Evo and STi conversation

well since that "$75k shift knob" thread got closed and we were having a decent conversation and the Evo and STi rivalry I decided to start it up again

hahahha thats awesome. from an srt-4 owner though i wouldnt let him talk shit. lol.....srt-4's......

i think if i had an sti though i would have to go fmic and get a different hood. just to set it apart. im kinda tired of the hood scoop, but they are still awesome. i love them in white.

is the evo MR the one with those spikes on the top of the back window?

Actually I don't think any Evo's come stock with the shark fins, someone correct me on that.

http://img59.echo.cx/img59/3234/machevo184845833919dl.jpg

Here's the description from Mach V Motorsports

"This Mitsubishi accessory for the Evo MR fits at the top of the rear window. The little triangle-shaped bumps generate vortices, which have the effect of keeping air stuck to the car and helping the rear wing do its job better. The result is higher downforce at high speeds. An Evo that is stuck to the road is a happy Evo!"

well since that "$75k shift knob" thread got closed and we were having a decent conversation and the Evo and STi rivalry I decided to start it up again



Actually I don't think any Evo's come stock with the shark fins, someone correct me on that.

Evo!"

Yes the new ones do. It was on car and driver tv a few times.

Yea here's the XI and its sexy ass

http://img179.echo.cx/img179/7909/03242005212600240gc.jpg

man.... if i just have the $.. i would buy an EVO, ONCE I FIX THE LIVING BIG JESUS OUT OF MY 240!

my secret taboo..i love AWD cars...

I'd get an STi and convert it to RWD!

it has that buton u know, 80% rear i think?

oooh yea, the VCD controller. I heard that off of Gran Turismo :icon16:

Nah man, true RWD, take out the front driveshaft and put in a RWD center diff (or weld the gears, but that's kind of permanent.) I read about it in a mag, this guy in a white WRX in Hawaii did it. He said it was easy and cheap, but you need a strenghtened rear driveshaft since all the power will be going through the single shaft. He also has custom FMIC piping that goes around the fog lights, it's really cool. (It's a WRX with the round headlights and foglights, not the new one.)

yea that was the white bug-eyed one.. it was in a mag article last year?

The new evo's ... i think the MR edition comes with those diffusers on the rear frame... supposedly it helps air flow off the back trunk more smoothly along with the downforce of the wing... btw... that cf wing on the evo? if you're a lil' smaller than an average sized guy... you can stand on it and it won't break. lolz...

I just jumped into the conversation, but there really is no competition between an evo and an sti. Every magazine says the evo handles better and complain about the sti being hard to control. So they are admitting that they can't drive. I'm not going to say I'm a good driver, but my buddy has a bone stock sti, and hasn't lost to an evo yet, even with mods. He has raced over ten evos and the one he beat by the shortest distance was about 1 1/2 car lengths, and the evo was supposed to have 300whp. I would love to say my friend is just a good driver, but he is just like the rest of us, except with more money. As far as track times, he is running between 13.0 and 13.2. He doesn't do any road courses though. I'm sure, with a race driver being familiar with the way the sti handles, the sti would have no trouble beating the evo around any track. I do think the evos look better though. Too bad it's a mitsu.

which wrx do u like more, the older version this the bugged out eyes or the new ones.( i like the new ones myself) but ive seen sum BA older WRX's

I like the new one the best, but the bugged eyed one looks really badass with the black projector HIDs. The 22B is also really nice, but only the coupe (to me).

the Traction control system on the WRX can go from 65%(front)-45%(rear) to anywhere in between 45%(f)-65%(r)

I just jumped into the conversation, but there really is no competition between an evo and an sti. Every magazine says the evo handles better and complain about the sti being hard to control. So they are admitting that they can't drive. I'm not going to say I'm a good driver, but my buddy has a bone stock sti, and hasn't lost to an evo yet, even with mods. He has raced over ten evos and the one he beat by the shortest distance was about 1 1/2 car lengths, and the evo was supposed to have 300whp. I would love to say my friend is just a good driver, but he is just like the rest of us, except with more money. As far as track times, he is running between 13.0 and 13.2. He doesn't do any road courses though. I'm sure, with a race driver being familiar with the way the sti handles, the sti would have no trouble beating the evo around any track. I do think the evos look better though. Too bad it's a mitsu.

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.

It comes down to personal preference.

Moved.

