theautolounge.net
January 17, 2018, 04:28:36 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: SMF - Just Installed!
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
Author Topic: R.I.P. Mitsubishi Lancer Evo  (Read 10175 times)
MP3
Administrator
Grand Master
*****
Posts: 1713

Bater


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: April 07, 2011, 01:07:47 AM »

Why are you going after NASCAR?





Ok, saying it's stripped out was a bit much. I agree. But my point is that these cars aren't meant for practicality. The Evo isn't built to be practical. It's built to be a 4 door sports compact.

Same goes for the STI Hatch. Just because the rear seats go down to give more cargo room, does necessarily mean that it's practical.

The seats do NOT lay flat. That takes away cargo room that you need and it also means anything you set on them will slide backwards if not secured. I have seen this happen with a birthday cake and a dozen Krispy Kreme glazed donuts. I don't get what they did with the STI Hatch to make it different than the regular hatch, because in the regular hatch, the seats lie perfectly flat.

Everyone knows youre supposed to put that stuff on the front seat Grin

And the incline is to make room for the suspension and differential bits.

Quote
There are other 4 doors on the market that are more practical. Not to sound biased, but there's always the Cobalt SS Turbo Sedan. Basically the same performance as an Evo/STI for a quarter of the price and you're not eating your knees while sitting in the rear seats. The trunks are deceptively huge, also.

Cobalt? again?



A quarter of the price? When was the last time someone payed $100,000 for an Evo or STi?

You dont even have to say "not to sound biased," it oozes from your keyboard.


Quote
Both the STI and Evo X look like their base model counterparts other than the obvious larger wing and wider stance. The RalliArt Lancer is about as close as you can get to the Evo in the looks department.

Logged

FabZ
Grand Master
******
Posts: 1096


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: April 07, 2011, 02:41:11 AM »

to rebuttle the cobalt comment elmo, in order to to achieve maximum power to the ground in the turbo, it needs a harness bar, undercarriage beams, powell stg 2 rotated mounts.. after the harness bar is installed, i'd hate to be in the rear lol.

and pat:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxYeEJ7CDH8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxYeEJ7CDH8</a>

some are fun.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOO9iAXmiNg" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOO9iAXmiNg</a>
« Last Edit: April 07, 2011, 10:40:11 AM by The FabZ » Logged

Hey, I just passed you; and this is crazy. But, I'm in fourth gear, Vtec baby...
Elmo187
Newbie
*
Posts: 12



View Profile
« Reply #32 on: April 07, 2011, 10:18:10 AM »


Everyone knows youre supposed to put that stuff on the front seat Grin

Well that's kind of hard when the cake was 3ft. long.

Quote
Cobalt? again?



A quarter of the price? When was the last time someone payed $100,000 for an Evo or STi?

You dont even have to say "not to sound biased," it oozes from your keyboard.

Show me another US sold sport compact that is under $30k that has the same performance as the Evo/STI. The MS3 is a torquesteering monster that has been ridiculed for its horrible handling.

[/quote]
Logged

When asked why they shot the suspect 68 times, Sheriff Grady Judd responded with "That's all the bullets we had."
MP3
Administrator
Grand Master
*****
Posts: 1713

Bater


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: April 10, 2011, 09:13:10 PM »

Well that's kind of hard when the cake was 3ft. long.

Show me another US sold sport compact that is under $30k that has the same performance as the Evo/STI. The MS3 is a torquesteering monster that has been ridiculed for its horrible handling.



I cant because there isnt one. That includes the cobalt.

SCCA car classifications for touring class (essentially stock except for roll cages):
T1: corvettes, vipers, M3's ect
T2: Sti, Evo, mustang, ect
T3: Cobalt SS/TC and SS/SC, v6 mustang, wrx, 325i ect


So, if were talking about performance potential here, and that the cobalt turbo is the same as the STi and Evo, it should be in the same class.... but it isnt. oh its in a slower class so it should then simply DOMINATE the T3 class.... but it isnt. It's won, regionally, but its not dominating.

