Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 17,248
L
CEG road warrior
Offline
CEG road warrior
L
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 17,248
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Demon, you do realize that motortrend alters their numbers based on set values. I mean they correct for elevation, heat, etc. to give more accurate numbers.



That changes the numbers to a fairly "close" estimation but it does not count the intagibles. Like the fact the IC's are using extremely hot air to cool the intake charge (that's a big factor!) and no matter what correction factors you use you can never equal runs done in ideal conditions and sea level!

I think the Evo in stock form will definitely crack the 12's without a problem with good weather! Corrections factors are okay, but never "exact" They always come up short of the real thing.

Either way 13 flat is blazing fast. Especially for a "rated" 271HP


As for looks. They both suffer from the front end Fuglies! Neither car is very good looking or has very clean lines.
Both cars have econo car interiors as well. The Mitsu's ergonomics is more for the driver while the Subbie's is little more towards cruising.

There is no real winner here. Either car looks infinitely better in it's previous body style.


It seems like the manufacturers producing the turbocharged cars are having problem rating the power.....good for us.

I agree the cars are not all that great looking, but if I had a choice it would be the EVO.


Hector 2003 Rally Red Mitsubishi Evolution VIII 257HP/259TQ 2005 Lapis Blue Mazda 6s RET: 00 Cabernet Red Ford Contour Zetec ATX SUPERCHARGED 160HP/141TQ
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 148
R
CEG\'er
Offline
CEG\'er
R
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 148
its not a rated 271, cruise the the sti and evo forums. ive seen as fast as a 12.9 for an sti and 300 whp and 312 footpounds at the wheels with downpipe boost set to 16.8 and intake. most magazines ive seen give the sti a large advantage in the quarter mile and any straight speed test for that matter. although the evo would outhandle it.ive seen 2 evos break into the 13's here at our track which is a huge deal at 5600 feet. one ran a 13.8 stock and the other a 13.8 at 98 with boost and intake. so those times corrected are low 13's. i dont think theres a contour right now that in the quarter mile is going to be able to run a low 13 or as people on iclub have a high 12 in an sti. the its not a rated 271, cruise the the sti and evo forums. ive seen as fast as a 12.9 for an sti and 300 whp and 312 footpounds at the wheels with downpipe boost set to 16.8 and intake. most magazines ive seen give the sti a large advantage in the quarter mile and any straight speed test for that matter. although the evo would outhandle it.ive seen 2 evos break into the 13's here at our track which is a huge deal at 5600 feet. one ran a 13.8 stock and the other a 13.8 at 98 with boost and intake. so those times corrected are low 13's. i dont think theres a contour right now that in the quarter mile is going to be able to run a low 13 or as people on iclub have a high 12 in an sti. with the trap speeds ive seen for an evo or an sti and a turbo or s/c tour from a roll i think the tour could hang


my cars for sale, check the classified
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,191
A
Hard-core CEG'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG'er
A
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,191
Jeezus Ridebmx, I thought I was losing my mind for a minute! YOu just typed the same thing twice.

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 670
K
Veteran CEG\'er
Offline
Veteran CEG\'er
K
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 670
Motorweek's #s are always slow. They got mid to high 13s out of a ZO6 and a Cobra-R.
These 2 cars are the real deal. There's a vid floating around of an STI at an 1/8th mile track just destroying everything. Trap speeds are always a little lower in AWD cars anyway. But they've got 2-3 cars on you off the mark. Even IF you could get a Tour to match a stock STI or EVO, with 2 or 3 mods you're back to square one. Hope you've got deep pockets.

If only those cars weren't so blasted ugly.

-R-


I'm a Karate Man. Karate men..bruise on the inside. "The difference between oversteer and understeer: oversteer is when the passengers are scared, understeer is when the driver is scared." -Driver Unknown
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 487
W
CEG\'er
Offline
CEG\'er
W
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 487
Warmonger...thanks for "stroke"

The night I was at the track there were 2 EVO's...one stock, and one with an intake setup. Both drivers were familiar with the AWD platform as they had both previously owned GSX's. Both were very nice as their friend with a moderately modified WRX was...

