STI vs stangGT vs EVO8

[OoNismoO]

the evo isnt about as fast as the STI, the STI is faster than the evo. here are the times i got from car and driver magazine for both cars.

STI 0-60 4.6 sec 1/4 13.2 sec, mitsubishi evo 0-60 5.0 sec 1/4 13.6 sec, i know different resources get different times, but almost all, or most of them tend to get the STI at least around .4 sec faster than the evo for the 1/4 mile. for 0-130 mph, STI gets 24.5 sec, evo gets 28.5 sec.

for the 1.1 mile road course, the STI got 1:04.34, the evo got 1:04.18. on the off road section, STI gets 48.89 sec, evo gets 48.62 sec, now those are really close times. both get .90 on the 300ft skidpad, but the STI still has a softer ride, and more roll, which means the STI has better balance. if you fix that, and improve the brakes a little, then i bet it would beat the evo. emergency lane change for the STI was better, 72.5mph vs 71.5mph. braking is better for the evo, 157ft vs 166ft.

[youngvr4]

well people he's not lying, it does say 13.6 but it also doesnt state if there talking about the evo-8 or evo-7
in moter trend the stats are

evo-8 1/4mile 13.1 at 105
wrx sti 1/4mile 13.2 at 104

so like i stated there so close, it probably depends on the driver

[Tekone]

Originally Posted by OoNismoO

the evo isnt about as fast as the STI, the STI is faster than the evo. here are the times i got from car and driver magazine for both cars.

STI 0-60 4.6 sec 1/4 13.2 sec, mitsubishi evo 0-60 5.0 sec 1/4 13.6 sec, i know different resources get different times, but almost all, or most of them tend to get the STI at least around .4 sec faster than the evo for the 1/4 mile. for 0-130 mph, STI gets 24.5 sec, evo gets 28.5 sec.

for the 1.1 mile road course, the STI got 1:04.34, the evo got 1:04.18. on the off road section, STI gets 48.89 sec, evo gets 48.62 sec, now those are really close times. both get .90 on the 300ft skidpad, but the STI still has a softer ride, and more roll, which means the STI has better balance. if you fix that, and improve the brakes a little, then i bet it would beat the evo. emergency lane change for the STI was better, 72.5mph vs 71.5mph. braking is better for the evo, 157ft vs 166ft.

Quarter-mile times are usually worthless when comparing two similar performing cars. Why? Because, as you just pointed out, two different magazines can get two different times out of the same car. That is why people use trap speeds when comparing cars. Trap speeds show where the real horsepower is. Both cars trap within a mile of each other. That is close. Hence, why I said both cars are similar in performance.

[Kurtdg19]

Why is there a Mustang GT being compared with an sti and evo8, especially in a rally event?

Like you've heard already, the GT would get its ass handed twice to it.

Evo8 and Sti are just to damn close to compare. Their almost like twins, in the performance perspective. Granted the sti is more tame for daily commute, their still pretty close to call.

I would take the Sti over the evo and.....the other one.

Really, be honest, was the GT thrown in for shits and giggles or what?

[syr74]

Okay...just for shits and giggles. First, lets get in relatively the same price range first of all. Hell, a GT costs enough less than an Evo or STI in comparable trim to go to Jamaica three times....and stay at a d*&n nice hotel.

Even a Mach 1 costs less than a comparably equipped STI or Evo...look it up you can see it all day long on the manufacturer's site... they call it MSRP. An Evo stickers for 32 grand and that's dang near a stripped car.....you still have to select freakin' floor floor mats as an option, not to mention the good brakes, and the wing, and the wheels everyone wants. So lets take a reality pill here.

For about three grand more...sticker to sticker....than an Evo that isn't nearly as well equipped I can have a 03 supercharged Cobra. Get the Evo as equipped as closely as you can and its more like two grand or less. My point is, put simply, that on everything except dirt or a very twisty road circuit, an 03 Cobra will hand an Evo or an STI it's...well, you know

For our friend with the Z...Car and Driver may have picked the 350Z as their favorite car in their Cobra, 350Z, RX-8 comparo. But, take another look and notice performance figures. The Cobra beheaded the 350 Z EVERYWHERE, even on the road course. It was not a close race. And, whoever told you a 350Z would outrun a GT in the 1/4 was smokin' something cause I have seen the 350Z get blown off badly enough to know that it ain't so.

A Mach 1 will even take the Evo or an STI in a straight line (it will stomp the Z into dust) and it's cheaper than either. I have been to the track, and I have seen the Subie's run, no Evo's as yet.....Put simply , they are over-rated, and waaaay overpriced. One of my best friends has a Turbo Supra (an import but worthy of respect), and he is an import guy all the way. He got out of a drive in a WRX and summed it up perfectly. "What's all the fuss about?". Having driven a WRX, those are my sentiments exactly...and another four tenths wouldn't change my mind

[Kurtdg19]

Originally Posted by syr74

Okay...just for shits and giggles. First, lets get in relatively the same price range first of all. Hell, a GT costs enough less than an Evo or STI in comparable trim to go to Jamaica three times....and stay at a d*&n nice hotel.

