Ford Mustang Boss 302 vs Mitsubishi Lancer Evo

Power vs Traction. RWD vs AWD. Displacement vs Turbo.

 

Share this Article

 
 
 
• 10

David Pratte Jan. 22, 2013

Normally we try to bring you head-to-head racetrack shootouts that pit similar types of vehicles against each other. But every once in a while, it’s fun (and surprisingly informative) to step outside the industry’s definitions and categories, by testing two vehicles with utterly different approaches to going fast. There probably aren’t too many people out there cross-shopping the Ford Mustang Boss 302 and the Mitsubishi Evolution MR, but perhaps our test results will inspire a few folks to broaden their definition of what “fun and fast” really means and look beyond the categories and sub-categories the industry’s marketing nerds have been corralling us with.

FAST FACTS: Lancer Evolution

1. A turbocharged 2.0L 4-cylinder makes 291 hp at 6500 rpm and 300 lb-ft of torque at 4000 rpm. 2. MR models feature Eibach springs, Bilstein shocks, 18-inch forged aluminum BBS wheels, lighter Brembo brakes and a 6-speed dual-clutch transmission. 3. GSR models start at $34,695 with our MR test car at $37,895 plus $795 delivery.

Sports car, pony car, sport compact – who cares? If you’re an enthusiast-driver looking for something that’ll put a smile on your face, whether it’s at the race track or down your favorite winding road, the real questions should be: how fast is it, and is it any fun to drive? 

THE ODD COUPLE

On paper the Boss 302 and the Evolution X MR couldn’t be more different. Where the Mustang uses a brawny 444 hp 5.0-liter V8 to motivate its rear wheels, the Evo is equipped with a tough little 2.0-liter turbocharged 4-banger that sends 291-horsepowers to all four wheels. This obviously puts the Mitsubishi at a significant power disadvantage, though the Evo is almost 100-lbs lighter despite having two extra doors.

Still, this is not a contest the Evolution X is going to win on power-to-weight ratio, but what it does have in its favor is a whole host of high-tech grip-enhancing features including an Active Center Differential that sends torque to whichever wheel(s) have the most available traction. The Active Yaw Control system is just as impressive, which uses a rear limited-slip differential and a pair of clutches to split torque between the rear wheels, dialing out the understeer normally associated with AWD vehicles and replacing it with a machine that’s amazingly neutral. The dual-clutch 6-speed flappy paddle gearbox in the MR model is also a technological marvel, providing impossibly fast though rather harsh shifts in either direction.

FAST FACTS: Mustang Boss 302

1. A 5.0L V8 makes 444 hp at 7400 rpm and 380 lb-ft of torque at 4500 rpm. 2. Compared to the GT, Boss 302 models gain a custom exhaust, new clutch, 3.73 rear end, adjustable shocks, stiffer and lower springs and Brembo brakes with upgraded pads. 3. An optional Track Key adjusts 600 parameters including cam timing, spark maps, engine braking, fuel control and throttle response. 4. Pricing starts at $42,200 plus $795 delivery charge

By comparison, the Mustang uses technology from the Stone Age, the solid rear axle somehow surviving the engineering process despite the fact that the horse and carriage is no longer a popular form of transportation. Though not independent, the business end of the Boss 302 has been upgraded to a 3.73 axle ratio along with a carbon clutch-type limited slip differential (or an optional Torsen LSD which has been strangely grouped with upgraded Recaro seats). The one piece of high-tech gadgetry Ford did bless the Boss with is an adjustable electric power steering system, which we set to Sport for enhanced feedback and feel. 

CONTRASTING PERSONALITIES

As you might expect, given the utterly opposing approaches to engineering these two machines feature, their on-track personalities share very little in common. The first thing you notice in the Boss 302 is the fabulous sound of its highly tuned V8, which breathes in through a unique “runner in the box” intake manifold and out through a quad exhaust system that has both side pipes and rear mufflers and tailpipes. The pace at which the Boss 302 accelerates is also pretty stunning, as is the rev-happy nature of its 5.0-liter motor (which redlines at 7500 rpm). Parts of Boss 302 may be rather low tech compared to the Evo, but its engine is an utterly modern design, featuring forged pistons, revised connecting rods, sodium filled valves, and high-lift variable-timing camshafts. 

