Motive First Drive: 2008 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X

[features@motivemag]

There have been a lot of heated discussions on the Internet about Mitsubishi's new Evolution X, much of it not fit for print in a family-type magazine, and most of it centering around the notion that the new car is heavier, bigger, softer, and therefore not as pure as the outgoing model. At the risk of losing you right here, we'll let you know up front that the new Evo is a better car in every way — including performance — and all the fears about it being too grown up aren't nearly as serious as the keyboard commandos would lead you to believe.

FULL STORY...

PHOTOS

SPECIFICATIONS

[Tim@VMG]

While I've never been a huge Evo fan, it's nice to hear that the new car is, in fact, faster than the old one, despite all of the "stories" to the contrary that have been floating around.

$39,000 is a little nuts, though. Yikes!

-Tim

[conan1999]

Quote, originally posted by SilverSLC »

While I've never been a huge Evo fan, it's nice to hear that the new car is, in fact, faster than the old one, despite all of the "stories" to the contrary that have been floating around.

Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see any test data in the article, unlike the other reviews - sorry, (err...) "stories" - often cited on the board that feature actual numerical substance to support the written word.

I did see this claim from Motive, "At the risk of losing you right here, we'll let you know up front that the new Evo is a better car in every way — including performance..." Then, Motive says, "...it [X] feels nearly as agile as the outgoing car." So, how does this work? The X is better in every way, but it's nearly as agile as the outgoing car?

Yes, they drove the car, spent the bilk of the time describing its features and that's about it. The teaser only serves to further a hyperbolic reaction while condemning the same in the next breath:

"There have been a lot of heated discussions on the Internet about Mitsubishi's new Evolution X, much of it not fit for print in a family-type magazine...."

One has to wonder if the rag is blessed with an editor.



Modified by conan1999 at 7:45 AM 12-14-2007

[Tim@VMG]

Quote, originally posted by conan1999 »

Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see any test data in the article, unlike the other reviews - sorry, (err...) "stories" - often cited on the board that feature actual numerical substance to support the written word.

Well, given that it's a "First Drive" article, I wasn't expecting a lot of test data. I'm sure that at some point they'll do a full review, and possibly even a comparison test (remember the "Blue Monday" article on Vortex from a few years ago?) and give us some hard data. This is too important a car for them not to do so.

Quote »

I did see this claim from Motive, "At the risk of losing you right here, we'll let you know up front that the new Evo is a better car in every way — including performance..." Then, Motive says, "...it [X] feels nearly as agile as the outgoing car." So, how does this work? The X is better in every way, but it's nearly as agile as the outgoing car?

I think his point was that though the new car is 200 pounds heavier, it doesn't loose anything in the handling department because of it.

Quote »

One has to wonder if the rag is blessed with an editor.

It is, actually. Several of them.

And unlike you and I, they've actually driven the EVOX. So until I've had the chance to do so, I'll be taking their word for it.

-Tim

[conan1999]

Quote, originally posted by SilverSLC »

Well, given that it's a "First Drive" article, I wasn't expecting a lot of test data. I'm sure that at some point they'll do a full review, and possibly even a comparison test (remember the "Blue Monday" article on Vortex from a few years ago?) and give us some hard data. This is too important a car for them not to do so.

I certainly appreciate their effort, but that's hardly the point. Declaring that it's "better in every way" without a grain of evidence to support the claim borders on the absurd.

I would be interested in reading another Blue Monday-like comparison, but I'm not entire sure how seriously it could be taken. There seems to be a lack of basic of understanding that relates to the driving experience. Let me give an example from the article under discussion:

"Mitsubishi provided an Evo IX for back-to-back drives, and it's hard to believe that the two models share a common lineage. Where the old car felt like a hard-core tuner project that buckboarded over bumps and reveled in its raw mechanical glory, the new car absorbs impacts in near silence. Driving the new Evo, you generally feel as though this would be a perfectly comfortable daily driver."