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

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

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article_id=9043&page_number=4

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :smokin:

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.

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.

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.

i like my 240 .... my old 240... my veary OLD 240...




gona go cry now..

Thats why I am not looking to buy either of these cars, they are pricey. I agree tires are normal wear items but they are upgrades too. Clutches wear out but you can upgrade them, motors wear out, brakes, turbos and any other number of parts also wear out but if you replace them with anything other than what it came with, than the car isn't really stock anymore. For me 600 dollars is half a months pay, its also 5% of the value of my car. To me thats pretty considerable.

i think SOME of the data we've used to compare this came from Japan... correct? (also i'm pretty sure the european edition EVO's share more similarities with the Japanese ed... than the American ed)

Japanese EVO... AYC
American EVO... n/a

active yaw control takes the cake.

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.

wow if you think an evo has too much turbo lag then i don't think you should drive any other turbo cars. the fact is that the EVO's 16G spools much much faster then the ihi turbo the stock STi comes with. the reason why you have the illusion of not feeling lag in a STi is because of the variable cam timing. if you put boost gauges on both cars, the EVO's turbo will spool atleast twice as fast. also the hp difference is practically undetectable after 3K rpm.

you said that those guys are editors who test drive these cars. then you guys might not have read sport compact car much becasue these guys know how to drive and constantly competes in scca class road racing and rallying competitions. they almost always win all tuner mag competitions and knows how the tune the hell out of the suspension. these guys can lap 1:01 seconds on the streets of willow track in a bone stock EVO RS. that is around 20+ seconds faster then a stock 600cc sport bike. these guys knows how to left foot brake, do perfect heal toe, and even knows how to rev match downshift without using the clutch and only using left foot braking. and drive hard as hell down regular streets.

these guys found so many flaws on the 04 Audi S4 to find it scary cause they can drive the car so much harder then road and track and car and driver. while car and driver, and road and track loved the way the S4 handles and said its one of the best handlin cars they ever drove, and said the brakes were just fine. the sport compact car group though the car handled well until you driver 10/10th. which means the other mags can't even push the S4 past 7/10th. SCC complained how the brakes faded and how it understeered and it it was very underdampended and it just was tuned too much towards luxury rather then performance. these guys also won 2 1st place finishes in the SCCA rally class and even beat rhys millen, in their project rally SE-R. i would not dismiss these guys are just ordinary magazine editors.

werd

its the only mag i read. period.

wow if you think an evo has too much turbo lag then i don't think you should drive any other turbo cars. the fact is that the EVO's 16G spools much much faster then the ihi turbo the stock STi comes with. the reason why you have the illusion of not feeling lag in a STi is because of the variable cam timing. if you put boost gauges on both cars, the EVO's turbo will spool atleast twice as fast. also the hp difference is practically undetectable after 3K rpm.

The STi still has more power down low, thanks to its half-liter displacement advantage. How fast each turbo spools is irrelevant; if you look at the dyno sheets for both cars, the STi has the stronger low-end without a doubt.

you said that those guys are editors who test drive these cars. then you guys might not have read sport compact car much becasue these guys know how to drive and constantly competes in scca class road racing and rallying competitions. they almost always win all tuner mag competitions and knows how the tune the hell out of the suspension. these guys can lap 1:01 seconds on the streets of willow track in a bone stock EVO RS. that is around 20+ seconds faster then a stock 600cc sport bike. these guys knows how to left foot brake, do perfect heal toe, and even knows how to rev match downshift without using the clutch and only using left foot braking. and drive hard as hell down regular streets.

Okay, that doesn't mean that their word is the word of God. There are plenty of other equally experienced drivers who don't work for SCC magazine, and still think the STi handles better.

these guys found so many flaws on the 04 Audi S4 to find it scary cause they can drive the car so much harder then road and track and car and driver. while car and driver, and road and track loved the way the S4 handles and said its one of the best handlin cars they ever drove, and said the brakes were just fine. the sport compact car group though the car handled well until you driver 10/10th. which means the other mags can't even push the S4 past 7/10th. SCC complained how the brakes faded and how it understeered and it it was very underdampended and it just was tuned too much towards luxury rather then performance. these guys also won 2 1st place finishes in the SCCA rally class and even beat rhys millen, in their project rally SE-R. i would not dismiss these guys are just ordinary magazine editors.

