Yes it's true!
Here's the link:

http://media.mitsubishicars.com/detail?mid=MIT2007111673098&mime=ASC

The link doesn't work?

page dont work for me.but they both have very close curb weight.

Side impact beams for crash safety improvement? Did they decide to make US and Canadian Evo's the same (cannot load the linked page, is the length the same as the Canadian Evo?).

It's a fat fuck now! i dont know about a 3600lb evo. that just seems a little much imo.
but hey, it still should be a kickass car for what it is!

for those who cant see the page:

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd55/dosagex/08Lancer_EVO_Tech_Mech_Spec.gif

Hah, looks kind of the like Canadian spec sheet!

The STI will do better straight ahead with more power and lighter weight (and 6 spd manual versus 5 spd), but it remains to be seen who does better on a track, and the Evo will be hard to beat given the tests reported so far.

Ugh. That's a full 800lbs heavier than my mazda. Jesus lord, what did they do?

Let the weight reduction begin.

Hah, looks kind of the like Canadian spec sheet!

Now we see the Canadian Evo is still longer than the US Evo, so it can't be bumper reinforcement alone causing the weight gain.

Now we see the Canadian Evo is still longer than the US Evo, so it can't be bumper reinforcement alone causing the weight gain.

So MR with all the gadgetry is only around 80 more than the GSR? Thats kind of odd...

Must be the safety features that is adding all the weight...

Nah, the trans itself probably just weighs more.

its fatty.

THIRTY SIX HUNDRED POUNDS? Only 295 hp? The MR was gonna be my next ride, but it barely has a better power to weight ratio than my 88 Mustang sedan with the 5.0 option.....

Nah, the trans itself probably just weighs more.

Ya, but it is around 200 pounds heavier than JDM spec Evo X. Well I guess it is expected.

I also don't like how we get 11 less torque then the JDM/European counter part. They get there 311 lb/tq at 3,500 RPM too. I know I know, we get more horsepower, but I want my torque more :)

Now all I want to know is the pricing.

Ya, but it is around 200 pounds heavier than JDM spec Evo X. Well I guess it is expected.

Are you sure about that??

I also don't like how we get 11 less torque then the JDM/European counter part. They get there 311 lb/tq at 3,500 RPM too. I know I know, we get more horsepower, but I want my torque more :)

I wouldn't take those numbers as gospel. I suspect the marketing dept is lying to us.

Are you sure about that??


http://w02.us/resources/GIF/08LancerEvo_Specs.gif

GSR 1520 kg = 3344 lb

MR 1540 kg = 3388 lb

Something fishy though, there is no MR in Japan...

edit: USDM MR is 206 lbs heavier than the JDM one and USDM GSR is 173 lbs heavier than JDM GSR.

Looks like that two sec around the track advantage over the ix is going to diminish since the usdm x has an almost a 250 pound weight penalty to the jdm x.:popcorn:

it just seems like tooo much weight.

maybe we'll see a lighter evo on the XI?

That's unfortunate. I guess that's the whole 'rounding the car out to appeal to a broader audience' mantra for you.

maybe we'll see a lighter evo on the XI?

Unlikely. Maybe you will see a lighter stripped version of the X sometime in the next couple years.

We really need to find out why these cars are so fat. It will be a real drag once the car mags start testing the USDM versions of the Evo and report less than stellar performance.

I am keeping an open mind about all this, and, as I said before, I am new to this level of performance AWD car, but here is my take on the race between the STI and Evo so far (all opinions/conjecture based on 2008 USDM versions of both cars).

Looks (exterior): Evo is the winner (but I could live with the STI's exterior)
Looks (interior): STI is the winner (but I could live with the EVO's interior)
Transmission (auto): Evo is the winner
Transmission (manual): STI is the winner (and this is the best for me)
Acceleration: STI is the winner (to be confirmed)
Handling: STI is the winner (based on weight and initial test drives, need track test results, and STI needs DCCD and VDC properly set)
Practicality: STI is the winner (it's a hatch, come on!)
Price: it is a draw (expect them to be pretty much the same, though it appears Mitsu is waiting for Subaru to show their hand first, so Mitsu could still price lower)

Any other factors we can compare these two vehicles on?

