http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0801_mitsubishi_lancer_evolution_comparison/acceleration_features.html

The backlash among Evo enthusiasts was instantaneous. Once word came down that the 10th iteration of the Lancer Evolution (known as Evo X in Japan) was heavier than the outgoing 2006 model (Evo IX) yet possessed about the same level of power, rabid Mitsu fans began posturing that it wasn't only slower but, due to a beefier structure, more sound deadening, and new electronic aids like Active Yaw Control (AYC), also (gasp!) duller than the raw, scalpel-like IX. Heir apparent? If you paid attention to the bloggers who'd been speculating about the performance of the X even before the Concept X bowed at the 2005 Tokyo motor show, it was more like "error apparent."

To dispel (or confirm) these rumors, we grabbed an Evo X at the first opportunity and, in addition to subjecting it to our full battery of road and track analyses, we hauled it up to Reno-Fernley Raceway in the high desert of northern Nevada for a full day of track torture. With four miles of road course composed of 30 turns, 15 configurations, and enough elevation change to empty more stomachs than a Six Flags roller coaster, RFR is an ideal playground for assessing a rally-inspired street car. To raise the stakes, we brought along an Evo IX GSR (more commonly known as the straight IX or just IX) for a baseline comparison. We even had technical editor Kim Reynolds transport our long-term Evo IX MR to see how the new X would stack up against its most potent precursor (see sidebar). While your humble scribe and senior editor Ed Loh would hot-lap all three Evos, we enlisted the help of Erwin Nagl, chief instructor of the Pro Control Driving Academy at RFR and former DTM driver and BMW and Bondurant driving instructor, to slice and dice the best times. Grab your cutting boards; we got the blades.

first page for you guys :)

im dissappointed.

im dissappointed.

+1

I want to cry...

I honestly doubt straight-line performance will be improved much in the production model.

With all that hype with that new s-awd and sst. The only thing they say is faster than two seconds against evo9 in their test lap. I think mitshu failed the potential first timer buyers and evo 9 owners to really give us an impressive numbers. Look at Nissan they did really improve GTR in all aspects 0 to 60, 1/4 mile, hp/torgue, cdrag, top speed. Nurburg time. Most of this new owners will race this car on red light, on straight and not on lap time. They already did 4.7 sec 0 to 60 why go back to 5 sec mark. Who needs luxury this car breed is performance. GTR did performance and luxury. Im just venting. You know what they should really do is beef up that hp/torque at least 320 to 350hp to compensate the wt added. I just don't get it. The only thing that is better ion that test is the useless braking and lateral g's, useless because it's better than a few points only and still slower in lap time. I just don't get it again. And the basic/ powertrain warranty sucks especially with the new unproven 5speed/sst dual clutch.

With all that hype with that new s-awd and sst. The only thing they say is faster than two seconds against evo9 in their test lap. I think mitshu failed the potential first timer buyers and evo 9 owners to really give us an impressive numbers. Look at Nissan they did really improve GTR in all aspects 0 to 60, 1/4 mile, hp/torgue, cdrag, top speed. Nurburg time. Most of this new owners will race this car on red light, on straight and not on lap time. They already did 4.7 sec 0 to 60 why go back to 5 sec mark. Who needs luxury this car breed is performance. GTR did performance and luxury. Im just venting. You know what they should really do is beef up that hp/torque at least 320 to 350hp to compensate the wt added. I just don't get it. The only thing that is better ion that test is the useless braking and lateral g's, useless because it's better than a few points only and still slower in lap time. I just don't get it again. And the basic/ powertrain warranty sucks especially with the new unproven 5speed/sst dual clutch.

+1

If they are going to take a step back in terms of performance, at least make it the same speed, not slower...

+1

I want to cry...

I honestly doubt straight-line performance will be improved much in the production model.

OK, I agree, there is no improvement in performance. We kinda knew that. What is improved is safety, refinement and looks. This is the first introduction of the Evolution to Canada and this is still an excellent handling and accelerating car, just not quite as good as before. The track results are very comparable so I am not that unhappy about the differences between the IX and the X. In fact, I don't think I could have driven a IX as a daily driver. I do not like that the driving experience is more removed, but such is life.