THE COBALT SS/TC IS NOT IN THE SAME PERFORMANCE BRACKET AS THE STi OR EVO.
Logged

MP3
Administrator
Grand Master
*****
Posts: 1713

Bater


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: April 10, 2011, 09:15:30 PM »

In addition to the above post, I'm going to do what I can to get an STi hatch and put it in an un-biased head to head comparo with a 4door SS/TC.

Take them to the track, take them on a picknick, take them to the city, take them to a mexican resturant, take them to mcdonalds, take them to a college dorm, take them to a corn field, take them skeeting ect.
Logged

Elmo187
Newbie
*
Posts: 12



View Profile
« Reply #35 on: April 11, 2011, 07:23:51 PM »

I cant because there isnt one. That includes the cobalt.

SCCA car classifications for touring class (essentially stock except for roll cages):
T1: corvettes, vipers, M3's ect
T2: Sti, Evo, mustang, ect
T3: Cobalt SS/TC and SS/SC, v6 mustang, wrx, 325i ect


So, if were talking about performance potential here, and that the cobalt turbo is the same as the STi and Evo, it should be in the same class.... but it isnt. oh its in a slower class so it should then simply DOMINATE the T3 class.... but it isnt. It's won, regionally, but its not dominating.

THE COBALT SS/TC IS NOT IN THE SAME PERFORMANCE BRACKET AS THE STi OR EVO.

Go from 57th all the way to 63rd...
http://www.fastestlaps.com/tracks/virginia_international_raceway.html

Only a few tenths separates the 3 cars. 0-60 is a whole nother issue, though. The Cobalt does 5.4 while both the STI and Evo does high 3s.
Logged

When asked why they shot the suspect 68 times, Sheriff Grady Judd responded with "That's all the bullets we had."
MP3
Administrator
Grand Master
*****
Posts: 1713

Bater


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: April 11, 2011, 11:26:05 PM »

Go from 57th all the way to 63rd...
http://www.fastestlaps.com/tracks/virginia_international_raceway.html

Only a few tenths separates the 3 cars. 0-60 is a whole nother issue, though. The Cobalt does 5.4 while both the STI and Evo does high 3s.

Are you blind to the disparities of that chart?


and a ford mustang V6 is 4 seconds a lap quicker than a Lotus elise SC? And also somehow quicker too than a mustang GT?

Also notice how a 2007 Lexus IS F is on there 2 times? with a NINE SECOND difference between lap times (3:14/3:05.40) both set by car and driver?  Wet time? I dunno.

Also, BMWs

135i vs 335i. 335i is 3 seconds quicker. Kinda odd being based on the same platform, same engine ect, but maybe that extra 120 kilograms helped it go faster? Maybe if I was high.

I know from being in this industry that manufacturers will give you a hyped up version of a car to give you a better impression. I was warned of this when I started writing stuff about cars.

Again, on paper, and from experience, with racing (not ham fisted journalists) I am not seeing where it is a match. Its not slow, I'm not saying that it is, I just can not put it with the others. It's one rung below. 

Also, SCCA keeps track of performance of cars in specific classes and makes changes yearly, or on a per-event basis if there is some earth shattering flub. Cobalt has always been in T3. STi, Evo always in T2. If the balt was faster, it would either have penalty weight on it (it doesnt) or moved to T2. But here it still sits in T3. I wonder if that has anyhting to do from the performance of the car... On a track. Which is the basis of this discussion. Show all the magazine articles (prob timed by a guy named ed with a stopwatch) that you want. I'm telling you about real racing sanction rules (based entirely on car performance).

Am I or the SCCA wrong on this?

 


Logged

Elmo187
Newbie
*
Posts: 12



View Profile
« Reply #37 on: April 12, 2011, 10:35:52 AM »

Are you blind to the disparities of that chart?


and a ford mustang V6 is 4 seconds a lap quicker than a Lotus elise SC? And also somehow quicker too than a mustang GT?

Also notice how a 2007 Lexus IS F is on there 2 times? with a NINE SECOND difference between lap times (3:14/3:05.40) both set by car and driver?  Wet time? I dunno.

