Euro STI has 2.5 fyi.. However, the power to weight leans towards to STI significantly...

Mitsu did a little blunder by underpowering the Evo, but thts wht aftermarkets are for.

 

im a "******" that bought an sti and i've grown accustomed to some bashing, but hey, its all in good fun.
as mentioned many times, top gear is most purely for entertainment, and it was very entertaining for me to watch JC eat crow haha

 

I don't think it came out on top. 30 minutes of getting spit on by Jeremy Clarkson is not what I would call the top By the way, the times were 1:28.2 for the STI and 1:28.22 for the EVO X..that is 2 hundredths of a second... lol ...with a bad launch that is kind of sad for the Subaru that the X caught back up with that tranny because a bad launch could equal to a loss of even maybe as bad as .5 of a second.

 

What are you saying exactly? I posted that the stig wouldn't beat an IX with the X back in September on this site. My reasoning was that fancy electronics are a poor substitute for lightness.

 

Well, a good sport of a ****** you are!!! But really, I guess they both have their pro's, and con's. I have always liked both, I just so happened to like the EVO more.

 

For what it's worth - I think there was little objectivity in this Top Gear review. Both cars are more evenly matched that hard-core fans of either are willing to admit.

 

Maybe I am wrong, but I don't recall the Stig driving an Evo IX on Top Gear in the past.
I've seen the Evo IX on Fifth Gear.

 

After checking again to see if it was .8 or not it was this:

1:28.22 for EVO X
1:28.20 for STI

Both these cars beat the EVO 8 and the last Impreza. Stig never drove the 9 like that, they only ran the FQ400 vs the Lambo.

The EVO handles better, I can't believe what a lousy start stig got on that SST tranny. I am surprised the thing finished the race and he didn't just break the thing.

 

They must have been pusyfooting the evo around the track. Because its the evo should have been at least three seconds faster than the STI. I bet the STI was modded or reflashed to even compete with the evo. They just need to run the STI against other wagons and hatches not with the evo. The STI is in a different catigory and the evo is in a different league. Why do they compair them any more? The evo needs to run against the M3, Z06, and AMG's.

 

Is that why you drive an Elise?

 

Was the stig driving an mr? The car had gsr wheels and they never talked about the mr's tranny. Im waiting for another episode

 

I do not understand why is this conteraversial.

Almost all the track times here in the US are done from flying starts, ie, you do warm up lap, you do a couple of fast laps and a cool down lap. ALL of them are done in the same session.

Top Gear does it differently. They do standing starts. If the Evo in question was an SST, then it is at a huge disadvantage from a standing start. You can see it from the launch.

But despite the horrible launch, the MR still caught up and only lost by 0.02 seconds.

Had this test been conducted with flying starts, then the Evo would have won just like it has done in other flying start tests.

It is really simple, different testing rules beget different results.

 

i was wondering the same thing... the wheels looked like the GSR ones. But i think it is b/c it was a SST GSR though (as prev. mentioned).

 

They said he was driving the 6 speed. There is no 6 speed manual so it has to be the SST, but europe doesnt get same models; wheels and suspension are still an upgrade doesnt come in package like it does here in US

 

Pretty much. I think the times speak for themself, they're within a 10th of each other basically. Even at top levels of tuning, with pro drivers it's always close.
The motor in terms of VE and turbine choice for stock goes to Mitsu hands down though, both in the X and previous generations, I will gladly be the first to admit that.