Best Motoring Jan. '08 EvoX vs. STI and Evo IX
12-04-2007, 02:53 PM
#1
Blue By You
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-04-2007, 03:12 PM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,047
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by Renesis_8; 09-11-2011 at 01:54 PM.
12-04-2007, 05:33 PM
#4
Blue By You
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would blame it overheating on that... However, when the Evo 9 rocketed by I think it was only the second lap and the overheating problems didn't really show up until the 4th lap. I'm still reserving final judgement but I've gone from someone that will probably buy the Evo X to someone that will test drive it with much doubt.
12-05-2007, 12:41 AM
#5
i pwn therefore i am
The SST they were using was having overheating issues at high rpms. Also the guy driving it had incredibly odd shift points. I don't know if he was trying to let the computer determine everything (there may in fact be no way to force the computer to not shift for you even in manual mode), but it didn't seem right. I will reserve judgement till I see a SST tested that I could actually buy.
12-05-2007, 01:31 AM
#7
Blue By You
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SST they were using was having overheating issues at high rpms. Also the guy driving it had incredibly odd shift points. I don't know if he was trying to let the computer determine everything (there may in fact be no way to force the computer to not shift for you even in manual mode), but it didn't seem right. I will reserve judgement till I see a SST tested that I could actually buy.
12-05-2007, 07:48 AM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,047
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
he just tagged along to have some fun, you notice when he fell back to last he was drifting through corners. They knew the G35C was no match for all of the turbo AWDs out there.
________
Digital easy vape instructions
________
Digital easy vape instructions
Last edited by Renesis_8; 09-11-2011 at 01:54 PM.
12-05-2007, 01:18 PM
#11
Registered
What I want to know is why the EVO9 was so much faster than the X.
I realize the EVOX is a little heavier and has slightly more horsepower, but the difference was much more dramatic than I thought it would be. In fact, I figured the X might even be slightly faster.
Was there some other major change?
Well, apparently autoblog already has the answer.
The guys in japan tested the X and the NEW STI on the track recently too.
See below:
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/05/e...uba-lap-times/
I realize the EVOX is a little heavier and has slightly more horsepower, but the difference was much more dramatic than I thought it would be. In fact, I figured the X might even be slightly faster.
Was there some other major change?
Well, apparently autoblog already has the answer.
The guys in japan tested the X and the NEW STI on the track recently too.
See below:
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/05/e...uba-lap-times/
Last edited by Ajax; 12-05-2007 at 01:21 PM.
12-05-2007, 01:32 PM
#12
Blue By You
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I want to know is why the EVO9 was so much faster than the X.
I realize the EVOX is a little heavier and has slightly more horsepower, but the difference was much more dramatic than I thought it would be. In fact, I figured the X might even be slightly faster.
Was there some other major change?
Well, apparently autoblog already has the answer.
The guys in japan tested the X and the NEW STI on the track recently too.
See below:
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/05/e...uba-lap-times/
I realize the EVOX is a little heavier and has slightly more horsepower, but the difference was much more dramatic than I thought it would be. In fact, I figured the X might even be slightly faster.
Was there some other major change?
Well, apparently autoblog already has the answer.
The guys in japan tested the X and the NEW STI on the track recently too.
See below:
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/05/e...uba-lap-times/
12-05-2007, 02:01 PM
#13
Registered
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I want to know is why the EVO9 was so much faster than the X.
I realize the EVOX is a little heavier and has slightly more horsepower, but the difference was much more dramatic than I thought it would be. In fact, I figured the X might even be slightly faster.
Was there some other major change?
Well, apparently autoblog already has the answer.
The guys in japan tested the X and the NEW STI on the track recently too.
See below:
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/05/e...uba-lap-times/
I realize the EVOX is a little heavier and has slightly more horsepower, but the difference was much more dramatic than I thought it would be. In fact, I figured the X might even be slightly faster.
Was there some other major change?
Well, apparently autoblog already has the answer.
The guys in japan tested the X and the NEW STI on the track recently too.
See below:
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/05/e...uba-lap-times/
12-05-2007, 02:04 PM
#14
Grand Chancellor
The guys in japan tested the X and the NEW STI on the track recently too.
See below:
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/05/e...uba-lap-times/
Looks like a sparring match with each model year's car trading punches. However of late the STi is doing better. Maybe this track doesn't favour the EVO.... and that err given the right conditions the EVO is better. Sounds familiar?
EVO/STi
2006 1:05:07 / 1:04:72
2005 1:04.88 / 1:04:17
2003 1:05:30 / 1:04:69
2001 1:05:17 / 1:06:56
1998 1:04:69 / 1:06:73
1996 1:07:00 / 1:05:92
1994 1:06:52 / 1:06:26
1992 1:10:90 / 1:07:99
12-05-2007, 02:10 PM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,047
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is you're trusting manufacturers HP ratings. The Evo has been underrated from the factory for a while, the new one with the new powerplant is probably a more accurate portrayal of actual horsepower. So, couple what is probably a little less horsepower in a heavier car and there you have it.
