chenc544 Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Did you listen too anything i just posted, i said there is a much greater differnece in time in stick because of there is more room for driver error and driver improvment, you didnt read my last post at all, or didnt take the time to understand it. What does this launch feature do, how does it work? I did, I read all your post really carefully and that's what lead me to that conclusion. Let's see now, your Trans Am is an automatic, and bone-stock it ran 13.2 as oppose to 13.8 sec that mag tests have shown. Since both your Trans Am and the Evo X SST are both "automatics", by your logic they should have similar margin of error right? Which means a real owner of SST should be able to shave ~0.6 sec off their 1/4 mile time just like you did with your automatic Trans Am. I'm simply applying the argument you have been using. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05GT Guru Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 No my Trans Am was a 6 speed, and the auto Trans Am was rated at a 13.6 over the 6 speed at a 13.8 however I have only seen 1 stock auto T/A hit a 12s and i have seen 4 or 5 stick ons do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenc544 Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 No my Trans Am was a 6 speed, and the auto Trans Am was rated at a 13.6 over the 6 speed at a 13.8 however I have only seen 1 stock auto T/A hit a 12s and i have seen 4 or 5 stick ons do it. over your previous post then... No automatic tranny is clutchless, my 96 formula had custom 7 clutch auto 4 speed. and this one, If this tranny is so good why does everything i read about say its slower. I dont really see how the auto version is faster in the 1/4miles, even with stock evos, people launch at 5500-6000rpms which is why evos do so well in the quarter mile. You can do that with a clutchless setup. Like i said with my Trans Am i could take low 12 second evos if we raced from a roll and i was running mis to high 12s because there greatest strength is the launch. Which says that you can keep up with a low-12's Evo from a roll with your Trans Am that runs high-12's. But you can't keep up with the Evo from the dig because you can't launch as hard. You are using your experience with your Trans Am as an example why an auto can't be faster than an Evo with a manual, so I take that to mean your Trans Am is an auto. I guess that's not what you mean then... Do you have 2 Firebirlds then, one 6-speed and another automatic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05GT Guru Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Yes i had a 96 Forumla, which is different than a Trans Am, my Trans Am was a 2000. I know why i can beat faster evos form a roll, i was saying its the only reason they run the 1/4mile that fast is because the can drop the clutch at damn near if not redline and launch like hell, which i was making the point if the new evo is auto then it cant do that, but then someone said it has a launch feature. It also makes you think why is the 5 speed that much slower than the auto if the auto cant do a 5500rpms launch. Unless the new launch feature allows you launch at any rpm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBad Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 I like the styling of the Evo front end, much nicer than the new impreza front end in my opinion. I have read good and bad things about the new design and performance verses the previous car it replaces. But neither the EVO or Impreza is for me as I am not in the market for that kind of car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05GT Guru Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 But thats just it, ALOT of people are, now i believe it to be a one sided fight, the evo gained a little horsepower, gained weight, everything i have read about it is that it runs track times and 1/4mile times slower than the evo 9. The STI same weight same good ole performance(better suspension), but in my opinon lost alot of style. Some people say its not a childs car anymore blah blah blah, so that means they have to make it look like a station wagon. Mistubishi is claiming the new EVO X to have better handleing but it hasnt proven that in one test run i have seen or read about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenc544 Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 It also makes you think why is the 5 speed that much slower than the auto if the auto cant do a 5500rpms launch. Again as I explained earlier it's because the SST can shift faster, it's not a mystery. The car is not accelerating when it's shifting. The longer it takes to shift, the slower the 1/4 mile time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenc544 Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Mistubishi is claiming the new EVO X to have better handleing but it hasnt proven that in one test run i have seen or read about. Here is your test. http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0801_mitsubishi_lancer_evolution_comparison/road_test_data.html Evo X 0.99g 25.1 sec/0.74 g around figure-8 Evo IX 0.95g 25.5 sec/0.73 g around figure-8 The X is not as fast around the track because it's overweight and underpowered compare to the IX. The X is a better handling car as shown by the lateral acceleration and figure 8 tests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05GT