The Boss is about a lot more than just its motor though – it is, after all, designed to be a track-day variant of the Mustang GT (already a capable machine by any standards). So although its live rear axle isn’t the most sophisticated approach to suspension design, the engineers at Ford have certainly dialed it in for impressive amounts of grip and at-the-limit composure. Equipping it with sticky Pirelli P-Zero summer tires is never a bad starting point, 255/40R19s up front and 285/35R19s out back, but chassis balance this outstanding ultimately has to stem from its carefully tuned suspension package, including stiffer springs and bushings, adjustable shocks, and a larger diameter rear stabilizer bar.

Far from the wild bucking bronco I thought it might be, the Boss 302 inspires confidence at the limit. That being said, you do have to respect that its limits are very high and any misjudgments in corner entry speed or throttle application can result in an embarrassing spin. The old “slow in, fast out” adage applies well to the Boss 302, but if you’re sparing with the whip and work your way up to its limits gradually, it’s seriously fast, not to mention being both a surprisingly rewarding and engaging machine to drive.

The Evolution MR, on the other hand, is not about being sparing with the whip, nor is it about a conservative approach to corner entry. This maniacal little Mitsubishi is, as it turns out, a power-sliding hooligan disguised as a high-tech sport sedan. Where the Mustang requires most of its braking be accomplished before turn-in, in the Evo you can approach corners in a more Scandinavian fashion, flicking it into a four-wheel drift while trail braking and applying the throttle at the same time. As a result, you scrub off speed on corner entry with the tires as much as the brakes, yet somehow this technique (and its intelligent center diff) allows the Evo to maintain momentum to the apex, at which point the turbo kicks in, the Yaw control straightens you out and the AWD system slingshots you down the next straight with a grin on your face.

You can, of course, choose to drive the Evolution in a more traditional “brake in a straight line, power on at the apex” style, but our lap timer clearly indicated that a more rally-inspired approach was faster – not to mention being a lot more fun!

Compare Specs

		vs
Vehicle	2013 Ford Mustang Boss 302	Advantage	2013 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution MR
Engine	5.0L V8	-	2.0L 4-Cyl Turbo
Horsepower	444 hp	Boss 302	291 hp
Max. Torque	380 lb-ft	Boss 302	300 lb-ft
Fuel Economy	15 MPG city / 26 MPG hwy	-	17 MPG city / 23 MPG hwy
Weight	3,632 lbs	Lancer Evo	3,571 lbs
Power to Weight Ratio	8.18 lbs/hp	Boss 302	12.27 lbs/hp
Weight Distribution	55/45	Boss 302	57/43
Starting Price	$42,200	Lancer Evo	$37,895
Lap Time	1:21.45	Boss 302	1:22.99
Recorded Top Speed	112 mph	Boss 302	102 mph
Max Lateral G-Force	1.29 G	Boss 302	1.20 G

The brakes on the Evo were seriously impressive though. The numbers point to the Boss producing more stopping power, though the Evo’s felt like they’d clean out your sinuses at the end of a long straight. They also screeched incessantly when not at the track, indicating a seriously aggressive (perhaps even suspicious) pad.

With the Evo there were, however, a few techno-glitches along the way. The engine was inexplicably hitting a phantom rev limiter during the approach to Turn 7 – it felt like the dual clutch gearbox was unsure of whether it should be downshifting or upshifting. Whatever the reason for it, this software glitch was costing precious time, as the various e-systems sorted themselves out and allowed the engine and transmission to play nicely together again.

Editor-in-Chief Colum Wood also noticed that the dual-clutch gearbox would at times benefit from some manual shifting, automatically resorting to third gear on some slower sections of the track when second better suited his purpose.

In addition, the Yokohama Advan 245/40R18 tires that come standard on the Evolution were looking rather tattered (even before the abuse we piled on them). It’s hard to say if this was contributing to the relative lack of tire grip the Evo was exhibiting compared to the Boss 302, or if it was simply a case of the Mustang having wider and stickier tires. In any case, the Evo was somehow still able to accelerate out of corners with amazing pace despite having less mechanical grip, no doubt a testament to its amazing (and very Japanese sounding) Super All Wheel Control system. 

SURPRISING PERFORMANCE

Having had our fun familiarizing ourselves with the personalities of these two very different yet highly capable machines, it was time to get down to business. Would the time-honored approach of big V8 power sent to the rear wheels reign supreme, or could a high-tech AWD system, yaw control, and a dual-clutch gearbox somehow overcome a 150 hp deficit? It wouldn’t be the first time the Evo proved to be a giant-killer.

