Lancer pros- Why is the evo 7 a better choice than a wrx or sti?
Jan 23, 2002, 07:07 PM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
LOL I think it is kinda ugly; but that's a matter of taste.
MAXI has driven his car for 40,000 miles on the rev limiter with 1,2 bars boost, only changing oil and replacing a wastegate actuator. The only instance where you make a 4G63 fail is when runninng too much boost without the right amount of fuel. One 4G63 failed after 7,000 miles, but had the wrong oil in it 8semi synthetic 0W40!).
A lot of WRXs (218bhp version) start having problems after 20,000 miles here in France. The only good thing about the boxer motor is the sound.
Get a Subaru and you will ask yourself questions, get an Evo and you will know.
MAXI has driven his car for 40,000 miles on the rev limiter with 1,2 bars boost, only changing oil and replacing a wastegate actuator. The only instance where you make a 4G63 fail is when runninng too much boost without the right amount of fuel. One 4G63 failed after 7,000 miles, but had the wrong oil in it 8semi synthetic 0W40!).
A lot of WRXs (218bhp version) start having problems after 20,000 miles here in France. The only good thing about the boxer motor is the sound.
Get a Subaru and you will ask yourself questions, get an Evo and you will know.
Jan 24, 2002, 12:21 AM
#18
Evolving Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Seattle
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the STis are so reliable, why arent they being used much in GrpN rallying? The car of choice in GrpN(the group that is most like a street car) is the Evo because of its reliability.
Those subaru guys think Mitsu cars suck because of the "poor reliability" of the old Eclipse. Well, those cars arent made in japan, are not meant for racing and Eclipse owners all turn up the boost and mod their cars like mad.
For racing, when everything is stock, the Evo is a very reliable car.
Those subaru guys think Mitsu cars suck because of the "poor reliability" of the old Eclipse. Well, those cars arent made in japan, are not meant for racing and Eclipse owners all turn up the boost and mod their cars like mad.
For racing, when everything is stock, the Evo is a very reliable car.
Jan 24, 2002, 12:54 AM
#19
Newbie
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Need Explanation here...
Originally posted by RA29
If the STis are so reliable, why arent they being used much in GrpN rallying? The car of choice in GrpN(the group that is most like a street car) is the Evo because of its reliability.
Those subaru guys think Mitsu cars suck because of the "poor reliability" of the old Eclipse. Well, those cars arent made in japan, are not meant for racing and Eclipse owners all turn up the boost and mod their cars like mad.
For racing, when everything is stock, the Evo is a very reliable car.
If the STis are so reliable, why arent they being used much in GrpN rallying? The car of choice in GrpN(the group that is most like a street car) is the Evo because of its reliability.
Those subaru guys think Mitsu cars suck because of the "poor reliability" of the old Eclipse. Well, those cars arent made in japan, are not meant for racing and Eclipse owners all turn up the boost and mod their cars like mad.
For racing, when everything is stock, the Evo is a very reliable car.
Wait Wait.. can someome please explain to me what you mean here?
And what EXACTLY is the difference between the other eclipse motors and the evo motors? I'm not iunderstanding the differences.
Jay
Jan 24, 2002, 11:36 AM
#20
Evolving Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The only good thing about the boxer motor is the sound."
Ummm, how about inherently neutral handling characteristics? I'm really amazed at some of the things said on this board. I know it's EVO-land and all, but man, objectivity goes out the window when the comparisons start.
Ummm, how about inherently neutral handling characteristics? I'm really amazed at some of the things said on this board. I know it's EVO-land and all, but man, objectivity goes out the window when the comparisons start.
Last edited by danc; Jan 24, 2002 at 11:39 AM.
Jan 24, 2002, 12:41 PM
#21
Evolving Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Seattle
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The eclipse motor is mounted differently from the current Evo motor. The eclipse motor is based on the Evo 1-3 and i would bet it is not engineered to sustain high power( i.e. no forged pistons, cooling etc).