The best run "I" saw was a 13.5xx at 99mph. Most of their runs were in the 14.0-14.2 range at around 95-98mph. Now I would figure that it's possible to mess up on the first trip to the track, but these guys were seasoned AWD pilots, and couldn't neccessarily "outshine" the Ol' 5psi SVT

I would've loved to have met up with them on the street for a little "rolling" action..

As for the 13.0 run that MT reported..I think that a very aggressive driver with no worries of broken parts(driveline)could muster those runs, but the "average" driver may not be on par...

Nonetheless, still very impressive cars, and if you're a reader of Motor Trend one could possible psych themselves out of the "zone" while running one....at the track of course.

If you want to talk about underrating a vehicle...talk about the SRT-4. I like them more and more every time I see one. They sound nasty as hell too.


2002 ZO6...462whp/410wtq pretty darn fast!11.70 @ 122 silver/black 2006 Trailblazer SS(wifes car) silver/black 2000 SVT-Turbo-sold silver/blue #1699/2150 13.83 @ 102.82 on 5psi 13.51 @ 107.56 on 8psi
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 202
R
CEG\'er
Offline
CEG\'er
R
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 202
yeah but the newest STi is really good looking, no round headlights looks good!!


I'M RICK JAMES BITC#!!!!!!!!!!!!
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
D
Hard-core CEG'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG'er
D
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Yes the Motor trend times are all out no BS driving.

They even state it took a 5000-5200rpm soft clutch slip to generate the best times. Missing that point dropped the times to the 13.4 range with either bog or wheel spin.

Still though 13 flat is fast no matter what excuse you through at it!


Yes the "neon" err... SRT-4 is a bone stock 13 second (13.8-13.9) FWD pocket rocket with decent handling. Can not fault it's abilities or its price.


Saturn is also releasing a hopped up ION. The Redline 2dr Ion with a 200+ HP/200TQ S/C 2.0L Ecotec & 6-spd. Expect it to be very quick and it looks pretty sharp too for a pocket rocket.

Expect the new J-body replacement to get an even more potent version of this engine!

Then there's the talk about the turbo charged DOHC V6 for the new Grand Am replacement. Ford is falling in the weeds and fast!!!


2000 SVT #674 13.47 @ 102 - All Motor! It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 157
T
CEG\'er
Offline
CEG\'er
T
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 157
Sheeesh.
We have to mod the hell out of our cars just to be able to hang with the stock EVO and Sti's.


98 SVT E0 T-Red E1 engine resonator removed K&N w/ MAF adapter 20% tint Ford Trans. cocktail Ford 9mm Racing Wires DMD
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
W
Hard-core CEG'er
OP Offline
Hard-core CEG'er
W
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
All really good points. I think the damned AWD is the deciding factor here in the WRX ad EVO's favor. That's why I think you are going to have to have considerably more power to beat these cars, but it should be doable.
Hell yes we have to mod the hell out of our cars to keep up, that is the nature of the technology game and its what we get for driving 3-6 year old sport sedans.
I'll take my 4.5 year old sport sedan any day though over a Neon, SRT or no! I like the EVO though, but alas I need to drive mine for a couple years before I get something new now that I sunk $ in it.
I have my heart set on an M5 or at least a top of the line 5 series for my next car!!



Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760 356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas! See My Mods '05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red '06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
D
Hard-core CEG'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG'er
D
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Originally posted by warmonger:
All really good points. I think the damned AWD is the deciding factor here in the WRX ad EVO's favor. That's why I think you are going to have to have considerably more power to beat these cars, but it should be doable.

I'll take my 4.5 year old sport sedan any day though over a Neon, SRT or no!



Yes the AWD is the main factor. Even using that "maybe" freak Motor Trend time shows the trap speed at 104-105mph.

I can easily see a turbo SVT being that fast in good weather. (actually using corrected numbers they are there now) Probably faster with some ice for the IC or another psi or 2. 3L's better of course.

The Evo pushes ~17-18psi on a small wheel 16G turbo to generate those times. That's nothing to sneeze at! It's also a good reason why the rated "271HP" is BS!!!

That and the fact it's a hair heavier then the 300HP subbie and traps faster. hmmm...


I'll take my "good looking" SVT over any of the pocket rockets I listed too. Though the Evo would definitely be my choice of the bunch!


2000 SVT #674 13.47 @ 102 - All Motor! It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  mbb41_dup1 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5