EVO X acceleration ? for previous EVO owners

[pcasso87]

Ive driven the 8-9-10. You will feel the evo x accelerates faster because it pulls so much smoother than the 8-9 for some strange reason.

[Brijen123]

Originally Posted by pcasso87

Ive driven the 8-9-10. You will feel the evo x accelerates faster because it pulls so much smoother than the 8-9 for some strange reason.

I guess I am confused with this statement because normally when a car pulls smooth apposed to frantic then it tends to feel slower. I hope what you are saying is true but its hard to imagine I guess.

[mike100]

I was so disappointed with my 2008 stock evox power delivery that I bought a 2008 C6 to make up for the punishment I was being dealt on the streets by other powerful cars- for real. I'm a lot happier after the tune though. The 4b11 cylinder head and full mivec flows so much air, that it needs a bigger turbo to make big power as the stock turbo can't hold full boost in the higher revs. The car (especially 2008's) is gay without a tune- mitsubishi is daring you ...well, more like asking you to tune it because they had to hold back for various warranty, emissions,insurance reasons.

[rancornthree]

I've driven each generation available in the States. Turbo lag has been lessened on the X so you will not get that "on/off" switch acceleration feel. I too loved that rush of the earlier models. Just figure on a tune as part of the purchase price.

[vassili]

the only other car i've owned was a 98 jetta. up to this point the fastest car i've been is a 03 impala. lol. the acceleration at highway speeds 120km/h+ was awesome! when i mashed the pedals going 120 it would pin me back as it went up to 150km/h. my MR can't do that. overtaking at high speeds is still a chore like my jetta...understandable since it's a 4 banger.

never driven a turbo'd car before, so for me the lag is noticable. when i go WOT in sport mode from a stop, the intial 2 seconds is pretty lame. but as soon as it hits 2500rpm+ it feels like an airplane taking off.

[blueberryyumyum]

+1 on just test drive one.. The X is a TOTALLY different car. Its got plenty of interior space but a lil more bulky lookin but it still packs a punch. Most of you that test drive X's are driving a stock crummy factory tune car. as soon as i got my x it was tuned by ivey and it made 308whp STOCK and it pulled like a mofo

[UT_Evo]

Originally Posted by Brijen123

I know the X has more creature conforts but is it still somewhat RAW like the previous models? Also I am understanding it has less Turbo Lag right? Did the top end suffer at?

Of course it is still somewhat raw. But instead of having a 400 mile road trip and thinking "oh my god, I'm going to be so sore, I better just rent a car" Now you just go "Time for fun in the Evo!"

I've been to Vegas and back a million times in all sorts of cars. None worse than the Evo VIII, and my favorite drive down there was just this past weekend in the STi (which compares to the Evo X in loss of some rawness [PITAness in my book], while still maintaining some)

As far as I could tell nothing with the power suffered from anything other than a severe binge eating run at McDonalds. Pulled decent, but smooth, and like Noize said, it felt to me like it didn't taper down quite as bad up to redline. Certainly has less turbo lag.

Originally Posted by Brijen123

I guess I am confused with this statement because normally when a car pulls smooth apposed to frantic then it tends to feel slower. I hope what you are saying is true but its hard to imagine I guess.

Depends on your point of view. A smooth pulling car feels faster to me, because I have a wider range of power. The Carrera was wonderful for this. As was our S2000 once it was finished, it's power curve was like a angled straight line all the way to redline. This also makes for a more enjoyable freeway drive. No having to downshift to get into where you have power, and no having to upshift to have the drive be smooth.

Originally Posted by vassili

never driven a turbo'd car before, so for me the lag is noticable. when i go WOT in sport mode from a stop, the intial 2 seconds is pretty lame. but as soon as it hits 2500rpm+ it feels like an airplane taking off.

Coming from an NA car does make it pretty noticeable, and I did feel like I noticed it a little more in the MR versus the GSR, but that could have been based on many different factors. I drove the MR in Palm Springs, CA and the GSR here in Salt Lake... And the GSR was broken in.

