you cant count best motoring.. all that matters is the USDM versions. And yet again the evo is better. Mitsu is raising their prices cuz they want to stay in business, and the car is better than its competition so why not.

I have a feeling the 5k limit may be what is causing the slower off the line times. but the new evos are dynoing very strong. prolly more than the stis.

 

car and driver i think had it vice versa STI won and the IX MR lost?
but the numbers were different also, ill find out and post later after i get to home2 and find my mags

 

either way evos have more potential in my opinion so evo WINS + it looks better

 

what i don't understand how could they only run the sti's time from 0-60 in 5,1 sec. sti's are quicker than that

 

Woops, forgot about the differences in the evos

 

Im thinking about switching camps. I would be able to afford the MR...but im def looking at the Evo IX. My WRX is getting a little old for me.

 

The numbers might be a typo and they might be corrected in the next issue. Typos happen all the time. I have seen it before. Usually people write letters explaining the lack of logic in the numbers and the editors publish a correction. Write them an e-mail and see what happens.

 

The Road and Track numbers for the 2006 Evo 9 almost mirror the 2003 test with the Sti. The trap speed is up by ~3 mph. Slalom, 0-100, and ¼ mile times are very, very similar.

 

I'm glad you mentioned this, because I have the article sitting directly in front of me as I type this. But first let me mention, that you CAN NOT "magazine race." It's just not accurate. Magazines are for BASELINES, not actual fact.

Here's what I'm finding from reading the R&T article. I'm looking at the "timeslips, and here they are for the ACCELERATION part of the test:

Subaru WRX STI

Weight: 3340
Engine: 2.5L
Horsepower: 300 @ 6000 rpm
0-60: 5.1
0-100: 13.8
0-1320 ft: 13.6 @ 99.6 mph

Mitsubishi Evolution MR

Weight: 3290
Engine: 2.0L
Horsepower: 286 @ 6500 rpm
0-60: 4.7
0-100: 12.7
1320 ft: 13.5 @ 105.9 mph

Compare the acceleration figures. HOW does the MR accelerate from 0-60 in 4.7, break away from the STi by 1.1 seconds (12.7 Vs. 13.8) at 100 mph, as well as get ahead by 6.3 mph by the stretch of a 1/4 mile, and come out .1 ahead of the STI? It doesn't add up. According to their test, the Evo is leaving the STI further and further behind the ENTIRE time! It's just pulling away! This test shouldn't even be close, if this test is truly the case. The question is, WHERE is the STI making ground on the Evo?

One of a few things is happening:

A. Somebody screwed up with typing in the figures for each cars, or is "mix and matching."

B. The STi was indeed FASTER than 99.6 mph

C. The Evo was indeed SLOWER than 105.9 mph.

D. The STI is the one that accelerated from 0-60 in 4.7 seconds and finished off the 1/4 mile at 99.6 mph. This would mean that the Evo accelerated from 0-60 in 5.1 seconds, reeled in the STi because it DID run 105.9 mph, and eeked by to take the victory by .1. This, of course, leads us back to choice "A," in which somebody screwed up when typing out the article.

Also, according to the test, the STi makes its 300 hp at 6000 rpm, while the Evo makes its power of 286 hp at 6500 rpm. In other words, the Evo is more than likely making MORE power than the STi at 6500 rpm, hence taking the race on the top end.

This leads me to believe that maybe the 1/4 times are correct, and everything else is "mixed and matched." I wouldn't be surprised to see a re-print of these testing results in the next issue. People are going to have questions.

Before I complete this post, here's some additional information. I'm looking at the "Road Test Summary" on page 155 of this issue (December 05) as well, and they've tested each car prior to this test already. Here's what I found:

Subaru WRX STi

0-60: 4.9
0-100: 12.6
1320 ft: 13.3 @ 103.0 mph

Mitsubishi Evolution MR

0-60: 4.6
0-100: 12.5
1320 ft: 13.3 @ 105.9 mph

These numbers make much sense. I also find it interesting that the mph for the Evo MR is EXACTLY the same in the latest test as in the previous test. I'm sorry, but that's either a hell of a coincidence, or they're taking figures from both tests and slapping them together.

Let's think about this. The 2006 STi is supposedly more aerodynamic than the previous model, and the DCCD is revised for better traction and handling, the car is probably about 30-40 lbs heavier than the previous models, but it's slower by 3.4 mph. Then, we have the Evo that trapped the same at 105.9 mph in both tests, but did 0-60 in 4.7 in the latest test, and 4.6 in this one, but came out .2 slower in the 1/4.

Again, this leads me to believe that numbers are being "mixed and matched," or I'm going to go out on a limb, and say this Evo they tested is actually the SAME EXACT CAR from before with an updated IX front end on it.

So, in the end, what's this all mean? To me, not a damned thing.

 

Two words - RPM-limiter. The dreaded first gear limiter makes it much harder to launch the Evo, because you have to slip the clutch a lot to get a good run and it's no where close to the STI's rev to 6,000 and dump the clutch approach. All four wheels spin and it catapults off the line. A lot of time is lost on the Evo's launch. Did any body check out the "test article" that Road & Track had in the same issue, it explains how they don't power shift while testing and don't correct their numbers for weather and altitude.

 

That's what i thought....I don't listen to magazine articles anymore, opinions fluctuate too much. Nowadays i just look at the pretty pictures.

 

EVO IX MR
0-60 4.5
0-100 12.4
1/4 13.3@103.4
60-0 107ft
100-0 306ft
600ft S 69.8mph
lat. g's .92g
Road C 93.8sec
Price 36,564

WRX STI
0-60 4.5
0-100 12.1
1/4 13.0@103.5
60-0 108ft
100-0 320ft
600ft S 68.8mph
lat. g's .91g
Road C 94.2 sec
Price 33,620

They chose the STI based mostly on price, but I still love my IX MR. The new Subaru STI front end is just UGLY... What were they thinking.

 

Maybe that it's a $3,000 difference. Look I love my Evo, but you can't ignore the price difference when the numbers are so close on everything else.

 

good read

 

Luckily, the numbers aren't like that when _we_ drive them at the track. It's a shame that the limiter issue is completely skewing the numbers in the magazine. This misleads people into thinking the Evo isn't as fast as it really is. I think the driver needs to learn how to cut 1.7 60's off the 5k limiter before providing actual test times. Once he learns how, then do the tests, and you'll see MUCH different numbers.