Evo
09-04-2003, 02:27 PM
#26
Senior Geek
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 1,005
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by revhappy
On most tracks, the EVO will take the S2000. I'm sure there are some Best Motoring videos with that comparison? Skyline Maniac??
The EVO and STI were compared on the Streets of Willow Springs by Car and Driver and Sport Compact Car (I think it was on this track?) and the EVO won C&D while the STI won on SCC's track test. I beleive the EVO won at the track in most of the other magazines by a close margin.
On most tracks, the EVO will take the S2000. I'm sure there are some Best Motoring videos with that comparison? Skyline Maniac??
The EVO and STI were compared on the Streets of Willow Springs by Car and Driver and Sport Compact Car (I think it was on this track?) and the EVO won C&D while the STI won on SCC's track test. I beleive the EVO won at the track in most of the other magazines by a close margin.
09-04-2003, 02:32 PM
#27
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by RX8-TX
I have to ask, Im totally ignorant about turbo(s):
1. Why does it need to cool down?
2. I know a turbo will compress air, and inject it along with the fuel...(stupidest of my questions!) what part does engine oil play with the turbo equipment.
3. I guess I can understand #3
Please have patience with me....
I have to ask, Im totally ignorant about turbo(s):
1. Why does it need to cool down?
2. I know a turbo will compress air, and inject it along with the fuel...(stupidest of my questions!) what part does engine oil play with the turbo equipment.
3. I guess I can understand #3
Please have patience with me....
My understanding of the cool down procedure for an oil cooled turbo is that hot oil in the turbo breaks down and leaves deposits in the oil supply tubes, which can eventually lead to the turbo not being able to get oil in the future, reducing performance and eventually destroying it.
I'm new to turbo-charged cars, so if anyone can correct me or elaborate, then please do.
09-04-2003, 11:47 PM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by RX8-TX
I have to ask, Im totally ignorant about turbo(s):
1. Why does it need to cool down?
2. I know a turbo will compress air, and inject it along with the fuel...(stupidest of my questions!) what part does engine oil play with the turbo equipment.
3. I guess I can understand #3
Please have patience with me....
I have to ask, Im totally ignorant about turbo(s):
1. Why does it need to cool down?
2. I know a turbo will compress air, and inject it along with the fuel...(stupidest of my questions!) what part does engine oil play with the turbo equipment.
3. I guess I can understand #3
Please have patience with me....
Also, since the turbo's impeller spins at a very high rate of speed (~100,000 rpms) it's important that the oil be very clean. Any debis can cause damage to the turbo. Thus it's very important to change oil regularly.
09-05-2003, 08:46 AM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a post that I found at www.s2ki.com I thought you might like to see. It shows how a lightly modded EVO VIII (FQ300 = F**king Quick 300 hp) stacks up to other cars on the track. Too bad no S2000:
I've been in the UK for the past couple of weeks on business. I picked up Autocar's annual Best Handling Car issue, and had a great read. 32 cars were driven on the 1.7-mile infield circuit of Rockingham Motor Speedway. The driver lineup included a current F1 driver (Jaguar's Justin Wilson), a F1 test driver (BAR's Takuma Sato), the vehicle dynamics manager from Lotus (Martin Anderson), and two British Touring Car Championship drivers (Michael Bentwood and Phil Bennett).
There's execellent analysis and commentary throughout the article. Buy it if you can find it.
