Evo VS STI

[diablos991]

I heart STI. But then again I have always been a fan of scoobies.

 

[T is for TURBO]

You're wrong. Go directly to jail, do not collect 200$


Frankly, You're retarded. What exactly does this ricer "HP per Liter" do for you? Seriously, that is THE SINGLE dumbest car comparison ever invented by honda loving rice boys. Hey, and LS1 makes pretty poor hp/liter, however it makes more hp than the Honda S2000 engine, and better gasmileage, and similar manufacturing costs... lets see which engine is better





No.. they don't do 270+ on a dyno, and for the record, the 06 subies have about 30hp over the 05 models when dyno'd, yet they are rated the same. The amount of boost you can run is completely seperate of "strength of engine" which is what you're trying to convey.

Vishnu is a completely new issue altogether. I'd suggest calling up David Buschur and seeing what he thinks about that lovely shitcan of a company.

don't refer to dyno's by homosexual terms. Call it by it's name. Mustang, Dynapack, Dynojet, whatever.

And as much as you may think so, stoplight street racing does not define the ability of a car. More like which member of the special olympics is a shittier driver than the other.




Evo is a better car when you plan to A) make a drag car out of it or B) make a road racing car out of it.

STi is a better car when you plan to A)drive the car everyday, B) slightly modify/tune the car to behave the way you want it to.

or if you want to have a car that is from a company that still has the rally team the car was originally designed to compete in

IF HP per liter didn't mean anything, then why doesn't Formula 1 use high displacement engines? Yes, I know, Im comparing apples to oranges, however, Formula 1 cars create INSANE HP numbers, yet they still retain small displacement. They can get 700 N/A HP out of 2.4 liters. Its called efficiency. Not to mension, smaller displacement engines are usually lighter, due to less material, also, cheaper due to less material, and smaller displacement engines usually get better fuel consumption. To say that "HP per Liter means nothing" a broad statment. Also, did you read rule number 2 listed unter "Before you Reply"? Well, if you didn't, is says "No insults, name calling, smart ass replies, or any other replies that vioulate our posting policies." Read the rules before you reply man, they are there for a reason.

 

[Tony90TSI]

IF HP per liter didn't mean anything, then why doesn't Formula 1 use high displacement engines? Yes, I know, Im comparing apples to oranges, however, Formula 1 cars create INSANE HP numbers, yet they still retain small displacement. They can get 700 N/A HP out of 2.4 liters. Its called efficiency. Not to mension, smaller displacement engines are usually lighter, due to less material, also, cheaper due to less material, and smaller displacement engines usually get better fuel consumption. To say that "HP per Liter means nothing" a broad statment. Also, did you read rule number 2 listed unter "Before you Reply"? Well, if you didn't, is says "No insults, name calling, smart ass replies, or any other replies that vioulate our posting policies." Read the rules before you reply man, they are there for a reason.

Formula 1 and IRL both use smaller displacement engines because they are limited to a certain cubic inch. It started if memory serves because of weight. The smaller the motor was the lighter the car could be. But you are refering to a race engine that at best lasts about 700 miles between rebuilds, that motor isnt a real world motor.

 

[eclipsegsx1736]

I love how you guys are all arguing over power. That's not what these cars are about

Attend a local road racing track day event. Watch the Evos and the STi's. Then you'll know. (Evo)

 

[ITSME4G63]

i voted for the evo here and at work, we only went up 1 percent from 46 to 47 the whole day.

 

[ghettosmurf]

yes evos generally make more power, easier to mod, better responsiveness on a drag or road course, but STI's sound better, look better, more comfortable, more reliable, better company, etc.

 

[KGB Pilot125]

It has been stated above many times, better overall car, plus a company that will be around in 5-10 years and they actually stand behind thier warranty. I think I have a valid opinion after spending many hours in both and actually owning a STI.

 

[EclipseSH21]

Evo, as it's 4G63 powered. Sure guys, turn your back on the 4G63, just don't let your DSM see this thread otherwise she might not be so happy in the morning. How would you feel if someone badmouthed your cousin?

 

[spcebrd]

I voted for the evo because anyone can throw numbers at you but you really cant decide unless you have been behind the wheel of both cars. I have and I own an evo.

 

[leet]

Evo, as it's 4G63 powered. Sure guys, turn your back on the 4G63, just don't let your DSM see this thread otherwise she might not be so happy in the morning. How would you feel if someone badmouthed your cousin?

I'd laugh. Throwing my keys at my car is a weekly occurance.

