kyoo

iTrader: (29)

im not saying it's any less amazing - im saying it's pretty much the same - and has been since the evo6. It's the other cars that are all picking up the slack, particularly supercars.

What does an Evo need to keep up with a ZR1? I'm gonna say at least 300 more bhp, considering the ZR1 weighs right around 3300 lbs. That's gonna require at least a built bottom end. Full 3" exhaust system, and the evo definitely can't do it with a catalytic converter like the ZR1 can (maybe a "high flow" cat).

What about the handling? To compete with that low a center of gravity, the Evo would need a huge amount of a suspension fixes etc. I'd even venture a guess to say that one would need coilovers. If it's a X we're talking, it's gonna need to shed some weight too. On and on.


It's not as cheap to make a budget supercar anymore because the definition of supercar is changing, improving, while the evo stays the same. I can still recall some of the supercars in the late 80s early 90s before the NSX came around. The livability was a disaster. Before, when you wanted a supercar, you had better have been willing to give up a lot in terms of comfort. Nowadays, a completely different story.

Evo's a very fast car - and even faster with mods. It's just not a car that can be modded as a "budget supercar" to compete with supercars anymore.


I didn't make this thread because I'm "whining" or "crying" about it or something. It's just a statement to be made - we are reaching an age where - maybe we can still build a budget supercar to have the performance of a supercar - but we can't build one that will have the comfort, livability, and reliability of a supercar anymore.

Jeffs2006EVOIX

I agree with the OP on this totally. I personally feel that does not have the "rally" mindset any longer as it did years ago. The last couple of "evolutions" that we have received are "watered" down versions. Disagree all you want, but you get me a Evo 6.5 TME I would trade you straight accorss for my Evo 9 MR in a second!

Additonally with that in mind, the new X is more of a "street" car than a watered down "rally" car, so to me its even worse. Its heavy, bigger, taller, and even though you can get good HP numbers from it, its just not as cheap as it once was to build the car.

To say the name "evo" in the terms with 911, GT-2, GT-3, or Ferr, Lambo, I mean, I would be pissed off if I spent $100K and some little 4 door car just blew by me. So they SHOULD be better.

I still think though $ for $ the Evo is still the best "bang for the buck" if we all could afford 911's then why would we be here in a Evo board for?? The thing is the Evo is and always was the "underdog" its just now you have to spend more money to get it to run with the "big dogs".

Personally my Choice would be a more civilized sports coupe. The Caddy CTS-V Series to me hands down is the best bang for the buck if you have a little higher tax bracket than I am in. haha.

So if anyone has a TME they want to trade let me know!!! haha. Untill then, I will keep on truckin with my 9 MR

NFSLancerRA

iTrader: (8)

I may have missed something, but why is an Evolution being compared to Supercars? Some of you have cars that MIGHT be able to keep up with a high-end car under very specific conditions.

Yeah, this is a really great car. Was it designed to aspire to that level of performance? NO.

I disagree that newer supercars are getting to be much faster than they were years ago. In fact, I believe that they proved this point on Top Gear not too long ago. The Bugatti Veyron is the glaring exception. And I wouldn't worry about seeing something else like that ever again, either. All of this extra crap on cars is slowing them down. The Evolution X, I think, is more powerful than it predecessor. However, which one would any of you rather have in a similar condition? The same thing is happening nowadays with a lot of cars.

jmcevo1

When it comes down to it the old addage "There is no replacement for displacement" is correct! It was only a matter of time before the japanese applied all the amazing principles that make our amazing four cylinder rockets so successful to a larger engine. The Europeans started to edge away from the Japanese and they got tired of it and released thr R35 and LFR. I personally didn't buy my Evo to have a supercar, If I wanted that I would have saved 3 quarters of my life and bought one! I just wanted to make the supercar drivers and owners keep an eye out for one F*&%%(G nasty four dorr sedan that would sureprise the h#%^ outta them if they weren't paying attention for a solid 40k less than they spent!!! AND BUY GOLLY I GOT IT!!!!! TURN THE BOOST UP THROW ALL 700WHP DOWN AND LETS SUREPRISE SOME PEOPLE!!!!!

kyoo

iTrader: (29)

It's being compared to supercars because modded Evos used to keep up with supercars. It was the saying that you could build a budget supercar with an Evo.

If you are disagreeing that supercars are getting much faster I think you may want to check again. Even the old f430 scuderia could take the old Enzo around a given track. Now even that car is outdated with the 458 Italia.
And just try think of another supercar from the early to mid 2000's that gets 0-60 under 3 seconds like the new 911 turbo does - that is as reliable and livable and CHEAP as a 911 turbo (150g).

