Road & Track EVO 8 test numbers
 

Article from R&T magazine of the new USDM Evo 8:

0-60: 5.1 secs (6000 rpm clutch drop mind you)
1/4 mile: 13.8@101.5mph
Top speed: 155
skidpad: 0.97g
slalom: 68.7mph
curb weight: 3265lbs


1/4 mile times & MPH are consistent with power to weight ratio listed by :mitsu:!
I except improve E.T's with a better skilled driver.

not bad but 1/4 mile and 0-60 could be better

Slalom and Skidpad are very impressive:)

Which issue is that? Was there a braking 70-0 or 60-0 test?

I was hoping 102mph but 101.5mph is close enought. With that kind of trap speed it's well capable of 13.5 range. Must of been the driver or conditions that day. We'll see what Sport Compact Car has done? I'm sure they are more experienced in launching an AWD cars.

I've actually expected lower skidpad and higher salom.

I also want to mention that i've took a wrx at the drag strip and seen 13.9@96mph so go figure?

Which R&T is that in?
Where was the test?
What elevation?
What temp.?
Barametric pressure?
Thanks

yea, I Just got the March issue of Automobile it has an article about the Evo too. sounds liek the people at Automobile really enjoyed the car..raving about it's handling and speed. my favorite quote:
"The cognoscenti will know this car when they see it, but valet parkers will think you're part of the import-tuner scene." :lol:

now all i need to read is the STi article which should be coming out next month..probably.
-Bob

US Evo article in R&T and Automobile
 

Yep, i just got the March issue of Automobile and it has a rave review of the Evo :D I said this in another thread, but the people who tested the car sounded like they really enjoyed driving it. They talked about how the car handles really nice and the speed was incredible, but u all should know that by now {thumbup}
Best Quote:
"The cognoscenti will know this car when they see it, but valet parkers will think you're part of the import-tuner scene."
gotta love that ;)
-Bob

The most current i.e. the one I got in the mail today! :)

That was exactly what I was thinking!!

I have seen LOTS of DSMs run 13.9 @ with a 96 mph trap speed... from what I would like to infer, would be that the 13.8 @ 101.5 is a crappy ET from someone who didn't know how to launch the car and was getting bad 60fts (2.0 or slower).

If you could cut a 1.7 or 1.8 60ft with a 101.5 trap speed a mid 13 would be a conservitive estimate. {pick}

I know people that have run 12.8s with a 104 trap speed with full weight DSMs... it is all about the 60ft! :mitsu: So if you subtract 2 mph from that run, you would end up around a low low 13 second ET. (gotta love the Ricer Math/Bench Racing :lol: ... even though it is based on real world info)

:spit:

im just informing people {thumbup}
-Bob

I feel magazine people should post 60ft time to let us know what kind of track conditions they are running. Oh well. I guess i'll check my mail today and hopefull i'll get read the article.

Any new pics guys?

The 101.5mph trap speed is encouraging considering I ran a 13.25 at 100.56 in my WRX. That makes me very happy!

Mike {blob}

Maybe that was the run at LACR. Remember it ran a 13.8...but LACR has a crappy surface and is 2700 ft above sea level.

Good point! The traction is definitly bad. I've seen people run 13.9@101mph in a 98 mustang cobra and it's hard to believe the cobra would run close times with an awd car. MPH is way up for 13.8 in an AWD car.

Exactly... I find myself always looking for 60ft times for some reason?? :lol:

Not really... nothing you haven't seen already! :spin:

If I recall correctly R&T timed the 02 Z06 at 13.1 (I don't have an issue in front of me - I'm at work) but I have seen stock Z06s run 12.5s on tracks hardly known for their speed. This leads me to believe low 13s in the Evo are very doable with an experienced driver.

I think the performance figures for the Evo8 should be very similar to the 350Z. They both have about the same power and same weight.
0-60 mph should be slightly quicker for the Evo8 if launched from a high rpm.

