Just got my new Car & Driver and it compares an EVO GS-R to the STi and the VW R32. The Evo wins and outaccelerates both, running 0-60 in 4.6 and the 1/4 in 13.4 @ 104.

Nice numbers, US or JAP spec GSR?

if that is solid, thats pretty good.

it was a us spec gsr

very nice...i like

13.4 @ 104, eh? That's damn good considering.

it also got .97 skidpad, 19mpg, and was the cheapest in test

I think that Mitsu has done something to the ecu tuning or something to bump hp and torque up from the official quoted numbers of 291 and 300, because the car is running substantially faster than the initial tests from motor trend. Granted, the car that they got was a pre-production car with "engine conrol gremlins," as mitsubishi claimed. But still, the car keeps getting faster and faster in every succesive test. This is great news to me, as the new evo X is proving to be very underrated from the factory. Strange though, because Car and Driver got their hands on a j-spec full production model that weighs less than our US-spec gsr, and yet our 0-60 times are better in spite of this. Did mitsu freak out ( which they should've ) after the initial test from motor trend and do something to the car to boost power levels? Whatever they've done, I'm happy.

That is F***in awesome. It's getting faster with every test and it's winning them all.

Car and Driver got their hands on a j-spec full production model that weighs less than our US-spec gsr, and yet our 0-60 times are better in spite of this.

Did they use that JDM in the US for testing or did they test it in Japan? If they used it in the US, the problem may have been gas. In Japan the Evo X is premium only and premium gas in Japan is anywhere from 97-100 octane. If they used US 91 octane, the ECU may have picked up knocking and retarded ign timing and cut down on boost.

Are these octane ratings calculated the same way???

I think that Mitsu has done something to the ecu tuning or something to bump hp and torque up from the official quoted numbers of 291 and 300, because the car is running substantially faster than the initial tests from motor trend. Granted, the car that they got was a pre-production car with "engine conrol gremlins," as mitsubishi claimed. But still, the car keeps getting faster and faster in every succesive test. This is great news to me, as the new evo X is proving to be very underrated from the factory. Strange though, because Car and Driver got their hands on a j-spec full production model that weighs less than our US-spec gsr, and yet our 0-60 times are better in spite of this. Did mitsu freak out ( which they should've ) after the initial test from motor trend and do something to the car to boost power levels? Whatever they've done, I'm happy.

Well I'm not sure of the relevance to this but I do know that the US Spec Nissan GT-R is better balanced from the factory as a USDM simply because the weight distribution shifts from the right side of the car to the left side with driver....So a USDM GT-R has better weight distribution then a JDM or EDM version of it all from just moving the driver to the left.

I believe that they were running the j-spec here in the states, so you very well could be right on the octane thing. But either way, we are getting very fast times for our heavier us-spec model. Good news for us.

uncntrldrage, that is true about the gt-r's weight distribution, however that would only affect handling...for the most part at least, not acceleration.

Well I'm not sure of the relevance to this but I do know that the US Spec Nissan GT-R is better balanced from the factory as a USDM simply because the weight distribution shifts from the right side of the car to the left side with driver....So a USDM GT-R has better weight distribution then a JDM or EDM version of it all from just moving the driver to the left.

dude , in europe the driver side is a same like here....
only one is not: UK. So 1 out of 27.

the first C&D evo test (nov 07) looks like it was a JDM spec test in japan

the latest comparo vs the sti and r32 looked like it was a USDM one (non SSS) test in the US

dude , in europe the driver side is a same like here....
only one is not: UK.

Maybe they are now but i had a frend stationed in germany and his beamer was RHD

Just got my new Car & Driver and it compares an EVO GS-R to the STi and the VW R32. The Evo wins and outaccelerates both, running 0-60 in 4.6 and the 1/4 in 13.4 @ 104.

i also have the C&D magz. its a US spec EVO as you see it in the weight
3545, the STI got 5.0 sec to 0-60 and, in the MotorTrend magz. the EVO got 5.2 and the STI 4.7 on Road & Track magz. the EVO got 4.9 and for the STI 5.0

http://shrani.si/t/3t/AB/2p7n9aIR/ca-1.jpg (http://shrani.si/?3t/AB/2p7n9aIR/ca-1.jpg)
http://shrani.si/t/1M/kR/3esrUJOv/ca-2.jpg (http://shrani.si/?1M/kR/3esrUJOv/ca-2.jpg)

Maybe they are now but i had a frend stationed in germany and his beamer was RHD

what dou you mean now???? :wallbash:

it is never been otherway. :thumbup:

what dou you mean now???? :wallbash:

it is never been otherway. :thumbup:


I mean now like I've never been there and I trust the guy who actually drove over there...

well maybe he got hes BMW from england. But i dont know why, since he was in germany.
Now you know.:thumbup:

i also have the C&D magz. its a US spec EVO as you see it in the weight
3545, the STI got 5.0 sec to 0-60 and, in the MotorTrend magz. the EVO got 5.2 and the STI 4.7 on Road & Track magz. the EVO got 4.9 and for the STI 5.0

http://shrani.si/t/3t/AB/2p7n9aIR/ca-1.jpg (http://shrani.si/?3t/AB/2p7n9aIR/ca-1.jpg)
http://shrani.si/t/1M/kR/3esrUJOv/ca-2.jpg (http://shrani.si/?1M/kR/3esrUJOv/ca-2.jpg)

Uh, looks like someone's wrong...