 

[Booster-Shot]

Have any of the people backing up the subbies actually worked on one?

I personally think its a pain.

 

[JessesTalon]

Have any of the people backing up the subbies actually worked on one?

I personally think its a pain.

tell me about it, I friggen had to do spark plugs on a H6 outback the other day...


friggen book time is 2.5 hours! holy damn hell!


good for my wallet though only took my 2 advil and 1.5 hours with my hands in weird places above my head.




oh btw.... evo owns all

 

[ITSME4G63]

more comfortable,.

Ha, you never noticed the plush leather recaro seats the evo offers? my firend has one with em, and I say they beat those blue/balck sti cloth seats anyday.

 

[RiceKiller_TSi]

If I was to purchase a car to keep completely stock I might consider the STI, but since I like to "soop" stuff up, the EVO is a much better platform. What would one need to match the horsepower of an STI... a boost controller right? I also dont see spending an extra 3 grand just for some comfy seats and a little more displacement. That same three grand into the EVO mods would yield excellent results.

 

[beat90tsi]

I can't believe anyone would pick the the STI for its looks. The new STI looks like a Tribeca from the front, and by that I mean fugly.

The Evo 9 front-end is better looking than the 8, Subaru is headed in the wrong direction.

A friend of mine who had an STI, sold it, and is considering picking up a used Evo. The hood scoop was too ricer for his taste.

 

[Jeremoose]

I can't believe anyone would pick the the STI for its looks. The new STI looks like a Tribeca from the front, and by that I mean fugly.

The Evo 9 front-end is better looking than the 8, Subaru is headed in the wrong direction.

A friend of mine who had an STI, sold it, and is considering picking up a used Evo. The hood scoop was too ricer for his taste.

Wow. I just have to say: holy #### your car is beautiful. Looks awesome man

 

[SkyLineGtR-R34]

I've tried evo 8 and 2005 sti. Only thing better on the sti is the comfort inside, otherwise evo beats it.

Evo > sti

 

[Booster-Shot]

I can't believe anyone would pick the the STI for its looks. The new STI looks like a Tribeca from the front, and by that I mean fugly.

The Evo 9 front-end is better looking than the 8, Subaru is headed in the wrong direction.

A friend of mine who had an STI, sold it, and is considering picking up a used Evo. The hood scoop was too ricer for his taste.

While I love the Evo I have to disagree with this comment. I think the Sti also looks great and Im glad they updated the look. If any company is headed in the wrong direction its mitsubishi with the Evo X.

The hoop scoop IMO is the definition of anti-rice. Its not pretty but it gets the job done.



Why Cant Subbies and Evos Live in Peace????

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

 

[4BangR-x]

How is the hood scoop ricey when its functional. Just because it has a big wing and a scoop and some sic ass wheels doesnt mean its ricey, it all works well and is all functional.
Dont like the wing? Sell it.

Also we are comparing stock to stock, there should be no mention of "Oh I could just put 3gs in mods and it will be better."

Why this poll actually makes no sense...

Evo>WRX
STi>Evo
Evo MR> or = STi

 

[RiceKiller_TSi]

Also we are comparing stock to stock, there should be no mention of "Oh I could just put 3gs in mods and it will be better."

Its actually a better deal for the cost as is.
Also, because stock for stock the STI costs three grand more and thats three grand to keep in the pocket of the buyer/ enthusiast who will "most likely" do performance upgrades. Sorry but thats just the real world kicking ya in the teeth there. The EVO costs less so thats more moolah for aftermarket goodies. Modding, thats sure as heck what I would do.

Even without three grand worth of mods the Evo is the better buy imo. But hey, I am a little mitsu biased so take it for what its worth. Maybe you should go to the subie forums for more STI support.

The whole purpose people like to buy dsms is because they're cheap and accept modding very well. You can buy one for a few thousand and invest a couple thousand in it and run circles around Corvettes. Similar with the Evo. Thats how I like to get down.

 

[4BangR-x]

OK one last time, we are compaing stock to stock, not stock to modified. If you save 3 grand FINE, thats GREAT. Its another reason to go for the EVO. But to some people, believe it or not, do NOT mod their cars, and dont mind paying an extra 3 grand for some added comfort. Keep in mind this poll is from FORBES. Not Super Street.

 

[RiceKiller_TSi]

Ok then, stock for stock Evo>STI. There, ya happy?

 

[4BangR-x]

If thats your vote, then yes.

 

[RiceKiller_TSi]

Ok then.

 

[4BangR-x]

j/k