Evo X to 2013 STI?
Evolving Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
From: Forest Lake, MN
here's a comment i saved regarding the Evo vs STi comparison:
Dollar for dollar, the EVO (4G63 powered, not enough of the new 4B11's out there to know the verdict on them) will make more power than the STI. There's a few very basic reasons why:
-They have a larger turbo from the factory. Plain and simple, larger turbo=more potential out of the stock turbo.
-Inline motors are more robust than boxers. Due to their design, boxer motors don't dissipate heat as well as an inline. This is the reason why they're typically tuned more conservatively than inlines. Take a look over in the dyno section, as well as over on EvolutionM.net's dyno section, and you'll see people tune EVO's at leaner AFR's. The reason for this is, since boxers don't dissipate heat as well, they have to run them richer in order to cool the heads to stave off detonation. This is why typically, with all things equal (displacement, port on head(s), cams, compression ratio ect) running the same turbo, boost pressures & degrees of timing, an inline will make more power, as they will be able to run leaner AFR's on pump gas. It's sad, but the truth. To make the same power, on the same setup (turbo) on pump gas, Subie's are pretty much always going to have to push more boost/timing advance to make the same power as an EVO. Our only real saving grace is the fact we run big bore motors, so in stock form, we have more displacement to work with.
-We have 2 heads, and 4 cams. An Evo has 1 head and 2 cams. This is a no-brainer. It will obviously be cheaper to swap out 2 cams & have a port job on 1 head done, rather than working on 2 heads, and replacing 4 cams. Not to mention, their head is more easily accessible than our heads.
-Small things like for staving off heat soak, they come with FMIC's stock. With the same displacement, they can also spool a turbo faster due to a lack of exhaust piping leading to the turbine housing. We have a manifold on the bottom side of our motors, 2 of the runners converge into a cross-pipe, which goes to the collector for the other 2 cylinders, which is routed to the up-pipe, and finally into the turbine housing. Their turbo comes straight off the exhaust manifold. They have short runners (MUCH shorter than ours), that route exhaust gases to their turbine housings "quicker" for lack of a better term. Again, our only saving grace in that department is our larger displacement motors (thank God for Subaru's big bore!).
This would lead you to ask, why in the world would Subaru use a boxer motor? There's actually a few REALLY good reasons for the boxer... although none of them have to do with making big power. The first being, low center of gravity. That's probably the biggest reason. Since the boxer lays "flat", in can be positioned in a much lower position in the engine bay than an inline-4. Lower center of gravity translates into increased handling.
Then, there's the fact that since it only has the "length" of about a 2 cylinder, it can be positioned further back in the engine bay, and also works wonderfully with Subaru's personal flavor of AWD, as the motor is positioned "longitudinally" like a RWD car, with the crank protruding from the rear of the motor, pointing towards the rear of the car. This allows Subaru to connect their transmission to the rear of the motor, allowing for better weight distribution, and since the transmission is located directly behind the motor, in the center of the car, they can run perfectly equal length half shafts to power the front wheels, and the driveshaft to go straight back to the rear diff, in what Subaru calls "Symmetrical AWD". This is a large part of the reason why they have so much grip, unlike many cars which are more or less just FWD cars with a RWD assist that they call "AWD".
So really, the reason's why Subaru uses the boxer setup is to increase grip & handling, very little to do with horsepower. For a while, I believe the WRC even had talks about making boxer motors illegal, although those talks went away, as the boxer obviously hasn't been doing Subaru any favors here lately haha.
So then you might ask... "But I thought the EVO handled better?"... and that's where things get complicated. Subaru designed a street car with heavy rally car roots, a car that dominates Group N rally competition (Group N is close to stock), whereas the EVO was designed more as a street car than a rally car. Put them on tarmac, and the EVO has an edge... put them in the dirt, and the tables turn. This is do to Subaru making the STI have a long travel suspension, that's a bit overdampened for the street. The EVO has much stiffer lower suspension (thicker sway bars), and spring/damper rates that are more road course friendly (but not by much, it's still damn close), not to mention the old EVO's ran a multi-link rear compared to the old STI's simple inverted strut. Although they're really not that far apart... as a matter of fact, IIRC, it was a couple years ago, that C&D did a road course test with both (2005 I think?!?)... the EVO won stock vs stock, but not by much... then they put them on the same tires.... and the STI won (not by much)... then they added water to their test course, and in a few of their tests (acceleration being the biggest), it showed the STI's traction advantage, as the wet track allowed the STI to win by considerable margins, owing to it's superior AWD setup... but that's another reason why the EVO VIII/IX does so well on road course stock vs stock (vs old STI), it has wider (235 vs 225), stickier tires. When you put them on the same tires, the tides can turn quickly... don't take my word for it, see how they stack up against each other in A-stock, as STI's tend to do a bit better.