Anyway, here are the lap times:
Skoda Fabia RS 1:33.8
Ford Sport Ka 1:33.2
Vauxhall Astra GSi 1:32.0
Volvo S60R 1:30.5
Honda Accord 2.4 Type S 1:30.0
Peugeot 206 GTi 180 1:29.8
Jaguar XJR 1:29.0
Mazda RX8 1:29.0
Mazda MX5 1:28.9
Renault Clio V6 1:28.5
Mini Cooper S Works 1:28.5
Mercedes E55 1:27.3
Porsche Boxster 1:26.4
BMW Z4 1:25.7
Audi S4 1:25.2
Ford Focus RS 1:24.9
Alfa 147 GTA 1:24.8
Mitsubishi Evo VIII FQ300 1:23.4
Subaru Impreza Type C 1:22.8
Pagani Zonda 1:22.7
Lamborghini Murcielago 1:22.2
Radical SR3 LM 1:21.8
Westfield XTR2 1:21.8
Vauxhall VX220T Sprint 1:21.5
Lotus Elise 135R 1:21.0
Caterham R400 1:21.0
Noble M12R 1:20.6
Porsche 911 GT3 1:20.2
Gardener Douglas GDT70 1:19.5
TVR 350c 1:19.4
Ariel Atom 1:17.6
JP1 1:14.2
I've been in the UK for the past couple of weeks on business. I picked up Autocar's annual Best Handling Car issue, and had a great read. 32 cars were driven on the 1.7-mile infield circuit of Rockingham Motor Speedway. The driver lineup included a current F1 driver (Jaguar's Justin Wilson), a F1 test driver (BAR's Takuma Sato), the vehicle dynamics manager from Lotus (Martin Anderson), and two British Touring Car Championship drivers (Michael Bentwood and Phil Bennett).
There's execellent analysis and commentary throughout the article. Buy it if you can find it.
Anyway, here are the lap times:
Skoda Fabia RS 1:33.8
Ford Sport Ka 1:33.2
Vauxhall Astra GSi 1:32.0
Volvo S60R 1:30.5
Honda Accord 2.4 Type S 1:30.0
Peugeot 206 GTi 180 1:29.8
Jaguar XJR 1:29.0
Mazda RX8 1:29.0
Mazda MX5 1:28.9
Renault Clio V6 1:28.5
Mini Cooper S Works 1:28.5
Mercedes E55 1:27.3
Porsche Boxster 1:26.4
BMW Z4 1:25.7
Audi S4 1:25.2
Ford Focus RS 1:24.9
Alfa 147 GTA 1:24.8
Mitsubishi Evo VIII FQ300 1:23.4
Subaru Impreza Type C 1:22.8
Pagani Zonda 1:22.7
Lamborghini Murcielago 1:22.2
Radical SR3 LM 1:21.8
Westfield XTR2 1:21.8
Vauxhall VX220T Sprint 1:21.5
Lotus Elise 135R 1:21.0
Caterham R400 1:21.0
Noble M12R 1:20.6
Porsche 911 GT3 1:20.2
Gardener Douglas GDT70 1:19.5
TVR 350c 1:19.4
Ariel Atom 1:17.6
JP1 1:14.2
09-05-2003, 09:09 AM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FQ-300 is warrantied car. I think it may be upgraded at the dealer/local aftermarket affiliate. Of course, there are two higher performance models than the FQ-300. The Extreme and RS Sprint.
Also, I wonder why they used the Elise 135R instead of the 190??
Also, I wonder why they used the Elise 135R instead of the 190??
09-05-2003, 11:41 PM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Belmont, CA
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Evo
Originally posted by graphicguy
EVO? Compared to an RX8? Please......get off the drugs!
I drove one just to get the Mitsu $100 bill. I thought it would be tempting to buy an EVO, but the RX8 is in a whole higher class (as is the 350Z). EVO was even cheaper than the RX8 and I still didn't think it was worth the money.
Back to what I'd like from Mazda before I make a decision on THE LETTER.
1. Show us the Dyno of the 11 cars they used to get the 248 HP average and tell us how they got the numbers.
2. We show them the dyno numbers from THOR and Church (and hopefully YAW) and ask for an explanation for the differences.
3. If the RX8 is really making crank 220HP as we suspect, ask Mazda what happened and what they intend to do to get the engine to where it needs to be and when they will do it. There is just too much FUD going around unless we have some proof as to what's happening...247 HP to 238 HP to 2?? HP....what's going on. And why can't I muster more than 15 MPG out of my car, regardless of how I drive?
4. If they can't give feasible answers, well.....mine might be part of the Buy-Back. BTW....this is exactly what I told both MAzda Customer Service and my dealer (who was pretty upset he was going to have to "eat" my deal).
EVO? Compared to an RX8? Please......get off the drugs!
I drove one just to get the Mitsu $100 bill. I thought it would be tempting to buy an EVO, but the RX8 is in a whole higher class (as is the 350Z). EVO was even cheaper than the RX8 and I still didn't think it was worth the money.
