STi comes in last - no big surprise... (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=126453?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..1 .*#38)

2008 Subaru WRX STI
As-tested price: $39,678
Mountain road time: 2:10.72; Rank: 6th
Streets of Willow lap time: 1:30.05; Rank: 6th
0-60 mph: 5.3 seconds (5.0 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip)
Quarter-mile: 13.5 seconds at 101.8 mph
60-0 braking: 109 feet
Slalom: 69.7 mph
Skid pad: 0.90g

An STI at the back of the pack? What gives? Well, it isn't power, because the Subaru packs 305 ponies and 290 lb-ft of torque from its 2.5-liter four-cylinder. And it isn't weight, because the Subie weighs 250 pounds less than the Evo — its primary competitor. And, like the Evo, it has six closely spaced gears and all-wheel drive to put the power down.

Part of the problem is the STI's awkward manual transmission that requires deliberate shifts, every one of which is several tenths of a second slower than the Evo's twin-clutch gearbox. The STI was the only car we missed a gear in during three days of testing.

I don't see any magic coming out of that new wagon chassis.

That test was crap!

1-Not in the same price bracket... It's like trying to compare a Mazdaspeed 3, a Shelby Mustang and a Z R-1

2-Who the hell was driving that EVO... or does it really sucks that bad? o-60 in 5.6 and 1/4m in 14 secs?

3-What's an Audi R8 doing in this group? Again why not bring a GT2 or a SL65 to the comprarison?

4-Ultimate Performance Cars would be more like: GT-R, Koenigsegg CCR, Saleen S7 Twin Turbo, McLaren F1, Noble M15, etc...

Hmmmm..odd. Many a new STi owner has commented about how smooth the new tranny shifted. Maybe they got a lemon?

Final Rank order is about what I'd expect for stock cars:

GTR
R-8
Evo
911 Carrera
Elise SC
STi

Now give the EVO and STi $20k worth of modifications (still cheaper than the others) and then you'd see a different order. Kudos to the GTR for spanking the others, despite it's weight.

Now give the EVO and STi $5k worth of modifications (still cheaper than the others) and then you'd see a different order. Kudos to the GTR for spanking the others, despite it's weight.

fixord

Meh.

Edmunds FTL.

I'll take the 911 over all but that GT-R, and I'd probably sell the GT-R to buy an '06 STi, and mod the piss out of it.


SOTC

This article makes me wonder how experienced these drivers were that tested the cars?

Given the parameters of the test, I don't have a problem with the results. Even with the STI coming in last, it would be my first choice, if only because my chance of owning any of the others except the EVO, are about nil.

The fact of the matter is that there are no losers here, as all the vehicles are pretty damn impressive. To have a Subaru (and Mitsubishi) even being considered with this group is an honor I think.

Bob

Painfully usderstood that who ever is reviewing these cars is just biased for whatever reason. When you say something like this

"Part of the problem is the STI's awkward manual transmission that requires deliberate shifts, every one of which is several tenths of a second slower than the Evo's twin-clutch gearbox".

If you expect me or anybody with a brain to take what you're saying as objective than you would say that of course its slower, its a real manual transmission, and like EVERY other manual, it requires deliberate shifts; read thats the point in a performance car.

Inconsistent and obviously biased. If I could, I'd wipe my ass with this rag.

The fact of the matter is that there are no losers here, as all the vehicles are pretty damn impressive. To have a Subaru (and Mitsubishi) even being considered with this group is an honor I think.

Bob

Good point.

Hmmmm..odd. Many a new STi owner has commented about how smooth the new tranny shifted. Maybe they got a lemon?

I have the 05 and the 08 and yes, definitely a step up from previous models in smoothness, however, the throw is longer. I do feel however that it is much more deliberate in that the RPM matching has to be more exact than previous models and that is probably why they mis-shifted/ grind at times as it takes some getting used to and is probably why they lose a few tenths in each gear. The Mitsu can slip in more in here and is far more forgiving in shifting. With our testing however, the STi came out on top in lap times by about .7 against the Evo and .2 on the 1/4 just so you can compare a side that got used to the 08 STi's and EVOs setup before posting results.
I also agree on both that this is an apples to oranges comparison but also cool to be grouped in the same class.

I don't see any magic coming out of that new wagon chassis.

I don't see any 08 owners bragging about being faster than a Carrera or R8 either.

4-Ultimate Performance Cars would be more like: GT-R, Koenigsegg CCR, Saleen S7 Twin Turbo, McLaren F1, Noble M15, etc...

How exactly does the GT-R fit in to the above group???

Take a little of your own advice.

How exactly does the GT-R fit in to the above group???

Take a little of your own advice.

the GTR is a ultimate sports car these days, just not the ultimate price tag. heck... it beats or matches all of those in the Nurburgring. :)

Edmunds is a bit crazy:

Comparo should have been:
GTR
911
R8
M6
Vette ZR

Comparo #2:
Elise SC
Evo MR
STi
G8 (maybe)
BMW 135i

I don't see any 08 owners bragging about being faster than a Carrera or R8 either.

You will see me bragging that my '08 WRX is faster than an '08 EVO down a dragstrip. :lol:

It's an interesting comparison test to say the least, and once again they only tested on one kind of surface, which I have to give Car And Driver mad props for testing the STI on something other than pavement.

Even though the STI is outclassed by much more expensive cars in terms of performance, there is still no mention of the cars overall versatility and ability to swallow up quite a bit of cargo and still get you somewhere nearly as fast as a Porsche or whatever, but third tier publications like Edmunds typically don't cover that kind of info.

