C63 vs M3 vs ISF vs Evo MR
Except you missed that it was "Have the same 'performance.'" But that is an easy thing to miss, and the main cause for all these arguments in the first place. Have you driven a Z06 and a C63? Even if the Z06 is faster (which, it is), I'd happily say the C63 has the same "performance" (Note: Quotes around performance, since I define it as overall performance, not as "how fast can the car go around loopy things")
08EvoXGSR brought up a lot of good points in that sense anyway and so did 4Trouble in the same regard that I'm aiming at.
And no, I'm comparing Mitsubishi to Dell. But it's a computer tech joke that you wouldn't get unless you knew computers. If Mitsu is Dell, then the Evo is their XPS.
08EvoXGSR brought up a lot of good points in that sense anyway and so did 4Trouble in the same regard that I'm aiming at.
And no, I'm comparing Mitsubishi to Dell. But it's a computer tech joke that you wouldn't get unless you knew computers. If Mitsu is Dell, then the Evo is their XPS.
but still we shouldnt talking about those cars as a track cars. :0
They are awesome and better street fighters then the X. stock vs stock.
But i dont know why is question that?
Nurburgring is a numbers game nightmare anyway. If "paper" racing with magazine reports and numbers is bad, then Nurburgring time racing is even worse. It's a great track for testing, but too many people take "Car X ran _:__:__" too literally without going "Hmm, I wonder what the condition of the track was at that time?" Or "I wonder what other factors play into it?" (Like what Rob said, it punishes lower HP cars, and ones with lower top speeds and more wind resistance, like the boxy Evo.).
And talking about them solely as track cars is where I make my point and laugh. I make no attempt to say that a C63 or IS-F or M3 or whatever is faster or slower than the Evo on track, that doesn't matter to me. If the track was all that mattered I'd either A) Still have the Evo or B) Have sold the Evo and bought my dad's fully track prepped S2k that could run down Carrera GTs. Either way, I'd have a much worse time around town than I do now. The "performance" of my car now is easily greater than the "performance" of the old Evo, even with all it's mods (but minus the racing slicks...). That's not to say the Evo wouldn't be faster on track, but that's obviously not the only reason most people buy a car.
If you are buying a car to be a champ around the track, and that's your MAIN goal: The Evo VIII, IX, or X are the car for you. It is completely stupid to try to argue that the Evo platform is not one of the best and cheapest to build on (uh-oh I brought up the cheaper argument). And yes, you can build a Civic to be faster than an Evo for less money, but without putting too much into the Evo, it can easily be faster than the Civic can ever hope to be. I've seen Vesko's SPEED World Challenge Evo first hand close up. I would love to see a Civic that is still a cheaper build that can even dream of keeping up with that car. And that's the point being made here. The Evo can, as a platform, be built to compete with cars that a cheaper Civic with a cheaper build could never dream of competing with simply due to the technology available in the Evo that isn't there in the Civic (AWD for starters...).
When it comes to the track: the Evo IS God, S-AWC is close to God (Like, Jesus maybe...). Deal with it. I have laptimes and 3 years of Evo racing experience to prove it. The cars I have passed on track are nothing to scoff at, but they'd all be cars I'd rather have been driving home in after the day. But when the super wealthy (guys that can afford 3 Ferraris, as a local example) are buying brand new Evos as track cars, modding them a ton, selling them at a huge loss because they are 8s, and buying brand new 9s and continuing the process, you know the Evo is a great track car.
And talking about them solely as track cars is where I make my point and laugh. I make no attempt to say that a C63 or IS-F or M3 or whatever is faster or slower than the Evo on track, that doesn't matter to me. If the track was all that mattered I'd either A) Still have the Evo or B) Have sold the Evo and bought my dad's fully track prepped S2k that could run down Carrera GTs. Either way, I'd have a much worse time around town than I do now. The "performance" of my car now is easily greater than the "performance" of the old Evo, even with all it's mods (but minus the racing slicks...). That's not to say the Evo wouldn't be faster on track, but that's obviously not the only reason most people buy a car.