Okay, now that's just flat-out biased. Car and Driver has been around way longer than SCC has, so I wouldn't be talking any smack about its drivers, and if you read up on the history of the magazine, you'll notice that many of Car and Driver's Editors-in-Chief were very competitive professional racers. I'm sure they found the same flaws as SCC did in the S4 when driven at 10/10ths, but they didn't see fit to condemn the car because of them, because they are mature enough to not instantly judge a car's braking and handling by how it feels at the limit. Car and Driver is mature enough to realize that there is more to driving a car than racing it all over the place. The S4 brakes and handles beautifully while being driven at 7/10ths, and that's exactly where 90% of S4 buyers are going to drive it, because it's not a race car, it's a luxury-sport car. So I don't see what's so bad about their analysis of the S4, or any other car for that matter.

you made some good points about the S4, but that was a performance segment on the comparor in the other mags. they gave the S4 as high of a performance rating as the M3. when SCC was comparing them all, the S4 was the lowest of the bunch and the M3 was among the highest.

like you said, they base it on a car that is being driven at 7/10th's for performance, then why do they even bother with performance test becasue the rating is so subjective rather then all out performance in that seperate section? in c an d, they never mentioned how many cup holders a car has during the performance section, they have a seperate section for that. which is why i find that kinda gay that they don't go all out and drive the cars at the limit and give them the ultimate rating.

i wouldn't judge a car's performance over another car just by driving each at 7/10th. that is just plan retarded. i'm sure your camry handles fine at 7/10ths compared to other cars in its class, but does that mean car and driver should give it an equaly high rating as a more nimble car in its class? no.

i dont' care what the editors did at road and track years ago, by reading their articles they are obviously no geniuses to tuner cars and aspects of performance mods. they would always give the part a incorrect name. esp when its a tuners special like a twin turbo hennessy viper. i guess real race car drivers don't care about the names of certain parts so that when they drive the car, they don't need to tell the mechanic what needs final adjustments. gimme a break.

another thing, they have people writing letters complaining to them saying how mazda is stupid for changing the name of the miata to the mx-5. it was them that started it saying its bad for mazda to change the name of an icon. how retarded is that? its only in the u.s. that the mx-5 was called the miata. the mx-5 was its true name for over 15 years everywhere else in the world. when angry readers complained about mazda changing the name to some "random" name like the mx-5. they gave no replies to even educate these poor guys that the name was the original name everywhere else int eh world.


argh just pulling these things out really pisses me off about those mags!!!

Personally I am more interested in how a car performs at 7/10ths or below. I am not confident that I can drive a car at 10/10ths. I have never been to a road course, which is really the only suitable place for driving like that. Most people are actually getting an inaccurate judgement on a car if they base their opinion on how a car performs at its maximum, because most drivers will never drive it at its maximum. Sad to say, but most people should only really look at highway acceleration, acceleration from a stop, braking, and safety. 90 percent of people that preach handling really don't drive hard enough to notice when a car handles great. I have a buddy with a 94 cobra, that could outhandle another friend of mine with a A4 with considerable modification. Now the A4 is an earth magnet, but my friend with the Cobra just isn't afraid to push that old thing to its limit. Is this because the cobra handles better than the A4? Certainly not. Its because of just what you guys are talking about, people don't drive at 10/10ths and most couldn't if they wanted to.

but you have to admit tat has a point.
if your just looking at daily driving, why test performance numbers at all?
them making the claim that an s4=m3 is ridiculous. even at 7/10 the m3 is faster. the s4 feels solid though and will mistakenly make the driver think it is up to the level of m3. and how they consider the supra and rx7 to be subpar because they didnt like the ride quality at 7/10? what is that? they never even got to the limits of those cars, and if they did they would surely appreciate how much of an advantage they have in the handling department over other sports cars such as the camaro, ect.
i forgot if it was car&driver or road&track or what mag it was but one of them included the r34 skyline gt-r in all their tests and could not break under 14 seconds in the 1/4. thats just sad

they should call it 'car and some drivers'.
actually they should call it 'grocery getter's opinion of cars'

