Car and Driver: Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution MR Edition vs. Subaru Impreza WRX STi
Feb 20, 2005 | 09:15 PM
#2
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (56)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 11,132
Likes: 1
From: Western NY
What we have here, in case you've been in a time warp the past couple years, are the Bad-Boy Cars, cars that began as family sedans—the Subaru Impreza and the Mitsubishi Lancer—but developed behavioral traits that are viewed by family types as threatening. Wheelspin. Impatience with the daily plodders. Lightning lane changing. Tigerish behavior on remote byways.
The plodders call this sort of action sociopathic scofflaw road rage. We have a shorter term for it: fun.
During the height of the muscle-car era, there were all sorts of these rascals rippin' up the roads, propelled by big-inch V-8 engines: Chevelle SS 454. Ford 427 Fairlane 500. Olds 4-4-2. Plymouth Road Runner. Dodge Dart GTS. Tire shredders, every one. And that's just a few of 'em.
Today, there are just these two, both hailing from Japan. Now, you might make a case for the Dodge SRT-4, which has become bad enough to be disinherited by its mainstream family: You can't call it a Neon anymore. And we await the arrival of the all-wheel-drive Mazdaspeed 6, previewed here. Nor have we forgotten VW's R32. But the SRT-4, although quick, doesn't have the grunt of the Japanese cars, nor does it deliver power to all four wheels. VW is fresh out of U.S.-spec R32s, and we won't get the Mazda to a test track before spring. So for the time being, at least, we're still mano a mano.
The Evo and the STi owe their development to professional rally competition—a world of high speed, low adhesion, and lots of sideways driving. Both of these cars have been the core of World Rally Championship efforts. Subaru began campaigning the Impreza in 1993 and won manufacturers' titles in 1995, '96, and '97, plus drivers' championships in '95 (Colin McRae) and '01 (Richard Burns). Mitsubishi had a run of four straight drivers' titles-1996-99 (Tommi Mäkinen)—and a manufacturers' crown in '98. Technology transfer is a common rationale for a carmaker's racing involvement, but in this case, there's substance to the claims. Both turbo motors, for example, are exceptionally strong at the core, a trickledown of racing editions that produce over 300 horsepower.
Both body shells are exceptionally rigid, both suspension setups are tuned to keep cornering attitudes flat and responses instantaneous. Both brake systems are by Brembo, and both are race worthy. And both all-wheel-drive systems have features that go beyond those of other passenger-car systems, a legacy of racing versions that have to keep all four wheels scratching all the time. (Particulars are detailed in this technical article.)
The net result is a pair of extraordinarily hairy-chested small cars that appeal to a narrow range of drivers. Both speak to their operators in conspiratorial imperatives along the lines of "Let's go! Whatsamatta, man? I thought you could drive!" Not so good for driver-license preservation, but very good for the soul. If your expectations include creamy ride, quiet operation, and lots of amenities, you're in the wrong story. But if exceptional all-around performance is the priority, with the bonus, however illusory, of four-door practicality, for the money it just doesn't get any better than this.
Why Do These Similar Cars
Feel So Different?
After years of yearning by U.S. WRC cognoscenti, the Evo and the STi finally snarled into U.S. showrooms in early 2003. We immediately matched them up in a two-car comparo ["New-Wave Slingshots," C/D, June 2003] that included a dirt-road component and the eye-widening skills of retired rally ace Rod Millen. The Evo prevailed by a whisker.
It's been 19 months since that landmark showdown. Both cars offer updates for the '05 model year, extensive enough to call for a rematch. We do this purely as a public service; no self-indulgence whatsoever. No, sir.
Our approach was a little different this time around. A replica rally stage wasn't part of the scoring, nor did we bring in any hired hotshoes. This time we drove over 450 miles of Michigan's winter-rumpled pavement (as distinct from the first runoff's smooth byways in California), and instead of the tight corners of the Streets of Willow in that state's high desert, we exercised the cars on Michigan's GingerMan Raceway, a distinctly faster layout.
As always, we've picked a winner. But that's pro forma, and the distinctions are subtle. With performance as the objective, it's hard to imagine anyone being disappointed with either of these cars.
