View Poll Results: Choose which ones will influence your decision
Wow, 300hp, 300 ft-lbs from 2.5L Subaru boxer engine
152
22.25%
Proven tuning potential of the Mitsubishi 4G63
355
51.98%
Subaru\'s strong 6-speed manual tranny
138
20.20%
Mitsubishi\'s dependable 5-speed tranny
109
15.96%
DCCD on the STi... wish Evo had ACD
132
19.33%
Stock FMIC on the Evo
164
24.01%
Exterior looks
305
44.66%
Interior quality
148
21.67%
Gross Vehicle Weight
79
11.57%
I want to test drive both before deciding
165
24.16%
Price
261
38.21%
Body Shell Rigidity
133
19.47%
Brakes
163
23.87%
0 - 60 mph and 1/4 mile times
201
29.43%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 683. You may not vote on this poll
Evo vs. STI | Anything and Everything [ALL THREADS MERGED]
Nov 18, 2002, 05:26 PM
#152
Evolving Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STi vs. Evo?
While they share so much in common in intent, they are different. STi, and Subaru, tends to rely on what I call "tried and true tractor technology", in that the basic components of Impreza are not very new, but refined over the years in much the same way as the Porsche 911. It has a inherently balanced layout and fairly low center-of-gravity because of their use of the flat four motor in a north/south configuration. Because of this, they can, and do, use a more mechanical system for routing power to the wheels. To me, it feels more natural, though it does (did) suffer from the inherent understeer that's in most AWD systems. That is, until the latest (Japanese) STi, which has an option for a "automatic" driver controlled center differential. This, along with severe suspension tweaking, has resulted in a very balanced car that you can steer with the throttle as you drift through the corners in a very RWD way. And the Type C version with it's revised front end geometry and 180lb's less weight is absolutely mad. I have to say it's really a driver's car, and only for drivers. I doubt the spec C will go overseas, for it's very lawsuit-friendly. (as in, it's not going to try and protect you from your mistakes).
I hesitate to compare it in any way to the Evo 8, though, because I haven't driven an Evo 8, and I doubt anybody but some Ralliart test drivers in Evo 8 mules have. The current STi is faster than an Evo 7 GSR, and the Type C is faster than a Evo 7 RS. But that's no surprise, this is a case of new vs. old. How it stacks up to the Evo 8 remains to be seen.
Yet the problem here is that neither the Evolution 8 nor the Impreza STi will arrive in the States in the same spec as their JDM counterparts. I know for certain that the STi will not get the new turbocharger and other bits on the JDM STi, purely because of OBD-II and emissions. And I'll wager on the Evolution in the States facing the same problem. The U.S. STi will probably not see the DCCD automatic center diff either, much as the Evolution won't see the current AYC and ACD system. The cars will probably end up being very similar in spec, price and performance, and what it will get down to is what car do you prefer after test driving both.
Cheers,
Paul Hansen
While they share so much in common in intent, they are different. STi, and Subaru, tends to rely on what I call "tried and true tractor technology", in that the basic components of Impreza are not very new, but refined over the years in much the same way as the Porsche 911. It has a inherently balanced layout and fairly low center-of-gravity because of their use of the flat four motor in a north/south configuration. Because of this, they can, and do, use a more mechanical system for routing power to the wheels. To me, it feels more natural, though it does (did) suffer from the inherent understeer that's in most AWD systems. That is, until the latest (Japanese) STi, which has an option for a "automatic" driver controlled center differential. This, along with severe suspension tweaking, has resulted in a very balanced car that you can steer with the throttle as you drift through the corners in a very RWD way. And the Type C version with it's revised front end geometry and 180lb's less weight is absolutely mad. I have to say it's really a driver's car, and only for drivers. I doubt the spec C will go overseas, for it's very lawsuit-friendly. (as in, it's not going to try and protect you from your mistakes).
I hesitate to compare it in any way to the Evo 8, though, because I haven't driven an Evo 8, and I doubt anybody but some Ralliart test drivers in Evo 8 mules have. The current STi is faster than an Evo 7 GSR, and the Type C is faster than a Evo 7 RS. But that's no surprise, this is a case of new vs. old. How it stacks up to the Evo 8 remains to be seen.
