[Lancer409]

Mitsubishi Motors launches Lancer Evolution IX hi-performance 4WD sports sedan



Lancer Evolution IX

Tokyo, March 2, 2005 — Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) today announced that the Lancer Evolution IX high-performance 4WD sports sedan would go on sale at affiliated dealerships throughout Japan on March 3, 2005. With a 2.0-liter intercooler-turbocharged engine powering all four wheels through an electronically controlled 4WD system, Evolution IX raises all dynamic performance parameters to a new level. Tax inclusive prices range from 2,940,000 yen to 3,570,000 yen.

Evolution IX marks the 12th model in the series, which has also included an automatic transmission model, since the Lancer Evolution debuted in October 1992. Major features distinguishing the latest model include the adoption of Mitsubishi's proprietary MIVEC*1 variable valve timing technology in the intake system and improvements to the turbocharger that result in higher torque and produce better response for improved engine performance across its full rev range. New front and rear bumpers bring both high aerodynamics and cooling performance.

Evolution IX is offered in three trim levels. The flagship GSR grade features Mitsubishi Motors' cutting-edge ACD*2 + Super AYC*3 + Sports ABS*4 electronically controlled all-wheel control component system and a 6-speed manual gearbox. The motorsport-specification RS uses a special lightweight body, a new titanium-magnesium turbocharger, 5-speed gearbox and ACD + mechanical rear LSD all-wheel control. New for Evolution IX is the GT grade that brings together RS's turbocharger and drivetrain specification and GSR's comfort-bias body with its enhanced sound deadening. Allowing owners to customize their Evolution IX's to individual needs and preferences, a comprehensive range of factory- and dealer-fitted options as well as Ralliart tuning and dress up parts are available.

I . Product features

1. Exterior

* In an integral molding, the new front bumper houses an oversize mesh grille to raise engine cooling efficiency and also locates the Mitsubishi 3-diamond emblem. All unnecessary openings on the undersurface of the bumper have been closed off to reduce air resistance.
* The new rear bumper features a diffuser undersurface in a distinctive design that shapes the corners to stabilize air flow detachment and reduce drag and that adds to Evolution's sedan-racer looks.
* The rear wing assembly uses molded vertical components color-keyed to the body and a carbon-fiber hollow spoiler that lowers the center of gravity.
* Dark-clear extensions on headlamps and rear lamps enhance the car's premium appearance.
* GSR and GT trim levels run on Enkei 17x8JJ lightweight 5-double-spoke alloy road wheels that are 0.15 kg per wheel lighter than those fitted to Evolution VIII MR.
* Evolution IX is available with a new air dam extension and rear wing Gurney flap (dealer options) that further improve aero efficiency. These advanced aero devices improve high-speed handling and stability by reducing front and rear wheel lift and enhancing the front-rear aero balance.

2. Interior

* Dashboard ornamentation on GSR and GT models is clear coated with a rich carbon-like finish.
* GSR and GT models use new alloy accelerator, brake and clutch pedals designed for sport driving as well as to accent the sedan-racer look to the cockpit.
* GSR uses Recaro bucket seats. The squab facing uses non-slip Alcantara suede upholstery that keeps the occupant fresh and comfortable even on longer journeys while the side bolster facings are covered in genuine leather making the seats easier to get in and out of and also adding a touch of choice luxury to the interior.
* GSR is equipped with a carbon shifter panel embellished with the Lancer Evolution logo.
* GSR and GT models use a high-density dash silencer and double-sealing weatherstrips that reduce interior noise levels.

3. Engine & transmission

* For Evolution IX the 4G63 engine gains Mitsubishi's MIVEC variable valve timing technology that improves top-end output as well as fuel efficiency. MIVEC technology allows GSR to return 10.0 km/l in the Japanese 10-15 mode driving cycle, equivalent to a three percent improvement in mileage.
* On GSR, the turbocharger uses a lengthened diffuser to generate more low-end and mid-range torque (400 N-m(40.8 kg-m)/3000rpm) as well as bring a significant improvement in response (average 5%) across the full rev range.
* On the RS and GT, the turbocharger compressor wheel uses magnesium alloy instead of aluminum alloy. This brings a dramatic improvement in supercharging response. Mated to a 5-speed gearbox with higher torque capacity, the engine has been tuned to generate maximum torque of 407 N-m(41.5 kg-m)/3000rpm.
* The 5-speed transmission used on the RS and GT derives from the close-ratio competition gearbox but has a revised top gear ratio for improved high-speed cruising.