Even a Mach 1 costs less than a comparably equipped STI or Evo...look it up you can see it all day long on the manufacturer's site... they call it MSRP. An Evo stickers for 32 grand and that's dang near a stripped car.....you still have to select freakin' floor floor mats as an option, not to mention the good brakes, and the wing, and the wheels everyone wants. So lets take a reality pill here.

For about three grand more...sticker to sticker....than an Evo that isn't nearly as well equipped I can have a 03 supercharged Cobra. Get the Evo as equipped as closely as you can and its more like two grand or less. My point is, put simply, that on everything except dirt or a very twisty road circuit, an 03 Cobra will hand an Evo or an STI it's...well, you know

For our friend with the Z...Car and Driver may have picked the 350Z as their favorite car in their Cobra, 350Z, RX-8 comparo. But, take another look and notice performance figures. The Cobra beheaded the 350 Z EVERYWHERE, even on the road course. It was not a close race. And, whoever told you a 350Z would outrun a GT in the 1/4 was smokin' something cause I have seen the 350Z get blown off badly enough to know that it ain't so.

A Mach 1 will even take the Evo or an STI in a straight line (it will stomp the Z into dust) and it's cheaper than either. I have been to the track, and I have seen the Subie's run, no Evo's as yet.....Put simply , they are over-rated, and waaaay overpriced. One of my best friends has a Turbo Supra (an import but worthy of respect), and he is an import guy all the way. He got out of a drive in a WRX and summed it up perfectly. "What's all the fuss about?". Having driven a WRX, those are my sentiments exactly...and another four tenths wouldn't change my mind

Who's comparing a Mach 1, 350Z, Cobra, or price? I (along with mostly everyone else) am comparing an Sti, Evo8, and a Mustang GT; which brings me to my last question, are you on the right thread?

[syr74]

Originally Posted by Kurtdg19

Who's comparing a Mach 1, 350Z, Cobra, or price? I (along with mostly everyone else) am comparing an Sti, Evo8, and a Mustang GT; which brings me to my last question, are you on the right thread?

No..let me clarify what some (ahem) are doing. SOME people are trying to make a couiple of over priced, over rated, and under performing rice burners look better than they are. If you want to get stupid about comparos lets compare the new Ford GT to the Evo8 and the STI. Hey, it ain't about price...right? Wonder who would win THAT one?

Apparently Somebody always has to to show up with a reality check for Evo and STi enthusiasts. I just made a point..and a relevant one I might add. If the little sedans cannot take the heat of the competition...well, the kitchen does have a door and they can leave the racin' to the real cars. I figure the hamsters could use a break anyway.

[dayna240sx]

Originally Posted by syr74

A Mach 1 will even take the Evo or an STI in a straight line

And the STi or Evo will take the Mach 1 on any condition other than dry pavement. Stop being so narrowminded.

[kfoote]

At NHIS (road course) a few weeks ago, I ran my STi in bone stock condition (stock tires, even), and was 3 sec/lap slower than a very well driven, well prepared Mustang GT with suspension mods and DOT Track tires (I think he was running Kumho Victoracers) in the dry...and it was the first time I'd ever had the STi on track. Having driven on several different tires, I figure those alone are good for about 4 sec/lap, and racing brake pads are good for another 2. There was also another, older 5.0 mustang on the track with me similarly prepped, and I pulled 10 (ten!) car lengths on him coming out of the slowest corner on the track and up (steep hill) the following straight. Frankly, not many people run Mustangs in SCCA because they aren't competitive with the GM products in the same class. (AS, T1, T2, specifically)

-STi owner still waiting for reality check

[syr74]

Hey, I am glad you like your car. And, if outrunning a much less expensive, relatively straight line oriented car in your road race inspired vehicle makes you feel good there is no law against it. I just find it very interesting that STi and Evo guys evade comparisons to the much more competitively priced (to an STi or Evo) 03 Mustang Cobra. As I said maybe on dirt or an extremely twisty track...and as someone mentioned above in rain. However, I don't see a lot of people scrambling to race on dirt or in rain as yet. Must just be the area.

Your reality check has a snake on it

[Kurtdg19]

Originally Posted by syr74

No..let me clarify what some (ahem) are doing. SOME people are trying to make a couiple of over priced, over rated, and under performing rice burners look better than they are. If you want to get stupid about comparos lets compare the new Ford GT to the Evo8 and the STI. Hey, it ain't about price...right? Wonder who would win THAT one?

