EVO X vs STI - Tsukuba Lap Times

[Motor]

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/05/evo-x-vs-sti-tsukuba-lap-times/
It didn't take long for Japan's journalists to get the new STI and EVO X side by side, and the results are now officially in. Tsukuba circuit regulars Kazuo Shimizu and Manabu Kawaguchi spent an afternoon thrashing around the notoriously twisty short circuit just north of Tokyo and here (drum roll please) are the best times they could ring out of the AWD rivals:

Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X : 1:06:46

Subaru Impreza WRX STI : 1:05:95

So there you have it. The new engine placed further forward in the engine bay of the EVO X than in the EVO IX has indeed proven to be a handicap, while the STI's "wheel at each corner" longer wheelbase plus new double wishbone rear suspension has proved its worth.

Neither car is quite as quick as its immediate ancestor though. Check out this 15 year rivalry of the EVO vs the STI as recorded at Tsukuba:

EVO / STI

2006 1:05:07 / 1:04:72

2005 1:04.88 / 1:04:17

2003 1:05:30 / 1:04:69

2001 1:05:17 / 1:06:56

1998 1:04:69 / 1:06:73

1996 1:07:00 / 1:05:92

1994 1:06:52 / 1:06:26

1992 1:10:90 / 1:07:99
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2007/12/evosti-copy.jpg

Mad? Sad? Happy? How do you feel about this comparison? I'm sure we'll be seeing many more of these in the near future from other rags, with different results.

Discuss. :eatpop:

[qburt19]

So far the win tally is:

STI-6
EVO-2

It looks like both failed to improve from their last generations. Not only in numbers, but also in styling. I still want one though.

[Red Falcon]

Embarrassing.

[Transcend]

Wow, Impressive Impreza indeed. I was thinking that the Evo has the edge because it's a FF bias and brakes later than the STi before a turn; then you tack on its AYC control which allows the car to rotate, hit full throttle the exact moment you hit the apex. But looks like a better center of gravity and more torque = is still FTW.

[GTsRasta]

The EVO is no longer the superior handeling car. The EVO no longer has the 4G63. The EVO is no longer a low 13 second car out of the box.

I see no reason to own the EVO X now.

[Transcend]

The EVO is no longer the superior handeling car. The EVO no longer has the 4G63. The EVO is no longer a low 13 second car out of the box.

I see no reason to own the EVO X now.
You know nothing at all. Those are simple "out of the box" figures. Mild but proper tuning will allow it to surpass a mildly tuned IX in cornering speeds. Just watch, it will happen. HKS will make it happen.

Sure it's heavier, but a 40% stiffer chassis will more than compensate for it with the addition of mild and proper tuning.

[GTsRasta]

That's like saying a modded GTS will overtake a modded RSX-S. Obviously they're close to even stock to stock, but one has more potential (handeling, displacement, layout, etc). I'm looking at the starting platforms, and not when X amount of money is dumped into either of those cars.

Therefore, if I had to choose one car to give me thrills out of the box, it would be the STI.

[Transcend]

That's like saying a modded GTS will overtake a modded RSX-S. Obviously they're close to even stock to stock, but one has more potential (handeling, displacement, layout, etc). I'm looking at the starting platforms, and not when X amount of money is dumped into either of those cars.

Therefore, if I had to choose one car to give me thrills out of the box, it would be the STI.
Weren't you the one that got schooled by Mac's post on "power delivery"?

They both have certain traits makes one "better" than the other. Evo can brake later, rotates easier. STi has better weight distribution, better center of gravity. As with the previous generations Mitsu and Suby will only produce more cars to outdo each other. Traditionally the Evolution MR edition would spank the STi, then Subaru would find some way to counteract that with a special "22B/S203/S04/S205/S206" edition. Then there are the Mitsu FQ-series that are offered in the UK (and elsewhere) It's an endless cycle. Personally I like the Evo's ease of weight transfer (easier than STi thanks to AYC) and nearly air-bag-deploying ability to brake at the very last possible moment.