Does anyone have figures for the 350Z?

If Mitsus website says 0-60 in under 5 secs then dammit it is..period!!! {pick}{moon}

Which performance figures???

The 350Z IMO does NOT compare to the EVO for several reasons... but to answer the question here.

R&T lists 14.4 @ 99 on page 91 as the 1/4 time for the 350Z... in the back where they list all the cars they test, they have a 14.3 @ 100 listed...

However, 1/4 time, all of us who know AWD, know that a 101.5 trap is good for "at least" a mid 13, if not a low 13 in the hands of a competent AWD driver.

1/4, I don't see the 350Z anywhere near the EVO.... then mod for mod, dollar for dollar the 350Z gets blown out of the water even more!

AWD vs RWD street tire to street tire are totally different ball games. (comparing these specific two cars... I am refering to the relative closeness of the traps yet HUGE difference in 1/4 times!)

I dont think the 350z will ever see anywhere near .97g's stock. Just wait until motortrend takes a hit at the evo. Mid 13's would not surprise me. Remember the wrx pulls 14sec quarters with 227hp.

My question is that did road and track test drove it or they just took :mitsu:'s numbers? I'm surprised Road and track didnt' take any pictures :confused:

EVO vs 350Z
Weight: 3260 vs 3310
Skidpad(200ft): .97g vs .88g
1/4 time: 13.8@101.5 vs 14.3@100
Braking 60-0mph: 117ft vs 122ft
Price as tested: $30,600 vs $34,688
Acceleration(0-60): 5.1 vs 5.8

Pretty nice numbers!!!
Compared to the previous R&T article with the EVO 7 they had following numbers then:
________EVO7________US EVO8________real EVO8
skidpad:_0.92_________0.97___________xxxxxx
slalom:__68.7 mph_____68.7 mph_______xxxxxx

Although, I have seen numbers for the EVO7 on the skidpad getting very close to the 1.00 and slaloms in the 72 mph range, but this is reliable enough, since the it came from the same source in this case!!

I am also happy with the 101.5 mph at the 1/4. The fastest I went with my car (several modifications ago) was 100.5 and time was 13.41s with very similar weights.

This leads to the conclusion that quicker times should be attainable. How much quicker, it will greatly depend on how strong that stock clutch is going to be!
Well soon, I guess!!!


Fedja

this info is encouraging coming from a magazine like road and track... they seem to be more interested in what climate control, or navigation system a car somes with. not my type of car mag.

no kidding.. what happened to Road & Track? They used to be an excellent benchmark for car performance...

Road and track is ok. I'd like their great grip issue.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/features...?articleID=220

A 68mph in the slalom? If I remember right, SCC tested 72odd mph in their slalom. :dunno:

all slaloms are not created equal...
you can't take numbers from one testing source (mag in this case) and compare them. different tracks, drivers, and conditions can cause a great deal of difference in performance numbers.

:dunno: 6000rpm clutch drop ? I was thinking 3K maybe 4500 if your really feeling frisky ... Maybe the test driver was shifting with a broken arm (hoping)

.:Monday morning at the gas station:. ... "can I have a pack of parliament lights.. and a clutch & pressure plate for me evo?" {devil}

Ahh, haven't launched an awd car hung? 3k will bogg it down slower than not launching it.

Hmmm ... I'm not a pro by any means .. but what I've found to work the best for my GSX is rev to 3K and let the clutch out evenly and at the same pace mat the gas, its not really slipping the clutch too badly but gives a nice launch without bog :beer:

I've driven with some crazies that do the 6k clutch drop thing in an awd car, has never felt healthy to me.