You know what they should really do is beef up that hp/torque at least 320 to 350hp to compensate the wt added. I just don't get it. The only thing that is better ion that test is the useless braking and lateral g's, useless because it's better than a few points only and still slower in lap time. I just don't get it again. And the basic/ powertrain warranty sucks especially with the new unproven 5speed/sst dual clutch.

Yes, especially since they lost the hp race to the STI, they could have bumped it up. Perhaps they should have taken a page from the UK and provided upgraded FQ models for North America.

Yes, especially since they lost the hp race to the STI, they could have bumped it up. Perhaps they should have taken a page from the UK and provided upgraded FQ models for North America.


That's another thing, why in UK they have that FQ version under factory warranty by Owen Development(correct me if im wrong). Here in U.S we have so many tuners that go to up to 1000hp(im not saying we need 1000hp). Toyota has TRD that can put super charger. Nissan has Nismo. Yes Evo X is safer car. They say it's perfect X but it's not. They should do what Nissan did with their GTR. And actually FQ means Fukin# Quick.

OK, I agree, there is no improvement in performance. We kinda knew that. What is improved is safety, refinement and looks. This is the first introduction of the Evolution to Canada and this is still an excellent handling and accelerating car, just not quite as good as before. The track results are very comparable so I am not that unhappy about the differences between the IX and the X. In fact, I don't think I could have driven a IX as a daily driver. I do not like that the driving experience is more removed, but such is life.

I agree, but I guess all the hype just got my hopes up.

Truth is I am never going to push the Evo X to the limit on public road, especially in Vancouver, I guess it is just human nature to complain.

And you are right, I probably wouldn't like the spartan interior in the 9 either.

Well, I am driving a civic right now, so I should be pleasantly surprised by the X when i test drive it, since we have no evo 9 to compare to.

As a former evo6 and evo8 owner to me this is most dissapointing. That mitsubishi puts forth this car to the evo faithfull is sad, they will lose as many buyers as they will gain. Are they serious?--4.7 sec. to 60mph to 5.4 sec?, 300 lbs heavier?, 1.7 sec SLOWER than 9mr on this track? I thought that evolution meant going forward in all aspects, not trading one(refinement) for another(its SLOWER). I swear i thought the day would never come that i would consider buying an sti--but it has. I would only hope that mitsubishi feels in lost $$$$ their error and tries to fix it with the evo11. Good job mitsubishi--nice way of being faithful to YOUR faithful.

Keep in mind that the model they tested is the ' Preproduction car '.

As a former evo6 and evo8 owner to me this is most dissapointing. That mitsubishi puts forth this car to the evo faithfull is sad, they will lose as many buyers as they will gain. Are they serious?--4.7 sec. to 60mph to 5.4 sec?, 300 lbs heavier?, 1.7 sec SLOWER than 9mr on this track? I thought that evolution meant going forward in all aspects, not trading one(refinement) for another(its SLOWER). I swear i thought the day would never come that i would consider buying an sti--but it has. I would only hope that mitsubishi feels in lost $$$$ their error and tries to fix it with the evo11. Good job mitsubishi--nice way of being faithful to YOUR faithful.

:'( I feel for ya man. They may lose buyers, but they will gain many, many more because of the refinement and mostly because of the availability of an automated transmission.

kinda sad. It seems as though this new car is such a departure that it might as well have been sold under a different model name, a la RX-8 vs RX-7.

Yes, especially since they lost the hp race to the STI, they could have bumped it up. Perhaps they should have taken a page from the UK and provided upgraded FQ models for North America.
well, to be fair, the usdm versions of the sti always had a power advantage over the evo, yet the evo has (as far as i can remember) won most, if not all, comparisons

im dissappointed.

pretty much sums it up.

it seems that the "gains" in comfortability, safety, and technology takes a hefty bit away from performance. too me this is a car that is marketed for people who like think they have performance rather have a performance. eh, i guess it's all about putting more dollars in Mitsu's pocket.

i don't see many Evo IX owners making the switch.

oh yeah, don't get me wrong. the numbers for the X are still good, just not what i expected.

first i like x, from prototype to concept.... hmmm to production. About preproduction alibi. i don't think there will be a big change from the car in the dealership... it's the same engine, hp.trq, same aerodynamics and wheels, same transmission. how about ecu. you know why give a car to the tester that is misfiring. just give the best car they have. still they should do a complete package like nissan did. Maybe they should buy an m3 csl(sorry i don't know the numbers of me csl) and beat that car in all aspects.