That's a ridiculous comment, because it fails to account for individual preference, asserting a watered-down automotive existence as the status quo for daily driving. Using myself as an example, I'd hate to daily drive a car that fails to vividly project its mechanical nature. OTOH, someone with a different set of preferences would not be happy with the same. As Motive doesn't seem to grasp the idea, as brutally apparent as it may be, I don't see how its conclusions can be of value to a high-performance driving enthusiast.

Quote »

I think his point was that though the new car is 200 pounds heavier, it doesn't loose anything in the handling department because of it.

Whose idea of written comprehension allows one to stretch the English language in hopes of equating "better in every way" with "nearly." BTW, the new car weighs more than 200lbs more than the IX. Depending on model, it approaches 300lbs for the GSR and almost 400lbs for the MR. It's a sad day when a driver has to resort to lift-throttle oversteer in order to rotate an Evo.

Quote »

It is, actually. Several of them.

<grin> In light of the piece, that's quite a statement.

Quote »

And unlike you and I, they've actually driven the EVOX. So until I've had the chance to do so, I'll be taking their word for it.

You're welcome to take the word of a publication that contradicts itself, that points to a conclusion with no data for support, and that seemingly fails to realize the priorities of an enthusiast driver, while ignoring all the other reviews that at the very least timed the cars. I just found it funny to see you refer to actual road tests as "stories," especially in light of this school-grade article.



Modified by conan1999 at 8:59 AM 12-14-2007

[AKADriver]

Quote, originally posted by SilverSLC »

While I've never been a huge Evo fan, it's nice to hear that the new car is, in fact, faster than the old one, despite all of the "stories" to the contrary that have been floating around. $39,000 is a little nuts, though. Yikes! -Tim

I don't think there was ever much doubt that it would be as fast as the outgoing model - most of the braying and neighing is in response to the fact that it doesn't revel in its mechanical glory, that it doesn't feel as fast.

[anotoneher]

So did you guys actually drive this one?

[Bill@Fourtitude]

Tim

Don't feed the troll

[6cylVWguy]

Quote, originally posted by conan1999 »

I certainly appreciate their effort, but that's hardly the point. Declaring that it's "better in every way" without a grain of evidence to support the claim borders on the absurd. I would be interested in reading another Blue Monday-like comparison, but I'm not entire sure how seriously it could be taken. There seems to be a lack of basic of understanding that relates to the driving experience. Let me give an example from the article under discussion:

I think that basic lack of understanding would be on your part actually. I'm one of the more vocal critics of the motive articles, but this one was well done for the given circumstances. It's clear that Mitsu put on a ride/drive type event and the Motive people went there to sample the new car, along with the previous generation car. They gave their subjective opinions on both cars. The new one felt better to them in all subjective ways. It's not hard to pick up on this. Of course, being an owner of the previous model, I would hardly expect you to understand this. You sound like a typical Evo owner frankly, and like you suggest about Motive, I think your opnions should be taken with a grain of salt. It's clear that they weren't in a position to run instrumented tests. Lots of car magazines have an "initial impressions" section in them where they were able to drive cars at manufacturer sponsored events. Most people who can think clearly and for themselves can understand the concept of an initial impression. They understand that initial impressions can quite possibly change once someone spends a few days with a given car and gets some instrumented tests. So why don't you just pipe down and realize what you're reading. Just because there isn't documented objective data doesn't mean an article written strictly on subjective opinion (based on the circumstances) isn't completely inaccurate. The nature of this article is subjective, but so is the nature of any article. Not to mention, you think that if motive published lap times it would end the story, but even that's completely subjective. Different drivers have different levels of experience and may find one car easier to drive (thus making it faster for THAT person) than another. It's like you're trying to make a factual case for something that frankly is purely subjective in pretty much any case.

