('93-'01) mitsubishi vs. subaru

marty · 05-12-2001, 12:39 AM

i own a my00 RS blue ridge,and i was reading in a european magazine a comparison match between a mitsubishi lancerEVO VII,vs a subaru impreza wrx(P1 or STI can't remember)
both cars had 2.0 turbo engines,awd,and about 276hp.But the article said that there was a big difference in the way those cars were handling.Mainly because in the impreza,
in the perfect conditions,the power is delivered mainly to the front wheels(like 90%
-10%)and with varying traction the power can be split equally between front and rear if needed.That results in a mild understeer under hard driving...while in the lancer,the power is more biased towards the rear wheels even in dry perfect conditions,more like 40%-60%,wich results in oversteering during hard driving...and i'm guessing i would prefer the oversteering tendencies of the lancer against the somewhat sluggish steering of my impreza...what do you think?

* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.

Iron Man · 05-12-2001, 12:42 AM

no. you've got it all wrong. you must of hit your head.....

eastbaysubaru · 05-12-2001, 12:47 AM

I personally haven't driven either car, only a 2.5 RS (my girlfriend's) which is nothing like a WRX or STi. I would love to drive both one right after the other though. I recommend downloading the Tiff Needell video with a girl driving the EVO VII and Tiff driving an Audi Quattro Coupe from the early 80's: http://movies.taner.net/topgear/Top_...t_Evo_Race.mpg

It's a great vid and well worth a look.

-Brian

Sanguine · 05-12-2001, 12:48 AM

I thought the Japaneze WRX and STi had something like a 35-65 torque split toward the rear?

What euro mag did you read this in, "Evo"?

marty · 05-12-2001, 12:51 AM

i'm tellin' you iron man,the lancer has a
rear wheel drive biased power delivery
compared to the more front wheel drive biased impreza!!!

marty · 05-12-2001, 12:54 AM

sanguine,i'll try to find the article,and i'll be back with an answer...

Sanguine · 05-12-2001, 12:56 AM

OK. I know for a fact that the US-Spec WRX has a 50-50 F/R Torque split for Manual transmission, and a 45-55 split on the Auto.

marty · 05-12-2001, 01:03 AM

sanguine,i can't find the article,but i think it was in autocar...they test rode five or six cars for 2000 miles,and there were an impreza and an evoVII in the bunch,so naturally,they compared both cars under varying road conditions,wet,dry,bumpy,long straight-aways etc...

Shinji N · 05-12-2001, 01:32 AM

Maybe Marty's equating understeer with fwd?

Jon Bogert · 05-12-2001, 09:02 AM

Whenever the British car mags compare an EVO with a Scooby, they usually choose the comparable Scooby, which is the STi. An EVO VI would blow away a regular U.K. Impreza Turbo. The STi grey imports they test often have the manually variable torque split center diff. Without it, the torque split is just like the U.S. RS--i.e. 50/50 and more likely to understeer. The EVO has a much more advanced system that plays more to the oversteer side.

Note that the Brits tend to have a much more practical view of handling than the Japanese, given the rain and rough roads in the U.K. Because of this, they often prefer a less "pointy" car, like the Impreza, over a sharper handling EVO. It's the bad road handling capabilities that really make special U.K. Imprezas like the RB5 or P1 stand out.

BTW, if you like Imprezas and Lancers, there is no better car magazine than EVO. I'm not sure what Sanguine's LOL smilie was for, since EVO makes the more mainstream Brit magazines look pretty lame. You might also try CCC (Cars & Car Conversions) for a more hardcore approach to going fast. Both are far better than and U.S. car mag and neither panders to the sticker and spoiler crowd.

Subie Gal · 05-12-2001, 09:21 AM

the magazine was the May edition of EVO - got it right here....

and in all the testing they did... the EVO II just barely edged out the WRX STi....

just a few notables...
max torque
EVO - 282lb ft @3500 rpm
STI - 275lb ft @4000 rpm

Quote:

the STi Impreza shakes off the torpid feel of the standard UK car and, although finds itself lumbered w/the same STODGY steering, it's no bar to seriously rapid and secure progress.