[GTsRasta]

Obviously power delivery can make a heavier car go faster. But when you have a stock GTS versus as stock Civic Si...it's a drivers race, slight edge to the Si. I've seen how many of the new stock Si's accelerate in person too. Not that much quicker than my GTS.

Street racing is gay anyway. I already outgrew it. The last one I had was with a EK civic hatch, while I had heavy tools, sleeping bag, text books, and my skateboard in the hatch.

As for the EVO X versus STI...one will get me into the 12's with way less work than the other. I love braking late in my GTS and everything too, but until more tests come in, it looks like the STI finally trumped the EVO in all fronts.

[marc]

The problem with the new Evo X is that the car and its electronics do the driving for you.

Not really a fan of any of these cars, but I'll probably test drive them for the **** of it, along with the new 1-series, and review it, as my Z4 lease is up in July and I'll have more than enough disposable income.

[Transcend]

Obviously power delivery can make a heavier car go faster. But when you have a stock GTS versus as stock Civic Si...it's a drivers race, slight edge to the Si. I've seen how many of the new stock Si's accelerate in person too. Not that much quicker than my GTS.

Street racing is gay anyway. I already outgrew it. The last one I had was with a EK civic hatch, while I had heavy tools, sleeping bag, text books, and my skateboard in the hatch.

As for the EVO X versus STI...one will get me into the 12's with way less work than the other. I love braking late in my GTS and everything too, but until more tests come in, it looks like the STI finally trumped the EVO in all fronts.
How did a Tsukuba lap time become a discussion in street race? WTF. Stop smoking the crack it's bad for you.

Those things I've listed about the Evo and STi are true and consistent. The boxer engine layout has not changed. The Evo is still a FF-bias transverse mounted AWD system. Their handling characteristics are very distinctive from each other and favors the driver who is more consistent with their performance style.

And you also forget that Mitsu also have Evo X RS and Evo X MR models to combat Subaru. Like I said the the cycle is endless, one will never be better than the other. It all depends on driver preference.

[neological]

People also are ignoring what track this is on. Tsukuba will favor cars with more low end, the straight on it is incredibly small. Tsukuba has always favored the stock STi in lap times while Suzuka has always favored the Evo.

Evo IX still > Evo X, 08 STi.

Evo's ease of weight transfer (easier than STi thanks to AYC).

AYC is taken off of all Evos that actually race as they have found an experienced driver clocks better lap times without it (it's heavy too). It's great for street driving though, apparently (USDM IX lacks AYC from the factory because of this)

[marc]

I want an Evo IX RS

[Motor]

http://www.nihoncar.com/en/review-478-X.html
Presentations

Subaru Impreza WRX STI.
The new Impreza has had a lot of people talking about it but not the way most would have imagined...the "questionnable" design was highly criticized but most were hoping for a better tomorrow thanks to the STi version which usually tops the sports range of the manufacturer. To "deserve" the STi designation, the new Impreza was fitted with a new aero bodykit including the usual front/rear bumpers, side skirts, rear spoiler and new exhaust. Under the bonnet lies a 2 liter Boxer 4 cylinders turbocharged motor producing something around 310HP (almost impossible to get the real figures without using a dyno) and 422Nm of torque.

Lancer Evolution X.
On the other hand, the "Beast" Evo X, was instantly acclaimed for its incredibly mean and aggressive style and the amount of new and impressive technology it was carrying mechanically.
Unlike its "enemy", the Evo X receives a sporty treatment in the form of a raging bodykit including an enormous rear spoiler which fits right in. The interior got us pretty disappointed as Mitsubishi didn't prepare anything original, of course you're reminded here and there that you're inside an Evo, but the whole layout and equipments are coming straight from a "standard Lancer/Galant...we would have appreciated bigger ways to differentiate the beauty from the beast...

Specifications

Subaru Impreza WRX STI:
- 4WD
- 308 PS
- 422 Nm (torque)
- 1470 kg.

Lancer Evolution X
- 4WD
- 280 PS
- 422 Nm (torque)
- 1420 kg (RS)

WRX STI Versus EVO X, a match-up between two sporty family sedans.

Such a title is probably having you wondering if you clicked on the right review but the facts are here, you cannot honestly consider those 2 vehicules as "sportscars" anymore but rather some "Sports Family Sedans".
Technically speaking, both cars are faster than their own predecessor but most of what made each so famous seems to be gone...the kick in the *ss effect when you hit the throttle? Gone. The mind blowing braking abilities? Gone. The raging noise of the engine? Gone. The fun? Gone, The sensations? Gone.

In order to give you the best, more fair and neutral point of view possible on both cars, we got our friend and pro race driver Nishihara-san to push these machines further than I ever could. Masaki is a 5 times All Japan Gymkhana champion and uses an Evo 9 but in a recent past, he worked with a WRX STi so he knows very well how to judge those cars. Here's a recap of what he had to say:

Lancer or Impreza, his first reproach was the important gain of weight on both cars, close to a full 100kg more on certain versions. Second issue: the gearbox, it is the main reason why the cars fail to provide the thrilling acceleration it became famous for...on the Impreza the ratios are simply way too long while on the Evo the grid is too wide.

His words on the Impreza now:
Apparently, the Double Wishbone suspension wasn't well tuned and the car isn't balanced the way you'd ideally like, as a result, it can be tricky to drive. Oversteer on one hand and understeer on the other, that's what you'll get with the stock suspensions if you feel like going for a "dynamic ride". Another problem with the suspensions is the lack of comfort but that's something that potential buyers know and are ready to deal with.
Below 4000rpm, the WRX STi feels just like your average Impreza and when you cross that limit, even thought you can climb up to almost 8000rpm, you always feel that this is a 1470kg car (3234 lbs).

About the Evo:
We agree to say that the Evo looks better but the whole picture is far from perfect here as well.
The weight is, again, a problem . 100kg more than the previous Evo, 1420kg and a 4 cylinders 2 liter turborcharged engine to move this big baby.
Behind the wheel, the Evo is more fun to drive, the boost kicks in at 2000rpm and the precision of the steering and the AWD system makes the ride much more enjoyable, as a result the driver feels more confident and can keep on pushing.

Conclusion:
Do you remember the VW Golf GTI which, generation after generation was trading performance for comfort (until things changed for good recently again)? Well it now seems that our 2 beloved Japanese car manufacturers are hit with the same disease. The best example has to be the "ECO" mode on the Impreza WRX STi, it has the ability to turn what is commonly known as a sportscar into a snail.
We, at NihonCar, are huge fans of the Evo 9 and Impreza RA-R and this is why we have been very disappointed by those two new generations which seem to slip down the hill to feel more and more like a Lexus minus the real interior comfort.
If we had to choose, we'd pick the Evo X because the handling and style are better.
I could only recommend the fans to stick to their Evo 9 or WRX STi 2006 until Ralliart or Subaru prepares something really worth it (2008 RA-R??). Maybe the major tuners (Mine's, Top Secret, HKS...) will show them the way but don't get us wrong, those are good family cars offering sweet sensations...just not what we expected really.

Click the source for video.

[neological]

Styling = subjective.

You can fix the suspension on the IX for however much it costs to change to less soft springs (about 150 bucks). The difference on my car with Espelir GTs vs. stock is night/day.

[Transcend]

People also are ignoring what track this is on. Tsukuba will favor cars with more low end, the straight on it is incredibly small. Tsukuba has always favored the stock STi in lap times while Suzuka has always favored the Evo.

Evo IX still > Evo X, 08 STi.



AYC is taken off of all Evos that actually race as they have found an experienced driver clocks better lap times without it (it's heavy too). It's great for street driving though, apparently (USDM IX lacks AYC from the factory because of this)
Ya, that was the main thing that disappointed me when I first heard the VIII was making it to the states. There were many concerns that "S-AYC system" did not fall under American safety standards and a bunch of other bs. Personally I'm a proponent of the S-AYC system, especially after trying it out (was out of the US when I tested a JDM VIII MR with S-AYC), it works GREAT at a high entry speed and late apex'ing (if you can get over the initial fear of "later" braking than with a FF car). But like you mentioned- AWD control systems are heavy and tack on more weight.