If this car really is that much slower than the old one Mitsu made a huge mistake. People don't buy EVO's for their luxury and style they buy them for one thing, Performance. Why would you ever make a new version of that type of car THIS much SLOWER? So they rationalize substituting huge loss of performance with slight luxury and style upgrades and then jack up the price as well. No one that is looking at a Mercedes C class or BMW 3 series or Lexus IS or Audi is going to think hmm.. I'd rather go with a Mitsubishi. The people that are looking at those cars aren't gonna go for the EVO just because it is faster but way less luxurious. The EVO was and always has been for car enthusiasts that wanted the performance and didn't car about sacrificing some luxuries. I think Mitsubishi is going to lose a lot of loyal customers in an attempt to compete with BMW, Lexus, Audi, and Merc. Not many people are going to pay near 40k for a Mitsubishi especially one thats this much slower than the old one that costs less.

No one that is looking at a Mercedes C class or BMW 3 series or Lexus IS or Audi is going to think hmm.. I'd rather go with a Mitsubishi.

yet everyone looking at the Evo X probably will due to the price similarity. They won't perform as well of course, but people who buy the evo for the status and not just for the performance will glady sacrifice the performance they use maybe once each weekend in the summer (track day and autocross stuff) for the prestige and such.

+1

I want to cry...

I honestly doubt straight-line performance will be improved much in the production model.

It will be when it doesn't lean out and detonate....

Look at Nissan they did really improve GTR in all aspects 0 to 60, 1/4 mile, hp/torgue, cdrag, top speed. Nurburg time.

Yeah, but this is only the 2nd version of the GT-R...and the GT-R was already nice and refined to begin with.

Most of this new owners will race this car on red light, on straight and not on lap time. They already did 4.7 sec 0 to 60 why go back to 5 sec mark.

Because they made the car fat, safe, and civilized as to make it appeal to more people. They just forgot to add more HP to make up for it.

Who needs luxury this car breed is performance.

While i'm personally not going for luxury, the EVO IX's interior isn't even as good as my 6 year old $18K mazda. So not for nothing, it was about time they stepped it up a notch.

GTR did performance and luxury.

and a $75K price tag...

Im just venting. You know what they should really do is beef up that hp/torque at least 320 to 350hp to compensate the wt added.

Agreed. But no big deal, speedcircuit will be able to do that for you. ;)

I just don't get it. The only thing that is better ion that test is the useless braking and lateral g's,

And it was faster in the turns, and had a higher top speed on the track.

useless because it's better than a few points only and still slower in lap time. I just don't get it again. And the basic/ powertrain warranty sucks especially with the new unproven 5speed/sst dual clutch.

Yeah, the warranty could certainly be better, but it's not horrible.

Also keep in mind that they were comparing a X 5 speed GSR (with gremlins) to a IX 6-speed MR.

Having 6 speeds will help you on a track, and I'd venture a guess that the X MR (with SST and better suspension) would make up quite a bit of ground, if not flip the tables.

As a former evo6 and evo8 owner to me this is most dissapointing. That mitsubishi puts forth this car to the evo faithfull is sad, they will lose as many buyers as they will gain. Are they serious?--4.7 sec. to 60mph to 5.4 sec?, 300 lbs heavier?, 1.7 sec SLOWER than 9mr on this track? I thought that evolution meant going forward in all aspects, not trading one(refinement) for another(its SLOWER). I swear i thought the day would never come that i would consider buying an sti--but it has. I would only hope that mitsubishi feels in lost $$$$ their error and tries to fix it with the evo11. Good job mitsubishi--nice way of being faithful to YOUR faithful.

FWIW, I've seen older evos (6s or 7s) that were quicker around a track than the 8 was.

There was an episode of 5th gear that compared them.

