Mitsubishi Lancer Evo 10: 0-96km in 5.0 seconds, 1/4 mile 13.8 seconds - Page 2

Steffo · 24-09-2007, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3

We all know that what Steffo says must be true.

He also believes that his renault can defeat a WRX.

I know I can beat a WRX. I've done it enough times to know. :P

Why do I think that Mitchay? Its a Lancer. A cheap, Japanese economy car from an ailing company. Zero faith. Plus all the previous examples have been flimsy tin-cans, so they've got the track record.

XR8-260 · 24-09-2007, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

I know I can beat a WRX. I've done it enough times to know. :P

Well done then. I assume it was done at the track? What were the times and mph?

Steffo · 24-09-2007, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3

Well done then. I assume it was done at the track? What were the times and mph?

You know from that other thread where we talked about this, the P-Plate legal car thing, that I haven't taken the RSC to the strip yet.

:

**ebxr8240** · 24-09-2007, 08:11 PM

Driving these type cars every di(khead wants to race you...
There's heaps out there that think they have an Urban Grey 07 WRX also...

Tech Trainer · 24-09-2007, 08:16 PM

All I can say is that there are some seriously misinformed people writting about things they will never understand here.

As for the CJ Lancer and the EVO X. The Ford Focus does not even think of being in the same league.

Bent8 · 24-09-2007, 10:24 PM

Quote:

I'm sure it will go faster than 13.8 (as the 5.0 sprint to 100 indicates)

No necessarily, these cars are very fast off the mark but once you get up around 140+ they run out of juice, which is why the quarter mile is so crappy...plus these cars are geared very short which means you loose time in the gear changes.

Plus the noise they make is not exactly music to my ears and they drink fuel like crazy, I remember reading in a Motor mag where they compared the STi and EVO9 and they both averaged 20L/100km!!!..no thanks, my V8 does everything better than that grown up go-kart and has a killer sound track to boot

:

marcosambrose · 24-09-2007, 10:36 PM

all you guys bagging the 400m time, get over it...

next time your overweight sedan loses the rear end and you wrap yourself around a pole i bet you wish you had active yaw diff and the esp that the evo 10 has.

straight line speed means zip if you cant turn the corner at the end of it.

ED Classic · 24-09-2007, 11:20 PM

Yeah... All the FPVs cant take corners and get rapt around poles which is why their insurance is so much dearer than an EVO :togo:

schnoods · 25-09-2007, 12:18 AM

For that sort of money I'd be looking elsewhere. First i'd need a spatula to get in and out, plus every 2nd lancer has a wannabe kit thinking they're in your league. And to top it off you could buy the base model version for just about a third of the price, but you dont get 3 times the car.

Mind you they will shift a few units as the new WRX looks like a Overweight Corrolla with a bonnet scoop.

merlin · 25-09-2007, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

I know I can beat a WRX. I've done it enough times to know. :P

Why do I think that Mitchay? Its a Lancer. A cheap, Japanese economy car from an ailing company. Zero faith. Plus all the previous examples have been flimsy tin-cans, so they've got the track record.

You do know the new Lancer scored a 5 star safety rating right, has AWD ect.? What does a Falcon score? What does your Renault score? You guys are sprouting absolute BS.

And your Renault is no match for a WRX. More BS. Turbo AWD > non turbo FWD.

Have you guys ever seen the lap times from a stock EVO? Its all good and well to say my bla bla bla will do 13.8, try going around a corner and seeing which way the EVo went. Damn I'm not even an EVO fanboi, but some of the statements in this thread are a load of crap.

Steffo · 25-09-2007, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merlin

You do know the new Lancer scored a 5 star safety rating right, has AWD ect.? What does a Falcon score? What does your Renault score? You guys are sprouting absolute BS.

And your Renault is no match for a WRX. More BS. Turbo AWD > non turbo FWD.

My Renault, which is a Clio II, a 1998 debut model, scores 4.5/5. The new Clio III (2005 European debut) scores 5/5. Renault has more models that score 5/5 in NCAP then any other manufacturer in the world.

Also the Clio has equal power/weight with any 94-02 WRX... oops.

Oh, and AWD doesn't make the car safer.

Oh... one more thing, if you're so confident in Turbo AWD being faster then N/A FWD in a straight line, make sure you never take on an Alfa 147 GTA in your WRX or you might be... disappointed.

MAGPIE · 25-09-2007, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merlin

some of the statements in this thread are a load of crap.

This is the most intelligent statement in this entire thread....

Where is that ignore button

Clio V WRX

fou_bleu · 25-09-2007, 08:31 AM

Well if the Ralliart is anything to go by, the Evo X might have left the super performance to the Ralliart! (if that even makes sense!)