Fuji Speedway also seems to favor the STi (many long straights and high speed/sweeping turns), which historically makes more torque than the Evo does in stock trim.

[neological]

I drove an evo VII with AYC and I noticed the rear wheels seemed to slide a but less but it mostly felt like it just had a bit more understeer.

[Transcend]

I drove an evo VII with AYC and I noticed the rear wheels seemed to slide a but less but it mostly felt like it just had a bit more understeer.
Depends on how you use it and how you tune with it. For a S-AYC favored setup most tuners swap out the front LSD for a more aggressive clutch-type and bump up the sensitivity and strength of the AYC system to sorta force a rotation (rear goes out and follows the direction of the front). But tuning of this level is considered to only marginally increase performance because it's more suited for specific driving styles and techniques of individuals.

Did some more research on the AYC/S-AYC system, it's negated in race Evos in favor of clutch-type LSDs which provide a much higher amount of torque transfer.

[neological]

Depends on how you use it and how you tune with it. For a S-AYC favored setup most tuners swap out the front LSD for a more aggressive clutch-type and bump up the sensitivity and strength of the AYC system to sorta force a rotation (rear goes out and follows the direction of the front). But tuning of this level is considered to only marginally increase performance because it's more suited for specific driving styles and techniques of individuals.
.

You can pretty much accomplish the same (forcing rear rotation) thing by putting a stiffer rear sway on and airing up the rear tires a bit. It's a lot cheaper.

[Transcend]

You can pretty much accomplish the same (forcing rear rotation) thing by putting a stiffer rear sway on and airing up the rear tires a bit. It's a lot cheaper.
True, but not as much rotation as toying with the AYC system. It's almost like initiating a drift for about half a second combined with late apexing. So your entry speed would be unmatched and your car is immediately facing the optimal exit line. That's the style I got used to with an Evo that has S-AYC.

[Red Falcon]

True, but not as much rotation as toying with the AYC system. It's almost like initiating a drift for about half a second combined with late apexing. So your entry speed would be unmatched and your car is immediately facing the optimal exit line. That's the style one of my friends got used to with an Evo that has S-AYC.
Edited for truth.

[Transcend]

Edited for truth.
Now you're lying. Stop hating and accept the fact that is written under my username on the left.

[Motor]

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=123886?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..1 .*
Title Fight: Evo X vs. WRX STI
Suits of Armor
We've been here before, as we've compared the Evo and the STI in a comparison test in both 2006 and 2003. Each time, the Evo IX proved slightly faster, turned into corners more decisively and gave us more feedback about the driving experience through the controls.

This time we've brought the new Evo X with its 276-horsepower turbocharged 2.0-liter inline-4 matched with a five-speed manual transmission and put it together with the Japan-specification STI and its 304-hp turbocharged 2.0-liter horizontally opposed 4 matched with a six-speed manual transmission. Though the Evo is available with a dual-clutch six-speed automated manual, a production car hadn't come off the assembly line for us.

In the search for a more sophisticated visual identity, Mitsubishi has replaced the Evo's taxi-on-steroids appearance with a stance of grown-up machismo, a look highlighted by an Audi-style full-frame grille, a higher beltline and more subtle rear wing. There's a larger passenger package beneath that sits on a wheelbase that has stretched 1 inch, and a track that's wider by 1.2 inches. More important, the new Evo is 1.2 inches taller and 1.6 inches wider. We think the overall proportion of sheet metal to glass gives the Evo X a graceful look that's light-years ahead of its predecessor.

The new STI also couldn't be more different from its predecessor. The Subaru bosses decided that a hatchback profile is a good choice for two reasons: First, it allows the Impreza lineup to appeal to a broader customer base; and second, as Subaru WRC rally driver Petter Solberg says, "the hatchback has better aero balance." This five-door hatchback has dramatically shorter overhangs than the former STI sedan, while the front track is 3/4-inch wider than the current WRX and the rear track is 7/8-inch wider. Apart from the swooping rear tailgate, what really gives the new STI its character are those fender blisters, huge hood scoop and vestigial rear wing.