Eclipses suffer from "crankwalk", whatever that is but the Evo 4-6 motors do not have this problem.
Boxer motor...
ok sounds nicer than the Mitsu engine.
Neutral handling characteristic. How effective is that actually in real life? The chassis, suspension setup makes a lot more difference than the design of the engine. It doesnt provide much of an advantage, if any. I would think that it is more marketing talk than actual fact.
But then again, i havent measured how much more neutral a boxer engine can be, as compared to the normal I-4 engines or rotary engines.
Maybe there might an advantage but it is probably so slight that it would not make much of a difference.
There are lots of awesome handling cars out there that do not have boxer engines, such as Mazda's RX-7 rotary engine, Skyline doesnt have a boxer, the BMW M3 has an I-6(?). They all handle awesome.
Eclipses suffer from "crankwalk", whatever that is but the Evo 4-6 motors do not have this problem.
Boxer motor...
ok sounds nicer than the Mitsu engine.
Neutral handling characteristic. How effective is that actually in real life? The chassis, suspension setup makes a lot more difference than the design of the engine. It doesnt provide much of an advantage, if any. I would think that it is more marketing talk than actual fact.
But then again, i havent measured how much more neutral a boxer engine can be, as compared to the normal I-4 engines or rotary engines.
Maybe there might an advantage but it is probably so slight that it would not make much of a difference.
There are lots of awesome handling cars out there that do not have boxer engines, such as Mazda's RX-7 rotary engine, Skyline doesnt have a boxer, the BMW M3 has an I-6(?). They all handle awesome.
Jan 24, 2002, 01:51 PM
#22
Evolved Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 827
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've driven both and all I can say is the Subaru (WRX 280hp JDM) is more civilised but no contest when it comes to handling. Like I said many times before, the Subaru is softer than the Evo. No more, no less...
Jan 24, 2002, 03:16 PM
#23
Newbie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: LOndon
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danc
Sorry, but stating that the Scooby STi has "inherently neutral handling characteristics" goes against all the comments made by anybody who has driven the car. It understeers like mad! This is not just Evo talk. For instance, Autocar, one of the most repected magazines in the UK, stated only last week -"Push too hard and it will understeer too strongly for our tastes".
Autocar also go on to say "the Impreza STi is not strictly an Evo 7 rival" and "there's not a road tester amongst us who'd not rather drive the extraordinary Mitsubishi".
They do say that for the type of car that it is, the Scooby is very good, but not an Evo rival. This report is typical of those published in the UK and I can confirm from personal experience that the Scooby is a very good fast sedan, while the Evo is a true performance car.
Sorry, but stating that the Scooby STi has "inherently neutral handling characteristics" goes against all the comments made by anybody who has driven the car. It understeers like mad! This is not just Evo talk. For instance, Autocar, one of the most repected magazines in the UK, stated only last week -"Push too hard and it will understeer too strongly for our tastes".
Autocar also go on to say "the Impreza STi is not strictly an Evo 7 rival" and "there's not a road tester amongst us who'd not rather drive the extraordinary Mitsubishi".
They do say that for the type of car that it is, the Scooby is very good, but not an Evo rival. This report is typical of those published in the UK and I can confirm from personal experience that the Scooby is a very good fast sedan, while the Evo is a true performance car.
Jan 24, 2002, 06:16 PM
#24
Newbie
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by danc
[BI know it's EVO-land and all, but man, objectivity goes out the window when the comparisons start. [/B]
[BI know it's EVO-land and all, but man, objectivity goes out the window when the comparisons start. [/B]
Jan 24, 2002, 08:17 PM
#25
EvoM Community Team Leader
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: chicago, michigan, arkansas
Posts: 3,135
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
i think all the posts comparing the evo 6-7 to all the others cars be posted on one thread/topic to clear everything up that it is the hands down better car than the other cars it is being compared. not to sound like a commercial ad but posts wanting to know which is better keeps on coming from newbies who haven't even heard of the evo except in car magazines.
