View Poll Results: Do you think this article belongs on the front page?
Voters: 207. You may not vote on this poll
"S2k is better then the Evo" - Is this Necessary?
03-13-2006, 09:14 PM
#101
Community Organizer
I agree - I don't see a problem. [ 21 ] [19.09%]
I disagree - This doesn't belong on the front page [ 46 ] [41.82%]
I don't care - I think you're overreacting. [ 43 ] [39.09%]
Total Votes: 110
46 DISAGREES vs 63 I don't care, and I agree.
Tide is changing.
I disagree - This doesn't belong on the front page [ 46 ] [41.82%]
I don't care - I think you're overreacting. [ 43 ] [39.09%]
Total Votes: 110
46 DISAGREES vs 63 I don't care, and I agree.
Tide is changing.
03-13-2006, 09:49 PM
#103
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hello all.
i'm an owner of an EVO IX, and let me first start off by saying i'm in no way offended by the article. when i first read it, it was obvious there was a bias standpoint simply b/c it was a s2k website. people will have their loyalties to their car of choice, but i think there should be a sense of respect for another man/woman's decision to buy another car.
before settling down on the EVO, i did look at the s2k and a 93 TT rx-7. after having a two seater before (as well as knowing 3 18-20 year olds in my peer group that own the s2k), i decided on the evo. another deterrant was the fact that the honda community in general is pretty immature, and my experience with the higher-end honda community was of arrogance.
i'll be honest. i wasn't really fond of the EVO based on looks and was quite content with my b18c5 EK. but then i drove one. that pretty much sold me. if you buy a car based solely on looks and believe this will get you girls, you've got some other issues to resolve.
back on topic --> unfortunately, some of the "facts" in the article are indeed wrong. i'm still not HIGHLY educated in the mitsubishi history (being a Honda guy all of my driving life), but the Evolution is not "based" on the Lancer. The Lancer and the Evolution are both based upon the Galant VR-4 in the 1990s, when both cars were developed at the same time.
frankly, i was most surpised by the level of maturity that SOME of you on this site expressed. i'm glad at least some of you are true automotive enthusiasts and not fanboys.
i'm an owner of an EVO IX, and let me first start off by saying i'm in no way offended by the article. when i first read it, it was obvious there was a bias standpoint simply b/c it was a s2k website. people will have their loyalties to their car of choice, but i think there should be a sense of respect for another man/woman's decision to buy another car.
before settling down on the EVO, i did look at the s2k and a 93 TT rx-7. after having a two seater before (as well as knowing 3 18-20 year olds in my peer group that own the s2k), i decided on the evo. another deterrant was the fact that the honda community in general is pretty immature, and my experience with the higher-end honda community was of arrogance.
i'll be honest. i wasn't really fond of the EVO based on looks and was quite content with my b18c5 EK. but then i drove one. that pretty much sold me. if you buy a car based solely on looks and believe this will get you girls, you've got some other issues to resolve.
back on topic --> unfortunately, some of the "facts" in the article are indeed wrong. i'm still not HIGHLY educated in the mitsubishi history (being a Honda guy all of my driving life), but the Evolution is not "based" on the Lancer. The Lancer and the Evolution are both based upon the Galant VR-4 in the 1990s, when both cars were developed at the same time.
frankly, i was most surpised by the level of maturity that SOME of you on this site expressed. i'm glad at least some of you are true automotive enthusiasts and not fanboys.
03-13-2006, 09:55 PM
#104
Community Organizer
Originally Posted by LanEvo9,Mar 13 2006, 10:49 PM
hello all.
i'm an owner of an EVO IX, and let me first start off by saying i'm in no way offended by the article. when i first read it, it was obvious there was a bias standpoint simply b/c it was a s2k website. people will have their loyalties to their car of choice, but i think there should be a sense of respect for another man/woman's decision to buy another car.
before settling down on the EVO, i did look at the s2k and a 93 TT rx-7. after having a two seater before (as well as knowing 3 18-20 year olds in my peer group that own the s2k), i decided on the evo. another deterrant was the fact that the honda community in general is pretty immature, and my experience with the higher-end honda community was of arrogance.
i'll be honest. i wasn't really fond of the EVO based on looks and was quite content with my b18c5 EK. but then i drove one. that pretty much sold me. if you buy a car based solely on looks and believe this will get you girls, you've got some other issues to resolve.
back on topic --> unfortunately, some of the "facts" in the article are indeed wrong. i'm still not HIGHLY educated in the mitsubishi history (being a Honda guy all of my driving life), but the Evolution is not "based" on the Lancer. The Lancer and the Evolution are both based upon the Galant VR-4 in the 1990s, when both cars were developed at the same time.
frankly, i was most surpised by the level of maturity that SOME of you on this site expressed. i'm glad at least some of you are true automotive enthusiasts and not fanboys.
i'm an owner of an EVO IX, and let me first start off by saying i'm in no way offended by the article. when i first read it, it was obvious there was a bias standpoint simply b/c it was a s2k website. people will have their loyalties to their car of choice, but i think there should be a sense of respect for another man/woman's decision to buy another car.
