RE: On The Road In The Mitsubishi Evo FQ400

[youngsyr]

MrKipling43 said:

youngsyr said:

In my opinion a car with a 4.8 second 0-60 mph time simply cannot be a particularly quick point to point car.

Demonstrating a rather epic... well, you're wrong basically.

youngsyr said:

After all, how many M3s do you see entered in sprint competitions, let alone winning them?

Silly question.

With a reply like that it really isn't worth my time continuing this discussion.

[mrmr96]

I'm afraid that whilst his pies are exceedingly good, his arguments are exceedingly weak. It's just not possible to reason with the unreasonable.

[spoonoff]

Most would have the M3 but what's the point arguing? The BM is a far better ownership proposition and I guess a better drive. But if you want to pull the pants down of everything else you meet on the road (or a trackday/hillclimb etc.) the Evo wins no question.

[mrmr96]

Exactly. It's horses for courses. There is never going to be agreement on which is the "best" car because no one can agree what "best" means because everyone has different priorities.

I like sprints and modding so my Evo is great. (I've got slicks and fitted harnesses etc etc)
If I liked leather seats and luxury etc then I'd have an M3.

[DirtyHarry88]

M3 'autobahn cruiser'

lulz

[DirtyHarry88]

car2tref said:

Having been in the predicament of having to choose between three of the mentioned cars above apart from them being older versions:
GTR Vs Evo Vs M3
I needed to choose one and sell two, it took 3 months to decide and after using all three on track days and approx 1000mile round trips each I chose the GTR and after a month of driving it, I ended up missing the evo the most!!
The M3 needed regular and expensive fettling and managed to average nearly £1k per service/parts etc..
The Evo needed regular fettling and averaged £320 per service.
The GTR needed regular fettling but averaged £300 per service/sort out.
The GTR was by far the fastest on nearly all roads, including M4 motorway. M3 could'nt stay with the acceleration.
The evo was by far the best on A or especially B roads, responsive and road holding and feel was unbelievable and on track days it just made the other two look like they were trying too hard!! The only reason the Evo had to go was because I was once embarrassed by a dabble on the M4 with some tuned up Subaru, a noble and a Porsche.
£50k ridiculous but secondhand- WOW!!

Edited by car2tref on Tuesday 25th August 18:09

I find that hard to believe.

Also, using 0-60 times as a yardstick for 'point to point' speed doesn't make much sense surely?

Edited by DirtyHarry88 on Wednesday 26th August 23:06

[mrmr96]

DirtyHarry88 said:

car2tref said:

it just made the other two look like they were trying too hard!!

I find that hard to believe.

Geniune question, have you done many/any sprints?

Reason for asking is that they are quite different from road driving. Having done a few myself I can say that in my experience there have been many many many more Evo's at such events than M3's.

That doesn't mean that the M3 is 'bad' or the Evo is 'better'. All it means is that the Evo is widely recognised as being more suitable for that purpose, just as the M3 is more suitable for it's purpose.

I wish backers of the M3 would recognise that it is not all things to all men and there are things the Evo does better. Just as there are things the M3 does better than the Evo.

[deviant]

collateral said:

Have to wonder how reliable it's going to be chucking out 200hp/L

Didn't the old one have a bit of a reputation for breaking drive shafts?

I think thats more to do with unsypathetic drivers than any real issue with the car. When I have spoken to people using them in sprints / hillclimbs and the like they have all said its the best 'set and forget' competition car around as long as you treat it right.

DirtyHarry88 said:

Also, using 0-60 times as a yardstick for 'point to point' speed doesn't make much sense surely?

Edited by DirtyHarry88 on Wednesday 26th August 23:06

Agree with that. The mid-range 3rd and 4th gear stuff is more relevant.

[Phil-CH]

The 0-60mph talk is a bit disturbing. I'd be surprised if the FQ400 is actually that quick. The FQ300 has a claimed time of 4.7 seconds, yet it all magazine tests that I've read (which actually do these kind of performance tests), the times came up 6.1 seconds for 0-62mph (sport-auto review 7/2008). That's the one with the sequential gear box. I sincerely doubt it can shave off over 2 seconds with 100bhp more.