:'( I feel for ya man. They may lose buyers, but they will gain many, many more because of the refinement and mostly because of the availability of an automated transmission.

kinda sad. It seems as though this new car is such a departure that it might as well have been sold under a different model name, a la RX-8 vs RX-7.

It is. Evo X. Not evo IX.

:-P

the bottom line is im still gonna get it. people are just like this sometimes... ohhh my car can do 12 sec flat in 1/4 mile or 4.5 sec 0 to 60 by the book but actually i never try it because im scared, so many cops or my wife will kill me.

the bottom line is im still gonna get it. people are just like this sometimes... ohhh my car can do 12 sec flat in 1/4 mile or 4.5 sec 0 to 60 by the book but actually i never try it because im scared, so many cops or my wife will kill me.

Me too, as disappointed as I am, I am still going to get it, because I like the looks, its 4 door, has awd and decent performance, not to mention the price.

People don't buy EVO's for their luxury and style they buy them for one thing, Performance.

I boldfaced the important part of this quote.

Would I like the X to be lighter and quicker stock? Sure. Obviously the added weight hurts it's speed regardless of the fact that it turns and stops better than it's predecessor. Basically, any area in which the X has a performance deficit to the IX is simply due to it's inferior power:weight ratio. And in some aspects (such as braking and turning), not even the weight disadvantage can hold the X back. Wow.

So on this given track, it appears that the IX MR is "1% quicker" than the base X with ignition issues. And it would be even less of a difference between a properly functioning X MR, if at all. But let's assume the worst and just say that the IX 1% quicker per lap than the X.

1 percent. Chew on that for a moment. Nevermind the fact that the X looks better, is more comfortable, and drives smoother 100% of the time. Focus on the fact that the IX is a mere 1% quicker when driven to the limits.

Day in and day out, you'll be happier that the X is a better car than the IX overall. You'll notice that more than you will the watered down power:weight ratio.

But ok, you want your X to accelerate as well as the IX and retain it's civility.

Let's take a look at the power:weight ratio of the two cars:


Evo X: 12.2 lb/hp (est) Evo IX 11.4 lb/hp
That's a pretty big difference. The X has another .8lbs for each HP the motor produces. Matching them should easily balance things out on the acceleration front, and give the X and even larger advantage on other fronts.

So let's do some mild mods to our make believe X GSR.

We've got a whopping 3585lbs to work with on a 295hp motor.

First things first, we do some mild mods to cut some weight. We won't know where we'll be able to save weight until we get one in our hands, but let's say we're able to shave off 85lbs or so without sacrificing anything (except for a few bucks, of course).

That brings us to 3500lbs even, and a ratio of 11.8lbs per 1 horsepower. Look at that, we made up half the difference right there.


Then we do a few mild performance mods. Mind you, some of these (such as an exhaust) may double as weight reduction mods as well. But regardless, let's say you want to keep it simple, and you just do an exhaust which nets you a 15hp gain or so.

Now you're at 3500lbs and 310hp. Right there, you're down to an 11.3:1 ratio, which is a hair better than the IX. The results will speak for themselves.

The only thing you've lost here is money. For a full exhaust (which will likely be lighter than stock) and enough weight reduction to drop the remainder of that 85lbs, You're probably looking at about $2K.

While that's not exactly chump change, it's not all that big of a deal when talking about a car of this caliber. On top of that, the $2000 worth of mods you do will likely have other benefits as well. They may provide better fuel economy, less unsprung weight, better sound, quicker throttle response, etc.

Don't be afraid to modify your car a little bit to suit your needs. If you're not handy, take it to a reputable shop.

In 2001, my bone stock mid 16-second 140hp Mazda Protege MP3 wasn't fast enough for me (although I was floored with the handling). As it sits right now, it will outrun even the evo IX. If I could make up a performance deficit like that, I don't want to hear your whining about a measly 1%. While I feel your pain, it's not the end of the world -- It can be easily corrected.

the bottom line is im still gonna get it. people are just like this sometimes... ohhh my car can do 12 sec flat in 1/4 mile or 4.5 sec 0 to 60 by the book but actually i never try it because im scared, so many cops or my wife will kill me.

+1. I echo his sentiments... Will bring it to a track once in a while to savour its performance, and tune it a little bit, but I am not likely to quit my day job for professional motorsports.

