Newest Motor Trend: 2008 EVO X GSR vs. 2008 STI
Dec 26, 2007, 06:38 PM
#46
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those numbers were legitimately attained, but MT later stated in another issue that the track they tested the car on was an awesome one with a really grippy surface, hence why their testers could never muster similar numbers on any later Evo that should've hypothetically performed better.
Dec 26, 2007, 08:17 PM
#47
Guess things are looking up for the X. With all the new emissions and safety requirements, combined with the drive to broaden market appeal, we'll never see cars as raw as the previous Evos/STIs. The good news is, the Evo's powertrain is all-new and in its infancy, while the STI's powertrain is an evolution of the previous, and assumably at its pinnacle as was the Evo IX. For the initial offering of the new Evo platform to best its nemesis on a race track despite its power-to-weight deficiency is an excellent result, and foreshadows an all-out spanking in upcoming Evo iterations as 
sorts out the power issues. The fact that the X is already available in FQ360 trim gives me hope that adequate power is easily attainable, and FAR easier than trying to get the STI to handle as well as the X. The X sounds like a precision weapon in the twisties, which is good for people like me, who live in Oregon or somewhere similar (winding mountain roads, lots of rain) and also enjoy an occasional track day. Evo X FTW!
sorts out the power issues. The fact that the X is already available in FQ360 trim gives me hope that adequate power is easily attainable, and FAR easier than trying to get the STI to handle as well as the X. The X sounds like a precision weapon in the twisties, which is good for people like me, who live in Oregon or somewhere similar (winding mountain roads, lots of rain) and also enjoy an occasional track day. Evo X FTW!
Dec 27, 2007, 06:25 AM
#50
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Diamond Bar, California
Posts: 3,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Honestly I think you guys are paying way too much attention to the acceleration E.T.s of the EVO X and STI. I do believe both the EVO X and STI are capable of even quicker times. In my opinion I believe the increase weight of the EVO X is slowing the 0-60 times of the EVO X tremendously in comparison to the EVO IX and STI. I mean launching a 3200Lbs to 3280Lbs EVO IX is much easier than launching a 3550Lbs+ EVO X. I also do not believe the 18inch rims are helping the drag racing efforts of both the EVO X or STI.
I guess I look at things differently than most of you. When I saw the first MT article involving EVO X and EVO IX, my biggest concern was not that 14.0 second 1/4 mile, but that freakin' absolutely horribly slow 96.9mph trap speed of the EVO X (I know the EVO X wasn't healthy). That right there showed me a lack of power, this concerned me the most. Now this test has the EVO X at 99.3mph trap speed and in my opinion it can even trap a little higher, so now atleast I see the EVO X is adequately powered. This is what I was the happiest about from reading this new article. I really wish and hope Mitsubishi has plans of bringing over a EVO X RS one day. Even if it weighs in at 3400 to 3450Lbs it should see much quicker acceleration numbers due to its lighter weight and smaller rims (A US version would most likely have 17inch rims). The EVO X RS could possibly be that EVO X that us performance enthusiast are looking for. It upsets me a little that Mitsubishi has no immediate plans to release a RS version here.
I guess I look at things differently than most of you. When I saw the first MT article involving EVO X and EVO IX, my biggest concern was not that 14.0 second 1/4 mile, but that freakin' absolutely horribly slow 96.9mph trap speed of the EVO X (I know the EVO X wasn't healthy). That right there showed me a lack of power, this concerned me the most. Now this test has the EVO X at 99.3mph trap speed and in my opinion it can even trap a little higher, so now atleast I see the EVO X is adequately powered. This is what I was the happiest about from reading this new article. I really wish and hope Mitsubishi has plans of bringing over a EVO X RS one day. Even if it weighs in at 3400 to 3450Lbs it should see much quicker acceleration numbers due to its lighter weight and smaller rims (A US version would most likely have 17inch rims). The EVO X RS could possibly be that EVO X that us performance enthusiast are looking for. It upsets me a little that Mitsubishi has no immediate plans to release a RS version here.