Even if it can, compared to a more powerful M3 (that does the same time in 4.6s / 7 gear sequential version - 4.8s for the manual version to 62mph) - it's probably only quicker off the line due to getting the power better on the ground (clutch dump - great for the clutch). I very much doubt that though.

[Dagnut]

The STI is quicker than the FQ300, the PP330 is quicker than the fq330..I would guess that the Type 20 is just as quick.
I know I'm repeating myself here but its a pointless exercise comparing it to an M3 when its DIRECT rival is 13k cheaper and just as fast. Its has a widened track like the eveo, uprated suspension, forged internals and bigger turbo..so wheres the 13k going in the EVO? THe EVO is better looking of course but that should bare no reflection on actual value.

[youngsyr]

Phil-CH said:

The 0-60mph talk is a bit disturbing. I'd be surprised if the FQ400 is actually that quick. The FQ300 has a claimed time of 4.7 seconds, yet it all magazine tests that I've read (which actually do these kind of performance tests), the times came up 6.1 seconds for 0-62mph (sport-auto review 7/2008). That's the one with the sequential gear box. I sincerely doubt it can shave off over 2 seconds with 100bhp more.

Even if it can, compared to a more powerful M3 (that does the same time in 4.6s / 7 gear sequential version - 4.8s for the manual version to 62mph) - it's probably only quicker off the line due to getting the power better on the ground (clutch dump - great for the clutch). I very much doubt that though.

My Evo VIII has been dynoed at just over 400 bhp and I've measured it's 0-60 time using a GPS data recorder at 3.9 seconds on normal road tyres. Even on a bad launch it will do it in 4.5 seconds.

Given that any test for figues for an FQ-400 would be with a professional driver, in perfect conditions with no respect to the clutch or transmisssion, and the stickier semi-slick tyres on an FQ-400 I would imagine a sub-4 second 0-60mph would be possible in the FQ-400.

As for 0-60 mph time not being relevant for sprints, given that you start from a stand still and there are generally a lot of very low gear corners (some even in first gear) on a lot of sprints, the 0-60 mph time is very relevant. On some sprint courses you won't even get into 4th gear.

[joz8968]

All this talk of comparing the Evo to the M3 and this, that and the other...... Forget that.

For £50k, I'd be on the blower to Radical in a trice! :-D

Edited by joz8968 on Thursday 27th August 10:00

[rovermorris999]

Low mileage RB320's can be had for around £20k. No contest in my mind unless you really need that extra acceleration and want a new car and a few tweaks plus a few quid on an RB320 will see it as quick.

[Phil-CH]

youngsyr said:

Phil-CH said:

The 0-60mph talk is a bit disturbing. I'd be surprised if the FQ400 is actually that quick. The FQ300 has a claimed time of 4.7 seconds, yet it all magazine tests that I've read (which actually do these kind of performance tests), the times came up 6.1 seconds for 0-62mph (sport-auto review 7/2008). That's the one with the sequential gear box. I sincerely doubt it can shave off over 2 seconds with 100bhp more.

Even if it can, compared to a more powerful M3 (that does the same time in 4.6s / 7 gear sequential version - 4.8s for the manual version to 62mph) - it's probably only quicker off the line due to getting the power better on the ground (clutch dump - great for the clutch). I very much doubt that though.

My Evo VIII has been dynoed at just over 400 bhp and I've measured it's 0-60 time using a GPS data recorder at 3.9 seconds on normal road tyres. Even on a bad launch it will do it in 4.5 seconds.

Given that any test for figues for an FQ-400 would be with a professional driver, in perfect conditions with no respect to the clutch or transmisssion, and the stickier semi-slick tyres on an FQ-400 I would imagine a sub-4 second 0-60mph would be possible in the FQ-400.

