Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 82

Destroyed an Evo 9 on Friday night

This is a discussion on Destroyed an Evo 9 on Friday night within the Kill Stories forums, part of the Racing Forums category; ...

  1. #21
    Member NiteRiderWs6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    398

    THE WS6 THAT COULD
    These are the stats....dont call this bench racing because its just facts..not putting eather cars down

    2006-2007 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution IX
    Base price : $34,199
    Horsepower : 286 hp @ 6500 rpm
    Torque : 289 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm
    Redline : 7000 rpm
    Top speed : 156 mph(electronically limited)
    0-60 mph : 4.4 sec. (from a dig would kill the LT1)
    0-¼ mile : 12.9 sec @ 106.2 mph
    60-0 braking distance : 110 ft
    200 ft skidpad : 0.98 g

    1993 Chevrolet Camaro Z28
    Configuration:Front Engine/RWDEngine
    V8 Displacement
    5700 cc Horsepower:
    275 bhp @ 5200 rpmTorque
    325 lb-ft(evo) @ 2400 rpmMax RPM:
    UnavailableTransmission:6-Speed Manual
    0-60 mph:6.3 sec
    0-100 mph:14.5 sec
    ¼ mile:14.4 sec @ 99 mph
    Top Speed:155 mph

  2. #22
    no more 4th gen secondgearscratch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri
    Age
    29
    Posts
    2,463

    Pewter
    2000 z28

    im prepared to say that lakewood is the funniest fuck on this whole website.
    take that how you wish.

  3. #23
    The Bandit Wesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    4,033

    SGM
    1998 Trans Am WS6

    Quote Originally Posted by NiteRiderWs6 View Post
    These are the stats....dont call this bench racing because its just facts..not putting eather cars down

    2006-2007 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution IX
    Base price : $34,199
    Horsepower : 286 hp @ 6500 rpm
    Torque : 289 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm
    Redline : 7000 rpm
    Top speed : 156 mph(electronically limited)
    0-60 mph : 4.4 sec. (from a dig would kill the LT1)
    0-¼ mile : 12.9 sec @ 106.2 mph
    60-0 braking distance : 110 ft
    200 ft skidpad : 0.98 g

    1993 Chevrolet Camaro Z28
    Configuration:Front Engine/RWDEngine
    V8 Displacement
    5700 cc Horsepower:
    275 bhp @ 5200 rpmTorque
    325 lb-ft(evo) @ 2400 rpmMax RPM:
    UnavailableTransmission:6-Speed Manual
    0-60 mph:6.3 sec
    0-100 mph:14.5 sec
    ¼ mile:14.4 sec @ 99 mph
    Top Speed:155 mph

    And now for the legit numbers from Car & Driver that aren't fudged to make the car look faster than it is:

    Powertrain

    engine:
    type turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4
    displacement, cu in (cc) 122 (1997)
    power, bhp @ rpm 276 @ 6500
    torque, lb-ft @ rpm 286 @ 3500
    redline, rpm 7000
    lb per bhp 11.9
    drivetrain:
    transmission 6-sp man
    driven wheels all
    gear ratios:1 2.91, 1.94, 1.43, 1.10, 0.87, 0.69
    axle ratio: 4.58

    C/D test results:
    acceleration, seconds
    0-60 mph 4.8

    0-100 mph 12.6

    0-130 mph 25.0

    1/4-mile @ mph 13.6 @ 104

    rolling 5-60 mph 6.3

    top gear
    30-50 mph 12.2
    50-70 mph 8.1

    top speed, mph 152 (drag limited)

    Fuel economy, mpg:
    EPA city 18

    EPA highway 26

    C/D 450-mile trip 13

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Wesman View Post
    And now for the legit numbers from Car & Driver that aren't fudged to make the car look faster than it is:

    Powertrain

    engine:
    type turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4
    displacement, cu in (cc) 122 (1997)
    power, bhp @ rpm 276 @ 6500
    torque, lb-ft @ rpm 286 @ 3500
    redline, rpm 7000
    lb per bhp 11.9
    drivetrain:
    transmission 6-sp man
    driven wheels all
    gear ratios:1 2.91, 1.94, 1.43, 1.10, 0.87, 0.69
    axle ratio: 4.58

    C/D test results:
    acceleration, seconds
    0-60 mph 4.8

    0-100 mph 12.6

    0-130 mph 25.0

    1/4-mile @ mph 13.6 @ 104

    rolling 5-60 mph 6.3

    top gear
    30-50 mph 12.2
    50-70 mph 8.1

    top speed, mph 152 (drag limited)

    Fuel economy, mpg:
    EPA city 18

    EPA highway 26

    C/D 450-mile trip 13

    That EVO8 specs, he gave EVO9.

  5. #25
    Member NiteRiderWs6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    398

    THE WS6 THAT COULD
    Quote Originally Posted by Wesman View Post
    And now for the legit numbers from Car & Driver that aren't fudged to make the car look faster than it is:

    Powertrain

    engine:
    type turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4
    displacement, cu in (cc) 122 (1997)
    power, bhp @ rpm 276 @ 6500
    torque, lb-ft @ rpm 286 @ 3500
    redline, rpm 7000
    lb per bhp 11.9
    drivetrain:
    transmission 6-sp man
    driven wheels all
    gear ratios:1 2.91, 1.94, 1.43, 1.10, 0.87, 0.69
    axle ratio: 4.58

    C/D test results:
    acceleration, seconds
    0-60 mph 4.8

    0-100 mph 12.6

    0-130 mph 25.0

    1/4-mile @ mph 13.6 @ 104

    rolling 5-60 mph 6.3

    top gear
    30-50 mph 12.2
    50-70 mph 8.1

    top speed, mph 152 (drag limited)

    Fuel economy, mpg:
    EPA city 18

    EPA highway 26

    C/D 450-mile trip 13
    You idiot....I bet you can't even read roman numerals that's why u looked up evo 8 specs.....lol jk those that you looked up are evo 8 specs

  6. #26
    The Bandit Wesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    4,033

    SGM
    1998 Trans Am WS6

    Quote Originally Posted by NiteRiderWs6 View Post
    You idiot....I bet you can't even read roman numerals that's why u looked up evo 8 specs.....lol jk those that you looked up are evo 8 specs
    The article didn't say what version it was. It merely said Mitsbuishi Evolution MR vs. Subaru STI. No roman numerals to speak of.

    Anyhow, heres the real specs for the 9:

    2006 MITSUBISHI LANCER EVOLUTION IX MR
    Vehicle type: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
    Estimated price as tested: $35,700 (estimated base price: $35,700)
    Engine type: turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injection
    Displacement: 122 cu in, 1997cc
    Power (SAE net): 286 bhp @ 6500 rpm
    Torque (SAE net): 289 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm

    Transmission: 6-speed manual
    Wheelbase: 103.3 in
    Length/width/height: 178.5/69.7/57.1 in
    Curb weight: 3300 lb
    Zero to 60 mph: 4.6 sec
    Zero to 100 mph: .11.9 sec
    Street start, 5-60 mph: 6.4 sec
    Standing 1/4-mile: 13.4 sec @ 104 mph
    Braking, 70-0 mph: 155 ft
    EPA fuel economy, city driving: 19 mpg

    They aren't that much faster than the VIII's. Its all impressive until you realize the numbers are superfluous, 0-60MPH in 4.6 seconds, but 5-60MPH in 6.4 seconds?? Almost a full 2 second gap?? AWD makes the car look much faster than it really is.

  7. #27
    Rollo Tomassee AKIRA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Outside the box
    Age
    37
    Posts
    2,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Wesman View Post
    The article didn't say what version it was. It merely said Mitsbuishi Evolution MR vs. Subaru STI. No roman numerals to speak of.

    Anyhow, heres the real specs for the 9:

    2006 MITSUBISHI LANCER EVOLUTION IX MR
    Vehicle type: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan
    Estimated price as tested: $35,700 (estimated base price: $35,700)
    Engine type: turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, iron block and aluminum head, port fuel injection
    Displacement: 122 cu in, 1997cc
    Power (SAE net): 286 bhp @ 6500 rpm
    Torque (SAE net): 289 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm

    Transmission: 6-speed manual
    Wheelbase: 103.3 in
    Length/width/height: 178.5/69.7/57.1 in
    Curb weight: 3300 lb
    Zero to 60 mph: 4.6 sec
    Zero to 100 mph: .11.9 sec
    Street start, 5-60 mph: 6.4 sec
    Standing 1/4-mile: 13.4 sec @ 104 mph
    Braking, 70-0 mph: 155 ft
    EPA fuel economy, city driving: 19 mpg

    They aren't that much faster than the VIII's. Its all impressive until you realize the numbers are superfluous, 0-60MPH in 4.6 seconds, but 5-60MPH in 6.4 seconds?? Almost a full 2 second gap?? AWD makes the car look much faster than it really is.
    Is that at the wheels? And its that heavy? I wouldnt say thats bad..

  8. #28
    The Bandit Wesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    4,033

    SGM
    1998 Trans Am WS6

    Quote Originally Posted by AKIRA View Post
    Is that at the wheels? And its that heavy? I wouldnt say thats bad..
    At the wheels?? HELL NO. Thats what the engine is rated for at the crank. Evos put down around 240HP at the wheels.

    And yes, it weighs 3300lbs. Roughly 150lbs less than an F-Body, which isn't much at all.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Wesman View Post
    At the wheels?? HELL NO. Thats what the engine is rated for at the crank. Evos put down around 240HP at the wheels.

    And yes, it weighs 3300lbs. Roughly 150lbs less than an F-Body, which isn't much at all.

    Actually 2003-2004s EVOS have dynoed less than that. The 2005s average around 240-250whp and the IX's are dynoing up to 260-270whp stock!

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    rochester,ny
    Age
    39
    Posts
    2,667

    pewter
    2001 z28 lingenfelter 383

    dont care what the numbers are...lakewood as PROVED to be a tool and i dont belive a word that comes off his keyboard....prolly dosnt own an lt1 or a car for that matter

  11. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    rochester,ny
    Age
    39
    Posts
    2,667

    pewter
    2001 z28 lingenfelter 383

    Quote Originally Posted by NiteRiderWs6 View Post
    You idiot....I bet you can't even read roman numerals that's why u looked up evo 8 specs.....lol jk those that you looked up are evo 8 specs
    LMAO..uhoh

  12. #32
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    delaware
    Age
    36
    Posts
    60

    black
    04 evo8

    This is in no way attacking LS1 owners. Throughout all of the kill stories, I keep hearing people talk s*** on EVO's. Especially Wesmon. It sounds to me that there is a lot of jealousy. Yes they blow clutches as well as any other car that is fast and races. They're motors are probably one of the strongest motors ever built. Who else has motors running aroung at 55LBS of boost and aren't too concerned about blowing them up. And about the cost your comparing new and used cars. I bought my evo8 04 for 29K new. I have had to replace the clutch once and have cams, ecu w boost controller, exhuast, intake, fuel pump, injectors, and some wieght reductions and the cost: 4300 with clutch and flywheel installed. I ran a 11.71 at 119 with a 1.66 60ft. Stock turbo, stock maifold, stock intercooler. I'm hoping to get into the lower 11"s before going with a bigger turbo. And I absolutely respect muscle cars. My friend has a cobra( Kenny Bell) and it smokes the s*** out of me. But how can you disrespect 1000WHP evos with no nitrous on a 2.0 Liter engine.

  13. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    rochester,ny
    Age
    39
    Posts
    2,667

    pewter
    2001 z28 lingenfelter 383

    save your breath buddy......i hear ya and i agree but people on here will still keep slammin the evos anyways....theres no better NEW car out there in the 30k range....id rather have a used z06 for 30k though

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Wesman View Post
    Zero to 100 mph: .11.9 sec
    Standing 1/4-mile: 13.4 sec @ 104 mph
    wtf is up with that? how could it take 1.5seconds to reach another 4mph? is it the car or is it these numbers that are screwy?

  15. #35
    Member 4tun8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    PA
    Age
    38
    Posts
    485

    Yellow
    2003 Lancer Evolution

    Poor Wesman....defending his precious car's honor daily.

  16. #36
    Evr sena bdgr killa snak? Roastem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Research Triangle Park, NC
    Age
    40
    Posts
    1,812

    Pewter
    '99 Z28 M6

    No, 1.5 sec's is not a long time dude.

  17. #37
    Numbers are screwy. We should really drop this EVO badgering nonsense, its really getting old and its the same argument everytime. Wes clearly hates EVOs for whatever reason, so lets just drop it.

  18. #38
    Attending F-Body Expert Herloss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Beverly Hills, Malibu, Laguna Beach, Hollywood....I WISH.
    Posts
    46

    Triple White Convertible
    1997 WS6 'Vert Trans Am

    It's a love / hate and personal preference I guess. My brother likes them, I don't much care for them. Would I own one? Umm, for a daily highway cruiser, MAYBE. But I would probably first buy a new Impala LS or something 4-door to just get around in. But an Evo is not THAT bad. Is it?

    Anything is an upgrade from my daily driver: A 1997 Saturn SL 5Speed. Talk about slow, a dismal 124 hp. Couldn't even beat much anything else, not even the average ricer.