Dec 27, 2007, 06:38 AM
#51
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Diamond Bar, California
Posts: 3,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really wish magazines kept track or published 60ft times or if they are gonna do drag race testing, then at least have a full print out of times and traps. I know they don't always test vehicles at a drag strip, but it would be great if their equipment kept track of similiar stats as a drag strip does and if they shared the results with us.
Dec 27, 2007, 07:48 AM
#52
Evolving Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^^^^^ right on. Finally someone with some brains. I dont really car if the evo is .4 sec slower in the 1/4 mile. If the motor responds well to mods, I could care less. The .4 you lose will me made up with a couple of mods, and some. I really hope they offer the ralliart lancer, lighter, and less options. So i can add what i want to it. I will wait to see what the big tuners are going to do with it. If the motor and drivetrain are the real deal, then i would def get the ralliart, and add the right parts to it.
Dec 27, 2007, 07:51 AM
#53
Evolving Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm no expert and I sure as hell don't know enough to challenge all your knowledge but, I do have an open mind and consider myself a very logical person. So, here's my two cents.
Evo X is slower and heavier than the ones before. Most real life races are truely 0-60 drags. But wait, 0-60 drag with wet roads changes the whole equation doesn't it? AWD with awesome control will surely blow off to 60 quicker than most cars out there. While they all swinging their tails ur well on your way to 60.
Also, lets say your driving normaly going to work and some freaking moron in a Civic decides to be a cool guy and cut you off by centimeters and just happens to tip the front of your car and makes you start loosing control. Well, Evo X handling will surely help you keep control in that situation.
Also, in the real world, people don't know how to change gears perfectly either. The majority are posers driving stick. So, while you get ur shifting right on the money or just use the SST w/e, the other dude (poser) will have shift delays and **** like that.
Another thing, 0.5 seconds slower isn't the end of the world in the real world. After the STI beats me (if hes a good driver) I can always pull up next to him and think... man his car is fcking ugly... Then drive by some store with big windows to catch a glimpse of my beautiful Evo X.
Then, if i wanna take it outside the real world and hit up the track... I know I can lap about a second faster than most cars... On a 4 door sedan... haha EVO FTW, not just the X, all of them!
Evo X is slower and heavier than the ones before. Most real life races are truely 0-60 drags. But wait, 0-60 drag with wet roads changes the whole equation doesn't it? AWD with awesome control will surely blow off to 60 quicker than most cars out there. While they all swinging their tails ur well on your way to 60.
Also, lets say your driving normaly going to work and some freaking moron in a Civic decides to be a cool guy and cut you off by centimeters and just happens to tip the front of your car and makes you start loosing control. Well, Evo X handling will surely help you keep control in that situation.
Also, in the real world, people don't know how to change gears perfectly either. The majority are posers driving stick. So, while you get ur shifting right on the money or just use the SST w/e, the other dude (poser) will have shift delays and **** like that.
Another thing, 0.5 seconds slower isn't the end of the world in the real world. After the STI beats me (if hes a good driver) I can always pull up next to him and think... man his car is fcking ugly... Then drive by some store with big windows to catch a glimpse of my beautiful Evo X.
Then, if i wanna take it outside the real world and hit up the track... I know I can lap about a second faster than most cars... On a 4 door sedan... haha EVO FTW, not just the X, all of them!
Dec 27, 2007, 08:15 AM
#54
Evolving Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think that's funny that the EVO IX is rated at less power, but puts out more. mitsu designed an all new engine and it still sucks. i think it's sad that the 4B11 is all new and they still need close to 20psi to get it to a miserable 255whp. they need to give honda a call. a bone stock K20 with a 7psi and k-pro can be at close to 300whp. now if you take that motor and build it for boost and run 20psi through it, you'd be pushing like 500-600whp. somebody should drop a boosted K20 into the X and you'd have a much better car.