Back to what I'd like from Mazda before I make a decision on THE LETTER.
1. Show us the Dyno of the 11 cars they used to get the 248 HP average and tell us how they got the numbers.
2. We show them the dyno numbers from THOR and Church (and hopefully YAW) and ask for an explanation for the differences.
3. If the RX8 is really making crank 220HP as we suspect, ask Mazda what happened and what they intend to do to get the engine to where it needs to be and when they will do it. There is just too much FUD going around unless we have some proof as to what's happening...247 HP to 238 HP to 2?? HP....what's going on. And why can't I muster more than 15 MPG out of my car, regardless of how I drive?
4. If they can't give feasible answers, well.....mine might be part of the Buy-Back. BTW....this is exactly what I told both MAzda Customer Service and my dealer (who was pretty upset he was going to have to "eat" my deal).
The bayarea sucks.
Did you llike it? How noisy is it? I am not looking for lexus quite, but at the same time I do not want GM interior
squeeks either.
09-05-2003, 11:53 PM
#32
Senior Geek
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 1,005
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by AbusiveWombat
Here's a post that I found at www.s2ki.com I thought you might like to see. It shows how a lightly modded EVO VIII (FQ300 = F**king Quick 300 hp) stacks up to other cars on the track. Too bad no S2000:
I've been in the UK for the past couple of weeks on business. I picked up Autocar's annual Best Handling Car issue, and had a great read. 32 cars were driven on the 1.7-mile infield circuit of Rockingham Motor Speedway. The driver lineup included a current F1 driver (Jaguar's Justin Wilson), a F1 test driver (BAR's Takuma Sato), the vehicle dynamics manager from Lotus (Martin Anderson), and two British Touring Car Championship drivers (Michael Bentwood and Phil Bennett).
There's execellent analysis and commentary throughout the article. Buy it if you can find it.
Anyway, here are the lap times:
Skoda Fabia RS 1:33.8
Ford Sport Ka 1:33.2
Vauxhall Astra GSi 1:32.0
Volvo S60R 1:30.5
Honda Accord 2.4 Type S 1:30.0
Peugeot 206 GTi 180 1:29.8
Jaguar XJR 1:29.0
Mazda RX8 1:29.0
Mazda MX5 1:28.9
Renault Clio V6 1:28.5
Mini Cooper S Works 1:28.5
Mercedes E55 1:27.3
Porsche Boxster 1:26.4
BMW Z4 1:25.7
Audi S4 1:25.2
Ford Focus RS 1:24.9
Alfa 147 GTA 1:24.8
Mitsubishi Evo VIII FQ300 1:23.4
Subaru Impreza Type C 1:22.8
Pagani Zonda 1:22.7
Lamborghini Murcielago 1:22.2
Radical SR3 LM 1:21.8
Westfield XTR2 1:21.8
Vauxhall VX220T Sprint 1:21.5
Lotus Elise 135R 1:21.0
Caterham R400 1:21.0
Noble M12R 1:20.6
Porsche 911 GT3 1:20.2
Gardener Douglas GDT70 1:19.5
TVR 350c 1:19.4
Ariel Atom 1:17.6
JP1 1:14.2
Here's a post that I found at www.s2ki.com I thought you might like to see. It shows how a lightly modded EVO VIII (FQ300 = F**king Quick 300 hp) stacks up to other cars on the track. Too bad no S2000:
I've been in the UK for the past couple of weeks on business. I picked up Autocar's annual Best Handling Car issue, and had a great read. 32 cars were driven on the 1.7-mile infield circuit of Rockingham Motor Speedway. The driver lineup included a current F1 driver (Jaguar's Justin Wilson), a F1 test driver (BAR's Takuma Sato), the vehicle dynamics manager from Lotus (Martin Anderson), and two British Touring Car Championship drivers (Michael Bentwood and Phil Bennett).
There's execellent analysis and commentary throughout the article. Buy it if you can find it.
