Top Gear: Evo vs Lambo

SyDias · 05-29-2006, 01:22 PM

Interesting... Evo vs Lambo around a track?

Clip

Oh my, gotta see it to believe it!

shade · 05-29-2006, 01:53 PM

Yeah that was sweet.

EeekiE · 05-29-2006, 03:22 PM

They're amazing machines. What's weird though is the Evo X's "super" "active" somethingorother shit that it's pioneering makes the Evo 9 look bad on the corners.

Malafe · 06-03-2006, 12:01 AM

but you'll allways get noticed more in a lambo

EeekiE · 06-03-2006, 06:07 AM

That's what seperates the insecure people that have cars to try and improve their image with other people, and the people that buy cars because they're mad about driving.

I'm more than happy driving around in my ugly granny mobile 1.3L 4 banger FWD hatchback.

Fullscale · 06-04-2006, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EeekiE

That's what seperates the insecure people that have cars to try and improve their image with other people, and the people that buy cars because they're mad about driving.

I'm more than happy driving around in my ugly granny mobile 1.3L 4 banger FWD hatchback.

you're a fag.

Malafe · 06-04-2006, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fullscale

you're a fag.

So true i mean who would wanna drive a granny mobile?

EeekiE · 06-04-2006, 06:16 AM

Me. I don't need my car to look or sound good. I'd take an ugly fast car over an infamous, or fast looking fast car every day of the week.

In the above case I'd take the Evo. Because it's the better car. Cars are for driving. Not for social acceptance/pulling unless you're lacking in some departments.

Malafe · 06-04-2006, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EeekiE

Me. I don't need my car to look or sound good. I'd take an ugly fast car over an infamous, or fast looking fast car every day of the week.

In the above case I'd take the Evo. Because it's the better car. Cars are for driving. Not for social acceptance/pulling unless you're lacking in some departments.

well i do agree with you in that the evo is better i'm actually dissapointed in the lambo guess audi haven't changed it much since the countach or diablo...

EeekiE · 06-04-2006, 06:22 AM

It's just VW meddling I think. They went through a bit of a boring patch since the Mk3 Golf and have given their engines "just enough", but nothing to give them an edge. The R32 could have been so much better as an example.

The plans for the new Corrado/Scirroco and stuff are looking good though.

Danny Lee · 06-04-2006, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malafe

So true i mean who would wanna drive a granny mobile?

So, So linear. Shiner means better, eh?

Skiptomylue · 06-05-2006, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EeekiE

Because it's the better car. .

yes.. the better car that gets 4 MPG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the evo isnt the better car though, all it has was the cornering and what not... did you not watch the rest? hasto be serviced every 4200 miles, but the tires only last like 4000 miles or some shit, has all these problems, the turbo lag, and mitsubishi has never been great with interior... so im sure the interior of the car STINKS!...

Quote:

Originally Posted by EeekiE

Cars are for driving. Not for social acceptance/pulling unless you're lacking in some departments.

exactly.. cars or for driving... you might as well be comfy while driving right...

06-05-2006, 07:32 PM

the evo is a rally car. i dont think they turn around cones or barrells on a dirt track, so who cares. turbo lag? just down shift. who goes 30 in 5th gear? who cares about the interior....its a rally car made street legal. it gets 4mpg if you completly hammer on it to death.

EeekiE · 06-05-2006, 07:47 PM

The FQ400 is essentially a British car based on a Japanese design. So from our perspective, as a road car, it would be much faster and I bet alot cheaper to maintain than the Lambo. It would certainly scramble over our B-Roads and lanes better than the Lambo ever could. So from a performance perspective, remembering that it's only for sale in UK, it's the much better equipped car.

I bet the more frequent servicing adds up cheaper, and I bet the tyres are cheaper too.

As for turbo lag, it just requires more use of the gears. All track cars are the same. Narrow maximum-effort power band. Strange mix of car, as the handling requires a berk, yet the clutch and gear control requires a pro.

As for cerametallic paddle clutches, it's just a learning curve. Once you've adjusted your foot to it, you can treat them exactly like a regular clutch. It's just psychological, like left-foot braking lol.

Personally I'm just astonished they get 400bhp from a 2.0L 4-stroke with warranty. Into perspective, that's like Honda doing a 320bhp production engine from their 1.6L. (Assuming my math is correct??) I know it's wrong to chase numbers over drivability but that's crazy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnycupcakes

the evo is a rally car. i dont think they turn around cones or barrells on a dirt track, so who cares. turbo lag? just down shift. who goes 30 in 5th gear? who cares about the interior....its a rally car made street legal. it gets 4mpg if you completly hammer on it to death.

Wasn't it in 6th? Could have been 5th though as 6th is usually a motorway fuel saver "lets satisfy the hippies" gear that's useless for anything but MPG.

06-05-2006, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EeekiE

Wasn't it in 6th? Could have been 5th though as 6th is usually a motorway fuel saver "lets satisfy the hippies" gear that's useless for anything but MPG.

it might have been. but thats even worse then, who drives around in 6th at 30 mph?

05-29-2006, 01:22 PM	#1
SyDias Keihin Tsukaite Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 1,421	Top Gear: Evo vs Lambo Interesting... Evo vs Lambo around a track? Clip Oh my, gotta see it to believe it! Last edited by SyDias; 05-29-2006 at 01:25 PM..

05-29-2006, 03:22 PM	#3
EeekiE Limey Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: UK Posts: 1,663	They're amazing machines. What's weird though is the Evo X's "super" "active" somethingorother shit that it's pioneering makes the Evo 9 look bad on the corners. __________________ Ron Paul FTW 2008

06-03-2006, 06:07 AM	#5
EeekiE Limey Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: UK Posts: 1,663	That's what seperates the insecure people that have cars to try and improve their image with other people, and the people that buy cars because they're mad about driving. I'm more than happy driving around in my ugly granny mobile 1.3L 4 banger FWD hatchback. __________________ Ron Paul FTW 2008

06-04-2006, 06:16 AM	#8
EeekiE Limey Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: UK Posts: 1,663	Me. I don't need my car to look or sound good. I'd take an ugly fast car over an infamous, or fast looking fast car every day of the week. In the above case I'd take the Evo. Because it's the better car. Cars are for driving. Not for social acceptance/pulling unless you're lacking in some departments. __________________ Ron Paul FTW 2008

06-04-2006, 06:22 AM	#10
EeekiE Limey Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: UK Posts: 1,663	It's just VW meddling I think. They went through a bit of a boring patch since the Mk3 Golf and have given their engines "just enough", but nothing to give them an edge. The R32 could have been so much better as an example. The plans for the new Corrado/Scirroco and stuff are looking good though. __________________ Ron Paul FTW 2008

06-05-2006, 07:32 PM	#13
johnnycupcakes Guest Posts: n/a	the evo is a rally car. i dont think they turn around cones or barrells on a dirt track, so who cares. turbo lag? just down shift. who goes 30 in 5th gear? who cares about the interior....its a rally car made street legal. it gets 4mpg if you completly hammer on it to death.