I think you are giving them less credit than they are due. 7/10ths dosn't mean they only push down the accelerator a little past half way, the just aren't beating the hell out of the car. I think it gives a more realistic depiction of what the cars will do. Nearly everyone driving an rx7 or supra would only handle marginally better if any, than say a camaro. Not to say that the car is really the shortcoming, but you have to realize that hardly anyone knows how to drive a car at its limit, I don't know how, most people here don't. Its not saying we aren't decent drivers, or that we spend our time picking up groceries. All I am saying is that to purchase a car based on how a professional driver rated it is pretty short sighted. I like seeing how the average driver rates a car because thats where almost everybody stands. How many people actually get much better 1/4 mile times than C/D? Usually it can be attributed to elevation if they do run better times. I would say they are pretty fair. Also, I wouldn't judge anything against a skyline because its a useless comparison. I have never seen a skyline let alone driven one, or know anyone who has for that matter. Why would I compare a car to this? I don't want to take away from TAT's point, I am just trying to make my own.

like you said, they base it on a car that is being driven at 7/10th's for performance, then why do they even bother with performance test becasue the rating is so subjective rather then all out performance in that seperate section? in c an d, they never mentioned how many cup holders a car has during the performance section, they have a seperate section for that. which is why i find that kinda gay that they don't go all out and drive the cars at the limit and give them the ultimate rating.

i wouldn't judge a car's performance over another car just by driving each at 7/10th. that is just plan retarded. i'm sure your camry handles fine at 7/10ths compared to other cars in its class, but does that mean car and driver should give it an equaly high rating as a more nimble car in its class? no.

Because "performance" has different meanings for different people. There are different levels of "performance". If you're an all-out racer, then you're going to care about how a car performs at the limit. If that's you, go read SCC. If you're not an all-out racer, but you still want something that feels confident and agile when driven fairly hard, C&D's performance ratings are an excellent measure of a car's ability. And no, my Camry does not handle fine at 7/10ths. It body rolls excessively from the start, and it just gets worse the faster I go.

i dont' care what the editors did at road and track years ago, by reading their articles they are obviously no geniuses to tuner cars and aspects of performance mods. they would always give the part a incorrect name. esp when its a tuners special like a twin turbo hennessy viper. i guess real race car drivers don't care about the names of certain parts so that when they drive the car, they don't need to tell the mechanic what needs final adjustments. gimme a break.

I didn't say anything about Road and Track, just Car and Driver. I've only read Road and Track a few times, but what you say about them wouldn't surprise me.

another thing, they have people writing letters complaining to them saying how mazda is stupid for changing the name of the miata to the mx-5. it was them that started it saying its bad for mazda to change the name of an icon. how retarded is that? its only in the u.s. that the mx-5 was called the miata. the mx-5 was its true name for over 15 years everywhere else in the world. when angry readers complained about mazda changing the name to some "random" name like the mx-5. they gave no replies to even educate these poor guys that the name was the original name everywhere else int eh world.

I know that MX-5 is the real name, but still, it is a very stupid thing for Mazda to do. For the 2006 model year, they're releasing a new minivan called the Mazda5. And at the same time, they're renaming their drop top sports car to the MX-5. Those are pretty similar names, and I'm sure that more than one clueless motorist is going to confuse the two. Would you want people confusing your brand new sports car with a minivan?

Mazda5..... MX-5.... only an american would complain that they're too similar.
i can't begin to imagine how many confused BMW, Mercedes and Audi drivers there must be, what with all of their S330CLKs.....

At least those are all luxury cars, and they've all been around for quite a while, so people know what they are, and have had time to learn their names well. The Mazda5 and MX-5 are both all-new for 2006, and because they're new products, I think that's why there's going to be a bit of confusion over the names.

I always get confused with mercedes names, I personally dislike how so many cars names are just numbers or letters not forming a word of any type. BMW and Audi are easy enough to understand though.

well kman i do understand yoru point as well. that is why i perfer to read SCC even though i still turn to those magazines to find out more about ordinary cars.

and blackgt2000, its pretty easy to get the names down for the luxury cars. usualy the prefix is the class of cars. so example for BMW, its a 3, 5, 6, and 7. as the numbers goes up its a bigger car. with the exception of the 6 series which is basically a coupe version of the 5 series. all the cars that ends in Ci means coupe. and all the numbers are the displacement.

330ci means 3 series, 3.0 liter coupe.

er.. that was until bmw replaced the old 2.5 in the 325 with a 2.8 and the new 535d which is actually a 3.0 or the 540 which is a 4.4 and the 320 which is a 2.2......

