So how does an M3 CSL, EVO X and a S197 Mustang compare then.......results inside!

Mine is modded to about the same power as yours and puts down max boost at 3500rpm and max torque at the same.

It certainly not laggy as turbo cars go, and I've had comments from a member on here and a couple of other people who have said they were surprised how little the lag is.

It's a see-saw argument, as many people that I speak to who prefer the evo 7-9 power delivery, the same amount will say the same about the X.

It's not something I get hung up on, the pace is very similar and both era's of car are amazing for their own reasons.
 
Cheers for that, good read.

Gibbo said:
...infact I'd say the CSL has got the best SMG/DSG type box of any car. I've driven Audi A5 with DSG, BMW 335D and over 100 miles in the R35 GTR and I still preferre the SMG in the CSL, its the quickest changing box of them all (0.08s)...
Click to expand...

Manufacturers measure the shift time in different ways, there is no standardization. BMW quote clutch-actuation-clutch, whereas Nissan quote paddle-clutch-swap-clutch.

So the Nissan time of .2 on paper seems slower but the next gear is already engaged, so the equivalent Nissan time for what BMW quote for on SMG II is actually ~.004-6, depending on mode. In other words, on the SMG II, there is an interruption of power for .08, in the GR6 box, actual shift time is much lower. Same with PDK and M-DCT, these are super quick in actuation.

That may explain why you prefer the SMG, it feels more like a gear change because of the .08 bang on engagement instead of a seamless delivery for one gear to the next...did Kriss have it in R mode? because that does produce more of a conventional kick.
 
Last edited:
Fett said:
Cheers for that, good read.



Manufacturers measure the shift time in different ways, there is no standardization. BMW quote clutch-actuation-clutch, whereas Nissan quote paddle-clutch-swap-clutch.

So the Nissan time of .2 on paper seems slower but the next gear is already engaged, so the equivalent Nissan time for what BMW quote for on SMG II is actually ~.004-6, depending on mode. In other words, on the SMG II, there is an interruption of power for .08, in the GR6 box, actual shift time is much lower. Same with PDK and M-DCT, these are super quick in actuation.

That may explain why you prefer the SMG, it feels more like a gear change because of the .08 bang on engagement instead of a seamless delivery for one gear to the next...did Kriss have it in R mode? because that does produce more of a conventional kick.
Click to expand...

See what your saying m8, yes in R-mode it had some punch to it, but in comparison to the CSL they are just violent on the shifts and to be honest its that I like about the SMG in the CSL, having the option of it been so violent, its grin factor. :D

Yes the GTR could certainly do seemless shifting and the sound it made on a full boar down-shift was pretty epic with the Milltek downpipe Kriss had on, but I like the fact that when I pull the next gear on the paddles I get an almighty kick in the back, great fun. :D
 
Gibbo said:
See what your saying m8, yes in R-mode it had some punch to it, but in comparison to the CSL they are just violent on the shifts and to be honest its that I like about the SMG in the CSL, having the option of it been so violent, its grin factor. :D

Yes the GTR could certainly do seemless shifting and the sound it made on a full boar down-shift was pretty epic with the Milltek downpipe Kriss had on, but I like the fact that when I pull the next gear on the paddles I get an almighty kick in the back, great fun. :D
Click to expand...

Some seem to miss SMG for exactly what you like, but there is the trade off, these DSG/DCT boxes are freakily good at bumbling around town, for out and out smoothness, apart from 1>2, the GT-R in Auto is smoother than the SL and A8, and they are pretty buttery. You can get a bigger kick via software, but all it's doing is creating a larger gap to the second shaft clutch engagement.

The longer the cut in power, the bigger the punch on engagement, but most opt for the quickest possible time for performance. Horses for courses and all that :)
 
I'm typing this on my phone so will keep it short.

No Evo makes peak torque that far up the rev range...maybe the 8 FQ-400, but I haven't checked the specs.

I don't know where you are getting this information, but all the specs I have ever seen state peak torque on any of the 5-9 cars are 3500 rpm or below, apart from possibly the FQ-400 as mentioned above.
 
Fantastic Post Gibbo, having seen and heard the stang and CSL I have to say the stang wins as you say :D

I took a look at your Evo today, looks mean.
 
Do want.

Do you ever get used to the acceleration of cars like this? or does it always make you smile?
 
EvilFranky said:
I'm typing this on my phone so will keep it short.

No Evo makes peak torque that far up the rev range...maybe the 8 FQ-400, but I haven't checked the specs.

I don't know where you are getting this information, but all the specs I have ever seen state peak torque on any of the 5-9 cars are 3500 rpm or below, apart from possibly the FQ-400 as mentioned above.
Click to expand...

EVO 8 all FQ models are 4400rpm or higher, check google, wikipedia and pretty much any other website.

All EVO 9 FQ models bar the FQ-360 are 4400rpm or higher.

So yes they are peak torque above 4400rpm on the more powerful EVO 8/9s.

Yes the standard EVO's make peak torque at 3000-3500rpm but a whopping 260-280lb/ft, hardly worth shouting about. The stock FQ range 300 upwards are hitting peak torque a lot higher, unless of course Mitsubishi, EVO and several other review/press sites are telling lies?
 
EdGey said:
Do want.

Do you ever get used to the acceleration of cars like this? or does it always make you smile?
Click to expand...