[raytrix]

Originally Posted by vassili

the only other car i've owned was a 98 jetta. up to this point the fastest car i've been is a 03 impala. lol. the acceleration at highway speeds 120km/h+ was awesome! when i mashed the pedals going 120 it would pin me back as it went up to 150km/h. my MR can't do that. overtaking at high speeds is still a chore like my jetta...understandable since it's a 4 banger.

never driven a turbo'd car before, so for me the lag is noticable. when i go WOT in sport mode from a stop, the intial 2 seconds is pretty lame. but as soon as it hits 2500rpm+ it feels like an airplane taking off.

There's your problem, you brought a MR, should of went with a GSR because once you mod it to 400+ hp you will kill anything on the road.

[vassili]

Originally Posted by UT_Evo

Coming from an NA car does make it pretty noticeable, and I did feel like I noticed it a little more in the MR versus the GSR, but that could have been based on many different factors. I drove the MR in Palm Springs, CA and the GSR here in Salt Lake... And the GSR was broken in.

nature of the beast i guess. a 2005 Matrix pulls harder than the MR for the first 2sec under 2500rpm. i had a long drive in a matrix last weekend and from a dead stop if i punch it, i get immediately thrown to the back of the seat

[atombomb33]

The IX would trap usually in the 105-108mph range in the 1/4. The X can trap in the 100-103mph range. Those few mph are a noticeable difference. My X feels decidedly slower than my IX. With a tune, the X comes up the performance level of a stock IX. So, for only a few hundred dollars you'll be right there (plus the X will run better and get better gas mileage; I'm sure you've read how the stock tune is crap).

Any other comparisons about amenities, handling, etc, have been discussed at length. Actually, the comparison of acceleration has also been discussed at length.

Stock for stock, the IX is faster.

[midwestX]

^ this should end the discussion. I own an X and drive back and forth my buddy's IX MR, the car feels slightly faster and steering wheel is really pointed. IX is a little gokart

[Xtremist]

If you're worried about the added weight, I do believe there was a thread on how to drop 70 pounds in 7 minutes! You can get this car around the weight of the 9 if you takes some of the belongings out. I for one would rather mod the vehicle and keep the extra creature comforts. I've yet to mod my car and never will, to me this car is more than enough, anything faster "in my mind" is pure suicide! The car does drop off around 5,500 rpms more noticeable when hammering on it, I've yet to really feel a dramatic drop off when gradually accelerating close to or past red line.

[ikt]

why would you keep either stock? At least tune the X, Mits made it easy, and im sure it wasn't an accident. The very first mod i did was a Cobb AP, and even with just the stage 1 flash, the difference was night and day.

[tipoytm]

I believe a stock X dropping off around 5500RPM is due to the crap factory tune. Take a look at the boost tables on the attached image (Passive Solenoid). On the right side is from the factory tune, on the left side is from a tuned X... note the % value of the cells from the RPM range. A tuned X is night/day versus one running on the factory tune.

Once, a stock X is tuned properly, it should pull strong as the turbo spools all the way to redline.

[Noize]

Originally Posted by atombomb33

The IX would trap usually in the 105-108mph range in the 1/4. The X can trap in the 100-103mph range. Those few mph are a noticeable difference. My X feels decidedly slower than my IX. With a tune, the X comes up the performance level of a stock IX. So, for only a few hundred dollars you'll be right there (plus the X will run better and get better gas mileage; I'm sure you've read how the stock tune is crap).

Any other comparisons about amenities, handling, etc, have been discussed at length. Actually, the comparison of acceleration has also been discussed at length.

Stock for stock, the IX is faster.

Sorry my Southeast brother, but I'm calling shenanigans on that. The power:weight says the IX should have a 2-3mph advantage, and you already sorta stated that in your post.

But Evo IX trapping 108mph stock? Dude! That's an extreme exception, not a norm. Maybe at a track that is at sea level, running downwind, downhill, 28 degrees outside... Oh yeah, and with a hidden boost controller.

I have a lotsa time with IXs on a Dyno Dynamics, and they need right at 270whp on that stingy machine to do 108mph. Highest stocker I ever saw was 235whp, which fits in pretty good with Car&Driver's 13.4@104.

I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but you need a ringer IX and weather assistance.

PS: Tuned only, my last X had a 55whp advantage over a stock IX. It would whip a stock IX.