Unlikely. Maybe you will see a lighter stripped version of the X sometime in the next couple years.

We really need to find out why these cars are so fat. It will be a real drag once the car mags start testing the USDM versions of the Evo and report less than stellar performance.

I am keeping an open mind about all this, and, as I said before, I am new to this level of performance AWD car, but here is my take on the race between the STI and Evo so far (all opinions/conjecture based on 2008 USDM versions of both cars).

Looks (exterior): Evo is the winner (but I could live with the STI's exterior)
Looks (interior): STI is the winner (but I could live with the EVO's interior)
Transmission (auto): Evo is the winner
Transmission (manual): STI is the winner (and this is the best for me)
Acceleration: STI is the winner (to be confirmed)
Handling: STI is the winner (based on weight and initial test drives, need track test results, and STI needs DCCD and VDC properly set)
Practicality: STI is the winner (it's a hatch, come on!)
Price: it is a draw (expect them to be pretty much the same, though it appears Mitsu is waiting for Subaru to show their hand first, so Mitsu could still price lower)

Any other factors we can compare these two vehicles on?


That's a fairly accurate, albeit sobering and depressing, assessment.

One thing you didn't mention is the drivetrain after the engine, though... The way I understand it, the sti has a helical front LSD, Torsen rear LSD, and some adjustable center diff or something, versus the s-awc for the evo. (could be wrong... feel free to correct me if I am). Who wins this one?

One thing you didn't mention is the drivetrain after the engine, though... The way I understand it, the sti has a helical front LSD, Torsen rear LSD, and some adjustable center diff or something, versus the s-awc for the evo. (could be wrong... feel free to correct me if I am). Who wins this one?

Well, I split it into Acceleration and Handling, though I suppose you could break it down more.

To be sure a winner cannot be determined based on the differences in the systems on paper. What matters is how they handle on the road, so we need test drive reports for both in USDM trim.

That said, I think I may give this category (do we call it cornering?) to Evo on what I have read so far, in that the Evo does it all without the driver needing to worry about it. However, the extra weight may be hard to handle.

One thing that worries me about the STI is that the systems in place are not that much more advanced then previous iterations of the STI, and I have heard statements like "I lost traction at 20 mph even though I have AWD and VDC, WTF???" So I think the added technology of the Evo will probably give it better road holding capability. Then again, this is the ensuing battle of technology versus man, SST/DSG versus manual. The STI sounds like it is more hands on with more driver control.

I will let the expert drivers try both and see how they think they handle.

Agreed, I'm looking forward to actual expert driver reviews. I hope it's everything we want it to be and we're not dissapointed.

Handling: STI is the winner (based on weight and initial test drives, need track test results, and STI needs DCCD and VDC properly set)

I'm pretty confident that the X will out handle the STi. The evo always has.

what a fat ass!

Yeah thats pretty depressing, it better not ruin it because they're really getting further and further away from the Evo's roots and it's really pissing me off that they are possibly ruining a car to get more sales.

A lot of people tend to forget that the Evo X has 5 more airbag modules than the Evo IX. That's a lot of encased airbags to add onto the weight list. You've also got a longer, wider and taller vehicle. The wheels have also grown an inch. A lot of factors have to be taken into consideration when looking at the Evo X.

This is still a U.S. road going vehicle and as such has to conform to government standards when it comes to crash testing and safety. There is no way around that. But did you ever think about the weight of a vehicle being something that adds stability to a vehicle? The NHTSA has proven that a heavier vehicle is less susceptible to outside influences, such as being hit by heavy gusts of wind and other cars? Vehicle manufacturers make cars to make us happy and feed our need for power and speed, but at the same time they are governed by regulating agencies in the respective countries that they are exported to. People have complained about the horsepower and torque numbers, but when you see what hurdles have to be jumped in emissions regulations to be classified as OK to be imported to the US, you'd be surprised that a vehicle of this power on only 4 cylinders could make it in. Plus, a lot of people don't understand the concept of PEAK horsepower and torque. The MIVEC on both the intake cam and exhaust cam provide a much broader, smoother power and torque band and so many people don't take that into consideration. The low end power to the full turbo on power is much smoother now and getting into boost is not so much more felt by a burst of power into a seat, but rather the increased low end torque that will come on much smoother and streamlined.