You can slip it but if after you start you'll realize it's pumped up to 3.5-4K before doing it. I dont think <1.8 60ft is possible unless you go 5-6K.

how many 6k launches can the evo clutch take?...or any clutch in an AWD car

GTR your prolly right about the 3.5 - 4k on the launch thing ... but it still seems a world away from 'dropping' the clutch at 6K ...

seems like it would really tear the ass outta your poor AWD / clutch... hehe :lol:

GTR, sounds like you are familiar with the ole' AWD launch! {thumbup}

leonard_shelby, once you get beyond a stock clutch, you'll know what we are talking about when we say 6K is a "normal" rpm to launch at! {pick}

Good question... from some of the info passed along by other members that read some other EVO boards, it would seem that there is a possibility that it may not be able to take many high rpm launches. {thumbdwn}

That all depends on a few factors. One is the horsepower level of the car... my stock clutch held up until I started making some decent power... then all it did was slip!

Then after a few more upgrades I put in an "upgraded clutch" and it didn't have the strength to hold the power I was making... so I went to an even stronger clutch without going to a full race clutch or a puck disc and it, so far has held launches no problem.

ACT, makes clutches for DSMs, has a good reputation for building strong clutches that can hold power and take alot of abuse... fyi in case some of you guys need a clutch for your EVO's soon!!! {devil}

I left the R&T mag in the car, and I am not interested in going outside to get it at this time of night so... off the top of my head, I remember reading that elevation was about 150 above sea level...

Yeah, ACT is alright. I have one of their clutch in the Supra and it's fantastic. It's funny how these tranny mods go...

Upgrade the power, clutch starts slipping. So you upgrade the clutch. Then no more slipping, but your tranny falls over. Then you have to look at a beefier tranny. You get the stronger tranny then your head gasket blows from the hard running (in a Supra anyhow). fun fun fun... ;)

If I recall corectly SCC uses a 700ft slalom and R&T uses the same 600ft slalom C&D and MT use.

Good point! The traction is definitly bad. I've seen people run 13.9@101mph in a 98 mustang cobra and it's hard to believe the cobra would run close times with an awd car. MPH is way up for 13.8 in an AWD car.

Can't you run nitrous in the lower RPM range to help with the launch. Sort of a boost before the BOOST.

No way that 3k RPM launch would give you good results, unless you want to be a bit faster then tractionless guys with FWD or RWD cars. If you want to really see the potential of the AWD car, you need to be above 5k RPMs.

I have a selectable switch for the launch RPMs and car bogs with the 4,500 RPMs selection. 5k was better, but 5,500 worked the best.

Have in mind that timing selection had a great effect on how the car is going to take off. If you don't have enough timing, bog will be more present, while higher timing advance will just go through that phase without any drawbacks (well, you might spin your tires a bit longer, tough :)).

Good launches for the AWD cars on the street tires are mostly in the 1.7s sec for the short times. Cars with more power (like 400+ HP at the wheels), can do 1.6s short times and with drag racing radials even 1.5s.

Regular stock clutch in the DSM would give a good short times in the 1.8 seconds. Anything worse than that is considered a bad launch!


Fedja

can someone scan that article

I am using the ACT 2600 and that clutch can take quite some abuse. If your car is not making over 300 WHP, even 2100 lb version would do its work well enough! For those in the high HP levels, I think there might be even 3100 lb or so pressure plate available.

Since I do mostly a ProSolo typical event would have about 25 or so hard launches and my clutch can last almost two seasons with that kind of abuse. That would be around 100 consistently fast starts with the short times in the 1.7 sec range!!

There are bunch of other clutches meant for this as well, so I am sure that EVO will be supported well enough, especially since such a support already exist!!

Fedja

:lol: Well, for this car and this turbo, N20 is entirely unecessary for spooling the turbo (as reported).

However you could run N20 on top of the turbo for quicker times, but for the money invested, you might as well buy permanent parts i.e. an upgraded turbo.

Also, the only time you actually need N20 for launching is if you are running HUGE ASS turbos like my buddies RACE/DRAG ONLY cars... the turbos are so huge that they can't spool them fast enough to get good times without using N20.

Here's a good example. In my '90 Eclipse GSX I've run 13.9 @ 95mph with a 1.8 60' time on stock clutch and street tires. That's launching around 5k rpms if I remember right. So if the Evo is really capable of 101+mph then I bet low 13's are possible too.

-Loris

Re: Road & Track EVO 8 test numbers
 

I had a chance to go through some of my old Road & Tracks last night, and if these are actual test numbers, then screw the acceleration - the Evo is going to be an absolute world class handling car. Paging through the back of R&T and looking at the performance nubmers, there were very, very few (like 3 or 4) cars that could hang with the Evo in either skidpad or slalom - and fewer yet that could better both numbers - this is VERY encouraging. Granted, R&T isn't the gospel of automobile testing, but it's a damn good start!

That's what i was thinking :confused:

It's already been a day people {blob}

Six.

Erik

5500 works best for me, too. I was bogging at 5000.
I still only get high 1.8x 60ft. times. (sometimes a low 1.9) so I still have room for improvement. Here are a couple of my ideas, tell me what you think.

1. Right now, I just drop the clutch. Maybe I should slip it a little?

2. My tires (cheapo Kumho Ectasas) are at full street pressure. Maybe I should deflate them a bit when I race?

Tell me what you think. I'd really like to get 1.7 60ft times.

Oh, I'm using a ACT2100 clutch and a FP T28 turbo.

-Brent

That's a good estimate, but I think the formula is:

# of launches = (Year of car) / (Flywheel horsepower)

As you can see, the number of launches is inversely proportional to horsepower. The newer your car is, the better.

:D

I have two points to make.... first, look at yourselves!!!! If you are buying this car to drag race, you are buying the wrong car, go fallow Chicago mike to your nearest mustang dealer and buy the same car as every other Dumbass American who doesn’t have a clue what racing is all about. This car is not all about who can drive a 1/4 mile the fastest, its about who can find that road in the mountains and lay down some rubber around the bends. It is also about being an individual and driving something rare and different that the 100 mustangs you see when you step of the curb to cross the street.

Second, as far as the arguments about what magazine has what grandma driving what speed is all horse ****, if you have nothing better to do than argue about someone else’s day at the track that you weren't even there to see then you need to turn off your computer right now, and get the hell out of your house or office and take a few deep breaths. My two cents

:getting your balls re-attatched:

-Power on

right on xcdan! My sentiments exactly!

SC~ who stays away from the magazine racing

ru4real,

For an Evo VII, it is not an estimate.

# of launches = (Year of car) / [(Flywheel Torque) x (# of driving wheels)]

My dream is for ACT to come up with a ACT2600 type clutch for the Evo soon. I would like to match that with a Jun lightweight flywheel. The current clutch options for the Evo are not so good.

The AP Racing organic single plate is popular but is only rated for 320 Ft*lb torque. The next step is one of several expensive twin plate systems that all have drawbacks.

AP is coming out with a twin plate for the Evo similar to their STi 22B clutch it should have pretty good drivabilty, but it looks expensive.

So please some one make a good single plate clutch that will take some torque.

Erik

Try launching higher than 5500 AND slip the clutch "a little" at the same time! {thumbup} Don't "dump" the clutch ;)

:lol: Who cares about being an "individual?" If 1 million people have the same taste as I do in cars, does that make me boring or dull... NO!! It means the 1 million people have good taste like me!!! :spit: If I want to drag race an AWD car, then I will and I don't need your "aproval" to do so! {thumbup} Your opinon on how the car should be used is just that, JUST AN OPINION!

I'm leaving my house/office/cell phone internet connection right now!!! :lol:

I think you need to calm down... the whole point of this board is for discussion and opinions... I am will state my opinion that C&D can't drive an AWD for shizzle because it is true!!! :spin:

If this is an opinion board, then heres my opinion, you are retarded if you think that your going to buy an Evo and turn it into an extraordinary drag car. Everyone knows that there are atleast 25 cars that can do a better job there for cheaper.