If you are buying a car to be a champ around the track, and that's your MAIN goal: The Evo VIII, IX, or X are the car for you. It is completely stupid to try to argue that the Evo platform is not one of the best and cheapest to build on (uh-oh I brought up the cheaper argument). And yes, you can build a Civic to be faster than an Evo for less money, but without putting too much into the Evo, it can easily be faster than the Civic can ever hope to be. I've seen Vesko's SPEED World Challenge Evo first hand close up. I would love to see a Civic that is still a cheaper build that can even dream of keeping up with that car. And that's the point being made here. The Evo can, as a platform, be built to compete with cars that a cheaper Civic with a cheaper build could never dream of competing with simply due to the technology available in the Evo that isn't there in the Civic (AWD for starters...).
When it comes to the track: the Evo IS God, S-AWC is close to God (Like, Jesus maybe...). Deal with it. I have laptimes and 3 years of Evo racing experience to prove it. The cars I have passed on track are nothing to scoff at, but they'd all be cars I'd rather have been driving home in after the day. But when the super wealthy (guys that can afford 3 Ferraris, as a local example) are buying brand new Evos as track cars, modding them a ton, selling them at a huge loss because they are 8s, and buying brand new 9s and continuing the process, you know the Evo is a great track car.
Evolved Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
From: Hong Kong
"IS-F and C63 are muscle cars with lots of perks, and they go like stink in line bone stock and they do put respectable lap times on tracks. JGTC IS and CLK DTM will put a lot of track prepped evo to shame."
? so the Evo is a shame on track?
Well you being in Asia you should known better...
? so the Evo is a shame on track?
Well you being in Asia you should known better...
Of course there are still quite a lot of very fast race prepped evos that may equal or better the mentioned cars above
What I'm trying to point out is though is that IS and C can be built to be quick on track too and there are cars that exist to prove this, and it seems some people here aren't aware of it.Unfortunately all three cars (evo, IS and C/CLK) are not really dominating in any of the big races currently.
OMG do you still have that 190E evo2???? If so do you have any plans on selling?
=.=;; I mean the JGTC IS and CLK DTM (not the production one) are insanely quick, and with power-to-weight ratio penalty in place, they would rape some shop-prepped time attack cars like the HKS one.
Of course there are still quite a lot of very fast race prepped evos that may equal or better the mentioned cars above What I'm trying to point out is though is that IS and C can be built to be quick on track too and there are cars that exist to prove this, and it seems some people here aren't aware of it.
Unfortunately all three cars (evo, IS and C/CLK) are not really dominating in any of the big races currently.
OMG do you still have that 190E evo2???? If so do you have any plans on selling?
Of course there are still quite a lot of very fast race prepped evos that may equal or better the mentioned cars above
What I'm trying to point out is though is that IS and C can be built to be quick on track too and there are cars that exist to prove this, and it seems some people here aren't aware of it.Unfortunately all three cars (evo, IS and C/CLK) are not really dominating in any of the big races currently.
OMG do you still have that 190E evo2???? If so do you have any plans on selling?
"What I'm trying to point out is though is that IS and C can be built to be quick on track too and there are cars that exist to prove this, and it seems some people here aren't aware of it."
We are , but those cars for those who have unlimited sources. Literally.ANd many EVo out there which will murder those stocks or light modified ones. Why? just because the price to run them. And that is why the Evo is hands down winner for track car.
about the 190E
my buddy had it. So we swapped cars and run on track.
I had an HF itegrale Evo 2 and he got the AMG EVo2... how ironic is that?
He sold it. He is a Porsche fan today .
Last edited by Robevo RS; Dec 2, 2008 at 06:15 PM.
Evolved Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
From: Hong Kong
Nurburgring is a numbers game nightmare anyway. If "paper" racing with magazine reports and numbers is bad, then Nurburgring time racing is even worse. It's a great track for testing, but too many people take "Car X ran _:__:__" too literally without going "Hmm, I wonder what the condition of the track was at that time?" Or "I wonder what other factors play into it?" (Like what Rob said, it punishes lower HP cars, and ones with lower top speeds and more wind resistance, like the boxy Evo.).
And talking about them solely as track cars is where I make my point and laugh. I make no attempt to say that a C63 or IS-F or M3 or whatever is faster or slower than the Evo on track, that doesn't matter to me. If the track was all that mattered I'd either A) Still have the Evo or B) Have sold the Evo and bought my dad's fully track prepped S2k that could run down Carrera GTs. Either way, I'd have a much worse time around town than I do now. The "performance" of my car now is easily greater than the "performance" of the old Evo, even with all it's mods (but minus the racing slicks...). That's not to say the Evo wouldn't be faster on track, but that's obviously not the only reason most people buy a car.
