Evo X vs. Evo VIII and IX
Feb 17, 2008, 12:56 PM
#513
I've never seen soo many people get so excited over nothing!
"20 hp by just removing the airfilter, omg!" ....did you not notice that's it's still only 240whp.....not even up to the stock IX wich makes 250-260awhp with absolutely NO mods.
Now if the X stock basline was at 250-260awhp and it jummped 40hp with an intake and boost control, then I would scream and shout with the rest, but it's not.
Mod for mod the IX and X seem to be making the same whp. Who cares how big the jump or gain was, 300 is still 300.
I'm not saying the X isn't a great car, I'm sure it is. All evo's have their plus and minus, just don't make it out to be more than it's not.
"20 hp by just removing the airfilter, omg!" ....did you not notice that's it's still only 240whp.....not even up to the stock IX wich makes 250-260awhp with absolutely NO mods.
Now if the X stock basline was at 250-260awhp and it jummped 40hp with an intake and boost control, then I would scream and shout with the rest, but it's not.
Mod for mod the IX and X seem to be making the same whp. Who cares how big the jump or gain was, 300 is still 300.
I'm not saying the X isn't a great car, I'm sure it is. All evo's have their plus and minus, just don't make it out to be more than it's not.
The dyno were it made 220 and then 240 with the air filter off is a Mustang dyno. Stock Ix only do 235 there, not 250-260.
Also, you need ot do more research. An X with just a tune and cat back is making as much as a IX with a tune and a turboback.
Feb 17, 2008, 12:58 PM
#514
meltdown, you are comparing a x dyno'd on a mustand vs a 9 dyno'd on a dyno jet. Musang dynos read significantly lower than dyno jets. Ask shiv, from vishnu tuning, and he will show you than a stock 9 makes about 5 more hp on his dyno than a x on his dyno. Thats a 5 hp difference, and the x makes 10 more lb ft of torque than the 9, so they put out about the same overall power. He has also stated and shown with dyno graph evidence that a X with a rough tune makes about 10 more hp with no bolt ons than a 9 with a tune and a catless turbo back exhaust. You have not done your research and have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
JK JK
Feb 17, 2008, 04:41 PM
#519
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: vEgAs
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah at first glance last year I didn't like that X from a visual aspect, because of the change. But as I did more research and read more and more reviews, overall it grew on me....the specs and features stood out a lot and when I test drove it, I knew I wanted to get it. No regrets on my trade-in for the X.
Feb 17, 2008, 04:47 PM
#520
Evolving Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: here
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feb 17, 2008, 05:51 PM
#521
Evolving Member
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: KC
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm just saying that the X is not the GOD everyone is making it out to be.
I would love to have a X, I would not pay what the X cost but I would love to have one.
Feb 17, 2008, 05:57 PM
#522
Evolving Member
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: KC
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The difference in the two setups above is not that big. Bascially since AMS said that a downpipe did not make any hp gains on the X, the difference in the two is a cat. Therefore the IX is pretty even with the X, I'M NOT SAYING BETTER, just close to being even.
Feb 17, 2008, 06:21 PM
#524
Evolving Member
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: KC
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read this and I think that this will be over. This is coppied from the vishnu part two thread, and this is a post from shiv himself.
With actual tuning, the X has already made more power with just a simple catback and a free flow cat than a tuned IX was ever capable. Even when running no cats, full exhaust, intercooler, stiffer wastegate spring, etc,. I think we already have a winner, no?
With actual tuning, the X has already made more power with just a simple catback and a free flow cat than a tuned IX was ever capable. Even when running no cats, full exhaust, intercooler, stiffer wastegate spring, etc,. I think we already have a winner, no?
Dyno Details:
Stock X with 3" cat and 3" cat-back
Tuned by a modified BMW PROcede computer
91oct
On the Mustang Dyno at FFTEC.
I'll post up the graphs later tonight but for now, here are the results:
WHP: 297-302whp
Torque: 310-315lbft
This is up considerably from when the car was running the stock exhaust. You can see those results here:
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...d.php?t=322616
These new results are about as good as the absolute BEST results we've ever got out of a Evo IX running a full catless exhaust (3" dp, 3" test pipe, 3" cat-back). But we're talking about the top 3-5%. Most IXs with full catless exhaust usually fall in the 285-290whp range.
It is much stronger than a similarly modified IX (which would only make 270-275whp/290-300lbft with a 3" cat and 3" catback).
---
Let's mainly look at the last part where they say a IX would only make 270-275 with similar mods, but then on their web site that have this dyno sheet:
http://www.vishnutuning.com/images/e...vs_reflash.jpg
270whp on a stock IX with just a reflash.....doesn't really match what they said about the IX when they were comparing it to the X.
Last edited by meltdown; Feb 17, 2008 at 06:24 PM.