Redrum · 25-09-2007, 08:32 AM

Had the pleasure to drive an Evo 9 in the wet. They stick and turn like no tomorrow!! But on the straight my modded T left it for dead. Hopefully the interior is better than the 9.

Ralliart · 25-09-2007, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fordman6

Well if the Ralliart is anything to go by, the Evo X might have left the super performance to the Ralliart! (if that even makes sense!)

the ralliart version looks better

:

OED666 · 25-09-2007, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soulfire

Yours did a 13.8 stock with a 10 year engine and drivetrain warranty and euro IV compliance did it?

apart from a cam, the motor is standard!!!

exhaust and shorter diff gears. WOW!!! lots of money spent there. let me spend the money the evo costs, and then we will see who gets sorted quite easily!!!

MITCHAY · 25-09-2007, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merlin

Damn I'm not even an EVO fanboi, but some of the statements in this thread are a load of crap.

X2

:

merlin · 25-09-2007, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

Also the Clio has equal power/weight with any 94-02 WRX... oops.

Oh, and AWD doesn't make the car safer.

Oh... one more thing, if you're so confident in Turbo AWD being faster then N/A FWD in a straight line, make sure you never take on an Alfa 147 GTA in your WRX or you might be... disappointed.

Seriously you have to be trolling? - you don't honestly believe anything you just said do you?

Alfa bum draggin GTA's run what high 14 second quarters with FWD wheelspin and torque steer prominent no doubt? You do realise a stock WRX will run a mid 14 (and costs no where near an Alfa GTA)...I have exhaust only and have run a high 13 with a conservative launch. All the BS stops at the track, I suggest you bring the cute as a button little Clio down (does it come with a flower on the dash like the Beetle? Might have to jettison that to save weight) for some fun.

Conradk86 · 25-09-2007, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OED666

apart from a cam, the motor is standard!!!

exhaust and shorter diff gears. WOW!!! lots of money spent there. let me spend the money the evo costs, and then we will see who gets sorted quite easily!!!

Soulfire was SHUT DOWN. im sure the ed is a fatter car as well.

Steffo · 25-09-2007, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merlin

Seriously you have to be trolling? - you don't honestly believe anything you just said do you?

Alfa bum draggin GTA's run what high 14 second quarters with FWD wheelspin and torque steer prominent no doubt? You do realise a stock WRX will run a mid 14 (and costs no where near an Alfa GTA)...I have exhaust only and have run a high 13 with a conservative launch. All the BS stops at the track, I suggest you bring the cute as a button little Clio down (does it come with a flower on the dash like the Beetle? Might have to jettison that to save weight) for some fun.

What are you angry at and worked up over for no reason?

:

Try low 14's for the 147 GTA. With a really good driver, high 13's.

Rather then make fun of my car (whilst I have said nothing bad about yours), perhaps you should open your eyes and take a look at some figures. My car is 1035kg. Its over 200kg lighter then the lightest stock WRX. It has the same power/weight as the old-shape WRX's do, and better then the early bug-eye does. Or was the 168kW powerup post-facelift to the square lights? Who wins will come down to whoever gets the jump, gets off the line better. Being AWD is the advantage the WRX has there, and that's about it. I've done it enough times to know I can beat them. A post-03 (powerup, then the facelifts) is definitley faster then me. Oh and I will be taking the RSC to the strip soon (have to make some free time). If you like, when I take it I'll let you know.

soulfire · 25-09-2007, 10:34 AM

Steffo, the fastest 2.0 straightline WRX is a 99, so if you can't beat an 03 I don't like your chances of beating a 99. The only argument you have is that the WRX needs a decent RPM launch to get the most out of it's peaky boxer engine, and it won't take many big launches to break the flimsy gearbox.
OED666 that's a fair statement, but my point comes to stock v modified again, and I mean it's a boxcar at the end of the day, so who'd want one :p.
The evo has never been about straight line performance, if you want that wait till the UK FQ version comes out, the EVOIX FQ400 does 0-100 in 3.7, so that ain't half bad - so I'd expect better than that for the Ralliart. Mitsubishi Japan has always had the Evo GSR and MR - Supposedly the cruiser and track performer... Apparently we've always gotten the cruiser version, not that you can tell from the rubbish interior lol.
It'll come down to track times to see if this is the ultimate evo.

MITCHAY · 25-09-2007, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merlin

Seriously you have to be trolling? - you don't honestly believe anything you just said do you?

Alfa bum draggin GTA's run what high 14 second quarters with FWD wheelspin and torque steer prominent no doubt? You do realise a stock WRX will run a mid 14 (and costs no where near an Alfa GTA)...I have exhaust only and have run a high 13 with a conservative launch. All the BS stops at the track, I suggest you bring the cute as a button little Clio down (does it come with a flower on the dash like the Beetle? Might have to jettison that to save weight) for some fun.

People have done high 13s with stock MY03s so more in it there.