If you are buying a car to be a champ around the track, and that's your MAIN goal: The Evo VIII, IX, or X are the car for you. It is completely stupid to try to argue that the Evo platform is not one of the best and cheapest to build on (uh-oh I brought up the cheaper argument). And yes, you can build a Civic to be faster than an Evo for less money, but without putting too much into the Evo, it can easily be faster than the Civic can ever hope to be. I've seen Vesko's SPEED World Challenge Evo first hand close up. I would love to see a Civic that is still a cheaper build that can even dream of keeping up with that car. And that's the point being made here. The Evo can, as a platform, be built to compete with cars that a cheaper Civic with a cheaper build could never dream of competing with simply due to the technology available in the Evo that isn't there in the Civic (AWD for starters...).
When it comes to the track: the Evo IS God, S-AWC is close to God (Like, Jesus maybe...). Deal with it. I have laptimes and 3 years of Evo racing experience to prove it. The cars I have passed on track are nothing to scoff at, but they'd all be cars I'd rather have been driving home in after the day. But when the super wealthy (guys that can afford 3 Ferraris, as a local example) are buying brand new Evos as track cars, modding them a ton, selling them at a huge loss because they are 8s, and buying brand new 9s and continuing the process, you know the Evo is a great track car.
And talking about them solely as track cars is where I make my point and laugh. I make no attempt to say that a C63 or IS-F or M3 or whatever is faster or slower than the Evo on track, that doesn't matter to me. If the track was all that mattered I'd either A) Still have the Evo or B) Have sold the Evo and bought my dad's fully track prepped S2k that could run down Carrera GTs. Either way, I'd have a much worse time around town than I do now. The "performance" of my car now is easily greater than the "performance" of the old Evo, even with all it's mods (but minus the racing slicks...). That's not to say the Evo wouldn't be faster on track, but that's obviously not the only reason most people buy a car.
If you are buying a car to be a champ around the track, and that's your MAIN goal: The Evo VIII, IX, or X are the car for you. It is completely stupid to try to argue that the Evo platform is not one of the best and cheapest to build on (uh-oh I brought up the cheaper argument). And yes, you can build a Civic to be faster than an Evo for less money, but without putting too much into the Evo, it can easily be faster than the Civic can ever hope to be. I've seen Vesko's SPEED World Challenge Evo first hand close up. I would love to see a Civic that is still a cheaper build that can even dream of keeping up with that car. And that's the point being made here. The Evo can, as a platform, be built to compete with cars that a cheaper Civic with a cheaper build could never dream of competing with simply due to the technology available in the Evo that isn't there in the Civic (AWD for starters...).
When it comes to the track: the Evo IS God, S-AWC is close to God (Like, Jesus maybe...). Deal with it. I have laptimes and 3 years of Evo racing experience to prove it. The cars I have passed on track are nothing to scoff at, but they'd all be cars I'd rather have been driving home in after the day. But when the super wealthy (guys that can afford 3 Ferraris, as a local example) are buying brand new Evos as track cars, modding them a ton, selling them at a huge loss because they are 8s, and buying brand new 9s and continuing the process, you know the Evo is a great track car.
Absolute power and power-to-weight ratio matters a lot on this course, thats why porkers like SLR, Murcielago and Veyron are somewhere on the top.
Also I really doubt on the GT-R's 7:29 lap time was done fairly. Porsche and some magazines did re-test and they got around 7:55, which is more inline with cars of its power to weight ratio, and it is still a significant improvement over the R32/R33/R34 GTRs. No matter how technologically advanced the car is, can a 410-420whp 3850lbs car really beat 450+whp 3100lbs car (997 GT2) driven by Walter Rohrl? GT2 comes with r-compounds stock btw.
Evolved Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
From: Hong Kong
"What I'm trying to point out is though is that IS and C can be built to be quick on track too and there are cars that exist to prove this, and it seems some people here aren't aware of it."