Please, you are talking about turbo setups that typically involve a larger turbo that is set at 7psi to avoid blowing up that K20. Don't forget that reaching that 300whp probably requires you to have a free flowing exhaust and intake system (that typically are not put on a bone stock car, even performance ones). In addition to that, you would need some sort of fuel management, injectors, higher flowing fuel pump. It isn't as simple as you say to just bolt on that turbo. You are also overlooking the fact that that 255whp is to ALL FOUR WHEELS, not just the weak *** two front wheels. Yeah, put that K20 with that same setup as you say running AWD, be lucky to dyno in at 230whp. Plus that turbo ain't gonna help with the weak low end torque that's needed to move an AWD car.
Dec 27, 2007, 08:49 AM
#56
Pocket Mo
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Washington
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please, you are talking about turbo setups that typically involve a larger turbo that is set at 7psi to avoid blowing up that K20. Don't forget that reaching that 300whp probably requires you to have a free flowing exhaust and intake system (that typically are not put on a bone stock car, even performance ones). In addition to that, you would need some sort of fuel management, injectors, higher flowing fuel pump. It isn't as simple as you say to just bolt on that turbo. You are also overlooking the fact that that 255whp is to ALL FOUR WHEELS, not just the weak *** two front wheels. Yeah, put that K20 with that same setup as you say running AWD, be lucky to dyno in at 230whp. Plus that turbo ain't gonna help with the weak low end torque that's needed to move an AWD car.
I have to disagree with the part about the torque figures. 2 liters is 2 liters; there's no going around that figure. The K20A2 is capable of more HP and torque at the same boost levels as a 4G63. Short of getting a port and polish job with a new intake manifold on the 4G, the head cannot flow as much as the K20 head.
Dec 27, 2007, 10:24 AM
#57
Evolved Member
Evo X is slower and heavier than the ones before. Most real life races are truely 0-60 drags. But wait, 0-60 drag with wet roads changes the whole equation doesn't it? AWD with awesome control will surely blow off to 60 quicker than most cars out there. While they all swinging their tails ur well on your way to 60.
Also, lets say your driving normaly going to work and some freaking moron in a Civic decides to be a cool guy and cut you off by centimeters and just happens to tip the front of your car and makes you start loosing control. Well, Evo X handling will surely help you keep control in that situation.
Another thing, 0.5 seconds slower isn't the end of the world in the real world. After the STI beats me (if hes a good driver) I can always pull up next to him and think... man his car is fcking ugly... Then drive by some store with big windows to catch a glimpse of my beautiful Evo X.
B. In a drag race, an '08 STI won't need a good driver to beat an '08 Evo X (unless he's just that terrible). The numbers have been quite consistent from publication to publication, with the STI typically being significantly quicker.
C. The "you might be faster but my car is better looking" excuse is such a cop-out that has been overused by so many other cars (350Zs, G35s, Mustang GTs, etc.) against Evos in the past. Don't do that.
D. You don't have a "beautiful Evo X," and I doubt you will anytime soon. Sorry, just being realistic.
And then all the cars that you might beat (assuming you're a semi-decent driver) will all tell you that you might be faster, but their BMWs/350Zs/Porsches/etc. are better looking than your ugly car... assuming that you don't get slayed if the track has too many straights (uh-oh!) or if you can't drive.
Dec 27, 2007, 10:40 AM
#59
Evolved Member
Dec 27, 2007, 10:43 AM
#60
Newbie
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Santa Clara
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice read. Thanks for posting it!
Looking at the stats, i was wondering if the evo had a negative camber angle set on it, while the sti was at zero.
More importantly, would camber angle differences show these kind of results ?
(historical data should be good enuf, it doesnt have to be between an evo X and 08 sti)
Looking at the stats, i was wondering if the evo had a negative camber angle set on it, while the sti was at zero.
More importantly, would camber angle differences show these kind of results ?
(historical data should be good enuf, it doesnt have to be between an evo X and 08 sti)