evoIX vs sti by edmunds
Feb 13, 2006 | 12:27 AM
#76
Evolving Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
From: Sconsin
Originally Posted by IXmr321
notice they compared the top of the line WRX (an STi) with the normal evo (not an MR) and the evo still won.....that says alot
Feb 13, 2006 | 02:01 AM
#77
Newbie
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: Olympia, Wa
I'm gonna make copies of that to throw in the face of all them EVO haters out there and for all the ignorant people that ask me if my car is a Subaru....LOL. Then they argue with me when I tell them that I'lll put a suby to shame. Blissful Ignorance = My brain hemraging
Feb 13, 2006 | 02:13 AM
#80
Originally Posted by oxyi
"Mitsubishi is currently throwing in free scheduled maintenance for three years/45,000 miles."
wtf is that true? so i can just bring back my IX for oil changes and stuffs ?
wtf is that true? so i can just bring back my IX for oil changes and stuffs ?
Feb 13, 2006 | 06:18 AM
#82
Evolving Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
From: Auburn, AL
Originally Posted by Ike
The MR lost a comparison to the STI in Motortrend. Also, the STI isn't really a version of the WRX they both versions of the Impreza. In other markets the STI spec C is more comparable to the MR, it's just not available in the US.
Feb 13, 2006 | 09:57 AM
#83
Newbie
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
From: NY
Originally Posted by AndrewSS
^ I just got a feeling of some incompetence of the reviews from the article and video... I would take what they said with some doubt, I would like to point out they got a 5.6 0-60 for the STi they must not have launched or must have gotten an engine with 2 miles on it or something, then they beat the 5,500 limiter in the evo to get a nice launch, sorta odd... oh well its just more media coverage.
I wouldnt think the SSL package with the sunroof or not having the MR aluminum roof would make a dramatic difference.. of course weight is weight, I dont think its gonna be super noticable.
I wouldnt think the SSL package with the sunroof or not having the MR aluminum roof would make a dramatic difference.. of course weight is weight, I dont think its gonna be super noticable.
Originally Posted by saywhen
That article was as one sided as they get and they didn't even mention the ugliest front end ever on the subbie.
Originally Posted by GgreyEVOIX
I don't know about this one guys.......how the hell did the sti only get 5.4 sec or whatever it was in the 0-60. Both cars should be doing 4.5-4.8 sec 0-60 runs. I personally think the evo is the better/faster car of the two but come on the sti should be closer in performance then what was tested by edmunds. I had a 04 sti before my IX and it wasn't slow by any means, my first impression of my sti was it felt faster than my stage IV wrx. This test seems odd to me.....the sti should have posted better times.
To all these post i would have to mostly agree. Things that stood out in the vid...
STI 5.6 0-60 (are you kidding me, my gandmother drives better than that)
STI 13.6 1/4 (do i need to repeat myself)
EVO had more body roll....( thought this was the other way around, at least that is what i noticed when idrove them)
Now how could you say that that ISN'T a little one sided? So they said the EVO had more body roll, this is making me think that they were trying to not make the STI look to bad and they fudged some facts. I would also have to agree that while the STI has a nicer interior, the front end is just nasty.
Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83
Nice. I'm glad that somebody used a regular IX and not the IX MR for a comparison test. Good read.
EDIT: Did anyone notice how the narrator in the video said it had "271 hp"?
EDIT: Did anyone notice how the narrator in the video said it had "271 hp"?
Originally Posted by DreamLike1
quit making excuses. STI got smoked, end of story... go cry about it on NASIOC or whatever...
Now i am in no way saying that the STI is just as good in all test such as the EVO......i know the EVO edges it out in every performance test. But it is much closer than they are making it seem.
Over all IMHO a non-bias test (STI to MR) would conclude that the EVO will edge out the STI in performance on the track, while the STI is more refined and is better for everyday driving. For me, the interior crap and everyday luxury of driving confortably doesn't matter that much, and that is why i am selling my car to get an EVO. Its just a matter of preference.
Feb 13, 2006 | 11:26 AM
#84
at least they used a "base" Evo in this test,
glad to see my porky SSL can keep up, though I think the MIVEC probably helped kick the 0-60 a LOT. . .
how in the HELL did they get rid of the launch control? they just unplugged it? Or did they actually reflash their car?
Funny thing is, the Sti IS overrated hp wise, and the Evo IX is severely underrated hp wise. . .if you flashed that porky SSL, that 0-60 would've easily been in the 4.5's with a quarter in the 12's. . .I love these cars!
glad to see my porky SSL can keep up, though I think the MIVEC probably helped kick the 0-60 a LOT. . .
how in the HELL did they get rid of the launch control? they just unplugged it? Or did they actually reflash their car?
Funny thing is, the Sti IS overrated hp wise, and the Evo IX is severely underrated hp wise. . .if you flashed that porky SSL, that 0-60 would've easily been in the 4.5's with a quarter in the 12's. . .I love these cars!
Feb 13, 2006 | 06:23 PM
#85
Evolved Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,080
Likes: 26
From: Southern California
Originally Posted by BoostCrazy
I don't see why you are glad, the MR is more of a closer comparison to the STI.....two 6spd's would make more sense. I also have read that the MR is slower in the 1/4 than the GSR. Which makes me think that, for everyone that said "...and they even tested the ""45lb"" heavier GSR" that there is more to performance than weight (give you a hint....its inside the tranny)
