2008 Mitsubishi Evo GSR: Does That Wing Do Anything?

Yeah, this car looks better with added visual mass in the back. I'm glad to hear it's for more than just looks, too. You guys should get the really big wing.

i find it looks far better without a wing, but if you are after all out performance then you need it. i hated having a wing and front lip, but i needed it. i actually removed the front lip when i wasn't racing. left the wing on because of the holes, but i actually thought about getting a wingless trunk also.

I think the car looks much better without the wing. Also without the wing it is a little more rear biased which might be more fun on a track. If I had this car I would definitely take the wing off most of the time. The only thing I would want the wing on for is if I do some very high speed freeway driving. I don't like feeling like the car is about to start going backwards as soon as I hit the brakes or turn a little.

How consistent was that 0.15s difference? It sounds like a pretty reasonable margin for error, to me. I'd call that a "no difference", unless it was consistently faster with the wing in place.

i'm sorry to insult Josh here, but i have a difficult time believing he's such an exceptional driver that you can say with any certainty that a .15 difference is due to the wing rather than myriad other lap-to-lap inconsistencies.

also, isn't the streets at willow a pretty low speed course? i find it similarly difficult to believe that the wing is doing much other than causing a bit of drag at these fairly modest speeds...

...plus, based on josh's quote - unless the wing is mounted via super-secret hidden supports directly to the front wheel hubs, i'm not sure i understand how its addition would make the balance more front-biased.

Much better looking without the wing. Also, for street use it's also much better, as the rear visibility is improved without the wing.

Finally, euro hyper-cars such as M-BMWs and AMG Benzs do just fine without rear wings.

If you car doesn't fly, I don't see the point of wings.

Looks better with the wing for sure.

The wing is silly, superfluous gingerbread (<== seasonal word alert) for the boy racers. With the type of car the Evo is and considering the humble origins of the Lancer I'd say it's justified. But, definitely, better looking without.

Wing stays, better looking.

RSHolland:

Wings are a cheap fix. The EVO was tuned by a racer on a track with a low top speed... explains why it drives so well, but its not going to have the sophistication of an M3 or AMG. German's don't mess around with aerodynamics... even the Golf is tuned in a wind tunnel.

vt8919:

Wings producing lift are for flying. Cars utilize wings that provide downforce to keep the car on the ground. Tell F1 wings are pointless...

A small wing such as that on project EVO will provide smaller advantages than the bigger one they offer. Certain designs will reduce drag, which would explain why the EVO felt front biased.

Whether it provides usable downforce or not, the rear spoiler is a defining characteristic of an Evo. Taking it away just seems...wrong. Sure, you can leave it and look like a silly boy racer instead of a serious driver, but who cares? If you want a serious car, go buy a Lexus.

FYI, here's a link to a PDF on some of the aerodynamic development of the Evo X:
http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/corporate/about_us/technology/review/e/pdf/2008/20e_08.pdf

I know the wing on the EVO 8 and 9s were functional. The wing on the X looks more cosmetic than anything. Anyone know if it is actually functional like the wings on the previous cars?

A 0.15 second difference on a 1:25 lap and you guys think that proves the wing makes a difference? Give me a break. You guys might be good drivers but you're not THAT good.

Huyracing: It was sarcasm. I know what spoilers/wings are for.

I've posted the link before so I'm not going to do it again.....( i think spdracerut posted it above)

THE SPOILER IS FUNCTIONAL - MITSUBISHI LITERATURE SAYS SO. Whether or not it looks better is irrelevant, though for the record I think it looks much better with it on.

I don't understand the logic of going to all that money to create a Project Evo car but then ignoring the documented contribution from the spoiler.

So, calling the spoiler a 'ricer wing' or whatever, makes no sense.

Wings are for angels... and Mitsubishis
^ I read that somewhere
Anyway an Evo without a 5' tall wing just looks so... wrong.

regarding the mitsubishi literature - that page is for marketing, if you're taking it as scientific gospel you're a bit crazy.

again: there's just no way that josh is such a spectacularly consistent driver that you can say with any confidence that a .15 sec difference is absolutely BECAUSE of the wing's presence. put shumacher or alonso in the car and maybe i'd put more faith in the data.

maybe the car felt different in some way; but to say that the car's balance felt more front-biased because of a small wing sitting at the back edge of the car makes no sense at all.

of course wings work in many racing applications - at high speeds after they've been very carefully designed and tested in wind tunnels or computational flow models. in the vast majority of street cars, however, they do nothing but add drag and convince the morons of the world that your car is super special and really, really awesome (yes, that's sarcasm). sorry if that offends any ricer fans.

It looks so much better withOUT the wing.

Plus, this test has way too many confounding variables to make any real conclusions, but I'm very glad you wrote this piece.

"regarding the mitsubishi literature - that page is for marketing, if you're taking it as scientific gospel you're a bit crazy."

The literature looks like a typical intra-company tech paper/engineering report. Pretty standard fair. I've done a fair amount of work in various engineering companies and also some CFD work, it looks pretty legit to me.

On a little bit of a tangent. You guys remember when the Audi TT first came out and it had the optional little spoiler that popped up at speed? Well, it became mandatory after a good number of those cars ended up doing a bunch of loops on the Autobahn.

Zcalvert, you seem to imply know something about motorsports. You do realize that adding a 1/2" wickerbill to a wing can make a significant change in downforce. I believe the Evo IX MR actually added a small wickerbill to the rear wing. Changing endplate length on a wing by 10mm can have a significant affect on downforce. These are just small changes to a wing. Do you really think that completely removing the wing has no significant effect?

