Overrated and Underrated sports car
02-19-2006 | 04:22 PM
#101
Music and Cars!!! :)
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,325
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Ike
Think about the root words of sportscar for a bit. Now try to tell me the STI and Evo aren't the most sporting cars in their pricerange on the road today. The days of a sportscar having to look a certain way and have a certain amount of seats is long gone IMO. It was stupid to ever have a such a term based so strongly on looks and number of seats in the first place.
02-19-2006 | 05:26 PM
#102
Registered
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,505
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles, CA
Originally Posted by VikingDJ
Nice posts guys. I only have one problem. I'm allowed to express this opinion though since I own one. The STI is not a sports car, it's a rally inspired modified version of an economy sedan. Yes it's very fast, so I suppose people will call it one, but there's no way I can look at that car and call it a sports car. Now the S2000, and RX8, those are sports cars, if for no other reason because they are originally formed cars built from ground up, not modified versions of economy cars. Not to mention they have the looks and refinement, and define a true sports car. That is all. 
+1 for good logic, if its chassis wasnt originally designed for sporting purposes(lancer, or impreza) then its not a sports car. i'll go get a civic, and modify it beyond performance capabilities of an STi and no one will call it a sports car, so why should the sti and evo be called sportscars? thats all they are, is economy cars with extensively modified body panels, suspensions, drivetrains, and engines
02-19-2006 | 06:29 PM
#104
Blue By You
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee
You guys are clueless to the roots of these cars and the history and thought that went into them. They were developed from their inception to be WRC cars (replacing the Legacy and the Galant), due to homologation rules it was easier to use an existing nameplate and was also a smart move marketing wise. Maybe not a great marketing wise in America becuase of all the ignorant consumers that think they are just modified Lancers and Imprezas. You will most likely never see cars like the STI and Evo again because of the changes in the homologation rules, they are truely special and it's a shame an STI is clueless about his cars roots and just looks at it as a Impreza with a bunch of performance parts.
02-19-2006 | 07:16 PM
#105
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
From: PNW
Originally Posted by yiksing
A STI can smoke an 8 or S2000 meaning its a car that smokes another sports car, so what do you call a car faster than a sports car?
Who cares whether someone calls a particular car a "sports car?" Who cares what label anyone puts on your car? Do you like your car? Does anything else matter?
Sheesh....
02-19-2006 | 08:32 PM
#106
Registered
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,144
Likes: 0
From: Livermore, CA
Originally Posted by StealthFox
in other words, he paraphrased one of my earlier posts
+1 for good logic, if its chassis wasnt originally designed for sporting purposes(lancer, or impreza) then its not a sports car. i'll go get a civic, and modify it beyond performance capabilities of an STi and no one will call it a sports car, so why should the sti and evo be called sportscars? thats all they are, is economy cars with extensively modified body panels, suspensions, drivetrains, and engines
+1 for good logic, if its chassis wasnt originally designed for sporting purposes(lancer, or impreza) then its not a sports car. i'll go get a civic, and modify it beyond performance capabilities of an STi and no one will call it a sports car, so why should the sti and evo be called sportscars? thats all they are, is economy cars with extensively modified body panels, suspensions, drivetrains, and engines
Here's a little history of the Evo if you care...
http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/fe...scc_lancerevo/
And here's a little history on the Impreza WRX STi...
http://www.scoobyphotos.com/impreza_history.php
Here's a website that details all that's involved with converting a showroom STi into a rally car - complete with pictures!
http://rally.subaru.com/rally/servle...?part=1&page=1
02-20-2006 | 01:20 AM
#107
Music and Cars!!! :)
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,325
Likes: 0
What you have here are two very partial sides facing off. I'll be fair in saying that the EVO and STI are their own separate breed, and define their own version of a sports car, for the simple fact that they perform so well, and so much time ane energy have gone into their performance, and build. Can I treat my STI like my S2000, by garaging it, waxing it all the time, parking away from shopping carts at grocery store, ect ect? HELL NO. It's purpose for me is to get me to work, and around town, yet with awesome performance. I simply do not treat this car any differently then if I were to have purchased a base model Impreza. Does that mean the car is not special? No, it just means I choose to look at this car for what I see it to be, which is a fast Impreza. Seeing a 60 year old woman driving a slow, lackluster performing Impreza RS that looks exactly like my car, but cost $14 grand less, is the reason why this will never be a sports car to me. If they take a Honda S2000, slap a base model civic engine in it, give it cloth seats, manual top, smaller rims, softer suspension, ect ect, that car will lose it's purity, and be in a lower class then it is now. Don't get me wrong. I am so glad Subaru built this STI, and I love this car, but not to an enthusiast standpoint. This is a car you buy to use, not to show off. There's nothing better then having a daily driver that performs this well, while being reliable, and you can treat it like a regular car. It's truly awesome to be able to buy an economy car off the showroom that drives like this. Hey, we all have our own personalities, and no one is wrong here.
