humm, i stopped reading this thread for a while... didn't know duke got an evo... boy am I out of the loop.

3

[Edited on February 20, 2007 at 11:50 AM. Reason : 3]

2/20/2007 11:50:49 AM

it's hard to beat buschur for quality. i doubt you'll do much if any better on the price anywhere else either.

2/20/2007 12:57:12 PM

dammit, FL is screwing me hard on vehicle tax. apparently in FL, if you buy a car, keep it for a few months, sell it, then buy another one, you don't just owe tax on the price difference between the two cars...and they don't pro-rate a refund for the tax you paid on the first one (since you kept it for less than 1 year).

they get the full 6% tax on both vehicles...so now I owe FL an unexpected $1675, which is gonna set me back a little bit on buying the Buschur parts.

at least FL has no vehicle inspection (and no state income tax), and being active duty military, I can keep my FL residency and keep all my cars registered here--thereby never having to worry about emissions shit no matter where I live.

2/21/2007 6:37:54 PM

I got passed out here by the house the other day by an evo. I think it was yellow with blue wheels or something crazy like that, sounded good and wasnt even getting on it. I cant afford one though.

2/21/2007 6:47:13 PM

Production version of the EVO X:

(for pics of the base Lancer: http://www.worldcarfans.com/news.cfm/country/jcf/newsID/2070426.001/mitsubishi/mitsubishi-announces-lancer-evo-x-and-galant-fortis-ja)

Something about it doesn't seem right. Something makes it seem pedestrian. And those crap wheels gotta go.

The concept version looked a LOT hotter, even though not much has been changed, which again, I can't seem to put my finger on: http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/prototype_x.asp









[Edited on April 27, 2007 at 9:56 PM. Reason : ]

4/27/2007 9:51:49 PM

has gone from looking like a great rally car to looking like a family luxury sedan - the luxury.

not saying i dont like it. I would drive it in a heart beat...its just that i won't buy one if it was my only car and take it out on track.

[Edited on April 27, 2007 at 11:11 PM. Reason : fda]

4/27/2007 11:10:35 PM

i like yours better

this looks more like a galant vr4 to me.

4/27/2007 11:17:57 PM

yeah, i agree. Also those tires look really narrow..

4/27/2007 11:52:02 PM

it looks ok...

for an evo...

at the very least it's much better looking than the new wrx, in that it looks like the same type of car the evo's always been:

"Hey, remember that little shitbox we've been making forever that nobody shopping for an economy car wants? we just started throwing toys and money at it until it could outrun far more expensive, better looking, and more (naturally) balanced cars! And it still has the same shitbox rear doors and seat so you can pretend it's a decent car for the family despite the rock-hard ride!"

considering that its definitely going to be ~30k+, I can't imagine buying one over something like a 350z, unless you have no women in your life to immediately tell you what a hideous car you've bought for the money. I think even my gf would be absolutely struck dumb and stuttering at the sight of my driving one home. I bet once she'd calmed down a bit she'd say: "what was wrong with a used corvette or gto?" and she HATES american cars. Actually, if I can get a mitsu dealer to hep a bro' out, that might be a great way to get the girl to warm up to a gto.... lol...

(note the restraint in comparing the new evo to the as-yet-officially-announced 135i.......)

4/29/2007 11:51:13 AM

form follows.... fuck form
just make the thing function

4/29/2007 11:53:59 AM

Quote :

"dammit, FL is screwing me hard on vehicle tax. apparently in FL, if you buy a car, keep it for a few months, sell it, then buy another one, you don't just owe tax on the price difference between the two cars...and they don't pro-rate a refund for the tax you paid on the first one (since you kept it for less than 1 year)."

i wasn't aware that nc was any different?

4/29/2007 12:16:52 PM

man those rims are a little

i knew they wouldn't use those 20" rims [i think] they had on the show car but damn...

4/30/2007 1:17:47 AM

the 350z is fat and flaccid. the evo offers far superior performance in every measure, insane tuneability, AWD, and sedan practicality.

oh, and it shares very, very little with a Lancer. it's not like the difference between a 6cyl and 8cyl mustang/camaro.

[Edited on April 30, 2007 at 1:27 AM. Reason : fxdfg]

4/30/2007 1:24:52 AM

Evo > anything in its price range

[Edited on April 30, 2007 at 1:55 AM. Reason : for all-round performance]

4/30/2007 1:49:55 AM

way to fuck up a great looking car mitsubishi

4/30/2007 2:50:44 AM

Evo X & WRX STi FACE OFF!!!!


http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=5211


Speculation:

For both:

~320 hp and ~320 lb-ft
0-60 in 4.5
1/4 mile in 12.5
Price $32,000-$35,000


And some illustrations:

4/30/2007 2:53:04 AM

^wrx definitely looks less there than before..