Yet the problem here is that neither the Evolution 8 nor the Impreza STi will arrive in the States in the same spec as their JDM counterparts. I know for certain that the STi will not get the new turbocharger and other bits on the JDM STi, purely because of OBD-II and emissions. And I'll wager on the Evolution in the States facing the same problem. The U.S. STi will probably not see the DCCD automatic center diff either, much as the Evolution won't see the current AYC and ACD system. The cars will probably end up being very similar in spec, price and performance, and what it will get down to is what car do you prefer after test driving both.
Cheers,
Paul Hansen
Nov 18, 2002, 06:34 PM
#153
Newbie
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it sounds so crap that the evo would change from country to country. It would suck thinking that a person in New Zealand would have a 10 times better evo then you and payed less for it. I feel sorry for you guys. 
Nov 20, 2002, 01:02 PM
#155
Newbie
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bay Area CA
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
very nicely said.
Personally I am still looking for an MSRP dealer in California. I would like to have my choice of STi and EVO (at least at msrp). There are like 2-3 places that will do MSRP STi but no EVO.)
cheers
Nick
Personally I am still looking for an MSRP dealer in California. I would like to have my choice of STi and EVO (at least at msrp). There are like 2-3 places that will do MSRP STi but no EVO.)
cheers
Nick
Nov 29, 2002, 01:37 PM
#156
Evolving Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Plano Texas
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EVO vs WRX
It's spring in Southern California. A lone photographer stands on a roadside cliff thousands of feet up in the San Gabriel mountains. There's only patchy snow along the road, but it's cold enough that the man can see his breath. He doesn't know it yet, but he's standing next to God.
The odd-shaped yellow sedan dances down the single-lane road toward the hapless lensman, its exhaust echoing off the canyon walls. Then, in an explosion of gravel and yellow paint chips, the Mitsubishi Lancer EVO VII erupts around the corner in what should be a four-wheel powerslide except only one tire is on the ground. The camera shutter opens and closes in a fraction of a second, just as the winged monster passes only inches from the cameraman, nearly knocking him off the cliff. The whole thing is over more quickly than it began, but in the flash of yellow and haze of flying dust and debris, our hero turns to his left and there, watching the EVO storm by, is God. Beard, robe and all.
Man, we knew the EVO was good, but this is ridiculous.
That sums up our week with the EVO, its big power and modern all-wheel drive amazing us time after time. Sure we've driven it. We even put it on our cover last November. But this time it was different. This time its archrival, the Subaru WRX, was waiting across the road for its turn to scare the bejesus out of our nervous film jockey.
And so it began, a contest of all-wheel drive and big power. A clutch-smoking, rubber-boiling face-off between the Euro-spec Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VII and our very own Project Subaru WRX.
Don't laugh, the Scooby is far from stock. We've so vastly improved every facet of its dynamic performance we'll dare liken it to Subaru's own STi version. Sure, it doesn't have the STi's exotic inverted struts; in fact, the only suspension mod on our car is a Progress Technology rear anti-roll bar, but it does pack 51 hp more than stock, 12.0-inch AP rotors and Brembo four-piston calipers and sticky Falken tires on lightweight 17-inch wheels. Surely, it's approaching STi territory.
But does any of that matter when it's facing the EVO's computer-controlled drivetrain, greater power and bigger tires? Not to mention the fact the Lancer has a considerably stiffer suspension from the factory. We weren't sure what would happen, but we figured it was worth a day in the canyons--and a day at the track.
Over the RoadThis is perhaps the single most important factor in evaluating road cars. Sure, we bring them to the track. We measure. We test. We geek out over the raw numbers, but thefact is, most people will never abuse their clutch the way we do, or repeatedly weave their car through a series of cones or hammer its brakes in numerous 60 to zero stops.
They will, however, blast up and down mountain roads.
So for this bit of the test, we found the twistiest, roughest, most off-camber road we could find. This is where each car's true character would be found.
Up first was the gizmo-laden EVO VII, which we thought might struggle in the tight quarters of a nasty mountain road. After all, the EVO is larger in every dimension than the WRX and it packs an extra 95 lbs, not to mention 3.9 inches of extra wheelbase. Turns out, none of this matters. At all.
The EVO's more aggressive suspension tuning and added power (29 hp more at the wheels than our WRX) are enough to overcome any disadvantage from the additional mass. Plus, the EVO's active differentials, combined with its ultra-quick steering, make it a precision tool for dispatching miles of dilapidated tarmac. Every input is multiplied tenfold as the EVO's various torque-splitting devices do their work.
