Image of Mitsubishi EVO X MR SST

Mitsubishi EVO X MR SST specs

Car type 4-door saloon
Curb weight 1675 kg (3693 lbs)
Power / weight 179 ps (176 bhp) / t
Torque / weight 219 Nm (161 lb-ft) / t
Introduced 2008
Origin country Japan
Views 73.5k

Performance

Top speed 242 kph (150 mph)
0 - 50 kph 2.1 s
0 - 100 kph 5.5 s
0 - 130 kph 9.0 s
0 - 180 kph 18.8 s
0 - 200 kph 24.9 s
0 - 100 mph 13.8 s
Est. 1/8 mile 9.0 s @ 82.0 mph
1/4 mile 13.8 s
Est. 1/2 mile 22.2 s @ 118.7 mph
Est. 100 - 200 kph 19.4 s

More acceleration times

Mitsubishi EVO X MR SST acceleration graph
User avatar

User avatar

monkeypop  4y

A power increase for the evo is LONG overdue. While typical sedans have drastically increased h.p over the past decade the evo has basically stayed the same. It needs a big jump in power for its performance to be considered impressive by todays standards.


User avatar

Mental  4y

@monkeypop
Oh, not just there are no more AWD Turbocharged Eclipses in Mitsubishi's lineup, but there is no more any Eclipse in their model range... The production of Eclipse was ended 2 years ago... I also suppose if the 3000 GT was not stopped, now we could see its supercar successor, competitor to the GT-R... And the modern Galant only can compete with Camrys... And I don't see Mitsubishi competing anywhere anymore, there is no Mitsu even at the rally championship... Hell, even the current generation of the Outlander looks just like the crap...

Gruesome.. just about 15 years ago Mitsubishi was producing some cool cars, and could be considered as one of the leaders in Japanese autoindusrty... Now the only "impressive" vehicle in Mitsubishi's is Lancer Evo X, which is losing its fire.

Oh, Mitsubishi, present us at least one car already - Lancer Evo XI, with revolutive design, with 360 horses, AWD and DCT / manual gearbox.


User avatar

Flabernat  4y

@Mental,
I think you're right. From what I understand their market here in America has really been suffering. I'd hate to see them go, they've had some great cars over the years... case in point, this car!


User avatar

monkeypop  4y

I agree mental. Where is all the fast cars with neat innovations like the 3000gt vr4 with active aero long before others used such things. The galant is just a shell of its former twin turbo v6 glory. The eclipse no longer has cool turbo awd variants. Very boring lineup of cars now from mitsu.


User avatar

Mental  4y

Hmmm, do only I have an impression that Mitsubishi in recent years slowly begins to decay? I mean in last few years they did not introduce any impressive innovation, any impressive car. Any news from Mitsu. Their model range becomes less significant at the world's market and less popular. And the only Mitsubishi's car oriented on performance that's still in production - Lancer Evo, is becoming too old to compete with its rivalry. So what's going on with Mitsu? Why don't they have anything exciting anymore? Their Evolution turns into Involution?


User avatar

wyovjwh  5y

Always do a comparative study of such different jacket in terms or cost, material etc before its purchase. gucci uk sale - gucci handbags sale , .guccioutletstorets.com/#76629


User avatar

CarElitist  6y

@AIK Yup.


User avatar

AIK  6y

5.5 sec and 13.8 sec are real times for start from IDLE. For start from launch times may be much better sure.


User avatar

Viking  6y

Good luck Dirtdickler. I don't even like the Mitsu Evo models, but I would like all the info on this site to be as accurate as possible.


User avatar

Viking  6y

@Dirtdickler use the "add performance figure" function and cite the Road and Track issue. The moderators should look at the figures and approve it. Once approved it will appear on this page.


User avatar

Viking  6y

@Dirtdickler yeah, you are correct the difference between 0-60 and 0-62 is only 0.2 or 0.3 seconds unless another shift is needed. With no extra shift, 4.6 0-60 mph should be 4.8 0-100 kph. Even a shift should only add another 0.3/0.4 seconds with a manual transmission; less than that with a paddle shifter.


User avatar

Dirtdickler  6y

.roadandtrack.com/content/download/69763/1764364/version/3/file/CT_2010-Ford-Taurus-SHO-vs-2010-Mitsubishi-Lancer-Evolution-MR-Touring_data.pdf

0-60: 4.6 sec

1/4 mile: 13.2@ 103.6 mph

5.5 sec 0-62 is OBVIOUSLY wrong. Even if it took (3) shifts to go that extra 2 mph ( it doesn't / takes just (2) rather 60 mph or 62mph / 100 kph) the dual clutch transmission would produce a far faster time than 5.5 sec.