The plodders call this sort of action sociopathic scofflaw road rage. We have a shorter term for it: fun.
During the height of the muscle-car era, there were all sorts of these rascals rippin' up the roads, propelled by big-inch V-8 engines: Chevelle SS 454. Ford 427 Fairlane 500. Olds 4-4-2. Plymouth Road Runner. Dodge Dart GTS. Tire shredders, every one. And that's just a few of 'em.
Today, there are just these two, both hailing from Japan. Now, you might make a case for the Dodge SRT-4, which has become bad enough to be disinherited by its mainstream family: You can't call it a Neon anymore. And we await the arrival of the all-wheel-drive Mazdaspeed 6, previewed here. Nor have we forgotten VW's R32. But the SRT-4, although quick, doesn't have the grunt of the Japanese cars, nor does it deliver power to all four wheels. VW is fresh out of U.S.-spec R32s, and we won't get the Mazda to a test track before spring. So for the time being, at least, we're still mano a mano.
The Evo and the STi owe their development to professional rally competition—a world of high speed, low adhesion, and lots of sideways driving. Both of these cars have been the core of World Rally Championship efforts. Subaru began campaigning the Impreza in 1993 and won manufacturers' titles in 1995, '96, and '97, plus drivers' championships in '95 (Colin McRae) and '01 (Richard Burns). Mitsubishi had a run of four straight drivers' titles-1996-99 (Tommi Mäkinen)—and a manufacturers' crown in '98. Technology transfer is a common rationale for a carmaker's racing involvement, but in this case, there's substance to the claims. Both turbo motors, for example, are exceptionally strong at the core, a trickledown of racing editions that produce over 300 horsepower.
Both body shells are exceptionally rigid, both suspension setups are tuned to keep cornering attitudes flat and responses instantaneous. Both brake systems are by Brembo, and both are race worthy. And both all-wheel-drive systems have features that go beyond those of other passenger-car systems, a legacy of racing versions that have to keep all four wheels scratching all the time. (Particulars are detailed in this technical article.)
The net result is a pair of extraordinarily hairy-chested small cars that appeal to a narrow range of drivers. Both speak to their operators in conspiratorial imperatives along the lines of "Let's go! Whatsamatta, man? I thought you could drive!" Not so good for driver-license preservation, but very good for the soul. If your expectations include creamy ride, quiet operation, and lots of amenities, you're in the wrong story. But if exceptional all-around performance is the priority, with the bonus, however illusory, of four-door practicality, for the money it just doesn't get any better than this.
Why Do These Similar Cars
Feel So Different?
After years of yearning by U.S. WRC cognoscenti, the Evo and the STi finally snarled into U.S. showrooms in early 2003. We immediately matched them up in a two-car comparo ["New-Wave Slingshots," C/D, June 2003] that included a dirt-road component and the eye-widening skills of retired rally ace Rod Millen. The Evo prevailed by a whisker.
It's been 19 months since that landmark showdown. Both cars offer updates for the '05 model year, extensive enough to call for a rematch. We do this purely as a public service; no self-indulgence whatsoever. No, sir.
Our approach was a little different this time around. A replica rally stage wasn't part of the scoring, nor did we bring in any hired hotshoes. This time we drove over 450 miles of Michigan's winter-rumpled pavement (as distinct from the first runoff's smooth byways in California), and instead of the tight corners of the Streets of Willow in that state's high desert, we exercised the cars on Michigan's GingerMan Raceway, a distinctly faster layout.
As always, we've picked a winner. But that's pro forma, and the distinctions are subtle. With performance as the objective, it's hard to imagine anyone being disappointed with either of these cars.
Feb 20, 2005 | 09:17 PM
#3
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (56)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 11,132
Likes: 1
From: Western NY
Second Place
Subaru Impreza WRX STi
As noted, the '05 WRX STi (for Subaru Tecnica International, Subie's motorsports arm) seems at a glance to be a carbon copy of the '04 edition. Then you look inside and find a new dashboard, new door panels, new "high friction" seat inserts conceived to keep the driver and front passenger planted, and a new standard 140-watt audio system that includes a six-CD in-dash changer. If you wanted tunes in your '04 STi, it cost extra.
The STi already held the edge in interior materials, and the upgrades make it look distinctly more upscale than the low-grade plastics and hard-to-scan instruments in the Evo. Although both cars are clad with cloth, rather than leather, the Subie's interior looks more like what you'd expect of a car in the mid-$30,000 range.
Other upgrades in the Subaru are more subtle. There's a new limited-slip diff up front, new shrouding to clean up airflow beneath the car, aluminum lateral suspension links at the rear, a quicker steering ratio, wider wheels (8.0 inches versus 7.5), and a wider—by 0.4 inch—rear track.
Something that didn't change is engine output. At max boost—14.5 psi—the Subaru's turbocharged and intercooled 2.5-liter flat-four cranks out 300 horsepower at 6000 rpm and 300 pound-feet of torque at 4000. That torque peak is 500 rpm higher than the Evo's (not to mention stouter by 14 pound-feet), but the curve is fat and flat, yielding plenty of thrust across a broader band than the Mitsu's 2.0-liter four. Although it doesn't show in the acceleration times (the Evo was quicker by 0.1 second to 60 and by 0.5 to 100 mph, a marked difference from that first shootout, where the Subie was swifter), the Subaru delivers distinctly better punch coming off corners, once the car is pointed straight. A key point to which we'll return.
The bottom line is an engine that provides more thrust with less rowing through the six-speed manual gearbox and less waiting for turbo boost to assert itself. Although rowing the six speeds in either of these cars is far from tedious, thanks to positive engagements, particularly in the WRX, there are times when the driver wants to tramp on the gas and have something happen immediately. The STi is good at this. Moreover, it feels good, delivering that heady sense of massive hydraulic thrust that goes with a powerful turbo engine.
Nevertheless, we still rank the STi a notch behind the Evo, despite the updates, despite an outstanding all-wheel-drive system, despite increased traction. If you want to pin the tail on the donkey, in a word the culprit is understeer. The 8.0-by-17-inch wheels give the '05 STi a little more grip than the one we tested in '03: 0.92 lateral g on the skidpad versus 0.90 (the 225/45-17 Bridgestone Potenza RE070s are the same size, but wider wheels equal better sidewall support). That alone might lead you to expect better performance during quick directional changes. It certainly didn't hurt the Subaru's braking numbers—157 feet from 70 mph, identical with the Evo's performance, nine feet better than the '03 test, and outstanding by any measure.
But in the business of getting the car to hurry through corners, its behavior was consistently reluctant. This was apparent on various Michigan back roads, and even more apparent at GingerMan, where it's impossible to hide from a stopwatch. At corner exits, the Subaru's torque asserted itself, hustling the car toward the next corner with a will. But the Evo's superior athleticism added up to an advantage of about 0.3 second per lap, 1:38.88 versus 1:39.15, around the 1.88-mile road course.
Our other STi reservations carry over from the '03 confrontation. The front seats, for example, look like they've been plucked from a race car, but the side bolsters are squishy, and there's a little too much room between those bolsters, which means the driver winds up sliding around during hard cornering, the high-friction upholstery notwithstanding. In '03 we also remarked on the quivering of that vast hood scoop—it makes the Subie feel bigger than the Evo, even though it's smaller in every dimension—and the equally huge rear wing. They're still quivery. And even though both cars generate a level of mechanical noise that would be unacceptable in an ordinary sedan, the STi generates more of it.
So in the end, our rematch comes out pretty much the same, even though both contenders play at a slightly higher level. Agility is a key trait in our appreciation of performance cars, and the STi isn't quite as quick on its feet as its rival. If agility isn't your top priority, you may be perfectly happy with the STi. At $33,808 as tested, it's $2266 less than the Evo MR, and you will never, ever tire of the torque monster that lives within.
Subaru Impreza WRX STi
As noted, the '05 WRX STi (for Subaru Tecnica International, Subie's motorsports arm) seems at a glance to be a carbon copy of the '04 edition. Then you look inside and find a new dashboard, new door panels, new "high friction" seat inserts conceived to keep the driver and front passenger planted, and a new standard 140-watt audio system that includes a six-CD in-dash changer. If you wanted tunes in your '04 STi, it cost extra.
