First real magazine numbers I have seen so far. Interesting…
Comparison #s on page 6.
Jeller
Proof that better weight distrubition = better steady state cornering (.99Gs, vs. .94Gs), although a heavier car.
it has a wider track and wider (different) tires too though. I don’t like the 300+ pound increase. The acceleration numbers tell that tale.
The tires are 4.26% wider, the car is 10.17% heavier, less tire for the wieght.
Besides STEADY STATE cornering is only a function of weight distrubition and tire conrering stiffness (unless there are some funky rear toe gains/loses).
[quote=“fairgentleman Z,post:5,topic:39480"”]
Besides STEADY STATE cornering is only a function of weight distrubition and tire conrering stiffness (unless there are some funky rear toe gains/loses).
[/quote]
Only is a bad word to use there, because tire compound and width plays a role as well.
Warranty is worst on the new car. I think I will keep my IX (forever) and wait a couple of years for them to work out the bugs on the new platform.
[quote=“fairgentleman Z,post:5,topic:39480"”]
The tires are 4.26% wider, the car is 10.17% heavier, less tire for the wieght.
Besides STEADY STATE cornering is only a function of weight distrubition and tire conrering stiffness (unless there are some funky rear toe gains/loses).
[/quote]
Plus more electronic gizmos helping out.
The 1/4 mile numbers and trap are depressing. I will be looking to see what the MR X’s numbers will be with the new tranny…
Jeller
edit: nevermind 
plus no more 4g63 lol
[quote=“sureshot007,post:3,topic:39480"”]
it has a wider track and wider (different) tires too though. I don’t like the 300+ pound increase. The acceleration numbers tell that tale.
[/quote]
:word:
It sounds like they are trying to appeal to people like me(Audi, BMW crowd).
It seems like every sports car gets more and more “refined”.
I remember people bitching about the 911 and how civilized it was becoming, yet it always seems to get faster.
Looking at weight and tire size alone is pointless.(Obviously)
Besides its not like anyone on here is going to be able to drive the car at those levels anyway.
[quote=“AWDrifter,post:14,topic:39480"”]
Besides its not like anyone on here is going to be able to drive the car at those levels anyway.
[/quote]
I bet Bottoms could.
x…
[quote=“Xander,post:15,topic:39480"”]
I bet Bottoms could.
x…
[/quote]
I stand corrected.
1 guy out of 4000(?).
:biglaugh:
There are a few of us that could.
[quote=“sureshot007,post:17,topic:39480"”]
There are a few of us that could.
[/quote]
I am sure there are many that think they could.
I would bet my paycheck that no one on here could put down a 2min 36.05sec in the IX let alone the X.
From test…
Evo IX GSR: 2 min 34.56 sec
Evo X GSR: 2 min 36.05 sec
[quote=“AWDrifter,post:18,topic:39480"”]
I am sure there are many that think they could.
[/quote]
This coming from the guy that runs the Glen @ 2:25, says it’s a “horsepower course”. While 100hp FWDs walk that time.
[quote=“fairgentleman Z,post:19,topic:39480"”]
This coming from the guy that runs the Glen @ 2:25, says it’s a “horsepower course”. While 100hp FWDs walk that time.
[/quote]
Don’t be a douche, I said “no one”, that would include me.
100hp bikes maybe.
Show me vid of a 100hp fwd (ON ALL SEASON RADIALS) beating that time.(And I am not talking about the redneck short course.)