Newest Motor Trend: 2008 EVO X GSR vs. 2008 STI
#31
Evolved Member
Yes, but MT's actual mileage, which they always list, is actually down from before. Yes, this entire comparison was done at a track, but so was the comparison between the three '05 models (RS, VIII and MR) and they all had higher test mpg than the new one.
#32
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
The IX does not get better gas mileage, the EPA changed the way they rate cars.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
#33
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's funny that 95% if evo owners modify the hell out of them anyway. How many people on this board have TBE and a tune? We all want them faster; the main concern, i guess you could say, would be how well the X reacts to aftermarket tuning. The thing already handles like a beast. With coilovers and tuning it will hopefully: handle better, be similar HP-wise and be more refined. Not sure how much more you can ask for. If you are looking to drag race stock cars then get something other than an AWD sedan with less than 300HP.
#34
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.motortrend.com/features/s...12_0306_spdint
2003 US Spec Evolution:
0-60: 4.59
1/4 mile: 13.08@105.12
Yeah, boy that car was slow back then!
#40
Evolved Member
Fair enough. Let's look at another Motortrend article in the interest of keeping it fair, specifically the 2003 Motortrend Speed Shootout featuring a 2003 Evolution:
http://www.motortrend.com/features/s...12_0306_spdint
2003 US Spec Evolution:
0-60: 4.59
1/4 mile: 13.08@105.12
Yeah, boy that car was slow back then!
http://www.motortrend.com/features/s...12_0306_spdint
2003 US Spec Evolution:
0-60: 4.59
1/4 mile: 13.08@105.12
Yeah, boy that car was slow back then!
#41
Evolved Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Dirty Jersey
Posts: 583
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough. Let's look at another Motortrend article in the interest of keeping it fair, specifically the 2003 Motortrend Speed Shootout featuring a 2003 Evolution:
http://www.motortrend.com/features/s...12_0306_spdint
2003 US Spec Evolution:
0-60: 4.59
1/4 mile: 13.08@105.12
Yeah, boy that car was slow back then!
http://www.motortrend.com/features/s...12_0306_spdint
2003 US Spec Evolution:
0-60: 4.59
1/4 mile: 13.08@105.12
Yeah, boy that car was slow back then!
Reality is that Evo X is the most sophisticated Evo to date, increased in size, increased room, increased weight, better aerodynamics, much better looks, and it has an all-new untapped engine. I am more than sure that if Mitsubishi will feel the hea from competition they will either increase the displacement of the engine to get the heavier car moving as 2.0l doesn't really cut it anymore even with addition of turbos as shown by the gas mileage numbers of Evo X (engine seems too stressed or maybe unoptimized) or maybe they'll add a second turbo (making it twin-turbo). I wouldn't mind having an Evo with 6 cylinder 2.5l twin turbo engine, similar to previous generation Galant VR-4 in Japan. There comes a point in car weight when turbos won't help with anything and increase in displacement is really need it.
Last edited by blitzkrieg79; Dec 26, 2007 at 05:30 PM.
#44
Evolved Member
Exactly, so even test data from an Evo VII wouldn't be a proper comparison since non-U.S. Evos don't have all the added weight from our required safety equipment that typically ends up being at least a 100 pound difference, usually a bit more. Even R&T tested a Euro-spec Evo VII in a comparison in 2002 and did 0-60 in 4.4 seconds, and they're generally not the best with getting maximum acceleration out of cars.