EVO FQ300 Vs AMS Modified EVO X **MAGAZINE TEST**
Sep 3, 2008, 08:11 AM
#17
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
it says that it still has S-AWC which can be ACD and S-AYC except for the sport ABS brakes.
http://www.motorauthority.com/news/s...-lancer-evo-x/
http://www.motorauthority.com/news/s...-lancer-evo-x/
Sep 3, 2008, 12:45 PM
#19
Evolved Member
iTrader: (26)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That author likes the Subaru better. Why pick him to write an Evo comparo then? Stupid mag... Great work though AMS! Too bad they didn't have someone better to write the article.
Sep 3, 2008, 12:49 PM
#20
Evolving Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Trinidad & Tobago
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
guys... people by nature don't like change... here in trinidad.. you should hear the evo enthusiasts... they hate the evo x.. ask them if they ever drove one? answer is no... but get this... i remember when the evo 7 came out.. everyone was braying about how ugly and detuned the body looked.. now imagine they are comparing the evo x to that now as the benchmark!
Sep 3, 2008, 12:55 PM
#21
This guy is retarded. Amongst constantly using false acronyms (TC-SSC...) and other retarded, miss-informed comments, he contradicts himself. He says the 5-speed in the GSR is a "retrospective step... [with] others in this class having 6-speed gearboxes in their armoury." But then goes on to emphasise the "tougher five-speed manual gearbox" that the "lithe RS" comes with. It's the same gearbox!!! lol, what an idiot.
Another great part, he complains about the launch but never put the car in s-sport mode which is the only way to use the launch control. What a crappy article.
Oh, and when thinking "wholly crap, 430 ft-lb torque" just remember that that dyno also quoted the stock fq-300 as having 346 ft-lbs. So that 430 ft-lb is probably more like 280-300 ft-lb considering they gained about 25% over stock and most dyno's quote stock ft-lb around 230-250.
Another great part, he complains about the launch but never put the car in s-sport mode which is the only way to use the launch control. What a crappy article.
Oh, and when thinking "wholly crap, 430 ft-lb torque" just remember that that dyno also quoted the stock fq-300 as having 346 ft-lbs. So that 430 ft-lb is probably more like 280-300 ft-lb considering they gained about 25% over stock and most dyno's quote stock ft-lb around 230-250.
Last edited by ddawg1130; Sep 3, 2008 at 01:53 PM.
Sep 3, 2008, 05:45 PM
#22
i had an evo8 rs jdm model and the car was a real blast to drive i use to do a lot of racing but know that iam not into racing i wanna buy the new evo mr its just more refine for daily driving and has more comodoties and thats what iam looking for in the end its what you want.
also the AYC was the cause of all the recalls on the IV of mitsubishi japan.
Sep 5, 2008, 07:48 AM
#27
The guy that wrote the article sounds like an evo 6 fanboy that has probably hated every evo since. He prefers his evos cheap, simple, and raw and doesn't have any respect for the car being nicer and more refined than past evos. He didn't really comment on the car's strong points, like how it handles better than any evo of past and has about the best chassis that an evo has ever had. So what if it's a little slower in a straight line? It handles better, and that's what an evo is supposed to be all about.
Well, he was comparing two Evo X, so essentially, the handling perspective is not relevant.....neither did he say anything about Evo X having bad handling. He merely says that he enjoys the older Evos more because they did not have the "all show no go" parts. This is why the Evo X RS feels more like how the car should have come with. I think he was as enthusiastic about the Evo X (given it's an RS) than older Evo, so I am not sure why you felt he was biased.
Sep 5, 2008, 10:23 AM
#28
No, he may have had two evos on hand that he compared a bit, but the article was about comparing the X to older, more "raw" evos of past. My problem with the guy is the fact that he's *****ing about the car having a sub in the trunk and basically says that any evo that comes with more than a drivers seat and a cage is stupid, which is not what any evo, especially the X, is all about. It's about the practicality of a four door saloon that can whoop up on most sports cars.
The X imparticular is supposed to be a bit more refined with a higher overall build quality while still maintaining and improving upon the performance of past evos. The only category where this car falls short is straight line speed, but who cares? You should always look at handling first and foremost when evaluating a sports car, not the straight line speed. With a good engine that's responsive to mods, that's easily fixed.
The X imparticular is supposed to be a bit more refined with a higher overall build quality while still maintaining and improving upon the performance of past evos. The only category where this car falls short is straight line speed, but who cares? You should always look at handling first and foremost when evaluating a sports car, not the straight line speed. With a good engine that's responsive to mods, that's easily fixed.