Quote:

...the lateral G test; around the 150ft. circle, the tail of the EVO VII instantly hung wide, helping to keep it's nose locked on line. It recorded 0.76g, while the doggedly understeering STi could manage only 0.71g.

i have the article right here so lemme know if you have more questions... not a problem to post the facts...

guys... these 2 cars are very, very similar... you'd have to drive them both to make a choice for yourself... i am w/the EVO... hey!! it costs less

j. www.subiegal.com

brandonl · 05-12-2001, 10:32 AM

I agree Subiegal... EVO's are high on my bang for the buck list.

p-car · 05-12-2001, 11:07 AM

Doesn't matter much to us until Subaru and Mitubishi bring em over.

Hopefully Mitsu won't wussify the EVO with small brakes, wheels and tires like some other company we know.

WRXwannbe · 05-12-2001, 02:31 PM

I know on the Sti 5,6 (and 22b) they have a center differential control nob. From 50/50 to up to 35/65 (I think). But the STI still doesn't have the active yaw control found on the EVO.

I just say, get a full locking diff in the back and put a huge swaybar.

[This message has been edited by WRXwannbe (edited May 12, 2001).]

N/A · 05-12-2001, 03:34 PM

Personally I say you need to go out and drive a couple to really find out for yourself. After having driven then in bad northern Japan weather I thought they both handled pretty good but if I had the money I'd buy a Evo.

Subie Gal · 05-12-2001, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Hopefully Mitsu won't wussify the EVO with small brakes, wheels and tires like some other company we know.

hmmm... brakes....
STi - Ventilated discs, front and rear
294mm dia front - 26mm rear - ABS

EVO VII- Ventilated discs, front and rear
332mm dia front - 306mm rear - ABS

hehehee... EVO baby!

j. www.subiegal.com

TurboBoxer · 05-12-2001, 05:46 PM

i pesonally never like mitsubishis. for various reasons some rational most not. my favorite term that i use for them is bitchwhoeatsmes. anyway just looking at the driveline layouts of the two cars. the subarus seems nicer and simpler. because of the north south engine layout and symetrical drinline associated with that configuration.
however the result is that the subies engine is located infront of the front axle. while the lancers engine is transverse and upright and on top of the front axle. so i was wondering if weight distribution could be the source of the lancers better handleing. i was wondering i guess what the actual specs for the F?R weight distribution are.

TurboBoxer · 05-12-2001, 06:03 PM

i was thinking that the lancers engines bore to stoke ratio is better. i say this because the i believe that subies bore is much greater than the lancers but the lancers stroke is much longer. the way i see it is that the longer stroke generates torque better. and since they have the same horsepower the torque charateristcs of the mitsubishi are more favorable.

marty · 05-12-2001, 08:15 PM

subiegal,i love you girl!!! do you want to be my child's bearer??? thank's for helping me out with this one! and iron man,who's the
one with a nasty bump on his noggin now???
i appreciate the facts that you guys (and gals) brought...thanks a lot!!! and yes it was the evo magazine sanguine!!!

Kilalee · 05-12-2001, 08:26 PM

If I had it my way I would have both parked in my garage!

RA · 05-12-2001, 09:34 PM

Surprisingly, the F/R weight distribution for the Lancer Evo is 65/35.
The same goes for the Integra TypeR, and both are cars with top-notch handling.

Dont know about the wrx or STI but the Lancer Evo has amazing handling. Just point the steering wheel in the direction where you want the car to go, step on throttle and that's it. It can oversteer easily too.

The steering lock to lock is only 2.2 turns. The wrx has a 3.0 turn, i think.
Thus, steering is much more precise for the Evo.

Fido · 05-13-2001, 12:50 AM

Yup...In the US on manuals the power split is 50/50 in normal conditions...

tonytiger · 05-13-2001, 04:37 AM

Subie: Even the basic WRX in finland has 400mm at front and 375mm at back. It might be different else where. Besides, size isn't the only truth... I'm with the Subaru, even some specs is better with the evo. Turboboxer: I think you're right with the idea of the engine palcement. If the weith is straight at the top of front axle it doesn't create torque which may make the turning more difficult. Didn't think throughoutly the thing but seems reasonnably....

Jon Bogert · 05-13-2001, 09:34 AM

400mm = 16"

Those are some serious rotors...