Personally I don't care about 1/4 mile times and I dare say most people who buy an EVO don't either. There are some who do both circuit and drag but you will find it's mostly about lap times.

People aren't blind idiots and will say that if you are chasing real fast 1/4 and not looking to spend heaps you're better off with a V8 or 6T. They are not designed for straight line speed. Never have been and never will be.

Having said that there are a few special models that haven't been seen here such as the FQ300, FQ320, FQ340, FQ360 and FQ400 with the number meaning the horsepower figure. The FQ400 does 0-60mph in under 4s

EDIT: Just saw previous post

:

Steffo · 25-09-2007, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soulfire

Steffo, the fastest 2.0 straightline WRX is a 99, so if you can't beat an 03 I don't like your chances of beating a 99. The only argument you have is that the WRX needs a decent RPM launch to get the most out of it's peaky boxer engine, and it won't take many big launches to break the flimsy gearbox.

The facelift after bug-eye (03+) are faster then the 99.

You're not wrong about the gearbox/launch thing. Alot of owners either don't know how to drive them well and/or are too scared. Then there's the age thing....

MAGPIE · 25-09-2007, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

The facelift after bug-eye (03+) are faster then the 99.

You're not wrong about the gearbox/launch thing. Alot of owners either don't know how to drive them well and/or are too scared. Then there's the age thing....

Most owners have real world experience too.... something you cant get from quoting magazine stats or google searches

_

Keep dreaming about your WRX killing Clio and one day you might actually believe it

Steffo · 25-09-2007, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Most owners have real world experience too.... something you cant get from quoting magazine stats or google searches

_

Keep dreaming about your WRX killing Clio and one day you might actually believe it

Oh yeah, and I don't have real world experience with my own car? Good one. :togo:

I won't even bother with what's wrong with your other sentance and why it's the opposite of intelligent.

:

soulfire · 25-09-2007, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

The facelift after bug-eye (03+) are faster then the 99.

You're not wrong about the gearbox/launch thing. Alot of owners either don't know how to drive them well and/or are too scared. Then there's the age thing....

Ah fair enough, I thought the 99 was still quicker, ah well.
Either way, my mate broke his gearbox from too much dragging in his wrx. then he replaced it with a 02 gearbox, and broke that too :p.

MAGPIE · 25-09-2007, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

Oh yeah, and I don't have real world experience with my own car? Good one. :togo:

You don't say

I'm wondering how much experience you have driving a WRX....

But you already knew that, you just choose not mention it.

Steffo · 25-09-2007, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

You don't say

I'm wondering how much experience you have driving a WRX....

I've never broken the gearbox in one if that's what you mean. Been in two seperate 02 STi's, one stock, one with basic bolt ons... a standard 99, bolt-ons 96 and standard 94.

MAGPIE · 25-09-2007, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

I've never broken the gearbox in one if that's what you mean. Been in two seperate 02 STi's, one stock, one with basic bolt ons... a standard 99, bolt-ons 96 and standard 94.

Does been in two mean

a/ Been passenger whilst someone else actually drives it

b/ Driven it round the block with owner riding shotgun

c/ Actually driven for some time/distance over varying road/speed/weather conditions to be able to actually form a real opinion

merlin · 25-09-2007, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

What are you angry at and worked up over for no reason?

:

Try low 14's for the 147 GTA. With a really good driver, high 13's.

Rather then make fun of my car (whilst I have said nothing bad about yours), perhaps you should open your eyes and take a look at some figures. My car is 1035kg. Its over 200kg lighter then the lightest stock WRX. It has the same power/weight as the old-shape WRX's do, and better then the early bug-eye does. Or was the 168kW powerup post-facelift to the square lights? Who wins will come down to whoever gets the jump, gets off the line better. Being AWD is the advantage the WRX has there, and that's about it. I've done it enough times to know I can beat them. A post-03 (powerup, then the facelifts) is definitley faster then me. Oh and I will be taking the RSC to the strip soon (have to make some free time). If you like, when I take it I'll let you know.

Steffo, I'm not angry, I just hate innaccuracies sprouted as truth, and there is plenty in this thread. I agree the flower remark was below the belt, but when you say you cant beat 03 Rexes and up it doesn't make sense to me as the classic shapes pre 99 are actually lighter and damn fast. (The 01 and 02 bugeyes are the "slow" models). Power to weight ration is not the be all and end all - gearing and how you get off the line plays a pretty big part (i.e. hence me harping on about the AWD vs FWD launch).

WRX gearbox is not the explosive device many think it basically comes down to driver skill (or lack there of). If you cant drive and do big launches they will break. If you know how to slip a clutch and do a proper big AWD launch they will keep going and going.

But in the end the WRX, EVO, Clio ect are not really staight line cars, as Mitchay said they are circuit cars or twisty cars so I dont really know why we are having this argument...