I think the EVO was not eligible because it was only for 2004 models? I could be wrong, but I think that's why it wasn't on there.

 

it just means they are curtailing the magazine to the more mature crowd.. not young enthusiates

 

I think they picked the STI because its the better car. Car is an all encompassing term. The STI has a more complaint every-day ride, a better trimmed interior, and electronic gadgetry (read center diff and fly by wire throttle). The Evo has a nervous ride (touchy steering), a simple interior, and a technology formula that was well mastered years ago. (4G63T, mechanical diffs, you get the idea)

None of those traits make the Evo a worse performing vehicle. In fact I believe we all have seen that the Evo is the hands down performance winner. But to a magazine that might get tight in the pants over comfort and useless technical content, the STI is the winner. No one is right, no one is wrong. It just depends where you place your emphasis.

 

Let's e-mail them and get some reasoning!!


R and T Staff

 

You guys are all crazy.. read the magazine and you'll see that the STi is the Reader's Choice winner. Maybe they had a campaign at NASIOC to elect the STi as the winner.. anyway don't be ripping on the magazine if the readers are responsible, not the editors/writers. Secondly, as an avid Evo fanatic, I love my car but if I were to pick any other car to win, it'd be the STi.

Lighten up already...

-n.

 

I wonder if quality was an issue. Subaru is rated fairly high by JD Powers and Wards named the Subaru 2.5 one of it's 10 best engine designs.

 

Umm if I am not mistaken it was a readers emailed in there picks of cars and the one with the most votes had a show down so to speak. if I am correct.

 

Yee... it's reader's choice. For the most part, R&T is very much about subjective ratings. In fact, had the subjective ratings not been included in the Evo v. STi, it would have been a bigger win for the Evo. I actually do appreciate subjective reasoning, as long as it's well explained. That's why forums like this are so good. You can compare how mods, etc. work in real world situations, not just which put up bigger numbers or cost more. Nobody who drives a more expensive car wants to admit that the Evo is better. It's easier to justify the STi because it's more mainstream and has the big #s (300hp/tq). My $.02...

 

The thread starter never mentioned it was a Readers Choice Award..

All you had to do was post that it was not an R and T selection..No big deal.

Instead you call people crazy??!! And accuse the posters of ripping the mag?!



Lighten up.

 

I started the thread, and I realize it was a peoples' choice award. However, the Evo wasn't AVAILABLE as one of the selections. That is where my beef is....

This leads us to the fact that the Evo isn't a 2004, it is a late 2003. Where my big problem lies is that even though the Evo and Sti are direct competitors, with the Evo usually winning, R&T didn't see through the model year designation and make it available for voting. So, that means that the Evo couldn't compete last year because it wasn't available, and it can't compete this year because it is too old. A casual reader may believe that the Sti is the best new car out there this year, when, by many, many other reviews and opinions, it clearly isn't.

That makes R&T little award biased by definition.

 

no, i definately completely agree the evo shouldn't have been in the running if all the cars were ONLY 2004. it's biased to say it SHOULD have been, when the rules state it should not. where do we draw the line, if not there?

should a 20k comparo include the new srt4 which is a touch under 21? where do we stop? 22k? 29?

in the end, if it didn't qualify because of the rules, then i just don't see it as biased; they're simply following the rules they set forth. being biased would have been putting the evo IN simply because it's such a close competitor.

 

No, I just think that going by model year is unfair. It is easily justifiable to put the Evo in because it is new to the U.S. market last year. Isn't that the point of the competition?

By your logic we could exlude all cars that have VINs that end in 5 or some other arbitrary reason. Model years almost never match calendar years, and therefore basing the competition on model years is a bad idea. It makes more sense to include cars introduced to the US market beginning the day after the last contest.

After all, the Evo and the Sti were launched only about a month and a half apart...one as a 2003, one as a 2004.

 

I do see ypur point regardless of who chooses the winner..

Fact is, Road and Track still sets the ground rules for a readers choice..regardless.

And the rules they set clearly eliminate the EVO as a choice..

 

I hope Mitsu has woken up to their big mistake with the Evo and will fix it this year. They've been in the game for how many decades now? And they know how these tests and awards are done. If you're not selling a model year car before that year you can't get in the running for many awards.. and for a flagship car that is just beyond stupid. You lose out on any chance of free praise in the press. Mitsu needs to get the 05 MR here by August/September so they can be in the running for 2005 Car of the year ( Running, ha shoe in for the award probably across the board). They need to do a short run of 04s from Now till then for 6 months to get back in the awards game. It's just beyond me how some idiot would ok this at Mitsu to have an 03 car selling in 04, when many 05s are just aching to roll on to the other dealers lots...

 

This is nothing new. The industry has been doing this since nearly the begining of the auto industry.. It's Mitsu who is doing absolute dumbest thign to have an 03 model car selling in 04. THey know better. All their other cars follow suit. It's beyond stupid to remove their car from award contention this way. Granted it may be kind of dumb for the industry to do this, but it's even more pathetic Mitsu who has been following the trend would stop for their flagship car.. Someone should be shot. And then they need to fix it ASAP with the 05 MR. Then they can get across the board awards.

Blame Mitsu. They know better. Subaru did the right - They put 2004 on the piece of paper..