Though the STI is far more aggressive-looking than its WRX brother, its front end has been sanitized, and the generic headlights and grille detract from the overall muscular appeal of the rest of the car. The Evo X, meanwhile, has a Euro-style presentation that we find really appealing.

The Evo takes first blood.

Power Stakes
The Evo and STI are each powered by turbocharged 2.0-liter fours that are tuned to develop about as much low- and midrange grunt as your innards can take.

The STI's 2.0-liter boxer turbo pumps out 304 hp at 6,400 rpm and a surprising 311 pound-feet of torque at 4,400 rpm. The major modifications over its predecessor are a different twin-scroll turbocharger, a bigger intercooler and variable valve timing now on both the inlet and exhaust cams. Subaru claims the STI will sprint to 60 mph in 4.9 seconds. (The American-spec 2.5-liter turbo manages the same task in 4.8 seconds in our hands.)

This engine produces a tsunami of thrust much lower in the rev range than the outgoing model. Power delivery is smooth if not restrained up to around 2,800 rpm, and then a wave of torque carries you forward toward 6,000 rpm. Keep your foot buried and the power remains strong right up to the redline at 8,000 rpm.

Channeling the torrent of torque to the tarmac is Subaru's revised six-speed manual transmission that gets newly fitted with triple synchros on 1st and 2nd gears and double synchros from 3rd up to 6th. The shift action feels leagues ahead of the Evo's clunky five-speed manual.

One thing that really makes the new STI stand out is the metallic ring from the engine and the pronounced exhaust burble, and it makes this engine sound both more refined and beefier than that of the Evo.

The Evolution of Power
Mitsubishi's 4G63 engine, with its iron block stout enough for turbocharging, has been replaced by the all-aluminum 4B11 inline-4, which represents an overall weight savings of 28 pounds. To enhance its ability to withstand the stress of turbocharging, this engine features forged connecting rods, a forged crankshaft and a block with a semi-closed deck. The compression ratio has risen slightly to 9.0:1 and variable valve timing has been adapted to both chain-driven cams.

This turbocharged 2.0-liter inline-4 produces 276 hp at 6,500 rpm (the U.S. version is expected to produce 295 hp), and it makes 300 lb-ft of torque at 4,000 rpm. Thanks to the close-ratio gearbox, the Evo X gets to 60 mph in 4.9 seconds.

Less manic than the outgoing Evo IX, the Evo X generates boost cleanly starting around 3,000 rpm, and the power builds in a linear fashion all the way up to the redline at 7,000 rpm. Compared to the STI, though, the Evo doesn't maintain the same kind of grunt at the top end.

The Evo X's close-ratio manual gearbox is clearly meant to be the racer's choice, because 5th gear is so tall it's only usable for highway cruising, and it handicaps the Mitsubishi against the Subaru.

The STI just pips the Evo in thrust and power.

The Swinging As: S-AWC, ACD, AYC, ASC
One aspect of the Evo's makeup that takes it to the next level is the upgraded Super All-Wheel Control (S-AWC), which integrates control over the active center differential (ACD) with the rear differential's active yaw control (AYC). New additions to S-AWC include active stability control (ASC), active brake control and a yaw-rate sensor. The front limited-slip differential remains a conventional helical type. Put simply, the S-AWC actively manipulates wheel torque during acceleration and braking in order to control the car's cornering attitude.

If you drive too hot into a corner with the Evo X, the S-AWC four-wheel-drive system instantly redistributes torque to where it's needed most, while the ASC dabs the brakes to slow the progress of any overzealous wheels, alleviating the need for huge handfuls of opposite steering lock. Once the weight shifts slightly forward, the Evo X turns in quickly and then holds its line without understeer.

Thanks to the S-AWC, it's just about impossible to spin the Evo X. But once you switch off the ASC, you can slide the car at will, although you'd better be ready to catch the rear when it snaps around.

Even with an additional 200 pounds in curb weight, the Evo's revised steering setup, tweaked multilink rear suspension and stiffer chassis rigidity help keep the driver in touch with what's going on better than ever before, and the car even rides better. And if things go bad, the four-piston calipers for the Brembo brakes offer loads of fade-resistant stopping power.