Anyway, here are the lap times:
Skoda Fabia RS 1:33.8
Ford Sport Ka 1:33.2
Vauxhall Astra GSi 1:32.0
Volvo S60R 1:30.5
Honda Accord 2.4 Type S 1:30.0
Peugeot 206 GTi 180 1:29.8
Jaguar XJR 1:29.0
Mazda RX8 1:29.0
Mazda MX5 1:28.9
Renault Clio V6 1:28.5
Mini Cooper S Works 1:28.5
Mercedes E55 1:27.3
Porsche Boxster 1:26.4
BMW Z4 1:25.7
Audi S4 1:25.2
Ford Focus RS 1:24.9
Alfa 147 GTA 1:24.8
Mitsubishi Evo VIII FQ300 1:23.4
Subaru Impreza Type C 1:22.8
Pagani Zonda 1:22.7
Lamborghini Murcielago 1:22.2
Radical SR3 LM 1:21.8
Westfield XTR2 1:21.8
Vauxhall VX220T Sprint 1:21.5
Lotus Elise 135R 1:21.0
Caterham R400 1:21.0
Noble M12R 1:20.6
Porsche 911 GT3 1:20.2
Gardener Douglas GDT70 1:19.5
TVR 350c 1:19.4
Ariel Atom 1:17.6
JP1 1:14.2
09-06-2003, 12:57 AM
#33
This fake ad. courtesy of sniffpetrol.com just about sums it up:
Yes, you could buy a tarted up family sedan just like grandma drives but wouldn't you rather drive a real sports car?
Yes, you could buy a tarted up family sedan just like grandma drives but wouldn't you rather drive a real sports car?
09-06-2003, 01:09 AM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: AUSTIN,TX
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay...Bottom line. I Love the speed/handling of the Evo. But I love the RX8 more. You simply can't compare these two vehicles. They are in completely different catagories. The EVO is a rally car all the way (well, kinda..lol), and the Rex is a street car...I just don't think you can compare them to each other.
09-06-2003, 09:39 AM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Fort Myers, FL
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm. the EVO has been around for a while but what about the 19psi boosted engine?
I just finished reading one of three books on Mazda and the Rotary - the RX 7 book by Brian Long - excellent book. One of the things mentioned there is that Mazda now holds the rights to the Rotary so other corporations will not be building them unless that has changed. It is mentioned that at one point Toyota actually created a rotary but could not market it due to "rights" ??? It also mentions the MPG as a problem. IT seems that the large gap that existed in gas mileage has been narrowed considerably. If you compare the cars with similar performance to the RX the overall MPG is in line per se. Page 136 of Road and Track gives their overall observed MPG figures as follows:
EVO 21.7 mpg premium/synthetic oil required.
Cobra 12.4 mpg premium required
S2000 18.5 mpg
Boxster S 19.2 mpg
G35 C 20.0 mpg
Mazda RX 8 19.0 mpg.
I just finished reading one of three books on Mazda and the Rotary - the RX 7 book by Brian Long - excellent book. One of the things mentioned there is that Mazda now holds the rights to the Rotary so other corporations will not be building them unless that has changed. It is mentioned that at one point Toyota actually created a rotary but could not market it due to "rights" ??? It also mentions the MPG as a problem. IT seems that the large gap that existed in gas mileage has been narrowed considerably. If you compare the cars with similar performance to the RX the overall MPG is in line per se. Page 136 of Road and Track gives their overall observed MPG figures as follows:
EVO 21.7 mpg premium/synthetic oil required.
Cobra 12.4 mpg premium required
S2000 18.5 mpg
Boxster S 19.2 mpg
G35 C 20.0 mpg
Mazda RX 8 19.0 mpg.
Last edited by RodsterinFL; 09-06-2003 at 09:50 AM.
09-14-2003, 11:55 PM
#37
I have to say this much... strip the interior and the costly items off the RX-8... the leather, the refinement, the plastics, stereo, etc...
With that money, give it a more firm suspension. Add a turbo running 18PSI.
And put it onto a track with the Evo.
Who wins now? And the bigger question... who cares? If you're all about the lap times, speed, and precision of handling then welp, the RX-8 isn't for you because it's full of compromises. But to me, a neophyte driver working his way to becoming reasonably good with baby steps and an aptitude to learn, the RX-8 is more the car for me that I can live with on a daily basis.
