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?
03-14-2006, 08:03 AM
#131
Former Moderator
Eh, no point of wasting our breath anymore. The mods wont pull it down, and we look like the a$$hats that this forum has become infested with.
Whatever, hopefully the EVO guys understand that its not the views of s2ki's members, but those of one disgruntled driver, and one website moderator.
Whatever, hopefully the EVO guys understand that its not the views of s2ki's members, but those of one disgruntled driver, and one website moderator.
03-14-2006, 08:11 AM
#133
I havent read through all the posts in this thread yet but...
Here are my thoughts after reading that article....
I was very surprised to see an article like that was on the front page of S2ki,
I thought it was very childishly written and a prime example of what S2ki has turned into since I joined years ago.
Id be willing to bet that if an article was posted like this 2 years ago, there would be alot more threads and complaints than just this, members would have been shocked that such a thing was posted.
I feel like S2ki is falling to a rice boy fansite and this article only helped us fall farther. S2ki used to be a professional place with alot less immature people. I know Im not the only one who feels this way either.
Here are my thoughts after reading that article....
I was very surprised to see an article like that was on the front page of S2ki,
I thought it was very childishly written and a prime example of what S2ki has turned into since I joined years ago.
Id be willing to bet that if an article was posted like this 2 years ago, there would be alot more threads and complaints than just this, members would have been shocked that such a thing was posted.
I feel like S2ki is falling to a rice boy fansite and this article only helped us fall farther. S2ki used to be a professional place with alot less immature people. I know Im not the only one who feels this way either.
03-14-2006, 08:17 AM
#135
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nightwalker,Mar 13 2006, 11:18 PM
...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.
...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.
The Evo and Lancer roll out of the same factory. It is a factory tuned car, and no it can't be duplicated with a finished Lancer by some tuner shop. And if it could the cost would probably double or most likely triple what it would cost to just buy a new Evo - and the results still probably wouldn't be as good. I guess I could go over to the M3 boards and insult them for driving tarted up 3 series, but even that isn't the same since a base BMW is considered a better car then the base Lancer. The point is, I can't think of a more sophisticated and complicated transformation of one car into a another when comparing a Lancer to an Evolution. Even all the Imprezas we get in this country at least come with 2.5L engines and AWD.
The DSM name represents a business venture. Mitsubishi was soley responsible for the development of the turbo cars. Chrysler supplied the engine and trans of the 2g 95-99 non-turbo cars. So every turbo 2G DSM and all the 1G's are just as Mitsubishi and just as Japanese as an Evo is, even though they were assembled in Illinois and used older imported Evo engines and the Galant chassis. Chrysler got the benefit of selling the Plymouth Laser and Eagle Talon in those dealerships. The 1G cars have platforms and enignes similar to the Galant VR-4 we got in '91 and '92. The 2G cars used the 7G Galant chassis and engines that are almost identical to the Evolution III's. My '98 GS-T does not have the letters "DSM" anywhere on the car, or under the hood and none of them have it on the outside of the vehicle. Because by '96, Mitsubishi bought out Chrysler's interest in the Normal plant and the joint venture was over. But like I said, the engineering of the cars remained the same. According to Club DSM rules, my '98 is still considered a DSM. 3000GT's and Stealths are known as 3Si's or 3/S's but they are not DSM's. They were all built in Japan, not Normal and they do not come equipped with 4G63T's.
I like the fact that people think of my Evo as just a tarted up econobox. It doesn't bother me one bit. So when I see articles like the one on the front I know exactly what happened. Someone is jealous. Someone got beat, someone got their feelings hurt. I realize there are pros and cons of every vehicle and never really worry about what someone else may think of my car or feel I have to prove it or myself to someone else to justify my purchase, but I will respond to blatant ignorance for the sake of providing factual information. And the guy who wrote that article needs to get his facts straight. I also like nice cars in general, and have always thought the S2000 was a good looking, good performing car -just that I prefer the Evo.
03-14-2006, 08:19 AM
#136
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being a current evo owner, I think I should say a few things. I used to own an s2000 which is why my sn is from some time ago. I loved the car and enjoyed it. However, I needed more from a car rather than just performance and fun-factor. I need an all-year car with four doors but was still fun. It has been said many times and I'll say it again, these are two different cars. I am no means a professional race car driver, I'm just a fan of fast cars. The reason the article made such an impact is because it was an opinoin that was thrown in the faces of every car lover. Eveyone has opinoins and thats fine, but to write it in such an immature fashion and to have it welcoming guests on the front page brings a horrible reputation to your board. The writer can say what he want but to use the term "we" is going to be a generalization thats hurts many s2k drivers.
03-14-2006, 08:48 AM
#140
Community Organizer
Do you think this article belongs on the front page?
I agree - I don't see a problem. [ 28 ] [16.77%]
I disagree - This doesn't belong on the front page [ 77 ] [46.11%]
I don't care - I think you're overreacting. [ 62 ] [37.13%]
90 Vs 77
BC
I agree - I don't see a problem. [ 28 ] [16.77%]
I disagree - This doesn't belong on the front page [ 77 ] [46.11%]
I don't care - I think you're overreacting. [ 62 ] [37.13%]
90 Vs 77
BC