The STi already held the edge in interior materials, and the upgrades make it look distinctly more upscale than the low-grade plastics and hard-to-scan instruments in the Evo. Although both cars are clad with cloth, rather than leather, the Subie's interior looks more like what you'd expect of a car in the mid-$30,000 range.
Other upgrades in the Subaru are more subtle. There's a new limited-slip diff up front, new shrouding to clean up airflow beneath the car, aluminum lateral suspension links at the rear, a quicker steering ratio, wider wheels (8.0 inches versus 7.5), and a wider—by 0.4 inch—rear track.
Something that didn't change is engine output. At max boost—14.5 psi—the Subaru's turbocharged and intercooled 2.5-liter flat-four cranks out 300 horsepower at 6000 rpm and 300 pound-feet of torque at 4000. That torque peak is 500 rpm higher than the Evo's (not to mention stouter by 14 pound-feet), but the curve is fat and flat, yielding plenty of thrust across a broader band than the Mitsu's 2.0-liter four. Although it doesn't show in the acceleration times (the Evo was quicker by 0.1 second to 60 and by 0.5 to 100 mph, a marked difference from that first shootout, where the Subie was swifter), the Subaru delivers distinctly better punch coming off corners, once the car is pointed straight. A key point to which we'll return.
The bottom line is an engine that provides more thrust with less rowing through the six-speed manual gearbox and less waiting for turbo boost to assert itself. Although rowing the six speeds in either of these cars is far from tedious, thanks to positive engagements, particularly in the WRX, there are times when the driver wants to tramp on the gas and have something happen immediately. The STi is good at this. Moreover, it feels good, delivering that heady sense of massive hydraulic thrust that goes with a powerful turbo engine.
Nevertheless, we still rank the STi a notch behind the Evo, despite the updates, despite an outstanding all-wheel-drive system, despite increased traction. If you want to pin the tail on the donkey, in a word the culprit is understeer. The 8.0-by-17-inch wheels give the '05 STi a little more grip than the one we tested in '03: 0.92 lateral g on the skidpad versus 0.90 (the 225/45-17 Bridgestone Potenza RE070s are the same size, but wider wheels equal better sidewall support). That alone might lead you to expect better performance during quick directional changes. It certainly didn't hurt the Subaru's braking numbers—157 feet from 70 mph, identical with the Evo's performance, nine feet better than the '03 test, and outstanding by any measure.
But in the business of getting the car to hurry through corners, its behavior was consistently reluctant. This was apparent on various Michigan back roads, and even more apparent at GingerMan, where it's impossible to hide from a stopwatch. At corner exits, the Subaru's torque asserted itself, hustling the car toward the next corner with a will. But the Evo's superior athleticism added up to an advantage of about 0.3 second per lap, 1:38.88 versus 1:39.15, around the 1.88-mile road course.
Our other STi reservations carry over from the '03 confrontation. The front seats, for example, look like they've been plucked from a race car, but the side bolsters are squishy, and there's a little too much room between those bolsters, which means the driver winds up sliding around during hard cornering, the high-friction upholstery notwithstanding. In '03 we also remarked on the quivering of that vast hood scoop—it makes the Subie feel bigger than the Evo, even though it's smaller in every dimension—and the equally huge rear wing. They're still quivery. And even though both cars generate a level of mechanical noise that would be unacceptable in an ordinary sedan, the STi generates more of it.
So in the end, our rematch comes out pretty much the same, even though both contenders play at a slightly higher level. Agility is a key trait in our appreciation of performance cars, and the STi isn't quite as quick on its feet as its rival. If agility isn't your top priority, you may be perfectly happy with the STi. At $33,808 as tested, it's $2266 less than the Evo MR, and you will never, ever tire of the torque monster that lives within.
Feb 20, 2005 | 09:18 PM
#4
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (56)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 11,132
Likes: 1
From: Western NY
First Place
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution MR Edition
We cataloged the Evo's updates-in particular, updates that establish the new MR Edition—in a recent Short Take [C/D, October 2004], so we'll simply list them here:
•More power (276 horsepower and 286 pound-feet of torque versus 271 and 273, respectively, over the last model), thanks to a bigger turbocharger turbine nozzle and a new waste gate.