    That is why I never fret, the T/A and Vette are snuggled nice and tight in the garage. They take care of business.

    HL
    1997 Triple White Trans Am WS6 Convertible.....32K ORIGINAL MILES.

    1989 Corvette....79K ORIGINAL MILES. Red, Targa Top, Straight Induction,

    If it isn't a Trans Am, it isn't gonna get her wet.
    The Bandit started me, Knight Rider totally made me, I AM a Trans Am driver.

  19. #39
    The Bandit Wesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    4,033

    SGM
    1998 Trans Am WS6

    Quote Originally Posted by xcelr8 View Post
    This is in no way attacking LS1 owners. Throughout all of the kill stories, I keep hearing people talk s*** on EVO's. Especially Wesmon. It sounds to me that there is a lot of jealousy.
    Jealousy?? Wow, you just opened a can of worms my friend.

    Whats there to be jealous of?? The car looks like total ass, it sounds like total ass, and its not even fast in stock form. Yet is costs 35K. And people are willing to pay 35K for a Lancer economy sedan with a big wing and a turbo. That makes me laugh, the last thing I would be is jealous of that lol.

    For 10K less than that I could just buy brand new 400HP GTO that actually looks nice, drives like a real performance car, and sounds great. Or I could just wait for the new Camaro to come out, which is more than likely going to hand the Evo its ass in everything. Not the least of which being styling and reliability, thats a given

    Yes they blow clutches as well as any other car that is fast and races. They're motors are probably one of the strongest motors ever built. Who else has motors running aroung at 55LBS of boost and aren't too concerned about blowing them up. And about the cost your comparing new and used cars. I bought my evo8 04 for 29K new. I have had to replace the clutch once and have cams, ecu w boost controller, exhuast, intake, fuel pump, injectors, and some wieght reductions and the cost: 4300 with clutch and flywheel installed. I ran a 11.71 at 119 with a 1.66 60ft. Stock turbo, stock maifold, stock intercooler. I'm hoping to get into the lower 11"s before going with a bigger turbo. And I absolutely respect muscle cars. My friend has a cobra( Kenny Bell) and it smokes the s*** out of me. But how can you disrespect 1000WHP evos with no nitrous on a 2.0 Liter engine.
    Once again, who are you trying to impress?? $29K for the car, and then $4300 to run an 11.7?? Do you have any idea what you can do to an LS1 or Cobra with $4300?? Obviously not, or you wouldn't be calling anyone "jealous", because thats the last thing anyone should be of an Evo.

    Who cars how much power its capable of?? Its not the only engine in the world that can handle 1000HP. Wow, real impressive. Guys have been making that kind of power with V8's in drag racing for years, its nothing new. And those cars actually sound good and have a useable powerband. Oh yea, and they last more than a few days before blowing up. Not one component in the Evo can handle that much power without grenading. It would be a totally different car, no stock parts at all. Basically a race car, you couldn't ven drive it on the street. So thats a generally pointless arguement.

    Who runs 55PSI on a gas motor anyway?? You can run 60PSI daily on a Diesel, but thats a different ballgame. I don't even want to know what you have to do too keep a 4G63 from blowing up with 55PSI.

  20. #40
    The Bandit Wesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    4,033

    SGM
    1998 Trans Am WS6

    Quote Originally Posted by pocheasy View Post
    wtf is up with that? how could it take 1.5seconds to reach another 4mph? is it the car or is it these numbers that are screwy?
    The 0-60 time is reached by dropping the clutch at a high RPM and using the AWD to its advantage. Thats the only reason that number is so low, it can come off the line quickly.

    The 5-60MPH number is achieved by driving the car at 5MPH in 1st gear and just stomping the gas. No launch. The Evo is a gutless wonder below where the turbo spools (its only a 2.0L 4 banger), so it takes a long time for the RPM's to climb into the powerband. Cars with useable powerbands typically have about a .5 or less second difference between their 0-60MPH and 5-60MPH times.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Firebird Friday Night Drags AZ Club Night
    By chellzers in forum Western Members
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-12-2009, 07:46 AM
  2. My Friday Night
    By SMWS6TA in forum Almost Anything Goes
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 10-07-2009, 01:25 PM
  3. San Marcos friday night
    By EVO 9 in forum Western Members
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 06-25-2007, 09:23 AM
  4. New best Friday night
    By Blown284 in forum Eastern Members
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-30-2005, 05:22 PM

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •