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

    • Look, realistically, those are some fairly chunky connectors and wires so it is a reasonably fair bet that that loom was involved in the redirection of the fuel pump and/or ECU/ignition power for the immobiliser. It's also fair to be that the new immobiliser is essentially the same thing as the old one, and so it probably needs the same stuff done to make it do what it has to do. Given that you are talking about a car that no-one else here is familiar with (I mean your exact car) and an alarm that I've never heard of before and so probably not many others are familiar with, and that some wire monkey has been messing with it out of our sight, it seems reasonable that the wire monkey should be fixing this.
    • Wheel alignment immediately. Not "when I get around to it". And further to what Duncan said - you cannot just put camber arms on and shorten them. You will introduce bump steer far in excess of what the car had with stock arms. You need adjustable tension arms and they need to be shortened also. The simplest approach is to shorten them the same % as the stock ones. This will not be correct or optimal, but it will be better than any other guess. The correct way to set the lengths of both arms is to use a properly built/set up bump steer gauge and trial and error the adjustments until you hit the camber you need and want and have minimum bump steer in the range of motion that the wheel is expected to travel. And what Duncan said about toe is also very true. And you cannot change the camber arm without also affecting toe. So when you have adjustable arms on the back of a Skyline, the car either needs to go to a talented wheel aligner (not your local tyre shop dropout), or you need to be able to do this stuff yourself at home. Guess which approach I have taken? I have built my own gear for camber, toe and bump steer measurement and I do all this on the flattest bit of concrete I have, with some shims under the tyres on one side to level the car.
    • Thought I would get some advice from others on this situation.    Relevant info: R33 GTS25t Link G4x ECU Walbro 255LPH w/ OEM FP Relay (No relay mod) Scenario: I accidentally messed up my old AVS S5 (rev.1) at the start of the year and the cars been immobilised. Also the siren BBU has completely failed; so I decided to upgrade it.  I got a newer AVS S5 (rev.2?) installed on Friday. The guy removed the old one and its immobilisers. Tried to start it; the car cranks but doesnt start.  The new one was installed and all the alarm functions seem to be working as they should; still wouldn't start Went to bed; got up on Friday morning and decided to have a look into the no start problem. Found the car completely dead.  Charged the battery; plugged it back in and found the brake lights were stuck on.  Unplugging the brake pedal switch the lights turn off. Plug it back in and theyre stuck on again. I tested the switch (continuity test and resistance); all looks good (0-1kohm).  On talking to AVS; found its because of the rubber stopper on the brake pedal; sure enough the middle of it is missing so have ordered a new one. One of those wear items; which was confusing what was going on However when I try unplugging the STOP Light fuses (under the dash and under the hood) the brake light still stays on. Should those fuses not cut the brake light circuit?  I then checked the ECU; FP Speed Error.  Testing the pump again; I can hear the relay clicking every time I switch it to ON. I unplugged the pump and put the multimeter across the plug. No continuity; im seeing 0.6V (ECU signal?) and when it switches the relay I think its like 20mA or 200mA). Not seeing 12.4V / 7-9A. As far as I know; the Fuel Pump was wired through one of the immobiliser relays on the old alarm.  He pulled some thick gauged harness out with the old alarm wiring; which looks to me like it was to bridge connections into the immobilisers? Before it got immobilised it was running just fine.  Im at a loss to why the FP is getting no voltage; I thought maybe the FP was faulty (even though I havent even done 50km on the new pump) but no voltage at the harness plug.  Questions: Could it be he didnt reconnect the fuel pump when testing it after the old alarm removal (before installing the new alarm)?  Is this a case of bridging to the brake lights instead of the fuel pump circuit? It's a bit beyond me as I dont do a lot with electrical; so have tried my best to diagnose what I think seems to make sense.  Seeking advice if theres for sure an issue with the alarm install to get him back here; or if I do infact, need an auto electrician to diagnose it. 
    • Then, shorten them by 1cm, drop the car back down and have a visual look (or even better, use a spirit level across the wheel to see if you have less camber than before. You still want something like 1.5 for road use. Alternatively, if you have adjustable rear ride height (I assume you do if you have extreme camber wear), raise the suspension back to standard height until you can get it all aligned properly. Finally, keep in mind that wear on the inside of the tyre can be for incorrect toe, not just camber
    • I know I have to get a wheel alignment but until then I just need to bring the rear tyres in a bit they're wearing to the belt on the inside and brand new on the outside edge. I did shorten the arms a bit but got it wrong now after a few klms the Slip and VDC lights come on. I'd just like to get it to a point where I can drive for another week or two before getting an alignment. I've had to pay a lot of other stuff recently so doing it myself is my only option 
×
×
  • Create New...