It seems that there are a lot of people who want the Evo X to be a lighter, more powerful PEAK hp/tq car and they want to feel the punch of the turbo when it hits full boost. A Civic CRX with a 100 shot of nitrous should do the trick. The reality of why everyone isn't in a CRX is because that's a damn kid's car that Little Bobby who runs a paper route can get into. It's a kid's car. The Evo X is definitely not that. It's called growing up and that is the case with any sort of Evolution. Welcome to adulthood.

^All valid points, but at the end of the day, I still want a lighter Evo X.

^All valid points, but at the end of the day, I still want a lighter Evo X.
:+1:

Weight = stability? Yes, it is called inertia. But when YOU want to change direction, speed up, or slow down, it works against you. All the electro-gizmo's help to change direction and, together with big brakes, to slow down, but the engine power is not there to give it the amount of oomph the Evo buyer might want. Sure it can move, but everyone will be comparing it to previous Evo's and every other new car on the road, including the STI.

Weight = safety? In this case, you are right, a lot of the weight is likely due to new safety systems like airbags. If the weight of the car were in the frame that could also mean more energy absorption in the event of a crash. However, what about avoiding a crash through faster response to driver input? One thing that I loved about my old MINI was my ability to throw it around like nothing, changed lanes in a snap, cornered like it was on rails, etc. It was less than 3,000 lb.

Yeah thats pretty depressing, it better not ruin it because they're really getting further and further away from the Evo's roots and it's really pissing me off that they are possibly ruining a car to get more sales.

And what exactly are the Evo's roots? It's a rally car. And if you watched Rally of Japan, you would have seen the Evo X rally prepped car, so, as far as I'm concerned the car has not deviated from it's roots at all. If anything, with the re-introduction of the Evo X to WRC homogulation review, it's gotten closer to it's roots than ever before.

Ruining a car? Current Lancer sales and figures have shown nothing but an UPSWING in owner satisfaction and ratings. How can you ruin a car and expect to sell more vehicles? A manufacturer's goal is to sell as many vehicles as possible to the largest market possible. It's called international trade and it makes the world go 'round.

I'm sorry if you think I'm attacking you directly; I'm not. I love the Evo and I believe in the company I work for. Mitsubishi has been around longer than most of our grandparents and I doubt that's from making bad decisions.

^All valid points, but at the end of the day, I still want a lighter Evo X.

Nothing a good gutting, some dry ice, some swiss cheesing and a vehicle rotisserie can't handle. =).

What do you mean 'inspection'???

Everyone is entitled to an opinion! That's what these forums are for. This is a good discussion so far.

Let me ask this question: can you make a heavier car accelerate, brake and handle like a lighter car? I think the answer is yes, but is there a point of no return?

Would a 4,000 lb Evo be out of the question? Maybe not if it had a 370 hp 2.5 litre 4 cylinder engine. Could it handle as well? Bigger tires, stiffer suspension, etc., we have the technology, it can be done.

I think it is just harder to do the heavier you get. Less weight and you have less work to do to get performance. Look at a car like an Elise, lightweight tin can with a corrola engine, and it rocks the track.

All else being equal, less weight equals better performance and handling. But rarely do we get to compare cars that are 'all else being equal.' They are soooooo different. We can only compare their actual track performance. Otherwise, this is all arm chair racing.

All the aspects of a car are give and take. You lose from one aspect to gain another. Do the aspects of the equation make one build better than another? It may, but that is also the entitlement of opinion. The Evo is an all around very well put together car. That is why I have two of my own and a third on the way. Could I get a different one? Of course! I work for one of the largest autogroups in the North Jersey area and getting a Skyline wouldn't be a problem, but I am devoted to the Evo till the end.

On the flipside of the weight issue, if your car is too light you can also have poor traction, corner lifting and an assortment of other issues that having a chassis that is too light will encounter. The chassis stiffening that went into the Evo has also added weight to the car. What does this all mean to the layman? Probably nothing, but there is a definite difference between 0.91g and 0.97g on the skidpad and that has a lot to do with the way the whole package is setup this time around.

wow and to think i wanted to go lighter in weight. my car weights 3720 with me in it. this will weight just as much if not more.

its either you love it or you hate it.like dino said well a lighter one would be good.but you can make that to your car yourself to reduce weight there will be tons of things that you can replace later to minimize weight.i know some are dissapointed on the car as of now.but its all read, now until you have driven one it will be different.i know i will meet all expectations.

All the aspects of a car are give and take. You lose from one aspect to gain another. Do the aspects of the equation make one build better than another? It may, but that is also the entitlement of opinion. The Evo is an all around very well put together car. That is why I have two of my own and a third on the way. Could I get a different one? Of course! I work for one of the largest autogroups in the North Jersey area and getting a Skyline wouldn't be a problem, but I am devoted to the Evo till the end.

On the flipside of the weight issue, if your car is too light you can also have poor traction, corner lifting and an assortment of other issues that having a chassis that is too light will encounter. The chassis stiffening that went into the Evo has also added weight to the car. What does this all mean to the layman? Probably nothing, but there is a definite difference between 0.91g and 0.97g on the skidpad and that has a lot to do with the way the whole package is setup this time around.


Since your confident that new evo is an "all around better car" what are your thoughts on the 4b11 engine and SST tranny?

The Evo has always been a type of road legal rally car. Fast and great handling and people bought it for that not for the luxuries that most people buy cars for. It was a car for a true enthusiast and I'm not disagreeing it is a better car all around I'm just saying I hope that it is still going to be a car for the enthusiast and put a smile on my face. They could ruin a car in my mind and sell more because most people don't feel the same way about cars that I do i'd trade a lot of luxuries for speed and handling (i.e. less weight). Also the car isn't even out yet so its all still speculation. I like the improvements they have made but I'm just getting scared that its not going to be as fast and fun as the old one, but hey I sure hope it is.

Since your confident that new evo is an "all around better car" what are your thoughts on the 4b11 engine and SST tranny?

There are many points I like about the new 4B11.

1) 86 x 86 bore to stroke ratio. The perfect square bore to stroke will yield a higher safe rev-range and allow the MIVEC to shine throughout the power band. There will be less friction and wear due to the oversquaring from the 4G63.
2) The direct cam-to-valve. Gone are the days of the hydraulic lifter in the 4B11. The direct cam-to-valve design of the new engine will promote lighter weight and less moving parts and is effective in reducing valve float.
3) The elimination of the balance shafts. Again, less moving parts. The liquid filled motor mounts of the 4B11 engine will be doing the job of the balance shafts.
4) The replacing of the timing belt with the timing chain.


Ugh... I'm ending it here... I got a headache. But you catch my drift. I have a lot of faith in what Mitsubishi is doing and I don't just say it with my keystrokes. I already put my money where my mouth is. =).

The Evo has always been a type of road legal rally car. Fast and great handling and people bought it for that not for the luxuries that most people buy cars for. It was a car for a true enthusiast and I'm not disagreeing it is a better car all around I'm just saying I hope that it is still going to be a car for the enthusiast and put a smile on my face. They could ruin a car in my mind and sell more because most people don't feel the same way about cars that I do i'd trade a lot of luxuries for speed and handling (i.e. less weight). Also the car isn't even out yet so its all still speculation. I like the improvements they have made but I'm just getting scared that its not going to be as fast and fun as the old one, but hey I sure hope it is.

