ah gotcha. to me, it's a very capable and potent engine - basically a tuned gti motor, which has proven to be a stout motor. good power production + reliability is what makes an engine a good engine to me. the other characteristics to me are typically a driver preference.

sorry to be off topic on this but i'm really not seeing a huge discrepancy with the car's time still. im only looking at the times from the same day's test, which shows a much more "reasonable" comparison. The new mustang GT picks up almost 5 seconds on the old GT, which is very reasonable to me.

For the old test, there is also a PDF which shows which cars were fastest in which sectors.. IDK how they could have made the car a ringer - if it felt particularly fast for 265 hp and 32xx pounds i'm sure they would have noted something. They made note of what tires the car had etc. http://www.caranddriver.com/features...3a08.4_page_11
out of curiosity, where do you think audi made the car a ringer? in power? suspension? no matter what the numbers suggest a very capable car

and yes, the more and more i look i'm very impressed by the v6 mustang this year. i am really curious how it would have done without the limiter

 

So many things come into play about this list.
What tires were each car running? Was it rainy or dry on what dates? What was the temperature for these dates?

 

I came from a hardcore Subaru fan boi culture with having had a few WRXs before going Evo, and it was pretty funny getting emails from some old Subaru buds the minute the article was published, stating that the WRX just needs more power and that the driver(s) obviously don't know how to drive a Subaru properly, along with the "all the WRX/STI needs is [fill in blank suspension mod] to beat the Evo/Mustang etc.

oh man, poor Subaru Fan Boi

 

I like engines with built in reserves for mods. I also like engines that will rev. It confounds me that a Mitsubishi engine that was designed in the late eighties is still top of the heap when it comes to four cylinder power output potential. I know it had a ton of R&D for the aftermarket, but long live the 4G63!

100% the power. If we say we believe the times on all year differences (of course we don't), the SE is almost a full three seconds faster than the MR. We know they have the same tires, same suspension, same engine and turbo. Both are rated 291HP from the factory. Yet, the 2010s have lean spool enabled and make 20whp more than 2008s on the dyno proven time and again. So, the 2010 X is making more than 291 HP.

To go further on this point, let's take handling completely out of the equation for a second. By Car & Driver's own quarter mile testing, a 2008 Evo trapped 101mph and a 2010 trapped 103mph. The TTS traps 104mph. With both cars using SST-type transmissions, let's look at power:weight.

2008 291HP, (101mph) @ 3583 pounds
2010 Audi TTS 265HP, (104mph) @ 3264 pounds.

2008 Evo power:weight- 12.31
2010 TTS power:weight- 12.31

So how is the TTS 3mph quicker?
Answer: It makes more than 265HP. I've already proven to you that the 2010 Evo is underrated from the factory. Why not the TTS?

 

The article should be dismissed... Stig needs to drive all the cars imo. Not sure about the SE driver but the STI driver seemed to be afraid to take the turns going fast...

 

Does anyone know whey the EVO X GSR wasn't tested...is it really that slow compared to the SST tyranny??? If it's true that shows a lot about the GSR and MR..

I should've bought the EVO X with SST

 

I'm pretty sure the cars chosen were based on a newness and improvement factor for the current model year in regards to the cars that have chassis already on sale for quite some time, so I suppose the most varied form of the Evo X for the current model year would be the SE. There's an explanation of why the choices were made in the article somewhere.

Also big disappointment on the Subaru end, almost 200lb lighter with near identical output and still 3 seconds slower after all that time at the drawing board. The Evo is getting better and better and Subaru is just going to keep playing catch-up.

 

Same driver(s). Do not mistake being afraid to "take the turns going fast" with lack of confidence and feel from the car.

 

What I do not get in this type of comments is a following...
I been argueing with poeple in here this forum about how easy is to drive the evo fast. Now when comes like this all of the sudden became a car to have to get used too vs as an example the mustang...
So which is it peopele ?

 

Don't they use the Grand course, not the full? A newb on the full course will run about 2:50, which is about 35 seconds off the car's potential. I've run the Grand course myself in a modded 04 RS with ~350 whp, coilovers and 285s and turned a 3:04. I think their drivers are doing pretty well.

 

Even though both cars have same power:weight ratio and SST gearing may not be the same. but yeah, I'm certain the car makes more than the rated 265hp. the trend these days is toward conservative. i was just saying that i dont think the car they used in the lightning lap had an unusually high amount of hp to make it a ringer

 

Just read it at bookstore.
The result turn out X is 3.2 sec faster than STI on the track.
Good job.

 

nice, going to pick up a copy

 

Link.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...p_2011-feature

 

Im going to have to check that out