Yep you get used to it, I completely agree when people say you can never have enough power. But what I will say is the car is very well balanced and it can make use of all its power at anytime even in damp/wet conditions, wheras the Mustang needed perfect conditions to put all that power to the road.
 
Gibbo said:
EVO 8 all FQ models are 4400rpm or higher, check google, wikipedia and pretty much any other website.

All EVO 9 FQ models bar the FQ-360 are 4400rpm or higher.

So yes they are peak torque above 4400rpm on the more powerful EVO 8/9s.

Yes the standard EVO's make peak torque at 3000-3500rpm but a whopping 260-280lb/ft, hardly worth shouting about. The stock FQ range 300 upwards are hitting peak torque a lot higher, unless of course Mitsubishi, EVO and several other review/press sites are telling lies?
Click to expand...

I stand corrected, the some of the later Evo's with more power as standard do indeed hit max torque later in the rev range. This is down to the MR cams shifting the powerband.

My 280 lb/ft still takes me to 60 in 4.4 secs, which takes an Evo X FQ-330 to match. Not sure why you decided to get a***y and elitist as due to the weight of the X's they gain barely any performance on the 4G63 based Evo's :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
EvilFranky said:
I stand corrected, the some of the later Evo's with more power as standard do indeed hit max torque later in the rev range. This is down to the MR cams shifting the powerband.

My 280 lb/ft still takes me to 60 in 4.4 secs, which takes an Evo X FQ-330 to match. Not sure why you decided to get a***y and elitist as due to the weight of the X's they gain barely any performance on the 4G63 based Evo's :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Its not about 0-60mph, its about how the car is to drive throughout the rev range and having 363lb/ft on tap at 3500rpm is something I preferre a lot more, I like usable torque and thats why eventually I shall Stage 1.5 the car which should drop spooling to sub 2000rpm and give me peak torque of around 420lb/ft around 3500rpm. :)

When I drove an 8 FQ-340 yes it could do the same 0-60's and performed just as well when you thrashed the living daylights out of it, but its power band in higher gears was pathetic compared to the EVO X. But that FQ-340 made 340lb/ft at like 4500rpm, so at 3500rpm it was about 250lb/ft. In the X its got a good 100lb/ft advantage at 3000rpm and is peaking at 3500rpm.

Yes the EVO 8 was a bit more mental as you had this mad 4500-6000rpm where it just went bonkers and turbo churned your stomach, but it soon wears off and just becomes annoying. I'd far rather have a much more usable power band which the EVO X has. Stick an X and an 8 FQ in 4th gear or 5th gear at 2500rpm and floor it, the result will see the X streaking off into the distance.

Its probably just because I am getting old, as when I was younger I was all for VTEC style mental power delivery but now its nice to be able to sit in top gear and just have power on tap. :)

I've driven a lot of EVO's throughout the years, they are all great cars, but for power delivery none of them better the EVO 9 GT and EVO 9 MR FQ-360, peak torque and lots of it at 3200rpm and they spool very fast due to special tipped turbines on the turbo, plus you have Mivec. The X is not quite as good but its far more livable due to its interior and toys, plus I preferre the handling of the X on UK roads probably because its a bit softer which helps with our crap road surfaces. My only gripe with the X is why only a 5 speed box, 85mph on the motorway is 4000rpm and the engine does sound rubbish in the X compared to older EVO's.
 
Gibbo said:
Yes the EVO 8 was a bit more mental as you had this mad 4500-6000rpm where it just went bonkers and turbo churned your stomach, but it soon wears off and just becomes annoying. I'd far rather have a much more usable power band which the EVO X has. Stick an X and an 8 FQ in 4th gear or 5th gear at 2500rpm and floor it, the result will see the X streaking off into the distance.
Click to expand...

its the diesel effect - you get a sudden change in the car's acceleration which makes it feel much faster than it actually is.
 
I must admit it's very amusing the way this thread has turned.

It's a well laboured point about how the Evo X turned out, some people love it - others don't. I've spoken to many at MLR meets who feel it is diluted and numb compared to 7-9's and found the more linear power delivery boring hence they sold up and went back.

Other people have driven the X and loved it, bought it and kept it.

As the pace difference is marginal it boils down to preference.

And as for the "rush" when the car comes on boost being annoying? - Do me a favour.

I've owned mine for 9 months now and it's anything but.
 
I will own a Mustang one day! I was thinking of it as a next car. But I think I need a few more cars first

I'll kill myself in one of those now!
 
Gaijin said:
I must admit it's very amusing the way this thread has turned.

It's a well laboured point about how the Evo X turned out, some people love it - others don't. I've spoken to many at MLR meets who feel it is diluted and numb compared to 7-9's and found the more linear power delivery boring hence they sold up and went back.

Other people have driven the X and loved it, bought it and kept it.

As the pace difference is marginal it boils down to preference.

And as for the "rush" when the car comes on boost being annoying? - Do me a favour.

I've owned mine for 9 months now and it's anything but.
Click to expand...

mate of mine at work used to have an escort cosworth which was the worst for this sort of thing. Nothing ... nothing ... nothing.. BOOOOSSTT!!! making it feel much faster than the 0-60 of 6 and a bit seconds would imply.
 
Gibbo, your back!! woot.
After this review you are anyway.

SO, do you have a spare bed for me? take me to work in your Vrummm vrum?

I very informative and accurate review. I have been looking toward an M3 but just seem to drawn to the running costs :(

Always wanted an EVO but missus says no, brands them a drug dealers car :eek:

The Stang.... yummy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom