Opinions on Mitsubishi Evo IX?
- Thread starter DeeezNuuuts83
- Start date
Yeah, I actually hit 1700 miles on the way to work this morning. Everything's pretty much broken in (engine and transmission specifically) and I have a really good understanding of the engine response and ideal shift points for whatever situation. I wish I had filmed the time a few days ago when I chased the Porsche 911 GT3, but it's okay. Hopefully I'll be able to take a friend along to record some stuff.
that bastard i told you about that had the evo...he keeps racing back and forth down our street....kids fuckin crazy.....i could hear his car about 10 seconds before i even saw it...i really hope that kid gets into an accident.....
that aside, i looked at that site....the record of 0-200 is 28 seconds??? wow..i was thinking at the rate cars were hitting 60...in 4 seconds or less...they'd hit 200 by at least 15 or 18 seconds...28?? man....
that aside, i looked at that site....the record of 0-200 is 28 seconds??? wow..i was thinking at the rate cars were hitting 60...in 4 seconds or less...they'd hit 200 by at least 15 or 18 seconds...28?? man....
When a car accelerates, it doesn't accelerate at the same rate until it hits its top speed. As speed increases, it becomes more difficult to continue accelerating, partially due to the engine and its gearing as well as aerodynamics. Generally speaking, it only takes about 100 hp in a reasonably aerodynamic car to reach 100 mph, but that doesn't mean it only takes 200 hp to reach 200 mph; it takes a lot more than 400 hp, actually. As speeds surpass 100 mph, aerodynamics plays a huge factor since wind resistance and stuff like that increases exponentially, not linearly.
But as far as the engine goes, it's harder and harder to keep pushing, hence the more time necessary to go from 60-120 compared to 0-60, even though it is the same change in speed. Think of it this way: let's say you can max out at 250 pounds doing the flat benchpress. It's easy to do 50 pounds, 100, even 150, but when you start going beyond that, it becomes harder and harder to get up to 250, and even harder to take it up a notch to 255. It's all about physical limitations when going above and beyond.
But as far as the engine goes, it's harder and harder to keep pushing, hence the more time necessary to go from 60-120 compared to 0-60, even though it is the same change in speed. Think of it this way: let's say you can max out at 250 pounds doing the flat benchpress. It's easy to do 50 pounds, 100, even 150, but when you start going beyond that, it becomes harder and harder to get up to 250, and even harder to take it up a notch to 255. It's all about physical limitations when going above and beyond.
^^ Well explained, yet im still in doubt. Not about your explanation, its rock solid, but 28 seconds sounds like a fucking lot. Im drunk and stoned and not in the mood to search specs right now, but 28 secs damn.
now i remember, previous day my boy linked me an article about swiss tuner sportec that pushed a new (997) 911 Turbo to 800+ hp. now thats sick, i realize, but it does 0-200 km/h in like 8 seconds. and even though it was 4 times the power, the gap seems big.
but as im writing this, i realize that 800 in a state of the art porsche is a lot. never mind. i can understand lol
now i remember, previous day my boy linked me an article about swiss tuner sportec that pushed a new (997) 911 Turbo to 800+ hp. now thats sick, i realize, but it does 0-200 km/h in like 8 seconds. and even though it was 4 times the power, the gap seems big.
but as im writing this, i realize that 800 in a state of the art porsche is a lot. never mind. i can understand lol
I noticed you're one of the European members... you do know that we're talking about 200 mph and not km/h, right? And 800 hp is not "4 times the power" of a stock 911 Turbo, which has 420 hp; it's a bit less than two times the power.
I don't know, man... 28 seconds to hit 200 mph is fast. However, some of their records are outdated, obviously. But I looked it up, the new 1001 hp Bugatti Veyron EB16.4 can hit 200 mph in approximately 22 seconds.
I don't know, man... 28 seconds to hit 200 mph is fast. However, some of their records are outdated, obviously. But I looked it up, the new 1001 hp Bugatti Veyron EB16.4 can hit 200 mph in approximately 22 seconds.
I thought the Evo did 0-200 KPH (and not mph) in 28secs, not the Porsche. I compared it to the worked up 911, hence the 4 times (well, about) the power reply.
But as i try to make my brain do what i say, it becomes obvious that the it was the GT3 does 0-200 in 28 seconds? Does a GT3 even get to 200 (thought they topped at 190 odd)
The Evo is faster than that. 200 km/h equates to roughly 124 mph, which isn't that hard to reach in this car. It can finish the quarter-mile in less than 13 seconds and has a trap speed of around 105 mph or so (when driven all-out), and I don't think it takes that much longer to hit 124 mph (~200 km/h) based on how much pull this car still has at such high speeds. It should hit that speed in well under 20 seconds.
As far as the 911 GT3, it tops out at about 190 mph, as you believed. It doesn't have the power to get any higher than that, you'll need about 500 hp and excellent aerodynamics to break the 200 mph barrier.
As far as the 911 GT3, it tops out at about 190 mph, as you believed. It doesn't have the power to get any higher than that, you'll need about 500 hp and excellent aerodynamics to break the 200 mph barrier.
"When a car accelerates, it doesn't accelerate at the same rate until it hits its top speed. As speed increases, it becomes more difficult to continue accelerating, partially due to the engine and its gearing as well as aerodynamics."
oh, i think common sense tells us that it does get harder to accelerate...i think alot of other people were agreeing as well with what i said...28 still seems a long time...i mean...ok, 3 seconds to 60....7 to 100??? if we doubled that to 14 couldnt we make that 200??? 14 's too fast..we'll triple the 0-100 and make it 21...tripling the 0-100 to increase the speed itself another 100...i think that seems fair...but 28 was kinda weird...
but if its outdated, then maybe the enzo could beat that 28...on that site, the enzo seems to be killing all the other cars when it comes to performance.....and that 22 by that buggatti seems ok....10 mph/sec....that looks good....
and one last question...how important is that hp/liter ratio??? i forget what that term is called....how efficient the engine is?
oh, i think common sense tells us that it does get harder to accelerate...i think alot of other people were agreeing as well with what i said...28 still seems a long time...i mean...ok, 3 seconds to 60....7 to 100??? if we doubled that to 14 couldnt we make that 200??? 14 's too fast..we'll triple the 0-100 and make it 21...tripling the 0-100 to increase the speed itself another 100...i think that seems fair...but 28 was kinda weird...
but if its outdated, then maybe the enzo could beat that 28...on that site, the enzo seems to be killing all the other cars when it comes to performance.....and that 22 by that buggatti seems ok....10 mph/sec....that looks good....
and one last question...how important is that hp/liter ratio??? i forget what that term is called....how efficient the engine is?
Yes, like I said, it's outdated. Once something on that site gets published, they don't really go back and edit it. They only add new information, like new car reviews of new cars or recent news about upcoming cars.
In all honesty, a high hp/liter ratio is a good thing since it refers to how efficient an engine is in terms of putting out power, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the car is fast because its ratio is high or that the car is slow because its ratio is low. It just means that the engineers did a good job at getting a lot of power with a given amount of displacement.
For example, Honda's higher-end four cylinders tend to put out 100 hp/liter or more. From an engineering perspective, that is amazing. (If GM could further engineer their engines and apply that same ratio, the regular Corvette would have 600 hp instead of 400.) However, engines that have similar hp/liter ratios tend to have high compression ratios (if you don't know what those are, look them up on that website) which leads to explosive hp at higher rpms but a less lively torque band at lower rpms. So even though a lot of Honda engines can have 100 hp/liter, they're not mind-blowingly fast (doing the quarter-mile in the high-14s/low-15s). So even though Ford's V-8 in the Mustang GT only puts out 65 hp/liter, it's still a wild 300 hp V-8 and can do mid-13s in the quarter-mile. The way to kick some ass is to apply that same engineering to larger engines, which is what Honda will do with the upcoming NSX (rumored to have a V-10 powerplant) and what BMW has been doing with their high-performance cars (the 333 hp 3.2-liter V-6 in the M3, the 400+ hp 4.0-liter V-8 in the upcoming M3, the 500+ hp 5.0-liter V-10 in the M5/M6, etc.). Or they could just strap on a turbocharger like Mitsubishi and Subaru and make four-cylinder engines with incredible hp/liter ratios that can slay most V-8s in terms of performance. Realistically speaking, they help cars get more lower-end torque and high-end hp in a smaller package, which is what you'd want and can't complain about.
In all honesty, a high hp/liter ratio is a good thing since it refers to how efficient an engine is in terms of putting out power, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the car is fast because its ratio is high or that the car is slow because its ratio is low. It just means that the engineers did a good job at getting a lot of power with a given amount of displacement.
For example, Honda's higher-end four cylinders tend to put out 100 hp/liter or more. From an engineering perspective, that is amazing. (If GM could further engineer their engines and apply that same ratio, the regular Corvette would have 600 hp instead of 400.) However, engines that have similar hp/liter ratios tend to have high compression ratios (if you don't know what those are, look them up on that website) which leads to explosive hp at higher rpms but a less lively torque band at lower rpms. So even though a lot of Honda engines can have 100 hp/liter, they're not mind-blowingly fast (doing the quarter-mile in the high-14s/low-15s). So even though Ford's V-8 in the Mustang GT only puts out 65 hp/liter, it's still a wild 300 hp V-8 and can do mid-13s in the quarter-mile. The way to kick some ass is to apply that same engineering to larger engines, which is what Honda will do with the upcoming NSX (rumored to have a V-10 powerplant) and what BMW has been doing with their high-performance cars (the 333 hp 3.2-liter V-6 in the M3, the 400+ hp 4.0-liter V-8 in the upcoming M3, the 500+ hp 5.0-liter V-10 in the M5/M6, etc.). Or they could just strap on a turbocharger like Mitsubishi and Subaru and make four-cylinder engines with incredible hp/liter ratios that can slay most V-8s in terms of performance. Realistically speaking, they help cars get more lower-end torque and high-end hp in a smaller package, which is what you'd want and can't complain about.
I've never tried it myself since experimenting with an AWD when you don't have to can do some serious damage to parts of the transmission. But what I've always heard is that dumping the clutch will break something, and slipping the clutch will lead to a stinky clutch. A "quick slip" is commonly what Evo drivers say is the best method.