Modified by 6cylVWguy at 10:50 AM 12-14-2007

[GingerBreath]

Quote, originally posted by conan1999 »

that points to a conclusion with no data for support, and that seemingly fails to realize the priorities of an enthusiast driver, while ignoring all the other reviews that at the very least timed the cars.

Cars are not timed or dynoed at a manufacturer-sponsored event. New cars cannot be tested for data by publications until they are made available by the manufacturers for such testing, which generally is not until weeks or even months after the manufacturer's launch event.

[George@VortexMedia]

Testing generally takes place later when we're able to book the car for a few days. During most press launches, there's rarely time or opportunity to do much testing.

[Max Rebo]

Quote, originally posted by conan1999 »

" Driving the new Evo, you generally feel as though this would be a perfectly comfortable daily driver." That's a ridiculous comment, because it fails to account for individual preference, asserting a watered-down automotive existence as the status quo for daily driving.

I'm probably reiterating some of what 6cylVWguy wrote, but...

There's nothing ridiculous about it. Basic reading comprehension would tell you that the use of the word "you" in bold print is a colloquialism. It is their opinion. Any automotive review is going to be from the perspective of the reviewer/driver. Your assumption was not even close to their meaning. They cannot possibly account for individual preference -- only theirs.


Modified by Max Rebo at 10:44 AM 12-14-2007

[16vracer]

It is not faster around a road course.

I don't have the link handy because evom.net is blocked at work, but search youtube for a video of Tsukuba featuring 2 X's, a IX, a g35 and I think an STI. Being that my girlfriend is japanese, she could understand the in-car commentary and interview from the japanese racecar drivers. The driver of the IX said, in not so many words, that he was talking it easy on the X for the first lap or so because the it was kind of a media event for the X and he didn't want to steal the spotlight so-to-speak. After a lap or 2 he said oh well and passed the X easily and was quite a ways ahead by the end of the 5 laps.

FWIW there was both a manual X and the auto-do-hickey-type thing.

[Voodoo.T]

Quote, originally posted by George@motivemag »

Testing generally takes place later when we're able to book the car for a few days. During most press launches, there's rarely time or opportunity to do much testing.

Well then, it's a little bold and misleading to declare it's better than the predecessor, just by having tooled around a parking lot for five minutes.

And there's a hell of a lot better car out there for that much money.

[6cylVWguy]

Quote, originally posted by Voodoo.T »

Well then, it's a little bold and misleading to declare it's better than the predecessor, just by having tooled around a parking lot for five minutes.

Guess you didn't read the article either- they had it on an autocross circuit and road course. They drove both cars back to back. If something is that dramtically different, it shouldn't be that hard to pick up on instaneously. Do you think you would need days in both a mkIV GTI and mkV GTI to know that the mkV is the better performing car? I knew it after a 15 minute drive on the street!


Modified by 6cylVWguy at 11:34 AM 12-14-2007

[rudyr]

I didn't read the article yet, but does it basically say, "Not as fast and raw at the IX, but overall the X is a better car"?

[features@motivemag]

I am the author of the article and appreciate the feedback. Maybe I can shed a little light on a few things mentioned above. SilverSLC has covered a lot of it well, but it is worth mentioning again...

- This was a first drive event in controlled conditions. Mitsubishi took us to Firebird International Raceway and set up an autocross, road course and street course so journalists can spend a day in various conditions with the new Lancer Evolution GSR and MR models. As such, we had roughly 6 hours to spend time with the cars and full instrument testing wasn't an option. Until we can get a full production car in our hands to test (all of the current Evos here in this country are early production cars) we just won't have hard numbers.