I definitely hear what you're saying. But for a production car to be successful, it has to have mass appeal. What you're going to see in the rally events is night and day to what the production car will be.

What I think that people are really focusing on is all the add-ons that Mitsubishi had to put on the car to conform to #1, governmental regulations and #2, what the mass majority of people wanted in a competetive mass production vehicle. For people that are purists, the performance and handling abilities of the Evo are what made it so great, for such a low price. But there are people out there who have only fantasized about getting into an Evo, but have been withdrawn for one of many reasons...

Not being able to drive manual
Not enough features to quell the technological demands of consumers
No cruse control (you'd be surprised how big of a feature this is)
No navigation (face it, Navi is a big selling item for alot of people)
Not safe enough (2 airbags to 7 airbags)
Too 'boy racer' looking (the tampon commercial killed the CT9A)
Too confined of an interior

For any of the above reasons, a lot of people who had the money to spend on the Lancer Evolution crept away from it. Mitsubishi has addressed all these items, as they also did on the Outlander and Lancer models, and the fact remains that sales are up tremendously. That right there is the general public talking. As a forerunner in the motorsports world, Mitsubishi would love to make cars that shock the living shit out of people, but on the same token, in a business sense, if you don't make your bottom line, then what's the use of coming out with a product? Can we rightfully justify that every other model in the Mitsubishi lineup should be sold to upkeep the Evo project? A lot of people think that if Mitsubishi didn't have the Evo that the company would go under. That is some of the funniest stuff I have ever heard. While I, as an Evo owner myself, would love for that to be true, I know, from my day to day dealings on a Mitsubishi showroom desk, that the other models in our showroom sell vs the Evo at a sobering 30:1 ratio. For every 1 Evo that is sold, 30 other Mitsubishi vehicles are sold. Most customers who walk in the door don't even know about the Evo. Most of them actually look at it and ask "What in the world is this ugly thing?" Perspective is very very subjective when you're asking an opinion of a car and Mitsubishi wanted to reach out the Evo to all markets in where it was previously unattainable. With the SST transmission, the market has been blown wide open to invite people who could not drive manual transmission. With S-AWC, FAST Key, Bluetooth, etc... the technological needs of the previously excluded masses was met. So on and so forth.

So has Mitsubishi gone out and exteded it's reach to a new demographic of customer? Absolutely. But put it this way. If you were a farmer that only grew potatoes and you were looking to expand your operation in an area that potatoes only sold to a certain minority type of people, you'd never get past that farm out in the rural section of Bumfuck, Egypt. By diversifying your crop to include other more popular foods, you'd have something that sells much more readily and to a wider variety of customer and then buying farmer Jim's plot next door becomes a lot easier with the excess cash flow. But now the potato eater minority is upset that you no longer grow potatoes, because for generations before that's all you ever grew. Should you just stick to growing potatos to make them happy, when you know in a quick minute that most of them would switch over to another potato grower in a heartbeat. Loyal breeds loyalty and so does a lack of it create an air of apathy and the assumption of deserving.

A lot of us live in urban areas where we have way too many choices. If you ever went into the deep, and I mean DEEP mid-west, you'd see nothing but Chevys and Fords. Pickup after pickup after pickup. These people are loyal to the core of American built products, no matter how big a POS they are. I've seen Ford and Chevy dealerships go out like 5 watt lightbulbs here in the NY/NJ area, but out in the mid-west the domestic dealerships thrive and the Japanese dealerships eek out a scant living moving very few vehicles compared to their urban counterparts.

Mitsubishi doesn't have it so good in the US where we have a loyal market base to just throw a car at. We have to give our customers the absolute most for their money for them to be convinced that a Mitsubishi vehicle has a lot to offer them. While other manufacturers try to incentivize the hell out of their vehicles to move them, we concentrate on letting our product speak for itself allowing the customers to see the true value in our cars.