We are , but those cars for those who have unlimited sources. Literally.ANd many EVo out there which will murder those stocks or light modified ones. Why? just because the price to run them. And that is why the Evo is hands down winner for track car.
about the 190E
my buddy had it. So we swapped cars and run on track.
I had an HF itegrale Evo 2 and he got the AMG EVo2... how ironic is that?
He sold it. He is a Porsche fan today .
We are , but those cars for those who have unlimited sources. Literally.ANd many EVo out there which will murder those stocks or light modified ones. Why? just because the price to run them. And that is why the Evo is hands down winner for track car.
about the 190E
my buddy had it. So we swapped cars and run on track.
I had an HF itegrale Evo 2 and he got the AMG EVo2... how ironic is that?
He sold it. He is a Porsche fan today .
Sure i miss the Integrale , the worst choice i ever made to sell it.
But here i am with an EVo. And after some loving touch i Love it just as much i did those cars.
This is pure comic relief Great fun to log on here for up to the minute entertainment. Forget E! channel. Log on the M! channel 
OK, maybe we need a new thread that is more politically correct like:
Evo X vs. 335, C350, IS350, S4. Much more similar in cost and engine performance numbers. I think we would all agree on both sides of this argument that the Evo X is a faster road course car than those just mentioned. Again, in creature comforts, the competition has a lead.
As for the competency of the other cars, I have driven the RS4 and the E92 M3 at a road course while instructing for several driving events. Unfortunately, these driving experiences were during intermediate group sessions after my run group with traffic so a ***** out comparision was not available. However, I can say that at least these two cars were fantastic to experience, with the M3 clearly a better driver's car between the two. I will go ahead and say it - The M3 is clearly a better car in every respect to the Evo X, track, street, and suspension comfort. Is it worth an extra 30K? Depends on many personal requirements/feelings towards a new car purchase. I believe the Evo X offers a "different" driving experience than the M3. I will probably pick up a 2010 M3 DCT four door next year and enjoy that car for a year or two. I just got rid of a 2007 335i after 14 months because I did not care at all for the automobile. I hated the suspension, even with dual adjustable coilovers. I can say however that with the turbo timer, the car was 10mph faster than my 310 awhp Evo X at the end of the straight. The BMW motor is excellent and very smooth. As for the Merc, I owned a very modified C32 AMG for four years and put everything possible on that car making respectable power. It could not handle for the life of the thing even with custom Carlsson Coilovers. But it was so fast, it runs about the same times as my Evo X now. Just not a very enjoyable drive, like a MMA bout. We ran a 1:35 at WSIR in that thing, but it was abusive to your body and mind. I ran a high 1:34 with a lightly modified Evo X MR and it was so easy to drive, although the driving technique required huge adjustment.
So where do we go from here? Let's go to the track! Many track days ahead in SoCal. We can even rent the track for a private track day. Find some friends with a M3, IS-F, C63 and we can settle this war once and for all! Steets of Willow Springs has a semi-private track day package available for six drivers. I'm in. 
Great fun to log on here for up to the minute entertainment. Forget E! channel. Log on the M! channel OK, maybe we need a new thread that is more politically correct like:
Evo X vs. 335, C350, IS350, S4. Much more similar in cost and engine performance numbers. I think we would all agree on both sides of this argument that the Evo X is a faster road course car than those just mentioned. Again, in creature comforts, the competition has a lead.
As for the competency of the other cars, I have driven the RS4 and the E92 M3 at a road course while instructing for several driving events. Unfortunately, these driving experiences were during intermediate group sessions after my run group with traffic so a ***** out comparision was not available. However, I can say that at least these two cars were fantastic to experience, with the M3 clearly a better driver's car between the two. I will go ahead and say it - The M3 is clearly a better car in every respect to the Evo X, track, street, and suspension comfort. Is it worth an extra 30K? Depends on many personal requirements/feelings towards a new car purchase. I believe the Evo X offers a "different" driving experience than the M3. I will probably pick up a 2010 M3 DCT four door next year and enjoy that car for a year or two. I just got rid of a 2007 335i after 14 months because I did not care at all for the automobile. I hated the suspension, even with dual adjustable coilovers. I can say however that with the turbo timer, the car was 10mph faster than my 310 awhp Evo X at the end of the straight. The BMW motor is excellent and very smooth. As for the Merc, I owned a very modified C32 AMG for four years and put everything possible on that car making respectable power. It could not handle for the life of the thing even with custom Carlsson Coilovers. But it was so fast, it runs about the same times as my Evo X now. Just not a very enjoyable drive, like a MMA bout. We ran a 1:35 at WSIR in that thing, but it was abusive to your body and mind. I ran a high 1:34 with a lightly modified Evo X MR and it was so easy to drive, although the driving technique required huge adjustment.