- In regards to this statement, "Then, Motive says, "...it [X] feels nearly as agile as the outgoing car." So, how does this work? The X is better in every way, but it's nearly as agile as the outgoing car?" I can offer some clarification. What I originally wrote was this:

"The new car has a more liveable power band that offers more flexibility and stays on tap a through a wider range of RPM's. The additional 200 lbs. of weight mentally messes with your head telling you that the car will be handle worse, yet it feels nearly as agile as the outgoing car. I say nearly because the outgoing car was stiffer in the ride and handling department and felt like a hard-edge tuner special. The new car on the other hand still handles amazingly well for a heavy AWD vehicle allowing the driver very good control and placement of the car in turns. More importantly the car can be easily rotated (with the right combination of electronic systems turned on and off) allowing the driver to place the car at the exact location inside a cone where you can set up for the next turn. You can't power oversteer the Evo X, but a simple flick of the additional steering leading into a turn with a slight lift of the throttle sends the car into a four wheel drift that can easily be controlled. Brakes are wonderful, easy to modulate, give great pedal feel and didn't fade all-day in the harsh conditions."

I'm guessing in the editing process to likely shorten my verbose writeup it was condensed a bit and the "agile" statement wasn't clarified quite enough.

I've always been a fan of the Evo 8 and 9 cars and was anxious to drive the new one. When I said the new car is better in every way, I thought I substantiated that with all the thorough changes and improvements made in lighter weight components, increases and refinements in the power of the new engine (even though they are small), bigger brakes, wider stance, and on and on. It is clear that Mitsubishi put a lot of effort into the new car to make it better in every way possible and I think that's clear in the article (I hope anyway!). However if you were looking for specific performance data to back that claim up I can't provide it. Subjectively I drove both the Evo IX and Evo X back to back and there is no doubt the older car is very hard focused, particularly at the end of it's lifecycle. Remember this is just the initial introduction of the new Evo and there will be more variations coming that bump power and performance similar to the outgoing car's changes over time.

- In regards to the "you generally feel as though this would be a perfectly comfortable daily driver" statement. I think even existing Evo 8 or 9 owners will agree that their cars are pretty hard edged, particularly driving them daily or compared to most other cars on the market. Sure, I don't doubt owners are used to it and don't think it is a big deal. Sure, it is a subjective statement (then again so are all these reviews) but the new car is far different in how it rides and drives in day to day conditions that makes it more of a liveable car to a wider group of people. Let's face it, hearing every single pebble bouncing around the wheelwells and feeling the car bucking over expansion joints and other road imperfections all the time isn't always appealing to all performance enthusiasts. I've driven nearly every single performance car existingly on the the market and can speak authoritatively on this. There are more and more performance cars that ride *and* handle well and that trend is increasing as suspension geometries, lightweight materials and a myriad of other engineering improvements make the tradeoffs less and less.

In the end I've had years of experience driving cars, instructing people on the track, racing and driving nearly everything on the market. I spent a full day flogging the new Evo on the autocross and on the roadcourse, so I think I have a good feel for how the car compares to the outgoing model and other vehicles on the market.

Any other questions, feel free to ask and I'll do what I can to check back.

Mike

[mookieblaylock]

300 pounds of weight and less horsepower compared to the old model(potentially ie the ix was underrated) should mean a slower car ? no? i will reserve judgement but you can a Caliber that will be faster for 2/3 the price


Modified by mookieblaylock at 9:11 AM 12-14-2007

[mookieblaylock]

Quote, originally posted by 6cylVWguy »

I knew it after a 15 minute drive on the street! Modified by 6cylVWguy at 11:34 AM 12-14-2007

yea but wasn't this in part cuz the mkv is noticeably faster not slower

[SchrickVR6]

And the Caliber won't be nearly as ferocious, look as good, or handle as well. It's not a competitor to the EVO, so why bring it up?

[theshmoes]

question to the author of the article: how does it feel, acceleration and handling wise, compared to a mazdaspeed3? Is the evo worth over 10k more for the performance that you get?