Give us a dirty beat to **** track, or an ice covered track and post the results then. That would really show how versatile the STI can really be.

Will be interesting to see how the STI does in a year or two if that SMG supposedly being designed by Aisen comes out.

Well, that plus some suspension mods to help mitigate understeer.

I don't think it is apples to oranges considering the Evo came in third place. If the Evo had come in fifth then maybe i'd agree. I do acknowledge that not many people would be cross shopping these vehicles, but this board reminds people all the time that the Evo and STi outperform cars much more expensive than them.

Hmmm.... I call BS to some of this. For example, why is it that the EVO MR did .92 on the skid pad this time and .96 before (.99 for the GSX), ...or that both the STI and EVO did low 70s in the slalom the first time around and now cant break 70? Both cars were quicker in the 1/4.... Had they tested the way they did in the first test, they would have been quicker than the more expensive cars in this test. Could it be they WANT the nissan and Audi to win? to me it looks like it was fixed.

Hmmm.... I call BS to some of this. For example, why is it that the EVO MR did .92 on the skid pad this time and .96 before (.99 for the GSX), ...or that both the STI and EVO did low 70s in the slalom the first time around and now cant break 70? Both cars were quicker in the 1/4.... Had they tested the way they did in the first test, they would have been quicker than the more expensive cars in this test. Could it be they WANT the nissan and Audi to win? to me it looks like it was fixed.

Exact weather conditions are hard to reproduce to be 100% consistent.

Hmmm.... I call BS to some of this. For example, why is it that the EVO MR did .92 on the skid pad this time and .96 before (.99 for the GSX), ...or that both the STI and EVO did low 70s in the slalom the first time around and now cant break 70? Both cars were quicker in the 1/4.... Had they tested the way they did in the first test, they would have been quicker than the more expensive cars in this test. Could it be they WANT the nissan and Audi to win? to me it looks like it was fixed.

Sure, the STi and EVO would have outrun the other cars in the test...:rolleyes:

It's an interesting comparison test to say the least, and once again they only tested on one kind of surface, which I have to give Car And Driver mad props for testing the STI on something other than pavement.

Even though the STI is outclassed by much more expensive cars in terms of performance, there is still no mention of the cars overall versatility and ability to swallow up quite a bit of cargo and still get you somewhere nearly as fast as a Porsche or whatever, but third tier publications like Edmunds typically don't cover that kind of info.

Give us a dirty beat to **** track, or an ice covered track and post the results then. That would really show how versatile the STI can really be.

Because people race on beat to **** tracks and ice covered tracks all teh time?

How does that concern the MAJORITY of buyers?

You guys really dont expect them to tell the world that the R8, GTR and other high priced performance cars got the good news from 2 35k dollar japanese imports?

Because people race on beat to **** tracks and ice covered tracks all teh time?

How does that concern the MAJORITY of buyers?

People complain anytime the STi is compared to anything else other than an Evo. Even then if the STi loses to the Evo they complain about something else.

With that being said, I'd love to own ANY of those cars.

The Take-Away
Even in a test without a winner, it's hard to ignore some simple facts. All-wheel drive matters. Both on the track and on the mountain road, cars putting power to all four wheels were consistently quicker and easier to drive than their two-wheel-drive counterparts.

Which is what I've been saying all along regarding the upcoming Subaru/Toyota sport coupe.

Bob

Just get the damn DSG in there Subaru to shut up comparos like this.

And for God's sake FIX THE DAMN UNDERSTEER with your own version of Mitsu's AYC.

Then hopefully the STI will be a media darling again.

My next Subie will be an STI with DSG, Recaros, AYC, and better suspension. Hey I can hope right.

How exactly does the GT-R fit in to the above group???

Take a little of your own advice.

Here's your answer:


the GTR is a ultimate sports car these days, just not the ultimate price tag. heck... it beats or matches all of those in the Nurburgring. :)

Because people race on beat to **** tracks and ice covered tracks all teh time?

How does that concern the MAJORITY of buyers?

Now you're going to tell me that the MAJORITY of buyers race their STI's on tracks too right? :rolleyes:

Exact weather conditions are hard to reproduce to be 100% consistent.

Relative differences should have been somewhat conserved between the STi and EVO and were not.

Sure, the STi and EVO would have outrun the other cars in the test...:rolleyes:

Not saying that but they certainly had different numbers than the first test....more difference that you would expect from just conditions and driver.

This article makes me wonder how experienced these drivers were that tested the cars?

Senior Road Test Editor - Josh Jacquot (was at Sport Compact Car before coming here)

Chief Road Test Editor - Chris Walton (was at Motor Trend before coming here)

I'm willing to bet $100 they'd out-drive you at the track.

I've been beating the hell out of my '08 with some fairly aggresive driving...

Haven't missed a shift ONCE yet... *shrug* This tranny feels more solid, smooth, and strong than any other's I've driven in the past, including my V7 JDM 6-speed...

They should of used this for the test:lol:



http://ll.speedhunters.com/u/f/eagames/NFS/speedhunters.com/Images/Mike%20Garrett/Random_Snap/specc1.jpg

Given the parameters of the test, I don't have a problem with the results. Even with the STI coming in last, it would be my first choice, if only because my chance of owning any of the others except the EVO, are about nil.

The fact of the matter is that there are no losers here, as all the vehicles are pretty damn impressive. To have a Subaru (and Mitsubishi) even being considered with this group is an honor I think.

Bob

Well said sir. I completely agree.

Because people race on beat to **** tracks and ice covered tracks all teh time?

How does that concern the MAJORITY of buyers?

