Talk:Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject World Rally, an effort to create and improve rallying and hillclimbing related articles on Wikipedia, including the World Rally Championship. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information.

Cars Portal

This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

???

This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

This article should note that the Evo 8 was available in limited import quantities and the Evo 9 in unrestricted quantities in Australia through selected Ralliart Dealers.

[edit] Power data for Evo X

In the article, it is said that the american version will have around 900bhp and the uk version 2000bhp. both of these numbers are ridiculous and i would really like to see them changed 89.145.39.248 (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changed the intro a little, grammar nazi

I corrected some run-on and comma laden sentences and clarified some statements.

[edit] Performance differences around the world

After reading and ammending some of the article, it seems that a lot of the information on the Evo VIII onwards is based completely on American Evolution, yet combines some information with the Japanese Evo VIII and '05 American Evolution. I believe we should either show information for each separate country on VIII onwards or just leave it at the Japanese and Rest of World editions.

I've noticed something else too, the article says that the japanese editions uses the same exact same engine of the american edition and thats simply wrong, the japanese editions produce more torque, 400Nm (295 ft-lb) for the GSR and 407Nm (300 ft-lb) for the GT And RS, while the american edition produce 392 Nm (289 ft·lb, btw the japanese records can be found in the japanese official brochure and the official website here http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.jp/EVO/performance01.html . About the MR, I've added few words last night and Im gonna add few links and performance figures today EvolutioniuM 03:05, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

(RESPONSE POSTED: 8/3/2005 -- 12:07pm EST by CGs)

>>"the article says the japanese editions use the same engine as the american edition and that's simply wrong"

The Japanese, American and World editions of the 2003-2005 Lancer Evolution use the 2.0Liter Mitsubishi 4G63 Turbo Engine. The lower torque in the American version has more to do with the tuning and exhaust systems used to comply with the strict American (California specifically) emission standards. Most EVO owners (including myself) have their cars retuned early on to 'fix' this. That said, the American version of the Lancer Evolution was actually based on the 5-speed Japanese Evolution VII, using exterior styling similar to the Japanese Evolution VIII.

[edit] Cornerstone of GT4?

It is also a cornerstone of the popular driving simulator Gran Turismo, with the latest version featuring over 20 variants, including racing models.

For one thing, there are only 18 versions of the Evo in GT4.

Second, 18 out of around 750 models is hardly a 'cornerstone'. That is, unless you consider the game to have 42 sides. The Skyline GTR has 32.

Third, what is this quote even doing in the Film section?

--207.175.61.213 20:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why not post info and pictures on evo x (10) concept!?

these pictures were taken from tokyo motor show 2005

http://www.autoweek.com/files/specials/2005_tokyo/gallerys/mitsu_conceptx/pages/01.htm

photos courtesy of www.autoweek.com

press release from mitsubishi http://media.mitsubishi-motors.com/pressrelease/e/motorshow/detail1343.html just copy all for evo x

what do you think?

195.250.215.125 20:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The biggest problem is this : © 2005. All rights reserved.. That footer means that we cannot copy these images onto Wikiperdia because they are owned by somebody else. Very cool car though --2mcm^Gespräch 20:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] yes you can use the photo freely because it's from a press release

photo was taken from a press release you can distribute it freely in non profitable way

[edit] Evo IX

Could anyone change the dated Evo 8 top picture to up-to-date Evo IX?

Just post them so people can at least see them for a week.

[edit] Lancer Evolution X Concept

Is there a need to put the picture of the concept Evo X at the bottom of the page?There's already a pic of it on top of the article...Ceecookie 11:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The Lancer Evolution X looks a lot meaner and angrier instead of a smile. Weird, yet it is the fast car and the best. Note: Help me with the Military time because I don't know how. Anything Else

[edit] Evolution V: weasel words

There is a mention of "reputable sources". Can anyone include references to those sources? --Unweasel 08:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Availability in Canada

In searching Google, I have found rumours that suggest that the X might be finally made available to Canada. Does anyone have any information regarding this? Confirm/deny?

Thanks, Shawn Image:SFerrier Talk Redirect.png 16:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

IT IS COMING TO CANADA>>> I SPOKE WITH A MITSUBISHI REP. ITS COMING IN 2008

[edit] capitalization of "evo"

It seems to me that in the first line, while people do refer to the Lancer Evolution as the "Evo", there's no need for it to be capitalized. It's not an acronym, and it is a short form of "Evolution", not "EVOLUTION". I'm going to change the case, although I'm not especially biased either way. It just seems more correct to use "Evo", and it reflects what many of the manufacturers (such as for aftermarket parts), as well as fan sites use. ... aa:talk 14:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes please do, and you're right it's not an acronym, it's just a short form. Both me and a friend of mine are getting Evo's soon, and that's what we refer to them as. ~Blake D. Hawkins 01:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need a picture at the top?