[mookieblaylock]

Quote, originally posted by SchrickVR6 »

And the Caliber won't be nearly as ferocious, look as good, or handle as well. It's not a competitor to the EVO, so why bring it up?

well we will find out--but on paper it's lighter weight and faster and cheaper

[6cylVWguy]

Quote, originally posted by mookieblaylock »

yea but wasn't this in part cuz the mkv is noticeably faster not slower

180 hp vs 200 hp isn't all that significant, at least to me. The whole car just felt better. The engine was smoother, it was a bit quieter, the steering/suspension felt better. The car felt better built and simply more fun to drive. But either way, it doesn't really matter. The concept is being able to merely notice a difference between two vehicles, whether one is slower or faster is somewhat inconsequential right now. From everything I've read, the X seems like it's dramatically different than the IX. Whether one person likes one better than the other is obviously up for debate. And thus, we get one person's opinion on that. I saw nothing in the article that suggested flat out that the author really had no idea what he was talking about. I think, like any seasoned automotive journalist, his opinion is valuable, but it also doesn't mean that it's gospel either. It's ok to disagree, but to question the methodology for his conclusions is quite reaching. All the how, what's and why's are all very clear in the article.

[rester]

Quote, originally posted by mookieblaylock »

well we will find out--but on paper it's lighter weight and faster and cheaper

the caliber is nowhere near the evo in performance.

[SchrickVR6]

Quote, originally posted by mookieblaylock »

well we will find out--but on paper it's lighter weight and faster and cheaper

No one's going to cross-shop the loathsomely-designed Caliber and the new, more attractive EVO. They're not competitors and the EVO will hand the Caliber its ass on a track.

[theshmoes]

Quote, originally posted by rester »

the caliber is nowhere near the evo in performance.

If you are talking about straight line power, then yes, the caliber srt-4 is better, it traps 100+ mph in the 1/4 mile while motortrend could only get 96.9mph out of the evox. But in regards to handling, i'm sure the evo x has the caliber covered.

[Prelusion98]

This is a great shot.

[Ryukein]

Keep up the amazing photography work Motive!

[tom@motivemag]

Hey all,

Just wanted to let you know that we have just added over 150 new pictures to the Evolution gallery. Just click the photos link in the article or at the top of this thread, and it will take you right to it.

Happy Holidays.

[Cylon]

Motive does a pretty good job, but for some reason whenever auto enthusiast groups go pro they seem to become much more positive about whatever they drive. Car and Driver, Motor-Trend, Motive, etc all seem to shower praise on cars that really have serious shortcomings, and for some reason they pre-emptorilly paper them over. Maybe its because they don't feel they can be as hard edged once they rely on manufacturers for their business needs, or know them on a face to face basis.

[Chmeeee]

Quote, originally posted by tom@motivemag »

Hey all, Just wanted to let you know that we have just added over 150 new pictures to the Evolution gallery. Just click the photos link in the article or at the top of this thread, and it will take you right to it. Happy Holidays.

Hmmm...

Error Code: 102
Message: emAlbum cannot open the folder /home/motive/htdocs/emAlbum/albums/Manufacturers/Mitsubishi/Lancer/Ninth Generation (2007-Present)/Evolution

[justanotherusername]

I can't help but think this thing is going to be a failure for Mitsi.

It's heavier, slower, softer, and more expensive than the previous car.

On top of that, the twin clutch tranny isn't going to take well to tuning, and the aluminium block likely won't take the kind of abuse the previous one would.

I just don't see this car continuing the legend.

[subgraphic]

Thanks, but the link seems to be broken

[Ben010783]

I'm a little annoyed that they're pulling a Subie by charging for the HIDs, spoiler, Recaros, and BBS wheels. It still sounds like a nice car after all that, but probably won't be in my price range for a while.

[Wes@motivemag]

Quote, originally posted by tom@motivemag »

Hey all, Just wanted to let you know that we have just added over 150 new pictures to the Evolution gallery. Just click the photos link in the article or at the top of this thread, and it will take you right to it. Happy Holidays.

Tom, Tom, Tom...

How about this link: http://www.motivemagazine.com/...n%20X