Evo X FQ300 SST. It would be so much easier if there was just one EVO X instead
of thousand different versions that do not have that much difference
performance-wise. What they have are increasingly stupid and complicated names
to mask the fact that EVO X is actually slower than EVO VI. Evolution is
considered to be process of improvement. Therefore Mitsubishi should really call
EVO X "Lancer Degradation X".
It is Mitsubishi model politic...
the perfromance different between the models could be huge by completely
different cerb weight and power.. the SST is the dual clutch version which Evo
Magazine has tested..
Not every Evo offers the same track perfromance clearly visible now that we have
corrected the laptimes by claiming the correct model which has done the
laptime.. just look at the TopGear track.. many used the Evo laptimes there to
show the perfromance of a basic Evo.. ignoring that they were driven by hardcore
FQ 320-400 models which are way more expansive as the basic model.
They said it was a six-speed, seeing as the manual is a 5 speed...
The fq360 they had was indeed a 5 speed.
Anonymous
02/07/08, 06:27:31
Actually, it's quite clear the new MR (or equivalent anyway, the euro FQ300 SST)
is faster than the older models around a track. The two times put up by the
VII's are both modded cars getting a good deal more power than a stock VII
would. The SST FQ300 is a plain stock US MR.
Just my 2 cents.
thats wrong the UK tested Evo X FQ300 is the japan spec version only avaible in
the UK not the rest of europe.
The rest of Europe recive the same MR version as sold in the USA..
Evo X FQ300 SST. It would be so much easier if there was just one EVO X instead
of thousand different versions that do not have that much difference
performance-wise. What they have are increasingly stupid and complicated names
to mask the fact that EVO X is actually slower than EVO VI. Evolution is
considered to be process of improvement. Therefore Mitsubishi should really call
EVO X "Lancer Degradation X".
It is Mitsubishi model politic...
the perfromance different between the models could be huge by completely
different cerb weight and power.. the SST is the dual clutch version which Evo
Magazine has tested..
Not every Evo offers the same track perfromance clearly visible now that we have
corrected the laptimes by claiming the correct model which has done the
laptime.. just look at the TopGear track.. many used the Evo laptimes there to
show the perfromance of a basic Evo.. ignoring that they were driven by hardcore
FQ 320-400 models which are way more expansive as the basic model.
The Top Gear lap time was a manual version I think rather than the SST.
This Evo lapped the Top Gear track in 1:28.22 not 1:28.2