Although I've driven both... and the biggest reason why the EVO is regarded as a better handling car... steering. Due to the placement of the Subie's boxer motor, there's not as much of a direct path to mount the steering rack, leading to somewhat of a numb feeling at the wheel of an STI, at least when compared to the EVO. The EVO is more direct, it gives back more road feedback, it's more confidence inspiring. Even if both cars can take a corner at the same speeds, in the EVO, you'll have more confidence through the steering wheel doing so.... whereas the STI takes more faith, but IMO, is ultimately more rewarding as a driver. [/rant]
Dollar for dollar, the EVO (4G63 powered, not enough of the new 4B11's out there to know the verdict on them) will make more power than the STI. There's a few very basic reasons why:
-They have a larger turbo from the factory. Plain and simple, larger turbo=more potential out of the stock turbo.
-Inline motors are more robust than boxers. Due to their design, boxer motors don't dissipate heat as well as an inline. This is the reason why they're typically tuned more conservatively than inlines. Take a look over in the dyno section, as well as over on EvolutionM.net's dyno section, and you'll see people tune EVO's at leaner AFR's. The reason for this is, since boxers don't dissipate heat as well, they have to run them richer in order to cool the heads to stave off detonation. This is why typically, with all things equal (displacement, port on head(s), cams, compression ratio ect) running the same turbo, boost pressures & degrees of timing, an inline will make more power, as they will be able to run leaner AFR's on pump gas. It's sad, but the truth. To make the same power, on the same setup (turbo) on pump gas, Subie's are pretty much always going to have to push more boost/timing advance to make the same power as an EVO. Our only real saving grace is the fact we run big bore motors, so in stock form, we have more displacement to work with.
-We have 2 heads, and 4 cams. An Evo has 1 head and 2 cams. This is a no-brainer. It will obviously be cheaper to swap out 2 cams & have a port job on 1 head done, rather than working on 2 heads, and replacing 4 cams. Not to mention, their head is more easily accessible than our heads.
-Small things like for staving off heat soak, they come with FMIC's stock. With the same displacement, they can also spool a turbo faster due to a lack of exhaust piping leading to the turbine housing. We have a manifold on the bottom side of our motors, 2 of the runners converge into a cross-pipe, which goes to the collector for the other 2 cylinders, which is routed to the up-pipe, and finally into the turbine housing. Their turbo comes straight off the exhaust manifold. They have short runners (MUCH shorter than ours), that route exhaust gases to their turbine housings "quicker" for lack of a better term. Again, our only saving grace in that department is our larger displacement motors (thank God for Subaru's big bore!).
This would lead you to ask, why in the world would Subaru use a boxer motor? There's actually a few REALLY good reasons for the boxer... although none of them have to do with making big power. The first being, low center of gravity. That's probably the biggest reason. Since the boxer lays "flat", in can be positioned in a much lower position in the engine bay than an inline-4. Lower center of gravity translates into increased handling.
Then, there's the fact that since it only has the "length" of about a 2 cylinder, it can be positioned further back in the engine bay, and also works wonderfully with Subaru's personal flavor of AWD, as the motor is positioned "longitudinally" like a RWD car, with the crank protruding from the rear of the motor, pointing towards the rear of the car. This allows Subaru to connect their transmission to the rear of the motor, allowing for better weight distribution, and since the transmission is located directly behind the motor, in the center of the car, they can run perfectly equal length half shafts to power the front wheels, and the driveshaft to go straight back to the rear diff, in what Subaru calls "Symmetrical AWD". This is a large part of the reason why they have so much grip, unlike many cars which are more or less just FWD cars with a RWD assist that they call "AWD".
So really, the reason's why Subaru uses the boxer setup is to increase grip & handling, very little to do with horsepower. For a while, I believe the WRC even had talks about making boxer motors illegal, although those talks went away, as the boxer obviously hasn't been doing Subaru any favors here lately haha.
