Evo and STi conversation

[-The Stig-]

Moved.

[R.W.240]

Subaru DCCD goes from 45-50% front Bias

To make a subaru RWD all you need to do is weld the center Diff and plug the holes where the axles were.

Id take the Evo IX over the STi... P.S. the new STi Ver9 is the weakest looking shyte evar

[XeVeNskyLiNE]

Here's a comparo from Car & Driver. Evo gets the win, woot

http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=4

[orestes]

like i said i love them both but the only real advantage either has is seeing the STi in person, it seems to have a better looking stance, the Evo looks weird, and the wheels look kinda small. i dunno STi looks beefier to me (beefier=good)

[kman10587]

well i know two good friends with a STi and a EVO, and even though the STi handles good, the EVO just handles better straight up. the EVO sways less, is more responsive, and stock advans are much better then the STi's potenza's. my friend managed to get his STi to understeer a few times from hard corners, yet the EVO never happened once, also the EVO's tires never squeeled even stomping on the brakes from 130mph down to 40mph.

the hp difference really doesn't come in till around 4th gear between the two cars. when they drag, the STi would get the initial jump becasue to launch that car you gotta slowly let off the clutch while the EVO needs precise clutch feathering. but once they both grab, they are identical til 4th. that is when the STi's superior gearing and extra hp comes in. by the time they hit 100mph, the STi would be one car ahead. just like what the magazines states. they run times within 1 tenth of each other and they trap on 1 mph difference.

handling wise though, the EVO win's hands down.

Interestingly enough, the STi is a more dominant force in autocross. This is in part due to the STi's greater low-end torque band,thanks to its additional half-liter of displacement. However, the last time Car and Driver did an STi vs. Evo comparison, they also did a sub-comparison where they put the cars on the same tires (I forget what kind), and the STi was handling just as well, if not better than, the Evolution. They conceded that the STi has a better AWD system, one that is especially good at adapting quickly to changes in the car's behavior. Not a big deal in road racing, where the speeds are high, the behaviors are predicatable, and the Evo is the superior car, but a big deal in autocrossing, touge (mountain pass racing), and the like. It's really impossible to say which one handles better; you'd have to specify at low speed, or at high speed. Plus, different drivers and different driving styles will yield different results from each car. The STi uses a 35/65, rear-biased AWD system; the Evo is fully front-wheel-drive by default, and can split torque up to 50/50.

[TatII]

saying an evo is a fwd by default is incorrect. the center differential on the pre 04 EVO's is a Torsen style. its the same ones used on the audi quattro system. its a torque sensing limited slip. it will transfer power as soon as it senses any difference in speeds. this is different from a reactive style active center diff found on the STi. a reactive style diff is when the computer must see a difference in wheel speeds first then the computer must decide how much tq needs to be distributed.

the torsen diff is the quicker acting one. so the evo would never be a fwd in any sense period. also about the STi looking beefier, and the EVO having smaller looking wheels. follow an STi from behind and you will notice that its tires are too narrow, and the EVO's enkeis are noticebly wider especialy compared to the whole stance of the car. the EVO is also a wider car compared to the STi, not to mention the enkei's fits much better and are 235mm compared to the STi's BBS which are only 225mm wide. the EVO also has more pronounced fender flares. however i personally think the STi looks better in most angles, but the EVO definitly looks meaner and has a much meaner stance and is a much mroe roomier car inside and out.

and kman its interesting that you added the part that they put the same tires on both cars and the STi handled better. this is the total opposite of what sportcompact car got.

on both project STi and project EVO, the STi even with a fully worked suspension, and fully re aligned aligned and wider wheels and sticker tires still could not match the numbers as a EVO with just a 1mm thicker rear sway bar and same tires as the STi. on every road test they did, the STi had too soft of steering rack bushings, so theirs always a slight delay in reaction, also the car seems to understeer no matter what if they push it as hard as they pushed the EVO. they lapped very similar however, the EVO just feels better and more communicative. and in japan, the EVO always ties for top 3 spots while the STi was always dead last. i have never heard of anyone saying a STi doesn't understeer at the limit. the only exception is the spec C. but thats is really a rear worked chassis where they even changed the wheel base of hte car.

i would not doubt sportcompactcar's tuning know how since they are very competitant drivers with many racing titles and podium finished under their belt on their own project cars. and dave coleman and mike kojima are true techno geeks that i truely look up to as idols.

[kman10587]

Yeah, but more understeer doesn't necessarily equate to slower times. I won't argue that the Evo is a more communicative and involving ride, but it's also a bit more expensive than the STi. Sure, the Evo puts up better numbers, but at the end of the day, the STi is nearly as fast as the Evo (and in some motorsports, faster) for less money. Not to mention that it has more standard features (like side airbags and an in-dash six-disc CD changer), a better realiability history, and a less peaky powerband. They're just two very different cars, that's all there is to it.

[kfoote]

In the 2 SCCA National races I've been at (Summit Point, NHIS), where there was an Evo and a few STi's prepped by the same shop, the EVO has not beaten any of the STi's. The EVO driver is currently leading the NESCCA T1 points in a Corvette, so it's not just the driver. Mods allowed in class: Tires (must be stock size), brake pads, ECU as long as it is contained within original housing, safety equipment, and there is a minimum weight.

[TatII]

well i wasn't talkin about a EVO MR. i'm talkin about a base model EVO. not to mention a RS evo which only cost 27,000. a STi cost 33,000. so if price was your argument, then the STi loses. but i don't blame the STi for costing more. it does have a infinitily better interior, more quality to everything in the car, it has a bigger engine, with variable cam timing, and a 6 speed tranny. but still the price difference between a base model evo to a STi is alot of money, and personally i think the MR is a waste of money.

[S13wanabe]

All I have been noticing is that on the tracks, the STI is beating the Evo way more often than not. As for the magazine articles, the guys driving the cars are magazine writers and editors. They are not even profesional drivers. You can't figure out what a car is trully capable of until you put profesional drivers behind the wheel. The best example I notice is the 1/4 mile times they always get. Like I said, my buddy has a bone stock STI and is running 13.0 - 13.2. He never runs as slow as a 13.4. When it comes to comparing what car is better, both cors should be stock, and in reality, both cars should have the same tires. It's the only way to test which car is truly better. It can be a preferance thing, but I like to have power all the time and not have to wait for it. The Evo has too much turbo lag, and feels really weak compared to the STI. But my other friends WRX spanks both of these cars, so his is better. Mid 12's with 350whp.

[BlackGT2000]

I don't agree with the tires part, the cars need to be tested with their stock tires because that is what you will be purchasing. Tires are an expensive upgrade, 4 tires for me is going to be roughly 600 dollars. A clutch is cheaper than that. You can only really compare bone stock to bone stock.

[S13wanabe]

Understood, but tires make a big difference so we will have to wait until both cars wear out there tires to test them. Then we could buy the same tires for both.

[BlackGT2000]

Yeah I agree with that. Tires make a huge difference. To me for the money there isn't another upgrade you can do that will give you as much all around performance as a good set of tires.

[kfoote]

The Evo and STi I was mentioning were both running Goodyear Eagle GS-CS's.

I look at tires and brake pads as wear/maintenance items and not an upgrade. If you consider $600 for a set of tires to be an expensive upgrade, you probably shouldn't be looking at buying either of these cars.

[kman10587]

All I have been noticing is that on the tracks, the STI is beating the Evo way more often than not. As for the magazine articles, the guys driving the cars are magazine writers and editors. They are not even profesional drivers. You can't figure out what a car is trully capable of until you put profesional drivers behind the wheel.

That just about sums up what I was trying to say. The Evo may be more communicative and easier to push to the limit, but a good driver will be able to push the STi just as far, if not further.