02-21-2006 | 06:29 PM
#108
Registered
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,505
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles, CA
im going to have to both agree but maintain my general statment, because i highly respect you and your knowledge.
while you may say the chassis and stuff has been reinforced and improved, you're essentially saying that the chassis was modified from its original primary design(for a regular 4 door sedan) for sporting purposes starting with the second EVO in 1994(i believe that was the release year of the second evolution). This is exactly what i am trying to say, the cars ARE imprezas and lancers, yes, i agree they are so highly modified and changed from the orignals they bear no real performance simularities just aesthetics and some interior and exterior "inspiration", but when it comes down to it though, they didn't design the lancer and the impreza to be sold primarily in evolution and wrx forms, but as regular economy grocery getters and then changing the car to be like its racecar counterpart for ultra high performance. and back to my original statement, because these cars were not designed from the beginning to be sports cars, they are not sportscars. while they maintain very little in common with their base model counterparts and because they are essentially reworked and rebuilt for sporting purposes and not initally designed for it, then they are not sports cars, instead just high performance sedans.
while you may say the chassis and stuff has been reinforced and improved, you're essentially saying that the chassis was modified from its original primary design(for a regular 4 door sedan) for sporting purposes starting with the second EVO in 1994(i believe that was the release year of the second evolution). This is exactly what i am trying to say, the cars ARE imprezas and lancers, yes, i agree they are so highly modified and changed from the orignals they bear no real performance simularities just aesthetics and some interior and exterior "inspiration", but when it comes down to it though, they didn't design the lancer and the impreza to be sold primarily in evolution and wrx forms, but as regular economy grocery getters and then changing the car to be like its racecar counterpart for ultra high performance. and back to my original statement, because these cars were not designed from the beginning to be sports cars, they are not sportscars. while they maintain very little in common with their base model counterparts and because they are essentially reworked and rebuilt for sporting purposes and not initally designed for it, then they are not sports cars, instead just high performance sedans.
Originally Posted by Steiner
That's simply wrong. Versus the base model Lancer, the current CT9A chassis first seen in the Evo VII boasted 50% more flexural rigidity as a result of thicker sheetmetal and bracing in high-load regions, seam-welding in the B-pillars and front chassis section, and more than 200 additional spot welds in the door apertures. In each successive Evo model (VIII & IX) built on the CT9A chassis, structural rigidity has increased even more! It's to the point now that converting an '06 Evolution IX RS to a bonafied rally car requires very little besides the additon of a roll cage. Like them or not, there's no debating these cars are built like a tank.
Here's a little history of the Evo if you care...
http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/fe...scc_lancerevo/
And here's a little history on the Impreza WRX STi...
http://www.scoobyphotos.com/impreza_history.php
Here's a website that details all that's involved with converting a showroom STi into a rally car - complete with pictures!
http://rally.subaru.com/rally/servle...?part=1&page=1
Here's a little history of the Evo if you care...
http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/fe...scc_lancerevo/
And here's a little history on the Impreza WRX STi...
http://www.scoobyphotos.com/impreza_history.php
Here's a website that details all that's involved with converting a showroom STi into a rally car - complete with pictures!
http://rally.subaru.com/rally/servle...?part=1&page=1
Last edited by StealthFox; 02-21-2006 at 06:33 PM.