The reason the X is a great car is not because it's several steps faster than it's predecessor. The reason it's a great car is because it's just as fast as the older cars, while adding safety, cruise control, bluetooth, satnav, on and on. And to be honest, at the very least overseas, the evo X is not the fastest car on the street/track - but that is another topic.

NFSLancerRA

iTrader: (8)

You just don't like all the electronics in the cars now-a-days. I am with you on that one.

Jeffs2006EVOIX

I think your missing the point that the OP is trying to make, he is not "bashing" the Evo, just simply making a poiint, that is very true. Top Gear? I mean, come on, the numbers don't lie. Some of these new sports cars out are frickin fast. But cost a frickin pretty penny too.

The X is a great car, "better" than its prodecessor? I dissagree with that. It makes more power because it has too to move that 300 extra pounds of fat, it has AYC to compinsate for its Heavy Weight, without AYC well the Evo would handle like the Ralliart...YAWN...which has basically the 9's underpinnings in a way, but the 8/9 had ALLOT less weight to move around so the suspension was suitable for it.

The "Best" Evo ever made to date in my book? TME 6.5. Fastest, best handleing, real steet "rally" car has EVER produced.

This OP's post is just saying, the Evo was able to keep up with cars costing tons of money more, now the Evo needs allot of help. You need a Full BR built Motor to keep up with the "big dogs" and with all that you throw out drivability and the "street abilty". Cops would be on you quicker than flies on shizzle. haha. Anyway, OP point taken, we get it, its true, it sucks, but it is, what it is.

NFSLancerRA

iTrader: (8)

It is possible that you could keep up with a supercar around a track with an Evolution. That is still possible. As supercars become more complex, so do the Evolution models. You might find yourself spending more money to accomplish the same thing. That can be said about a lot of things now-a-days, unfortunately.

kyoo

iTrader: (29)

Here's a very basic point - in order to keep up with much faster cars, cars like the evo used turbos and increased boost and etc etc. Same with variable valve timing etc. Where is the evo left when the much faster cars apply the same principles? Right where it started, thousands and thousands of dollars in performance away from much faster cars.

Only this time, to keep up, what can cars like the evo, sti do? Seeing cars like the current 911 turbo makes me think there's nothing that can bridge the performance gap WHILE obtaining that level of livability and reliability. The 911 turbo ripping 0-60 in 2.8 seconds? First of all, I can't even imagine that. Second of all, I need not only a hell of a lot of mods but probably a built motor as well.

I definitely agree - my point is, the evo can't do it while being as reliable, quiet, livable, with as many amenities as a supercar.

NFSLancerRA

iTrader: (8)

I get the point that he is trying to make. I just never thought of my car or an Evolution as a competitor for some of these cars. I am happy with my car the way that it is. I am very realistic about what it can and cannot do. I was just stating my opinion that many may be overstating the true nature of this car. That is all. I wasn't trying to bash the Evolution either.

kyoo

iTrader: (29)

which is a very good point - people who bought an evo because they loved EVOs wouldn't, and shouldn't care.

People who bought evos because it (with a few mods) could keep pace with a 911 turbo may start need to looking at other means - because 911 turbos just got damn fast.

And honestly, it was probably pushed by the r35 GTR. And honestly, the performance of earlier carreras and e46 m3s probably were pushed by cars like the evo and sti. My point is that the next gen evo and sti will probably not continue to have this capacity, looking at the history, as well as just plain physics

NFSLancerRA

iTrader: (8)

Umm, no. As far as I know, Rally Cars are divided into classes based on engine displacement. They range from 2000 cc to 4000 cc or more. Correct me if I am wrong, but it was neither necessary nor advisable for Mitsubishi to increase either the size of the engine of the amount of power that the car put out. It wouldn't make sense to have a 600+ bhp Rally Car, because how would all of that power make it to the ground on gravel?

This car was not designed to compete with Supercars. It never was. It started out life as a rally car. It started out in the same position that it is in now, because that is what it was designed for.

NFSLancerRA

iTrader: (8)

I'm not trying to be a dick or anything, I am just having a hard time with this one.

If you think that your car is slow, take that same 911 out on a dirt road for a race. See who comes out on top.

kyoo

iTrader: (29)

When I said that I was referring to consumers who increase boost and performance etc to keep up with much faster cars.

On a side note, I know very few consumers who actually use their car for rallying. Mitsubishi didn't need to make the consumer lancer evolution as a homologation of the rally Evo - the lancer would have been fine. The Evo we have is built as a consumer car. And why did many consumers buy the Evo? To keep up with much faster cars (using mods).

kyoo

iTrader: (29)

That comment just proved to me that you ARE missing the point/taking offense to this -

no one in this thread ever ever EVER said the evo wasn't a great or fast car. The point is, technologies are rapidly improving for supercars. I just think some people need to shed their "evo is the great performance car for the money" mindsets.