Evo X vs. Evo VIII and IX
Jul 21, 2008, 02:19 PM
#1291
Evolving Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: LA
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry to use the words Evo IX Fanboy at this point, but some of the recent posts I'm reading are just begging to be called typical fanboy posts.
The rawness factor is such a joke in my opinion. I'm not gonna write a book about it. No need to. All I'll say is this. With an Evo VIII and IX you pay $30,000 (or more) and you get all performance, a ****ty interior, a nice steering wheel, decent seats, and less features than a typical $20,000 car. With a X @ $32,000 you get better performance (keep reading), cruise control, AYC, SAWC, ABS, auto climate control, navigation, optional 6 speed SST, bluetooth, Ipod thing, and a pretty decent interior + a lot more. Only a fanboy would say they'd rather have a "raw" car than have all of those extras. Trust me, I've owned both. I like the X better for the features. As for my performance comment above, it is 100% true that the 4B11 engine is more powerful, the drivetrain is 10X better, the chasis is 10X better... Unfortunately, the car weighs a lot more and it's compromised a bit, closing the gap between IX and X.
One last thing, I'd only take someone's "rawness" comments serious if they are driving an RS. Same thing applies to owners of RS CT9A's vs. MR CT9A's. RS's must be real evo's and the MR's fake because the MR takes away some of the rawness of the vehicle. Gimme a break.
The rawness factor is such a joke in my opinion. I'm not gonna write a book about it. No need to. All I'll say is this. With an Evo VIII and IX you pay $30,000 (or more) and you get all performance, a ****ty interior, a nice steering wheel, decent seats, and less features than a typical $20,000 car. With a X @ $32,000 you get better performance (keep reading), cruise control, AYC, SAWC, ABS, auto climate control, navigation, optional 6 speed SST, bluetooth, Ipod thing, and a pretty decent interior + a lot more. Only a fanboy would say they'd rather have a "raw" car than have all of those extras. Trust me, I've owned both. I like the X better for the features. As for my performance comment above, it is 100% true that the 4B11 engine is more powerful, the drivetrain is 10X better, the chasis is 10X better... Unfortunately, the car weighs a lot more and it's compromised a bit, closing the gap between IX and X.
One last thing, I'd only take someone's "rawness" comments serious if they are driving an RS. Same thing applies to owners of RS CT9A's vs. MR CT9A's. RS's must be real evo's and the MR's fake because the MR takes away some of the rawness of the vehicle. Gimme a break.
Jul 21, 2008, 02:28 PM
#1292
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Little Ferry, NJ
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I totally agree with you. The rawness comment people bring up just doesn't make any sense. Like you just said, they did a great job adding a few things while still keeping it like other evo's. People that hate the X use the fact that it has cruise control, navi, etc against it. It just doesn't make sense.
Jul 21, 2008, 06:52 PM
#1294
I wasn't going to say anything but I had to comment about this one. Only a fanboy would say they'd rather have a "raw" car than have all those extras? Go buy an audi then. Why do you think people who buy Evos buy Evos? Mainly, for the performance. We sacrifice those "extras" to have extra performance. That is one of the defining compromises of having an Evolution. Now, Mitsubishi has done a fantastic job of adding many of those extras while keeping the performance very close in line to the speed of the other Evolutions. But if you're going to jest about which car feels more like a sports car, more "raw," I really beg to differ. Just because one car goes sideways with more ease doesn't make it a purer sports car.
" Just because one car goes sideways with more ease doesn't make it a purer sports car."
Nope its doesn't. But makes it fun to drive , does it?
The argument wasn't about the X more pure then a IX, actually it was the opposite way ... remember?
Why try to, misleading my post? And try to turn it the opposite way?
Just admit it when you guys are not 100% right. The X is a fun car to drive and yes, it is a very capable car . Still with the added extra pounds.
Which is easy to remove, if you want to have a pure car.
Jul 21, 2008, 07:43 PM
#1296
" Just because one car goes sideways with more ease doesn't make it a purer sports car."
Nope its doesn't. But makes it fun to drive , does it?
The argument wasn't about the X more pure then a IX, actually it was the opposite way ... remember?
Why try to, misleading my post? And try to turn it the opposite way?
Just admit it when you guys are not 100% right. The X is a fun car to drive and yes, it is a very capable car . Still with the added extra pounds.
Which is easy to remove, if you want to have a pure car.
Nope its doesn't. But makes it fun to drive , does it?
The argument wasn't about the X more pure then a IX, actually it was the opposite way ... remember?
Why try to, misleading my post? And try to turn it the opposite way?
Just admit it when you guys are not 100% right. The X is a fun car to drive and yes, it is a very capable car . Still with the added extra pounds.
Which is easy to remove, if you want to have a pure car.