So then you might ask... "But I thought the EVO handled better?"... and that's where things get complicated. Subaru designed a street car with heavy rally car roots, a car that dominates Group N rally competition (Group N is close to stock), whereas the EVO was designed more as a street car than a rally car. Put them on tarmac, and the EVO has an edge... put them in the dirt, and the tables turn. This is do to Subaru making the STI have a long travel suspension, that's a bit overdampened for the street. The EVO has much stiffer lower suspension (thicker sway bars), and spring/damper rates that are more road course friendly (but not by much, it's still damn close), not to mention the old EVO's ran a multi-link rear compared to the old STI's simple inverted strut. Although they're really not that far apart... as a matter of fact, IIRC, it was a couple years ago, that C&D did a road course test with both (2005 I think?!?)... the EVO won stock vs stock, but not by much... then they put them on the same tires.... and the STI won (not by much)... then they added water to their test course, and in a few of their tests (acceleration being the biggest), it showed the STI's traction advantage, as the wet track allowed the STI to win by considerable margins, owing to it's superior AWD setup... but that's another reason why the EVO VIII/IX does so well on road course stock vs stock (vs old STI), it has wider (235 vs 225), stickier tires. When you put them on the same tires, the tides can turn quickly... don't take my word for it, see how they stack up against each other in A-stock, as STI's tend to do a bit better.
Although I've driven both... and the biggest reason why the EVO is regarded as a better handling car... steering. Due to the placement of the Subie's boxer motor, there's not as much of a direct path to mount the steering rack, leading to somewhat of a numb feeling at the wheel of an STI, at least when compared to the EVO. The EVO is more direct, it gives back more road feedback, it's more confidence inspiring. Even if both cars can take a corner at the same speeds, in the EVO, you'll have more confidence through the steering wheel doing so.... whereas the STI takes more faith, but IMO, is ultimately more rewarding as a driver. [/rant]
Evolving Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 128
Likes: 1
From: California
Not sure why people like the sti interior of the evo x's (with leather and interior trimmings options). I have the MR with the premium package, and it has a better interior (imo) than my coworker's sti. Both cars rattle, so I wouldn't say the sti's fit and finish is better either. The two arguments for the sti is the 6 speed manual and the additional trunk space (which are both nice).
Thought about the Sti and even put a $500 deposit on a 2010 sedan. But after reading/watching articles and reviews on both, I realized that the Sti, though a "better" daily driver, was not up to the performance of an Evo stock for stock. And since the price for both was similar (GSR), I decided I wouldn't buy something that was considered "second best".
Sure, the interior in some respects is nicer than say a GSR, but if you're looking for a nice interior in a daily driver then buy a quality used, very low mileage 335i instead.
I wouldn't go Sti. Its basically the same exact car as the Evo. You're not gaining anything at all. It's a lateral move that may cost you money (what you lose on the trade in, if anything).
Sure, the interior in some respects is nicer than say a GSR, but if you're looking for a nice interior in a daily driver then buy a quality used, very low mileage 335i instead.
I wouldn't go Sti. Its basically the same exact car as the Evo. You're not gaining anything at all. It's a lateral move that may cost you money (what you lose on the trade in, if anything).
here's a comment i saved regarding the Evo vs STi comparison:
Dollar for dollar, the EVO (4G63 powered, not enough of the new 4B11's out there to know the verdict on them) will make more power than the STI. There's a few very basic reasons why:
-They have a larger turbo from the factory. Plain and simple, larger turbo=more potential out of the stock turbo.
-Inline motors are more robust than boxers. Due to their design, boxer motors don't dissipate heat as well as an inline. This is the reason why they're typically tuned more conservatively than inlines. Take a look over in the dyno section, as well as over on EvolutionM.net's dyno section, and you'll see people tune EVO's at leaner AFR's. The reason for this is, since boxers don't dissipate heat as well, they have to run them richer in order to cool the heads to stave off detonation. This is why typically, with all things equal (displacement, port on head(s), cams, compression ratio ect) running the same turbo, boost pressures & degrees of timing, an inline will make more power, as they will be able to run leaner AFR's on pump gas. It's sad, but the truth. To make the same power, on the same setup (turbo) on pump gas, Subie's are pretty much always going to have to push more boost/timing advance to make the same power as an EVO. Our only real saving grace is the fact we run big bore motors, so in stock form, we have more displacement to work with.
-We have 2 heads, and 4 cams. An Evo has 1 head and 2 cams. This is a no-brainer. It will obviously be cheaper to swap out 2 cams & have a port job on 1 head done, rather than working on 2 heads, and replacing 4 cams. Not to mention, their head is more easily accessible than our heads.
-Small things like for staving off heat soak, they come with FMIC's stock. With the same displacement, they can also spool a turbo faster due to a lack of exhaust piping leading to the turbine housing. We have a manifold on the bottom side of our motors, 2 of the runners converge into a cross-pipe, which goes to the collector for the other 2 cylinders, which is routed to the up-pipe, and finally into the turbine housing. Their turbo comes straight off the exhaust manifold. They have short runners (MUCH shorter than ours), that route exhaust gases to their turbine housings "quicker" for lack of a better term. Again, our only saving grace in that department is our larger displacement motors (thank God for Subaru's big bore!).
This would lead you to ask, why in the world would Subaru use a boxer motor? There's actually a few REALLY good reasons for the boxer... although none of them have to do with making big power. The first being, low center of gravity. That's probably the biggest reason. Since the boxer lays "flat", in can be positioned in a much lower position in the engine bay than an inline-4. Lower center of gravity translates into increased handling.
Then, there's the fact that since it only has the "length" of about a 2 cylinder, it can be positioned further back in the engine bay, and also works wonderfully with Subaru's personal flavor of AWD, as the motor is positioned "longitudinally" like a RWD car, with the crank protruding from the rear of the motor, pointing towards the rear of the car. This allows Subaru to connect their transmission to the rear of the motor, allowing for better weight distribution, and since the transmission is located directly behind the motor, in the center of the car, they can run perfectly equal length half shafts to power the front wheels, and the driveshaft to go straight back to the rear diff, in what Subaru calls "Symmetrical AWD". This is a large part of the reason why they have so much grip, unlike many cars which are more or less just FWD cars with a RWD assist that they call "AWD".
So really, the reason's why Subaru uses the boxer setup is to increase grip & handling, very little to do with horsepower. For a while, I believe the WRC even had talks about making boxer motors illegal, although those talks went away, as the boxer obviously hasn't been doing Subaru any favors here lately haha.
So then you might ask... "But I thought the EVO handled better?"... and that's where things get complicated. Subaru designed a street car with heavy rally car roots, a car that dominates Group N rally competition (Group N is close to stock), whereas the EVO was designed more as a street car than a rally car. Put them on tarmac, and the EVO has an edge... put them in the dirt, and the tables turn. This is do to Subaru making the STI have a long travel suspension, that's a bit overdampened for the street. The EVO has much stiffer lower suspension (thicker sway bars), and spring/damper rates that are more road course friendly (but not by much, it's still damn close), not to mention the old EVO's ran a multi-link rear compared to the old STI's simple inverted strut. Although they're really not that far apart... as a matter of fact, IIRC, it was a couple years ago, that C&D did a road course test with both (2005 I think?!?)... the EVO won stock vs stock, but not by much... then they put them on the same tires.... and the STI won (not by much)... then they added water to their test course, and in a few of their tests (acceleration being the biggest), it showed the STI's traction advantage, as the wet track allowed the STI to win by considerable margins, owing to it's superior AWD setup... but that's another reason why the EVO VIII/IX does so well on road course stock vs stock (vs old STI), it has wider (235 vs 225), stickier tires. When you put them on the same tires, the tides can turn quickly... don't take my word for it, see how they stack up against each other in A-stock, as STI's tend to do a bit better.
Although I've driven both... and the biggest reason why the EVO is regarded as a better handling car... steering. Due to the placement of the Subie's boxer motor, there's not as much of a direct path to mount the steering rack, leading to somewhat of a numb feeling at the wheel of an STI, at least when compared to the EVO. The EVO is more direct, it gives back more road feedback, it's more confidence inspiring. Even if both cars can take a corner at the same speeds, in the EVO, you'll have more confidence through the steering wheel doing so.... whereas the STI takes more faith, but IMO, is ultimately more rewarding as a driver. [/rant]
Dollar for dollar, the EVO (4G63 powered, not enough of the new 4B11's out there to know the verdict on them) will make more power than the STI. There's a few very basic reasons why:
-They have a larger turbo from the factory. Plain and simple, larger turbo=more potential out of the stock turbo.
-Inline motors are more robust than boxers. Due to their design, boxer motors don't dissipate heat as well as an inline. This is the reason why they're typically tuned more conservatively than inlines. Take a look over in the dyno section, as well as over on EvolutionM.net's dyno section, and you'll see people tune EVO's at leaner AFR's. The reason for this is, since boxers don't dissipate heat as well, they have to run them richer in order to cool the heads to stave off detonation. This is why typically, with all things equal (displacement, port on head(s), cams, compression ratio ect) running the same turbo, boost pressures & degrees of timing, an inline will make more power, as they will be able to run leaner AFR's on pump gas. It's sad, but the truth. To make the same power, on the same setup (turbo) on pump gas, Subie's are pretty much always going to have to push more boost/timing advance to make the same power as an EVO. Our only real saving grace is the fact we run big bore motors, so in stock form, we have more displacement to work with.
-We have 2 heads, and 4 cams. An Evo has 1 head and 2 cams. This is a no-brainer. It will obviously be cheaper to swap out 2 cams & have a port job on 1 head done, rather than working on 2 heads, and replacing 4 cams. Not to mention, their head is more easily accessible than our heads.
-Small things like for staving off heat soak, they come with FMIC's stock. With the same displacement, they can also spool a turbo faster due to a lack of exhaust piping leading to the turbine housing. We have a manifold on the bottom side of our motors, 2 of the runners converge into a cross-pipe, which goes to the collector for the other 2 cylinders, which is routed to the up-pipe, and finally into the turbine housing. Their turbo comes straight off the exhaust manifold. They have short runners (MUCH shorter than ours), that route exhaust gases to their turbine housings "quicker" for lack of a better term. Again, our only saving grace in that department is our larger displacement motors (thank God for Subaru's big bore!).
This would lead you to ask, why in the world would Subaru use a boxer motor? There's actually a few REALLY good reasons for the boxer... although none of them have to do with making big power. The first being, low center of gravity. That's probably the biggest reason. Since the boxer lays "flat", in can be positioned in a much lower position in the engine bay than an inline-4. Lower center of gravity translates into increased handling.
Then, there's the fact that since it only has the "length" of about a 2 cylinder, it can be positioned further back in the engine bay, and also works wonderfully with Subaru's personal flavor of AWD, as the motor is positioned "longitudinally" like a RWD car, with the crank protruding from the rear of the motor, pointing towards the rear of the car. This allows Subaru to connect their transmission to the rear of the motor, allowing for better weight distribution, and since the transmission is located directly behind the motor, in the center of the car, they can run perfectly equal length half shafts to power the front wheels, and the driveshaft to go straight back to the rear diff, in what Subaru calls "Symmetrical AWD". This is a large part of the reason why they have so much grip, unlike many cars which are more or less just FWD cars with a RWD assist that they call "AWD".
So really, the reason's why Subaru uses the boxer setup is to increase grip & handling, very little to do with horsepower. For a while, I believe the WRC even had talks about making boxer motors illegal, although those talks went away, as the boxer obviously hasn't been doing Subaru any favors here lately haha.
So then you might ask... "But I thought the EVO handled better?"... and that's where things get complicated. Subaru designed a street car with heavy rally car roots, a car that dominates Group N rally competition (Group N is close to stock), whereas the EVO was designed more as a street car than a rally car. Put them on tarmac, and the EVO has an edge... put them in the dirt, and the tables turn. This is do to Subaru making the STI have a long travel suspension, that's a bit overdampened for the street. The EVO has much stiffer lower suspension (thicker sway bars), and spring/damper rates that are more road course friendly (but not by much, it's still damn close), not to mention the old EVO's ran a multi-link rear compared to the old STI's simple inverted strut. Although they're really not that far apart... as a matter of fact, IIRC, it was a couple years ago, that C&D did a road course test with both (2005 I think?!?)... the EVO won stock vs stock, but not by much... then they put them on the same tires.... and the STI won (not by much)... then they added water to their test course, and in a few of their tests (acceleration being the biggest), it showed the STI's traction advantage, as the wet track allowed the STI to win by considerable margins, owing to it's superior AWD setup... but that's another reason why the EVO VIII/IX does so well on road course stock vs stock (vs old STI), it has wider (235 vs 225), stickier tires. When you put them on the same tires, the tides can turn quickly... don't take my word for it, see how they stack up against each other in A-stock, as STI's tend to do a bit better.