Also, BMWs

135i vs 335i. 335i is 3 seconds quicker. Kinda odd being based on the same platform, same engine ect, but maybe that extra 120 kilograms helped it go faster? Maybe if I was high.

I know from being in this industry that manufacturers will give you a hyped up version of a car to give you a better impression. I was warned of this when I started writing stuff about cars.

Again, on paper, and from experience, with racing (not ham fisted journalists) I am not seeing where it is a match. Its not slow, I'm not saying that it is, I just can not put it with the others. It's one rung below. 

Also, SCCA keeps track of performance of cars in specific classes and makes changes yearly, or on a per-event basis if there is some earth shattering flub. Cobalt has always been in T3. STi, Evo always in T2. If the balt was faster, it would either have penalty weight on it (it doesnt) or moved to T2. But here it still sits in T3. I wonder if that has anyhting to do from the performance of the car... On a track. Which is the basis of this discussion. Show all the magazine articles (prob timed by a guy named ed with a stopwatch) that you want. I'm telling you about real racing sanction rules (based entirely on car performance).

Am I or the SCCA wrong on this?

 




Those times were set by Car and Driver on the Hot Lap Challenge. The reason the IS-F is on there twice is because it was a previous time to the Hot Lap Challenge with a much slower driver.

The 2011 Ford Mustang V6 posted a time better than a Mustang GT because the Mustang GT was a 2010 model with the 315hp 4.6L V8. Notice how the Mustang GT is also on there twice with the '11 being 5 seconds quicker than the V6 and 6 seconds quicker than the '10 GT.

This is just a list of times from quickest to slowest. It doesn't matter if one certain car has both posted a slow and quicker time, it will be posted on that list. That is the way Fastest Laps has always worked.

Why do you keep bringing up SCCA classes? Real world performance and sanctioned racing have nothing to do with each other when you're talking about weight penalties and the like. Why are you even basing your knowledge on what a sanctioning body thinks what car should go into which segment?
Logged

When asked why they shot the suspect 68 times, Sheriff Grady Judd responded with "That's all the bullets we had."
MP3
Administrator
Grand Master
*****
Posts: 1713

Bater


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: April 12, 2011, 10:30:01 PM »

Those times were set by Car and Driver on the Hot Lap Challenge. The reason the IS-F is on there twice is because it was a previous time to the Hot Lap Challenge with a much slower driver.

The 2011 Ford Mustang V6 posted a time better than a Mustang GT because the Mustang GT was a 2010 model with the 315hp 4.6L V8. Notice how the Mustang GT is also on there twice with the '11 being 5 seconds quicker than the V6 and 6 seconds quicker than the '10 GT.

This is just a list of times from quickest to slowest. It doesn't matter if one certain car has both posted a slow and quicker time, it will be posted on that list. That is the way Fastest Laps has always worked.

Why do you keep bringing up SCCA classes? Real world performance and sanctioned racing have nothing to do with each other when you're talking about weight penalties and the like. Why are you even basing your knowledge on what a sanctioning body thinks what car should go into which segment?

lmao
Logged

MP3
Administrator
Grand Master
*****
Posts: 1713

Bater


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: April 12, 2011, 10:51:49 PM »

Why do you keep bringing up SCCA classes?


Why?  

Because SCCA classes are relevant. Allow me to explain to you so that you wont listen to me.   Grin

Quote
Real world performance and sanctioned racing have nothing to do with each other

Yes they do ya fuckin flip-flop, because we're talking about lap times!!!    You even said so with your JGTC references way back in this thread.

SuperGT GT500 cars are production-based cars. They aren't usually powered by the production counterpart's engine and isn't AWD. But everything else is production-based, hence why there was so much controversy when Honda returned with the non-production-based HSV-010 since it was never to go into production.

^^^ But that's not really near the kind of racing I am talking about. Touring class in SCCA, let me tell you about it.

It has the Subaru STi and the Mitsu Evo in T2, the middle class of the three classes in the touring category. In the lower rung of T3, we find the Cobalt.

Heres why I bring it up and here IS how real world performance and sanctioned racing are VERY relevant to each other.