I have a red US-market Evo VIII MR. I waxed it this weekend, so it looks halfway presentable. It's not the most recent generation, but this page lacks a decent-sized, decent quality photo for the top; do you guys want me to take a pic or are you going to hold out for an Evo IX photo? TomTheHand 21:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Needs an entire infobox, which I'm going to do right now (ignoring the individual generations). I'll use the pic of the white one, since it pretty much meets the Autoproject's photo requirements, and is an interesting pose as well -- a bit different from the usual driveway and mall car park shots. However, if you can get a better photo, knock yourself out. The only VIII we have just now is the yellow one, and that's a bit head-on and close-up to be ideal.

Of course, if you could capture the spirit of the car that'd be even better. How are you at four-wheel drifting at three figure speeds? Or yumping? Surely you can beat Markko Martin, after all, he's only driving a Ford Focus... [1] --DeLarge 21:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The yellow one's a VII (2001-2002); mine is an VIII (2003-2005) as is the white one. I can't really beat the white one's pose! All I can really offer is higher resolution and better light, and maybe I can park it on some dirt or something for the photo shoot ;-) TomTheHand 21:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution vs Evo Consistency

This article constantly switches between calling the car Evolution and Evo I think one should be picked and stuck with because it is really inconsistant to switch back and forth between names. SirGrant 05:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sportscar vs Sports saloon thing

Just to point out, luxuries does not necessarily make a sports saloon, so if the Evo is not a sports saloon then what about the Lotus Cortina and one of numerous cars that were homlogationlised for racing, as it was stated...

It was later applied by manufacturers to special versions of their vehicles that allowed them to enter production cars in motor races with extra modifications not normally permitted by the regulations. Such regulations required cars to be homologated typically by selling them in minimum numbers to the public.

So I hope it is possible to add the sports saloon tag to it. Also to my opinion isn't a 3 series more like a compact executive car or as defined on that page, the M3 is more like a sports saloon. Willirennen 19:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

We might be dealing with a US/British "language barrier" here or something, as here, a sports sedan is a sedan that's kinda sporty, like a BMW 3 series. See this article from Car and Driver magazine for what's considered a sports sedan over here. "Sports car" is less definite, but I've always thought it to mean a car that is designed for performance at the expense of comfort and price. Four doors don't automatically stop something from being a sports car. TomTheHand 12:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CVT Transmission

Does the new Evo come with the CVT transmission, because this would make it more of a manumatic/automatic coupe than a manual. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zhour24 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

No, no Evo has been or will (in the near future) be available with a CVT. The current Evo is available with a 6 speed manual, a 5 speed manual, or a 5 speed automatic, depending on the market (the automatic, for example, isn't available in the US). The next generation Evo will be available with a paddle-shifted twin-clutch gearbox much like Volkswagen's DSG, which is a semi-automatic transmission. It will also be available with a 5 speed manual. Note that while the Evo has been offered as a sedan and as a wagon, it has never been offered as a coupé. TomTheHand 14:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lancer and Prototype X

Did the Lancer come from the Prototype X or is it the other way around, because unlike the last generation, (EVO 9) the 'New' Lancer and the Prototype X actually looks simular --Zhour24 12:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evo vs Evolution

I would vote for Evolution. Mitsubishi avoids Evo in all material, I gather, because Harley Davidson has the Evo name for a type of engine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cpurrin1 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] URLs to images

If anyone is interested:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cpurrin1/418823886/in/set-1495012/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/cpurrin1/69478838/in/set-1495012/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/cpurrin1/436469420/in/set-1495012/

Thanks, but the above images have licenses which are incompatible with Wikipedia and cannot be used here. TomTheHand 15:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaced Evo VIII picture

Though it's cool that the Evo in the picture we were using was at a track, and a wet one at that, I never liked it much. It is low resolution and has visible artifacts, and the poor weather led to bad lighting. I have an Evo VIII, and I had wanted to take a high resolution photo and upload it, but as someone above mentioned, a high-quality picture of an Evo in someone's driveway is so much lamer than the track picture that it's not worth making the swap.

A couple of weekends ago I went to Deals Gap, North Carolina, which is an amazing drive. Several photographers set up at various points along the road and photograph all of the cars and motorcycles that go by. One photographer, Darryl Cannon of Killboy.com, got a couple of really good shots of me and agreed to release them under the Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike license. I uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons and used one of them to replace the Evo VIII image on this page. The other is here in case anyone thinks it's a better choice or has another use for it. Hope this is ok! TomTheHand 17:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the two, I much prefer the second one. It's slightly closer to the WP traditional "front 3/4, slightly raised", so you can better see both the front end and the Bart Simpson fins on the roof. There's not a lot in it, but I think the better angle offsets the benefit of the incumbent picture, namely that it's slightly sharper. Also, I have to confess to disliking such off-horizontal shots, at least when it's to that degreee.

I spun/cropped shot 2 a little, and turned down the image quality which shrunk the file size by 90 percent. It's on en.WP for now (here) but it can be moved or deleted depending on the response. (It'd also need its details edited; I just copy/pasted them, so it reads like I'm the driver). The current shot might be more in focus, but it's too close to the edges to be able to be rotated much. --DeLarge 18:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your points. The only thing I disagree with is turning down the image quality, as it has noticeable artifacts when viewed at full resolution now. Turning down the image quality of the 3199 × 1787 image doesn't affect viewers of this article, or even viewers of the 800 × 447 preview image, and if someone wants to view the gigantic copy they should be able to do so at full quality. If you don't mind, I'll rotate and crop the image when I get home today and upload it to Commons at full quality; if it then looks good to you perhaps you could db-author the one you've made. TomTheHand 19:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's cool, The {{commonscat}} template at the bottom will let other people see both images anyhoo. Strangely, I don't see the mid-size preview at all when I'm logged in, no matter what browser I try (IE7, FF2, Opera 9.2). But browsing anonymously it shows up, and it pretty much solves the big file size issue. Hmmm, I'll need to get to the bottom of that. --DeLarge 20:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Check your Wikipedia Preferences, and look under the Files tab, at the Limit images on image description pages to: setting. I believe it's set to 800 × 600 by default, so most people will see a 800 × (something) preview when they look at this image, but you may have at some point set it to the maximum setting on your account. That'd explain why you get one result when you're logged in and another when you're logged out.

I did a little trial rotating and found that while the second image is easy to rotate and crop, the first (sharper) image is just barely possible to crop when it's been rotated, and so I may upload both when I get home and let you have your pick. TomTheHand 20:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I prepared cropped and rotated full-quality versions of both images and uploaded them to Commons. They are Image:2005 Evo at Deal's Gap 1 cropped.jpg and Image:2005 Evo at Deal's Gap 2 cropped.jpg. The first is sharper and more tightly cropped, the second is from slightly more of an angle so that you can see more of the front and roof and it shows more of the background.

I'm replacing the image on the article with the second, because the sharpness of the first doesn't matter when it's a 250 pixel thumbnail. However, if anyone wants a pretty nice high-resolution photo of an Evo, the first image is great! TomTheHand 23:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Europe Name is Wrong!

The Evo is sold in Europe Market as Lancer Evolution, not as Carisma Evolution! Emerge.life 11:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Rash" deletions

User:Rps reverted my last round of deletions to restore two sections:

"Alternative cars". WP isn't a buyers' guide, and furthermore we cannot and should not try to read the minds of readers. Alternatives to the Evo are many. Buyers may want an authentic rally-rep. But equally they may merely want a fast four-door, in which case they can think of Audi RS4s or BMW M3s. They may want a sharp-handling car, in which case everything from a Lotus Elise to a Mini Cooper are viable alternatives. They may want something Japanese. They may want something costing no more than £xxx or $xxx. Etc etc. And a 2008 Focus RS, aside from being unavailable in many of the Lancer's markets and therefore irrelevent, is, as the text indicated, entirely speculative. Just because the only alternatives you would consider are authentic rally reps doesn't mean every other buyer is the same. No original research (deciding what cars are or are not alternatives), and no speculative crystal balling.
"In pop culture". Entirely unsourced, entirely non-notable, and flying in the face of the current purge of trivia and pop-culture articles and/or sections.

I've removed them again, You were bold, you were reverted, now discuss it, otherwise in the absence of any compelling arguments to keep them they will continue to be removed. --DeLarge 22:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution 7 image

Can anyone supply a free image of an Evolution 7 that isn't heavily modified? — AKADriver ☎ 19:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution external links

I was curious about adding a link to an evo x enthusiast's website that has a ton of in-depth information on the car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kooldino (talk • contribs) 16:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:LINKS#Links normally to be avoided, specifically points 1, 4, and 11. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't turn a profit and it is a unique information source in itself. I say it stays 24.250.185.24 (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Win