Two Parts Legacy, One Part Impreza
Subaru has attempted to close the gap on the Evo's superb S-AWC system by refining the STI's three-way adjustable center differential (DCCD: Driver Controlled Center Differential). In addition, the AWD system now incorporates the Legacy's three-way throttle programming (SI Drive: Super Intelligent) and stability control (VDC: Vehicle Dynamics Control). Subaru has done a pretty good job of delivering an AWD system that can be adapted to a wide range of conditions.

Automatic is the DCCD's standard setting, with 59 percent of engine power sent to the rear wheels and the rear differential set neutrally. Auto-plus tightens the rear diff for more traction in slippery conditions. Auto-minus loosens the rear diff for navigating challenging, twisty roads where you need sharper turn-in and less traction at the rear. Six individual settings also allow torque going to the rear wheels to be varied between 50 and 59 percent. The helical front differential maintains front-wheel traction while helping the tires carve through a turn, and the Torsen rear differential adapts traction levels to the conditions.

The SI-Drive alters the engine and throttle mapping to three settings: Intelligent, Sport and Sport Sharp. It tailors the action of the throttle-by-wire system and the turbo boost to driving conditions, offering better traction when you need it and more aggressive torque when you want it. The VDC stability control can be switched off in two stages, with the first halting engine intervention by relying solely on the brakes. Switch it off completely and you let the STI strut its stuff without electronic interference.

Yet another feature that helps the STI get around corners faster than before is its new rear strut-type suspension. It not only delivers more predictable suspension action, it allows the car to be set up for more lively response and even significantly improves ride quality. And no complaints about the four-piston Brembos on the STI either.

Beyond the Specs
So with the tech spiel out of the way, what does it all mean?

The STI's steering effort feels slightly better weighted than that of the Evo, although the Mitsubishi's overall level of feedback through the wheel is still superior. Once you get the Evo into a rhythm, it corners more quickly through the twisties, but not by much, as the STI reveals slightly more understeer.

At the limit however, the Evo's S-AWC electronics make the driving experience oddly digital in a way, as if you are leaving too much of the cornering to the car. On the other hand, the STI's newly fitted VDC works surprisingly well. It intrudes when it's needed, but it never detracts from the spirit of the driving experience.

When you lay into the throttle, the Evo's turbo inline-4 responds with more eagerness and sharper throttle control than the STI, which needs to be spun over 4,000 rpm to deliver sufficient boost for rapid progress. This Evo's close-ratio five-speed gearbox also handicaps the engine in road driving compared to the STI's six-speed.

The Evo looks better on the road, while the STI boasts the practicality of five doors. Inside, the STI incorporates a slightly more appealing dash design, while the Evo X has inherited the former Lancer's plasticky interior. Seats in both cars are excellent, with good lumbar support.

Ready To Make a Choice?
Both the 2008 Mitsubishi Evo and the 2008 Subaru Impreza WRX STI have graduated from high school bullies to scholarship-toting college athletes, and all in just one generation. So which do we choose?

It's not going to be easy. The STI wins if you want a wagonlike car that handles with a more intuitive, analog feel. The Evo gets the nod if you're happier with a good-looking sedan that has excellent throttle response.

For those who don't care about body shapes, then the STI just pips the Evo, thanks to its better ride, smoother gearbox and especially the cool sounds the engine makes. But this might all change once the Evo gets its dual-clutch automated manual transmission.

It's not an easy choice. Who would you pick as your bodyguard: Jean-Claude Van Damme or Jet Li?
http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//media/il/features/driving/evo.x.vs.wrx.sti/07.sti.vs.evo.grp.fuji.500.jpg

+2

[Transcend]

I'd rather have Chuck Norris as my bodyguard :D

[Cookie]

I'd rather have Chuck Norris as my bodyguard :D

Brock Samson > Chuck Norris

[KAT_Ayanami]

The Evo X's close-ratio manual gearbox is clearly meant to be the racer's choice, because 5th gear is so tall it's only usable for highway cruising, and it handicaps the Mitsubishi against the Subaru.

Can somebody explain, please? Dont really understand.