I said what I said about the question of a purer sports car because oversteering is a typical ideal of the X's handling characteristics, and what X owners like to hold onto as something that "adds" handling. Anyone could go on about "pure" sports cars and what both cars have and don't have. Especially if they own both of them (I do). Like I've been saying this whole time, it's not about what car is more of an Evo or what car is this or that.. It's just about preference of feel.
There is no envy, I have no buyer's remorse, I'm satisfied with the cars and knew the details of each when I bought them. I'm just saying they're completely different cars. I think the comments about the electronic aids are a little silly, as we are driving cars that are loaded with electronic aids. It is almost an inherent characteristic of the Evo.
However, both cars are quite different. Most of us know these differences, especially if we have driven or own both cars. I just had to comment when someone said something about the "rawness" of the cars. I guess it really is a question of the definition of the word. To me, raw meant lighter, nimbler, less electronics magic (even though there is still a considerable amount), etc. I think everyone had a good general gist of the word, until someone locked up at the idea of their X losing out in this category, and commented how modifications could be made to prove otherwise, and how wrong the community is of which car is more "raw."
Jul 21, 2008, 08:37 PM
#1297
I think in some circumstances, it can be more fun. But a lot of times, I'm not having fun unless I'm content with the car that I'm in. Just because the car can oversteer doesn't make it more fun. I prefer neutral to oversteer any day. Really.
I said what I said about the question of a purer sports car because oversteering is a typical ideal of the X's handling characteristics, and what X owners like to hold onto as something that "adds" handling. Anyone could go on about "pure" sports cars and what both cars have and don't have. Especially if they own both of them (I do). Like I've been saying this whole time, it's not about what car is more of an Evo or what car is this or that.. It's just about preference of feel.
There is no envy, I have no buyer's remorse, I'm satisfied with the cars and knew the details of each when I bought them. I'm just saying they're completely different cars. I think the comments about the electronic aids are a little silly, as we are driving cars that are loaded with electronic aids. It is almost an inherent characteristic of the Evo.
However, both cars are quite different. Most of us know these differences, especially if we have driven or own both cars. I just had to comment when someone said something about the "rawness" of the cars. I guess it really is a question of the definition of the word. To me, raw meant lighter, nimbler, less electronics magic (even though there is still a considerable amount), etc. I think everyone had a good general gist of the word, until someone locked up at the idea of their X losing out in this category, and commented how modifications could be made to prove otherwise, and how wrong the community is of which car is more "raw."
I said what I said about the question of a purer sports car because oversteering is a typical ideal of the X's handling characteristics, and what X owners like to hold onto as something that "adds" handling. Anyone could go on about "pure" sports cars and what both cars have and don't have. Especially if they own both of them (I do). Like I've been saying this whole time, it's not about what car is more of an Evo or what car is this or that.. It's just about preference of feel.
There is no envy, I have no buyer's remorse, I'm satisfied with the cars and knew the details of each when I bought them. I'm just saying they're completely different cars. I think the comments about the electronic aids are a little silly, as we are driving cars that are loaded with electronic aids. It is almost an inherent characteristic of the Evo.
However, both cars are quite different. Most of us know these differences, especially if we have driven or own both cars. I just had to comment when someone said something about the "rawness" of the cars. I guess it really is a question of the definition of the word. To me, raw meant lighter, nimbler, less electronics magic (even though there is still a considerable amount), etc. I think everyone had a good general gist of the word, until someone locked up at the idea of their X losing out in this category, and commented how modifications could be made to prove otherwise, and how wrong the community is of which car is more "raw."
" think in some circumstances, it can be more fun. But a lot of times, I'm not having fun unless I'm content with the car that I'm in. Just because the car can oversteer doesn't make it more fun. I prefer neutral to oversteer any day. Really."
so then you are truly misunderstand the X characteristic as handling. Let me put it this simple way.
Your USDM VIII or IX is not even close in comparison to the X , being neutral.
I hope it is clears out some misunderstanding about the X.
Jul 21, 2008, 09:22 PM
#1298
Import tuner, Motortrend, SCC, Car & Driver. All the results differ. If you want to find which ones better. Go to the track and find out first hand.
Last edited by dbsears; Jul 21, 2008 at 11:30 PM.
Jul 21, 2008, 11:18 PM
#1299
" think in some circumstances, it can be more fun. But a lot of times, I'm not having fun unless I'm content with the car that I'm in. Just because the car can oversteer doesn't make it more fun. I prefer neutral to oversteer any day. Really."
so then you are truly misunderstand the X characteristic as handling. Let me put it this simple way.
Your USDM VIII or IX is not even close in comparison to the X , being neutral.
I hope it is clears out some misunderstanding about the X.
so then you are truly misunderstand the X characteristic as handling. Let me put it this simple way.
Your USDM VIII or IX is not even close in comparison to the X , being neutral.
I hope it is clears out some misunderstanding about the X.
I know how the cars feel. Admittedly, my IX is set up better.
I think I'm done here, you guys continue to duke it out
Jul 22, 2008, 09:33 AM
#1300
Evolved Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: MS/SG...now in perth
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dont argue around
its just my opinion
its just that
i know about the extra all those
but i rather they strip off the extra
and make a real evolution
instead of a car that have luxury and performance combine
its just isnt right
the heritage of evolution has dwell off
i mean...it already loses the main purpose of creating an evolution
what i am trying to say is
why dont they creat a strip off version...maybe a RS in the evo X
and sell it abit cheaper...i would definitely love that
and i believe they will roll out the X RS soon
so i am looking forward to it
but for now
its just...i think they dwell of the purpose of creating a raw menace machine that is solely for the purpose of performance
not just half half
i mean
i rather they creat a full performance car
rather then having half of performance and half of luxury
its just that for me
i would rather sacrifice the luxury and have raw performance
and i believe most buy an evo not to be daily driven
but to have some kick... weekend fun
but thats just my personal opinion, maybe its just me...haha
but nevertheless
the evoX is still a gd machine
its just that
WHY WHY WHY are mitsubishi creating an evo which is just about the same as the previous version interm of performance
but of cuz i dont hate evo X
and i believe if you strip down the lucury item
the car will definitely outrun an evo 8/9 anyday
but i dont think it can outrun a evo 6.5 TME
haha
thats my alltime favourite evo
its just my opinion
its just that
i know about the extra all those
but i rather they strip off the extra
and make a real evolution
instead of a car that have luxury and performance combine
its just isnt right
the heritage of evolution has dwell off
i mean...it already loses the main purpose of creating an evolution
what i am trying to say is
why dont they creat a strip off version...maybe a RS in the evo X
and sell it abit cheaper...i would definitely love that
and i believe they will roll out the X RS soon
so i am looking forward to it
but for now
its just...i think they dwell of the purpose of creating a raw menace machine that is solely for the purpose of performance
not just half half
i mean
i rather they creat a full performance car
rather then having half of performance and half of luxury
its just that for me
i would rather sacrifice the luxury and have raw performance
and i believe most buy an evo not to be daily driven
but to have some kick... weekend fun
but thats just my personal opinion, maybe its just me...haha
but nevertheless
the evoX is still a gd machine
its just that
WHY WHY WHY are mitsubishi creating an evo which is just about the same as the previous version interm of performance
but of cuz i dont hate evo X
and i believe if you strip down the lucury item
the car will definitely outrun an evo 8/9 anyday
but i dont think it can outrun a evo 6.5 TME
haha
thats my alltime favourite evo
Jul 22, 2008, 09:53 AM
#1301
My only issue with the X is that visually, it's relatively less distinguishable that the current Lancer (like the current E92 M3 vs 3 series). The differences are suttle.. different wing, blacked out grill, tiny hood vents.
When comparing the VIII/IX to the previous Lancer, the bulging fenders, huge *** wing etc made it more distinguishable... exclusive (like the previous E39 M3 vs 3 series).
When comparing the VIII/IX to the previous Lancer, the bulging fenders, huge *** wing etc made it more distinguishable... exclusive (like the previous E39 M3 vs 3 series).
Jul 22, 2008, 09:56 AM
#1302
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
My only issue with the X is that visually, it's relatively less distinguishable that the current Lancer (like the current E92 M3 vs 3 series). The differences are suttle.. different wing, blacked out grill, tiny hood vents.
When comparing the VIII/IX to the previous Lancer, the bulging fenders, huge *** wing etc made it more distinguishable... exclusive (like the previous E39 M3 vs 3 series).
When comparing the VIII/IX to the previous Lancer, the bulging fenders, huge *** wing etc made it more distinguishable... exclusive (like the previous E39 M3 vs 3 series).
to work on!
Jul 22, 2008, 10:07 AM
#1303
You know whats funny. You guys all seem to quote megazine articles. Probably because 90% of people in this thread haven't tracked their evo's and thats all that they have to relate too.
Import tuner, Motortrend, SCC, Car & Driver. All the results differ. If you want to find which ones better. Go to the track and find out first hand.
Import tuner, Motortrend, SCC, Car & Driver. All the results differ. If you want to find which ones better. Go to the track and find out first hand.
But some just assume stuff and presenting as a fact. So for some the magazine is beneficial. At least they know what they talking about. Or at least they driver and team so on is more reputable then they screen name with X amount of post.
Dont you agree?
Now being said , the magazine at least gives some basic argument point to start , but the "i know that or you know that" argument is basicly never ends. Just like this thread..
Of course magazine vs magazine is hard to decide. So pick those reviews where actually is someone , like JUN is well known in the Evo world.
Sorry if i hurt any one here but i take they words over any US magazine driver words.
Simply because they drive more often evos, they are longer in the scene, they got unlimited research + some factory help. /no BS local dealer or distributor/
And so on. Like HKS got they X to work on and develop stuff for it, way before some even saw it in the states.
Jul 22, 2008, 10:49 AM
#1304
Evolving Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: LA
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