XT6Wagon · 05-13-2001, 02:30 PM

Well the EVO's engine layout is kinda mickymoused, but thats mostly because they were fixing a crappy layout that existed before, but didn't bother to make it a production item for all cars using that engine.

Subarus N-S layout has a real problem, ant thats the small fact that the entire motor is hanging out infront of the front axle line. The light flat 4 is the only thign that make sit remotely decent, as the old qattros were severly hindered by a I5 using the same layout.

Turboboxer, the Subarus great bore size than the EVO is a GREAT benifit as withthe shorter stroke you can run more RPMS, and with a lower flow into the cylinder, it can make the same HP. This is becasue the air has a much shorter distance to go to fill the bottom of the cylinder, and at 8-9K rpm it makes a huge difference how far the air has to go after the valves. Also the greater bore alows larger valve area, and/or more quench area. The problems with it are the off boost torque tends to not be nice, and the fuel efficency suffers.

05-12-2001, 12:39 AM	#1
marty Scooby Newbie Member#: 3673 Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: chicoutimi,quebec,canada Vehicle: 2000 impreza 2.5 RS blue ridge,yellow stripes	mitsubishi vs. subaru i own a my00 RS blue ridge,and i was reading in a european magazine a comparison match between a mitsubishi lancerEVO VII,vs a subaru impreza wrx(P1 or STI can't remember) both cars had 2.0 turbo engines,awd,and about 276hp.But the article said that there was a big difference in the way those cars were handling.Mainly because in the impreza, in the perfect conditions,the power is delivered mainly to the front wheels(like 90% -10%)and with varying traction the power can be split equally between front and rear if needed.That results in a mild understeer under hard driving...while in the lancer,the power is more biased towards the rear wheels even in dry perfect conditions,more like 40%-60%,wich results in oversteering during hard driving...and i'm guessing i would prefer the oversteering tendencies of the lancer against the somewhat sluggish steering of my impreza...what do you think? * Registered users of the site do not see these ads.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
2007, 3rd Annual Mitsubishi VS. Subaru race scheduled.	David Buschur	General Community	30	02-11-2007 05:50 PM
Mitsubishi vs. Subaru meet?	Chank Frank	South East Region Forum	49	11-26-2006 01:26 PM
3rd Annual Mitsubishi VS Subaru Showdown - Norwalk, Ohio	Quack	Motorsports	3	10-25-2006 07:01 PM
mitsubishi vs subaru meet at norwalk	sexyrex02	Mid West Subaru Owners Club Forum -- MWSOC	6	06-17-2006 11:07 AM
Mitsubishi vs. Subaru Show-Down in Norwalk April 15 - Who's in?	Mr. Quick	Mid West Subaru Owners Club Forum -- MWSOC	64	02-23-2005 12:40 PM

05-12-2001, 12:42 AM	#2
Iron Man Scooby Newbie Member#: 4315 Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Reno Nv Vehicle: 2001 RS coupe silver/custom	no. you've got it all wrong. you must of hit your head.....

05-12-2001, 12:47 AM	#3
eastbaysubaru Scooby Specialist Member#: 4110 Join Date: Feb 2001 Chapter/Region: BAIC Location: No. So. Co. Vehicle: 04 FXT PSM	I personally haven't driven either car, only a 2.5 RS (my girlfriend's) which is nothing like a WRX or STi. I would love to drive both one right after the other though. I recommend downloading the Tiff Needell video with a girl driving the EVO VII and Tiff driving an Audi Quattro Coupe from the early 80's: http://movies.taner.net/topgear/Top_...t_Evo_Race.mpg It's a great vid and well worth a look. -Brian

05-12-2001, 12:48 AM	#4
Sanguine Scooby Newbie Member#: 5575 Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Fairfax,VA,USA Vehicle: '02 Impreza WRX Midnight Black Pearl	I thought the Japaneze WRX and STi had something like a 35-65 torque split toward the rear? What euro mag did you read this in, "Evo"?

05-12-2001, 12:51 AM	#5
marty Scooby Newbie Member#: 3673 Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: chicoutimi,quebec,canada Vehicle: 2000 impreza 2.5 RS blue ridge,yellow stripes	i'm tellin' you iron man,the lancer has a rear wheel drive biased power delivery compared to the more front wheel drive biased impreza!!!