As for 0-60 mph time not being relevant for sprints, given that you start from a stand still and there are generally a lot of very low gear corners (some even in first gear) on a lot of sprints, the 0-60 mph time is very relevant. On some sprint courses you won't even get into 4th gear.

Then you either have a very optimistic logger, run your times downhill or indeed have a very unique Evo then (perhaps stripped). Even so, we weren't talking about *your* tuned Evo, but the FQ400 Evo X.

I've read more than enough reviews of professionally tuned Evos between 360bhp and 400 and none of them get below 4.0s. The quickest did the 'professional' test in 4.4 seconds to 62mph and indeed packed over 400bhp and was even made lighter. Where the FQ makes up for over .5 second... well, certainly not in the power/torque department. The X is also heavier. And definately not in those 2mph going to 60mph instead of 62.

[joz8968]

rovermorris999 said:

Low mileage RB320's can be had for around £20k. No contest in my mind unless you really need that extra acceleration and want a new car and a few tweaks plus a few quid on an RB320 will see it as quick.

Problem here (IMO) is the Hawkeye's awful "plane's fuselage[sic]" nose! :-(

Sod it, I'd just get a mint Evo IX in white and tune it to 400+ - or even better, get one that's already been done by the owner - for a fraction of the cost! Sorted motor, nicer looking and everything...

Edited by joz8968 on Thursday 27th August 11:57

[10 Pence Short]

mrmr96 said:

DirtyHarry88 said:

car2tref said:

it just made the other two look like they were trying too hard!!

I find that hard to believe.

Geniune question, have you done many/any sprints?

Reason for asking is that they are quite different from road driving. Having done a few myself I can say that in my experience there have been many many many more Evo's at such events than M3's.

Nothing to do with the fact that the Mitsubishi is cheaper, easier to extract addtional power from and perceived as being easier to drive close to its limit.

You probably get more Evos than Caterham R500s at sprints, but I don't think that makes the 500 a less suitable car from a technical perspective.

[youngsyr]

Phil-CH said:

youngsyr said:

Phil-CH said:

The 0-60mph talk is a bit disturbing. I'd be surprised if the FQ400 is actually that quick. The FQ300 has a claimed time of 4.7 seconds, yet it all magazine tests that I've read (which actually do these kind of performance tests), the times came up 6.1 seconds for 0-62mph (sport-auto review 7/2008). That's the one with the sequential gear box. I sincerely doubt it can shave off over 2 seconds with 100bhp more.

Even if it can, compared to a more powerful M3 (that does the same time in 4.6s / 7 gear sequential version - 4.8s for the manual version to 62mph) - it's probably only quicker off the line due to getting the power better on the ground (clutch dump - great for the clutch). I very much doubt that though.

My Evo VIII has been dynoed at just over 400 bhp and I've measured it's 0-60 time using a GPS data recorder at 3.9 seconds on normal road tyres. Even on a bad launch it will do it in 4.5 seconds.

Given that any test for figues for an FQ-400 would be with a professional driver, in perfect conditions with no respect to the clutch or transmisssion, and the stickier semi-slick tyres on an FQ-400 I would imagine a sub-4 second 0-60mph would be possible in the FQ-400.

As for 0-60 mph time not being relevant for sprints, given that you start from a stand still and there are generally a lot of very low gear corners (some even in first gear) on a lot of sprints, the 0-60 mph time is very relevant. On some sprint courses you won't even get into 4th gear.

Then you either have a very optimistic logger, run your times downhill or indeed have a very unique Evo then (perhaps stripped). Even so, we weren't talking about *your* tuned Evo, but the FQ400 Evo X.

I've read more than enough reviews of professionally tuned Evos between 360bhp and 400 and none of them get below 4.0s. The quickest did the 'professional' test in 4.4 seconds to 62mph and indeed packed over 400bhp and was even made lighter. Where the FQ makes up for over .5 second... well, certainly not in the power/torque department. The X is also heavier. And definately not in those 2mph going to 60mph instead of 62.