Driving too hard isn't the answer in this car. A clean line in is rewarded with huge exit speed as the magical torque-splitting fairies do their work. We found ourselves opening the throttle sooner and sooner as we built more confidence in the EVO's ability to go exactly where it's pointed at exit. It rarely steps out. In fact, getting an EVO sideways is a job reserved for automotive writers willing to look their career straight in the eye. It just isn't necessary.
If the EVO dissects mountain roads, then our WRX project car pounds them into submission. Forget about clean lines. Our WRX is meant for sliding sideways. In fact, it's the fastest way to drive the car. Steering the WRX into a bend is a job for the left foot and the brake pedal.
Keeping it on the road at exit is up to the steering wheel and the throttle. And, if anything goes wrong in either process, hold on. It's very much a driver's car and will reward those who can handle its aggressive demeanor. But, making it quick requires far more skill than in the EVO. On this road, given equal drivers,it couldn't measure up.
Still, there's something honest and simple about the WRX that none of the staff can deny. Maybe it's the basic viscous differentials at the center and rear sending torque where they will without absolute precision. Maybe it's the off-beat, lumpy exhaust note. Maybe it's the undeniable fact that Subaru's humble WRX has always been more than the sum of its parts. We're not sure, but despite its lack of outright speed on this road we're calling this test a wash. It comes down to which car you like better. The EVO is ultimately quicker, but the WRX is a hell of a lot more fun.
Lap Times
Project WRX: 59.98 sec.
Lancer EVO VII: 57.44 sec.
At the track, the EVO's precision, poise and power pay dividends. We knew it was faster in our impromptu mountain road exam, but we didn't know how much. On the track, we found out. And it's frightening.
Going Straight
Project WRX: 13.5 sec. @ 99.3 mph
Lancer EVO VII: 13.4 sec. @103 mph
Thanks to the EVO's insistence on destroying its clutch, the dragstrip contest was the closest of all five tests. We anticipated a high 12- to low 13-second pass from the Lancer, but it wasn't to be. Some real pedal feedback and a stronger clutch would go a long way in allowing the Lancer a quicker quarter-mile time. After several clutch-smoking attempts to get the Lancer off the line quickly, we managed a 13.4-second pass at 103 mph. The WRX was only a tenth behind running 13.5 seconds at 99 mph. A quick look at the trap speeds and the fact the Lancer takes .4 seconds less to accelerate from 30 to 70 mph show its power advantage.
However, the WRX is still quicker to 60 mph (5.1 sec. for the WRX, 5.2 sec. for the EVO), thanks again to some serious feedback through the clutch pedal and friction material which can handle the abuse of an all-wheel-drive launch. At the dragstrip, the EVO felt most out of its element. It's almost as if the Mitsubishi engineers don't want it to launch well on tarmac. This is particularly puzzling after the12.9-second pass we saw in the last EVO VI we tested. This yellow car, however, is .2 seconds quicker than the red EVO VII we tested in our November '01 issue. If you're confused by the inconsistency, join the club. We have no theories.
The Bottom Line
Project WRX: Second Place
Lancer Evolution VII: First Place
In the end, it's the Lancer's uncompromised speed in nearly every situation that wins us over. It won almost every instrumented test and was considerably faster around the road course. Plus, it has some serious road presence that's lacking in the now-commonplace WRX and it just may cause you, like us, to see God.
Still, we question what will happen next year when the U.S. version goes on sale. The car in this test is a European-spec model. Rumor has it the U.S. version of the Lancer will arrive without active differentials and if Mitsubishi follows other manufacturers' lead in compromising performance for the supposedly less enthusiastic U.S. driver, this could be a completely different story down the road. We hope that doesn't happen, as the Lancer's suspension tuning is as near perfect as any we've driven.
What's more, we really like the WRX and stand by its value as a performance car, even when modified. Our project car has taken thousands of miles of guilt-free journalist thrashing with virtually no consequence. It's proven as durable as it is blindingly fast and carries on with the daily business of hauling us around even after a punishing comparison test like this.
Getting Grippy
If you read the first installment of Project WRX last month, you know our plan of attack with the WRX. We initially hoped to keep 16-inch wheels and tires to make our car more usable in the gravel but quickly re-evaluated the situation when we decided to do this comparison.
Knowing Project WRX had no chance of competing with the mighty EVO VII on 16-inch all-season tires, we made a few changes. Helping the WRX's cause this month are 225/45-17 Falken Azenis tires on Rota Tarmac Rally wheels. The Falken Azenis is an absolutely amazing tire in both the wet and dry and, given its low price, is a huge value. After three days of very serious abuse on the track and on the road, ours still looked fresh and stuck like glue. Plus, Rota's Tarmac Rally wheels showed virtually no ill effects after several 80-plus mph sideways off-track excursions. If you're looking to upgrade your WRX with some serious performance hardware, we can't say more for either of these products.
The odd-shaped yellow sedan dances down the single-lane road toward the hapless lensman, its exhaust echoing off the canyon walls. Then, in an explosion of gravel and yellow paint chips, the Mitsubishi Lancer EVO VII erupts around the corner in what should be a four-wheel powerslide except only one tire is on the ground. The camera shutter opens and closes in a fraction of a second, just as the winged monster passes only inches from the cameraman, nearly knocking him off the cliff. The whole thing is over more quickly than it began, but in the flash of yellow and haze of flying dust and debris, our hero turns to his left and there, watching the EVO storm by, is God. Beard, robe and all.
Man, we knew the EVO was good, but this is ridiculous.
That sums up our week with the EVO, its big power and modern all-wheel drive amazing us time after time. Sure we've driven it. We even put it on our cover last November. But this time it was different. This time its archrival, the Subaru WRX, was waiting across the road for its turn to scare the bejesus out of our nervous film jockey.
And so it began, a contest of all-wheel drive and big power. A clutch-smoking, rubber-boiling face-off between the Euro-spec Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VII and our very own Project Subaru WRX.
Don't laugh, the Scooby is far from stock. We've so vastly improved every facet of its dynamic performance we'll dare liken it to Subaru's own STi version. Sure, it doesn't have the STi's exotic inverted struts; in fact, the only suspension mod on our car is a Progress Technology rear anti-roll bar, but it does pack 51 hp more than stock, 12.0-inch AP rotors and Brembo four-piston calipers and sticky Falken tires on lightweight 17-inch wheels. Surely, it's approaching STi territory.
But does any of that matter when it's facing the EVO's computer-controlled drivetrain, greater power and bigger tires? Not to mention the fact the Lancer has a considerably stiffer suspension from the factory. We weren't sure what would happen, but we figured it was worth a day in the canyons--and a day at the track.
Over the RoadThis is perhaps the single most important factor in evaluating road cars. Sure, we bring them to the track. We measure. We test. We geek out over the raw numbers, but thefact is, most people will never abuse their clutch the way we do, or repeatedly weave their car through a series of cones or hammer its brakes in numerous 60 to zero stops.
They will, however, blast up and down mountain roads.
So for this bit of the test, we found the twistiest, roughest, most off-camber road we could find. This is where each car's true character would be found.
Up first was the gizmo-laden EVO VII, which we thought might struggle in the tight quarters of a nasty mountain road. After all, the EVO is larger in every dimension than the WRX and it packs an extra 95 lbs, not to mention 3.9 inches of extra wheelbase. Turns out, none of this matters. At all.
The EVO's more aggressive suspension tuning and added power (29 hp more at the wheels than our WRX) are enough to overcome any disadvantage from the additional mass. Plus, the EVO's active differentials, combined with its ultra-quick steering, make it a precision tool for dispatching miles of dilapidated tarmac. Every input is multiplied tenfold as the EVO's various torque-splitting devices do their work.
Driving too hard isn't the answer in this car. A clean line in is rewarded with huge exit speed as the magical torque-splitting fairies do their work. We found ourselves opening the throttle sooner and sooner as we built more confidence in the EVO's ability to go exactly where it's pointed at exit. It rarely steps out. In fact, getting an EVO sideways is a job reserved for automotive writers willing to look their career straight in the eye. It just isn't necessary.
If the EVO dissects mountain roads, then our WRX project car pounds them into submission. Forget about clean lines. Our WRX is meant for sliding sideways. In fact, it's the fastest way to drive the car. Steering the WRX into a bend is a job for the left foot and the brake pedal.
Keeping it on the road at exit is up to the steering wheel and the throttle. And, if anything goes wrong in either process, hold on. It's very much a driver's car and will reward those who can handle its aggressive demeanor. But, making it quick requires far more skill than in the EVO. On this road, given equal drivers,it couldn't measure up.
Still, there's something honest and simple about the WRX that none of the staff can deny. Maybe it's the basic viscous differentials at the center and rear sending torque where they will without absolute precision. Maybe it's the off-beat, lumpy exhaust note. Maybe it's the undeniable fact that Subaru's humble WRX has always been more than the sum of its parts. We're not sure, but despite its lack of outright speed on this road we're calling this test a wash. It comes down to which car you like better. The EVO is ultimately quicker, but the WRX is a hell of a lot more fun.