05-12-2001, 12:54 AM	#6
marty Scooby Newbie Member#: 3673 Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: chicoutimi,quebec,canada Vehicle: 2000 impreza 2.5 RS blue ridge,yellow stripes	sanguine,i'll try to find the article,and i'll be back with an answer...

05-12-2001, 12:56 AM	#7
Sanguine Scooby Newbie Member#: 5575 Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Fairfax,VA,USA Vehicle: '02 Impreza WRX Midnight Black Pearl	OK. I know for a fact that the US-Spec WRX has a 50-50 F/R Torque split for Manual transmission, and a 45-55 split on the Auto.

05-12-2001, 01:03 AM	#8
marty Scooby Newbie Member#: 3673 Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: chicoutimi,quebec,canada Vehicle: 2000 impreza 2.5 RS blue ridge,yellow stripes	sanguine,i can't find the article,but i think it was in autocar...they test rode five or six cars for 2000 miles,and there were an impreza and an evoVII in the bunch,so naturally,they compared both cars under varying road conditions,wet,dry,bumpy,long straight-aways etc...

05-12-2001, 01:32 AM	#9
Shinji N Scooby Specialist Member#: 3987 Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Los Angeles, CA Vehicle: 1999 Miata Black	Maybe Marty's equating understeer with fwd?

05-12-2001, 09:02 AM	#10
Jon Bogert Scooby Specialist Member#: 1133 Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: SE PA Vehicle: '02 996 C4S '95 993 '71 911 3.0 '04 STI	Whenever the British car mags compare an EVO with a Scooby, they usually choose the comparable Scooby, which is the STi. An EVO VI would blow away a regular U.K. Impreza Turbo. The STi grey imports they test often have the manually variable torque split center diff. Without it, the torque split is just like the U.S. RS--i.e. 50/50 and more likely to understeer. The EVO has a much more advanced system that plays more to the oversteer side. Note that the Brits tend to have a much more practical view of handling than the Japanese, given the rain and rough roads in the U.K. Because of this, they often prefer a less "pointy" car, like the Impreza, over a sharper handling EVO. It's the bad road handling capabilities that really make special U.K. Imprezas like the RB5 or P1 stand out. BTW, if you like Imprezas and Lancers, there is no better car magazine than EVO. I'm not sure what Sanguine's LOL smilie was for, since EVO makes the more mainstream Brit magazines look pretty lame. You might also try CCC (Cars & Car Conversions) for a more hardcore approach to going fast. Both are far better than and U.S. car mag and neither panders to the sticker and spoiler crowd.

05-12-2001, 10:32 AM	#12
brandonl Scooby Specialist Member#: 3341 Join Date: Dec 2000 Chapter/Region: Tri-State Location: NJ Vehicle: 04 STi track rat black	I agree Subiegal... EVO's are high on my bang for the buck list.

05-12-2001, 11:07 AM	#13
p-car Scooby Newbie Member#: 5534 Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: OC Vehicle: 2000 Cliffdiver RS	Doesn't matter much to us until Subaru and Mitubishi bring em over. Hopefully Mitsu won't wussify the EVO with small brakes, wheels and tires like some other company we know.

05-12-2001, 02:31 PM	#14
WRXwannbe Scooby Specialist Member#: 1954 Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Long Beach, CA, USA Vehicle: 1997 Impreza L/WRS WRB	I know on the Sti 5,6 (and 22b) they have a center differential control nob. From 50/50 to up to 35/65 (I think). But the STI still doesn't have the active yaw control found on the EVO. I just say, get a full locking diff in the back and put a huge swaybar. [This message has been edited by WRXwannbe (edited May 12, 2001).]

05-12-2001, 03:34 PM	#15
N/A Scooby Specialist Member#: 133 Join Date: Aug 1999 Location: Maryland (not by choice) Vehicle: 2003 Echo-daily car silver	Personally I say you need to go out and drive a couple to really find out for yourself. After having driven then in bad northern Japan weather I thought they both handled pretty good but if I had the money I'd buy a Evo.