Now let's just say the car was $35,000. How many cars out in the market AT THAT PRICE POINT can claim to have as much as the Lancer Evolution X has? Dollar for dollar, the Evo has always been an incredible value for those seeking the most out of a performance vehicle in the sub 40k price range. In a different post I made some time ago, I told you all what the Mitsubishi formula for a successful car was. PACERST. Performance, Appearance, Comfort, Economy, Reliability, Safety and Technology. Has Mitsubishi not created a vehicle that has touched on each of these points to varying degrees?

Where the car was lacking safety-wise, a new RISE chassis has been put into effect. Most of the weight gain came from that. The RISE chassis stands for Reinforced Impact Safety Evolution. It is a key ingredient in the new Lancer Evolution and Lancer that really ups the bar rigity and safety wise. Instead of having a chassis that just bent and crumbled, this new chassis technology actually absorbs impact force and transmits it throughout the RISE chassis framework until it passes through and outwards of the vehicle, keeping the force from traumatizing #1, the occupants and #2 the gas tank. These were the main concerns addressed when the RISE chassis was developed in conjunction with Volvo.

Eh... I think I've written too much alrady, as I can go on and on about what makes this vehicle so much of an advancement, but it's getting late and I need to open the dealership tomorrow.

The biggest reason I bought my '04 WRX wagon instead of the Evo VIII was b/c the Evo lacked cruise control.

And yes, I'm dead serious.

To me cruise control is not a big deal. As I recall, I've had it and used it on the Cooper S, didn't have it on the Cooper, don't have it now in my Escape Hybrid, and I don't miss it. Again, this comes back to being involved in the driving of your vehicle versus the car doing it for you (like automatic transmission, traction control, etc., all systems that do your job for you). Sure, I understand on long stretches of highway you want to use cruise control, but even then I don't mind not having it. It would definately not make an impact on my buying decision.

Ugh. That's a full 800lbs heavier than my mazda. Jesus lord, what did they do?

Let the weight reduction begin.

Yeah, that's my thought, too. I'm still interested in the car, but that's a bit more portly than I would have liked.

Oh so this is why mitsu compared the "usdm" ix vs. the "jdm" x so the lap times would look like the new evo is much faster than the old one when in actuality it's not, Thats why they didn't have the jdm ix on hand to drive also.:eek:

Oh so this is why mitsu compared the "usdm" ix vs. the "jdm" x so the lap times would look like the new evo is much faster than the old one when in actuality it's not, Thats why they didn't have the jdm ix on hand to drive also.:eek:

They sure did pull a fast one on Road and Track! R&T will have to test the USDM Evolution X when it gets here. I hope they do a long term test on it, to really judge the overall experience and to see if Mitsu made a car that can actually reach out beyond the enthusiast crowd.

I expect track performance comparisons between stock USDM Evo's will show the X is slower than previous versions. However, for Canada we can't really complain, as this is the first Evolution we can actually buy and drive in Canada!

They sure did pull a fast one on Road and Track! R&T will have to test the USDM Evolution X when it gets here. I hope they do a long term test on it, to really judge the overall experience and to see if Mitsu made a car that can actually reach out beyond the enthusiast crowd.

I expect track performance comparisons between stock USDM Evo's will show the X is slower than previous versions. However, for Canada we can't really complain, as this is the first Evolution we can actually buy and drive in Canada!

We have no previous EVOs to compare to! I remember hearing the japanese car critics were raving about how good the evo x was. :confused:

I don't read Japanese so I couldn't comment on what Japanese reviewers think of it, except for my Japanese colleague who test drove the GSR and liked it a lot.

do you realize how many times a new car finally comes out and gets put on a scale to suddenly be several hundred pounds lighter than the manufacturer's curb weight?

sometimes those numbers include a full tank of fuel, passengers, and even a certain amount of weight in the trunk

the listed curb weight is useless, wait until the real thing comes out and hits the scales, then you'll know ...