But with two fairly long straights at our test track, it was always going to be tough for the Mitsubishi to hang with the far more powerful Ford. We knew that heading into this shootout, so it wasn’t too surprising that the Boss’s fastest lap time was 1.5-seconds quicker than the Evo’s. What was surprising was the outright pace of both cars, the Boss 302’s best lap of 1-minute 21.451-seconds being amongst the quickest we’ve ever recorded at this track (our best to date is a 1:20.1 in a 580-hp Camaro ZL1). The Evolution X MR’s best time of 1:22.999 was also unexpectedly quick, putting it right there with the fastest times we could turn in the lighter and more powerful (and far more expensive) Audi TT-RS.  

Looking a little more closely at the data from the fastest lap in each car, it’s plain to see that the Evo lost the war down the straights. On the front straight it fell behind by 0.5-seconds, losing another 0.4-seconds down the second straight. What was surprising, at least upon first glance, was the 0.6-seconds it lost on the shorter “middle” straight, between turns 6 and 7. This is actually the result of the aforementioned phantom rev limiter issue, and had the Evo not been hesitating here it so long, it would have lost perhaps half as much time.

In the corners it was a much different story, where the Evolution held its own despite having narrower and less sticky tires. In Turn 1 the Evo managed to claw back a 10th of a second, taking back a further 2/10ths during the twisty final segment between Turns 7 and 10. In all of these corners, it’s interesting to note that its not corner entry speed but rather speed from the apex to corner exit where the Evo claimed back these little chunks of time.

Through the tight and twisty esses of Turns 3, 4 and 5, a section I thought the Evo’s willingness to change direction and AWD grip would give it an advantage over the bigger and heavier Boss 302, it turned out to be a dead heat. Props must be given to the Boss 302 here for its steering precision, along with its excellent dampers and body roll control, all of which allowed me to take an aggressive line that used all of the curbs.

Looking at the lateral g-forces generated by both cars, the Boss 302’s turn-in grip advantage is hard to miss. The Mustang was hitting consistently higher g’s during the first part of just about every corner, a function of its wider and stickier front tires and track-oriented suspension tuning, but once I was back on the throttle and cornering g’s evened out between the two cars, it was the Evolution’s intelligent center diff, torque vectoring rear end and AWD grip that allowed it to out-accelerate the Boss from apex to corner exit.

NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT?

The easy closing here is to simply state that there’s still no replacement for displacement, and that the Mustang’s engine is what really makes the Boss the boss. But that would be missing the point entirely.

First of all, it has to be emphasized that both of these cars are hugely capable around a race track and an absolute hoot to drive hard. Any enthusiast-driver worth their salt is going to get out of either of these cars after a spirited driving session with a healthy cocktail of adrenaline, dopamine and testosterone coursing through their veins. That being said, each machine exercises the brain and the body in very different ways, despite the fact that their lap times are surprisingly close.

The Boss 302 is the more difficult car to drive at the limit, but that’s always going to be true of a track-day variant as powerful and as stiffly sprung as this one. But to Ford’s credit, they have done an impressive job balancing the edginess that comes with increased grip and roll stiffness and the forgiveness most of us need when we get a little too enthusiastic behind the wheel. For a live rear axle pony car weighing 3,500 lbs or so, it really is quite remarkable how composed the Boss 302 is, even when sliding it around at yaw angles better suited to the Evo.

THE VERDICT

The Mitsubishi Evolution MR is definitely a friendlier car when driven to its limits and beyond. I always got out of the Evo with a smile on my face, its rally car spirit urging you to try a Scandinavian flick or at least a power-on four-wheel drift. But perhaps the Evo is a little too easy to drive fast, what with all its onboard technology and yaw control magic. The dual clutch gearbox, another of the Evo’s technological marvels, wowed me with its shifting speed, yet left me feeling disconnected from the driving experience.

Maybe I’m just bemoaning the realities of the Internet age, but the purity and simplicity of the Mustang Boss 302, solid rear axle and all, managed to engage and reward me as a driver far more than the Evolution X could. I didn’t jump out of the Boss with a boyish grin like I did with the Evo – I got out of it with my heart pumping and my fingertips tingling. Heel and toe downshifting, balancing front grip on corner entry and then transitioning the weight to the rear and fighting the urge to jump back on the gas too soon, these are the challenges the Boss 302 put before me, gave me a pat on the back, and said “good luck, because you’re in control”. And for that reason alone, it’s the one I’d take home with me if I was given the choice.

2013 Ford Mustang Boss 302

LOVE IT Broad powerband and plenty of revs Impressive grip, neutral handling balance Steering precision and feel

LEAVE IT Heavy clutch pedal and shift action Rear end twitchy at the limit Retro styling inside and out

2013 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution MR

LOVE IT AWD system finds traction as if by magic Neutral handling balance thanks to Active Yaw Control Outstanding hoonability

LEAVE IT Harsh gear shifts in S-Sport mode Low rent interior Sense the car is driving, not you

robin chakkal(part 2)

2013 Range Rover Evoque Coupe vs. 2013 MINI Paceman Cooper S

Comparing the two most unique vehicles on the market

7 Comments 

• Email a Friend
 
• Print Friendly

Share this Article

 
 
 
• 2

Mike Schlee May. 28, 2013Photos by Adam Wood and Chris Blanchette. Video by Adam Wood and Chris Blanchette

Full disclosure; these two vehicles are not really competitors. For starters, the Land RoverEvoque Coupe begins at a price of $45,040 while the MINI Paceman undercuts it by nearly half, starting at $23,200. The as tested prices narrow the gap a bit, but the Evoque Coupe Pure Plus still costs $46,640 compared to the Paceman Cooper S ALL4 at $33,200. That gap of $13,440 could buy a Nissan Versa.

And the differences don’t stop there. The Evoque Coupe is 9-inches longer, 7-inches wider, 3-inches taller, 650 lbs. heavier and packs almost 60 more horsepower. So why are we comparing these two? Simply put, they are two of a kind. These vehicles are the only compact crossover coupes on the market.  They are the automotive equivalent to thigh high boots; stylish, fun, attention getting, but not the most practical. If two doors, all-wheel drive, a bit of luxury and a high seating position are all priorities on the shopping check list, well, here are your choices.

RANGE ROVER RESTYLED vs SAME-OLD MINI

When Land Rover first brought out the LRX concept vehicle, no one thought the production version would retain that seductive shape, yet it did. Two years into production and the Evoque still turns heads everywhere it goes; especially in coupe form. As part of the Land Rover’s new set of ‘soft-roaders’ that includes the Freelander/LR2, the Evoque is a unibody structure and behaves more like a car than a truck. But don’t think all of the Range Rover DNA is bred out of this crossover as the Evoque does still feature Terrain Response control and can wade in nearly 20-inches of water.

The Paceman on the other hand is a completely different. Whereas the Evoque is the Land Rover family member trying to act like a car, the Paceman is a MINI family member attempting its best impersonation of a SUV. All-new this year, the Paceman is essentially a coupe version of the Countryman, so the similarity between the two shouldn’t come as a surprise. Key differences include a sloping rear roof line, two missing doors, a restyled rear end and the distinct flat-black standard wheels. Other than that, the Paceman looks essential the same as the Countryman. In fact it, it carries such strong family styling cues that it gets lost in the sea of various MINI models; there is no wow factor with this new model.

TURBO vs TURBO

Both of these crossover coupes are powered by turbocharged four cylinder engines. The Paceman Cooper S uses the brand’s ubiquitous 1.6-liter unit developing 181 hp and 177 lb-ft of torque. The Evoque counters with a 2.0-liter unit that produces 240 hp and 251 lb-ft of torque. Power is sent to all four wheels via a 6-speed automatic for our two test vehicles, but MINI does offer the choice of a 6-speed manual transmission. 

With a torque advantage greater than then entire output of a smart fortwo, it is no surprise that the Evoque Coupe feels far more powerful during city driving compared to the Paceman. This isn’t just according to the butt-dyno either; the 3,902 lb. Evoque will go from 0-60 mph in 7.1 seconds compared to the Paceman’s time of 7.6 seconds. Once up to highway speeds, power begins to equal out as both the Paceman and Evoque remain on the good side of adequate, but aren’t exactly hairy-chested torque monsters.

With a much lighter curb weight and a smaller, less powerful engine, the MINI is obviously more fuel efficient. Officially rated at 23 mpg city and 30 mpg highway, we achieved an average of 23.7 mpg after a week of hard driving. The Land Rover is rated three mpg less in the city and two mpg less on the highway and, surprise, surprise, averaged 2.9 mpg worse than the Paceman at 20.8 mpg.

COMFORT VS HANDLING

The Paceman also sets the pace when it comes to chassis feel. Although the Evoque is a noble handler in its own right, it can’t match the MINI’s tighter dynamics; it’s hard to hide that extra 650 lbs. Turn in is quick and precise while feedback is very good for a crossover-like vehicle. Just don’t expect the go kart feeling of regular Coopers with this car, which makes sense since there is a higher centre of gravity and extra weight of the AWD system.

Still, the Paceman can be hustled. Actual cornering grip is fairly equal between the two vehicles thanks the Evoque’s larger footprint of 235/55R19 tires compared to the Paceman’s 205/55R17s. Thankfully the kidney bursting ride found in virtually every MINI is missing in the Paceman. That said, both it and the Evoque ride on the rougher side thanks in part to short wheelbases.

There is also a canyon like gap when it comes to steering feel. Much like the vehicles’ handling, the Paceman’s steering is lively and just a step below that of the regular coupes and convertibles. On the flip side, the Evoque’s steering is as vague as the ending to Inception. It feels artificial and has an on center dead spot like some Hyundai's do.

LUXURY vs QUIRKY

But the tables turn once inside the vehicles and it is game over for the Paceman. The Evoque’s interior is a masterpiece of modern design. Everything looks and feels even richer and gives off a distinct leathery smell that makes us feel like we are slipping on a bomber jacket. The brushed aluminum strip running across the dashboard looks phenomenal and the rest of the layout is modern and sophisticated.

The Paceman by contrast has a funky enough design, but it hasn’t really changed all that much since 2000 and is getting a bit old. The retro look of the giant speedometer dial in the center of the dash still looks cool, especially with the infotainment screen inside, and the small dial in between the front seats works well to control all of its functions. Even with its trademark toggle switches, the MINI’s interior looks, dare I say it, ordinary compared to the Evoque.

SPACE vs NOT MUCH OF IT

Being a larger vehicle, the Evoque offers plenty of cargo room at 19.4 cu-ft compared to the Paceman’s 11.7 cu-ft. rear seat space in the Paceman is also a bit cramped as there is a distinct lack of headroom and the 33.7-inches of legroom make for awkward leg angles. If more cargo space is require in the Paceman, the rear seats will fold down but the center cup holders must be removed manually in advance for the seats to fold flat.

Compare Specs

		vs
Vehicle	2013 Range Rover Evoque Coupe	Advantage	2013 MINI Paceman Cooper S ALL4
Engine	2.0 L Turbo Inline-4	-	1.6 L Turbo Inline-4
Horsepower	240 hp	Evoque	181 hp
Max. Torque	251 lb-ft	Evoque	177 lb-ft
Fuel Economy	20 MPG city / 28 MPG hwy	Paceman	23 MPG city / 30 MPG hwy
Observed Fuel Economy	20.8 MPG	Paceman	23.7 MPG
Weight	3,902 lbs.	Paceman	3,260 lbs.
Front LegRoom	40.1 in.	-	40.4 in.
Rear LegRoom	35.7 in.	Evoque	33.7 in.
Cargo Capacity (seats up)	19.4 cu. ft	Evoque	11.7 cu. ft.
Cargo Capacity (seats down)	47.6 cu. ft.	Evoque	38.1 cu. ft.
Starting Price	$45,040	Paceman	$23,200
As Tested Price	$46,640	Paceman	$33,200

The Paceman’s dual moon roof is a nice touch, but once again gets trumped by the Land Rover’s glass roof, even if it doesn’t open. The big doors on both vehicles make tight parking spaces tricky to get in and out of and sight lines aren’t great due to the sloping roof lines; especially in the horse-blinder-on-wheels that is the Evoque Coupe.

Despite the exterior dimensions of the Evoque Coupe, there is a lot of room inside. Two tall adults can easily fit in the back seat as there are 35.7-inches of leg room and ample headroom thanks to the glass roof. Unlike the four-seat only Paceman, the Evoque can come with 2 or 3 passenger seats in the back. The only real drawback inside the Evoque has to do with the bottom of front seat cushion that a few testers did not find comfortable.

THE VERDICT

It should come as no great revelation that the more expensive vehicle is the better vehicle. But, in this burgeoning market niche, the Evoque really is the clear standout. It features concept car looks, drives well, has a stylish interior and of course comes with Land Rover pedigree. A two-door crossover is never going to be a practical purchase decision. Instead, owning a vehicle like this is more about wanting something different from the status quo.

The Paceman is not a bad car by any means, but as mentioned earlier, its overload of siblings could be its undoing. If you don't half to have two doors and AWD, other MINIs would be a better choice. If a stylish two-door crossover is an absolute must, save up for the Evoque; it’s worth it.

 

2013 Range Rover Evoque Coupe

LOVE IT Concept car Looks Plush interior Torquey motor Relatively spacious interior

LEAVE IT High price Uncomfortable seat Not overly efficient

2013 MINI Paceman Cooper S All4

LOVE IT Good driving dynamics Better value Great steering MINI styling

LEAVE IT Looks like every other MINI Cramped rear seat Small trunk

by robin chakkal(part 2)