^^^^Duke, you're right!

(omitted here: argument admitting evo 8/9/X is a magnificent machine if you never have to look at it but is 2 fucking ugly for words. and for the money. Also conceded the 350z is too heavy, but what else are ya really gonna buy that's rwd and under 30k, even if it means no options. Hard to really call 350z ugly. Only in a room with supercars and ageless classics and concepts. g35 better ownership option than Z, but even heavier. owning evo also means strained frienships with mustang ppl and miata ppl and honduh ppl and lexus ppl and employers and cops and parents and girls and gf and other ppl who are embarassed for me to spend so much on so ugly, so childish car. Took an hour to write. Came to senses and realized I'm addicted to TWW. took medicine. felt better. deleted argument. replaced with comment)

still can't believe the new name for farboud is farbio. Sounds like fabio and barbie. just bad. medicine makes me wander. look a cat. oh thats my cat. I want more monorail cat pix.

4/30/2007 9:03:06 PM

4/30/2007 9:05:02 PM

i'd rather have a mustang gt than a z
but thats just me

atleast it sounds like a real motor and can make 500hp w/ ease

4/30/2007 9:54:17 PM

^^^that is 100% matter of opinion. Evo is a really sexy looking car. Its more 'grown up' looking than an STi and far more than 350z or mustang. So i'm going to have to completely disagre with you on that.

4/30/2007 10:19:27 PM

^^I have to admit that I do get a little turned on when my I hear my neighbor's brand spankin new mustang GT roll in. I don't like the mustang in general, just too big, too retro without capturing the diminuitive grace of the earlier cars that made "mustang" a fixture in ford, but they do make a beautiful sound. Hopefully Ford will incorporate a lot of the orange italdesign/giugiaro concept. I haven't driven a GT, but I test drove the v6 right when it came out, and it did that horrible sideways gyration when the rear suspension takes a bump in a turn that reminded me of my gf's old 4runner.

So... this is an evo thread right? I just went to http://www.vishnutuning.com and looked at what they offered. No doubt, that is some CHEAP hp. I think if you buy their stage 1 and 2 pkg, it's like 550 hp for like <8k, everything installed? someone needs to find a way to make that car attractive first.

It's so painfully ugly but so good in other ways, it kind of reminds me of the last time I saw a new lex ls460 and how it's just soooo boring but holy crap if that wasn't the most flawless production paint I've ever seen... and especially when you compare that to when you get a chance to see a Ford GT and it looks like a basketball from 2 feet away... ugggh. These cars' niggles are haunting me.

[Edited on April 30, 2007 at 10:32 PM. Reason : +^]

4/30/2007 10:32:08 PM

you know, it's just amazing the confusion that occurs when hp gets mixed into a car. people get all delusional. remember that 700hp aztek from a couple years ago at NAIAS? It had a c5R engine in it. That was impressive, and I guess that if a lowered and widened stance allows a certain level of disbelief for any given shape's ugly, it was certainly better looking than an aztek, but seriously now:


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I bet a couple of you are thinking
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
damn, that's actually pretty hot
.
.
.
.
.
.
not, like e-type hot or alfa 8c type hot
.
.
.
.
.
but... I'd rock it
.
.
.
.
.
.
maybe I should scroll up and check that fly little thang out again
.
OH SHIT! MY EYES

4/30/2007 10:48:42 PM

more like so painfully sexy! (Evo VIII-IX) For 35k and under its the only thing i'd buy for looks and performance.

4/30/2007 11:17:41 PM

admit:
This is the current X

which looks only appropriately "evolutionarily" different from the IX

which looks pretty much identical but for bumpers to an VIII

which was visually barely rounded off from the VII

which looked pretty much like the VI

which was a size up from, but definitely carried the theme of the V

which was visually all but identical except for a ricer's fantasy to the previous I-IV
IV

III

II

I

and that car was based on:
.
the colt.
.
yeah. sure the evo is a sexy car... And so is this aveo then.


see now?

people have no idea what a beautiful car is anymore, I guess.
Mitsubishi has produced beautiful cars, but with the exception of the last eclipse that was also available as an eagle talon (ok, and the 3000gt), the fast mitsus and the pretty mitsus have been pretty much mutually exclusive.
IMO, this was the only "beautiful" mitsubishi, the FTO




[Edited on May 1, 2007 at 12:10 AM. Reason : fixed links]

5/1/2007 12:03:17 AM

dude....

