My buddy bought a new evo

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

alright. ill give a bit of background information.

im leaving out the original evo and the first year of the evo2 (92). both featured the dohc 4g64 motors. 1.8L turbo.

starting with the evo2/3 (93-96). mitsu kept it simple. they took a small sedan, seam welded everything added super stiff suspension and bars to match. still a great lightweight sedan with good power and exceptional handling skills. came out in a gsr trim or just an rs. 4g63t motor.

evo 4/5/6 (96-01). same deal, just bigger. the body is longer but not necesssarily wider. same suspension parts (4g and 5g suspensions shocks/springs/RCAs are completely interchangeable. the only real upgrade was in the front end where they started moving away from a torsion bar-like setup. gsr or tme trims only. 4g63t motor. a few hundred pounds heavier, mostly due to more sheetmetal on the bigger body. the gains out of the motor are a minimal few HP. basic motor dynamics stayed the same. also - the motor was transversely mounted (aka backwards compared to you honda guys, with the belts on the RHD "driver" side.

evo 7/8 (02+) whole new car. new suspension, new body. heavy pig. same motor, again with minimal gains. they also sell this car in the states as the base "LANCER ES" or "OZ LANCER RALLY PACKAGE" fwd 2.2L? with a MiVec option. as you will notice, this evo and older evos are totally different sizewise, as where the new evo looks more like a mid-size sedan instead of a smaller economy sedan. sold in a gsr or rs trim.


thats a basic, i will add more information later... i have to get going to work. :)
 
The only problem I see is the weight..... but every single manufacturer has blown up all of their cars. I figured all the other changes were for the better :shrug2: And the lesser lancers cant be taken seriously either.
 
Originally posted by preluderjs@May 13 2004, 02:12 PM
And the lesser lancers cant be taken seriously either.

and what are you trying to say? they are just as fast and just as maneuverable as the current evo. id prefer an older one, just because its a better car overall. it isnt made out of fucking plastic/aluminum like the 7 and 8 are.
 
these arent numbers i pulled out of my ass... they are from a respected source www.evolutionM.net .

evo 3 is a 4th gen lancer.

EVO 3:
Horsepower@rpm 270 / 6250
Torque, lb-ft@rpm 227 / 3000
Curb Weight, lb 2777

evo 4,5,6 are 5th gen lancers.

EVO 4:
Horsepower@rpm 280 / 6500
Torque, lb-ft@rpm 260 / 3000
Curb Weight, lb 2976

EVO 5:
Horsepower@rpm 276@7000
Torque, lb-ft@rpm 274@3000
Curb Weight, lb 2998

EVO 6:
Horsepower@rpm 276@6500
Torque, lb-ft@rpm 274@3000
Curb Weight, lb 2998

EVO 6.5(TME)
Horsepower@rpm 280@6500
Torque, lb-ft@rpm 275@3000
Weight (RS/GSR), lb 2778/2822

evo 7/8 is a 6th gen lancer.

EVO 7:
Horsepower@rpm 280 / 6500
Torque, lb-ft@rpm 281 / 3500
Curb Weight, lb 3086

EVO 8:
Horsepower@rpm 271@6500
Torque, lb-ft@rpm 273@3500
Curb Weight, lb 3108
 
damn so the 8 has roughly 400 lbs on over the 3. That's all fine and dandy when comparing them, however if we had 3s in the states, that MIGHT be relevant.

I'll stick to comparing the 8 vs the STi.

STi is .2 seconds quicker in the 1320, and the 8 already out slaloms/skippads the STi... PLUS the 8 bases 3k lower roughly, with the options I want on the 8 it comes out to 31,500 or so ish... for 1500 I'll be able to pull right by STi's in the 1320 and still be able to outcorner them easy.


<-----wants an 8
 
screw them both, ill take a 22b any day. they look better, and while they might not be "on par" with todays cars, id sure as hell rock one.
 
Originally posted by Sobe_Death@May 14 2004, 07:35 PM
screw them both, ill take a 22b any day. they look better, and while they might not be "on par" with todays cars, id sure as hell rock one.