:re-attatch your balls: again

-Power on

Almost made me cry... good post! :)

I don't think people are interested in an Evo to make a drag car BUT what is wrong with being interested in straight line performance?! Last time I checked you are driving in a straight line most of the time. I'm interested in the COMPLETE package. A car that is relatively quick and handles, brakes great. Straight line performance is important whether you want to admit it or not. If I listened to some of you you'd be happy with a car that does 0-60 in 10 secs and the quarter in 19seconds...as long as it handled good. Go get a MP3 or something if your not concerned with the overall package which includes acceleration from a stop and from a roll.

Miss Cleo, did you see me in the future turning an EVO into a drag car??? :spit:

How do you know what I am going to do with the EVO??? Thats right you DON'T!!! http://www.bullittzero.com/Vbb/images/smilies/Owned.gif

BTW, whatever I do with MY car is MY perogative that doesn't require your approval... If I want to take a Yugo and make it into an off-roading beast, thats my American right to do so! :usflag:

It gets so old hearing people complain about what others are going to do with their car... if you want to Auto-X/drag race/keep it stock/park it in your garage ... fine go do that!!! I don't care... unlike some other people :rolleyes:

However, I do remember replying to a thread some kid posted about what it would take to make an EVO a 10 second car... I told him that is would be a shame to chop it up and it would be better to buy a DSM in place of the EVO to mod... you remember that thread Miss Cleo?? :lol:


My balls are fine, but thanks for asking! :lol:

-Yo Joe!

BLASPHEMY!!!!! 1/4 times are the devil {devil} you Amerian car loving, gas guzzling brute you! :lol:

Slipping the clutch is a very dangerous thing (for the clutch sake) and you should be very careful with that. Every clutch has a different way it reacts to the slippage. ACT clutches for example, don't last if you try to slip them and only thing you will get is a lot of smoke (not from the tires, unfortunately) and stinky clutch. So far, it seem that the best way to do it is to "drop" the clutch a bit slower than a full release. It has to be a smooth engagement and if you are tentative you will hurt the clutch. It should be like hitting someone straight in the face, but in a slow motion (like 50%). :)

Dropping the pressure helps the traction, but also increase the roll resistance later on. My friends usually go down to 19 psi all around. I do different kind of racing and I have to run over 40 psi in there due to the first corner that comes soon after the first 100 feet! :)

There are more things to the car launching than just RPMs. My car was making lots of power last year at the ProSolo Finale in Kansas, but I was having some strange knock (we call it phantom knock) only at the part throttle application and low loads. It was hurting my timing and I was afraid to bump it as far as I usually do. That cost me probably fast times on both sides. Due to lack of timing advance below the 4000 RPMs, every time I would launch the car (5000, 5500 or 6000), car would drop its RPMs to get into the no timing zone and bog badly. My average 100" times where 3.3-3.4 sec and the best I was doing there was 3.9 sec or worse. Short times where in 2.0-2.1 sec from low 1.8s and high 1.7s (that is with the reaction time added to the whole thing). So,basically I was in the situation with too much traction! :) After ProSolo was done, I bumped the timing extra 5 degrees bellow 4000 RPMs and I had hard time controlling the car of the line due to excessive tire spin :)

So, you have so many other things to take care of in order to have a good performances for the AWD launch. Another thing that I didn't mention here is your fuel mixture. If you are too rich, that will take a bit of the launch as well. The best thing is to use data logger and see how things are to improve the numbers all around. That will give you the best results!

In your case, combination of the ACT 2100 and (I am guessing, small) T28, should bring you down to 1.7s. Also, this will depend on your other mods, so good luck from my end!


Fedja

my car does 10sec 0-60s (look below), but it handles like crap :crap:

Just because it has **** tires. Why G35 coupe would have better slalom time then 350Z? It has a lot better tires. I bet it would have numbers close to WRX on 16'' and RE92s. :)

Actually this is a very good point here! Tires!! The thing is that US EVO is dressed in some dedicated tires and they might have some relation with the race compound tires. If those tires have extremely good grip, they will show results that are way better then any other car equipped with the regular tires.