I didn't realize that the 6 series was only a coupe version of the 5. Interesting. I pretty much got the BMW's down, but the Mercedes throws me off with all the CLK's and SLK's and E320 and what ever else they have. I am sure I will figure it out some day.

It isn't that confusing to me, either. The first number or letter is the car itself (E-Class, 5-Series), and the second series of numbers is the engine's displacement (or a rough estimate). That's how BMW and Mercedes do it here in the States, at least. For some brands, like Audi and Volvo, and the numbers/letters don't really mean anything, but a higher number usually means a more expensive car.

It all depends on what you want, both cars are insane. I just really love the sounds of H4s.

At least those are all luxury cars, and they've all been around for quite a while, so people know what they are, and have had time to learn their names well. The Mazda5 and MX-5 are both all-new for 2006, and because they're new products, I think that's why there's going to be a bit of confusion over the names.

fyi... Mazda called the it the "miata mx-5" ever since the early 90's... and the MX-3's were out since like 92 and the mx-6 was out in the late 80's... it's nothing new.

mazda3? mazda6? mazda5? nothing complicated...

Yeah, but when have they ever had two cars as dissimilar as the Mazda5 and the MX-5 coming out in the same year, with the same first letter and number? I know it seems easy for us car enthusiasts, but the general automotive public is gonna confuse the two, I bet.

hasn't this been addressed like i don't know.........10000000000000000000000000000000001 times??? :banghead: read some other posts comparing these two...don't want to sound mean....but i don't see the point in comparing the two when they're compared all the time....look at the past threads...there you will find your answers young grasshopper....*GONGGGGG*:twak: :smile:

Yeah, this is about the tenth comparison, but whatever. There's always new data and testing coming in on the two, so there's always a good argument to be had.

ehh. you want track handling get an nsx. nuf said

ehh. you want track handling get an nsx. nuf said
you want track handling? buy a lotus elise...i've driven one...the most nimble thing i've driven...........ever...... :sunglasse

You want track handling? Buy a 250cc Superkart. only 4-5 sec/lap slower at Laguna Seca than the Audi R8 last year.

http://www.p1superkart.com/

You want handling, get a 2.0 liter Formula Dodge race car. I just got done with the Skip Barber 3-Day Race School at Laguna Seca. Sorry guys, street cars suck cock. Once you have driven an open wheeled race car, you will never want to go back. The car used in the 3-day class does 1.2 g's turning and 1.3 braking. 0-60 in 4.5 seconds. I'm going to take the Advanced 2-Day Course now and they use the RT 2000 Formula Dodge Race Cars. 1.4 g's cornering and 1.5 braking. It really gives you a whole new perspective on things. If only it wasn't so expensive. I will be in debt for a while.

Sorry to jump in late, i dont often float round this end of the forums.

Have you ever considered comparing the two JDM versions of the EVo and the STi??? Dont hold me to this but im pretty sure USA was the only place for the STi to get the 2.5L engine. I think everywhere else it got a 2L engine.

As "SHIFT_KA24DE" said, apparently the USA didnt get Active Yaw Control... wow you guys missed out. from all of the reviews ive read on it, it absolutely owns. Once you factor in AYV, the difference in handling between the EVO and the STi widens considerably more.

It has been said that the extra touque of the STi means its use in auto-x etc is more widespread. Lets make it an even playing field. What if it didnt have the extra 0.5L ?? What if it only have a 2L engine in it, the same as the EVO? I think the EVO must be pretty good if it can still hold its own in America even though it doesnt have AYC and has a 0.5L disadvantage. Take a quick trip over the Pacific and then take both the cars for a spin. You might be surprised.

I think if it was a matter of comparing the FQ400 Evo to the STi it'd a hands down competition. I don't know if any of you guys watch that show Top Gear, but one episode they were reviewing the FQ400, and the driving it was powersliding with one damn finger! Then they put it to a huge test against a Lambo Mercielago. You'd expect it to be to a blow out, but it was quite the opposite. The Evo was all over the Lambo's ass in the corners and finally the Evo driver pressured the Lambo guy to spin out. It was cool, the Lambo spun in to a 180 and the Evo just creeps up to him so that they're face to face and the Evo guy goes :loser: LOSER! lol it was the best

:iceslolan The FQ400's are insane but even just a normal JDM Evo vs a JDM STi, the EVO would win.

Only in America the STi would make i fight out of it and thats because its the only country to get the 2.5L. In all other places it only had 2L.