If I wanted a go-fast car that I'd take to the track all day, the Evo would be off the list too. There are better cars on the track than an Evo. There are more fun cars than an RX-8 (S2000 anyone?). But the RX-8 gives me the blend of what I want, and that's why I bought it. revhappy is always kind to point out the shortfalls of the RX-8 but frankly for a lot of people, the Evo and STI are so hideous, no creature comforts, no safety features, and as an added bonus for me, no RWD.. I passed on them. I don't want to be hand-held by the AWD of the Evo/STI. I want to learn how to drive properly, even if it means making mistakes. I leave plenty of room for my errors. Evo does all the work for you.
No thanks.
With that money, give it a more firm suspension. Add a turbo running 18PSI.
And put it onto a track with the Evo.
Who wins now? And the bigger question... who cares? If you're all about the lap times, speed, and precision of handling then welp, the RX-8 isn't for you because it's full of compromises. But to me, a neophyte driver working his way to becoming reasonably good with baby steps and an aptitude to learn, the RX-8 is more the car for me that I can live with on a daily basis.
If I wanted a go-fast car that I'd take to the track all day, the Evo would be off the list too. There are better cars on the track than an Evo. There are more fun cars than an RX-8 (S2000 anyone?). But the RX-8 gives me the blend of what I want, and that's why I bought it. revhappy is always kind to point out the shortfalls of the RX-8 but frankly for a lot of people, the Evo and STI are so hideous, no creature comforts, no safety features, and as an added bonus for me, no RWD.. I passed on them. I don't want to be hand-held by the AWD of the Evo/STI. I want to learn how to drive properly, even if it means making mistakes. I leave plenty of room for my errors. Evo does all the work for you.
No thanks.
Last edited by Hercules; 09-14-2003 at 11:58 PM.
09-15-2003, 12:08 AM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Hercules
I have to say this much... strip the interior and the costly items off the RX-8... the leather, the refinement, the plastics, stereo, etc...
With that money, give it a more firm suspension. Add a turbo running 18PSI.
And put it onto a track with the Evo.
Who wins now? And the bigger question... who cares?
I have to say this much... strip the interior and the costly items off the RX-8... the leather, the refinement, the plastics, stereo, etc...
With that money, give it a more firm suspension. Add a turbo running 18PSI.
And put it onto a track with the Evo.
Who wins now? And the bigger question... who cares?
Mazda already tried a high-powered turbo (and it did not hit 19.5 PSI max boost) on the rotary and it was a disaster from a reliability standpoint (though it was an amazing performance car) to the point where the image nearly killed the rotary in the US. BTW..the stock EVO is tuned very conservative (i.e. runs very rich to keep temperatures down). There have been huge gains from some very affordable mods. Mitsu certianly has their issues, but one thing they do know are turbos and execute them pretty dam well.
Your post insunates the idea you repeatedly espoused in the past -Turbos's take no brain power and are "the easy way out" - is quite erroneous. If it was that easy....everyone would just "slap an aftermarket turbo" on their cars.
09-15-2003, 12:21 AM
#39
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Hercules
I If you're all about the lap times, speed, and precision of handling then welp, the RX-8 isn't for you because it's full of compromises. But to me, a neophyte driver working his way to becoming reasonably good with baby steps and an aptitude to learn, the RX-8 is more the car for me that I can live with on a daily basis.
If I wanted a go-fast car that I'd take to the track all day, the Evo would be off the list too. There are better cars on the track than an Evo. There are more fun cars than an RX-8 (S2000 anyone?). But the RX-8 gives me the blend of what I want, and that's why I bought it. revhappy is always kind to point out the shortfalls of the RX-8 but frankly for a lot of people, the Evo and STI are so hideous, no creature comforts, no safety features, and as an added bonus for me, no RWD.. I passed on them. I don't want to be hand-held by the AWD of the Evo/STI. I want to learn how to drive properly, even if it means making mistakes. I leave plenty of room for my errors. Evo does all the work for you.
No thanks.
I If you're all about the lap times, speed, and precision of handling then welp, the RX-8 isn't for you because it's full of compromises. But to me, a neophyte driver working his way to becoming reasonably good with baby steps and an aptitude to learn, the RX-8 is more the car for me that I can live with on a daily basis.
