Car and Driver EVO vs STi

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Jan 17, 2005 | 05:25 PM

#61

pyrovice

Evolving Member

Joined: Jul 2004

Posts: 402

Likes: 0

From: Ann Arbor

um why is this guy commenting on stock understeer when he has coilovers and sway bars? That makes no sense to me.

Jan 17, 2005 | 05:28 PM

#62

godai

Newbie

Joined: Jul 2002

Posts: 69

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by FresnoEVO

i think if anyone on this board, trolls excepted, liked the sti they would have bought one instead of an evo... i know they were the only two cars i was looking at... i just think the sti is too hi-profile with the ugly hood scoop and wing but that's just me... if we want to get in a pissing contest lets compare the cost/benefit ratio of modding either car and see who comes out on top

Why can't one like both? And unless you're rich, you have to pick one over the other and many other practical reasons may come into play.

Jan 17, 2005 | 05:29 PM

#63

godai

Newbie

Joined: Jul 2002

Posts: 69

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by pyrovice

um why is this guy commenting on stock understeer when he has coilovers and sway bars? That makes no sense to me.

And why do you comment w/o reading..

"We have also tested these cars with stock suspention and the Evo had more understeer then the STi. The STi was also 2.4 seconds faster a lap with stock suspention Vrs Evo with stock suspention. "

Jan 17, 2005 | 05:31 PM

#64

twinevo

Evolved Member

Joined: Aug 2004

Posts: 778

Likes: 0

From: Minnesoter

Quote:

Originally Posted by godai

Who exactly is "We". Every magazine doing INDEPENDENT testing that I've read says the weakness of the STi is it's understeer. I guess I'm to believe the testing done by a member of a Subie forum over all these magazines.

Jan 17, 2005 | 05:33 PM

#65

godai

Newbie

Joined: Jul 2002

Posts: 69

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by twinevo

Originally Posted by chronohunter
There is no type of track (of surface) where an STi is faster...end of story. I'm all for giving credit where it's due, it's just that the Sti doesn’t deserve in it's current configuration...

Ok, I call BS on this one. The guy said his basically stock STi ran faster than an Enzo.

Thats just how C&D did with the Enzo.. imagine just being able to test that car, the driver was probably just thankful and careful trying not to crash it instead of beating it for best time.

Jan 17, 2005 | 05:36 PM

#66

Borti

Evolving Member

Joined: Dec 2004

Posts: 113

Likes: 0

From: Portland, OR

Quote:

Originally Posted by plokivos

You didn't see the MR kick Spec C's *** on road track?

man, you missed some good fun. It got him by 4 car length.

And didn't you see the MR get killed by the Spec-C Type RA?

Jan 17, 2005 | 05:38 PM

#67

jude

Evolving Member

Joined: Aug 2004

Posts: 245

Likes: 0

From: DFW TX

Now there's a Spec-C RA? Damn, I thought I read too much. When did the RA come out and what is the difference?

Jan 17, 2005 | 05:39 PM

#68

pyrovice

Evolving Member

Joined: Jul 2004

Posts: 402

Likes: 0

From: Ann Arbor

I'm talking about the guy with the suspension mods saying the understeer thing is bs based on HIS car

Jan 17, 2005 | 05:41 PM

#69

plokivos

Account Disabled

iTrader: (3)

Joined: May 2004

Posts: 4,902

Likes: 4

From: Atlanta

lol here we go. The official Evo vs STI dis-section is on!

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=700334

Last edited by plokivos; Jan 17, 2005 at 05:51 PM.

Jan 17, 2005 | 05:46 PM

#70

pyrovice

Evolving Member

Joined: Jul 2004

Posts: 402

Likes: 0

From: Ann Arbor

haha

Jan 17, 2005 | 05:50 PM

#71

Borti

Evolving Member

Joined: Dec 2004

Posts: 113

Likes: 0

From: Portland, OR

Quote:

Originally Posted by jude

Now there's a Spec-C RA? Damn, I thought I read too much. When did the RA come out and what is the difference?

It has more power and a wider wheelbase and possibly different tranny and its not as 'bare boned' as the spec-c and evo RS. The RA was around in the previous body styles and is a little more refined now. However, with the S203 out, everything is kind of dwarfed.

On a side note, a lot of wrx owners put the RA gears into their cars. It has the same 5th gear for good mileage and low RPM cruising on the freeway. But 1-4 are much shorter. the tranny is also much stronger all around.

The reason they do this is because 3rd and 4th gear on the wrx are way way too long, and are also wimpy and weak.

Jan 17, 2005 | 05:51 PM

#72

chronohunter

EvoM Guru

iTrader: (1)

Joined: Dec 2002

Posts: 1,767

Likes: 0

From: Boulder, Co.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pyrovice

I'm talking about the guy with the suspension mods saying the understeer thing is bs based on HIS car

I'm sure he drove it stock for a day or two

. Just because we modify our cars does not mean they are bad in any area. Stock they smoke STi's, modified we're after
Z-06s and Vipers (Sti's aren't even on the radar after you start modding).

Keep on trollin' there good buddy

Jan 17, 2005 | 06:00 PM

#73

pyrovice

Evolving Member

Joined: Jul 2004

Posts: 402

Likes: 0

From: Ann Arbor

It was a simple question in the first place, chill...

Jan 17, 2005 | 06:03 PM

#74

godai

Newbie

Joined: Jul 2002

Posts: 69

Likes: 0

I love internet racers..

Jan 17, 2005 | 06:24 PM

#75

astondg

Evolving Member

Joined: Mar 2002

Posts: 311

Likes: 0

From: Australia

From a lot of the things I have read and heard I thought that a more front biased power split is better on the dirt and other low traction surfaces? So for the people saying that the STI's 35F/65R split was what made it faster, is this really correct?

For the people saying that the EVO has nothing in common with a rally car, there is more than just the WRC. In Group N rallying (very close to production cars) the EVO's do quite well.

Aston

Reply Share

First
Prev
5 / 6
Next
Last