I think that Mitsu has done something to the ecu tuning or something to bump hp and torque up from the official quoted numbers of 291 and 300, because the car is running substantially faster than the initial tests from motor trend. Granted, the car that they got was a pre-production car with "engine conrol gremlins," as mitsubishi claimed. But still, the car keeps getting faster and faster in every succesive test. This is great news to me, as the new evo X is proving to be very underrated from the factory. Strange though, because Car and Driver got their hands on a j-spec full production model that weighs less than our US-spec gsr, and yet our 0-60 times are better in spite of this. Did mitsu freak out ( which they should've ) after the initial test from motor trend and do something to the car to boost power levels? Whatever they've done, I'm happy.
It's also possible that someone at C&D knows how to launch an AWD car. I've never piloted an Evo, but from what I hear it can be very tricky to launch just right.

Personally, I'd much rather believe your take on it though. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Great News for present and future X owners.

C&D almost always gets the fastest times but they are usually legit: A good example of a well driven car under ideal conditions.

4.6 ey? Looks like some weight reduction and basic bolt-ons are definately my X's future.

What did the IX do 0-60?

This reminds me of a question from the R&T web review... there was a scan that showed 164 as the gear limited top speed. But everywhere else it was listed as 155... so which is it? I hope it's the 164 lol

4.6 sec makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. :+1:

Maybe they are now but i had a frend stationed in germany and his beamer was RHD

Well trust me, the UK is the only country to drive RHD cars. Everyone else in Europe drives on the left.

Your friend either had a UK Beemer or he was lying.

Gary A

^ +1, im with you bro. Speaking of UK, not to get off topic here, but any of you guys done the tunnel? I moved away before it was completed.

Uh, looks like someone's wrong...

what am i wrong about?

I think he means one of the magazines is wrong, but I think not. They are just different results which is within the realm of variation expected with different conditions and different drivers. C&D seems to have the best car set-up, the best conditions and the best driver. It doesn't mean the other tests were wrong, but perhaps they didn't drive the car ideally. Sometimes to get the best time you need to smoke the clutch a bit on a hard drop, and maybe some of them are not willing to do that to the car, or have manufacturer's rep staring at them while they are testing the vehicles (sounded like this happened in Japan for the launch of the Evo X).

I think he means one of the magazines is wrong, but I think not. They are just different results which is within the realm of variation expected with different conditions and different drivers. C&D seems to have the best car set-up, the best conditions and the best driver. It doesn't mean the other tests were wrong, but perhaps they didn't drive the car ideally. Sometimes to get the best time you need to smoke the clutch a bit on a hard drop, and maybe some of them are not willing to do that to the car, or have manufacturer's rep staring at them while they are testing the vehicles (sounded like this happened in Japan for the launch of the Evo X).

Car & Driver also sais it has 295 HP but i thought it was 291?:wtfsign:

People apparently can't make up their minds, lol.

Car & Driver also sais it has 295 HP but i thought it was 291?:wtfsign:
295 sounds better. so ill go with that.

I think Car and Driver fucked up. I purchased this issue today and the numbers seem off. They state that the STI gets beat in the 0-60 because it requires 2 shifts ( I don't understand why the manufacturer's don't get 60 mph in by 2nd gear knowing that everyone is going to compare their vehicle with others based on 0-60...). At any rate, it seemed implied that this wasn't the case for the Evo. If you look at their table, it indicates that the Evo is capable of 8.1 mph/1000 RPM in second gear...with a red line of 7k... equals 56.7 mph. I hope they didn't determine 0-60 by observing when the speedo indicates 60 mph lmao.

lol

I think Car and Driver fucked up. I purchased this issue today and the numbers seem off. They state that the STI gets beat in the 0-60 because it requires 2 shifts ( I don't understand why the manufacturer's don't get 60 mph in by 2nd gear knowing that everyone is going to compare their vehicle with others based on 0-60...). At any rate, it seemed implied that this wasn't the case for the Evo. If you look at their table, it indicates that the Evo is capable of 8.1 mph/1000 RPM in second gear...with a red line of 7k... equals 56.7 mph. I hope they didn't determine 0-60 by observing when the speedo indicates 60 mph lmao.
I think your right the owners book says 2nd gear tops out at 55mph.

I think Car and Driver fucked up. I purchased this issue today and the numbers seem off. They state that the STI gets beat in the 0-60 because it requires 2 shifts ( I don't understand why the manufacturer's don't get 60 mph in by 2nd gear knowing that everyone is going to compare their vehicle with others based on 0-60...). At any rate, it seemed implied that this wasn't the case for the Evo. If you look at their table, it indicates that the Evo is capable of 8.1 mph/1000 RPM in second gear...with a red line of 7k... equals 56.7 mph. I hope they didn't determine 0-60 by observing when the speedo indicates 60 mph lmao.
but does it hit fuel cut @7k or do you have few hundreds more before that?

You can go a bit above 7k. I think it hits around 7400 actually.

Yea, this man speaks the truth. So you have to factor in that extra 800 rpm (400 from 1st and 400 from 2nd) and that should make up the missing 4mph.

bump for the article being online

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison_test/hatchbacks/subaru_wrx_sti_vs_mitsubishi_evo_gsr_vs_vw_r32_comparison_test