[marc]

I'd rather have Chuck Norris as my bodyguard :D

Brock Samson > Chuck Norris


http://tn3-2.deviantart.com/fs14/300W/f/2007/055/c/a/brock_sampson_colored_by_kuewa.jpg

The Evo X's close-ratio manual gearbox is clearly meant to be the racer's choice, because 5th gear is so tall it's only usable for highway cruising, and it handicaps the Mitsubishi against the Subaru.

Can somebody explain, please? Dont really understand.


5th gear isn't designed for forward progress - its designed for fuel economy. This means the EVO X really only has 4 gears for acceleration, whereas the STI has 5 - so the STI's gears can be tighter, resulting in better acceleration in each gear.

[Transcend]

Can somebody explain, please? Dont really understand.
Long gears equate to you being able to carry a wider range of speed in that gear. For example if you have a close gear ratio for 5th gear- you may be only able to carry 115mph to 145 mph (from a upshift from 4th gear). But with a longer gear ratio you can carry up to 170mph (exaggerated figure) from an upshift from 4th gear at 115mph.

But there are drawbacks to having a long gear ratio. For example in some turns tight turns a STi can take it in 1st gear at 7400 rpm. But for an Evo to take that same corners it has to stay in 2nd gear at 5600rpm. Therefore the STi has the advantage in being able to carry more speed through that turn because the driver can use more throttle. But the Evo on the other hand cannot match the speed of the speed the STi because its gear ratio is not well suited for driving in those same tight turns.

The advantage of having a high final gear would be lower rpms at higher speeds. Let's say in 5th gear the STi is at 4700 rpm when you are going 130 km/h- which is not very efficient for long distance freeway driving. But the Evo would be at 3200rpm in 5th gear at 130km/h.

[KAT_Ayanami]

I see, but the problem I don't understand is that it says that the Evo also has close ratio for the first four, isn't that right?
Then, do you mean that the STI has a closer ratio?
And what does it mean: "Its a racers choice"?

Transcend, when you talk about the STI taking turns in 1st at 7500rpm and the evo in second... wouldn't it be the opposite?

I mean, if you can carry the gear longer by being wider, it means that the Evo would be able to stay in first gear longer than the STI... right?

Thanks.

[Transcend]

I see, but the problem I don't understand is that it says that the Evo also has close ratio for the first four, isn't that right?
Then, do you mean that the STI has a closer ratio?
And what does it mean: "Its a racers choice"?

Transcend, when you talk about the STI taking turns in 1st at 7500rpm and the evo in second... wouldn't it be the opposite?

I mean, if you can carry the gear longer by being wider, it means that the Evo would be able to stay in first gear longer than the STI... right?

Thanks.
For every track and every corner there is always an optimal setting for gear ratio. But because corners vary so much in speed, depth, banking, etc there is no way to have a perfect gear ratio for all certain kinds of corners so most manufacturers set the gear ratio to "what keeps enough optimal revs to clear most corners". There's no way to see if the STi or Evo has closer gear ratios without testing them both together so I can't give you any comments on that. "real" racers tend to choose a transmission that has gear ratios better suited for certain tracks or courses so that will vary from person to person. But generally shorter gear ratios are preferred because of better acceleration response, better deceleration characteristics and so forth.

Basically what I was trying to explain was that sometimes shorter gear ratios are not beneficial for all corners. Using a low-speed corner as an example... The STi is making more power in that turn because it is in 1st gear and will therefore be able to clear it faster. Whereas if the Evo wanted to match the STi's entry speed it would require him to be at 9200rpms (which it cannot do as a stock car) in 1st gear or in 2nd gear at 6700rpms. Since it cannot enter in the corner in 1st gear he has to stay in 2nd gear, which means less revs. And less revs = less power so therefore the Evo cannot clear the corner as fast.

That was just an example. But we all know that the Evo has much better late-braking characteristics than the STi but in this case the new STi may have shorter gear ratios and is coupled with a higher revving engine. So the STi has the power advantage whereas the Evo has the braking advantage.