This might be one of those :mitsu: tricks to show us how handling of the US EVO is even better then the previous EVO7. Basically, just put race rubber on the car!! Hmmmmm.... :dunno:

Fedja

I am afraid both STi and EVO are doing the same. I'd love to see a real comparision with same tires on all cars. Especially when EVO and STi rubber is designed to wear off in below 10K miles.

BTW: Times

0-30 1.8
0-40 2.6
0-50 4.0
0-60 5.1
0-70 7.0 (new gear I guess ;) )
0-80 8.6
0-90 11.1
0-100 13.4

13.8 @ 101.5

60-0 117
80-0 199

:lol: Ok, you and I are saying the SAME EXACT THING with different words.

WE, me and my many many buddies that have ACT 2600, NEVER use the word dump in our conversations about launching a car with that clutch.

If you dump it, it will bog... which is why I said you must slip it a bit, but you are implying MASSIVLY slipping the clutch when the word slip is used and I am implying MASSIVELY dumping the clutch when the word dump is used.

I think we post the same info, but in different words and if someone didn't know better, they would think we were contradicting eachother when in fact we are saying the same thing!

Actually, I have articles with the Evo7 that :mitsu: supplied to the magazines using the advans .

And how these compare?

Nov 2002 import racer did not actually test the car, but they loved it. Nov 2002 Sports Car International stated the car was showing 320-330 hp and 0-62 of approx 4.5 secs.
But, I was just saying earlier that they already had Advans on the Evo7, so they did not put them on the 8 as MrAWD is inferring to make it look better than the 7.

SO is advan's that much better than SO2's used on the EVO VII's? I figured all Maximum performance tires have close performance to others :dunno:

I actually went and check it out at the newstands b/c my road and track not delivered yet. Anyways, recall they said with ACD is better or something. Could someone quote what they said?

i do not recall S0-2's being on the EVO VII's as a stock tire.? They are on the S2000's though....I do know that. :)

I thought they did or maybe of RS or was it the evo vi? I think SO2 were gone when SO3's came out and then they changed to yokohama avs sports or something.

How many cars have this level of rubber stock?
WRX?
350Z?
My point is that influence of great rubber is very misleading. These tires will not last long and you can get a great set of tires for any car. I'd love to see tests on a leveled field to really know which car grips better.

Thought most sports cars have nice tires. My old M3 had MXX3's and those were awesome dry radials. That's about it. 10,000mi isn't bad when running winter radials for 5 months of the year.

M3 is out of my league. I am talking about affordable cars.

10,000 is an optimistic variant without track days. :D

I think manufactures are giving us better tires now a day. An affordable car would be the Neon SRT-4 with Pilot Sports on a under $20K car which is pretty good :) Again the Neon SRT-4 comes up here and there :D

It's not a new thing by MMC/Ralliart, per se - the RS Evo's in Japan have always been equipped with S rubber - slicks with grooves cut into them. (I'm using always liberally here - I only personally have paid attention to Evo 5's on) That's one of the reasons that the back-to-back comparo's of Evo's vs. STi's in Japan tended to favor the Evo at the track. STi's always came equipped with good, but not great, summer tyres - such as RE 040's. They do ok in the dry, and most importantly for Subaru's overall image/self perception, did great in the wet. They however don't keep up that well on the track with semi-race rubber... Recently, Subaru/STi just gave up and started shipping the Type C STi's with 070's. Consequently, the track times have mysteriously gotten much closer to the Evo's, if not sometimes surpassing them.

