What would you rather have...and why?

[GScivic7]

I wanna know how a S2K is better than an Evo and STi and how the Evo and STi are crappy

[chris26969]

Originally Posted by GScivic7

I wanna know how a S2K is better than an Evo and STi and how the Evo and STi are crappy

I would like to know this too. ..

Aparently a Brand New car being fast and nice isnt good enough for some people. Tired of the "if its not a honda it sucks" mentality.

[Thepeug]

The Evo and Sti cetainly aren't crappy, but it's all a matter of preference. I'm an all-motor guy, and the F20C personifies the potential of all-motor. Take the massive turbos off of the Sti or the Evo engines, and you've got two average wannabe racecars with oversized wings and hood-scoops. Of course, no one would take the turbos off, so that point is pretty much invalid, but as one who would rather have tuned NA than boost, I'd much rather spend 30k on an s2k than an Sti or Evo.

[chris26969]

good for someone to make a valid statement of opinion. rather than "they are poopy"


I personally like the s2k, yet the fact that th Evo and Sti are 4door is pretty cool to have a flying car that you can still bring all your friends out and chill in. And AWD is a prize in itsself. I understand your comments of Turbo VS NA. But i mean you could never take the turbos off and compare them because the cars were made to handle boost rather than be NA. If i were to say spend 30k on a NA car, id go 350z personally.

The plus of a turbo car, is the easy mods that can be done to create huge power increases. Upping PSI, Bigger Injectors, Better flowing piping, New Intercooler, New Turbo. Its kinda cool that on a car like that if you put on a diffrnt Turbo for around 900 dollars. You would be looking at a 400HP car, considering the EVOs FMIC is said to flow nicely and hoping the Injectors would handle.

[Thepeug]

I understand what you're saying about taking the turbos off, and that's why I called the point 'invalid.' No one would do it. It'd be a waste of a nicely built (as in 'built to handle turbo') engine. I also agree that it's much easier and cheaper to get huge hp numbers out of a turbo'd engine than an NA one. I suspect that both the Sti and Evo engnes behave similarly to the engine in the 3rd-gen RX-7, however. They're all high-boost engines that begin to lose power after 80k+miles and have to be replaced, along with the turbos. High hp and high boost makes for a volatile engine that never lasts too long. If you have the money for replacements, however, the power would be quite a rush...

[chris26969]

thing about the Rx7s is they are rotary. Rotary is terrible for reliability. I own an Eclipse GSX, and in the DSM scene the high boost engines last for a good 200k on average. Not bad at all for such a high boost engine. I suspect much of the same behavior out of the EVO. Alot of people that i talk to have around 150k on there engines, stock turbos. So the unreliable turbo theory is out the window. It could just be Mitsubishi turbos are built with quality. Because the 2g eclipses (mine) have a garret T25 and i believe its known for those to die before the Mitsu ones. Plus Mitsu turbos are Diirrrt cheap.

[Thepeug]

Well, it was just a theory. Coming from someone who owns a boosted Mitsu, you probably know a lot more about those engines than I do. While we're on the topic, have you ever had a problem with crankwalk? I hear that's a a common problem with 2g eclipse engines.

[chris26969]

Ahh, Beloved Crank Walk. It in a sence is another Fairy tale about the 2g Eclipses. The amount of people that have reported it is so minimal its ridiculous. ( i was worried before i bought my car too) Reading up on it. Within like the people who go on Dsmtuners numbers like 1 in 300 were thrown out of the odds of getting it and thats with high boost on a bigger turbo and stress from high revs on a manual tranny.as a guess culprate.

www.dsmtuners.com

Read around, its very hard to actually find someone who has got crankwalk. Ive talked to like 1 person i believe. The other problem with it, its over played so when ANYTHING goes wrong you will see a post" Do I have Crankwalk?" And turns out they need a new clutch or seomething along those lines.

Also reading around alot of people with 2g eclipses ( the nicer looking eclipses) swap in the 1g eclipse engine(nearly no reports or theorys of crankwalk) just in fear of Crank walk from a 2g. Plus the 1g eclipse comes with a 14b turbo (mitsubishi) and can take the car up to around 300 hp at the crank. You can get there with a catback, Turbo intake, Ic piping, Manual boost controller and some supporting fuel mods. pretty cheap to get to 300hp on stock internals and turbo.

Just some food for thought. Considering i dont know much about the EVO, my guesses its built damn near close to the likes of the eclipse engine. Which is my main reasoning i lean towards the EVO...now only if i had 30k....

[Thepeug]

Thanks for the info. From what you're saying, crankwalk isn't nearly as much of a problem as I thought it was. I considered a 2g eclipse for awhile, but after reading consumer reviews on carreview.com and edmunds.com, it seemed as though crankwalk was an epidemic among DSM's. Maybe the majority of people who post on those sites are those few who've had problems with their cars.

[chris26969]

exactly. Say if you hear 100 posts of crank walk.. Where is the 1 million posts of no crank walk. its all relative. aww its too bad you never bought a DSM. THe 1990 Talons are real cheap TSI AWD would probably run you around 3k with 100k miles on it .

[Thepeug]

I haven't actually bought a car yet, so my options are still open. I know that 1g talons have a ton of potential, but frankly I just think they're kinda ugly. 2g's, however, are a different story...

[Ricochet]

Originally Posted by chris26969

I own an Eclipse GSX, and in the DSM scene the high boost engines last for a good 200k on average.

Are you high? Older DSM's are pieces of shit and everybody knows it. Car/Driver gave it 1/5 stars in reliability, my insurance was high because of reliability ('94 Talon), and the thing needed EVERYTHING replaced for the whole year I owned it. I started getting the "DSM tick" which mutated into a spun bearing, fucking up the entire engine with shrapnel in the oil. The automatic tranny went out, the brakes/rotors were total crap, always making loud noises, and it was just a total mess. The car was fun as hell to drive... when it wasn't in the shop... 200k miles on average? Buuuuullshit.

[Xv7vX]

WRX all they way.

Thoese mitsui's are going to break like all there other cars. I'm not talking out of my ass either, i am in a seasoned mitusbuishi buyer family.

Plus the STI are beautiful

[ra227]

None of these cars are on my "first choice" list but I would have to go with the STI- although I don't like the new ones I like the older ones w/ the circle lights in front.

[Thepeug]

Originally Posted by Ricochet

Are you high? Older DSM's are pieces of shit and everybody knows it. Car/Driver gave it 1/5 stars in reliability, my insurance was high because of reliability ('94 Talon), and the thing needed EVERYTHING replaced for the whole year I owned it. I started getting the "DSM tick" which mutated into a spun bearing, fucking up the entire engine with shrapnel in the oil. The automatic tranny went out, the brakes/rotors were total crap, always making loud noises, and it was just a total mess. The car was fun as hell to drive... when it wasn't in the shop... 200k miles on average? Buuuuullshit.

200k miles on a boosted engine does seem like a bit much. Even without a turbo, most engines don't live that long, let alone engines that have the added stress of a turbo.