If I wanted a go-fast car that I'd take to the track all day, the Evo would be off the list too. There are better cars on the track than an Evo. There are more fun cars than an RX-8 (S2000 anyone?). But the RX-8 gives me the blend of what I want, and that's why I bought it. revhappy is always kind to point out the shortfalls of the RX-8 but frankly for a lot of people, the Evo and STI are so hideous, no creature comforts, no safety features, and as an added bonus for me, no RWD.. I passed on them. I don't want to be hand-held by the AWD of the Evo/STI. I want to learn how to drive properly, even if it means making mistakes. I leave plenty of room for my errors. Evo does all the work for you.
No thanks.
As for the safety features, I haven't seen the EVO's crash test results. I saw the base lancer's and they were reasonable (2-5 stars I think, mostly 3-4 stars). All else being equal, I'd expect the EVO's to be a bit better as it has a MUCH more rigid body.
Now..the EVO handles so good..that its boring!!!! I really think you should test drive it before you make comments like those. The US version is a bit more raw as it lacks the Active Yaw Control (AYC) of its overseas counterparts.
BTW..if you really wanted a car with classic RWD tendencies, why didn't you go with the S2000??? From your signature, you have two other cars with backseats? The RX8 is much more stable and tuned for understeer (mass-market cars are rarely tuned for serious oversteer due to obvious leagal reasons). IMHO, the tuning of the car is as (if not more) important than the what wheels spin when it comes to the handling of the car on the road. Unfortunately, its not easy to get back that tune (at least in terms of "feel") in the aftermarket.
09-15-2003, 12:41 AM
#40
Senior Geek
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 1,005
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by revhappy
Another ridiculous post. The EVO is NOT stripped (its not luxorious but its more than adequate for a serious driver who doesn't need to be bothered by weight increasing nonsense such as faux wooded trim,seat warmers, etc).
Mazda already tried a high-powered turbo (and it did not hit 19.5 PSI max boost) on the rotary and it was a disaster from a reliability standpoint (though it was an amazing performance car) to the point where the image nearly killed the rotary in the US. BTW..the stock EVO is tuned very conservative (i.e. runs very rich to keep temperatures down). There have been huge gains from some very affordable mods. Mitsu certianly has their issues, but one thing they do know are turbos and execute them pretty dam well.
Your post insunates the idea you repeatedly espoused in the past -Turbos's take no brain power and are "the easy way out" - is quite erroneous. If it was that easy....everyone would just "slap an aftermarket turbo" on their cars.
Another ridiculous post. The EVO is NOT stripped (its not luxorious but its more than adequate for a serious driver who doesn't need to be bothered by weight increasing nonsense such as faux wooded trim,seat warmers, etc).
Mazda already tried a high-powered turbo (and it did not hit 19.5 PSI max boost) on the rotary and it was a disaster from a reliability standpoint (though it was an amazing performance car) to the point where the image nearly killed the rotary in the US. BTW..the stock EVO is tuned very conservative (i.e. runs very rich to keep temperatures down). There have been huge gains from some very affordable mods. Mitsu certianly has their issues, but one thing they do know are turbos and execute them pretty dam well.
Your post insunates the idea you repeatedly espoused in the past -Turbos's take no brain power and are "the easy way out" - is quite erroneous. If it was that easy....everyone would just "slap an aftermarket turbo" on their cars.
09-15-2003, 04:41 PM
#42
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why do Evo-drivers care about Rx-8 owners anyway?
I don't get this. You get the car that suits you best. That's Evo for some, Rx-8 for others. It just depends on what you value most. Some rather have N/A rotaries. Some rather have Turbos. Some rather have RWD. Some AWD. Some like the Sedan Look. Others like a Sportier look.
I don't get this. You get the car that suits you best. That's Evo for some, Rx-8 for others. It just depends on what you value most. Some rather have N/A rotaries. Some rather have Turbos. Some rather have RWD. Some AWD. Some like the Sedan Look. Others like a Sportier look.
01-22-2004, 05:31 PM
#44
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: dominica
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by AbusiveWombat
another point in favor of the EVO is the AWD versus the Cobra and Mach1. Some like RWD but when you get into big horsepower ('03 Cobra) the first couple of gears are useless because you spin the tires so easily. With the AWD all the power is put to the ground. On the track the AWD is almost unfair against the RWD, and throw in foul weather and it's rediculous.
