Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey all,

Just read Motor's test of the new Evo X. I was quite shocked to find out that power is to remain at 206 kw while torque increases to 422nm from 400nm.

They did some rough acceleration testing (to the dismay of the Mitsu officials) that showed that it was very similar to the previous Evo. All the technology has been retained and somewhat improved.

There was a lot more to the article however in summary it seems as though it is not the revelation I was expecting. Sure the appearance has changed for the good however with the added weight and no more power performance is expected to be retained at Evo IX levels. I am no Evo fan but do acknowledge the cars to be amazing performers.

I am personally disappointed and so too will enthusiasts in my opinion.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/188859-motors-test-of-the-new-evo-x/
Share on other sites

After seeing one in the flesh, i think they look great. It's the same with the new WRX though, No power upgrade. It will be interesting to see who runs them in Targa Tas next Year.

I was thinking the same. At the moment it is the Evo that is the weapon of choice however with the increase in weight and the decrease in the WRX's weight (assumably the STi will follow suit), the tables might turn.

yeah more power would be good. but evos already run very high boost from standard. 1.2 or 1.3 bar from memory.

Motor tested them they were up and over 18psi at full boost. Quite a lot for a factory car.

I thought they would do more for the Evo X, maybe they are saving it for later models of this shape? I do like the new look of it though, much preferred to Subaru's attempt at changing the placement of the product.

There was a lot more to the article however in summary it seems as though it is not the revelation I was expecting. Sure the appearance has changed for the good however with the added weight and no more power performance is expected to be retained at Evo IX levels. I am no Evo fan but do acknowledge the cars to be amazing performers.

I am personally disappointed and so too will enthusiasts in my opinion.

I wouldn't base my judgement of the car upon just one source of review. Look for reviews from Japan or the UK motoring press. And don't worry about the power output just yet Mitsubishi always bring out the light weight, boosted versions soon after.

Were they any remarks regarding the twin clutch system?

I wouldn't base my judgement of the car upon just one source of review. Look for reviews from Japan or the UK motoring press. And don't worry about the power output just yet Mitsubishi always bring out the light weight, boosted versions soon after.

Were they any remarks regarding the twin clutch system?

Yes the test drove the twin clutch system and spoke very highly of it.

In relation to your remark about them bringing out boosted versions later, does Australia get these or just the UK? I always thought we received just one version.

Getting power from an EVO is so bloody easy i agree with 666DAN, 206 kw WTF, the reason why they run so much boost because the cams they use are so restricted its not funny to meet emmission laws, you put a set of cams in an evo with FMIC, exhaust, ecu, you have an 11sec weapon, my mechanis has the evo ix and with ecu only tune that he did he went and ran a 12.8 1/4 at eastern creek so shit all factory just an ecu tune with existing car.

no power??

that can be easerly fix

It's true, and an interesting point, it's the most discussed topic with regard to new performance cars, but if the hardware is right probably the easiest fixed too (Japanese gentleman's agreement proves that this era).

2 things...why do Mitsu stick with the old J-Gov bullsht 206kw rule when it has been phased out and then make the new car 100Kg heavier...fo fk sake we need a 240kw Evo if its going to weigh 1500 porky Kg's

1500kgs is GTR territory and that is where we are headed with cars which that size used to weigh 1200kgs.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
    • When I said "wiring diagram", I meant the car's wiring diagram. You need to understand how and when 12V appears on certain wires/terminals, when 0V is allowed to appear on certain wires/terminals (which is the difference between supply side switching, and earth side switching), for the way that the car is supposed to work without the immobiliser. Then you start looking for those voltages in the appropriate places at the appropriate times (ie, relay terminals, ECU terminals, fuel pump terminals, at different ignition switch positions, and at times such as "immediately after switching to ON" and "say, 5-10s after switching to ON". You will find that you are not getting what you need when and where you need it, and because you understand what you need and when, from working through the wiring diagram, you can then likely work out why you're not getting it. And that will lead you to the mess that has been made of the associated wires around the immobiliser. But seriously, there is no way that we will be able to find or lead you to the fault from here. You will have to do it at the car, because it will be something f**ked up, and there are a near infinite number of ways for it to be f**ked up. The wiring diagram will give you wire colours and pin numbers and so you can do continuity testing and voltage/time probing and start to work out what is right and what is wrong. I can only close my eyes and imagine a rat's nest of wiring under the dash. You can actually see and touch it.
    • So I found this: https://www.efihardware.com/temperature-sensor-voltage-calculator I didn't know what the pullup resistor is. So I thought if I used my table of known values I could estimate it by putting a value into the pullup resistor, and this should line up with the voltages I had measured. Eventually I got this table out of it by using 210ohms as the pullup resistor. 180C 0.232V - Predicted 175C 0.254V - Predicted 170C 0.278V - Predicted 165C 0.305V - Predicted 160C 0.336V - Predicted 155C 0.369V - Predicted 150C 0.407V - Predicted 145C 0.448V - Predicted 140C 0.494V - Predicted 135C 0.545V - Predicted 130C 0.603V - Predicted 125C 0.668V - Predicted 120C 0.740V - Predicted 115C 0.817V - Predicted 110C 0.914V - Predicted 105C 1.023V - Predicted 100C 1.15V 90C 1.42V - Predicted 85C 1.59V 80C 1.74V 75C 1.94V 70C 2.10V 65C 2.33V 60C 2.56V 58C 2.68V 57C 2.70V 56C 2.74V 55C 2.78V 54C 2.80V 50C 2.98V 49C 3.06V 47C 3.18V 45C 3.23V 43C 3.36V 40C 3.51V 37C 3.67V 35C 3.75V 30C 4.00V As before, the formula in HPTuners is here: https://www.hptuners.com/documentation/files/VCM-Scanner/Content/vcm_scanner/defining_a_transform.htm?Highlight=defining a transform Specifically: In my case I used 50C and 150C, given the sensor is supposedly for that. Input 1 = 2.98V Output 1 = 50C Input 2 = 0.407V Output 2 = 150C (0.407-2.98) / (150-50) -2.573/100 = -0.02573 2.98/-0.02573 + 47.045 = 50 So the corresponding formula should be: (Input / -0.02573) + 47.045 = Output.   If someone can confirm my math it'd be great. Supposedly you can pick any two pairs of the data to make this formula.
    • Well this shows me the fuel pump relay is inside the base of the drivers A Pillar, and goes into the main power wire, and it connects to the ignition. The alarm is.... in the base of the drivers A Pillar. The issue is that I'm not getting 12v to the pump at ignition which tells me that relay isn't being triggered. AVS told me the immobiliser should be open until the ignition is active. So once ignition is active, the immobiliser relay should be telling that fuel pump relay to close which completes the circuit. But I'm not getting voltage at the relay in the rear triggered by the ECU, which leaves me back at the same assumption that that relay was never connected into the immobiliser. This is what I'm trying to verify, that my assumption is the most likely scenario and I'll go back to the alarm tech yet again that he needs to fix his work.      Here is the alarms wiring diagram, so my assumption is IM3A, IM3B, or both, aren't connected or improper. But this is all sealed up, with black wiring, and loomed  
×
×
  • Create New...