Jan 24, 2002, 09:56 PM
#26
Evolving Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
snelson:
I didn't say the STi was more neutral-handling, I said a boxer motor is. And neutral in that context is different than implying lack of under/over-steer. It means no torque-steer. The boxer engine is symmetrical, therefore does not suffer, by design, issues with torque steer. Porsches have boxer engines.
I didn't say the STi was more neutral-handling, I said a boxer motor is. And neutral in that context is different than implying lack of under/over-steer. It means no torque-steer. The boxer engine is symmetrical, therefore does not suffer, by design, issues with torque steer. Porsches have boxer engines.
Jan 24, 2002, 11:21 PM
#27
Newbie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: LOndon
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Porsche does not suffer from torque steer because the steering wheel have no power going through them!
Before going into a long ramble about this, I just want to confirm that what we call torque steer in the UK is the the behavior of the front wheel (steering) due to power (torque) being applied through them. Torque is torque, and is totally measuable at the wheels and a given torque form one engine cannot be diferentiated from the torque from another type of engine, because it is an absolute.
Before going into a long ramble about this, I just want to confirm that what we call torque steer in the UK is the the behavior of the front wheel (steering) due to power (torque) being applied through them. Torque is torque, and is totally measuable at the wheels and a given torque form one engine cannot be diferentiated from the torque from another type of engine, because it is an absolute.
Jan 26, 2002, 12:24 AM
#29
Evolving Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
snelson:
Torque steer is stepping on the gas and having the car want to veer off in one direction, however subtly. Many FWD cars have this phenomenon. I'm not an expert on it, but I believe Subarus do not suffer from this because of AWD and their symmetrical driveline (which is made easier by having the boxer engine).
In case you don't know what a boxer (aka horizontally opposed) engine looks like, check out:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question366.htm
The advantages (beyond just the sound ), are:
Low center of gravity
More even weight distribution
Less noise and vibrations
Also check out:
http://www.bmw850csi.de/engines_e.html
Now as far as how much hp it can take vs. an inline, that's something I don't know, and an important question for anyone wanting to seriously mod their EVO or STi.
Torque steer is stepping on the gas and having the car want to veer off in one direction, however subtly. Many FWD cars have this phenomenon. I'm not an expert on it, but I believe Subarus do not suffer from this because of AWD and their symmetrical driveline (which is made easier by having the boxer engine).
In case you don't know what a boxer (aka horizontally opposed) engine looks like, check out:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question366.htm
The advantages (beyond just the sound
), are:Low center of gravity
More even weight distribution
Less noise and vibrations
Also check out:
http://www.bmw850csi.de/engines_e.html
Now as far as how much hp it can take vs. an inline, that's something I don't know, and an important question for anyone wanting to seriously mod their EVO or STi.
Jan 26, 2002, 01:35 AM
#30
Newbie
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our team has got both.
The GD STi is still converted to grp. N rally, but I've driven it when it was new. Now I drive an Evo 7 on street.
In my opinion the STi's suspension is a bit softer, but I like when it's bumpy. The Evo has more inner space, and nicer interieur. The Subaru's 6speed gearbox is better, but the Lancer has got ACD and AYC. Both cars are too heavy. The Evo feels a bit stronger, the Impreza has got much nicer sound. Styling? The Evo is nicer, but there is a Prodrive version of the STi...
Btw. it's a draw for me. I like both very-very much!
The GD STi is still converted to grp. N rally, but I've driven it when it was new. Now I drive an Evo 7 on street.
In my opinion the STi's suspension is a bit softer, but I like when it's bumpy. The Evo has more inner space, and nicer interieur. The Subaru's 6speed gearbox is better, but the Lancer has got ACD and AYC. Both cars are too heavy. The Evo feels a bit stronger, the Impreza has got much nicer sound. Styling? The Evo is nicer, but there is a Prodrive version of the STi...
Btw. it's a draw for me. I like both very-very much!