2008 Mitubishi Lancer Evolution: Yes, It's Much Better
ATTENTION: To all the whiners out there complaining that the new Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution has "lost its edge" and/or "needs more power" -- you obviously haven't driven the 2008 version. All the anal, shop-by-spreadsheet, don't-actually-drive-cars-just-memorize-numbers types can read the full test here and see that this Evo basically matches the old one except at higher velocities, where it loses in the quarter-mile by .3 seconds.
Those .3 seconds put this Evo through the quarter-mile in "only" 13.6 seconds, while zero-to-60 takes all of 4.9 seconds (same as the old one). It also stops better, is just as fast through the slalom and pulls nearly 1later G (.99 actually -- better than the .93 of the last version). So even if you're the total numbers geek (that too many of us are) these numbers confirm the new Evo is, overall, better than the last one.
And that's before you break out of spreadsheet mode and into real-world circumstances. Do that, as I was fortunate enough to do during a brief drive yesterday, and you'll instantly realize the new car's chassis, interior, sound system, ride quality, and exterior design make the previous Evo look (and feel) like a magazine project car. You know, the car that may be good at a single activity, like straight-line acceleration or aggressive handling, but no one wants to drive it home at night.
Everyone would want to drive this Evo home every night. It's got the same rockin' Rockford-Fosgate audio system as our long-term Lancer. It's got grippy-yet-comfortable Recaro seats. It's got the dual-clutch transmission with paddle shifters that nearly match Audi's system (shifts don't come quite as quick after initiating them with the paddles, but still much faster than a traditional clutch).
The transmission's programming is superb in "Auto", especially when placed in "Sport" mode. Downshifts come when they should, based on throttle input, and the tranny will hold gears if your driving gets aggressive. Combine this with the car's array of technology (Super All-Wheel Control with Active Center Differential and Active Yaw Control) and it's hammer time when you jump on a twisty road. As in "just hammer the throttle and steer -- the drivetrain will figure out the details."
Simply a thrill to drive, plus far more functional as a real car when not strafing apexes (which, let's be honest, is what almost everyone is doing almost all of the time). The whiners simply need to drive this car and stop obsessing over the quarter-mile numbers.
I know -- I expect the impossible.
Posted by Karl Jan 18, 2008 7:00 am
Permalink
Categories: Mitsubishi
moparbad
- Jan 18, 2008 9:27 am
(#5 Total: 24)
|
|
|
|
Evo is much better.
WRX is not.
WRX STI is better.
|
|
 | |
iskch
- Jan 18, 2008 9:59 am
(#6 Total: 24)
|
|
|
|
I never drove any of the EVO editions so I really don't have a strong opinion. But by the looks and several reviews I read it looks like a good performer specially in the corners. I will have to write my Mitsu & Subaru dealers for a test drive.
|
|
| |
|
|
Karl, I haven't driven this car yet, but I'd say that those who say that the previous one is better might have a point.
I think "better" is relative and depends on one's expectations. If a person expects and wants an Evo with a "raw" car feel, I think they'd say this Evo is worse and who's to say they're wrong! People who want a more balanced car would think this one is better....that'd be mostly people who have found previous Evos unappealling. Somehow, I suspect typical Evo owner prefer a "rawer" car and would feel disappointed by this one.
I haven't driven this car yet, but from Edmunds' tests and those of other magazines, I get the feeling this Evo has become too refined and feels like a Mazda 3. I'm not sure that's a good thing. And I prefer the magazine project car styling of the previous Evo (save for that ridiculous wing of a spoiler)......
And I'd be happier with a 6MT. I think the Edmunds' tests proved that the 6MT would be better.
Also, the Evo is a sports car and hence it's disappointing that the '08 Evo makes "only" 291 hp and is slower than the previous Evo MR.
|
|
| |
|
|
L.A. CA United States of America |
|
|
The workings of the all-wheel drive system don't feel unnatural or artificial at all. The only reason you know anything is going on is because it STICKS SO DAMN WELL in the corners. Because of that you know something must be going on, because the car simply bites and goes where you point it with laser precision.