03-01-2006 | 11:21 PM
#109
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by StealthFox
heres a reasonable proposition.
we just stop defining "sports car" because i have the entire table laid out below. for our intents and purposes, this thread regards "performance cars" meaning any car that was made for higher performance. whether it be from the get go(ie rx7 or 911) or from regular chassis with changed drivetrains and suspensions(like the focus RS or lancer evolution)
performance cars(by stealth fox)
1. Sports cars-in the pure form a sports car is a car originally designed for the intent of sporting and SOLEY sporting and are low to the ground, relatively compact in size, light in weight, commonly convertables and have highly performance oriented suspensions AND REAR WHEEL DRIVE, NO EXCEPTIONS AT ALL (and can include things like rear seats)
examples- mazda rx-7, porsche 911, toyota mr2, lotus elise, nissan 240sx, s2000, 350z, corvette, the older fiats and alfa romeros, miatas
not examples-impreza wrx, integra type R, skyline GTR, bmw m3
2. sport coupes- front wheel cars made to be sporty or high performance versions of regular cars
examples-integra type r, acura rsx, toyota celica, nissan sentra se-r, civic Si
3. grand touring cars-larger heavier, typically more luxury oriented cars(not necessary though) that have high performance aspects
examples-mazda rx8, aston martin db9, infiniti g35, ferrari maranello, bmw m3
4. performance sedans-performance versions of regular sedans
examples-bmw m5, evo, sti, audi s4
5. muscle cars-american made high torque fast as hell v8 cars that can't handle for **** and are heavy
examples-mustang, gto, trans am, camaro, etc
i think with that 5 section system you can classify every performance car properly.
we just stop defining "sports car" because i have the entire table laid out below. for our intents and purposes, this thread regards "performance cars" meaning any car that was made for higher performance. whether it be from the get go(ie rx7 or 911) or from regular chassis with changed drivetrains and suspensions(like the focus RS or lancer evolution)
performance cars(by stealth fox)
1. Sports cars-in the pure form a sports car is a car originally designed for the intent of sporting and SOLEY sporting and are low to the ground, relatively compact in size, light in weight, commonly convertables and have highly performance oriented suspensions AND REAR WHEEL DRIVE, NO EXCEPTIONS AT ALL (and can include things like rear seats)
examples- mazda rx-7, porsche 911, toyota mr2, lotus elise, nissan 240sx, s2000, 350z, corvette, the older fiats and alfa romeros, miatas
not examples-impreza wrx, integra type R, skyline GTR, bmw m3
2. sport coupes- front wheel cars made to be sporty or high performance versions of regular cars
examples-integra type r, acura rsx, toyota celica, nissan sentra se-r, civic Si
3. grand touring cars-larger heavier, typically more luxury oriented cars(not necessary though) that have high performance aspects
examples-mazda rx8, aston martin db9, infiniti g35, ferrari maranello, bmw m3
4. performance sedans-performance versions of regular sedans
examples-bmw m5, evo, sti, audi s4
5. muscle cars-american made high torque fast as hell v8 cars that can't handle for **** and are heavy
examples-mustang, gto, trans am, camaro, etc
i think with that 5 section system you can classify every performance car properly.
you cant say muscel cars cant handle. When they (GTO) run better track times than an STI and not to mention an rx-8. Obviosuly the power is the main factor, but handling is a big part of it
03-02-2006 | 05:39 AM
#110
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
From: Apalachin, NY
Originally Posted by rx8gurl
you cant say muscel cars cant handle. When they (GTO) run better track times than an STI and not to mention an rx-8. Obviosuly the power is the main factor, but handling is a big part of it
Haha, that's great! Where are you getting your information from?
The GTO weighs 3700+ lbs and understeers like a pig. It can't handle worth crap. The only STi/GTO comparison that I know of was done by edmunds http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...3/pageId=63961
Some choices quotes:
Originally Posted by Edmunds
Big tires, rear-wheel drive and a fully independent suspension can only do so much when they're trying to herd in 3,725 pounds of sheet metal. At moderate speeds the big Goat is stable enough, but push harder and its limitations aren't hard to find.
Driven back-to-back with the Subaru, the GTO feels massive, with slow turn-in and excessive body roll. With no stability control to rein you in, the GTO will happily progress to easily controllable oversteer which can be fun provided you have the room to play. Wide pedal spacing makes heel-and-toe downshifting nearly impossible, and the brakes never feel strong enough despite a switch to larger rotors, calipers and pads for 2005.
Slalom testing confirmed the GTO's clumsiness as it rumbled through the cones at a leisurely 60 mph. The STi knifed through it at 66.7 mph, a Toyota Camry Solara can do it at 60.9 mph.
Driven back-to-back with the Subaru, the GTO feels massive, with slow turn-in and excessive body roll. With no stability control to rein you in, the GTO will happily progress to easily controllable oversteer which can be fun provided you have the room to play. Wide pedal spacing makes heel-and-toe downshifting nearly impossible, and the brakes never feel strong enough despite a switch to larger rotors, calipers and pads for 2005.
Slalom testing confirmed the GTO's clumsiness as it rumbled through the cones at a leisurely 60 mph. The STi knifed through it at 66.7 mph, a Toyota Camry Solara can do it at 60.9 mph.
Originally Posted by edmunds
On paper, the GTO looked tough to beat. A 400-hp small-block V8, six-speed manual, rear-wheel drive — what more do you need? But the more we drove these cars on the edge, the more we realized that the STi was the real deal. It held its own on the drag strip and flat-out smoked the GTO through the slalom. Plus its backseats come with doors. On the street, more than one editor noted that when it comes to raw, unfiltered feel, it's the Subaru that delivers over the more refined GTO. Add in the STi's higher-quality interior and usable trunk and it's the Subaru that gets our $33K.
03-02-2006 | 01:08 PM
#111
Blue By You
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee
Originally Posted by rx8gurl
you cant say muscel cars cant handle. When they (GTO) run better track times than an STI and not to mention an rx-8. Obviosuly the power is the main factor, but handling is a big part of it
03-05-2006 | 02:05 AM
#112
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
here you go. BTW for the people that dnt know, that is the GTO, in australian styling. The vauxhall monaro. Very few changes such as badging and body styling were cahnged before imported to the US.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...849&q=top+gear
Look at the time postings at the very end. And I doubt that guy is an awful driver.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...849&q=top+gear
Look at the time postings at the very end. And I doubt that guy is an awful driver.
03-05-2006 | 08:34 AM
#114
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
From: Apalachin, NY
Are you seriously still arguing that the GTO handles well? Get a clue. You watch one video of a guy doing one lap on one course and you somehow jump to the conclusion that the GTO handles well?
The GTO is a pig and handles like one.
The GTO is a pig and handles like one.
03-05-2006 | 09:24 PM
#115
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
hahaha, so you mean those results meant nothing? I will absolutely admit with no problem with the STi handles much better than a GTO, It was designed to. But you are just trying to convince yourself that it does nto even come close, when in fact, you are overating the Sti's abilities.
03-05-2006 | 10:08 PM
#117
Was a Z Guy...
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
From: Wichita Falls, Texas
The GTO is usually rated at .84-.86 on the skidpad. I guess that's not too bad. But an Sti will blister its *** through a slalom, and is not far off in acceleration. All-wheel drive and a tight suspension add up to way better handling than the GTO. I say that lap was a fluke, and given identical tracks, same driver, the Sti will dust the GTO's times. The video wouldn't play, so I'm just assuming his car was stock. Who drove the Sti? Did they show a video of that lap as well? What exactly is being compared here?
03-06-2006 | 04:58 AM
#118
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
From: Apalachin, NY
Originally Posted by 280RX-8
The GTO is usually rated at .84-.86 on the skidpad. I guess that's not too bad. But an Sti will blister its *** through a slalom, and is not far off in acceleration. All-wheel drive and a tight suspension add up to way better handling than the GTO. I say that lap was a fluke, and given identical tracks, same driver, the Sti will dust the GTO's times. The video wouldn't play, so I'm just assuming his car was stock. Who drove the Sti? Did they show a video of that lap as well? What exactly is being compared here?
They showed the GTO doing one lap in a made-for-TV effort. So, you don't really see the full lap or even know if the clips are put together from a bunch of different laps. At the end, they go their board where they have a list of times for a bunch of cars they tested and the the GTO had the same time as an STi that they drove on a different day in different conditions. So based on that, she somehow comes to the conclusion that the GTO handles good. No one drove the STi on this occasion.
Also note that, since this is Top Gear from the UK, the STi is not the USDM STi with the 2.5L, 300 hp, 300 ft/lb torque. It is the version with the 2.0L engine that puts out 276 horsepower. So, even though the GTO has twice the cylinders, 3x the displacement, and 125 more hp, it still can't beat a Subaru.
03-07-2006 | 02:32 AM
#122
Registered
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,144
Likes: 0
From: Livermore, CA
Originally Posted by sti_eric
Also note that, since this is Top Gear from the UK, the STi is not the USDM STi with the 2.5L, 300 hp, 300 ft/lb torque. It is the version with the 2.0L engine that puts out 276 horsepower. So, even though the GTO has twice the cylinders, 3x the displacement, and 125 more hp, it still can't beat a Subaru.