Here's a thread:
http://www.s2ki.com/forums/showthrea...hreadid=145109
for those that don't want to follow the link basically, stock EVO beats a 420rwhp '03 Cobra with drag radials from 0-80mph. Put on a few basic mods on the EVO and maybe you take the Cobra up to 90 or 100. Now, the Cobra will hand that same EVO it's *** on the highway but you can't have everything.
Don't let the 19.5 peak boost scare you. This engine has been around for a while. Like revhappy pointed out, there's an EVO running 500+ whp on stock block and head and countless 330+whp EVOs. The internals are capable of 400 whp. Stock it's very very safe and conservative. The reason for the synthetic oil is maintenance. Turbocharged cars need a little more TLC than the N/A cars. It's very important that the oil be clean otherwise the turbo life span can be drastically reduced.
the three most important things with a turbocharged car is:
1.) make sure the turbo has time to cool down before shuting the engine off
2.) change the oil regularly (3000 miles)
3.) make sure the engine has time to warm up before running it hard
Now Mitsu can't control any of these but they can make sure that the oil is high quality.
another point in favor of the EVO is the AWD versus the Cobra and Mach1. Some like RWD but when you get into big horsepower ('03 Cobra) the first couple of gears are useless because you spin the tires so easily. With the AWD all the power is put to the ground. On the track the AWD is almost unfair against the RWD, and throw in foul weather and it's rediculous.
Here's a thread:
http://www.s2ki.com/forums/showthrea...hreadid=145109
for those that don't want to follow the link basically, stock EVO beats a 420rwhp '03 Cobra with drag radials from 0-80mph. Put on a few basic mods on the EVO and maybe you take the Cobra up to 90 or 100. Now, the Cobra will hand that same EVO it's *** on the highway but you can't have everything.
Don't let the 19.5 peak boost scare you. This engine has been around for a while. Like revhappy pointed out, there's an EVO running 500+ whp on stock block and head and countless 330+whp EVOs. The internals are capable of 400 whp. Stock it's very very safe and conservative. The reason for the synthetic oil is maintenance. Turbocharged cars need a little more TLC than the N/A cars. It's very important that the oil be clean otherwise the turbo life span can be drastically reduced.
the three most important things with a turbocharged car is:
1.) make sure the turbo has time to cool down before shuting the engine off
2.) change the oil regularly (3000 miles)
3.) make sure the engine has time to warm up before running it hard
Now Mitsu can't control any of these but they can make sure that the oil is high quality.
the US is very new to the evos and WRX's and the only countries that refuse to give mitsu the credit they deserve for creating such a great car...you guys need to look up some best motoring videos...
if you want real evo performance from the factory look up the RS450 or the RS500.....the 450 the name speaks of the HP and makes close to 500 LB/ft of torque...and the price is in the range of corvettes...but with those horse power figures..upgraded suspension etc...would run circles around those cars
ps. the evo holds the land speed record for fastest caravan tow
01-24-2004, 09:08 AM
#45
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Richmond VA
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by R32
So why do Evo-drivers care about Rx-8 owners anyway?
I don't get this. You get the car that suits you best. That's Evo for some, Rx-8 for others. It just depends on what you value most. Some rather have N/A rotaries. Some rather have Turbos. Some rather have RWD. Some AWD. Some like the Sedan Look. Others like a Sportier look.
So why do Evo-drivers care about Rx-8 owners anyway?
I don't get this. You get the car that suits you best. That's Evo for some, Rx-8 for others. It just depends on what you value most. Some rather have N/A rotaries. Some rather have Turbos. Some rather have RWD. Some AWD. Some like the Sedan Look. Others like a Sportier look.
I think the reason why there are debates on this thread is because the first post says, he wasn't impressed.
02-04-2004, 09:28 PM
#46
Wut da F Y'all lookin' @!