I expect that the Evo 8 still does quite a good job of handling overall. But the rather high skidpad numbers and slalom are indeed partially attributable to the rubber that they ship with in stock form. And the Pilot's MX and such that Corvette's and M3's ship with do not compare. I participated in a long-term rubber test with those, S03's and Pirelli P-Zero's. All good, but the Pilots are designed to last a long-ish time, and have compromises towards ultimate performance because of this. And neither the S03's, S02's, P-Zero's or Pilot's compare to the erasor rubber coming on the Evo and the STi, at least on a track. If I had the same rubber compound as the Evo or STi on Tsukuba Circuit, I would knock a minimum of 2 secs off my time with RE040's. Probably more. And that's a 1min:15sec course. Twin Ring Motegi, I could go wheezle by M3's if I had that good of a rubber.

Cheers,

Paul Hansen

So Paul, your saying these tires are that great? Both the 070 and advans never made it here or not common. My question is that are the new 070's comparable to the 046's? Is it going to be a fair test between the STi and the Evo this time around?

can someone please scan the R&T article? I can't find it in any store in town. My dad has a subscription to it, but I won't be able to get over to my parents house till this weekend, and I really want to read their review!

For pure track racing, the only way they would get much better is to remove the already miniscule grooves that they have. Forget about traction in the rain, or long life - they generally only last some 7000km, about 5000miles -or less. They really are track tyres only. As somebody else said, put something laster longing on for street driving, and save the rubber they come with for the track!

Cheers,

Paul Hansen

The stock P235/45R-17 Yokohama ADVAN A046s are nothing special. While they are a lot better than the Bridgestone RE92s used on the WRX, so is every other tire in the world.

The A046s are not as good as S02s or AVS sports.

Definitely not race compound tires. Claudius recommends Pirelli PZero Assimetrico yellows, I don’t know if these are the same the U.S. PZero Asymmetricals. I will try Falken Azenis also.

Erik

Paul makes it sound like miracle tires on the evo to handle very well and the STi runs par suspention wise :rolleyes:. I'm glad to hear that the evo can pull that kind of g's from 235's! Not many cars could achieve this with narrow tries "compared to vettes, 911's, and vipers" except for RX-7's and supra's on the skid. When i hear eraser rubber i was thinking street legal race compound of some sort with treadwear at 100-140 range.

OH yeah, i've hear Falkins are one of the most heaviest tires and that'll really have a hit in performance.

Yes the Falkens are heavy. That’s why I'm still looking around. Evo's really work their tires so you need something with a stiff sidewall.

Through all the recommendations for tires I noticed that pattern stiff tires were generally liked. Softly constructed tires were universally bad. No real agreement on what works exist but several tires seem to have a following

Yoko AVS sports
Yoko A539
Goodyear F1 GS-D3
Pirelli F1 Assimetrico Yellows
Toyo Proxies
Bridgestone S-02 (but not the S-03 or S-01s, I don’t know if you can get the 2’s anymore anyway)
Several street legal slicks are well liked but I’m looking at street tires.

I would like to try BFG g-force KDs but that is an expensive fast wearing tire.
Kumho Ecsta MXs may be worth shot too.

Erik

Azenis are nice cause they are cheap. And on my WRX 17''s were not killed by a couple of track days so they should last at least a year if you use winters on snow. It's probably better to get something like Azenis or S-03s (if you care about wet traction and willing to pay some more) and just get a set of R rubber for track days. I doubt it's worth to use very expensive, highest performance and fast wearing off street tires if you would rarely try to shave 2 seconds on your drive to work. :lol:

My Evo will be getting a set of Azenis as soon as the stock tires wear out. The Azenis were amazing summer tires. Grip was great and so was wear. They were only so-so in the wet, but that was the trade-off for the great dry traction. And they are cheap too!

For those who are not familiar with the Azenis, they have a tread that is vaguely similar to Yokohama A032-R's. ie....very large contact patchs

They are fairly heavy. But only a little heavier than other performance tires with hard sidewalls. And they are lighter than Kumho V700's.