A few weeks ago a local STI/EVO tuner I take my car to got their hands on a JDM spec EJ20 right out of an '01 JDM STI. Even though it wasn't tuned for crappy 91 octane, it put down an additional 30whp over the average EJ25 in the USDM STI. The guys at the shop were blown away. It's a stronger head, with stronger internals and a bigger turbocharger. You can thank the smog ****'S for that. I thank them for 91 octane everyday with my high-flow cat.
03-07-2006 | 05:39 AM
#123
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
From: Apalachin, NY
Originally Posted by Steiner
Well you can throw that argument out the window. The 2.0L turbo in the Japanese and European STI puts down more power than the 2.5L turbo in the US version of the same car. In fact it's a pretty significant margin. The "276hp" rating goes all the way back to the early 90's when Japanese manufacturer's made a gentlemen's agreement with Japanese law enforcement not to exceed those numbers. It eventually became a joke because of cars like the Evo, STi, Skyline and Supra who were putting down more than 276hp to the wheels but still advertised "276hp" on the window sticker.
A few weeks ago a local STI/EVO tuner I take my car to got their hands on a JDM spec EJ20 right out of an '01 JDM STI. Even though it wasn't tuned for crappy 91 octane, it put down an additional 30whp over the average EJ25 in the USDM STI. The guys at the shop were blown away. It's a stronger head, with stronger internals and a bigger turbocharger. You can thank the smog ****'S for that. I thank them for 91 octane everyday with my high-flow cat.
A few weeks ago a local STI/EVO tuner I take my car to got their hands on a JDM spec EJ20 right out of an '01 JDM STI. Even though it wasn't tuned for crappy 91 octane, it put down an additional 30whp over the average EJ25 in the USDM STI. The guys at the shop were blown away. It's a stronger head, with stronger internals and a bigger turbocharger. You can thank the smog ****'S for that. I thank them for 91 octane everyday with my high-flow cat.
Here's the peak hp/tq rating for all STi versions:
STi Version - 238/224
STi Version II - 258/228
STi Version III - 278/242
STi Version IV - 278/242
STi Version V - 278/250
STi Version VI - 278/250
New Age STi - 278/275
USDM STi - 300/300
22B - 278/268
UK300 - 218/215
P1 - 278/253
RB5 - 218/214
555 - 208/214
Series McRae - 208/214
Cataluyna - 208/214
Terzo - 208/214
S201 - 300/260
S202 - 315/283
S203 - 320/311
S204 - 320/318
While
03-07-2006 | 06:42 AM
#124
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
From: Madrid, Spain
Originally Posted by Ike
You guys are clueless to the roots of these cars and the history and thought that went into them. They were developed from their inception to be WRC cars (replacing the Legacy and the Galant), due to homologation rules it was easier to use an existing nameplate and was also a smart move marketing wise. Maybe not a great marketing wise in America becuase of all the ignorant consumers that think they are just modified Lancers and Imprezas. You will most likely never see cars like the STI and Evo again because of the changes in the homologation rules, they are truely special and it's a shame an STI is clueless about his cars roots and just looks at it as a Impreza with a bunch of performance parts.
Up to 1986 group B specs ruled the World Rally Championship. Cars like the Lancia 037, Stratos, S4 and Peugeot 205 turbo 16 competed. This cars were designed as rally cars and THEN had their road version launched. A short number of them were made to be able to homologate the rally car.
Some of them were just prototypes with huge turbos (the s4 had an additional supercharger). In the early eighties 4wd was also introduced.
Some group B cars had in excess of 600 hp, the Lancia delta s4 could qualify for a formula 1 race back in its time.
In 1.986, Lancia driver Henri Toivonen and co-driver Sergio Cresto died in an accident in Rally Corsica. This event, among several spectator deaths triggered a change in FIA regulations and group A cars were born.
Group A cars MUST be based on mass produced cars. Mitsubishi Galant and Lancer, Subaru Legacy and Impreza, Toyota Celica GT4, Mazda 323 GTR, Lancia Delta... all those were Group A. Group A ruled until the late nineties.
WRC spec is an evolution of group A (less stringent rules) the manufacturer doesn't have to actually mass produce a road version of the car, they can add a turbo and AWD to a 2 liter powerplant. For the past 2 years the champ was a Citroen Xsara WRC, not an STi or an EVO.
The Xara WRC is BASED on a 2wd, 2 liter N/A econo box, a turbo AWD version of the Xara does not even EXIST (Except the one competing
) and is beating the hell out of subaru and mitsubishi and their rally heritage.