Did they bring 22b's to the states?
 
Originally posted by TurboMirage+May 13 2004, 09:19 PM-->
preluderjs
@May 13 2004, 02:12 PM
And the lesser lancers cant be taken seriously either.

and what are you trying to say? they are just as fast and just as maneuverable as the current evo. id prefer an older one, just because its a better car overall. it isnt made out of fucking plastic/aluminum like the 7 and 8 are.

I wasnt talking about older evo's, I'm not disagreeing that the new ones arent on par with the older ones, when I said lesser evo's, I'm talking about the ones released in the US to compete with the civic and the corolla. I'm not going to say you dont know what you're talking about, I'm just saying weight is a problem every manufacturer is dealing with. That cant be disputed.
 
Originally posted by preluderjs+May 15 2004, 09:22 PM-->
Originally posted by TurboMirage@May 13 2004, 09:19 PM
preluderjs
@May 13 2004, 02:12 PM
And the lesser lancers cant be taken seriously either.

and what are you trying to say? they are just as fast and just as maneuverable as the current evo. id prefer an older one, just because its a better car overall. it isnt made out of fucking plastic/aluminum like the 7 and 8 are.

I wasnt talking about older evo's, I'm not disagreeing that the new ones arent on par with the older ones, when I said lesser evo's, I'm talking about the ones released in the US to compete with the civic and the corolla. I'm not going to say you dont know what you're talking about, I'm just saying weight is a problem every manufacturer is dealing with. That cant be disputed.

understandable, but the only civics that came with AWD were the ferio sedans and wagovan. im pretty sure there were no AWD corollas, either. and neither car came with a stock turbo trim.

the mirage and lancer go hand in hand. same body, less spot welds, different suspension and different motor. FWD unfortunately.

BUT

take a 93-96 evo 2/3 suspension and motor it will bolt into a 4g mirage sedan.

you cant exactly do that with your civic and corolla. well - you can, but it will cost thousands in fabrication.
 
Originally posted by TurboMirage+May 16 2004, 10:05 AM-->
Originally posted by preluderjs@May 15 2004, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by TurboMirage@May 13 2004, 09:19 PM
preluderjs
@May 13 2004, 02:12 PM
And the lesser lancers cant be taken seriously either.

and what are you trying to say? they are just as fast and just as maneuverable as the current evo. id prefer an older one, just because its a better car overall. it isnt made out of fucking plastic/aluminum like the 7 and 8 are.

I wasnt talking about older evo's, I'm not disagreeing that the new ones arent on par with the older ones, when I said lesser evo's, I'm talking about the ones released in the US to compete with the civic and the corolla. I'm not going to say you dont know what you're talking about, I'm just saying weight is a problem every manufacturer is dealing with. That cant be disputed.

understandable, but the only civics that came with AWD were the ferio sedans and wagovan. im pretty sure there were no AWD corollas, either. and neither car came with a stock turbo trim.

the mirage and lancer go hand in hand. same body, less spot welds, different suspension and different motor. FWD unfortunately.

BUT

take a 93-96 evo 2/3 suspension and motor it will bolt into a 4g mirage sedan.

you cant exactly do that with your civic and corolla. well - you can, but it will cost thousands in fabrication.

I'm asking because I dont know.... how easy or hard is it to get those evo parts in the US?

I'm in cali so I'm thinking there would be some legal issues w/ that motor and it'd be a lot harder to do than swapping a b18c5 into a civic like dohch22a4 said. And you like said before, all unfortunately have FWD.

And going back to what Rev8k said, the VIII is the only evo here so I still like it.
 
its not hard, just costly. even harder to get the whole car, unfortunately. :(

until i have tons more cash ill be content with being able to stand next to and watch a real evo 2 gsr autocross. B)
 
I didn't think so. That really sucks. We miss out on all the cool shit, which is why I'm glad they FINALLY brought the WRX in 01, and we finally got an STi and an EVO...
 
Back
Top