STI Versus Evolution X... SOON !
both subura and mitsubishi are reaching for a wider audience with their new flagships. the hardcore enthusiasts boycotting sales will most likely not have much of an effect.
having said this, i think both companies have done fine, these are still very capable perfomance vehicles and given a few generations, should evolve even more.
having said this, i think both companies have done fine, these are still very capable perfomance vehicles and given a few generations, should evolve even more.
From some of what I have heard it seems that the
Evolving Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
From: Los angeles
Compared to their last test in '05 the new STI doesn't really perform better.
Braking 60-0:
'08 STI = 106 ft
'06 STI = 108 ft
MT figure eight:
'06 STI = 25.5 sec @ 0.72 g avg
'08 STI = 25.7 sec @ 0.69 g (avg)
Skidpad:
'06 STI = 0.91
'08 STI = 0.91
I noticed this too....
0-100:
'06 STI = 12.1 seconds
'08 STI = 13.3 seconds
1/4 mile:
'06 STI = 13.0@103.5
'08 STI = 13.4@100.5
(check out the difference in trap speeds)
It seems like Subaru's goal was to come close to matching the perormance numbers of last STI, but do it with a little more civility.
Braking 60-0:
'08 STI = 106 ft
'06 STI = 108 ft
MT figure eight:
'06 STI = 25.5 sec @ 0.72 g avg
'08 STI = 25.7 sec @ 0.69 g (avg)
Skidpad:
'06 STI = 0.91
'08 STI = 0.91
I noticed this too....
0-100:
'06 STI = 12.1 seconds
'08 STI = 13.3 seconds
1/4 mile:
'06 STI = 13.0@103.5
'08 STI = 13.4@100.5
(check out the difference in trap speeds)
It seems like Subaru's goal was to come close to matching the perormance numbers of last STI, but do it with a little more civility.
The edmunds article states previous tested braking was 115 feet last STi, this one is 106, then they also tested the slalom at 72mph while the Evo 9 was 70. The article also praises and said its worth every penny and is a much better car than the outgoing models. A little bit more plush but more stable and nimble due to the hatchback form.
All this was also tested on **** octane 91 from cali, the writer also said there is more speed to be had if 93 was used.
To me i see a better car than the sedan variants.
Evolving Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
From: Maryland
that sti vid makes it seem like a beast, and seeing it go down the road doesn't look too bad either, i just hate how tall the new evo is, i like the front bumper and head lights but thats it, the rest looks like a acura TL type S and those suck too, The steering wheel looks like a size 13 inch rim 
, seeing the X feels like a bad dream i just want to wake up from Sti FTW, and do the STi come in a automatic? because i want a fast car and can't drive a stick.
KICK THAT EVOS *** ( EVO X THAT IS)
, seeing the X feels like a bad dream i just want to wake up from Sti FTW, and do the STi come in a automatic? because i want a fast car and can't drive a stick. KICK THAT EVOS *** ( EVO X THAT IS)
Last edited by 06EVOIX SE; Dec 3, 2007 at 11:58 PM.
Evolved Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 675
Likes: 0
From: NC
The edmunds article states previous tested braking was 115 feet last STi, this one is 106, then they also tested the slalom at 72mph while the Evo 9 was 70. The article also praises and said its worth every penny and is a much better car than the outgoing models. A little bit more plush but more stable and nimble due to the hatchback form.
All this was also tested on **** octane 91 from cali, the writer also said there is more speed to be had if 93 was used.
To me i see a better car than the sedan variants.
All this was also tested on **** octane 91 from cali, the writer also said there is more speed to be had if 93 was used.
To me i see a better car than the sedan variants.
It says 60-0 in 108ft.
Evolving Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
From: Los angeles
Here are the stats from their STI test: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ecs_price.html
It says 60-0 in 108ft.
It says 60-0 in 108ft.
Again the acceleration performance was achieved off 91 octane so to me numbers are numbers, Every article so far praises this new sti.
The engine sits lower, its more nimble, more stable, doesnt feel cheap, doesn't rattle and road noise is gone, delivery of tq is sooner etc.... bunch of new things i would rather have over the old.
Numbers is numbers .... read the article and what people have to say about the car. TO me that is worth more than telling me a car does 0-60 in 3.0 secs, that don't mean **** if the car feels ****ty doing it.
If a civic does 0-60 in 3.0 secs would you take it over an STi? I thought so
it may do 0-60 but its still a ****ty car overall.I am not arguing with you, numbers don't lie, but couting the X out and sayign the OLD sti is as fast as the new is pretty much premature judging. The cars aren't out
Drive the car first because i swear to you , you won't feel .3 SECS but you will definately feel if a car is stiffer, and the quality is better, and if it feels more stable, you would feel all that over .3 secs to 60
Again to me i see a better STI
Last edited by BlkFlat4; Dec 4, 2007 at 02:39 PM.
Evolved Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 675
Likes: 0
From: NC
Again the acceleration performance was achieved off 91 octane so to me numbers are numbers, Every article so far praises this new sti.
The engine sits lower, its more nimble, more stable, doesnt feel cheap, doesn't rattle and road noise is gone, delivery of tq is sooner etc.... bunch of new things i would rather have over the old.
Numbers is numbers .... read the article and what people have to say about the car. TO me that is worth more than telling me a car does 0-60 in 3.0 secs, that don't mean **** if the car feels ****ty doing it.
I never said the old STI is a better car (better is subjective). I said it doesn't perform any better and that Subaru tried to make the car more civil.
Bringing up the importance of the way a car "feels", rattles, cheapness, road noise, etc, has nothing to do with what I've said. I never argued that those things weren't improved or important.
If a civic does 0-60 in 3.0 secs would you take it over an STi? I thought so it may do 0-60 but its still a ****ty car overall.
it may do 0-60 but its still a ****ty car overall.
I am not arguing with you,
Last edited by E. Haskell; Dec 4, 2007 at 02:59 PM.
Evolving Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
From: Los angeles
Yeah, well I did.
Really, do you believe 93octane is going to make up for over 3mph in the 1/4? They said acceleration would improve "a bit" - doesn't sound too dramatic.
Most of these have nothing to do with performance.
Of course numbers don't mean **** if we are talking about things other than numbers.
I never said the old STI is a better car (better is subjective). I said it doesn't perform any better and that Subaru tried to make the car more civil.
Bringing up the importance of the way a car "feels", rattles, cheapness, road noise, etc, has nothing to do with what I've said. I never argued that those things weren't improved or important.
Where did I say 0-60 was everything? You created a straw man argument.
You obviously aren't arguing with me because you've distorted, exaggerated and misrepresented what I've said.
Really, do you believe 93octane is going to make up for over 3mph in the 1/4? They said acceleration would improve "a bit" - doesn't sound too dramatic.
Most of these have nothing to do with performance.
Of course numbers don't mean **** if we are talking about things other than numbers.
I never said the old STI is a better car (better is subjective). I said it doesn't perform any better and that Subaru tried to make the car more civil.
Bringing up the importance of the way a car "feels", rattles, cheapness, road noise, etc, has nothing to do with what I've said. I never argued that those things weren't improved or important.
Where did I say 0-60 was everything? You created a straw man argument.
You obviously aren't arguing with me because you've distorted, exaggerated and misrepresented what I've said.
Whatevers man you win lol please dont reply