Guru Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 So the point it is the car faster around the track, the answer is no, and as to your its shifts faster answer, a 14 flat in a 295hp 300trq 35000lbs AWD car is horrible, mid 13s are easily withing reach, with a better driver the race would be much closer, i have seen 300hp ev0 9s hit 12s in sure the 300hp evo x could hit mid 13s since it is lets say 200lbs heavier thats about .2 in the 1/4mile, so if a evo 9 with 300hp can run 12.8s-13.1s then why cant the EVO X run mid 13s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gator GT Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 From what I've read, the performance is sucking wind compared to all previous Evo's and in terms of styling...I only really like the front end. It's pretty kickass. The side....meh. The rear just plain blows. Sure, it has more whiz-bang and gadgets....but does it have cruise?!? That alone was a HUGE hit against the Evo a couple years ago for me. I had an hour commute on the highway.....it sucked with a Toyota Taco that didn't have cruise (the p/u was an in-between vehicle...so it really didn't matter). $35k car and no cruise???? Bollocks! I wouldn't trade my B in for it...that's for sure. "If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed." - T. Jefferson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenc544 Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 So the point it is the car faster around the track, the answer is no, That's not what you ask. You ask for a test that shows that the Evo X handles better than the IX and the Motor Trend test did just that. Best handling car doesn't always equal faster track time if it's underpowered compare to the competition. It all depends on the track. On a track where there are long straight aways a more powerful car could catch up to a better handling car. On the other hand, on a tight track a best handling car will do well even against more powerful car. The figure-8 test is the ultimate tight track and the X shows that it's faster around it than the IX. and as to your its shifts faster answer, a 14 flat in a 295hp 300trq 35000lbs AWD car is horrible, mid 13s are easily withing reach, with a better driver the race would be much closer, i have seen 300hp ev0 9s hit 12s in sure the 300hp evo x could hit mid 13s since it is lets say 200lbs heavier thats about .2, so if a evo 9 with 300hp can run 12.8s-12.9s then why cant the EVO X run mid 13s? Well maybe because they have 2 completely different engines with different torque and hp curves. The 4B11 might be rated at 295 hp (BTW, that's only 9 hp more than the IX is rated at) but it could be very peaky. Without seeing a dyno chart you can't be 100% sure but you can get an idea of it by looking at what rpm the max hp/torque is achieved. The IX is 286 hp @ 6500 rpm and 289 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm, the X is 295 hp @ 6500 rpm but 300 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm. It's peak torque is only 11 lb-ft more but it takes 900 more rpm to get to. Acceleration is a function of the area under the power curve not the max hp or torque number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenc544 Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Sure, it has more whiz-bang and gadgets....but does it have cruise?!? That alone was a HUGE hit against the Evo a couple years ago for me. I had an hour commute on the highway.....it sucked with a Toyota Taco that didn't have cruise (the p/u was an in-between vehicle...so it really didn't matter). $35k car and no cruise???? Bollocks! Ditto when I was comparison shop between the IX and LGT. The X does have cruise now though. It was a big point of contention with Evo faithfuls... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05GT Guru Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 True but with a turbo that small on the stock EVO X i doubt they are peak horsepower cars, the will and do have a curve. If the evo 9 beats it around world class tracks, in the quartermile and in weight and i think it looks 1000 times betters. You still cant admit its a better car than the X. Its faster in a straight lien and around tracks, i have seen test at a couple of tracks 1 being laguna seca, which is not a super open track most cars wotn get to 4th gear on the track, is lost by almost a full second. Even the 5 speed EVO x takes it on tracks. This new evo is too heavy not enough power and way way too ugly. ITS A MISS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobE Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 2008 Evo X GSR 5MT will be priced at $32,990<~~ click http://newenglandsubarus.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdoggydog Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 I'm having buyer's remorse...almost 7 months along the road with my 3.0R. Should I have waited for the new Evo? Or is it more in line with an STI? I looked at the specs briefly and it seems on par with the size of a Legacy, no? The extra horsepower, Bluetooth, and extra gear (AT), Recaro seats...Hmmm...What do you thinK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobE Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 ^^^ you should have gotten the GT. http://newenglandsubarus.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperhawkLGT Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Manual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.