The majority of buyers don't race their cars at all. And if you do want a car for track racing, an STI or Evo should not be high on your list. That's why these kinds of track comparos are not very useful.

Like someone else said....even being compared to the other cars is good for the STI...for the price of the Audi R8...I will buy 2 STIs....mod one for the track...one for the dirt....drive the piss out of them...and have fun.

Tracking your car regularly will eventually break something....Id rather it break in a $35k car & fix it than on a >$60k car.

Lot of reviewers agree that the EVo is a better car than the STI in terms of raw performance....but Subaru has greater likability as a company than Mitsu....so Subaru > Mitsu in most people books (atleast the non Mitsu owners...or mebbe even them)

But the STI does have real competition even in its price group.....the BMW 3 series & 1 series twin turbos.

The majority of buyers don't race their cars at all. And if you do want a car for track racing, an STI or Evo should not be high on your list. That's why these kinds of track comparos are not very useful.

Agreed. But just to skirt the issue, I will submit that at least an average road course is a "better" indicator of "real world" performance than an ice-covered circuit. Whether or not it means anything to an average driver, well, of course not, at least not really.

How would we test cars then? "How fast the car sounds meter"? Race to the 7-11 test?

I'm liking the 5-X mph tests, and the 30-50's and 50-70's as real world valuable numbers. But these don't favor the EVO/STi, and I'll get flamed for even saying it...

Not saying that but they certainly had different numbers than the first test....more difference that you would expect from just conditions and driver.

Well, you did say it :lol:.

I of course understand the underlying point.

Now you're going to tell me that the MAJORITY of buyers race their STI's on tracks too right? :rolleyes:


See 2 posts above.

Again, of course not, but you'd couldn't possibly be advocating that ice-covered tracks are more indicative of the average conditions someone will see over a dry, average road course.

You couldn't piece together that as my point?

Just making fun of the guys who say "they should have tested them in the snow!" whenever a Subaru loses a comparo. That's ridiculous. On average, these cars are driving in the dry, by a large margin.

^^On average, sure. But for a lot of people being able to drive safely in the snow is important. That lets out a lot of RWD performance cars that might otherwise be great road cars.

Agreed. But just to skirt the issue, I will submit that at least an average road course is a "better" indicator of "real world" performance than an ice-covered circuit. Whether or not it means anything to an average driver, well, of course not, at least not really.

How would we test cars then? "How fast the car sounds meter"? Race to the 7-11 test?


At the very least, test the cars in the rain as well. Maybe also a road with some gravel or at least potholes.

I really don't care which car gets around a race course half a second ahead of another one. I want a car that is fun to drive and will haul lots of stuff but can still handle rain, snow, gravel, etc.

My next Subie will be an STI with DSG, Recaros, AYC, and better suspension. Hey I can hope right.
People said the same for this STi.

See 2 posts above.

Again, of course not, but you'd couldn't possibly be advocating that ice-covered tracks are more indicative of the average conditions someone will see over a dry, average road course.

You couldn't piece together that as my point?

Just making fun of the guys who say "they should have tested them in the snow!" whenever a Subaru loses a comparo. That's ridiculous. On average, these cars are driving in the dry, by a large margin.

Subaru built its dedicated legion of followers by selling cars that get around well in all sorts of weather and road conditions, I don't know how you aren't aware of that. If you don't think their rallying tradition sells cars, then you obviously haven't been to a pro rally race in the US before.

I bought my WRX because it's reliable, handles pretty good, gets around in dirt, snow, mud and ice and every other kind of surface I've driven it onto. I'm probably not too far off the charts of a typical Subaru buyer. I don't think an Elise would ever see the conditions that my WRX or most STI's will ever see.

Magazines doing tests like this without weighting the categories is retarded....and also without adding in some very important points about power to weight, cargo room, passenger room, which car you will pull more tang in, etc...

The EVO and STi are not even in the same power to weight ballpark.........even if the EVO and STi could outhandle the other cars, the other cars can just power through it on the straights...

And can anyone prove this statement
"An STI at the back of the pack? What gives? Well, it isn't power, because the Subaru packs 305 ponies and 290 lb-ft of torque from its 2.5-liter four-cylinder. And it isn't weight, because the Subie weighs 250 pounds less than the Evo "

Everything i've read has the subie weight 200 lbs more.....


PRICE HP WT PW/WT PEEPS LUGG
GTR 76k 480 3840 0.125 2 Purse
R-8 135k 420 3440 0.122 2 Purse
EVO 39k 291 3200 0.091 5 Norm
911 86k 325 3075 0.106 2 Purse
ELISE 64k 218 2028 0.107 2 Purse
STI 40k 305 3385 0.090 5 Norm

I don't see any magic coming out of that new wagon chassis.

I will assume you are refering to this test and tests like it. Remember why they went to this design. I didn't see a WRC style test in that article. We will/won't see the magic at the next WRC event!!!

I don't see any magic coming out of that new wagon chassis.
I cant imagine if Subaru had made/brought a STi sedan, things would be that different.

And can anyone prove this statement
"An STI at the back of the pack? What gives? Well, it isn't power, because the Subaru packs 305 ponies and 290 lb-ft of torque from its 2.5-liter four-cylinder. And it isn't weight, because the Subie weighs 250 pounds less than the Evo "

Everything i've read has the subie weight 200 lbs more.....