Although I've driven both... and the biggest reason why the EVO is regarded as a better handling car... steering. Due to the placement of the Subie's boxer motor, there's not as much of a direct path to mount the steering rack, leading to somewhat of a numb feeling at the wheel of an STI, at least when compared to the EVO. The EVO is more direct, it gives back more road feedback, it's more confidence inspiring. Even if both cars can take a corner at the same speeds, in the EVO, you'll have more confidence through the steering wheel doing so.... whereas the STI takes more faith, but IMO, is ultimately more rewarding as a driver. [/rant]
Newbie
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
From: Connecticut
I went from a 2011 STi to a 2012 EVO X. IMO, the STi is a better overall daily driver. From factory it comes with heated seats, heated windshield wipers, heated mirrors and HIDs while the EVO you need to buy them with part of the option. The STi also has better storage capacity (Hatch option for the STi and the Sedan's rear seats are able to fold down). Subaru's customer service and warranty service is also a lot better than mitsu's but hands down the EVO is a better performance oriented car. I do miss my STi at times but I do not regret going from an STi to an EVO one bit. If you're looking for a comfortable daily driver and want to save money get the WRX. They also do not have the famous ringland issues some STi's are having.
Evolving Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
From: Northern VA
http://www.caranddriver.com/news/201...py-photos-news
Both WRX and STi are going to a 2.0 Liter engine and different chassis in 2013/2014 timeframe. Don't know if that will affect your decisions at all, but keep it in mind.
It's the same engine from the BRZ, but turbocharged.
Also there's rumors of dual clutch paddle shifters then too.
Both WRX and STi are going to a 2.0 Liter engine and different chassis in 2013/2014 timeframe. Don't know if that will affect your decisions at all, but keep it in mind.
It's the same engine from the BRZ, but turbocharged.
Also there's rumors of dual clutch paddle shifters then too.
I'm getting a 2013 Evo.
I test drove a 2011 WRX SRI Limited, and a 2012 EVO back to back.
The STI had springs and a rear sway bar on. The Evo was stock at the
the dealership. The STI's handling felt non responsive, could not feel the road,
it had tons of body roll. The STI felt like a grocery getter. The Evo's
handling felt much more responsive and I could feel the road a lot better.
I too thought the interior was nicer in the STI. But after being in them back
to back. Not so much. I think what it is, I like how the gauges are on the STI.
But the interior on the Evo is still nice.
If you want a sporty ride, stick with your evo.
If you want a cheaper buick. Get the sti.
I test drove a 2011 WRX SRI Limited, and a 2012 EVO back to back.
The STI had springs and a rear sway bar on. The Evo was stock at the
the dealership. The STI's handling felt non responsive, could not feel the road,
it had tons of body roll. The STI felt like a grocery getter. The Evo's
handling felt much more responsive and I could feel the road a lot better.
I too thought the interior was nicer in the STI. But after being in them back
to back. Not so much. I think what it is, I like how the gauges are on the STI.
But the interior on the Evo is still nice.
If you want a sporty ride, stick with your evo.
If you want a cheaper buick. Get the sti.
My neighbor bought a WRX. I mean the interior is a little nicer on the WRX/STI but not enough to push you over the edge. Both are fairly plain looking but lets be honest...why are you buying an Evo for the interior? It's a performance minded ride.
Evolving Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
From: Forest Lake, MN
Not sure why people like the sti interior of the evo x's (with leather and interior trimmings options). I have the MR with the premium package, and it has a better interior (imo) than my coworker's sti. Both cars rattle, so I wouldn't say the sti's fit and finish is better either. The two arguments for the sti is the 6 speed manual and the additional trunk space (which are both nice).
sounds like a good excuse for building the motor up?
Last edited by BlazinVIII; Aug 28, 2012 at 09:17 AM.
Not a good enough reason to buy an Evo X with the navigation as you can buy an aftermarket Nav unit that comes with a dash mount (Crutchfield). Though some will disagree, the OEM Nav unit is not worth half of the $2000 asking price. I had one because I felt the same way as you do, but regretted it 4 months after owning the car. Picked up a $1200 dollar aftermarket with dash mount that is leaps and bounds better than stock in every aspect.