So while there's no overt technology sensations sent through the chassis, the logical part of your brain says, "Okay, something is going on down there because the grip and response of this car is beyond what seems possible."
|
|
| |
|
|
I'm going to fess up from the get-go. I am a member of the "extended audience" that Mitsubishi was going for with this car. I hated the old Evo. It was almost as though the interior designers endlessly combed the planet in search of the cheapest plastics they could find. Then they got Stevie Wonder to glue it all in place. Next, they got a bunch of 18 year-old high school students with past experience ricing out Neons to do the exterior styling. "Dude! This wing needs to be bigger! Then it'll look hella-tight!" Sure, it might have gone like the devil, but at what cost? The new one is excellent, though. It no longer looks like a VOTEC project car, and it has a decent, if not outstanding interior. I'm a little dissapointed at the lack of a proper 6-speed manual, but the flappy-paddle box sounds pretty good. My big question is this: Why is Mitsubishi using a 5-speed? Come on, guys. This isn't a Honda Fit. You can afford to put one more cog in there. For me, the new styling and added refinement have made me a believer. I see this car now as more of a poor-man's RS4 than anything else, and I would, without a moment's hesitation, have it over that banana slug of an STI any day. Thank you, Mitsubishi.
|
|
| |
7driver
- Jan 18, 2008 11:13 am
(#10 Total: 24)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Sabastian, one question: was the interior of the Evo IX worse than that of the prev-gen Lancer? I test-drove an '02 Lancer OZ Rally I was considering buying and the interior wasn't bad at all! Everything felt alright and there wasn't any rattling (meaning the quality was decent). It wasn't great, but it was what I expected of a typical '02 to '06 compact car. If the Evo IX had the same interior (and that's about what I'd expect), then was that so bad? I mean, the Evo was/is a compact car with enhanced performance, so I would expect typical compact car interior and not a Lexus interior........
7driver has my point exactly: the Evo IX has faster lap and dragstrip times, and has the "raw" sports car experience that the newer one lacks.........so would I be wrong in saying the Evo IX MR is the better car?
|
|
| |
|
|
L.A. CA United States of America |
|
|
Two points:
You can get a traditional manual transmission in the Evo X.
Balancing .5 second slower lap time differences against the Evo Xs advantages versus an Evo IX make it easy as to which one I want to own and drive.
|
|
| |
|
|
Karl, this post reminds me of a "conversation" I had with brett on one of your posts about the pricing of an Evo. We both agreed that it wasn't a bargain, as one could get basic (but still very well equipped) BMW 335i for just $5k more. So for all intents and purposes, the 335i and the Evo can be regarded as costing the same, especially considering the Evo's insurance rates. I figured that what the Evo driver would be paying for is that raw, rally-car driving experience.
So, Karl, now that the Evo X is refined and has a high quality interior, and no longer offers a raw driving experience, my question is this: if you had a choice between an Evo X and a 335i, which would you get? Is there a reason to get an Evo X for around $35k when I can get a basic 335i for slightly less than $40k? Does the Evo X offer anything that a 335i does not?
|
|
| |
|
|
L.A. CA United States of America |
|
|
Actually, a BMW 335xi (which is what you have to buy if you want the all-wheel drive that comes standard on Evo) starts at $40,800, and adding the automatic transmission, sport package and iPod adapter makes it hit $44,000. And let's honest here, you're never going to find a "stripper" 335xi anyways, so saying the Evo and 335 are within $5k is a bit of a stretch.
That said, I would say the Evo X buyer avoids the BMW because he wants a sportier experience (and dual-clutch technology) for $8,000-$10,000 less.
|
|
| |
|
|
Great discussion! I have never driven a dual-clutch paddle-box, so I am quite curious how that would affect my driving experience. I am certain the performance is greater than what I can do with a manual, but rowing the gears seems inseparable to me from the sport driving challenge. Maybe I need to give this a chance. I take my car to the track maybe 3 times per year, so ultimate performance is not my thing. Sportiness, a basic level of refinement, and driver-engagement ARE.
|
|
| |
|
|
blackadder: Your comment about the Evo costing only $5k less than a 335i is actually the crux of my problem with the Evo's interior. Sure, the Evo is great to drive, why would I pay over 35 grand for the interior of a Lancer? Sure, lots of people say that they don't really care about the interior, but that's a bit crazy. It's where you spend all of your time. I want a little something for my 35 grand other than crappy black plastic. The Evo X has an acceptable interior, but it's still not fantastic. At this point, it's no longer a deal-breaker.
|
|
| |
|
|
sabastian: I guess Karl has answered the question more or less. Firstly, the difference in price between an Evo and an equivalent 335i is higher than the $5k we had in mind.