Apparently Somebody always has to to show up with a reality check for Evo and STi enthusiasts. I just made a point..and a relevant one I might add. If the little sedans cannot take the heat of the competition...well, the kitchen does have a door and they can leave the racin' to the real cars. I figure the hamsters could use a break anyway.

Apparently sombody needs to show up with a reality check for Mustangs. A Ford GT would beat the Evo8, Sti on a track, strip, but not in a rally event. Needless to say it would be embarrassed. Price didn't matter there. You see, an sti, and the evo8, have other purposes than track, strip driving, just as well as Mustangs have other purposes.

What I am replying to (until now) is the topic at hand, maybe you should post a thread on a 'non-stupid comparo' that includes a mustang.

Originally Posted by kfoote

At NHIS (road course) a few weeks ago, I ran my STi in bone stock condition (stock tires, even), and was 3 sec/lap slower than a very well driven, well prepared Mustang GT with suspension mods and DOT Track tires (I think he was running Kumho Victoracers) in the dry...and it was the first time I'd ever had the STi on track. Having driven on several different tires, I figure those alone are good for about 4 sec/lap, and racing brake pads are good for another 2. There was also another, older 5.0 mustang on the track with me similarly prepped, and I pulled 10 (ten!) car lengths on him coming out of the slowest corner on the track and up (steep hill) the following straight. Frankly, not many people run Mustangs in SCCA because they aren't competitive with the GM products in the same class. (AS, T1, T2, specifically).

Like you said yourself, a bone stock STI racing a very well driven, well prepared Mustang GT with suspension mods and DOT Track tires. So basically, a modified Mustang GT, beat a stock STI. I can belive that.

Lets try this one. A stock Mustang GT, beat a stock STI.....not quite. Any vehicle can be modified to beat other vehicles. It just so happens that (most of the time) Mustang's have to be modified to compete, which you so generously prooved.

[syr74]

Ah, still avoiding the shootout with the Mustang in the price range I see. I could buy the "it was about the GT versus the ricers" argument except comments like "Mustangs have to be modified" need to be qualified with stamements that acknowledge that this is not the Mustang the STi and Evo compete with price wise.

Otherwise, you just end up looking foolish, or like you are making excuses for the Evo and STi. Although, nobody would be making excuses for these cars if they didn't need them.... now would they.

As there is no more f-body to compete with (unfortunately), in their respective price ranges the Mustangs do very well indeed....virtually standing alone. In fact, I think it is more of a reflection on the STi and Evo that their enthusiasts have to resort to comparisons to much less expensive automobiles in order to feel like they can win.

Hey, why not start a Kia Reo/STi/Evo comparo. It'll make the Subie and Mitsu look gooood.

[kfoote]

I used the Mustang GT (2000, I believe, with the 4.6) as an example because it makes the Mustang Cobra look better. The only 2003 Mustang Cobra I've seen this year has been slower than the (better driven) Mustang GT by 5+ sec/lap over similarly prepared (suspension upgrades, track tires, intake) Mustang GT. There is even some merit to the GT being better on a road course, as the restrictions for the suspension geometry of the IRS in the Cobra placed on the engineers by the Ford bean counters basically nullify the advantage that a properly designed IRS has, though the power difference does make up for it.

BTW, I've been on track 7 weekends this year, and it's rained at some point while I've been on track 5 of those weekends. 4 wide at the start on the front straight at Lime Rock is very interesting when you can't see through the spray in front of you.

I do agree that the original thread with the Mustang GT is a bit silly, and that the SVT Cobra would be a much better car to compare it to, even with the extra $3k price tag on the Cobra, and makes things a lot closer, and on a dry track may be faster than the EVO or STi until the brakes go.

I live in an area where it snows as well, and the Mustang is useless with the white stuff on the ground.

[Kurtdg19]

It seems the only argument you have is that a Mustang is cheaper than the others. It would of been easier just to say that than to go on and on.

But ok lets see what could be compared with a Mustang GT in a respective price range. We've got a new SRT-4 starting around 20k, Toyota MR2 turbo 20k, 350Z 28k, S2000 29k, Mustang GT 25k. Now since the 350Z/S2000 cost more than the GT, can I compare them?

Now the GT stang will be able to stay with these in the quarter, but on the track, I'm guessing its going to be playing tag at the back of the line. It considerably outweight all of these vehicles, closest to the 350Z. The GT Stang does not virtually stand alone in its class, more like virtually stands in the back. We can also throw in a standard WRX 25k, that would be fun to watch to.

[youngvr4]

Originally Posted by syr74

Ah, still avoiding the shootout with the Mustang in the price range I see.

why start talking about price range, fact is it can't compete period.
who can't say, "well i can put $10,000 into my rx-7 and beat a 2003 viper"

were not speaking on those terms, discussion is evo-8, sti,or mustang (can't hang) gt.