I am one of the "new buyers" that Mitsu has managed to hook. Someone looking for a daily driver, doesn't/can't deal with a manual on a daily basis, wants great performance (yes, performance of the X is still great compared with what's out there. Reviews of the STi have not been great... lack of feel/cofter etc.), does not want to get a Beemer/Audi/Merc etc. Oh yeah, I'm also "older"... only on this forum - replete with 16 yr old drivers - is 28 considered old. haha.

I believe that there are many more who would consider the X while they passed up the IX.

Yes, I am slightly disappointed that Mitsu did not juice up the X a little more. If I were them, I would've taken that extra step to ensure that the performance of the X were at least on par with the IX, in their respective markets. Avoiding a backlash from the VI to IX Faithfuls would have been a good thing... the X would have been a car lauded by the hardcore enthusiasts as well as softies/pretenders like me!

I feel a little bad for the N. American dudes on this forum though. I'll be getting a JDM X, which I think has been shown to be faster that the US IX (in that carefully engineered comparison). So, even though my car will be lardy compared to the JDM IXs on my roads, I can hide behind the fact that stock vs. stock, its faster than the US IXs that everyone here is raving about. A bit of irony here.

http://www.motortrend.com/av/roadtests/112_0711_2008_mitsubishi_evo_x_vs_2006_mitsubishi_evo_ix_comparison/

video of the MT test

Whoops, the test driver in that prob. weighed 250 pounds...

lol...i thought the same thing while watching

You guys can rationalize the loss in performance however you want to make yourself feel better but for me i'm throughly disappointed and I think it's a disgrace that Mitsubishi did that to the EVO. You say 1% but what about the almost 15% drop in 0-60 time and the almost 6% drop in 1/4 mile time. I'm not saying its going to be a horrible car. I think it'll be a great car but the fact that you make a new "performance" type car slower than the older one is a disgrace.

The video review is more positive than the written review. I suppose when you stop comparing stats and really look at the feeling of driving these two cars you will recognize that the X is truly a positive evolution.

What can you guys tell us about the horse power limitations in the Japanese market? Is that why they did not bump up the engine performance to match the upgraded (heavier) chassis?

If you buy and Evo X I guarantee one day you'll pull up next to an Evo IX at a stop light, on the road, etc. And it'll be like walking up to a urinal next to an ugly guy with a bigger dick. Yeah you'll say to yourself, who cares i'm way better looking, and all of us would probably choose to be the better looking guy, but it sill will make you feel slightly less of a man. Thats how the Evo X will be. It'll be a better car all around, but there will be those few times where you will feel a little disappointed.

The video review is more positive than the written review. I suppose when you stop comparing stats and really look at the feeling of driving these two cars you will recognize that the X is truly a positive evolution.

What can you guys tell us about the horse power limitations in the Japanese market? Is that why they did not bump up the engine performance to match the upgraded (heavier) chassis?

That gentleman's agreement is long gone last I read into it.

This sucks, the x is not even out yet and you have think of things to make it faster than a stock ix? by the time you did all of that the ix has cams,ecu flash, and down pipe for $1500, it's rare to see an unmolested ix anyway so it's just a long climb up from there.

I'm disappointed too:

1. It was a sh-tty test/article; using a pre-production 5 spd GSR with an engine miss rather than the SST 6 spd MR

2. The track is only several miles from my office and I didn't know they were doing this

3. That people see this hoax of a test as the definitive answer despite #1 above.

In some cases the pre-production model gets the best numbers sometimes, i don't think the MR can do any better since it's heavier than the gsr and, who is the driver in the video ? most drivers i see are fit and in shape this guy looks like they found him at Mcdonald's. I think thats why the GSR was having problem breathing in higher revs.

Always add 100 pounds for American test drivers! :D

http://www.motortrend.com/av/roadtests/112_0711_2008_mitsubishi_evo_x_vs_2006_mitsubishi_evo_ix_comparison/

video of the MT test

Seems to have good things to say about the X.

He kept calling the IX the GSR, which makes things a little unclear if you're not paying attention.