W


T



F


are you smoking? Part of the Evo's beauty is that it shares similarities and an identiy of all past evo models. If you are trying to say it looks like some other car then you are right. It has 4 wheels, 4 doors, and goes vroom vroom.

is it the sexiest car? no...is it one of the sexiest cars within the price range and under? absouletly. Does it have the best luxury options? no because i dont' care for such things and don't put that within my realm of 'sexy'

I can think of 100 cars sexier than a Evo but they are out of my price range and reach.

I'm affriad to ask what you thought was a sexy car....so i'm not going to.

and way to fuck up posting the pic of the best Evo.... VI

[Edited on May 1, 2007 at 12:26 AM. Reason : fda]

5/1/2007 12:22:04 AM

mark, quit being a fan-boy.

imho: it's a pretty fugly car, mitsu certainly isn't a marvel of reliability or status, and its resell value is going to be $pickle. if you can overlook all of that, which obviously a ton of people can, what a fucking package for the money.

Just because you think it's orgasmic doesn't change the fact that a good portion of the automotive world still thinks it's a shitbox that goes, stops, and corners well.

that said, <3

5/1/2007 1:09:19 AM

i;m pretty neutral on my opinion of the looks, but i do think it's cool they've stuck with the same basic styling theme over the years.

5/1/2007 1:18:01 AM

Oh Callahan...

Quote of the week:
"and its resell value is going to be $pickle"

The concept looked great, the production version has a nose that's too long. I like the last gen EVO quite a bit, but things must progress. No suprise that it's getting bigger and heavier. Last one did, and this one does look boy racer-ish, if you can live w/that, it also looks quite hardcore IMO. I intend to make use of that $pickle resale value at some point...
Ahmet

5/1/2007 1:31:49 AM

I don't buy cars I think are fugly...call me fan-boy if you want but i think its hot. I like the way it looks better than my STi whcih is why i tried buying a VIII MR before the STi

5/1/2007 2:11:09 AM

^meh, clinton married hillary before he let lewie taste the business end of his lemonade stand.

amirite

[Edited on May 1, 2007 at 2:21 AM. Reason : okimrite]

5/1/2007 2:20:07 AM

to each his own.

5/1/2007 2:38:36 AM

The evo is the best bang for your buck out of the box... no doubt...
but for some reason i still like the subies better
even though i think the 06-07 is more fugly than the new evo

5/1/2007 7:10:51 AM

Quote :

"considering that its definitely going to be ~30k+, I can't imagine buying one over something like a 350z, unless you have no women in your life to immediately tell you what a hideous car you've bought for the money. "

I know a lot of people that don't think the 350Z is an attractive car, me among them.

Quote :

"It's so painfully ugly but so good in other ways, it kind of reminds me of the last time I saw a new lex ls460 and how it's just soooo boring but holy crap if that wasn't the most flawless production paint I've ever seen... and especially when you compare that to when you get a chance to see a Ford GT and it looks like a basketball from 2 feet away... ugggh."

They intentionally put thin layers of paint on some performance cars, to save weight. You'd notice the same thing on an Enzo, so you gonna bash that car too?

5/1/2007 1:47:39 PM

omg there is a weave pattern i can see behind the paint on my enzo
repaint it plz!

5/1/2007 2:24:10 PM

^they were trying to save money in production by using some cheap material from China called carbon fiber....wish they'd just use steel like real cars!

5/1/2007 2:32:58 PM

^the Ford GT is certainly one of my favorite cars, but Ford doesn't get to use the "weight saving" excuse that Ferrari can almost pull off! The GT's paint isn't shitty because it's supposed to be saving any weight.... c'mon now, it weighs 3400 lbs! Those nifty looking fake seat vents and somewhat whimsical GT-specific dashboard switches scream production car vanity. I love the GT, but by its form-led appearance it definitely can't claim to be a showcar for a leading-edge weight savings mission. Ferrari gets away with it b/c an enzo is a totally over the top car, as light as a 650 hp production-compliant car could be. The GT has a gorgeous shape and a ridiculously tuneable engine given its stock output, but is no optimized precision device as an Enzo! Or even an F50! If it wasn't every owner's pride and joy to lock up for all eternity, it's a car you could drive everyday. You could measure it as a supercar in some ways, but not for attention to detail compared to other supercars... The McLaren F1 got away with a gold-lined engine compartment, claiming that it was the best reflector, but that doesn't mean Dodge can do that on a Viper. And even though the Ferrari's paint may be thin, when I've seen an enzo from the same distance, it doesn't suffer from the same orange peel that a GT does. The GT wears paint that is absolutely no different from a Mustang as far as I'm aware. Like sumfoo pt1 out... any pattern behind the paint on an enzo is b/c its "barely" covering the carbon fiber. The GT is aluminum, which is hardly an uneven surface to work with. If I wanted one and had the money, I'd get one and repaint it... google the GTX-1 or Stillen's orange GT and you'll see how much better it would look with decent paint. its on my desktop right now!