before settling down on the EVO, i did look at the s2k and a 93 TT rx-7. after having a two seater before (as well as knowing 3 18-20 year olds in my peer group that own the s2k), i decided on the evo. another deterrant was the fact that the honda community in general is pretty immature, and my experience with the higher-end honda community was of arrogance.
i'll be honest. i wasn't really fond of the EVO based on looks and was quite content with my b18c5 EK. but then i drove one. that pretty much sold me. if you buy a car based solely on looks and believe this will get you girls, you've got some other issues to resolve.
back on topic --> unfortunately, some of the "facts" in the article are indeed wrong. i'm still not HIGHLY educated in the mitsubishi history (being a Honda guy all of my driving life), but the Evolution is not "based" on the Lancer. The Lancer and the Evolution are both based upon the Galant VR-4 in the 1990s, when both cars were developed at the same time.
frankly, i was most surpised by the level of maturity that SOME of you on this site expressed. i'm glad at least some of you are true automotive enthusiasts and not fanboys.
Good Sport.
03-13-2006, 09:55 PM
#105
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LanEvo9,Mar 13 2006, 10:49 PM
hello all.
i'm an owner of an EVO IX, and let me first start off by saying i'm in no way offended by the article. when i first read it, it was obvious there was a bias standpoint simply b/c it was a s2k website. people will have their loyalties to their car of choice, but i think there should be a sense of respect for another man/woman's decision to buy another car.
before settling down on the EVO, i did look at the s2k and a 93 TT rx-7. after having a two seater before (as well as knowing 3 18-20 year olds in my peer group that own the s2k), i decided on the evo. another deterrant was the fact that the honda community in general is pretty immature, and my experience with the higher-end honda community was of arrogance.
i'll be honest. i wasn't really fond of the EVO based on looks and was quite content with my b18c5 EK. but then i drove one. that pretty much sold me. if you buy a car based solely on looks and believe this will get you girls, you've got some other issues to resolve.
back on topic --> unfortunately, some of the "facts" in the article are indeed wrong. i'm still not HIGHLY educated in the mitsubishi history (being a Honda guy all of my driving life), but the Evolution is not "based" on the Lancer. The Lancer and the Evolution are both based upon the Galant VR-4 in the 1990s, when both cars were developed at the same time.
frankly, i was most surpised by the level of maturity that SOME of you on this site expressed. i'm glad at least some of you are true automotive enthusiasts and not fanboys.
i'm an owner of an EVO IX, and let me first start off by saying i'm in no way offended by the article. when i first read it, it was obvious there was a bias standpoint simply b/c it was a s2k website. people will have their loyalties to their car of choice, but i think there should be a sense of respect for another man/woman's decision to buy another car.
before settling down on the EVO, i did look at the s2k and a 93 TT rx-7. after having a two seater before (as well as knowing 3 18-20 year olds in my peer group that own the s2k), i decided on the evo. another deterrant was the fact that the honda community in general is pretty immature, and my experience with the higher-end honda community was of arrogance.
i'll be honest. i wasn't really fond of the EVO based on looks and was quite content with my b18c5 EK. but then i drove one. that pretty much sold me. if you buy a car based solely on looks and believe this will get you girls, you've got some other issues to resolve.
back on topic --> unfortunately, some of the "facts" in the article are indeed wrong. i'm still not HIGHLY educated in the mitsubishi history (being a Honda guy all of my driving life), but the Evolution is not "based" on the Lancer. The Lancer and the Evolution are both based upon the Galant VR-4 in the 1990s, when both cars were developed at the same time.
frankly, i was most surpised by the level of maturity that SOME of you on this site expressed. i'm glad at least some of you are true automotive enthusiasts and not fanboys.
Just one thing...ahem, it IS called the Mitsubishi LANCER Evo, right? Not trying to flame, just to understand!
And according to the Lancer page on www.mitsubishi.com, it says "It shares more than a little DNA with the legendary Lancer Evolution"
03-13-2006, 10:18 PM
#108
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too come from a Honda background (my little brother owns an 05 S2K which I drive on occasion) and we also have a couple 240sxs'. So RWD coupes are a favored thing in my family. There are a couple things I learned about the Evolution since I've owned it that I think are worth mentioning here. Just a bit of FYI..
...The Evo shares only the base chassis with the lancer. After that, they both go their directions. Though they may look like they could share more from a glance, it's not even close. From the reinforcement welds, to the doors, fenders, drivetrain, etc. both are very different. You couldn't make a lancer an Evo essentially is what I'm saying.
...The Evolution is not a "DSM" The earlier Eclipse and 3000GT were. DSM stands for diamond star motors. The pairing of Chrysler (pentastar) and Mitsubishi (Diamond) brought about "DSMs". If you look at the hood label on an Eclipse, it will clearly say DSM. The Evo is not. It was a pure Mitsubishi fairing. The 4g63 engine in both cars (Eclipse and Evolution) aren't even compatible. There are so many things different. The closest we ever got to an Evo in the Eclipse was the 1990-1992 model years that basically were built around the Evo 3 motor and drivetrain. After that, both cars "evolved" in different directions. One pretty apparent example is the trannsmission orientation. If you have a chance, take a look and compare.
I will definitely admit that the S2K is a much more "mature" looking car. And girls definitely check you out more in it, versus the EVOs "boy racer" "why do you have such a big wing?" looks.
But if you get a chance to drive an EVO at 7/10s or more, you'll understand that putting the two in a competition would not be fair. The EVO is purely hell on wheels, and takes to mods so easily it's stupid. While making substantial power on an S2 takes a lot.
...The Evo shares only the base chassis with the lancer. After that, they both go their directions. Though they may look like they could share more from a glance, it's not even close. From the reinforcement welds, to the doors, fenders, drivetrain, etc. both are very different. You couldn't make a lancer an Evo essentially is what I'm saying.
...The Evolution is not a "DSM" The earlier Eclipse and 3000GT were. DSM stands for diamond star motors. The pairing of Chrysler (pentastar) and Mitsubishi (Diamond) brought about "DSMs". If you look at the hood label on an Eclipse, it will clearly say DSM. The Evo is not. It was a pure Mitsubishi fairing. The 4g63 engine in both cars (Eclipse and Evolution) aren't even compatible. There are so many things different. The closest we ever got to an Evo in the Eclipse was the 1990-1992 model years that basically were built around the Evo 3 motor and drivetrain. After that, both cars "evolved" in different directions. One pretty apparent example is the trannsmission orientation. If you have a chance, take a look and compare.
I will definitely admit that the S2K is a much more "mature" looking car. And girls definitely check you out more in it, versus the EVOs "boy racer" "why do you have such a big wing?" looks.
But if you get a chance to drive an EVO at 7/10s or more, you'll understand that putting the two in a competition would not be fair. The EVO is purely hell on wheels, and takes to mods so easily it's stupid. While making substantial power on an S2 takes a lot.
03-13-2006, 10:32 PM
#109
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Palo Alto
Posts: 2,941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That article is stupid....
Evo is a very capable track car, and in some ways more capable than the S2000 (e.g. S2000's open top chassis). I hear the the evo comes with some pretty track worthy brakes and tires.
Honestly, it's really a matter of preference.
Evo is a very capable track car, and in some ways more capable than the S2000 (e.g. S2000's open top chassis). I hear the the evo comes with some pretty track worthy brakes and tires.
Honestly, it's really a matter of preference.
03-13-2006, 10:41 PM
#110
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First, for those of you admonishing the people posting against the article's content that the article's author had the right to say what he wanted . . . don't the people responding to the article have the same right?
As far as the article, I found it to be extremely biased. The S2000 is a road car (pavement only). The Evo is an all-wheel-drive car designed for semi-improved sufaces (dirt/gravel roads, snow-covered roads, etc.). To take the Evo and S2000 to a road course, i.e. the S2000's strength, and come away with the the "unbiased" opinion that the S2000 is the superior performance car is somewhat akin to taking the Evo and a Chevy Z71 pickup to the woods and coming to the conclusion that the Z71 is a better off-road vehicle. It is an unfair comparison. To make the comparison fair, you would have to lap them at both a road course and a rally circuit.
The comments about the Evo being a no better than a tuner Corolla are particularly uninformed. A finished Lancer cannot be made into an Evo in the aftermarket. There are too many upgrades. The engine is different, the driveline is switched from front to all-wheel-drive, the suspension pieces are different, most of the body panels are different, and even the structure has different pieces (and double the spot welds).
I used to own an S2000 and enjoyed and respected it for what it was (a car that gives more "feel" than any other I've driven) and I'm considering an Evo as my next car (need a back seat and still want performance in a reasonable price range).
As far as the article, I found it to be extremely biased. The S2000 is a road car (pavement only). The Evo is an all-wheel-drive car designed for semi-improved sufaces (dirt/gravel roads, snow-covered roads, etc.). To take the Evo and S2000 to a road course, i.e. the S2000's strength, and come away with the the "unbiased" opinion that the S2000 is the superior performance car is somewhat akin to taking the Evo and a Chevy Z71 pickup to the woods and coming to the conclusion that the Z71 is a better off-road vehicle. It is an unfair comparison. To make the comparison fair, you would have to lap them at both a road course and a rally circuit.
The comments about the Evo being a no better than a tuner Corolla are particularly uninformed. A finished Lancer cannot be made into an Evo in the aftermarket. There are too many upgrades. The engine is different, the driveline is switched from front to all-wheel-drive, the suspension pieces are different, most of the body panels are different, and even the structure has different pieces (and double the spot welds).
I used to own an S2000 and enjoyed and respected it for what it was (a car that gives more "feel" than any other I've driven) and I'm considering an Evo as my next car (need a back seat and still want performance in a reasonable price range).