No, it isn't. Stock vs. stock, otherwise, you're changing the cars. I know it seems silly, I get that, but once you start changing the car in any way, you open up a can of worms. Even something as simple as changing the tires leads to pages upon pages of argument.

 

I disagree. If you are taking both cars to the track, you need identical tires on them for a proper comparison. Declaring one "better" because it has stickier tires as an option from the factory is stupid.

P.S. The Evo 8/9 Advan A046 tires are not even made any more.

 

Noize, why did you have to bring up the SVT Focus? I just got ill.

 

Changing tires is fine. Not every car is available with a tire as good as PSC2's, or even the super sports. Changing tires is an even playing field upgrade, it does not effect the reliability, and will generally yield identical results on each platform. And you can 100% change your cars tires without any kind of warranty issue. And changing tires to level the stickiness will really show who has the better chassis, and chassis setup.


However, doing an exhaust/intake/tune on every car in a shootout can have widely varied results depending on OEM turbo size (or if some cars aren't even turbo), injector sizing, etc. And these mods generally void the warranty.

 

I actually think a same-tire test is pretty valid. Tires are one of the few things you can change and still be considered "stock" (e.g. in AutoX).

I agree that comparing a modded Evo to a modded RS is pretty pointless. It comes down to who has put more time/money/effort into it, not what the car is.

 

I disagree with the idea of changing tires or doing anything else to make a car non-stock, mainly because when it has happened in the past, it has led to a giant pissing contest of sorts. I agree with all three of you in that I'd be curious to see it, and it does "make sense". However, like I said, it's opening a can of worms. It happened in the Ralliart vs. WRX battle, and it was a **** show.

An issue that can rear up though, which may impact the "fairness" of the comparison, is that some manufacturers design the chassis around the tires that are on it. I don't know if that's true here, but it's something to keep in mind. There's also the cost issue. Is it really fair to take two cars, and then spend $1000-1500 on another making it non-stock and then comparing them?

 

That's not any sillier of an argument than how the better car lost because the factory decided not to offer a performance tire as an option.

If someone decided to cry foul because cars are compared on equal tire, they can GTFO LOL.

Personally, I have no desire to see another tire shootout.

Chris Harris just tested the 918, La Ferrari, and McLaren. All manufacturers agreed to run the same tire and it was awesome.

 

You're welcome to read through the **** storm that was the Ralliart vs. WRX comparison. In one case, Edmunds put stickier tires on the Ralliart, and, not surprisingly, it did much better in the various performance tests. This ultimately led some to declare it the winner, despite the cost differential, and the fact the performance improvement merely put it on equal terms to the WRX. Thus the pissing contest was started.

I would rather see the magazines test the cars as they come from the factory because I think that comparison is the simplest, and most relevant to the most people; I know when I buy a car, I don't do so with full knowledge I'm going to mod it to compete with another car I could have bought instead. If other people or bodies want to swap the tires to test the chassis, great. I doubt the magazines are going to be interested in comparing the new Focus to the old Evo anyways.

 

I will add, to address your quick edit, if the manufacturers agree to it, then do it.

 

It's typically the other way around, manufacturers will have a bespoke tire built for the car. The easy way around this is to put a non OE tire on every car. Example: no car comes with hankook RS3's, or Dunlop Z2 SS, so use one of those as the test tire. I would say you must keep the OE tire size for the test though.

 

Sounds like Ralliart > WRX. Seeing how nobody ever sticks with OEM tires. Sounds okay to me.
A guy I know has a Porsche on Pilot Cups or whatever it is the come with. I can see him not wanting to compete with a "lesser" car on equal tire. Might get beat LOL.

 

You gotta read the comparisons, man, it took replacing the tires to make the numbers close to equal, and this was the 2008 WRX, not the far more powerful and redone 2009 WRX.

I don't agree that nobody sticks with OEM tires. I don't know anyone that would buy a car, knowing that they'd have to spend another $1500, plus possibly the cost of wheels, to make that car perform at the same level as a competitor.

 

Don't get me wrong, I actually understand what you're saying. I follow ya. I guess it depends. Everyone I've known has either upgraded or cheaped out on daily driving tires. None has stuck with factory rubber, so how the car performed on it wasn't any concern.
As for the comparison you mentioned, those are the exact results one would expect. Better tire = better performance, as we all know. The Subaru is only better if on a better tire. Not Mitu's fault 😁
But I bet the Suby guys were maaaaaad hahaha.
If you ever happen upon that thread, I'd love a link.

 

I agree that most enthusiasts eventually change the tires to something that isn't OEM, but frankly if I had the kind of money to buy a $50,000 car (CAD) and then drop another $1500 or more on tires right away, I'd be buying a more expensive car from the outset.

Like I said, changing the tires on the Ralliart to tires that were actually better than those on the Subaru, made the cars equal. Neither was definitely better than the other. It was actually the 2009 WRX that was in the comparison. I was wrong before.

http://www.edmunds.com/subaru/imprez...ison-test.html

This is all off-topic though.

 

Well, if could get a better car for $51,500, then I would. No doubt.

And if the tires on the Mitsu were better than the WRX, then that isn't fair. I agree to that too.