Im sorry but almost 3600 pounds is unacceptable--especially when the sti will reportedly come in at only 22 pounds over last years(with bbs rims). The only reason I have not put a deposit for an sti is because the evo looks so much better and im hoping the evo rs will come to the US.

do you realize how many times a new car finally comes out and gets put on a scale to suddenly be several hundred pounds lighter than the manufacturer's curb weight?

sometimes those numbers include a full tank of fuel, passengers, and even a certain amount of weight in the trunk

the listed curb weight is useless, wait until the real thing comes out and hits the scales, then you'll know ...

I seem to recall this is the case with the weight for the BMW 135i that BMW released. It includes a driver, full tank of gas, and I believe it even included some luggage. I noticed that the weight that Sport Compact Car listed for the Evo X in the latest issue was considerably less than the number given by Mitsubishi. I'm not sure that was for the U.S. version, though.

Defined as the approximate weight of a vehicle with its standard equipment and a full tank of gasoline, curb weight is a fancy way to state a car's net weight. Most automobile manufacturers enter the driver's weight into the equation. The United States government has mandated 150 pounds as the average weight of a driver (as of 1999). Curb weight does not however, factor in the weight of any additional passengers, accessories, or cargo you might be carrying inside (or out) of your vehicle.

^^well I may have confused the manufacturer's alignment laden weight factors from some of the past vehicles raced which I know did include all those items, I'll have to go back and look through my records to see

however, the original point still remains; I've done my share of weighing factory stock vehicles on cornering scales to know better than to count on the listed curb weight spec being anything but a good amount higher than what the actual is.

The biggest reason I bought my '04 WRX wagon instead of the Evo VIII was b/c the Evo lacked cruise control.

And yes, I'm dead serious.

CC is nice, but good god man...it's not THAT big a deal.

I don't read Japanese so I couldn't comment on what Japanese reviewers think of it, except for my Japanese colleague who test drove the GSR and liked it a lot.

Have him post his thoughts here!!!

do you realize how many times a new car finally comes out and gets put on a scale to suddenly be several hundred pounds lighter than the manufacturer's curb weight?

sometimes those numbers include a full tank of fuel, passengers, and even a certain amount of weight in the trunk

the listed curb weight is useless, wait until the real thing comes out and hits the scales, then you'll know ...

That's been true in the past...good call. I'll weigh mine right away.

Defined as the approximate weight of a vehicle with its standard equipment and a full tank of gasoline, curb weight is a fancy way to state a car's net weight. Most automobile manufacturers enter the driver's weight into the equation. The United States government has mandated 150 pounds as the average weight of a driver (as of 1999). Curb weight does not however, factor in the weight of any additional passengers, accessories, or cargo you might be carrying inside (or out) of your vehicle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curb_weight

Curb (kerb) weight is the total weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight) of a vehicle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle) with standard equipment, all necessary operating consumables (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumable) (such as motor oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_oil) and coolant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolant)), a full tank of fuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel), and not loaded with either passengers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger) or cargo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curb_weight#_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curb_weight#_note-1)
This definition may differ from definitions used by governmental (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government) regulatory agencies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_agency) or other organizations, for example, many European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union) manufacturers include the weight of a 75 kilogram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram) driver in the total. Additionally, organizations may define curb weight with fixed levels of fuel and other variables to equalize the value for the comparison of different vehicles.

Sadly, even if the Evo X is slower than i previous thought I will still be getting it, because it suits my need really well.

i'm pretty sure there will be ways to make this thing lighter.cf.

Have him post his thoughts here!!!

I did, read it here:
http://www.evoxforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=736

He mentioned he may test drive the STI this coming weekend.

do you realize how many times a new car finally comes out and gets put on a scale to suddenly be several hundred pounds lighter than the manufacturer's curb weight?

sometimes those numbers include a full tank of fuel, passengers, and even a certain amount of weight in the trunk

the listed curb weight is useless, wait until the real thing comes out and hits the scales, then you'll know ...

BUT, we are comparing curb weight of one car to curb weight of another car and looking at the difference. This is like fuel economy, it will always be worse than EPA estimates, but it is something to compare between models. If the IX had a curb weight listed at 200-300 lb less than the X, then the difference is real. Unless they changed how they list curb weight from one year to the next.