•A new active center differential.
•A new helical limited-slip front diff.
In addition to the foregoing, applicable to all Evos, the MR has:
•A new and very slick short-throw six-speed manual transmission (the other Evos, the stripped-down RS and the standard VIII, soldier on with five-speeds).
•A carefully tuned Bilstein damping system (struts front, shocks at the rear).
•BBS forged aluminum wheels that save 2.8 pounds per corner.
•A svelte aluminum roof that Mitsubishi engineers say lowers the car's center of gravity.
•Not to mention the MR's real secret weapon, a row of eight triangular shark's teeth jutting up at the rear of the roof. Collectively, those 7/8-inch vanes are a "vortex generator," reducing drag and augmenting the downforce delivered by the big carbon-fiber wing.
This is what we're told by the manufacturer. We can't really testify about the merits of this unique addition, but we can when it comes to the effectiveness of the other elements. The new helical limited-slip front diff is explored in detail here, but the short version is that it gives the MR a tangible advantage during hard cornering. Where the STi resists turn-in, the MR hunkers down and drags its front end onto the desired line. There's still understeer. With its hefty forward weight bias (61/39), the Evo's moves won't be confused with a Lotus Elise's. But the steering is extremely quick and accurate, and the Evo allows liberties that the Subaru won't—a little rotation around the vertical axis to reduce the time spent in cornering. This enhances lap times and is far more enjoyable than waiting for understeer to end.
What do the Bilsteins contribute to the foregoing? Mitsubishi claims they enhance handling performance and ride quality, and our experience suggests that's true. Although the MR Edition uses the same Yokohama Advan A046 tires—235/45-17—as the Evo we tested in '03, skidpad performance jumps from 0.90 to 0.93 g, and in this encounter, the Mitsu was the quicker of the two cars in the emergency-lane-change test.
As for ride quality, we reported that both cars in that '03 shootout would "beat you . . . silly on Snowbelt roads." The standard Evo VIII and the bare-bones RS still resemble that remark, but the Bilsteins give the MR's suspension a touch of civilizing compliance. Same spring rates, same hockey-puck bushings, but enough give to quell the go-kart feel. It's not much, but it's enough to make the MR distinctly more pleasant to live with on a daily basis—although to be fair, the distinction between the MR and STi on this score is academic.
The other improvement is in the Evo's powerhouse, and if the modest increase in horsepower is offset by slightly increased curb weight (3289 pounds versus 3260 for the '03 test car), it nevertheless produces improved haste, augmented by a lower final-drive ratio. Our '03 tester ran 0 to 60 in 5.0 seconds and did the quarter-mile in 13.6 at 101 mph. The MR hit 60 mph in 4.8 seconds. Its quarter-mile elapsed time hadn't changed, but terminal velocity was 104 mph.
As noted, braking remained spectacular for both cars—157 feet from 70 mph. The Evo's pedal began getting a little long during our GingerMan lapping, but there was no real degradation in stopping power.
Aside from improved ride quality, the sins of that '03 Evo have descended to this new one undiluted. The interior plastics look low rent in a $36,074 car, and the markings on the primary gauges take a lot of squinting to read. There's still no cruise control, a debit versus the STi for long trips, and interior noise levels continue to be high. Also, the MR adds secondary gauges—boost, oil temp, voltmeter—at the bottom of the center stack, making them essentially useless.
Still, that gain in ride quality should not be taken lightly. The Mitsu already held a solid edge in driver comfort, with a set of outstanding Recaro buckets. Softening the sharp edges of warty pavement, added to performance enhancements, gives the Evo MR a fun-to-drive index rare for any sedan. All this, and a vortex generator, too. Worth the extra dough.
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution MR Edition
We cataloged the Evo's updates-in particular, updates that establish the new MR Edition—in a recent Short Take [C/D, October 2004], so we'll simply list them here:
•More power (276 horsepower and 286 pound-feet of torque versus 271 and 273, respectively, over the last model), thanks to a bigger turbocharger turbine nozzle and a new waste gate.
