Road & Track: EVO IX MR vs. WRX STI
Nov 12, 2005, 07:18 PM
#18
Newbie
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Richard EVO
As I think more about it, there might be something wrong with the EVO numbers. Since it was able to run 0 - 100 mph in 12.7 seconds but ran the 1/4 mile in 13.5 secs at 105.9 mph, that means it took a full 0.8 secs to go from 100 mph to 105.9 mph, when the car is going ***** out. Does that sound right? Maybe so, I really don't know.
My break in period ended last night on my IX MR and I will say that it DOESN'T take .8 secs to go from 100 to 105.9!
Nov 12, 2005, 07:23 PM
#19
Newbie
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: PA
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Richard EVO
That is weird, as is the fact that the STI can't break 100 mph in the 1/4 mile, and that the EVO is 1.1 second faster to 100 mph. I'm just reporting what I read. I think the difference may lie in the fact that the EVO is weaker in the low revs, so that the STI probably pulls off the line quicker, but when the EVO turbo really scrolls up, it just flies past the STI.
Nov 12, 2005, 07:26 PM
#20
Newbie
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: PA
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 06MR895
My break in period ended last night on my IX MR and I will say that it DOESN'T take .8 secs to go from 100 to 105.9!
Nov 12, 2005, 07:37 PM
#23
Evolving Member
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: IL
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sinister Subaru
Exactly. I have the issue upstairs, and if I recall, some of the test numbers looked fishy. With a trap of 105 mph, the Evo should've been way ahead of the STi. That wasn't the case, and it surely isn't a matter of traction with these two cars.
Car & Driver and Road & Track always have a tendency of doing BS testing. Back around 1997, I bought a VHS documentary called "The Fastest American Cars In America," or something like that, and R&T couldn't run an LT1 Camaro to faster than 14.9 @ 93 mph. Then, they did a test on a Vortech supercharged LT1 Camaro, and couldn't muster faster than 13.5s. These tests are crap.
The best ways to see what a car really runs is to go to the track and see. There's no way that 2 good running cars are going to run diferences as significant as the ones in that test.
Car & Driver and Road & Track always have a tendency of doing BS testing. Back around 1997, I bought a VHS documentary called "The Fastest American Cars In America," or something like that, and R&T couldn't run an LT1 Camaro to faster than 14.9 @ 93 mph. Then, they did a test on a Vortech supercharged LT1 Camaro, and couldn't muster faster than 13.5s. These tests are crap.
The best ways to see what a car really runs is to go to the track and see. There's no way that 2 good running cars are going to run diferences as significant as the ones in that test.
Nov 12, 2005, 07:51 PM
#26
if they are testing with GPS tool and not an actual 1/4 drag strip, then the mph they get will not be the same as an actual drag track. As you all know a drag track measures the mph by a method between two points at both the 1/8 and end of 1/4 mph.. Those R&T tests are measuring the mph exactly at the end of the 1/4 mile then, which is probably 4mph too high. That would put the Evo around 101.x and STI at 95.x with an actual 1/4 mile track timing system
Nov 12, 2005, 07:55 PM
#27
Evolving Member
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: IL
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we don't know if they used GPS tools or a strip, but most magazines do their testing with GPS tools, and for people who think i'm talking about a normal GPS, i mean a very complicated performace computer with features like the g-tech only using GPS measurments acurate to +-1.0m with WAAS