________
Volcano vaporizer
Last edited by Renesis_8; 09-11-2011 at 01:55 PM.
12-05-2007, 02:11 PM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,047
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like a sparring match with each model year's car trading punches. However of late the STi is doing better. Maybe this track doesn't favour the EVO.... and that err given the right conditions the EVO is better. Sounds familiar?
EVO/STi
2006 1:05:07 / 1:04:72
2005 1:04.88 / 1:04:17
2003 1:05:30 / 1:04:69
2001 1:05:17 / 1:06:56
1998 1:04:69 / 1:06:73
1996 1:07:00 / 1:05:92
1994 1:06:52 / 1:06:26
1992 1:10:90 / 1:07:99
EVO/STi
2006 1:05:07 / 1:04:72
2005 1:04.88 / 1:04:17
2003 1:05:30 / 1:04:69
2001 1:05:17 / 1:06:56
1998 1:04:69 / 1:06:73
1996 1:07:00 / 1:05:92
1994 1:06:52 / 1:06:26
1992 1:10:90 / 1:07:99
Did Mitsu really moved the engine FURTHER up? While Subaru lowered their engine.
________
condo for sale Pattaya
Last edited by Renesis_8; 09-11-2011 at 01:55 PM.
12-05-2007, 02:53 PM
#17
Blue By You
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like a sparring match with each model year's car trading punches. However of late the STi is doing better. Maybe this track doesn't favour the EVO.... and that err given the right conditions the EVO is better. Sounds familiar?
EVO/STi
2006 1:05:07 / 1:04:72
2005 1:04.88 / 1:04:17
2003 1:05:30 / 1:04:69
2001 1:05:17 / 1:06:56
1998 1:04:69 / 1:06:73
1996 1:07:00 / 1:05:92
1994 1:06:52 / 1:06:26
1992 1:10:90 / 1:07:99
EVO/STi
2006 1:05:07 / 1:04:72
2005 1:04.88 / 1:04:17
2003 1:05:30 / 1:04:69
2001 1:05:17 / 1:06:56
1998 1:04:69 / 1:06:73
1996 1:07:00 / 1:05:92
1994 1:06:52 / 1:06:26
1992 1:10:90 / 1:07:99
In most publications, and Best Motoring in particular the Evo bests the STI year after year after year (though it's always close). It's the same story each year, Evo is a better drivers car, it has better steering, turns a slightly better lap, and the STI understeers more. They're so close that which is the better car simply depends on what you want in a car, the slightly better performer, or the slightly better dailer driver. However, I have a feeling the gig is up for Mitsubishi this year and Subaru may be better at both. We'll need some more time to sort it out, but it's not looking good for the Mitsubishi camp.
12-05-2007, 07:18 PM
#19
Blue By You
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, the MR isn't much more than an options package and they lap VERY similar to any other Evo. Cars like the Spec C are alittle more worked over and have more power, usually weigh about 150 lbs less than a regular STI, and have lots of things to tighten up the suspension, and finally are quite a bit more expensive. It's Subarus group N homologation car.
12-05-2007, 10:26 PM
#21
Blue By You
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-05-2007, 11:40 PM
#24
i pwn therefore i am
Those numbers are a bit misleading since most of the better STI numbers are probably from super limited production cars such as the Spec C and S201/202/203/204 etc. In fact I'd like to know where the listed times come from and exactly what model they are using because in most cases those times don't match up to any of the times I've seen for either car...
In most publications, and Best Motoring in particular the Evo bests the STI year after year after year (though it's always close). It's the same story each year, Evo is a better drivers car, it has better steering, turns a slightly better lap, and the STI understeers more. They're so close that which is the better car simply depends on what you want in a car, the slightly better performer, or the slightly better dailer driver. However, I have a feeling the gig is up for Mitsubishi this year and Subaru may be better at both. We'll need some more time to sort it out, but it's not looking good for the Mitsubishi camp.
In most publications, and Best Motoring in particular the Evo bests the STI year after year after year (though it's always close). It's the same story each year, Evo is a better drivers car, it has better steering, turns a slightly better lap, and the STI understeers more. They're so close that which is the better car simply depends on what you want in a car, the slightly better performer, or the slightly better dailer driver. However, I have a feeling the gig is up for Mitsubishi this year and Subaru may be better at both. We'll need some more time to sort it out, but it's not looking good for the Mitsubishi camp.
Even when the differences were very minor in years past, many people were very much in one camp or the other for very basic reasons (e.g. - cosmetic, interior comfort, mileage, etc). Now that both cars have changed fairly dramatically the decision is easier and the camps will become more well defined. They will both be considered very competent performers with large cosmetic and feel differences. I don't think there's much chance of the Mitsubishi camp becoming empty.