It's strange how this hostility towards other cars just shows up out of the blue. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to validate their purchase by bashing someone elses preference. In all reality I don't think Evo owners care about the RX-8 as much as some people here would like to believe. I might get some backlash for saying this but between Evo owners and RX-8 owners there might be more car enthusiasts driving Evos. I personally enjoy performance cars in many forms. I've driven an Evo extensively (over 6 months to be specific) and loved it. I can say the same for the RX-8 (since the end of October). Hell, I wish I could be like Jay Leno and just have a different car for every day (there would more than likely be an Evo and an RX-8 in the collection). My point is really to say enjoy your car and stop trying to find fault with the cars other people choose.
02-05-2004, 05:55 AM
#47
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Richmond VA
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Hornet
It's strange how this hostility towards other cars just shows up out of the blue. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to validate their purchase by bashing someone elses preference. In all reality I don't think Evo owners care about the RX-8 as much as some people here would like to believe. I might get some backlash for saying this but between Evo owners and RX-8 owners there might be more car enthusiasts driving Evos. I personally enjoy performance cars in many forms. I've driven an Evo extensively (over 6 months to be specific) and loved it. I can say the same for the RX-8 (since the end of October). Hell, I wish I could be like Jay Leno and just have a different car for every day (there would more than likely be an Evo and an RX-8 in the collection). My point is really to say enjoy your car and stop trying to find fault with the cars other people choose.
It's strange how this hostility towards other cars just shows up out of the blue. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to validate their purchase by bashing someone elses preference. In all reality I don't think Evo owners care about the RX-8 as much as some people here would like to believe. I might get some backlash for saying this but between Evo owners and RX-8 owners there might be more car enthusiasts driving Evos. I personally enjoy performance cars in many forms. I've driven an Evo extensively (over 6 months to be specific) and loved it. I can say the same for the RX-8 (since the end of October). Hell, I wish I could be like Jay Leno and just have a different car for every day (there would more than likely be an Evo and an RX-8 in the collection). My point is really to say enjoy your car and stop trying to find fault with the cars other people choose.
Last edited by Hanzo; 02-05-2004 at 06:59 AM.
02-05-2004, 10:36 AM
#48
F125er/Future RX-8er
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WI, USA
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by revhappy
All else being equal, I'd expect the EVO's to be a bit better as it has a MUCH more rigid body.
All else being equal, I'd expect the EVO's to be a bit better as it has a MUCH more rigid body.
But produce numbers on the Evo having a more rigid body than the RX-8. I am curious how you come up with that statement.
I'm not sure that's the case, and hearsay isn't going to cut it.
Numbers... got em?
02-05-2004, 03:51 PM
#49
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by racerdave
Ok, first, revhappy, the Evo is cool and I'm glad you like your car.
But produce numbers on the Evo having a more rigid body than the RX-8. I am curious how you come up with that statement.
I'm not sure that's the case, and hearsay isn't going to cut it.
Numbers... got em?
Ok, first, revhappy, the Evo is cool and I'm glad you like your car.
But produce numbers on the Evo having a more rigid body than the RX-8. I am curious how you come up with that statement.
I'm not sure that's the case, and hearsay isn't going to cut it.
Numbers... got em?
02-05-2004, 04:27 PM
#50
F125er/Future RX-8er
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WI, USA
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, that clears it up. Thanks.
I thought you meant chassis rigitidy, in terms of torsional rigidity and bending of the chassis structure itself.
Because I've seen numbers where the 8 was better than the E46 BMW's... by a lot. So the 8's body structure is very rigid.
But yeah, when talking stiffened chassis settings, the Evo is set up stiffer (springs, ARBs) than the 8. Definitely less body roll... but also a harsher ride.
Actually, isn't it cool that we all have these choices? Evo, RX-8, 350z, Integra, etc.
That wasn't the case 20 years ago. Most cars were crap back then.
I thought you meant chassis rigitidy, in terms of torsional rigidity and bending of the chassis structure itself.
Because I've seen numbers where the 8 was better than the E46 BMW's... by a lot. So the 8's body structure is very rigid.
But yeah, when talking stiffened chassis settings, the Evo is set up stiffer (springs, ARBs) than the 8. Definitely less body roll... but also a harsher ride.
Actually, isn't it cool that we all have these choices? Evo, RX-8, 350z, Integra, etc.
That wasn't the case 20 years ago. Most cars were crap back then.