4. Other features

* New rear springs lower vehicle height slightly, improving rear end stability (GSR and GT) and allowing the Super AYC to operate more effectively and improve steering response (GSR).
* Features retained on Evolution IX include: Evolution's well-proven lightweight and high rigidity body featuring the aluminum roof panel pioneered on Evolution VIII MR (all grades); jointly-developed Bilstein hi-response shock absorbers (GSR and GT); Mitsubishi's ACD + Super AYC + Sports ABS electronically controlled all-wheel control system (GSR); and Brembo ventilated disc brakes (GSR and GT).

*1: Mitsubishi Innovative Valve timing Electronic Control system

*2: ACD (Active Center Differential)
The ACD incorporates an electronically controlled hydraulic multi-plate clutch. An ECU optimizes clutch cover clamp load for different driving conditions, regulating the differential limiting action between free and locked states. The result is improved steering response together with better traction. ACD provides three modes — Tarmac / Gravel / Snow — to enable quicker control response for changes in road surface. A single ECU provides integrated management of both ACD and Super AYC components.

*3: Super AYC (Active Yaw Control)
Mitsubishi's Active Yaw Control system uses a torque-transfer mechanism in the rear differential. Under ECU control, the system operates to raise cornering performance by transferring torque between the rear wheels as dictated by driving conditions and so control the yaw moment acting on the car body. In an evolutionary step, switching from the use of a bevel to a planetary gear differential gave Super AYC the ability to transfer almost twice the torque between the rear wheels. As well as reducing understeer further, it delivers LSD-level traction. The use of a single ECU to integrally manage Super AYC with the ACD results in a synergism that makes both components operate more effectively than if they were under independent control.

*4: Sport ABS braking
The system ECU uses information from a steering angle sensor that detects steering inputs as well as from lateral G and vehicle speed sensors to apportion pressure to each of the four wheels independently. The result is improved steering response under braking. Mitsubishi's Electronic Brake Force Distribution (EBD) system, integral with Sports ABS, optimizes allocation of braking force between the front and rear wheels. Increasing the pressure applied to the rear wheels when braking close to the limit, EBD reduces the load on the front wheels to realize better anti-fade performance. The system also compensates for changes in surface and vehicle load conditions to ensure predictable and consistent stopping performance at all times.

II . Sales information

1. Sales target: 5,000 units

2. Available at: MMC affiliated dealerships throughout Japan

3. Manufacturers Recommended Retail Price (nationwide, yen)


Trim level Engine Transmission Drivetrain MRRP
Ex-tax Tax inclusive
GSR 2.0-liter
4-cylinder DOHC
16-valve MIVEC
with intercooler -
turbocharger 6M/T Full-time
electronically
controlled
4WD 3,400,000 3,570,000
GT 5M/T Full-time 4WD 3,160,000 3,318,000
RS 2,800,000 2,940,000






Yes, Diffuser in picture 2 (yellow)
Leather and Alcantera Suede RECARO bucket seats (Last picture)

[Link]

[Lancer409]

Originally posted by Link:

*Raised Eyebrow Smilie*

[Lateralus]

That thing is fugly.

[sugar_coated]

Looks like it can go very fast to nowhere in a rush just like many other cars.

[ManOfSteal]

I envision a new sig in Lancer409's future....

And a change in pants!

[d4nth3m4n]

doesn't really look all that different.

anyone else find it odd that the evo 9 is the 12th model?

[ASIMO]

Originally posted by d4nth3m4n:
doesn't really look all that different.

anyone else find it odd that the evo 9 is the 12th model?

There were some half models. Truly evolutionary.

But yeah, ugly as ever, yet utter bad ass.

[CD Hanks]

I like it, a lot.

[MrForgetable]

bad ass. .

[brapper]

looks cheap in yellow but I bet it'd look hot in black.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Ugly riceboy car.

That spoiler, yuck.

[olePigeon]

4.6L (281 cu. in.)SOHC 24V V8
300 HP, 320 lb.-ft of torque

And that's the BASE GT model.

[Link]

Sums up all cars made lately.. short trunk, higher back than front -- but the lancer just looks funny like a go-go car because it's really short.