So where do we go from here? Let's go to the track!
Many track days ahead in SoCal. We can even rent the track for a private track day. Find some friends with a M3, IS-F, C63 and we can settle this war once and for all! Steets of Willow Springs has a semi-private track day package available for six drivers. I'm in.
Last edited by smgevo; Dec 2, 2008 at 09:00 PM.
Also I really doubt on the GT-R's 7:29 lap time was done fairly. Porsche and some magazines did re-test and they got around 7:55, which is more inline with cars of its power to weight ratio, and it is still a significant improvement over the R32/R33/R34 GTRs. No matter how technologically advanced the car is, can a 410-420whp 3850lbs car really beat 450+whp 3100lbs car (997 GT2) driven by Walter Rohrl? GT2 comes with r-compounds stock btw.
And the car weighed in at 4,900lbs!!! Yea, I know - it was not for street consumption, but still...You bring up another great comparison you just reminded me of. Why is it fair to compare a "cheaper" GT-R with a Porsche Turbo? Same argument here. It is a good comparison (and quite fun) to pit an underdog against the benchmark.
Last edited by smgevo; Dec 2, 2008 at 09:09 PM.
Evolved Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
From: Hong Kong
Let us not forget the great feat of Hans Stuck driving a modified BMW X5 around the Ring in 8:05 And the car weighed in at 4,900lbs!!! Yea, I know - it was not for street consumption, but still...
You bring up another great comparison you just reminded me of. Why is it fair to compare a "cheaper" GT-R with a Porsche Turbo? Same argument here. It is a good comparison (and quite fun) to pit an underdog against the benchmark.
And the car weighed in at 4,900lbs!!! Yea, I know - it was not for street consumption, but still...You bring up another great comparison you just reminded me of. Why is it fair to compare a "cheaper" GT-R with a Porsche Turbo? Same argument here. It is a good comparison (and quite fun) to pit an underdog against the benchmark.
Interesting side note, GT2 doesn't really compete in GT2, but heavily modded GT3 competes in GT2?
EVO X MR? It's not even comparable to those 3.
Unless you are talking about handling and not so much about power.
So I guess it would be something like this?
M3 > C63 > EVO X MR > ISF? I like ISF model but it seems so slow compare to other German's products.
Unless you are talking about handling and not so much about power.
So I guess it would be something like this?
M3 > C63 > EVO X MR > ISF? I like ISF model but it seems so slow compare to other German's products.
This is pure comic relief Great fun to log on here for up to the minute entertainment. Forget E! channel. Log on the M! channel
OK, maybe we need a new thread that is more politically correct like:
Evo X vs. 335, C350, IS350, S4. Much more similar in cost and engine performance numbers. I think we would all agree on both sides of this argument that the Evo X is a faster road course car than those just mentioned. Again, in creature comforts, the competition has a lead.
As for the competency of the other cars, I have driven the RS4 and the E92 M3 at a road course while instructing for several driving events. Unfortunately, these driving experiences were during intermediate group sessions after my run group with traffic so a ***** out comparision was not available. However, I can say that at least these two cars were fantastic to experience, with the M3 clearly a better driver's car between the two. I will go ahead and say it - The M3 is clearly a better car in every respect to the Evo X, track, street, and suspension comfort. Is it worth an extra 30K? Depends on many personal requirements/feelings towards a new car purchase. I believe the Evo X offers a "different" driving experience than the M3. I will probably pick up a 2010 M3 DCT four door next year and enjoy that car for a year or two. I just got rid of a 2007 335i after 14 months because I did not care at all for the automobile. I hated the suspension, even with dual adjustable coilovers. I can say however that with the turbo timer, the car was 10mph faster than my 310 awhp Evo X at the end of the straight. The BMW motor is excellent and very smooth. As for the Merc, I owned a very modified C32 AMG for four years and put everything possible on that car making respectable power. It could not handle for the life of the thing even with custom Carlsson Coilovers. But it was so fast, it runs about the same times as my Evo X now. Just not a very enjoyable drive, like a MMA bout. We ran a 1:35 at WSIR in that thing, but it was abusive to your body and mind. I ran a high 1:34 with a lightly modified Evo X MR and it was so easy to drive, although the driving technique required huge adjustment.