05-12-2001, 05:46 PM	#17
TurboBoxer Scooby Newbie Member#: 6028 Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: New Rochelle, NY Vehicle: 2002 WRX Sedan WR Blue	i pesonally never like mitsubishis. for various reasons some rational most not. my favorite term that i use for them is bitchwhoeatsmes. anyway just looking at the driveline layouts of the two cars. the subarus seems nicer and simpler. because of the north south engine layout and symetrical drinline associated with that configuration. however the result is that the subies engine is located infront of the front axle. while the lancers engine is transverse and upright and on top of the front axle. so i was wondering if weight distribution could be the source of the lancers better handleing. i was wondering i guess what the actual specs for the F?R weight distribution are.

05-12-2001, 06:03 PM	#18
TurboBoxer Scooby Newbie Member#: 6028 Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: New Rochelle, NY Vehicle: 2002 WRX Sedan WR Blue	i was thinking that the lancers engines bore to stoke ratio is better. i say this because the i believe that subies bore is much greater than the lancers but the lancers stroke is much longer. the way i see it is that the longer stroke generates torque better. and since they have the same horsepower the torque charateristcs of the mitsubishi are more favorable.

05-12-2001, 08:15 PM	#19
marty Scooby Newbie Member#: 3673 Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: chicoutimi,quebec,canada Vehicle: 2000 impreza 2.5 RS blue ridge,yellow stripes	subiegal,i love you girl!!! do you want to be my child's bearer??? thank's for helping me out with this one! and iron man,who's the one with a nasty bump on his noggin now??? i appreciate the facts that you guys (and gals) brought...thanks a lot!!! and yes it was the evo magazine sanguine!!!

05-12-2001, 08:26 PM	#20
Kilalee Scooby Newbie Member#: 2888 Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Fort Knox, KY USA Vehicle: MY02 WRX Wagon Black	If I had it my way I would have both parked in my garage!

05-12-2001, 09:34 PM	#21
RA Scooby Newbie Member#: 672 Join Date: Dec 1999 Location: Seattle, WA, USA Vehicle: 2000 Lancer Evo 6 Peach Pink	Surprisingly, the F/R weight distribution for the Lancer Evo is 65/35. The same goes for the Integra TypeR, and both are cars with top-notch handling. Dont know about the wrx or STI but the Lancer Evo has amazing handling. Just point the steering wheel in the direction where you want the car to go, step on throttle and that's it. It can oversteer easily too. The steering lock to lock is only 2.2 turns. The wrx has a 3.0 turn, i think. Thus, steering is much more precise for the Evo.

05-13-2001, 12:50 AM	#22
Fido Scooby Specialist Member#: 1867 Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: New Jersey	Yup...In the US on manuals the power split is 50/50 in normal conditions...

05-13-2001, 04:37 AM	#23
tonytiger Scooby Newbie Member#: 3844 Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Helsinki, Finland Vehicle: 1993 Legacy 1.8 White	Subie: Even the basic WRX in finland has 400mm at front and 375mm at back. It might be different else where. Besides, size isn't the only truth... I'm with the Subaru, even some specs is better with the evo. Turboboxer: I think you're right with the idea of the engine palcement. If the weith is straight at the top of front axle it doesn't create torque which may make the turning more difficult. Didn't think throughoutly the thing but seems reasonnably....

05-13-2001, 09:34 AM	#24
Jon Bogert Scooby Specialist Member#: 1133 Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: SE PA Vehicle: '02 996 C4S '95 993 '71 911 3.0 '04 STI	400mm = 16" Those are some serious rotors...

05-13-2001, 02:30 PM	#25
XT6Wagon Scooby Specialist Member#: 524 Join Date: Nov 1999 Location: WA Vehicle: 04 STi White	Well the EVO's engine layout is kinda mickymoused, but thats mostly because they were fixing a crappy layout that existed before, but didn't bother to make it a production item for all cars using that engine. Subarus N-S layout has a real problem, ant thats the small fact that the entire motor is hanging out infront of the front axle line. The light flat 4 is the only thign that make sit remotely decent, as the old qattros were severly hindered by a I5 using the same layout. Turboboxer, the Subarus great bore size than the EVO is a GREAT benifit as withthe shorter stroke you can run more RPMS, and with a lower flow into the cylinder, it can make the same HP. This is becasue the air has a much shorter distance to go to fill the bottom of the cylinder, and at 8-9K rpm it makes a huge difference how far the air has to go after the valves. Also the greater bore alows larger valve area, and/or more quench area. The problems with it are the off boost torque tends to not be nice, and the fuel efficency suffers.