Borti

As far as making a WRX into an STI, it would cost well over 20,000 dollars to make a total transformation, actually closer to 30,000. You can, however, make a wrx accelerate faster and handle quicker with the extra money making up the price difference between the two. Keep in mind that this comes at the price of reliability though. However, with the STI you also get front and rear limited slip differentials, lightweight wheels with great tires. 6 speed transmission with manual or auto center diff. control. Lightweight body components. HID headlamps. 300hp and 300 ft-lbs with factory warranty and reliability. 2.5 liters of displacement (though this is not an advantage to the STI to many).

inariv5573

iTrader: (3)

I see what you are saying. Take the higher end of cars from your comparisons. The Cobra, STi, and Evo. All 3 of these cars are strong competitors and nearly equal in performance. Now take the respective "lower" end cars. The Mustang, WRX, and Lancer. Now what is wrong with that picture? While the Mustang and WRX are consistent competitors, they both leave the Lancer in the dust. It doesn't even belong in there with the Mustang and WRX.

favre95

iTrader: (7)

There is something you must know though. The WRX is actually an upgrade to the Impreza. The STI is not built off of a WRX chassis. It is built of the impreza chassis. Which is in the the same class as the lancer (2.5rs = Ralliart). The WRX is just an uprade to the 2.5 RS. Which is the lowest form of Impreza at this current time.

favre95

iTrader: (7)

Subaru just decided to keep the Impreza out of the economy car range. Which is roughly about 14-15 grand range.

Grog

iTrader: (9)

If you go to lancerregister.com, they have a pdf file you can download called the "Evolution Buyer's Guide v3.1". Among other things, it has a complete history of the Evolution model. It's a British website, so they misspell stuff like "tyres" and "tonnes" but you'll get the idea.

http://www.lancerregister.com/art_evobuyersguide.php

You can also get the old sales brochures and technical information about the older models.

Also, http://www.lancer-evo.net has some of the same information, broken down by model, starting with the Evo I. Just go to the Technical Information page.

Thoe99

iTrader: (25)

Here we go again. First, I have to correct you that the first Lancer rally car was the 1600GSR, not the turbo EX2000. The EX2000 is what the Evo was based off of. The Lancer 1200 was a RWD consumer car, not an econobox, in a sense that econobox is today.

"A t the beginning of the 1970's, Mitsubishi mobilized all its forces and aimed its motorsports program at the very highest level."--japan's mitsu site

Back at the time, Mitsubishi was primarily concerned with their winning racing heritage, when they designed the first batch of Lancers, from the 1200cc model to the 1600cc model, the 1600cc being the 1600GSR that they used to rally race with. With this new car design move, after many racing successes with the Colt and Galant, they wanted to make sure the rally version would also have a consumer version, because official rally rules said that rally cars must also have a variety that they sold to the consumers. Therefore, it was the racing idea that the Lancers were built off of, not the "econobox-roots" idea. Point being, Lancer is not a term that refers to "econobox." It is only in the US that some people tend to have this connection, since we got the regular Lancers before the Evo. Lancer in other countries, especially Japan refer to the racing heritage that it was based upon.

The first Lancer, 1600GSR:


The Lancer EX2000 Turbo:


Here's the whole history of the Evo:
https://www.evolutionm.net/features/article/lanevo/20

housedj

iTrader: (2)

every evo garage should have both of those & an evo 1.

favre95

iTrader: (7)

yes, true...about the "econobox" idea. But, mitsubishi decided to use the lancer chassis as its "econobox" car. So the chassis for the Evo is derived from a plain lancer chassis, probably for homologation purposes. It doesn't matter what angle you look at the Evo/Lancer comparison at, the chassis used for the lancer is used for Evo too. And human nature makes us begin with simpilest form to most complex.

Thoe99

iTrader: (25)

I'm trying to point out that the idea of the whole Lancer birth was sparked from the successes of the Colt and Galant, which were used for rallying. It wasn't like they made a Lancer for a good time being, and then said, "hey, let's build a rally car off the Lancer." They had the whole rally car idea in mind when they went to a totally different base, away from the Colt and Galant.

DaGuL

iTrader: (1)

Just because of the extra welds and thicker sheet metal, doesn't make it a completely different chassis. You gotta support all that extra hardware somehow... They all start out on the same assembly line.

GPTourer

There are "econobox" FWD cheap Subaru Imprezas. They used to sell them here and they probably still do somewhere in the world, so it doesn't necessarily cheapen the Lancer heritage just because their exists a 14-15K version of it as opposed to the higher priced Subrau 2.5RS.
For every Cobra R or supercharged Cobra there's probably 20-100 V6 base Stangs.
For every Lightning there's a XL V6 work truck.
The same goes for Neon---SRT4 and all the other cars mentioned in this thread.

erikgj

iTrader: (2)

The lancer and the Evo share interior bits and the front doors, trunk and glass. That is about it.

The body stamping is different, it is wider. It made with several different assembly techniques MASH welding for instance. Many of the body reinforcements are welded in place by hand. The reinforcements are added not to stiffen a base lancer chassis but because of the limits of sheet metal forming technology.

The commonality is at the most basic platform sharing level.

The Audi TT, A3 and Golf, Jetta, New beetle, several Seats and several Skodas have much more in common amongst themselves than do the Lancer and Evo. The only thing keeping the lancer name on the USDM Evo is a trademark issue. An Evo looks like a lancer but could easily not if Mitsubishi was more interested in fashion.

I would not be insulted by the Evo being an extension of the basic lancer at all. The base lancer is a well built technologically advanced car. I would hold no shame at all to be based off of one. It is more advanced than the new Mustang for one. The fact that it is relatively cheap just added to the charm and the achievement of the lancer engineering team.

When the latest lancer came out in Japan. Mr. Fuji (the real Mr. Evo) said that extensive feedback from the Evo team was incorporated into the base lancer to improve the overall platform for the VII.

GPTourer

I agree with this, but I would go on to say that the overall shape of the car, including its greenhouse does bind the two together as close siblings.

And that is the basis of this whole discussion. You (in general) are never going to convince someone in a Cobra or Z06 that has no respect for your car that the Evo isn't "based on some econobox" car. So it doesn't really matter. That is until you beat them.

erikgj

iTrader: (2)

With the time and money I could beat them with a Lancer or a Civic too. That proves nothing. I have nothing to prove to anybody anyways. The Evo is what it is. one of the crowning achievements of rally homologation, a dieing tradition BTW.

I respect Z06 because they perform. It is the engineer in me.

Thoe99

iTrader: (25)

Do you guys not see what I said earlier?? The original argument was that some people thought word Lancer had ties with "econobox." It was never that. The original Lancers were built upon the rally racing ideas. I don't care if it shares the same this or that. Lancer has a history of genuine racing heritage.