and c'mon now... you REALLY... believe that a 350z is UGLIER than an evo? And regardless of YOUR special abilities to say so... would you really expect the average person to agree with you? compare this to any other pic on this page except for the FTO.

5/1/2007 2:37:35 PM

If i thought a 350z was 'prettier' and a over all better car than an Evo then yes, I would have bought one since it was in my price range. However, i think the 350z is ugly as balls...a G35 coupe is much nicer.

i mean seriously, give up already, its like me telling you your girlfriend is ugly as sin and mine is way hotter. (not that i'm calling your gf ugly or anything)

[Edited on May 1, 2007 at 2:40 PM. Reason : fda]

5/1/2007 2:39:57 PM

Quote :

"The GT is aluminum, which is hardly an uneven surface to work with."

i agree with most of what you said. but this is false. unless ford blasts all the aluminum oxide off and polishes the panel aluminum isn't that consistent. Though i think they should i highly doubt this happens.

You can't expect the same level of quality.. its like comparing a samurai sword to a machete sure they'll both cut off an arm/leg/tree limb pretty well but one has a sense of grace the other can't imagine but the respective prices also reflect this.

i like the evo 9s look better than the z, the z looks chunky and fat
i may only thing that cause i hate the sound of them but for some reason thats what i thing..
the g35 looks good though... but i still couldn't drive one cause i hate that engine's sound.

5/1/2007 2:55:37 PM

sorry for delay... actually attempted to study

^rough b/c of oxidation/=undulating weave. I'll be more specific next time. My complaint was that it smacked of corporate idiocy to fail to offer better paint on a car costing 3x as much as any other model. Ford still would have sold every GT they made if they charged double, and there was room for such detail without being considered wasteful. I'd take a gt despite shittier paint. For the $500k conservative minimum cost difference between the two, I think I could spend a very tiny fraction for a sweet paint job good enough for most concept cars, give or take a Focus.

the point of that comparison wasn't to divert thread into gt v enzo comparison. That's pretty far from an STi/Evo conversation. My bad.

and

Quote :

""i like the evo 9s look better than the z" [statement of preference, unarguable], "the z looks chunky and fat" [statement of opinion, debateable]"

.

Neither looks perfectly right to me. When I see a 350z though, it's easy to pigeonhole it as being more conceptually right, flawed in execution:
big naturally aspirated engine and shape makes visually recognizable as that config, eng/trans inside the wheelbase, rwd, 2 seats, fastback shape with hatch, no profile compromises to allow for rear headroom, big wheels in proportion to fender height, overhangs and window height, clearly defined fenderforms that flow into upper (facing upward) surfaces, tucked under sills, good windowline. Optional are flared body pkg, multi-spoke whls, more prominent brakes over std, and various unseen equipment. Color palette includes every color of the rainbow, change almost every year. Most every color is metallic or bright, but black also popular. A loaded car with every option, and even with significant aftermarket changes, in a fleet of base models would be a needle in a haystack. Emphasis is on the form and the general shape and solid original concept only worth marginally improving. The guy with the entry level car is thrifty and doesn't demand the absolute extent of what the car might offer.

