Is the STI that bad?
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 682
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area
Looking at the numbers, both care are pretty much a wash performance wise and they both a notch below the their previous generation. Which is expected as you are getting a better chasis but more weight. I don't think you can clearly say that the EVO clearly outperform the STI. A better driver can make a bigger difference in lap time that that. Pricewise I don't think anyone should spend more than $35k for either car as it would be getting to close to 335i territory.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,816
Likes: 1
From: NYSE
Originally Posted by PedalFaster,Jan 18 2008, 11:12 AM
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 682
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area
I just watched the latest Best Motoring video and they tested the old STI and EVO against the new ones. Here is the result on their 5 laps battle:
1. New STI
2. Old STI
3. EVO IX GSR
4. EVO X 5MT
5. EVO X SST
1. New STI
2. Old STI
3. EVO IX GSR
4. EVO X 5MT
5. EVO X SST
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,776
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by dmz,Jan 20 2008, 05:02 PM
I just watched the latest Best Motoring video and they tested the old STI and EVO against the new ones. Here is the result on their 5 laps battle:
1. New STI
2. Old STI
3. EVO IX GSR
4. EVO X 5MT
5. EVO X SST
1. New STI
2. Old STI
3. EVO IX GSR
4. EVO X 5MT
5. EVO X SST
Is the new US spec evo faster than US spec STI? and those are the times for the JDM ones?
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 8,561
Likes: 1
From: Foster City, CA
Car and Driver
#1 Evo X
#2 VW R32
#3 STI
Evo X beat the Sti in 0-60, 0-100, and 1/4 and did a .97 on skid pad to .89 by the sti. Unlike the last gen the STI has worse front to rear weight bias then the evo. It understeers everywhere they said and it's lacks low end torque..go figure.
evo X (56.5%/43.5%) (Front/Rear)
STI (58.2%,41.8%)
evo X did 0-60 in 4.6 secs, 0-100 in 12.5 and 1/4 13.4 flat at 103
STI was 0-60 5.0, 0-100 in 12.6 and 1/4 13.5 at 103
so obviously the accel is much the same after 60, but the understeer and total lack of steering feedback (their words not mine), and lack of road holding grip (and it aint the tires as the sti beat the evo in 70-0 braking by 8 ft) and $4k more price as tested give this round to the evo, IMO.
#1 Evo X
#2 VW R32
#3 STI
Evo X beat the Sti in 0-60, 0-100, and 1/4 and did a .97 on skid pad to .89 by the sti. Unlike the last gen the STI has worse front to rear weight bias then the evo. It understeers everywhere they said and it's lacks low end torque..go figure.
evo X (56.5%/43.5%) (Front/Rear)
STI (58.2%,41.8%)
evo X did 0-60 in 4.6 secs, 0-100 in 12.5 and 1/4 13.4 flat at 103
STI was 0-60 5.0, 0-100 in 12.6 and 1/4 13.5 at 103
so obviously the accel is much the same after 60, but the understeer and total lack of steering feedback (their words not mine), and lack of road holding grip (and it aint the tires as the sti beat the evo in 70-0 braking by 8 ft) and $4k more price as tested give this round to the evo, IMO.
Banned
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 10,513
Likes: 0
From: USSA
The latest edition Motor Trend has the STi at 4.7 to 60 vs. the Evo X at 5.2. The STi is also faster in the 1/4 mile at 13.4 vs the Evo's 13.8.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBhP7KAd-oc
In this vid look how much more composed and smooth the Subis are compared to the Evos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBhP7KAd-oc
In this vid look how much more composed and smooth the Subis are compared to the Evos.