You guys can rationalize the loss in performance however you want to make yourself feel better but for me i'm throughly disappointed and I think it's a disgrace that Mitsubishi did that to the EVO. You say 1% but what about the almost 15% drop in 0-60 time and the almost 6% drop in 1/4 mile time. I'm not saying its going to be a horrible car. I think it'll be a great car but the fact that you make a new "performance" type car slower than the older one is a disgrace.

Understood, but again, do a few mods to it and you're right on par. It's not that big a deal in the long run. You'll just have to do an extra couple of mods to make it accelerate as well.

Understood, but again, do a few mods to it and you're right on par. It's not that big a deal in the long run. You'll just have to do an extra couple of mods to make it accelerate as well.

Hey it is kinda a lot like a Protege, eh? well except the protege is lightweight --but yeah the Evo X seems to have a really good suspension setup, would have nice if they had bumped up the power but that is easily fixed on a turbo car :P

Eh, not exactly. Proteges were always good on handling and weight, but they were FAR behind on acceleration and don't have top notch brakes either.

The X is at least in the same acceleration ballpark as the IX, whereas the MP3 and MSP were always significantly behind their competition in terms of acceleration.

If you buy and Evo X I guarantee one day you'll pull up next to an Evo IX at a stop light, on the road, etc. And it'll be like walking up to a urinal next to an ugly guy with a bigger dick. Yeah you'll say to yourself, who cares i'm way better looking, and all of us would probably choose to be the better looking guy, but it sill will make you feel slightly less of a man. Thats how the Evo X will be. It'll be a better car all around, but there will be those few times where you will feel a little disappointed.

:bggay:

+1 Great usage of a pretty random icon. If the car you drive makes you feel like more or less of a man, please seek help.

Will the evoMR SST have Launch Control?

The tested X generates 0.99g in the corners. Stock. On street tires. THAT'S performance I can use every day.

Screw 0-60 times! Grip FTW.

Will the evoMR SST have Launch Control?

Will the evoMR SST have Launch Control?

Yes.

Yeah, but this is only the 2nd version of the GT-R...and the GT-R was already nice and refined to begin with.

Sorry to go off topic, but the new Nissan GT-R is the 4th version of this car ?? R32, R33, R34 and now R35.

And yes full honours to Nissan for making it 10 times the car it ever was in the past - I'd have one of those in a wink if I could afford it, no complaints whatsover, just praise and admiration - what a machine :)

As for pricing you guys in the States are so lucky with your car pricing - 75k is alot, but spare a thought for us in Australia, it's going to be priced at anywhere between 140-160k !!!!

We will need more than 75k just to buy an Evo 10 MR !!! and our dollar is almost on par with yours ATM... :(

Wow it seeems like a ghost town in here after the tests came out:pokeowned::inout::peace:Liquid_Ag

Wow it seeems like a ghost town in here after the tests came out:pokeowned::inout::peace:Liquid_Ag

Yeah, I've got to agree with most others comments on this, both good and bad...

Although the 10 is a big improvement in looks, safety and handling, it is dissapointing that it's gone backwards in basic acceleration performance - that is after all, one of this cars strongest suits and legacies....it dosn't seem right at all to go backwards there, it should always step up from previous models, as do most if not all other performance makes of cars.

I think it's a good call as some long time Aust. Evo owners have said to hold off and wait for future variants, like the Mk12 - this will hopefully be addressed by then and we'll see a much more powerful and higher performance Evo.

As they've suggested, from past models experience, the best has always been the 3rd of the series, ie: the Mk3, Mk6 and Mk9 - if this trend continues, the Mk12 will be the next best thing :)

Well, if you need a car now, go for the X, and in four to six years when the XII comes out trade-up. I think the people that might consider waiting are those wanting an MR level Evo but with a manual. They may or may not happen, but if it does, should be in the next year.

Sorry to go off topic, but the new Nissan GT-R is the 4th version of this car ?? R32, R33, R34 and now R35.

Ok, yes, but to me it's the 2nd version of the "supercar" known as the GT-R. The 32 and 33 didn't really have that status.

I feel the same about the Supra. Sure, there were three versions before the MKIV, but the MKIV was the first "supercar" supra. Hell, the first two were hopped up celicas.