If you told someone to pen a shape to a car that fit that description, you'd get a lot of really great looking cars. The 350z is merely a weak example of this genre. Old Jags, Astons, viper, 8 series, corvette, cunningham, supra, lex sc300/400 (not 430), xk8, 550/575M, z3 and z4 coupe vs respective M coupes, cayman (inside whlbase,not necc f.e.), Rx-7 mk3, 6 series, 599 gtb,

parallel description of an evo:
start with 3 box economy car with flat sides and fenders that exceed the track, but without original fenders swelling out from the body. Sell that model concurrently with revised version as follows: flare fenders so as to create a surface that just turns back to parallel to body side at edge of fenderwell, put more "aggressive" sculpting effect to sills, bumpers, hood. Add lots of vents, mostly functional or at least functional looking. Wider tires, taller wheels with shallower sidewall, add fins and wing. Visible heat exchangers, prominent brake calipers, no chrome, preferably dark wheels, improved interior pieces over std car only where directly touch driver (shifter/wheel/pedals/seat/belts). white, red, black or gray that would fit description of "gunmetal" to a likely owner. Or whatever color is used on the rally version if there is one. (i.e. blue if subaru). A fully loaded model in a fleet of lesser models sticks out like a sore thumb. The point of the uplevel model is the improvements. It is presumed that the owner has very definite needs absolutely beyond the entry model, necessitating compromise of other measures, and it would be odd to find even the factory-modified car in its stock form.

Using that alone, I imagine the average of the breed being something somewhat less likely to find its way into a museum someday and more likely to be in someone's lawn in Apex, probably with fiberglass z3 vents in the fenders and "altezzas." So here, you could argue that the recent evos are actually the most carefully executed of this breed and mitsubishi is to be commended.

But the most carefully shaped turd still smells like shit. And fast as hot shit is still shit.

I always write more than what I thought I would in this thread. I must really have a distaste for the evo as a concept. Funny though, I'm sure it would be fun to drive one. 350z is just more appealing. I'd go into more debt to improve a same cost 350z than an evo. And I'm sure the evo would still be quicker.

5/3/2007 11:57:17 AM

My rice is not beautiful, its cool.

Pretty fucking cool.

5/3/2007 12:08:21 PM

can you start using CNN's style of writing articles? Cause i really don't feel like reading all that to find out.

- user hates evos
- user thinks they're ugly
- user wants everyone else to agree

5/3/2007 6:18:10 PM

^-user is lazy

5/3/2007 7:50:57 PM

n1 read that?

5/3/2007 9:26:28 PM

no, but i'm pretty sure i highlighted the main point of views without having to read it.

5/4/2007 4:10:46 AM

it's been discussed, but here's something new from the evom forums:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourCar/10CostliestCarsToInsure.aspx

Hiway Loss Data Institute's costliest cars to insure ('02-'04):

1 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution
2 Mercedes CL-Class
3 Dodge SRT-4
4 Subaru Impreza WRX
5 Jaguar XK (convertible)
6 Lexus IS 300
7 Honda S2000
8 Acura RSX
9 Nissan 350Z
10 Jaguar XJ

Owning two on this list at the same time is kicking my ass right now. plz to stop crashing.

5/4/2007 1:02:47 PM

I bet the evo, wrx and rsx are on that list to stay (maybe the neon as well). Seems the pimple faced high school teens are moving on from e36 M3s... Interesting though, that the STi seems to not be so popular with the said crowd.
Ahmet

5/4/2007 6:19:13 PM

^^ lmfao... which of these things are not like the others.... (XK/XJ) that's hilarious. My dad asked me back in '97 (I was 15) what convertible he should get. He wanted something comfy and missed the way his 7 series was such a crowd pleaser when he bought it new in 1981. He's not a viper or miata kinda guy. He's pretty much a dead match for the xk8 buyer profile. So I told him to go look at the new xk8, which was all over the press at the time. He loved it and bought one within a month. It's a great car but certainly not a WHOA- VTAK / turbo-jap-box item like most of that list...

By the way, where are the mustangs, vettes, vipers, GTOs, ferraris, lambos, etc? If you can insure a Vette for less than a Jag XK, convertible, that's my angle when I try that like of bs with my dad to be a co-signer...

5/6/2007 9:33:50 PM

Quote :

"It's a great car but certainly not a WHOA- VTAK / turbo-jap-box item like most of that list... "

uh...its nothing like any of those cars on the list besides the fact that its more expensive. Only car it could be similar to as far as comparing is the CL class convertible. which i would take over a jag any day.

5/6/2007 11:05:01 PM

^

For someone who wants to post and then go have a beer:
Oops, forgot about the CL on that list. But that wasn't the point of your post. You only said what I already said. Don't be so smug. Also, there is no CL-class convertible.