[MacMan4000]

I like it. The Recaro seats are awesome... I want one.

for all you people who will (and already have) pointed out "better" cars: you just don't get it. "it" is unexplainable, but it is there. And this car has it.

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by Link:


Sums up all cars made lately.. short trunk, higher back than front -- but the lancer just looks funny like a go-go car because it's really short.

You could just say "I don't like it." and leave it at that.

Better yet, you could have not posted at all.

WHAT A CONCEPT!

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
http://www.fordvehicles.com/assets/i...001_ext_lg.jpg
http://www.fordvehicles.com/assets/i...002_ext_lg.jpg
http://www.fordvehicles.com/assets/i...005_ext_lg.jpg
http://www.fordvehicles.com/assets/i...007_ext_lg.jpg

4.6L (281 cu. in.)SOHC 24V V8
300 HP, 320 lb.-ft of torque

And that's the BASE GT model.

While the mustang does have an extremely hot engine given the cost, I don't think it will bare the agility or cornering ability that the Evo has.

I could be wrong about this, but I don't think so.

[Lancer409]

Originally posted by Link:


Sums up all cars made lately.. short trunk, higher back than front -- but the lancer just looks funny like a go-go car because it's really short.

hey link, the mustang has a higher back than front.

the evo has a USEABLE trunk. and being short doesnt stop it from out cornering a mustang. (probly out accelerate too but i could be wrong)

and some people like the styling, myself included. i still think the 7 was the best looking (in my book) but i think the 9 looks better than the outgoing 8.

(although that new mustang is pretty sweet, it still handles like a boat.)

[E's Lil Theorem]

I, too, like the design. In terms of colors, I would skip the yellow one though.

Anyway, this is what I truly like: Audi S4

[His Dudeness]

I can't believe people would buy one of those. Mitsus are one of the worst cars coming out of Japan, and it only has a 4 cylinder engine. I bet that costs more than a Hemi...

[Fyre4ce]

Sorry, for new models, nothing can compare to:







It's reasonably expected to be one of the fastest sports cars available at any price. I want one!

[Lancer409]

you guys should read motor trend / automobile / car and driver / road and track, and see how the evolution stacks up to other "way higher priced sports cars" or see Top Gear (the british motoring show) That'll give you and idea why the car is so well received (everywhere besides america atleast) .... wait .. even HERE it's well received.


Automobile Magazine 2005 All-Star Sport Sedan - Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution MR
- Automobile Magazine

“The Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution is the most potent, meanest machine to come from Japan. Ever.”
- Road & Track Speed, April 2004

“The best-driving sport compact yet devised and the vanguard of small car performance into the 21st century.”
- Sport Compact Car Magazine

Automobile of the Year
- Automobile Magazine

"It's a Porsche 911 C4S with four doors, and that's a pretty good value for $30,000."
- Automobile Magazine


Pff Hemi.. not even a real hemi .. lol

[Gee4orce]

Take a standard japanese saloon car, slap a massive turbo on it - sell it for $10,000 more....

Yeah, the Evo is awesome - it out drives a 911, but it's not very refined. I'd rather take the Porsche.

As for that Corvette - ahahahhahahahha. Sorry. In Europe, we have bends in our roads, and over here 'fast' means going round corners fast, not just going in a straight line. Doesn't that corvette have leaf springs in it's suspension ? Sorry, but that Evo would wipe the floor with the Corvette.

...but, I'd still rather have the Corvette

[alphasubzero949]

I see that there is a lot of talking out of asses in this thread. So what it's just a 4-banger. It will eat a lot of octane-sucking domestics for lunch.

Have they done anything to shave the weight off of that pig? I doubt it. Once again we have an overweight 4-banger with FI in the $40K range. Why is it whenever the auto industry tries to build a performance machine they cannot get the final product under 2500 lbs? A true sports car should weigh less and have more power for a lower price tag than conventional automobiles.

Recaro seats? Is this how they're trying to lure in buyers these days? And Mitsu's corporate swine expect owners not to drive these PERFORMANCE machines accordingly? On a car with standard Brembos at all 4 corners?

Now, here's the REAL question. If it were to go on sale here in the US, how long will it be before MMNA starts killing warranties for tire tread wear or Solo II participation? For those in the dark about this, MMNA was found to be proactively crosslinking VINs with SCCA results and denying warranty coverage on things wholly unrelated to the powerplant. There's a huge thread on this at forums.evolutionm.net.

