate, but they miss out on being consistent with one another. A perfect example of this is something I enjoy doing. When I have a couple of minutes of free time, I enjoy going to youtube and watching the street or highway races people have posted. I love when people put the power numbers before a race. There could be a race between a Cobra and EVO, and the poster may put a 515whp (Dyno Jet) Cobra vs. 455whp (Dyno Jet) EVO. Seeing that, I know to expect a pretty close race, and 8 out of 10 times it is just that, a pretty decent race. Now if the video involves a 515whp (Dyno Jet) Cobra and for example a 455whp (Mustang Dyno) EVO, honestly haven't the slightest idea what to expect. First question that comes to my mind, is who's Mustang dyno is it?
Last edited by 3000ways; Dec 10, 2007 at 07:59 AM.