For everyone else who isn't getting drunk today:

What the hell is your problem, Golovko?
I said:

Quote :

"lmfao... which of these things are not like the others.... (XK/XJ) that's hilarious. ... It's a great car but certainly not a WHOA- VTAK / turbo-jap-box item like most of that list... "

I believe that is a TWW-and-Golovko-friendly summary for:

Quote :

" " -That's funny. -I am surprised to see english luxury cars, ---...targeted at mid-life crisis buyers...and ---...usually driven at less than the speed limit blocking the left lane, ---...on a list of cars that are expensive to insure ---...when the list is clearly excluding a lot of cars that are much more expensive to fix, without ---...being so much more expensive than the jags to initially purchase, like a viper. -The rest of that list are far cheaper cars designed just to go fast for the cost. -Most of the cars on that list tend to be driven recklessly by young people. -They are even likely to be used on a track. -When was the last time you saw an XJ8 power-oversteering? -drifting out of the lane at 55 mph doesn't count." "

then you said:

Quote :

""uh...its nothing like any of those cars on the list besides the fact that its more expensive. Only car it could be similar to as far as comparing is the CL class convertible. which i would take over a jag any day.""

just to be sure, I'm pretty sure you mean:

Quote :

""those cars have nothing to do with one another. you can't even compare them. There's more than money there.""

How is that any different from what I said? Even my reasonable interpretation (IMO) to flesh out what you meant doesn't amount to a correction of what I said in my previous post.

the first sentence of the following is what a polite one-line correction should look like. Note the lack of "" before I say something inaccurate:

Quote :

" There is no CL-class convertible, but I'm sure you meant either an SL or a CLK. I'm pretty sure you didn't confuse "CL" with "SLK." "

If you were thinking of an SL, It's poignant that you would take the overweight, overpriced, bruiser over the measured and moderate jag. The stock SL500 (550?) with the scalloped, 5 spoke wheels that have a the subtle dish is a pretty good looking car except from the back where it still has that every-hard-top-but-the-miata fat ass. But I bet you just love that perpetually square and "aggressive" AMG bodykit they let buyers slap on whichever model they want too. I've seen some European SL's with the 3.5L v6 wearing the SL55 bodykit. The Jag could be smaller. I'm pretty sure everyone wanted to the the XK replaced or supplemented by something like the XK180 or the F-type.

The real difference between your post (and my reply in this post) and my previous post is that my previous post wasn't meant to vindictively correct anyone for an unrelated reason, like calling calling a car ugly.
You didn't have anything to add, you were just trying to look good. Admittedly, I can't deny that I'm trying to look good here by pointing out the contrast of thought that goes into our respective posts. But I'm at least saying something.

If and when you do legitimately correct me here, it still won't make your car any prettier. I sincerely do hope you get a chance to correct me, I make a lot of speculative comments, so it shouldn't be too hard if that's a goal you want to achieve in the near future.


(useful for interpreting the list but not the point of this post: At the MSN site where the list is from, the list as it is actually labeled: "according to most expensive collision losses...from 02-04." That does helps to clear it up a bit, given the cost of fixing an aluminum body, even though the old shape XK that was made during the sample years was all-steel. But why an Acura NSX or even an Audi a8 isn't included seems odd unless the list also has a limitation of excluding cars from the list where there isn't enough sample data, either due to low production level or very few amounts of crashes.)




So, just to keep the fire burning

I still think your car is ugly, and that is in continued recognition of its achievements. Last night I was flipping through motor trend and an Evo IX MR came in fourth in a handling test of track-biased cars, behind the 997 GT3, Cayman S and Exige S, and way in front of the Corvette Z06. Impressive.

The drivers impressions and track data supported the fact that the Evo's sophisticated 4wd and massive on-boost torque allowed the Evo to accelerate harder out of turns than anything else in the test, including far more powerful cars.

Then, off the track, on public roads, they called its handling "close to idiot proof." Which I think is telling in a variety of ways.



thank you to to those who read
I applaud those of you who read. You've seen that I can't seem to make a casual comment on here without some boostgoggles ricer buttmunch trying to correct even the most compact post that errs only to a side detail, if at all. Then, when I make a measured argument, I get a "I'm not reading all that" comment that totally neglects the fact that every time anyone logs onto TWW, you'll read at least this much from multiple users who each are offering less than their complete thoughts on a topic.

5/7/2007 11:51:41 AM

ok, so you are the one going to have a beer and getting drunk? i don't quite get that and of course i stopped reading after that too. like i said, i don't care what your opinion of the evo is, i like it. i think its a pretty hot car. end of discussion.

if you don't agree then that goes back to what i said in the begining, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. you care way too much about having people agree with you on TWW. GG you.

now QQ more about evo's plz. kthx

5/7/2007 12:09:11 PM