So where do we go from here? Let's go to the track! Many track days ahead in SoCal. We can even rent the track for a private track day. Find some friends with a M3, IS-F, C63 and we can settle this war once and for all! Steets of Willow Springs has a semi-private track day package available for six drivers. I'm in.
Great fun to log on here for up to the minute entertainment. Forget E! channel. Log on the M! channel OK, maybe we need a new thread that is more politically correct like:
Evo X vs. 335, C350, IS350, S4. Much more similar in cost and engine performance numbers. I think we would all agree on both sides of this argument that the Evo X is a faster road course car than those just mentioned. Again, in creature comforts, the competition has a lead.
As for the competency of the other cars, I have driven the RS4 and the E92 M3 at a road course while instructing for several driving events. Unfortunately, these driving experiences were during intermediate group sessions after my run group with traffic so a ***** out comparision was not available. However, I can say that at least these two cars were fantastic to experience, with the M3 clearly a better driver's car between the two. I will go ahead and say it - The M3 is clearly a better car in every respect to the Evo X, track, street, and suspension comfort. Is it worth an extra 30K? Depends on many personal requirements/feelings towards a new car purchase. I believe the Evo X offers a "different" driving experience than the M3. I will probably pick up a 2010 M3 DCT four door next year and enjoy that car for a year or two. I just got rid of a 2007 335i after 14 months because I did not care at all for the automobile. I hated the suspension, even with dual adjustable coilovers. I can say however that with the turbo timer, the car was 10mph faster than my 310 awhp Evo X at the end of the straight. The BMW motor is excellent and very smooth. As for the Merc, I owned a very modified C32 AMG for four years and put everything possible on that car making respectable power. It could not handle for the life of the thing even with custom Carlsson Coilovers. But it was so fast, it runs about the same times as my Evo X now. Just not a very enjoyable drive, like a MMA bout. We ran a 1:35 at WSIR in that thing, but it was abusive to your body and mind. I ran a high 1:34 with a lightly modified Evo X MR and it was so easy to drive, although the driving technique required huge adjustment.
So where do we go from here? Let's go to the track!
Many track days ahead in SoCal. We can even rent the track for a private track day. Find some friends with a M3, IS-F, C63 and we can settle this war once and for all! Steets of Willow Springs has a semi-private track day package available for six drivers. I'm in. Can you explain to me how did you achieve that with the turbo timer?
Last edited by Robevo RS; Dec 3, 2008 at 05:32 AM.
My point was the opposite... GT-R is no match for GT2 and Nissan needs to prove their 'official stock lap time' in an environment with more diverse witnesses. Don't get me wrong, I love GT-Rs but there is just too much controversy regarding the lap time and if Nissan has nothing to hide, they should prove it again. Otherwise it is nothing more than some marketing gimmick. 911 Turbo and 911 GT2 are different cars with very very different purpose.
Interesting side note, GT2 doesn't really compete in GT2, but heavily modded GT3 competes in GT2?
Interesting side note, GT2 doesn't really compete in GT2, but heavily modded GT3 competes in GT2?
The GT2 designation is a Porsche thing. The GT2 classing is a Le Mans thing. It isn't that hard of a concept
I do think it is interesting Porsche counts up instead of down though. Carrera GT3 is the slowest. Carrera GT is the fastest...And to answer the question you were meant to answer: They are compared for the same reason we are comparing the Evo X to the other cars on here. To give the poor folks who bought a GT-R reason to be happy that they settled for the crappier car.
Okay, not really that harsh, but you get the idea. The GT-R is cheaper for a reason, and so is the Evo X. If they're still as fast (or faster) than competitions' cars, where'd the money go to? Partially, to the badging, yes. But partially to a TON of other things.I imagine he used the turbo timer (which is probably also an EBC) and turned up the boost.