User avatar

Jeff B  6y

Agreed


User avatar

Gw1tx  6y

Oh and it doesn't take (3) shifts for the EVO to reach 62mph (100kph) so that 5.5 time is rediculous. It takes the same # of shifts (2) rather it's 60mph or 62mph (100kph).


User avatar

Gw1rx  6y

Wow those acceleration times are WAY OFF!!

0-60? Try 4.5-4.7

1/4 mile? Try 13.3

Just do a search Yahoo / Google and you'll see several sources recorded times for the EVO X MR way quicker than the times listed here. 13.8 for the 1/4? Really? LOL


User avatar

monkeypop  6y

The 4g63 was a really reliable engine even when boosted. Problem I had was with the drivetrain. I cant say anything about the new SST tranny or the new engine but Mitsubishi uses a very soft clutch in their manuals thats easy to slip in order to protect the drivetrain.

If you replace the stock clutch with a more aggresive one then you are asking for trouble. I had a mildly boosted evo 9 for a few years and it was a money pit. Stock clutch went out in 5k miles.. put in a mild organic Exedy clutch with 58% more clamping force than stock and then the internal shift forks started breaking.

Transmission will probably always be a issue with AWD cars. If the tires dont slip.. all that force goes right into the drivetrain.


User avatar

Apathy  6y

@911racer

I have heard the exact opposite. I've seen several 4b11t's push a decent amount of boost on stock internals. It's about comparable to the 4g63 despite the 4b11's open deck design.


User avatar

Derb  6y

@phavyarden

a gt-r is no real track car
if you use the gt-r really on the track,
the gt3-rs is cheaper
in everything but the carprice itself


User avatar

phavyarden  6y

"wanna track car?", buy a GT-R, it's less expensive and it's quicker at many tracks


User avatar

911racer  6y

the evo x engines are not reliable when boosted; the 6speed double clutch trannies also burn out when running under high boost - life is very limited on a boosted evo - wanna track car... buy a porsche.


User avatar

EVO fans  7y

this edition of evo need to remap ECU because his weight is too heavy . after remap suppose can be 350 bhp 430nm


User avatar

NIN  7y

I\'m not much of a Mustang fan but I have to admit that the GT with the Track Pack is a well sorted track vehicle and an excellent value.
Most Mustang fans focus so much on 0-60mph and 1/4 mile times but it does go around the track very well. Good tires, good brakes...it\'s a nice performance vehicle.


User avatar

Apathy  7y

I'm going to try and make this quick and simple for you Eric. The 2011 Mustang has achieved .95 G's, equal to the X MR, and goes from 70-0 in 153ft VS the X MR's 162ft. The only track that the both of them have been tested on is Willow Springs; the Mustang was quicker by .8 seconds.


User avatar

Eric  7y

Road & Track recently tested a 10\' Evo X MR touring.

0-60: 4.6sec
1/4: 13.2@ 103.6mph

The 08’ EVO X’s had a horrible tune from the factory but has since been corrected. Then run way quicker then the results posted here currently.

*For lost one assuming the Mustang GT will be faster because it tied the 08’ EVO X at VIR.

News Flash!

The EVO X is by the better performing track car and when you look at pretty much every other result besides that one at (VIR) you\'d understand that a Mustang GT, 2011 or not doesn\'t stand a chance in hell against the EVO X MR unless you’re just talking about a ¼ mile drag race.


User avatar

Nelson  7y

0-100 in 6sec??? why evo 9 better than 10? i just order 295ps 366nm version of evo x , quite disappointed i though i can get 100kmh in 4.7sec


User avatar

GuttenTAGGG  7y

Since the 2010 mustang tied this I wonder how well the 2011 would smash on this car.



User avatar

Drew  8y

With a Cobb AP stage 1 ecu upgrade and using launch control I get constant 0-60 times in the 4.2 sec range with the SST.


User avatar

javi ( spain )  9y

Mitsubishi Lancer Evo X VS Subaru Impreza STi:

INTA (LONG and diferent TRACK):

Evo: 1 min 26,76 sec

STi: 1 min 26,74 sec

http://motor.terra.es/pruebas-coches/articulo/mitsubishi-lancer-evo-x-subaru-49063.htm

http://www.forocoches.com/foro/showthread.php?t=1317701&highlight=


Active users

FastestLaps, tyler, hmdqyg, saxy, fakekillerfour, BR2+, Flabernat, DeDe, lawrencefearon, Fastedee

Latest topics

2017 racing season starts tomorrow 40
15 hours ago by saxy

The new, "down-sized" Audi RS5 14
17 hours ago by BR2+

Data submission requests 148
1 day ago by fakekillerfour

Dodge Viper ACR goes "HAM" on 14 tracks, "spanks" Porsche 918 1
2 days ago by lawrencefearon

Shame on Ferrari, shame on McLaren 88
5 days ago by Fastedee

Aston Martin DB11 is much faster than S-Class coupe 20
5 days ago by Fastedee