|
Best Motoring Jan. '08 EvoX vs. STI and Evo IX
|
|
lol sst seems pretty slow compared to the manual evo9. of course there is teh weight difference.
|
Originally Posted by terrypk1
(Post 2172120)
lol sst seems pretty slow compared to the manual evo9. of course there is teh weight difference.
|
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.
|
Interesting. Too bad they couldn't throw the new 2008 STI into the mix.
|
Originally Posted by saturn
(Post 2172885)
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.
|
hmmm....i wonder why tsuchiya drove the skyline...he likes balance and low weight...not big and powerful
|
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 |
I saw it yesterday.
I was like wtf ? it overheats ? wow, Good bye Mitsubishi ! |
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/ |
Originally Posted by Ajax
(Post 2173641)
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/ |
Originally Posted by Ajax
(Post 2173641)
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/ |
Originally Posted by Ajax
(Post 2173641)
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? :lol2: 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 |
Originally Posted by Ike
(Post 2173674)
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 |
Originally Posted by delhi
(Post 2173739)
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? :lol2:
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 |
Originally Posted by delhi
(Post 2173739)
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? :lol2:
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. |
^ Same can be said of the EVOs too. MR, Makkinen edition, etc. Who knows...
|
Originally Posted by delhi
(Post 2173845)
^ Same can be said of the EVOs too. MR, Makkinen edition, etc. Who knows...
|
I believe the X has it's engine slightly pushed forward more compared to the XI which would effect it's times some.
|
Originally Posted by dillsrotary
(Post 2174596)
I believe the X has it's engine slightly pushed forward more compared to the XI which would effect it's times some.
|
Isn't the SST the only option here in the US?
|
Originally Posted by rollerbldes
(Post 2174631)
Isn't the SST the only option here in the US?
|
Originally Posted by Ike
(Post 2173821)
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. 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. |
so mitsu made a car that is slower than it's predecessor?
it pulled a mazda huh |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:37 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands