why is this even a mystery???? why is the TTS faster than the evo X?? its plain and simple - weight, weight weight!!! the differences between the awd systems, and between the f1 trannys are negligble, so the only diff in performance at the VIR must be the 400lb of weight!! imagine coming out of a corner, and u r being pulled back by a huge 400lb ship anchor!

as far as comparing the evo to a porsche, why? why do people insist on comparing a $34k X, to a $60k cayman (with a mid-engine layout, 7sp. PDK, and rwd), or worse yet, a $90k 997 ??

people must realize, its not 1993 anymore, not even 2003!! today, a "$35,000 toyota", called the IS350, with an automatic, will smoke a C4 vette, while the IS-F will smoke a C5 vette! its a whole new world out there!

the evos were once performance monsters at a bargain. but today, unless u mod, you'll be lucky if you can take a chevy cobalt in a straight line

 

That may explain why its faster than the x, but not the ix. By every spec the ix should have the tts covered. And its not a small difference either. 5 seeconds is pretty huge considering the specs. You're right though, its no longer 2003 and porsche has far distanced itself from the performance of evos.

Still doesnt explain how the mustang clocked basically the same time as the evos though.

 

The power to weight would seem to be about the same on the mustang / evo right (in fact Mustang's is better than X's if I'm not mistaken). Also for the TT it "appears" to be more aerodynamic which might make a difference on a long track like VIR.

Rumors were that the 2011 Mustang GT is as fast as an M3 , and assuming weight stays same and hp goes up by 100 and suspension and braking improves a bit with track pack that's not a totally unreasonable speculation. I was also suprised how fast the relatively heavy Camaro was. It seems like all those "until you have to turn" jokes hurled at domestics are pretty much out the window.

 

ok so the X is out of the picture, but as far as the IX, well the TTS has the DSG, and over the 2mile span of the track, the 5 second advantage over the IX's 6sp manual is easily explainable. i have driven a DSG equiped VW R32, and the shifts are not even felt, its a great system.

but mustang is still somewhat surprising though

 

True well one point most people miss is that no matter wha the cd is it still has to be multiplied by the frontal surface area of the cars, which is quite large for the evos. I did hear the new mustang gt will have a 5.0 producing about 100 more hp - it maybe as fast as thr m3 in the straight it won't make up 8 seconds on the track

 

i cant imagine the tiny difference in aerodynamics plays a big role (unless the cars are doing 140mph the entire way)

 

A guy at work got a TT as a loaner from Audi about 2 weeks ago and I parked my EVO next to it. I couldn't believe how much bigger the EVO looked. I wanted to take a picture to illustrate the point. The EVO might as well been an SUV sitting next to the TT.

MGT also gets Brembos and some other stuff I believe(with track pack). In the end I probably agree it wont be as fast, but the fact that it can even been considered is quite amazing. (btw, it also gets 390 torque in addition to the 400+ hp).

 

yes, but the one that ran as fast as the evo was the 305hp v8!

 

It's actually 4.1 miles, but dsg is not going to pick up 5 seconds over a manual tranny for sure.. it's a great system but it's not going to save more than a couple seconds

 

oh sorry

i posted some of the results here

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ot...ap-2009-a.html

 

Depends on how many mis-shifts / over / under rev-matchings there are.

I don't like it when there aren't more details. I'd like to know what mod the X MR was ran in. If they put it in automatic I'd say that's disadvantageous, or if it wasn't in super-sport mode.

I also don't like it when the test isn't done on the same conditions and same day. Impressive numbers. It's about time for to step up their power or lose some weight imo.

I have a hard time swallowing that the X MR got the same time as a IX MR. I know you'll argue against it kyooch, but the SST in super-sport mode + paddles + AYC, I just don't see how the IX MR kept up. You may say way, and might be right. But the times I've raced other IXs and VIIIs that were more powerful, my AYC + paddles made up for it and they couldn't ever shake me. Then again I do have a very aggressive tune, but they dyno'd 80+ more whp than I did on the same dyno.

In the end I think the point that needs to be taken away from this test is it's time for to be more aggressive on their factory tune and lose some lbs.

 

lol? the story about the evos was big a year ago or so.. there are plenty of tracks where the x and ix perform basically on par. i dunno what to tell you about not being able to "swallow" it.

http://www.insideline.com/mitsubishi...u-wrx-sti.html

i think it's safe to assume they ran the car in the proper modes and explored the different modes as well. Car and Driver has driven the Evo X MR several times and they have always had great numbers with it.

anyway my main point is that otherwise the tts ran an incredible time for it's power disadvantage. it has about the same power and weight as a wrx, but ran even faster than evos.

 

There are plenty of tracks where they don't perform on par as well. Usually large corners. But either way it's not the point here.

What does the Audio have for traction control / drive train? I don't like that they didn't say much about it.

 

if you've got results, post them in the x vs ix, because i've never ever seen a stock x mr blow away a ix.

audi has its quattro system. it wasn't as much of a car review as a car results test. i've read plenty about the tts, but nothing really stood out about the car, which seems pretty odd. not even to mention the mustang.

there is something to be said about the tests being run on different days and drivers, but conditions are always similar, to the point where i don't think times would vary from car to car by more than a few tenths.

 

I never said anything about blowing it away, but very similar times aren't the norm that I've seen. I don't have any off the bat so I'll stop arguing about it.

Is there proof that conditions are always similar? As little as 15 degrees can make a major impact on tire heat / stickiness.