•A new active center differential.
•A new helical limited-slip front diff.
In addition to the foregoing, applicable to all Evos, the MR has:
•A new and very slick short-throw six-speed manual transmission (the other Evos, the stripped-down RS and the standard VIII, soldier on with five-speeds).
•A carefully tuned Bilstein damping system (struts front, shocks at the rear).
•BBS forged aluminum wheels that save 2.8 pounds per corner.
•A svelte aluminum roof that Mitsubishi engineers say lowers the car's center of gravity.
•Not to mention the MR's real secret weapon, a row of eight triangular shark's teeth jutting up at the rear of the roof. Collectively, those 7/8-inch vanes are a "vortex generator," reducing drag and augmenting the downforce delivered by the big carbon-fiber wing.
This is what we're told by the manufacturer. We can't really testify about the merits of this unique addition, but we can when it comes to the effectiveness of the other elements. The new helical limited-slip front diff is explored in detail here, but the short version is that it gives the MR a tangible advantage during hard cornering. Where the STi resists turn-in, the MR hunkers down and drags its front end onto the desired line. There's still understeer. With its hefty forward weight bias (61/39), the Evo's moves won't be confused with a Lotus Elise's. But the steering is extremely quick and accurate, and the Evo allows liberties that the Subaru won't—a little rotation around the vertical axis to reduce the time spent in cornering. This enhances lap times and is far more enjoyable than waiting for understeer to end.
What do the Bilsteins contribute to the foregoing? Mitsubishi claims they enhance handling performance and ride quality, and our experience suggests that's true. Although the MR Edition uses the same Yokohama Advan A046 tires—235/45-17—as the Evo we tested in '03, skidpad performance jumps from 0.90 to 0.93 g, and in this encounter, the Mitsu was the quicker of the two cars in the emergency-lane-change test.
As for ride quality, we reported that both cars in that '03 shootout would "beat you . . . silly on Snowbelt roads." The standard Evo VIII and the bare-bones RS still resemble that remark, but the Bilsteins give the MR's suspension a touch of civilizing compliance. Same spring rates, same hockey-puck bushings, but enough give to quell the go-kart feel. It's not much, but it's enough to make the MR distinctly more pleasant to live with on a daily basis—although to be fair, the distinction between the MR and STi on this score is academic.
The other improvement is in the Evo's powerhouse, and if the modest increase in horsepower is offset by slightly increased curb weight (3289 pounds versus 3260 for the '03 test car), it nevertheless produces improved haste, augmented by a lower final-drive ratio. Our '03 tester ran 0 to 60 in 5.0 seconds and did the quarter-mile in 13.6 at 101 mph. The MR hit 60 mph in 4.8 seconds. Its quarter-mile elapsed time hadn't changed, but terminal velocity was 104 mph.
As noted, braking remained spectacular for both cars—157 feet from 70 mph. The Evo's pedal began getting a little long during our GingerMan lapping, but there was no real degradation in stopping power.
Aside from improved ride quality, the sins of that '03 Evo have descended to this new one undiluted. The interior plastics look low rent in a $36,074 car, and the markings on the primary gauges take a lot of squinting to read. There's still no cruise control, a debit versus the STi for long trips, and interior noise levels continue to be high. Also, the MR adds secondary gauges—boost, oil temp, voltmeter—at the bottom of the center stack, making them essentially useless.
Still, that gain in ride quality should not be taken lightly. The Mitsu already held a solid edge in driver comfort, with a set of outstanding Recaro buckets. Softening the sharp edges of warty pavement, added to performance enhancements, gives the Evo MR a fun-to-drive index rare for any sedan. All this, and a vortex generator, too. Worth the extra dough.
Feb 20, 2005 | 09:28 PM
#6
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (56)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 11,132
Likes: 1
From: Western NY
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution MR Subaru Impreza WRX STi
Vehicle
base price $36,074 $32,870
price as tested $36,074 $33,808
Dimensions, inches:
length 178.5 173.8
width 69.7 68.5
height 57.1 56.3
wheelbase 103.3 100.0
track, front/rear 59.6/59.6 58.7/58.9
weight, pounds 3289 3308
weight distribution, % front/rear 60.7/39.3 58.2/41.8
fuel tank, gallons 14.0 15.9
recommended octane rating 91 91
Interior volume, inches:
front 54 51
rear 41 37
trunk 10 11
Chassis
front suspension strut, coil springs, anti-roll bar strut, coil springs, anti-roll bar
rear suspension multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar strut, coil springs, anti-roll bar
front brakes vented disc vented disc
rear brakes vented disc vented disc
anti-lock control yes yes
stability control no no
tires Yokohama Advan A046, P235/45R-17 93W Bridgestone Potenza RE070, 225/45R-17 90W
braking, 70-0, feet 157 157
test average 157
1.88-mile road course, lap time/mph 1:38.88/68.4 1:39.15/68.3
test average 1:39.02/68.4
roadholding, 300-foot skidpad, g 0.93 0.92
test average 0.93
lane change, mph 68.3 65.9
test average 67.1
Powertrain
engine:
type turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4 turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve flat-4
displacement, cu in (cc) 122 (1997) 150 (2457)
power, bhp @ rpm 276 @ 6500 300 @ 6000
torque, lb-ft @ rpm 286 @ 3500 300 @ 4000
redline, rpm 7000 7000
lb per bhp 11.9 11.0
drivetrain:
transmission 6-sp man 6-sp man
driven wheels all all
gear ratios:1 2.91, 1.94, 1.43, 1.10, 0.87, 0.69 3.64, 2.38, 1.76, 1.35, 0.97, 0.76
axle ratio:1 4.58 3.90
mph/1000 rpm 5.5, 8.2, 11.1, 14.5, 18.3, 23.1 5.1, 7.8, 10.5, 13.7, 19.0, 24.3
C/D test results:
acceleration, seconds
0-60 mph 4.8 4.9
test average 4.9
0-100 mph 12.6 13.1
test average 12.9
0-130 mph 25.0 24.1
test average 24.6
1/4-mile @ mph 13.6 @ 104 13.4 @ 102
test average 13.5 @ 103
rolling 5-60 mph 6.3 6.4
test average 6.4
top gear
30-50 mph 12.2 12.3
test average 12.3
50-70 mph 8.1 9.4
test average 8.8
top speed, mph 152 (drag limited) 145 (governor limited)
test average 149
sound level, dBA:
idle 55 50
test average 53
full-throttle 78 79
test average 79
70-mph cruise 72 75
test average 74
fuel economy, mpg:
EPA city 18 18
test average 18
EPA highway 26 24
test average 25
C/D 450-mile trip 13 15
test average 14
Results
vehicle:
driver comfort (10) 10 8
front-seat space* (10) 10 9
ergonomics (10) 8 9
rear-seat comfort (5) 4 3
rear-seat space* (5) 5 4
trunk space* (5) 4 5
features/amenities* (10) 9 10
fit and finish (10) 8 9
styling (10) 9 8
value (10) 9 10
total (85) 76 75
powertrain:
engine output* (10) 9 10
performance* (10) 10 9
throttle response (10) 9 10
engine NVH (10) 9 8
transmission (10) 10 9
total (50) 47 46
chassis:
performance* (10) 10 8
steering feel (10) 10 9
brake feel (10) 9 10
handling (10) 10 9
ride (10) 9 9
total (50) 48 45
gotta-have-it factor (25) 23 22
fun to drive (25) 24 23
grand total (235) 218 211
finishing order 1 2
*These objective scores are calculated from the vehicles' dimensions, capacities, and/or test results.
Vehicle
base price $36,074 $32,870
price as tested $36,074 $33,808
Dimensions, inches:
length 178.5 173.8
width 69.7 68.5
height 57.1 56.3
wheelbase 103.3 100.0
track, front/rear 59.6/59.6 58.7/58.9
weight, pounds 3289 3308
weight distribution, % front/rear 60.7/39.3 58.2/41.8
fuel tank, gallons 14.0 15.9
recommended octane rating 91 91
Interior volume, inches:
front 54 51
rear 41 37
trunk 10 11
Chassis
front suspension strut, coil springs, anti-roll bar strut, coil springs, anti-roll bar
rear suspension multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar strut, coil springs, anti-roll bar
front brakes vented disc vented disc
rear brakes vented disc vented disc
anti-lock control yes yes
stability control no no
tires Yokohama Advan A046, P235/45R-17 93W Bridgestone Potenza RE070, 225/45R-17 90W
braking, 70-0, feet 157 157
test average 157
1.88-mile road course, lap time/mph 1:38.88/68.4 1:39.15/68.3
test average 1:39.02/68.4
roadholding, 300-foot skidpad, g 0.93 0.92
test average 0.93
lane change, mph 68.3 65.9
test average 67.1
Powertrain
engine:
type turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4 turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve flat-4
displacement, cu in (cc) 122 (1997) 150 (2457)
power, bhp @ rpm 276 @ 6500 300 @ 6000
torque, lb-ft @ rpm 286 @ 3500 300 @ 4000
redline, rpm 7000 7000
lb per bhp 11.9 11.0
drivetrain:
transmission 6-sp man 6-sp man
driven wheels all all
gear ratios:1 2.91, 1.94, 1.43, 1.10, 0.87, 0.69 3.64, 2.38, 1.76, 1.35, 0.97, 0.76
axle ratio:1 4.58 3.90
mph/1000 rpm 5.5, 8.2, 11.1, 14.5, 18.3, 23.1 5.1, 7.8, 10.5, 13.7, 19.0, 24.3
C/D test results:
acceleration, seconds
0-60 mph 4.8 4.9
test average 4.9
0-100 mph 12.6 13.1
test average 12.9
0-130 mph 25.0 24.1
test average 24.6
1/4-mile @ mph 13.6 @ 104 13.4 @ 102
test average 13.5 @ 103
rolling 5-60 mph 6.3 6.4
test average 6.4
top gear
30-50 mph 12.2 12.3
test average 12.3
50-70 mph 8.1 9.4
test average 8.8
top speed, mph 152 (drag limited) 145 (governor limited)
test average 149
sound level, dBA:
idle 55 50
test average 53
full-throttle 78 79
test average 79
70-mph cruise 72 75
test average 74
fuel economy, mpg:
EPA city 18 18
test average 18
EPA highway 26 24
test average 25
C/D 450-mile trip 13 15
test average 14
Results
vehicle:
driver comfort (10) 10 8
front-seat space* (10) 10 9
ergonomics (10) 8 9
rear-seat comfort (5) 4 3
rear-seat space* (5) 5 4
trunk space* (5) 4 5
features/amenities* (10) 9 10
fit and finish (10) 8 9
styling (10) 9 8
value (10) 9 10
total (85) 76 75
powertrain:
engine output* (10) 9 10
performance* (10) 10 9
throttle response (10) 9 10
engine NVH (10) 9 8
transmission (10) 10 9
total (50) 47 46
chassis:
performance* (10) 10 8
steering feel (10) 10 9
brake feel (10) 9 10
handling (10) 10 9
ride (10) 9 9
total (50) 48 45
gotta-have-it factor (25) 23 22
fun to drive (25) 24 23
grand total (235) 218 211
finishing order 1 2
*These objective scores are calculated from the vehicles' dimensions, capacities, and/or test results.
Trending Topics
Feb 20, 2005 | 10:05 PM
#13
Evolving Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
From: PA
if i remember this issue, it's the one lthat has a test later where they take off the Evo's tires, put on weaker ones, which in turn, are better than the STi's stockers... and then do a bunch of wierd tests to see if they can get the STi to beat the Evo... lol... they should've modded the evo to make some more power to match the STi's then if they are going to pull a stunt like this...
...strange how that Nasti fool elected to not post this overall stock for stock test and decided to post a thread about the rigged one... lol... punk...
EVO > sti again for the billion-th time...
...strange how that Nasti fool elected to not post this overall stock for stock test and decided to post a thread about the rigged one... lol... punk...
EVO > sti again for the billion-th time...