I like the way what's allegedly written in a review always trumps practical experience, and just how do you get a "very optimistic [GPS based] logger"?

Care to post a link to the review where the professionals tested the Evos and failed to get even near to 4 seconds?

For some reason it seems to me that people who haven't experienced a tuned Evo (which is effectively what an FQ-400 is) being launched just cannot grasp how quickly they accelerate. I have literally bounced one of my mates heads off of the headrest by flooring it in first without warning him.

[youngsyr]

10 Pence Short said:

mrmr96 said:

DirtyHarry88 said:

car2tref said:

it just made the other two look like they were trying too hard!!

I find that hard to believe.

Geniune question, have you done many/any sprints?

Reason for asking is that they are quite different from road driving. Having done a few myself I can say that in my experience there have been many many many more Evo's at such events than M3's.

Nothing to do with the fact that the Mitsubishi is cheaper, easier to extract addtional power from and perceived as being easier to drive close to its limit.

You probably get more Evos than Caterham R500s at sprints, but I don't think that makes the 500 a less suitable car from a technical perspective.

M3s are barely any more expensive than Evos on an age for age basis and there are many drivers who take competing in sprints very seriously, if they thought an M3 was a better prospect, they wouldn't be driving an Evo.

Also, modifying doesn't come into it, there are stock/production road car classes in sprints so that you can race against other stock cars.

The facts of the matter are that an Evo is an incredibly good sprinting car in its very nature, they've even changed the rules for sprints to take this into account so that 4WD cars are handicapped or moved up a class to make it more competitive.

[RobCrezz]

Phil-CH said:

youngsyr said:

Phil-CH said:

The 0-60mph talk is a bit disturbing. I'd be surprised if the FQ400 is actually that quick. The FQ300 has a claimed time of 4.7 seconds, yet it all magazine tests that I've read (which actually do these kind of performance tests), the times came up 6.1 seconds for 0-62mph (sport-auto review 7/2008). That's the one with the sequential gear box. I sincerely doubt it can shave off over 2 seconds with 100bhp more.

Even if it can, compared to a more powerful M3 (that does the same time in 4.6s / 7 gear sequential version - 4.8s for the manual version to 62mph) - it's probably only quicker off the line due to getting the power better on the ground (clutch dump - great for the clutch). I very much doubt that though.

My Evo VIII has been dynoed at just over 400 bhp and I've measured it's 0-60 time using a GPS data recorder at 3.9 seconds on normal road tyres. Even on a bad launch it will do it in 4.5 seconds.

Given that any test for figues for an FQ-400 would be with a professional driver, in perfect conditions with no respect to the clutch or transmisssion, and the stickier semi-slick tyres on an FQ-400 I would imagine a sub-4 second 0-60mph would be possible in the FQ-400.

As for 0-60 mph time not being relevant for sprints, given that you start from a stand still and there are generally a lot of very low gear corners (some even in first gear) on a lot of sprints, the 0-60 mph time is very relevant. On some sprint courses you won't even get into 4th gear.

Then you either have a very optimistic logger, run your times downhill or indeed have a very unique Evo then (perhaps stripped). Even so, we weren't talking about *your* tuned Evo, but the FQ400 Evo X.

I've read more than enough reviews of professionally tuned Evos between 360bhp and 400 and none of them get below 4.0s. The quickest did the 'professional' test in 4.4 seconds to 62mph and indeed packed over 400bhp and was even made lighter. Where the FQ makes up for over .5 second... well, certainly not in the power/torque department. The X is also heavier. And definately not in those 2mph going to 60mph instead of 62.

I dont know what you have been reading, but I have seen standard FQ-300 models get in the 4second range. Must have been an awfull launch to get to 6.0!

[rovermorris999]

''Problem here (IMO) is the Hawkeye's awful "plane's fuselage[sic]" nose! :-(

I like the nose, it's the rear spoiler I've never been 100% comfortable with. All forgiven once inside and on the road or track though.