Quote from: SCCA General Competition rules, page 653

9.1.10. Touring Category

A.   Purpose
Touring Category Classes are intended to provide the Membership with the opportunity to compete in commonly-available, recently-produced automobiles in as near the legal, street-driven form of those automobiles as is practically and safely possible under racing circumstances.

See the relevance? If you don't, well you're a loser.

 
Quote
when you're talking about weight penalties and the like.

I cited this from an incorrect class. Error of mine. Cars are left stock. Cobalt left slow/in the competition's dust.

Quote
Why are you even basing your knowledge on what a sanctioning body thinks what car should go into which segment?

Because frankly Mr. Nunn, THEY KNOW MORE ABOUT A CAR'S ON-TRACK PERFORMANCE THAN YOU DO.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2011, 10:53:28 PM by MP3 » Logged

irish evo6's
Master
*****
Posts: 680



View Profile
« Reply #40 on: April 13, 2011, 12:19:18 AM »

Paddy stop making it personal with insults. You can make your point just as well without them.
Logged



"when the world says 'give up', hope whispers 'try one more time'"
Elmo187
Newbie
*
Posts: 12



View Profile
« Reply #41 on: April 13, 2011, 12:02:23 PM »



Why? 

Because SCCA classes are relevant. Allow me to explain to you so that you wont listen to me.   Grin

Yes they do ya fuckin flip-flop, because we're talking about lap times!!!    You even said so with your JGTC references way back in this thread.

^^^ But that's not really near the kind of racing I am talking about. Touring class in SCCA, let me tell you about it.

It has the Subaru STi and the Mitsu Evo in T2, the middle class of the three classes in the touring category. In the lower rung of T3, we find the Cobalt.

Heres why I bring it up and here IS how real world performance and sanctioned racing are VERY relevant to each other.

See the relevance? If you don't, well you're a loser.

 
I cited this from an incorrect class. Error of mine. Cars are left stock. Cobalt left slow/in the competition's dust.

Because frankly Mr. Nunn, THEY KNOW MORE ABOUT A CAR'S ON-TRACK PERFORMANCE THAN YOU DO.

So you brought up all that because I referenced SuperGT? You MIGHT want to read why I brought it up. I brought up SuperGT because Tyler said the Skyline GT-R was banned from racing, when it was not. It was racing in the SuperGT a few years after the R34's demise.

Anyway...

We are talking about how close in performance one car is to another, and the Cobalt SS Turbo is just that. It is within a few tenths of the Evo X and STI Sedan on the track. Leave the SCCA out of it. People are comparing the '11 Mustang GT to the E92 M3, but are they in the same segment? No. Where does the SCCA put them? Who fucking cares? Not me or any of the people buying them. Yeah, like I'm going to hear someone ask "What class does SCCA put this car in?" while looking to purchase a performance car.
Logged

When asked why they shot the suspect 68 times, Sheriff Grady Judd responded with "That's all the bullets we had."
kosai03
Master
*****
Posts: 534


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: April 13, 2011, 06:31:14 PM »

I would say that the lower racing classes aren't a bad way to line up cars considering the whole point is to have somewhat affordable groups for various levels of racers (or people who think they can race at that level anyway). Keeping modifications to a minimum (outside of what is needed for safety or to better align the vehicles allowed in the class) helps keep it cheap while still allowing variety (spec series may be the most fair in terms of vehicle but not necessarily the most fair for the drivers).
Logged
FabZ
Grand Master
******
Posts: 1096


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: April 13, 2011, 10:24:47 PM »

So in summary:

The Evo is dead
The STi is not.

Facts don't lie

/thread.
Logged

Hey, I just passed you; and this is crazy. But, I'm in fourth gear, Vtec baby...
MP3
Administrator
Grand Master
*****
Posts: 1713

Bater


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: April 14, 2011, 07:59:33 AM »

So in summary:

The Evo is dead
The STi is not.

Facts don't lie

/thread.


but but but

cobalt cobalt cobalt!!!!
Logged

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC
SimplePortal 2.2 © 2008-2009
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!