SC

I recall that themothership has mentioned about yokohama designing the 046's especially for the evo. Maybe these tires are excellent tires for our cars for that reason. I would wait to see if these yok would be worth getting?

Am i the only one who picked up that they said it's not as good without ACD :confused: Doent' seem like anybody cares. I have the feeling the JDM with ACD and LSD will destroy our car on the track. Now i just want to know how much faster. Are we talkign about hundredth, tenth, or seconds?

I would put money on that one as well!! :)

Fedja

I with you on the azenis. The only problem is that they don't make 235s only 245 and 225 widths. I've talked to Falken and the line up of Azenis will not be expanded. I really want to preserve the stiff sidewall of that tire. The reccomended rim widths seem to point to 245s on the stock 8" wheel.

The are pretty cheap and the Evo will eat tires. So I will try them out.

Erik

the A046 just are not excellent tires just very good OEM performance tires.

Erik

It says:
I am not sure if it's ACD or front LSD (or both).

JDM's use both ACD/AYC on GSR and only ACD on RS. But the front LSD is standrad on both. We get a regular open diff for whatever reasons. Could be cost or could be not that bennificial without ACD. Who knows. Time will tell. Thanks for the quote i'm still waiting for my R&T.

Can't wait for the JDM VS US and STI VS evo shootouts {blob}

Well, I checked few sites on the Advan tires and found their Tire Catalog, but without the A046 to be seen through the eyes that can't read those symbols. :dunno:

I did find a few movies that have some of the Advan tires testing, so here you go. There is a choice between the Advan 1, Advan 2, and Advan 3 site. Enjoy!! :)

From what I could see is that Yokohama has the Advan name reserved just for the top of the line tires. Over here in the use there is only one on sale and it is the competition Advan A033 model. After seeing those, I have hard time believing that EVOs will be equipped with just some average tire!


Fedja

Good find man! :thumbup: Now i want a Slyvia dammnit.

I have Toyo Poxes T1-S's as we speak, and the treadwear is 180 (I think). They're lasting a lot longer than the Bridgestones I had with only a 140 treadwear (bald in two years). 225/45-17's are around 150 a piece (if you shop around)--not too bad. They seem to be fairly progressive, handle well in the wet, and are decently light. I would sat 235/45'17's shouldn't be too much more expensive. When I get an Evo, this is what I plan on putting on them for street use.

Erik in LA


Sorry, checked the treadwear and it's 280, not 180. Pretty good.

Believe me Fedja there better than average but not top of the line performance tires.

Erik

Just got my issue of Road & Track--I'm most impressed with the 80-0 braking distance of 199 ft (for a 3200 lb car). According to R&T's Road Test Summary page, only bona-fide race cars, the Viper, and a 360 Modena Ferrari beats the Evo. Forget about doing the 1/4 mile, let's do some threshold braking! Also, the skidpad number of .97 g is pretty damn good too.

Sure would be great if there was a way to scan it so everyone can read the article..... hmmmmmm ;)

People use to scan anything on this forum asap. Must be wrx fans whom already have the magazine and posting here. It's in newstand but I'm still waiting for my R&T issue. {blob}

awww man...is everyone talkin about the march issue, cuz they've only sent the feb issue to me so far :crap:

I don't know what all the strait line performance fuss is about. Even with a low 5 second 0-60 and a mid 13 second 1/4 mile, it can still kick most cars ass's. You guys are talking like its the end of the world because its not turning sub 13's and 4.5's.
Yes, it may not be as fast as some earlier models, but its still very fast. Those times are just as fast or faster than most american V8's. I can still pull up to some Ta's, Mustangs, Camaro's, vettes, and basically most cars on the road and beat them or at least give them a hell of a race.:headbang: I am not ragging on what anyone has said, but this is not a ferrari. It is a 30k sports car. With a few G's you can have a dominating force. :thumbup: I am still stoked about the evo's arrival, and I plan to lay the smackdown on all who opose me:ang2hap: :headbang: