Originally Posted by glamcem

well, that is the thing; majority of these cars have small engines, FWD and designed to be "eco-grocery getters".. government taxes are pretty high in European countries, especially for the ones that have an engine size bigger than 2.0lt(not to mention the cost of gas).. so pretty much all the manufacturers make 1.2-1.6lt engines or small turbo diesel engines (1.2lt to 1.6lt also) .

.this is pretty much the best you can get
http://www.rsportscars.com/renault/2...ltsport-r26-r/

so Evos or STIs are light years ahead compared to any of those cars mentioned..

Originally Posted by cla2000

i love my eve, but how do you guys explain the fact that most car shows put the stir on the top place. The Stig was faster on top gears circuit in the sti. Why? You all insist the sti is a crappy car.
I never drove the new sti, but my buddy's 2007 is a great car and much faster than my evo. He does have bolt ons and a tune tho.

Originally Posted by wjamyers

that's too bad. i won't be in the market for cars for a few years anyhow. I've got 3 cars I consider collectors items, that'll have to do me for a decade or so.

Originally Posted by glamcem

simple answer he bogged the car ...watch the video again.. if the Evo was manual, times would be completely different IMO(Evo will outhandle an STI any day even with modified suspension setup on an STI.... it's all in the AWD system that gives Evo a superior competitive advantage)
even he bogged the car and STI had the weight advantage, times were pretty close
1.28.22 vs 1.28.20

Originally Posted by menasor

Bad start off the line for the Stig, and that was a 2008 with a bad factory tune. A 2011 is significantly quicker. I'm not sure what has changed in the STI since then though.