The debacle with the Evo VIIIs has already left a bad taste in many enthusiasts' mouths.

[olePigeon]

I'd rather save $10,000 and get a Mustang GT over a Misubishi. For $5,000 less than the Mitsubishi, I can get the Mustang GT Premium.

Or if interior isn't everything, stick with the GT and get some aftermarket upgrades on the engine. $10,000 aughta get you at least another 100HP.

[Lancer409]

Originally posted by Gee4orce:
Take a standard japanese saloon car, slap a massive turbo on it - sell it for $10,000 more....

Yeah, the Evo is awesome - it out drives a 911, but it's not very refined. I'd rather take the Porsche.

In Europe, we have bends in our roads, and over here 'fast' means going round corners fast, not just going in a straight line.

Sorry, but that Evo would wipe the floor with the Corvette.

...but, I'd still rather have the Corvette

Massive Turbo in the Evo for 10 grand more... You said fast means going round corners fast, not just in a straight line.

A lancer econobox + big turbo + 10 grand higher sticker price does not a 911 slayer make.

It's not unrefined if you consider all the work they did on the engine and chasis. It is VERY refined, just not a smooth ride (or wasnt ... but THEY FIXED THAT WITH THE MR model)

The rough ride has been taken care of with the MR model's setup using bilstein shocks. It is as smooth as a M3 (if not considerably more so), and it has even better cornering then before.

Keep in mind also, that the US model isnt as hopped up as the Japan and Euro spec EVO which features an Active Center Differential AND Super (shrug) Active Yaw Control.

This is a cult car for a reason. The Evo, Corvette, STi, Mustang .. etc ... all nice cars. I'm just pointing out the release of the new EVO model. Why all the hate .. haters.. =D

[Lancer409]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
I'd rather save $10,000 and get a Mustang GT over a Misubishi. For $5,000 less than the Mitsubishi, I can get the Mustang GT Premium.

Or if interior isn't everything, stick with the GT and get some aftermarket upgrades on the engine. $10,000 aughta get you at least another 100HP.

It's not always about raw power (STi anyone?!?)

Balance, handling, cornering ability, sheer grip ... driver feedback.
That's what made this car what it is. One can say the same about any car. Why by a corvette C6?!?, save the cash and modifify the EVO .. or a CIVIC .. it's all the work they've done and what you get out the box that makes it special.

It's kinda hard to mod a mustang into an EVO .. I'd like to see you do the suspension work.. *SMIRK*

[Lancer409]

Originally posted by alphasubzero949:
[B]I see that there is a lot of talking out of asses in this thread. So what it's just a 4-banger. It will eat a lot of octane-sucking domestics for lunch.

Have they done anything to shave the weight off of that pig? I doubt it. Once again we have an overweight 4-banger with FI in the $40K range. Why is it whenever the auto industry tries to build a performance machine they cannot get the final product under 2500 lbs? A true sports car should weigh less and have more power for a lower price tag than conventional automobiles.

Recaro seats? Is this how they're trying to lure in buyers these days? And Mitsu's corporate swine expect owners not to drive these PERFORMANCE machines accordingly? On a car with standard Brembos at all 4 corners?

Now, here's the REAL question. If it were to go on sale here in the US, how long will it be before MMNA starts killing warranties for tire tread wear or Solo II participation?

Alphasubzero949

1) Totally agree, but the Evo is no greenmachine either. That being said, it still would eat lots of domestics for lunch. Lots of Japanese imports too. Lots of Euro-imports too..!

2) They have done a lot to shave weight. More so than Subaru has with it’s STi offering. Aluminum hood, roof, fenders. Progressively lighter weight rims (enkei, bbs, and now the dual 5 spokers) The rear spoiler is carbon fibre. **PORSCHE CHARGES YOU MORE MONEY to take out sound deadening material, soundsystem, and other heavy items (GT3 anyone? Talk about a premium). MITSUBISHI CHARGES YOU LESS!! The Evolution RS is the least expensive model and cuts approximately 200 pounds from the weight of the regular evolution. It’s not in the 40k range. It starts at 28___ (29 grand) up to approx 32-33?!?