PRICE HP WT PW/WT PEEPS LUGG
GTR 76k 480 3840 0.125 2 Purse
R-8 135k 420 3440 0.122 2 Purse
EVO 39k 291 3200 0.091 5 Norm
911 86k 325 3075 0.106 2 Purse
ELISE 64k 218 2028 0.107 2 Purse
STI 40k 305 3385 0.090 5 Norm


The Evo X wishes it was that light. That number looked like it was an estimate weight from an assumed 200lb weight gain from the 3,000lb base Lancer. Mitsu doesn't have the curb weight on their sight from what I could see, but here's an article with the released weight specs.

http://www.autospies.com/news/Mitsubishi-releases-specifications-for-new-Lancer-Evolution-EVO-X-23859/

The curb weight is given as 3517 lbs for the version with the 5-spd manual (GSR), and for the MR version, with the 6-spd dual-clutch TC-SST transmission, the curb weight is given as 3594 lbs.

There are so many problems with this test, I don't know where to start. Heck, maybe the STI and EVO were their fleet vehicles and the tires are down to 50% now?

Let me just say that without weighting, they need to do track performance with a set budget. You give everybody 100k and see who wins. I'm tired of seeing comparos of stock vehicles. How many people leave their Porsche's stock vs. STI buyers? Subaru crippled the STI from the factory. I think they were dumb to do it, but it doesn't matter once you put everybody on a budget.

Since when is the new STI not a good choice for a track car?? Give me a break.

Frank

There are so many problems with this test, I don't know where to start. Heck, maybe the STI and EVO were their fleet vehicles and the tires are down to 50% now?

Let me just say that without weighting, they need to do track performance with a set budget. You give everybody 100k and see who wins. I'm tired of seeing comparos of stock vehicles. How many people leave their Porsche's stock vs. STI buyers? Subaru crippled the STI from the factory. I think they were dumb to do it, but it doesn't matter once you put everybody on a budget.

Since when is the new STI not a good choice for a track car?? Give me a break.

Frank

It's just a magazine article. I don't think many people were expecting the STI to outrun a Carrera, Elise, R8, or GT-R. I believe the test was showing the best "bang per buck" performance cars on the market. What better way to show performance than on a track and on a back road. I'd say the STI held it's own considering present company. What was embarrassing was how far behind the STI was behind the Evo. I'm getting tired of Subaru playing catch up with the Evo's performance.

if the STi would have finished ahead of the evo noone would be saying ****, i love this place

Subaru built its dedicated legion of followers by selling cars that get around well in all sorts of weather and road conditions, I don't know how you aren't aware of that. If you don't think their rallying tradition sells cars, then you obviously haven't been to a pro rally race in the US before.

I bought my WRX because it's reliable, handles pretty good, gets around in dirt, snow, mud and ice and every other kind of surface I've driven it onto. I'm probably not too far off the charts of a typical Subaru buyer. I don't think an Elise would ever see the conditions that my WRX or most STI's will ever see.

:huh:

Perhaps you are having trouble reading my post.

Did I say ANYWHERE Subaru didn't sell cars based on that tradition. Nor that bad conditions performance isn't important in certain situations?

What I said was, your AVERAGE driver spends MUCH MUCH more time on the road, in the dry, than on the ice, dirt road etc. Calling for a comparison test in the mud is retarded useless for the average buyer. And even for 95% of the Subaru drivers who's cars will never see serious offroad use with any regularity, especially at 10/10ths. Just because people buy the cars based on the tradition, doens't mean the cars will EVER see that type of driving.

Again, certainty not saying the cars don't see those conditions. Millions and millions of people do, not just Subaru drivers. That's not the point.

Perhaps a little more reading is in order before posting, as you missed the entire point of what I said.



Moreover, your fundamental premise is flawed This is a SPORTS CAR TEST. You'd advocate you should put the Lotus, R8, etc. in conditions they were never intended to be driven in so the tables turn to your Subaru? Do a test with the EVO, etc. etc. is you want, but the last thing anyone needs is to see a bunch of pure sports cars limping around in the snow so you can see the STi do well. That would be a complete waste of paper and useful to absolutely no one. There maybe a time and a place for that test. But it certianly doesn't involve this group of cars.

That's like having a towing competition between a miata and an elise. Its irrelevant, and useless. But the STi, EVO, and maybe another couple of the cars in an all-weather test. That would be awesome. But again, you think THIS GROUP is the one for that? Get real.


Moreover, how exactly do you think the STi, with its tires, would do on an ice/snow mud course? You act like its equipped from the factory to handle such conditions, its not. The test would be a mess.

^^On average, sure. But for a lot of people being able to drive safely in the snow is important. That lets out a lot of RWD performance cars that might otherwise be great road cars.



At the very least, test the cars in the rain as well. Maybe also a road with some gravel or at least potholes.

I really don't care which car gets around a race course half a second ahead of another one. I want a car that is fun to drive and will haul lots of stuff but can still handle rain, snow, gravel, etc.

I don't see anything wrong with a wet test, but not as the sole test.

I'm also not sure how I feel about a 10/10ths test in the wet. Are people really pushing their cars (sans road course/autox guys on a wet day) at 10/10ths in the wet.

But again, I'm good with a wet weather test, although I'm hesitant because, again, you are testing a condition that is seen a relatively rain % of the time someone is in a performance driving situation. By nature, people tend to not push in the wet, making the test less useful. Moreover, not sure a test liek that would change the results. I'm fairly sure the testers would take into account the limited applicability.

fixord

Final Rank order is about what I'd expect for stock cars:

GTR
R-8
Evo
911 Carrera
Elise SC
STi

Now give the EVO and STi $20k worth of modifications (still cheaper than the others) and then you'd see a different order. Kudos to the GTR for spanking the others, despite it's weight.

Care to explain how 20K or 5K would rearange the order? Maybe the STI would creep up into 4th..., but how can you say that it would trump the GTR. As much as i love subaru, the Evo is still competing with the other cars in stock form. Couldn't you say that with some R compounds worth 2K would make the GTR untouchable?

Moreover, your fundamental premise is flawed This is a SPORTS CAR TEST. You'd advocate you should put the Lotus, R8, etc. in conditions they were never intended to be driven in so the tables turn to your Subaru? Do a test with the EVO, etc. etc. is you want, but the last thing anyone needs is to see a bunch of pure sports cars limping around in the snow so you can see the STi do well. That would be a complete waste of paper and useful to absolutely no one. There maybe a time and a place for that test. But it certianly doesn't involve this group of cars.

That's like having a towing competition between a miata and an elise. Its irrelevant, and useless. But the STi, EVO, and maybe another couple of the cars in an all-weather test. That would be awesome. But again, you think THIS GROUP is the one for that? Get real.


I would question whether the STI and Evo are really "sports cars" in the sense that the others are. Including them in this test doesn't make a lot of sense to begin with.

I don't see anything wrong with a wet test, but not as the sole test.

agreed

if the STi would have finished ahead of the evo noone would be saying ****, i love this place

exactly.... if we were just comparing cars to cars in the same price range., everybody would say the same thing. Bottom line is we got killed by a car (EVO) that costs less than our beloved STI. They even said it was the cheapest car, and it still placed 3rd!

The R8 is one of the sexiest cars available today. In fact, 3 of the 6 make my pants tight (as far as looks go... hint, none of them are japanese).

~~Quentin

Well, not to seem too fanboi-ish, I always tend to notice a few descrepancies in articles such as these.

A: "In fact, with another 75 horses (the Evo X is rated at 291 hp and 300 pound-feet of torque), it likely would have upset the mountain road finishing order in a big way. As it sits, it flat spanked the $85,000 Porsche and walked all over the little Lotus."

I don't see how a 2.6 second difference on a road/racetrack course over the time of 2 minutes can't be attributed to a moderate degree of driver error/track conditions. Spanked? Meh.

B: Both courses seem to have a lot of curves, which would seem to benefit cars like the R8, Evo (with its AYC), GT-R and Lotus - The results aren't that surprising.

C: The STI is as fast as the Lotus Elise SC around the entire course - that's impressive!

D: Total time difference between the top car and the bottom car was 6 seconds. To be honest, this actually makes the GT-R look somewhat soft...

E: They chose to drive the $135K R8, but not the $126K Porsche Turbo?

All in all, a FUN comparo - but not very effective at doing anything except causing NASIOC to go crazy :) I guess my blatant skepticism about all magazines is always a bit overpowering. I'm not sure the STI would beat any of these competitors in anything but a few specific race setups but I also don't think the STI is just a "niche" car anymore.

That being said, I love reading the varied reviews of the long-term test drive at Edmunds...

Ian

That was a silly read.. I'd like that two minutes of my life back now.

You will see me bragging that my '08 WRX is faster than an '08 EVO down a dragstrip. :lol:

Great news for folks who travel only on straight roads!

E: They chose to drive the $135K R8, but not the $126K Porsche Turbo?



I think they were shooting for a broad spectrum of cars. The R8 has walked all over the Turbo before in other comparison tests, and teh GT-R has also been pitted against the Turbo as well. I can see where they thought it would be the better choice.

:huh:

Perhaps you are having trouble reading my post.

Did I say ANYWHERE Subaru didn't sell cars based on that tradition. Nor that bad conditions performance isn't important in certain situations?

What I said was, your AVERAGE driver spends MUCH MUCH more time on the road, in the dry, than on the ice, dirt road etc. Calling for a comparison test in the mud is retarded useless for the average buyer. And even for 95% of the Subaru drivers who's cars will never see serious offroad use with any regularity, especially at 10/10ths. Just because people buy the cars based on the tradition, doens't mean the cars will EVER see that type of driving.

Again, certainty not saying the cars don't see those conditions. Millions and millions of people do, not just Subaru drivers. That's not the point.

Perhaps a little more reading is in order before posting, as you missed the entire point of what I said.



Moreover, your fundamental premise is flawed This is a SPORTS CAR TEST. You'd advocate you should put the Lotus, R8, etc. in conditions they were never intended to be driven in so the tables turn to your Subaru? Do a test with the EVO, etc. etc. is you want, but the last thing anyone needs is to see a bunch of pure sports cars limping around in the snow so you can see the STi do well. That would be a complete waste of paper and useful to absolutely no one. There maybe a time and a place for that test. But it certianly doesn't involve this group of cars.

That's like having a towing competition between a miata and an elise. Its irrelevant, and useless. But the STi, EVO, and maybe another couple of the cars in an all-weather test. That would be awesome. But again, you think THIS GROUP is the one for that? Get real.


Moreover, how exactly do you think the STi, with its tires, would do on an ice/snow mud course? You act like its equipped from the factory to handle such conditions, its not. The test would be a mess.

I'm not advocating biasing the test so the Subaru does better, what I'm suggesting is that the "test" only gives a brief glimpse at what the Subaru is capable of, which is a lot more than the other vehicles that were pitted against each other. Showing results one kind of surface with a vehicle as capable and versatile as the STI is pretty irrelevant to a lot of people as like many of the STI owners I've seen at over 15 rally races, they get them off of the tarmac and out on the dirt, snow, mud etc. An average Porsche owner might not get anything out of it, but a Subaru owner would sure love to see an Elise slogged through the mud or driven on an ice course against an STI, I know I would.

Hell, Car and Driver recently did a pretty similar test:

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1505693

Now how is that irrelevant again?

meh. mag tests are usually trash, they're more just for entertainment purposes imo.

i'd take the STi cuz it's the only 5 door in the whole group.

now if i had the money of course i'd be driving the GTR, but i don't :D

"we ordered aggressive Bridgestone Blizzak WS-60s"

any car with ice oriented tires becomes winter killer. All cars in the test are very capable.
If shod with proper rubber they still would be capable on ice.

Look at competition on ice (from car&driver link)

http://www.svr-scca.com/e107/page.php?14

STI, Suburban, Envoy, F150, Ranger, BMW X5, 330xi, Jeep Cherokee. Most of the competiotors are not known for good handling.

Krzys

I'm not advocating biasing the test so the Subaru does better, what I'm suggesting is that the "test" only gives a brief glimpse at what the Subaru is capable of, which is a lot more than the other vehicles that were pitted against each other. Showing results one kind of surface with a vehicle as capable and versatile as the STI is pretty irrelevant to a lot of people as like many of the STI owners I've seen at over 15 rally races, they get them off of the tarmac and out on the dirt, snow, mud etc. An average Porsche owner might not get anything out of it, but a Subaru owner would sure love to see an Elise slogged through the mud or driven on an ice course against an STI, I know I would.

Hell, Car and Driver recently did a pretty similar test:

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1505693

Now how is that irrelevant again?


Wow, I'm starting to think you cannot read.

Did you not see where I said that a test involving the EVO, STi, etc. in those conditions is a fine idea??? :)


The bolded part of your post is nothing more than you admitting you'd like to see a useless test to show off your cars capabilities over others not designed for it.

****Again, that is like an F150 owner saying he'd "get a kick out of seeing a miata tow a trailer". <--- Useless test.

Care to explain how 20K or 5K would rearange the order? Maybe the STI would creep up into 4th..., but how can you say that it would trump the GTR. As much as i love subaru, the Evo is still competing with the other cars in stock form. Couldn't you say that with some R compounds worth 2K would make the GTR untouchable?

I think for less than $20k we could give the STi:
Swaybars, Coilovers, Brake Kit
Full-Race Twinscroll GT3076 (for tight track/mountain) + supporting mods (injectors, intake, etc)

That should beat the GTR in th 1/4 (11.7 secs), and handle phenomenally well. Remember the STi only has to go from 2:10 to 2:04 in the mountains to match the GTR.

5.5s on a 2 minute course his HUGE.

Well, not to seem too fanboi-ish, I always tend to notice a few descrepancies in articles such as these.

A: "In fact, with another 75 horses (the Evo X is rated at 291 hp and 300 pound-feet of torque), it likely would have upset the mountain road finishing order in a big way. As it sits, it flat spanked the $85,000 Porsche and walked all over the little Lotus."

I don't see how a 2.6 second difference on a road/racetrack course over the time of 2 minutes can't be attributed to a moderate degree of driver error/track conditions. Spanked? Meh.

B: Both courses seem to have a lot of curves, which would seem to benefit cars like the R8, Evo (with its AYC), GT-R and Lotus - The results aren't that surprising.

!
C: The STI is as fast as the Lotus Elise SC around the entire course - that's impressive
D: Total time difference between the top car and the bottom car was 6 seconds. To be honest, this actually makes the GT-R look somewhat soft...

E: They chose to drive the $135K R8, but not the $126K Porsche Turbo?

All in all, a FUN comparo - but not very effective at doing anything except causing NASIOC to go crazy :) I guess my blatant skepticism about all magazines is always a bit overpowering. I'm not sure the STI would beat any of these competitors in anything but a few specific race setups but I also don't think the STI is just a "niche" car anymore.

That being said, I love reading the varied reviews of the long-term test drive at Edmunds...

Ian


A. 2.6 seconds kets you lapped on a track with a 2 min lap within 50 laps, I am sure they used the best x number of laps

b. the point of having anything other than a drag strip is how they do on curves

A. 2.6 seconds kets you lapped on a track with a 2 min lap within 50 laps, I am sure they used the best x number of laps

b. the point of having anything other than a drag strip is how they do on curves

Yeah, I know - I guess I am always trying to rigorously control every single variable and in a magazine test there is always that variable called "the human". Don't get me wrong, it looks like a blast for the editors/drivers and was a fun read. :)

My point regarding the curves was that the Lotus and Evo have some pretty specific "corner-handling" advantages, where they will definitely shine. I merely wasn't surprised at the ranking.

Ian

5.5s on a 2 minute course his HUGE.

True, but so is the price range of the cars tested. I'd say the STI did quite well considering its so much more affordable (and practical) than the rest of the pack (Evo excepted).

An STI at the back of the pack? What gives? Well, it isn't power, because the Subaru packs 305 ponies and 290 lb-ft of torque from its 2.5-liter four-cylinder. And it isn't weight, because the Subie weighs 250 pounds less than the Evo — its primary.....



THE Stupid-@$$ driver!:furious:

THE Stupid-@$$ driver!:furious:

The evo x is amazing around the track.. its more then the driver.

i dont think i have ever seen Emunds give the sti good ratings. in every comparison they conduct the sti numbers are usually lower and performance decreases compared to companies like motortrend etc..

Well, not to seem too fanboi-ish, I always tend to notice a few descrepancies in articles such as these.

A: "In fact, with another 75 horses (the Evo X is rated at 291 hp and 300 pound-feet of torque), it likely would have upset the mountain road finishing order in a big way. As it sits, it flat spanked the $85,000 Porsche and walked all over the little Lotus."