Secondly, it's an issue of paying for different experiences, and which of the experiences you prefer. Depending on your preferences, either car is (almost) woth the money. With an Evo X, you're paying for a very sporty car with good refinement. For the 335i, you're paying for a sporty car with luxury levels of refinement and luxury car prestige. For the Evo IX, you're paying for a near-extreme sports car with lots of driver engagement, a raw experience and basic or barely acceptable refinement. Karl, Am I right?
I had assumed that the typical/prospective Evo buyer would prefer the "near-extreme sports car with lots of driver engagement, a raw experience and basic or barely acceptable refinement" but it's beginning to look like I was wrong.
Note that a (hypothetical) car with the Evo's sportiniess and the BMW's luxury/prestige will probably get you looking north of $48k.
jederino: I've driven the dual-clutch paddle-box of the VW GTI V. It was lots of fun, but ultimately not as engaging as the traditional manual of my Protege.
Personally, I like the feeling of being in direct contact with the grearbox when I drive the manual......the dual-clutch feels more like interacting with a computer game. There are other advantages of a traditional manual: the level of control a traditional clutch offers, the option of push-starting the car if the battery gets weak, etc. In all, I think the manual is a better deal.
|
|
| |
|
|
Do people really use paddle shifters? Seems like something you show a friend the first time in the car and then forget that you even have them the next day. Just doesn't seem very natural or real ordering a computer to shift for you. I like both sticks & autos. Does any body prefer paddle shifts compared to a normal manual?
|
|
| |
sddoc07
- Jan 18, 2008 8:43 pm
(#19 Total: 24)
|
|
|
|
1) This car is great in white
2) Does anyone know what the lifespan of dual-clutch gearboxes is? I remember reading some anecdotal evidence a while back that the VW DSG's blew out their clutches and flywheels prematurely compared to traditional manuals. I imagine that when they do that - it's not exactly cheap to replace!
|
|
| |
xgc75
- Jan 19, 2008 12:15 am
(#20 Total: 24)
|
|
|
|
Karl, this is GREAT news to hear. I was afraid for some time that the EVO had been targeted further towards a more 'posh' (and plush) audience, while the STI took it full on into the extremists. Until now, I'd been waiting until someone had something passionate to say about this new car.
Now that you obviously have your opinions about this one, what do you have to say, under the close eye of the clubman, about the EVo vs. STi battle?
IMHO, while I've gotten the impression that the STi has gained the performance edge (in terms of driving dynamics: input response (chassis and engine alike), reward, sheer pleasure), I still enjoy the STi's styling as it retorts back to the 90's hatchback profile. Having driven the EVO, can you convince me that the EVO's still got chin-up rights??
|
|
| |
|
|
L.A. CA United States of America |
|
|
I haven't driven an STI yet, so I can't comment accurately on the comparison. Based on the last STI I drove and this Evo (and the quality of my memory...) I'm guessing the STI still feel "heavier" than this car (despite the Evo's weight gain).
Subaru's always feel a "heavy" to me, regardless of their actual weight, because the steering is usually heavier and the suspension tuning allows for more initial "cush" before taking a set. Probably all goes back to Subaru's rally intentions, where you want those characteristics.
Of course they still pull good numbers so these feelings of mine are just that -- feelings. Like so many vehicles today it comes down to personal preference. For example, both the Accord and Altima have "good" steering feel by any definition of the word, but they are "different" and I like the Honda's better.
Pure personal preference -- no "right" or "wrong" here.
|
|
| |
|
|
Ellicott City MD United States of America |
|
|
Both the new STI and EVO are great cars, but for me the practicality of a hatchback is the winning swing vote. Living with a hatch, on a day-to-day basis is a real plus. The first time you go to Best Buy and get some big-box item it will make you a believer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
same feelings here. I like the Evo, but its sedan-only format limits its flexibility too much.
|
|
|
|