[neological]

Basically what I was trying to explain was that sometimes shorter gear ratios are not beneficial for all corners. Using a low-speed corner as an example... The STi is making more power in that turn because it is in 1st gear and will therefore be able to clear it faster. Whereas if the Evo wanted to match the STi's entry speed it would require him to be at 9200rpms (which it cannot do as a stock car) in 1st gear or in 2nd gear at 6700rpms. Since it cannot enter in the corner in 1st gear he has to stay in 2nd gear, which means less revs. And less revs = less power so therefore the Evo cannot clear the corner as fast.

That was just an example. But we all know that the Evo has much better late-braking characteristics than the STi but in this case the new STi may have shorter gear ratios and is coupled with a higher revving engine. So the STi has the power advantage whereas the Evo has the braking advantage.
Yep, this is absolutely true. Even with an Evo IX you aren't making any power untill you cross 2400rpm. At 2400rpm in an STi you're almost at the top of the torque curve. In autocross this comes up a lot, the STis can get around tight, low-speed corners with a lot more power due to the gear ratio and the Evos have to try to even out the difference with better braking. Evos can also pull slaloms noticeably faster so courses with lots of slaloms, lane-changes and chicago boxes favor Evos while tight twisty courses tend to favor STis.

[Motor]

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=123965
[QUOTE]Same Price Tag, Different State of Mind
So why compare two cars whose target customers are so different? Well, first of all, they cost the same. The STI is slightly pricier at $39,440, only marginally more than the $39,180 Shelby. With as-tested prices within $300 of each other, the reality of cross-shopping these two on price alone isn't an arguable point.

We'd argue that there's another common mission between the two: putting a smile on their owners' faces. Really, they're both about having fun. Whether that fun means late-night powerslides in the Wal-Mart parking lot or Sunday morning pace-note sessions up your local canyon road, depends only on your state of mind.

Plus, these two machines are remarkably similar in the power department. The STI's 2.5-liter turbocharged flat-4 is rated at 305 horsepower and 290 pound-feet of torque. The Shelby's 4.6-liter V8 is stronger than that, but not by much. It generates 319 hp and 330 lb-ft of torque, slightly more than a standard Mustang thanks to a more efficient exhaust system, cold air intake and a revised engine calibration (which mandates premium fuel). A six-speed manual transmission puts the STI's power to all four wheels, while a five-speed manual drives the Shelby's rears.

Doughnuts and Horseplay
Plant your right foot to the Shelby's floorboard and you're rewarded with an engine note so patriotic you'd swear Francis Scott Key tuned the car's dual exhaust. It's a deep, powerful sound that perfectly accompanies the thrust that comes with it. It'll take $800 in custom exhaust to get this much aural reward from the STI and even then it will only be pleasing if you happen to like the off-kilter thrum of a flat-4.

What's more, a dip of the clutch and jab at the throttle is a sure key to the best powerslides this side of a GT500. The Shelby GT's balance on smooth surfaces is good and the information it offers a driver through its chassis is encouraging enough that we found ourselves with ample confidence to drive it very hard. Its steering is light but responsive and communicative enough to inspire reasonable confidence. There are few rewards in life greater than executing a perfect, tire-smoking powerslide, gathering it up and pulling up confidently at the next signal. This happens often in the Shelby GT. It's the kind of fun you can't have in any Subaru. But like mullets and mopeds, it's a bit of a novelty.

If outright speed is your jones, you should buy the STI. This latest version of Subaru's flagship is silly fast on any surface you choose. It eats midcorner bumps like a turbodiesel wood chipper sucking down a sapling. It treats road irregularities, gravel and damp surfaces with the same indifference the Shelby does burnouts

[GTsRasta]

Nice article!

[neological]

The Subaru interior is light years ahead of the Shelby? What is the Shelby interior made out of, plywood and cardboard?

[Motor]

http://www.caradvice.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/sti-1.jpg
http://www.caradvice.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/sti-3.jpg
http://www.caradvice.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/sti-2.jpg

-1

[marc]

uh . . . why is the Shelby GT being compared at $38,000

when the base mustang GT costs $25,000 . . . .

when a Shelby GT500 costs $39,000 . . . . ??

plus who the **** would pay $40,000 for a tarted up Impreza?