Lap Times
Project WRX: 59.98 sec.
Lancer EVO VII: 57.44 sec.
At the track, the EVO's precision, poise and power pay dividends. We knew it was faster in our impromptu mountain road exam, but we didn't know how much. On the track, we found out. And it's frightening.
Going Straight
Project WRX: 13.5 sec. @ 99.3 mph
Lancer EVO VII: 13.4 sec. @103 mph
Thanks to the EVO's insistence on destroying its clutch, the dragstrip contest was the closest of all five tests. We anticipated a high 12- to low 13-second pass from the Lancer, but it wasn't to be. Some real pedal feedback and a stronger clutch would go a long way in allowing the Lancer a quicker quarter-mile time. After several clutch-smoking attempts to get the Lancer off the line quickly, we managed a 13.4-second pass at 103 mph. The WRX was only a tenth behind running 13.5 seconds at 99 mph. A quick look at the trap speeds and the fact the Lancer takes .4 seconds less to accelerate from 30 to 70 mph show its power advantage.
However, the WRX is still quicker to 60 mph (5.1 sec. for the WRX, 5.2 sec. for the EVO), thanks again to some serious feedback through the clutch pedal and friction material which can handle the abuse of an all-wheel-drive launch. At the dragstrip, the EVO felt most out of its element. It's almost as if the Mitsubishi engineers don't want it to launch well on tarmac. This is particularly puzzling after the12.9-second pass we saw in the last EVO VI we tested. This yellow car, however, is .2 seconds quicker than the red EVO VII we tested in our November '01 issue. If you're confused by the inconsistency, join the club. We have no theories.
The Bottom Line
Project WRX: Second Place
Lancer Evolution VII: First Place
In the end, it's the Lancer's uncompromised speed in nearly every situation that wins us over. It won almost every instrumented test and was considerably faster around the road course. Plus, it has some serious road presence that's lacking in the now-commonplace WRX and it just may cause you, like us, to see God.
Still, we question what will happen next year when the U.S. version goes on sale. The car in this test is a European-spec model. Rumor has it the U.S. version of the Lancer will arrive without active differentials and if Mitsubishi follows other manufacturers' lead in compromising performance for the supposedly less enthusiastic U.S. driver, this could be a completely different story down the road. We hope that doesn't happen, as the Lancer's suspension tuning is as near perfect as any we've driven.
What's more, we really like the WRX and stand by its value as a performance car, even when modified. Our project car has taken thousands of miles of guilt-free journalist thrashing with virtually no consequence. It's proven as durable as it is blindingly fast and carries on with the daily business of hauling us around even after a punishing comparison test like this.
Getting Grippy
If you read the first installment of Project WRX last month, you know our plan of attack with the WRX. We initially hoped to keep 16-inch wheels and tires to make our car more usable in the gravel but quickly re-evaluated the situation when we decided to do this comparison.
Knowing Project WRX had no chance of competing with the mighty EVO VII on 16-inch all-season tires, we made a few changes. Helping the WRX's cause this month are 225/45-17 Falken Azenis tires on Rota Tarmac Rally wheels. The Falken Azenis is an absolutely amazing tire in both the wet and dry and, given its low price, is a huge value. After three days of very serious abuse on the track and on the road, ours still looked fresh and stuck like glue. Plus, Rota's Tarmac Rally wheels showed virtually no ill effects after several 80-plus mph sideways off-track excursions. If you're looking to upgrade your WRX with some serious performance hardware, we can't say more for either of these products.
Nov 29, 2002, 03:05 PM
#158
Evolving Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Plano Texas
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as i was reading that all i could do is smile.....
i know i dont have an evo nor do i plan on getting one any time soon but atleast its my big brother...
i know i dont have an evo nor do i plan on getting one any time soon but atleast its my big brother...
Last edited by Nero; Nov 29, 2002 at 05:09 PM.
YEA! no wheels!
Dec 3, 2002, 01:35 AM
#165
Evolved Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Up to 80 miles north of Gilroy
Posts: 2,722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Tuxedo Cartman
They said they tested these in southern California. How did they get that Evo legalized? Is it an EI car?
They said they tested these in southern California. How did they get that Evo legalized? Is it an EI car?