I don't see how a 2.6 second difference on a road/racetrack course over the time of 2 minutes can't be attributed to a moderate degree of driver error/track conditions. Spanked? Meh.

B: Both courses seem to have a lot of curves, which would seem to benefit cars like the R8, Evo (with its AYC), GT-R and Lotus - The results aren't that surprising.

C: The STI is as fast as the Lotus Elise SC around the entire course - that's impressive!

D: Total time difference between the top car and the bottom car was 6 seconds. To be honest, this actually makes the GT-R look somewhat soft...

E: They chose to drive the $135K R8, but not the $126K Porsche Turbo?

All in all, a FUN comparo - but not very effective at doing anything except causing NASIOC to go crazy :) I guess my blatant skepticism about all magazines is always a bit overpowering. I'm not sure the STI would beat any of these competitors in anything but a few specific race setups but I also don't think the STI is just a "niche" car anymore.

That being said, I love reading the varied reviews of the long-term test drive at Edmunds...

Ian

Best post in this thread.

the EVO MR cant be lauched like the manuals, seems consistent with other times seen for the MR.

That test was crap!


2-Who the hell was driving that EVO... or does it really sucks that bad? o-60 in 5.6 and 1/4m in 14 secs?

They used the sti with the diff set to auto... on pavement. They should have used auto+, thats what it's for. In that mode it sends most of the torque to the rear. And did everyone forget about this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbXeZtyYMZg

They used the sti with the diff set to auto... on pavement. They should have used auto+, thats what it's for. In that mode it sends most of the torque to the rear. And did everyone forget about this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbXeZtyYMZg

um...no. Auto+ tightens up the center diff and should be used in lower traction situations. Auto- loosens up the center diff to allow more rear slip.

i dont think i have ever seen Emunds give the sti good ratings. in every comparison they conduct the sti numbers are usually lower and performance decreases compared to companies like motortrend etc..

They love it here:

http://blogs.edmunds.com/roadtests/category/cat.2008SubaruImprezaWRXSTI

You are correct sir, I have misspoken.

STi comes in last - no big surprise... (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=126453?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..1 .*#38)

I can tell you from much real circuit experience that the new STI is awesome. I first had a 2002 S2000, then an '06 STI, and now an '08 STI. The '08 is vastly improved over the '06. The handling and stability is so much better. My cornering speeds are higher, entry higher, braking deeper, etc. The car was improved by Subaru in exactly the areas it needed it. The truth of edmunds and other journals like it is that Mitsubishi is on the verge of bankrupcy and is paying them heavily to make their cars seem great. The new STI is a real winner. I love it.

The truth of edmunds and other journals like it is that Mitsubishi is on the verge of bankrupcy and is paying them heavily to make their cars seem great. The new STI is a real winner. I love it.

Who was the second gunman on the grassy knoll?

I can tell you from much real circuit experience that the new STI is awesome. I first had a 2002 S2000, then an '06 STI, and now an '08 STI. The '08 is vastly improved over the '06. The handling and stability is so much better. My cornering speeds are higher, entry higher, braking deeper, etc. The car was improved by Subaru in exactly the areas it needed it. The truth of edmunds and other journals like it is that Mitsubishi is on the verge of bankrupcy and is paying them heavily to make their cars seem great. The new STI is a real winner. I love it.

Before I say this, I'd like to preface it by saying I'm nowhere near a Mitsu fanboi. In fact, I only like the Evo. I like it a lot, but it's all that interests me. That said, do you think a company on the verge of bankruptcy would blow money on good reviews of a car that is only a sliver of a percentage of its sales? It's a niche car, not a bread and butter car. Why do you think it took a decade to hop the pond? Granted good reviews are good reviews, but the effect of a good Evo review on Mitsubishi is pretty insignificant. I bet most people on the street don't even know what an Evo is.

+1 ^^
Evo is marginally better on a circuit compared to the STI, that doesnt mean STI is bad... cant we accept the fact and move along...

+1 ^^
Evo is marginally better on a circuit compared to the STI, that doesnt mean STI is bad... cant we accept the fact and move along...


+ 1billiontyseven

+ 1billiontyseven

I agree with every word except for "marginally". It beats it handily. There's nothing marginal about it.

I agree with every word except for "marginally". It beats it handily. There's nothing marginal about it.

Meh. Semantics, really. It's all whether you put faith in mag comparos or not. Good times, anyhow!

Ian

Who the hell are they to say that the STi is no good anyway? Who died and put them in charge?

Who the hell are they to say that the STi is no good anyway? Who died and put them in charge?

:confused:

Stunning incite...

Who the hell are they to say that the STi is no good anyway? Who died and put them in charge?

:unamused:

Stop raging.

I am a pro circuit driver and can tell you the car is to be driven in manual DCCD setting with power fully to rear. Also, the article never made mention of the traction/yaw button. That must be turned off for maximum cornering.

I am a pro circuit driver and can tell you the car is to be driven in manual DCCD setting with power fully to rear. Also, the article never made mention of the traction/yaw button. That must be turned off for maximum cornering.

I always find it odd - magazine comparos always talk about "un-needed complexity" and "confusing settings", then revert back to the default Auto settings. Either the settings don't work at all, or they do and people are too lazy to test them out. Torque-distribution MUST have an effect on traction and cornering.

Bleh. Weird.

Ian

Torque-distribution MUST have an effect on traction and cornering.

Bleh. Weird.

Ian
Of course it does... but then, the DCCD has nothing to do with torque distribution.

What BJM2000 is talking about when he says, "the car is to be driven in manual DCCD setting with power fully to rear." is that he likes the car best when the DCCD is set to minimum lock-up.

The DCCD only controls the amount of lock-up in the center diff.. it doesn't alter the torque split. Auto mode just selects an appropriate amount of lock-up for a given cornering situation based on the yaw sensor, steering input sensor and the throttle position sensor.

When you're turning into a corner, Auto mode drops the lock-up to minimum.. as you feed in power mid-corner it gently brings it back.. when you're full throttle on the exit of the turn the lock-up should be near full which incites understeer, but that shouldn't be an issue if you're driving correctly. When driven correctly Auto should provide the best lap times, Manual full lock-up should provide the best straight line and off-road traction and Manual minimum lock-up should provide the most tail-happy powerslides.

Back before the '06 STI, the DCCD's lock-up rate did have a small effect on the torque distribution since a torque biasing center diff was being used (biased towards the rear). 06+ STI's have a 50/50 center diff. They're less tail happy, but they're also faster around a track when driven properly.

Of course it does... but then, the DCCD has nothing to do with torque distribution.

What BJM2000 is talking about when he says, "the car is to be driven in manual DCCD setting with power fully to rear." is that he likes the car best when the DCCD is set to minimum lock-up.

The DCCD only controls the amount of lock-up in the center diff.. it doesn't alter the torque split. Auto mode just selects an appropriate amount of lock-up for a given cornering situation based on the yaw sensor, steering input sensor and the throttle position sensor.

When you're turning into a corner, Auto mode drops the lock-up to minimum.. as you feed in power mid-corner it gently brings it back.. when you're full throttle on the exit of the turn the lock-up should be near full which incites understeer, but that shouldn't be an issue if you're driving correctly. When driven correctly Auto should provide the best lap times, Manual full lock-up should provide the best straight line and off-road traction and Manual minimum lock-up should provide the most tail-happy powerslides.

Back before the '06 STI, the DCCD's lock-up rate did have a small effect on the torque distribution since a torque biasing center diff was being used (biased towards the rear). 06+ STI's have a 50/50 center diff. They're less tail happy, but they're also faster around a track when driven properly.

Ah. I can feel the wisdom bursting my head already!

It is an honor for the pocket rockets to be included in the comparision.

Quote:
"The curb weight is given as 3517 lbs for the version with the 5-spd manual (GSR), and for the MR version, with the 6-spd dual-clutch TC-SST transmission, the curb weight is given as 3594 lbs."

That is INSANE. The MR weighs as much as my baja turbo? The rear end is certainly as high.

Hmmmm..odd. Many a new STi owner has commented about how smooth the new tranny shifted. Maybe they got a lemon?

I've had problems on several occassions with going into first gear. Still in break-in period, so maybe things will loosen up. I have stalled it more times in two months than my vette in 8 years.

I am a pro circuit driver and can tell you the car is to be driven in manual DCCD setting with power fully to rear. Also, the article never made mention of the traction/yaw button. That must be turned off for maximum cornering.

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1021316

Some people have the strangest definition of "pro" and "circuit"...

I've had problems on several occassions with going into first gear. Still in break-in period, so maybe things will loosen up. I have stalled it more times in two months than my vette in 8 years.

Umm.. duh? Low compression 2.5L turbo 4 cylinder trying to move an AWD drivetrain vs a high compression 5.7L NA 8 cylinder trying to move a 200lb lighter RWD car. :rolleyes: What does that have to do with the transmission?

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1021316

Some people have the strangest definition of "pro" and "circuit"...
:lol:

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1021316

Some people have the strangest definition of "pro" and "circuit"...

Video mentioned in that thread :eek:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8RXWS9NBG88

.... make sure to watch the whole video :devil:

Umm.. duh? Low compression 2.5L turbo 4 cylinder trying to move an AWD drivetrain vs a high compression 5.7L NA 8 cylinder trying to move a 200lb lighter RWD car. :rolleyes: What does that have to do with the transmission?

I'm showing a curb weight of around 3500 pounds for my '91 ZR1 Corvette. It seems to me that is several hundred pounds more than the STI.

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1021316

Some people have the strangest definition of "pro" and "circuit"...

What is strange? Do you know me? I am what I say. Just because you are some j@ckoff with little p*nis syndrome does not mean you know all like you think you do.

Relax Francis. He was just making a joke. And after that last post I'm sure everyone will totally take you cereally.

:eek:

Do you talk to your fellow "pro" racecar drivers on the "circuit" like that? :unamused:

You mention in that other thread that:this road is in eastern ohio...it is a famous road inthe state with superbike riders and circuit car clubs...35 miles of ballz deep curves and elevation changes that goes through the middle of farm land...

Funny, though.. the only mention of a 'circuit car club' I can find on the intarwebs is UK sites for R/C... so I suppose you are very qualified to recommend DCCD settings based on your electronics background.

Me and my small garbage will stay out of this one...

But I will be checking in every now and again until BJM tells us about his professional road racing career in a little more detail.

:lol: at Beaverboy's post. I too was a highly experienced electrical engineer in the 7th grade.

LOSI FTW!

To quote r0bman in one of his early "pro driving threads"



Liar, Liar... BRAKES ON FIRE!!!

:lol:

Video mentioned in that thread :eek:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8RXWS9NBG88

.... make sure to watch the whole video :devil:

Yes, definitely getting too hot at the end of that video. :devil::disco:

:lol:



Yes, definitely getting too hot at the end of that video. :devil::disco:
I concur :eek:

guy in the video should be spending less time with his car and more time with "those"