Autos.ca Home  


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: CanadianDriver Feature: EVO vs STi  (Read 1690 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
wing
Big Wig
Administrator
*****
Online Online

Vehicle: '01 S2000 & '05 Titan SE
Gender: Male
Location: Ottawa, On, Canada
Posts: 17630


If you ain't first ... you're last!


View Profile WWW
 Stats
« on: August 05, 2008, 07:52:46 am »

For those that were wondering what was up when I said "I have something better planned" for the STi.

Here you go:
http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/cc/evo-versus-sti.htm
Logged


inco
Car Crazy
*****
Offline Offline

Vehicle: 2011 Explorer XLT 4WD, 2011 Subaru Forester Touring
Gender: Male
Location: Ontaaaarrrrio
Posts: 6796


View Profile
 Stats
« Reply #1 on: August 05, 2008, 09:19:19 am »

Maybe I missed it, but what tires were on the Evo and did that perhaps play a part to the slower times?
Logged
wing
Big Wig
Administrator
*****
Online Online

Vehicle: '01 S2000 & '05 Titan SE
Gender: Male
Location: Ottawa, On, Canada
Posts: 17630


If you ain't first ... you're last!


View Profile WWW
 Stats
« Reply #2 on: August 05, 2008, 09:28:26 am »

EVO has Yokohama A13's, STi Dunlop GS3 I believe.
Logged


carcrazy
Car Crazy
*****
Offline Offline

Location: GTA
Posts: 4023

member


View Profile
 Stats
« Reply #3 on: August 05, 2008, 10:51:40 am »

It shouldn't be any surprise for the MR's higher 0-60 mph number.  In every single comparison, the MR was the slowest to 60 mph when compared to the STI and GSR. I think the usual ranking is STI, GSR and MR. I've never see any time over 6 seconds though.

However, in any comparison, the Evo (GSR or MR) is clearly faster than the STI around the track or mountain roads (Edmunds).

Wing's findings are consistent with every other auto outlet I can recall, and they all pick the Evo in the end as the best performance car.
Logged
Rolling
Learner's Permit
*
Offline Offline

Vehicle: 2007 Mazda5 GT, 2005 Honda CRV
Gender: Male
Location: GVA
Posts: 53

member


View Profile
 Stats
« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2008, 11:16:54 am »

Mitsubishi has a winner with their TC-SST transmission. It seems to always be a key factor when the EVO10 is reviewed or tested. The engineers at Mitsubishi seem to have achieved a perfect setup with their twin clutch automated transmission. Some reviews in publication even say they have surpassed and bested VW’s DSG transmission.

Mitsubishi spent their time concentrating on the harder, more complicated transmission/Drive-train setup, the electronics to control it, and it has paid off on the track

I’m not sure if there are many places that can improve on the electronics that control the EVO’s handling… and I don’t think you’d need to, but there are tuners and after market Bolt-On parts available already that can quickly improve the EVO’s engine performance and characteristics.

Lots of great cars could be even better with a transmission like the EVO’s.  How would the STI’s numbers have been if it also had a Twin clutch transmission? 

Nissan also knows how to make an excellent Dual clutch transmission in the GTR. Many articles also credit the GTR’s performance number to its transmission.  So how come Nissan insists on shoving a CVT down your throat when you buy their other vehicles? Is it purely for financial gain as they own the largest CVT transmission company?

Logged
Snowman
Car Crazy
*****
Offline Offline

Vehicle: 2012 Audi TT-RS. 2004 Honda S 2000, 2011 Toyota Venza, and Mom's 1996 Nissan Pathfinder
Gender: Male
Location: Oakville
Posts: 21011



View Profile
 Stats
« Reply #5 on: August 05, 2008, 03:42:20 pm »

Finally! a comparo on CTC…..good job.
Logged

safristi
Car Crazy
*****
Offline Offline

Vehicle: 1997 Ford Ranger; 2012 Hyundai Veloster tech package.
Gender: Male
Location: Bethlehem
Posts: 40334



View Profile
 Stats
« Reply #6 on: August 05, 2008, 03:42:57 pm »

..nice knees Wing............... Shocked Tongue
Logged

THERE IS NO CURE FOR "LOTUS"......ONLY TREATMENT.....
Iso Octane
Auto Obsessed
***
Offline Offline

Vehicle: G35, Miata
Gender: Male
Location: Toronto
Posts: 674

to the beat of the different drum


View Profile
 Stats
« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2008, 02:35:06 pm »

Quote
His average times in each car were 64.18 seconds in the Mitsubishi - including one "slow" run at 66.487, where leaving stability control engaged slowed him down significantly

Thumbs up   Thumbs up   Thumbs up

So how come Nissan insists on shoving a CVT down your throat when you buy their other vehicles? Is it purely for financial gain as they own the largest CVT transmission company?

I'm sure the CVTs (and the traditional slushbox) will eventually be dying out in favour of the DSGs.  It's just a matter of time, and the sooner the better.  The CVT is a real deal breaker for me.  I hate them!
« Last Edit: August 06, 2008, 02:39:17 pm by Mattesa » Logged
wing
Big Wig
Administrator
*****
Online Online

Vehicle: '01 S2000 & '05 Titan SE
Gender: Male
Location: Ottawa, On, Canada
Posts: 17630


If you ain't first ... you're last!


View Profile WWW
 Stats
« Reply #8 on: August 06, 2008, 02:39:02 pm »

3 seconds slower with it engaged it was brutal!
Logged


Turbo Bob
Car Crazy
*****
Offline Offline

Vehicle: 2010 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 2.0T
Gender: Male
Location: Waterloo
Posts: 9172


Profesional Dash Stroker


View Profile WWW
 Stats
« Reply #9 on: August 06, 2008, 07:51:02 pm »

Great article JB!
Logged

Power is how fast you hit the wall... Torque is how far you take the wall with you!

Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.4 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Brkdmrcn v4 By [BrKDmRcN]
| Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.06 seconds with 29 queries.