While Streets of Willow is a relatively slow track, turn 1 going clockwise is still over 100mph. Trust me, you want some added downforce on the rear to keep it in line. It's not fun swapping ends going through there! Another section of the track where you want more downforce is the complex of turns before getting to the bowl turn. Having the rear more planted will shave a little bit of time. It gives you that little bit of extra confidence to push it harder.

the wing is really a personal preference. i think the car looks good with or without. unless you always go to the track, the wing is not functional at all for street driving IMO. the small wing is standard anyway. and i think 95% of evo buyer opt for the big wing because of the look or they have to get it with the packages they want. not that they want the extra downforce on the track.

i guess i should clarify my comments as simply as possible:

-as i stated, i'm fully aware that that wings/dams/lips/channels CAN have very important effects in various applications.
-generally speaking, relatively high speeds are required for these positive effects to be realized.
-in this specific situation, i don't think you can say with any degree of certainty that a .15 sec lap difference is because of a small rear wing. that's not a very large difference for an amateur driver in a car he is not intimately familiar with. a huge variety of factors could be responsible. even the driver specifically stated he felt the balance was more front biased with the rear wing - which is completely counter to the purpose of a REAR wing.

that's all i'm saying; i'm not implying anything beyond that.

Whether the 0.15 sec is because of the wing or not doesn't really matter. The purpose of the wing on a production EVO is the boy racer looks.

If you like that look then it serves it's purpose. If you don't then it's a silly add on.

My god some of you people are just plain stupid. Published document from the manufacturer with CFD outputs showing the benefits of the aero development done on the Evo and you're still saying it doesn't matter, its for looks, etc.

If you don't know a thing about aero, then just shut up about it - don't like the looks, fine, but educate yourself about aerodynamics at least just a little bit before saying it doesn't do anything. Aero matters even at freeways speeds and lower. The average speed around Streets of Willow for a car like Project Evo is in the 75-80 mph range. Both the front straight and back straight will see speeds exceeding 100 mph entering into tricky cornering sections.

And BTW, Jacquot is an experienced driver. I put in 5 consecutive laps at Streets within +/- 0.2 seconds myself and I had to deal with traffic. I'm sure lapping on his own he's pretty consistent as well.

church123

Some of us are stupid? Nice thing to say on Christmas Eve.

Thnik about it for a minute. A team of experts spent a day on a track and the best they could come up with are comments like...

""It's a hair quicker on the clock with the wing but the balance is more front-biased... is this the wing, or tire wear? Probably wing, because it's most noticeable in high-speed corners."

Basically the conclusion is it probably makes a difference in a back to back comparision with experts at the wheel on a track.

Basically NO ONE will notice a difference whipping around an on ramp or cruising down a freeway.

Sorry if it offends you but the wing is for looks on a street car.

The weight of the fuel in the tank probably had more of an impact on the lap times than the wing. Unless, of course, Josh and the crew made sure to top off the tank to the exact level it was when tested w/o the wing.

Firstwagon, even for 'street' cars, added rear downforce can come in handy as Audi learned the hard way.

Also, the Evo is not just a 'street' car. A very high percentage of Evos end up on road courses. If you go out to any track day across the US, you will see a good number of Evos. Here in So Cal, they'll make up anywhere from 10%-30% of the cars that register for track days.

I've been very thankful for the wing on my 2005 Evo. There were a few instances of the rear rotating a bit to much at over 100mph. I'd hate to know what it would have been like without the wing.

Relevant to this, I have a friend with an Evo X who recently tracked it (I think at Summit Point). He had the wing off but brought it just in case (in the wife's FJ). After the first session, he slapped it back on and immediately felt more comfortable at speed.

Christmas Eve, Easter, your birthday, who cares? The truth waits for no holiday or political correctness.

Continuing to insist that a functional aero device (as shown by CFD data, not track times) is "just for looks" isn't offensive, its just pathetic. That's what it really comes down to. Do you dispute the published document from Mistu? If you don't dispute it, then quit insisting its "for looks".

I for one have done aero development at the track on several race winning and championship winning production car racers. Very small changes, even on a slow track, can make a big difference both in driver confidence and in best possible lap times. But I'd much rather have CFD data to assess the effectiveness to remove driver variables.

Useless, so I won't comment on the pro's and con's of the wing. Why's the pass seat so far back?

so how much money was spent on project evos performance parts?

It's no secret the EVO is a cheesy ass car as far as looks go. So it doesn't look right wo it's cheesy ass wing, that does almost nothing.

I'm not sure this test is totally valid given the changes in tire pressure, gas consumption etc, but I applaud the guys for trying and would have to trust the driver in his feelings of the car. We've been waiting a long time for some feedback on this car so atleast they've given us something.

I'm thinking the wing they used is not the OEM wing. The OEM short wing looks different from the one they used so the affects could be different. The low height of either wing probably would be marginal though.

I raced my X all last year with the large OEM wing and can say the wing does help in higher speed stability. Let's not kid ourselves in thinking we don't drive fast on public roads, so yes, the wing does help there too.....

Aesthetics is a personal opinion, kind of like most forum posts. Having owned too many cars to count, the Evo X is a terror on the street and track and that's a fact. Whatever Mitsu did, being design and/or engineering worked. The car trumps most cars at double it's price tag. Forget about where it's made or what it looks like, it's a purpose built car and inexpensive for the performance realized. This isn't a kraut vs rice vs domestic argument.

Of course the wing makes a difference. Would Vin Diesel drive a car with a wing if it didn't?..
...I live my life 0.15 seconds at a time.