3) I agree that sports cars should be light, but all wheel drive = heavy. 4 door sedans with all wheel drive = heavy. These cars were built for rallying, and as such they did the best they could with what they have. A low powered light miata is not the same as a 4 wheel drive rallying vehicle. If you want to lower the weight further, (compared to what mitsubishi has already done with the evolution) you gotta start shelling out cash. You want it light, use exotic materials. Would you pay for it?!?

4) Recaro’s have been in evo’s for as long as I could remember. When the EVO was first introduced in America, the RECARO’s were standard. They still are.

5) The EVO 9 will be coming to America. I dunno about the warrantee’s it’s not my concern at the moment.

[willed]

Originally posted by His Dudeness:
I can't believe people would buy one of those. Mitsus are one of the worst cars coming out of Japan, and it only has a 4 cylinder engine. I bet that costs more than a Hemi...

I don't think you quite understand the concept. The four cylinder point is like saying 'why would anyone want a Formula 1 car? It's only got a 3 litre engine?'; the point is the Mitsu is hugely fast and apparently great fun. I'd never get one as they're mainly owned by pikies over here, but I'd love to drive one!

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by His Dudeness:
I can't believe people would buy one of those. Mitsus are one of the worst cars coming out of Japan, and it only has a 4 cylinder engine. I bet that costs more than a Hemi...

Four cylinder engines (especially ones of Japanese origin) are not to be underestimated.

And the Hemi (on the other hand), isn't even a true hemi anymore.

I'll let you form your own conclusion.

[macroy]

Originally posted by E's Lil Theorem:
I, too, like the design. In terms of colors, I would skip the yellow one though.

Anyway, this is what I truly like: Audi S4

http://www.audiusa.com/common/images...s4sedan_lg.jpg

Have you seen the new RS4 ?

[xi_hyperon]

Assuming Mitsubishi will sell this outside of Japan at some point, I now know what I can expect to see next time I visit the in-laws in Puerto Rico. Every third car down there is a Lancer.

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally posted by macroy:
Have you seen the new RS4 ?

[img]http://www.germancarfans.com/news/2050301.010/2050301.010.Mini1L.jpg[img]
[img]http://www.germancarfans.com/news/2050301.010/2050301.010.Mini5L.jpg[img]
[img]http://www.germancarfans.com/news/2050301.010/2050301.010.Mini7L.jpg[img]
[img]http://www.germancarfans.com/news/2050301.010/2050301.010.Mini8L.jpg[img]

Wow, nice! But, I don't think it's available in the States. The RS6 was made available in the States for the first time last year (and in a limited amount at that). It'd be nice if they made the RS4 available, too

[Fyre4ce]

Originally posted by Lancer409:
Why by a corvette C6?!?, save the cash and modifify the EVO .. or a CIVIC .. it's all the work they've done and what you get out the box that makes it special.

Good point, but the same argument can be used to argue for any cheaper car against any more expensive car. There are many cars that you could buy used for 5 grand and dump all the money into an engine, and it would end up being faster than the evo. And also, how many people actually dump tens of thousands of dollars into modifying a car. Some do, for sure, but not your average bear. It also voids warranty, makes the car a lot less drivable and practical as a daily driver, etc... not a consideration for most buyers.

Besides, the Vette and the Evo are qualitatively different cars. The Evo is a rally car and is more practical as an all-season sports car. The Vette is more like a road/endurance racer. I think the Evo would generally be better as a daily driver in a climate with a snowy winter. But, on a race track, I would take the Vette even over the Evo with $30,000 thrown at it.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally posted by Gee4orce:
As for that Corvette - ahahahhahahahha. Sorry. In Europe, we have bends in our roads, and over here 'fast' means going round corners fast, not just going in a straight line. Doesn't that corvette have leaf springs in it's suspension ? Sorry, but that Evo would wipe the floor with the Corvette.

Are you taking crazy pills? You should check out the most recent issue of Road and Track. They send about 10 or so sports cars around a race track and the regular (non-Z06) Corvette was the fastest by 0.3 seconds to the nearest challenger (Dodge Viper SRT-10) on the ~60 second course. I'm not sure if the Evo 8 was in there, but if it was, it got smoked. I'm not sure who would EXPECT the Evo to be faster on a road course, either - it's way down on power, has a higher CG, has all the inertia of that AWD drivetrain, and is a lot draggier. It's a rally car - it shouldn't be expected to be really fast on a road course. And your precious 911 Carrera S was soundly smoked by a regular Corvette - you think it would have any chance against a Z06??

And as for the Corvette being slow in turns, that's just wrong. Its skid-pad and slalom numbers are outstanding. But I don't see how you can argue against lap times - that's what matters at the end of the day. Yes, the Vette has leaf springs in the rear suspension, but they are not the type of springs you are probably thinking of. It has transverse leaf springs that run underneath the drivetrain, and they are made from carbon fiber.

The list of cars that will be faster than the Z06 around a track will be quite short. I don't think anything from Japan or BMW or Aston Martin belongs on the list. The Carrera GT does and MAYBE the GT2 but that's questionable. The Mercedes SLR probably does too. So does the Enzo. I'd imagine the Z06 would be faster than the F430, though it'd be close. (The Z06 has a higher power/weight ratio.) Lamborghinis would also be a close call. But I don't think any of those cars can be had for under $200,000.

You can call the corvette many things. But you can't call it slow.

EDIT: I found the road and track test in question. Evo was NOT on the list but several of Europe's best offerings were. Check it out: http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....page_number=13

[driven]

Dodge SRT-4 ... nicer looking, better value. (Much less expensive.) (Still has the Mistsu turbo)

Of course the Mitusu has 4WD now ... kinda nice if you need it.

[macroy]

Originally posted by E's Lil Theorem:
Wow, nice! But, I don't think it's available in the States. The RS6 was made available in the States for the first time last year (and in a limited amount at that). It'd be nice if they made the RS4 available, too

Yea... I didn't even consider that... Just too busy drooling for the time being...

[billybob128]

im sorry but to me you yanks are comparing a mustang/corvette to an evo?!?!

there is no comparison the evo is by far a better more powerfull (related to engine size) and economical than your cars.

example:

posted by:olePigeon
4.6L (281 cu. in.)SOHC 24V V8
300 HP, 320 lb.-ft of torque

And that's the BASE GT model

now lets bring in a european engine. to embarrase (sp?) the american car industry i will use a renault clio. to allow the clio to compete we will take the top range.

this is a 3.0 V6 24v. and the BHP comes in at 255 with 300 (nmiso) unfortunatly im oldschool and am unable to translate that to lb/ft however i know it is high 200.

now lets do the math:
255/3 = 85 bhp per liter engine size.

therefore theoretically a 4 litre version would be 340 bhp. and this is a super mini?!?!

now lets go to the fact that american cars are totally unable to turn corners... esp compared to an evo.

there is no comparison at all.

jap cars are also well known for their reliablility. 15million vtech systems and no recorded breakdowns? could ford say that for their engines.

and just dont get me started on looks or possible mods for the evo vs a mustang

[the_glassman]

So many haters. I like it. I'm not a fan of Mitusbishi cars in general . I used to own a DSM and it was the biggest POS on the planet, but the EVO deserves a little respect. The Neon? Not even close! First it's wrong wheel drive and the rear windows are manual; in addition to being built by one of the few companies quality I question more than Mitsubishi's.
The Mustank? Well, the retro look is nice, but it still has a live rear axle and the quality is lacking on that as well.
Does the Neon or Mustank come with HID's? The EVO does.
It would make a hell of a daily driver or winter beater. I'll stick with my Subaru for that though.

[Skip Breakfast]

The Evo is not in the same market as the Mustang and Corvette. It competes with the Suburu STi. Completely different use. Completely different demographic audience.

Having said that, the Evo looks cheap through and through.

[wdlove]

I liked the shades of blue that are posted.

[alphasubzero949]

Originally posted by Lancer409:
5) The EVO 9 will be coming to America. I dunno about the warrantee’s it’s not my concern at the moment.

Have a look-see at this:
http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthread.php?t=83525

A good number of people are getting their warranties denied for everything from Solo II participation to tread wear. Even for things wholly unrelated to the powertrain. Now why would Mitsu take a proactive approach to crosslink SCCA results to vehicle ownership?* Hmmm...

And to those who are about to cry "racing," remember that auto-Xing does not take as much of a toll on a car's powertrain as much as normal daily driving.

*If you ask me, I'm willing to bet there's something wrong with a suspension component that MMNA does not want to force a recall on.

Read more here...

http://www.mulhollandraceway.org/iss...rvice_advisory

[His Dudeness]

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
Four cylinder engines (especially ones of Japanese origin) are not to be underestimated.

And the Hemi (on the other hand), isn't even a true hemi anymore.

I'll let you form your own conclusion.

Well, those 340 horses are REAL horses. And the 390 pound feet of torque are REAL pound feet of torque. It doesn't rely on a turbo. You can do whatever you want to a Mitsu, it's still a Mitsu, and it's still a 4 banger. You can also put a 7.0 liter V-8 twin turbo in it, and guess what? You got a Mitsu with a big engine. So what.

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by His Dudeness:
Well, those 340 horses are REAL horses. And the 390 pound feet of torque are REAL pound feet of torque. It doesn't rely on a turbo. You can do whatever you want to a Mitsu, it's still a Mitsu, and it's still a 4 banger. You can also put a 7.0 liter V-8 twin turbo in it, and guess what? You got a Mitsu with a big engine. So what.

Need I remind you that with American engines, that is all low end power, and with Japenese engines, it's all high end power.

On a drag strip, yes, the Mustang would win. On a track, the Evo would hand the Mustang driver's ass to him.

[alphasubzero949]

^^^ Any fool can go fast in a straight line. Let's see how those Fords and Dodges hold up in auto-Xing.

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by alphasubzero949:
^^^ Any fool can go fast in a straight line.

Given the amount of accidents on dragstrips that I've heard about and seen, I'd say it's rather hard for some people.

[effgee]

Originally posted by Fyre4ce:
... And your precious 911 Carrera S was soundly smoked by a regular Corvette - you think it would have any chance against a Z06?? ...

911: Style

Z06: Pimpy, with the embarassing "when I grow up I'd like to be a Ferrari" headlights and the "Honda donated a few left-over NSX parts" hood. Corvette - reliably hideous styling for a quarter of a century - and counting.

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by Fyre4ce:
Are you taking crazy pills? You should check out the most recent issue of Road and Track. They send about 10 or so sports cars around a race track and the regular (non-Z06) Corvette was the fastest by 0.3 seconds to the nearest challenger (Dodge Viper SRT-10) on the ~60 second course. I'm not sure if the Evo 8 was in there, but if it was, it got smoked. I'm not sure who would EXPECT the Evo to be faster on a road course, either - it's way down on power, has a higher CG, has all the inertia of that AWD drivetrain, and is a lot draggier. It's a rally car - it shouldn't be expected to be really fast on a road course. And your precious 911 Carrera S was soundly smoked by a regular Corvette - you think it would have any chance against a Z06??

And as for the Corvette being slow in turns, that's just wrong. Its skid-pad and slalom numbers are outstanding. But I don't see how you can argue against lap times - that's what matters at the end of the day. Yes, the Vette has leaf springs in the rear suspension, but they are not the type of springs you are probably thinking of. It has transverse leaf springs that run underneath the drivetrain, and they are made from carbon fiber.

The list of cars that will be faster than the Z06 around a track will be quite short. I don't think anything from Japan or BMW or Aston Martin belongs on the list. The Carrera GT does and MAYBE the GT2 but that's questionable. The Mercedes SLR probably does too. So does the Enzo. I'd imagine the Z06 would be faster than the F430, though it'd be close. (The Z06 has a higher power/weight ratio.) Lamborghinis would also be a close call. But I don't think any of those cars can be had for under $200,000.

You can call the corvette many things. But you can't call it slow.

EDIT: I found the road and track test in question. Evo was NOT on the list but several of Europe's best offerings were. Check it out: http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....page_number=13

Even though I hate aruging about cars (because no one ever really wins. Unless a track is involved...), I have to actually give credit to the Z06 and Fyre4ce's opinion. I took the Z06 on a track about two/three weeks ago, and it is truly a screamer that is glued to the road. I wish I was able to take it through a local canyon, but time didn't allow.

[driven]

Originally posted by the_glassman:
So many haters. I like it. I'm not a fan of Mitusbishi cars in general . I used to own a DSM and it was the biggest POS on the planet, but the EVO deserves a little respect. The Neon? Not even close! First it's wrong wheel drive and the rear windows are manual; in addition to being built by one of the few companies quality I question more than Mitsubishi's.
The Mustank? Well, the retro look is nice, but it still has a live rear axle and the quality is lacking on that as well.
Does the Neon or Mustank come with HID's? The EVO does.
It would make a hell of a daily driver or winter beater. I'll stick with my Subaru for that though.

The SRT-4 has about as much in common with a Neon as an EVO does with a Lancer.

I looked at both. I'd take the Dodge. The quality has improved quite a bit since Daimler finally got serious about their new aquisition.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally posted by billybob128:
im sorry but to me you yanks are comparing a mustang/corvette to an evo?!?!

<euro-snobbery cut for length>

and just dont get me started on looks or possible mods for the evo vs a mustang

You are sadly misinformed. Let me help.

First topic: engines.

Many people try to judge the “efficiency” of an engine by its displacement-specific power, ie “horsepower per liter.” In reality this has very little to do with efficiency. Strictly speaking, “efficiency” is basically the ratio of power output to fuel consumption, brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC). Problem is, BSFC varies as a function of RPM and load so there is not one clear representative value. Fruthermore, the overall “efficiency” of a vehicle is dependent on many other things like drivetrain, gear ratios, tires, etc. So, the best way to evaluate efficiency is to look at the fuel economy of the vehicle and compare that to the vehicle’s performance – high-performance cars tend to have poorer fuel economy than economy cars.

“Horsepower per liter” is only very loosely related to efficiency. It’s more a function of how heavily the engine is tuned for power. For the same power, a high-revving, high-strung engine will be smaller and lighter than a larger, more mild engine, but will also be more peaky. And the more efficient engine is not so clear. Engine friction is proportional to RPM^2 so a small engine that must be wound up toward redline any time power is needed may be less efficient than a larger engine that can turn slower for the same power.

In street cars, the engine is only a small percentage of the total vehicle weight, so the effect of making the engine smaller and lighter is diminished, although still a consideration. In racing cars, the engine is generally a larger fraction of total vehicle weight. Also, racing engines can generally afford to be more peaky than street engines, because on a circuit the driver’s always going for maximum performance and is always in a low gear. Street engines need to be able to deal with things like passing, going up hills, etc and it’s nice for the driver to not always have to downshift several gears every time.

Now I can directly address your comments. Consider the Honda S2000. I’m sure you would regard this engine as a technological masterpiece. It has DOHC VTEC, turns 9000 RPM, and makes 240 horsepower out of only 2.0 liters. That’s 120 hp/L! Efficient, right? Well, it gets 20/26 miles per gallon (city/hwy).

The Corvette, on the other hand, has a 6.0L pushrod V8 with no variable valve timing and 2 valves per cylinder - forty year-old technology. At 400 hp, that’s a mere 67 hp/L. And yet, it gets 18/28 mpg (cty/hwy), very similar to the S2000 despite making over 50% more power. The Honda doesn’t look so efficient anymore.

While I’m on the topic, another misconception I will debunk is that hp/L should scale linearly with displacement. This is not true. Hp/L is basically proportional to the redline of the motor, and small engines generally have higher redlines (less rotating mass) so they generally have higher values for hp/L. If you open up an Autoweek magazine and take a survey of a few dozen engines, you will see a correlation. That is why it’s absurd to say “theoretically a 4 litre version would be 340 bhp.” The same level of technology that will get a 3.0L engine to 7500 RPM will NOT get a 4.0L engine to 7500 RPM. I had a similar discussion with someone a while ago and this person said something like, “if chevy engineers were as good as Honda engineers, the Corvette would be making 720 hp!” (this person simply took 120 hp/L and multiplied by 6.0 L to get 720 hp). This would be true ONLY of the Corvette turned 9000 RPM, and it takes a much higher level of technology to get a 6.0L V8 to turn 9000 RPM as it does a 2.0L I4. (The better comparison in this case is mean effective pressure but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.)

“Horsepower per liter” has very limited importance for a situation like this. I hope you now see why. If you are still uncertain, tell me and I will explain it more carefully.



Second topic: turning corners.

I’m not sure where the idea comes from that American cars can’t turn corners. I’ll re-post the Road and Track article comparing nine sports cars on a circuit (two Japanese, two American, and five European). Guess which two cars had the lowest lap times? The two American cars. Not only was the Corvette the fastest on the circuit by 0.3 seconds over the nearest condender, it also won 1st place in their subjective comparison.. Article: http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....page_number=13

By the way, try telling the Corvette ALMS team that their car can’t turn corners, when they dominate the GT-S class

Third topic: VTEC reliability.

Where did you hear that no VTEC motor (out of 15 million) has ever broken down? This fact seems highly suspect.