3000ways

Ok this thread is for the people who are most concerned about the EVO X's straight line acceleration. If you are mostly concerned about twisties and turns, then this isn't the thread for you

I am having a hard time understanding initial acceleration tests of the EVO X. The numbers for some reason just don't add up. I realize with the slight bump in horsepower and 300Lbs+ of weight, the EVO X should be slower, but I still firmly believe it should be deep in the 13s and trap around a 100mph. For instance the EVO IX (when driven by a capable driver and good conditions) can run anywhere between 13.0 to 13.4 @ 102 to 104mph (93 octane pump gas). EVO IXs also usually put down between 255whp to 270whp (dynojets) and weighs 3220 to 3300Lbs. The EVO X with its slight bump in horsepower should make around 260whp to 275whp and it weighs between 3517 to 3594Lbs. So yes indeed it should be slower in a straight line than a EVO IX, but it shouldn't be running very high 13s or low 14s. Given it's power to weight, it should run 13.3 to 13.7 @ 100 to 102mph. Even the heaviest EVO IX with the lowest whp numbers is around 12.9Lbs per whp while the lightest EVO X with the highest whp is around 12.7Lbs per whp (thus you get a 13.4@102mph (EVO IX) compared to 13.3@102mph for EVO X in this scenerio). So yes I do understand that the EVO IX is the quicker car, but it shouldn't just blow the EVO X away in straight line performance. To further explain, I have listed other cars we consider quick that also weigh similiar to the EVO X.

2008 BMW 335i (Stock)
3570Lbs to 3610Lbs
275whp to 290whp
13.2 to 13.6 @ 103 to 106mph
12.3Lbs/whp to 13.1Lbs/whp

2008 Lexus IS350 (Stock)
3530Lbs
260whp to 275whp
13.4 to 13.8 @ 101 to 104mph
12.8Lbs/whp to 13.5Lbs/whp

2006 MazdaSpeed 6 (Stock)
3590Lbs
235whp to 255whp
13.8 to 14.2 @ 96 to 99mph
14.0Lbs/whp to 15.2Lbs/whp

2008 Volkswagen R32 (Stock)
3550Lbs
225whp to 240whp (estimating)
14.0 to 14.4 @ 95 to 98mph
14.7Lbs/whp to 15.7Lbs/whp

2007 Infiniti G35 (Stock)
3530Lbs to 3580Lbs
260whp to 270whp
13.6 to 14.0 @ 101 to 104mph
13.0Lbs/whp to 13.7Lbs/whp

2006 Mitsubishi EVO IX (Stock)
3220Lbs to 3300Lbs
255whp to 270whp
13.0 to 13.4 @ 102 to 105mph
11.9Lbs/whp to 12.9Lbs/whp

2008 Mitsubishi EVO X (Stock)
3520Lbs to 3590Lbs
260whp to 275whp
????????????????
12.8Lbs/whp to 13.8Lbs/whp

I hope you get my point, and please no comments like, well my homies IS350 ran 13.2 in the 1/4 mile or my buddies MS6 put down 262whp, great for them, but that isn't the point. My point is that the EVO X should not be running freakin' 14s unless somebody is lying or the EVO is just so damn difficult to launch (But even then its power/weight should still be represented in trap speeds). This is why I hold off my final determination until a healthy USDM production model is officially tested by either Motor Trend, Car and Driver, or Road and Track. If those magazines get a hold of a healthy production model and it runs a 13.98 @ 97.32mph, then it obvious to me that Mitsubishi is lying and it is actually making even less power than a IX, making power similiar to a MazdaSpeed 6, shame on you Mitsubishi. But, if the car runs what I expect then my question would you straight line guys find it acceptable, given the overall package and that most of you will modify it anyways? If MT, C&D, or R&T get a hold of a EVO X (5MT) and it runs a 13.53 @ 100.65mph, would you guys be happy?

lemmonhead

maybe it has something to do with gear ratios?

xtnct

iTrader: (33)

If you are going to modify the X, then compare it to an IX with the same mods. Comparing a modified X to a stock IX is not exactly fair or that useful.

Canexican

iTrader: (7)

Don't forget that it is a well-known fact that the 4G63 was underrated from the factory. You are automatically assuming that this car will also be underrated from the factory. But maybe its not. The IX, assuming 15% drivetrain loss, puts down about 300bhp. The X, if it is not overrated in bhp, should put down around 250 whp. A 97mph trap speed in the X would confirm this. Just go to tunercalcs.com. Based on my own quarter mile times, its pretty accurate.

s2000sc

iTrader: (1)

The 335i is actually lighter than the official specifications indicate. Quite a few owners have had their cars on the scales weighing in at under 3400lb. That's the explanation why the 335i is quicker than the X. Another factor that is uncertain is area under the power curve for the X. These other cars could have more favorable power curves.

si_to_evo

iTrader: (1)

maybe the added electronics are hindring it

matt55

iTrader: (12)

Fuel to the fire

Family car's and truck's will also give the "X" a hard time from a roll

2007 toyota camary V6 traping +97mph
2008 honda accord V6 trapping +98mph
2007 toyota tundra V8 traping +97mph
from drag time.org all stock/no mods

Heshan

Drop a 4G63 into the X and mod the **** out of it. Theres part of your problem solved. Waiting for the X to come out and see someone do it. That way we don't have to wait around for people to figure the 4B11.

FastDragon

Great idea, make it heavier.

fkdrcrs

+1, that keeps insurance down, well not that much with the evo name on the trunk .

Jax419

iTrader: (10)

Because its the gay

Turb0flat4

This answer wins on succinctness.

Seriously, I think the real answer is simple : the IX didn't have "only" 280 hp or whatever from the factory - it had a *lot* more. Local dynos of the 4G63 Evos show more than 270 whp consistently, and with the AWD losses, that should come to comfortably more than 330 crank hp, maybe 340. Factory bone stock.

The X is either rated accurately, or worst case scenario, OVERRATED from the factory. And god only knows what the drivetrain losses on the new transmissions are - betchya SST has more than 25% loss.

Mitsu dropped the ball on this one. They overhyped the car, and they may even have lied or dissimulated (in internal testing of X vs IX on their own circuit, and in overrating hp, a la Mazda and the RX-8 and, of course, Jaguar and the E-type ages ago). I am committed to getting one now because I have paid the deposit and everything (unless by some miracle, the car is seriously delayed, then I can walk away from the deal). But when I get the car (JDM SST GSR version), I will post an honest review, and tell you all how it really goes in my admittedly amateurish hands. For what it's worth.

If the X disappoints, I am NEVER getting an Evo again. Say what you want about Subarus, they have never once disappointed me in the stock performance of their cars. What they say is what you get.

Noob4life

I'd like to see some of these 270whp stock dyno charts, and what dyno you are using.

Robevo RS

iTrader: (16)

some crazy whp numbers in this thread...

STi2EvoX

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.