http://youtube.com/watch?v=9XzEvDckku8

 

Never buy the SST! It sure looked boring to drive it on the track.
________
Wellbutrin classaction

 

lol sst seems pretty slow compared to the manual evo9. of course there is teh weight difference.

 

I would blame it overheating on that... However, when the Evo 9 rocketed by I think it was only the second lap and the overheating problems didn't really show up until the 4th lap. I'm still reserving final judgement but I've gone from someone that will probably buy the Evo X to someone that will test drive it with much doubt.

 

The SST they were using was having overheating issues at high rpms. Also the guy driving it had incredibly odd shift points. I don't know if he was trying to let the computer determine everything (there may in fact be no way to force the computer to not shift for you even in manual mode), but it didn't seem right. I will reserve judgement till I see a SST tested that I could actually buy.

 

Interesting. Too bad they couldn't throw the new 2008 STI into the mix.

 

It wasn't overheating during the first couple laps... If you're referring to shiftpoints after that it was because the cars computer was making the car shift early due to the tranny overheating.

 

hmmm....i wonder why tsuchiya drove the skyline...he likes balance and low weight...not big and powerful

 

he just tagged along to have some fun, you notice when he fell back to last he was drifting through corners. They knew the G35C was no match for all of the turbo AWDs out there.
________
Digital easy vape instructions

 

I saw it yesterday.

I was like wtf ? it overheats ? wow, Good bye Mitsubishi !

 

What I want to know is why the EVO9 was so much faster than the X.
I realize the EVOX is a little heavier and has slightly more horsepower, but the difference was much more dramatic than I thought it would be. In fact, I figured the X might even be slightly faster.
Was there some other major change?

Well, apparently autoblog already has the answer.

The guys in japan tested the X and the NEW STI on the track recently too.
See below:

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/05/e...uba-lap-times/

 

The problem is you're trusting manufacturers HP ratings. The Evo has been underrated from the factory for a while, the new one with the new powerplant is probably a more accurate portrayal of actual horsepower. So, couple what is probably a little less horsepower in a heavier car and there you have it.

 

Good find! I'm excited to see one of these type of comparisons using the USDM models at a track like Laguna Seca. There are a lot of factors to consider if you're a current Evo/STi owner and you're planning to purchase one of these two new cars, but I'll have a helluva time pulling the trigger on the new STi if it doesn't handle as well or better than my old Evo VIII...stock for stock of course.

 

Looks like a sparring match with each model year's car trading punches. However of late the STi is doing better. Maybe this track doesn't favour the EVO.... and that err given the right conditions the EVO is better. Sounds familiar?

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

 

What are you gonna get now Ike?
________
Volcano vaporizer

 

But they're both Turbo AWD...

Did Mitsu really moved the engine FURTHER up? While Subaru lowered their engine.
________
condo for sale Pattaya

 

Those numbers are a bit misleading since most of the better STI numbers are probably from super limited production cars such as the Spec C and S201/202/203/204 etc. In fact I'd like to know where the listed times come from and exactly what model they are using because in most cases those times don't match up to any of the times I've seen for either car...

In most publications, and Best Motoring in particular the Evo bests the STI year after year after year (though it's always close). It's the same story each year, Evo is a better drivers car, it has better steering, turns a slightly better lap, and the STI understeers more. They're so close that which is the better car simply depends on what you want in a car, the slightly better performer, or the slightly better dailer driver. However, I have a feeling the gig is up for Mitsubishi this year and Subaru may be better at both. We'll need some more time to sort it out, but it's not looking good for the Mitsubishi camp.

 

^ Same can be said of the EVOs too. MR, Makkinen edition, etc. Who knows...

 

No, the MR isn't much more than an options package and they lap VERY similar to any other Evo. Cars like the Spec C are alittle more worked over and have more power, usually weigh about 150 lbs less than a regular STI, and have lots of things to tighten up the suspension, and finally are quite a bit more expensive. It's Subarus group N homologation car.

 

I believe the X has it's engine slightly pushed forward more compared to the XI which would effect it's times some.

 

I highly doubt that's nearly as much of a factor as the increased weight and what is most likely less power despite the higher manufaturer ratings.

 

Isn't the SST the only option here in the US?

 

Nope, it comes with the MR. The GSR model has a 5MT.

 

If anything, the differences between the STi and Evo have widened dramatically with these new models making the decision much easier for most people. You're now comparing a relatively raw-feel hatch to an sophisicated electronic coupe.

Even when the differences were very minor in years past, many people were very much in one camp or the other for very basic reasons (e.g. - cosmetic, interior comfort, mileage, etc). Now that both cars have changed fairly dramatically the decision is easier and the camps will become more well defined. They will both be considered very competent performers with large cosmetic and feel differences. I don't think there's much chance of the Mitsubishi camp becoming empty.

 

so mitsu made a car that is slower than it's predecessor?

it pulled a mazda huh