Announcement

**Redwood** · 11-09-2005, 08:31 PM

Re: EVO: IX vs MR vs RS?

This is a comparison of the Evo 8, but it compared all 3 models.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...vos/index.html

**Fair!** · 11-09-2005, 08:40 PM

Re: EVO: IX vs MR vs RS?

Originally posted by Redwood

This is a comparison of the Evo 8, but it compared all 3 models.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...vos/index.html

That test is of 2005 models - there's more power across the board for 2006, as well as subtle improvements to the RS and IX (teflon coated shift cables, etc).

Here's the rub:

Across the finish line, our Evo trio arrived precisely as our story's intro shot introduced them: the MR followed by the Evo VIII a car length back; the RS trailing the Evo VIII by half that. Is the MR's 0.27-second advantage (the snap of a finger) over the Evo VIII worth $4800? Is its 0.35-second edge on the RS worth $7000?

The cost of the Bilsteins (soft) and wing (too much bling) and radio (I'm not a stereophile) and 2.8 pound lighter wheels are all negligible for an STU prepped EVO. You'd change the shocks & wheels anyway and the ~90 pound weight savings of the RS is worthwhile. The only thing the MR really has over the RS is extra weight and a 6-spd that's even closer ratio than the 5, which is already too "tizzight". The MR doesn't have a taller 6th gear (which would help it get better mileage, which it doesn't; in fact, it's worse).

I think the RS would be the smartest choice for someone wanting to run STU. Throw coil-overs, a cat-back, cold-air, "tuning", 17x9s and 245s on it and go racing.

Granted, these are 2005 models (276 hp vs 286 for '06) but the RS is fully 3 & 4 tenths faster in the 1/4 mile than the MR and VIII. The lack of ABS is not only stupid, but might be the biggest hendrence to solo2 use. To get ABS and the lighter roof/etc, you'd have to jump $6000 for the MR... drat. I see why the IX is there - it's a good compromise. Crank windows on the RS are also a whippin'.

**Redwood** · 11-09-2005, 08:52 PM

Re: EVO: IX vs MR vs RS?

Fair asked for me to post about weight/transmission ratios. Here are a bunch O specs on the Evo IX models

http://features.evolutionm.net/newsitem/91

Curb Weight:

RS 3219lbs
IX 3263lbs
MR 3285lbs

**Fair!** · 11-09-2005, 11:22 PM

Re: EVO: IX vs MR vs RS?

A friend is looking to get one of these Evo thingies and I put in a "Dealer quote request" online, for him. The Plano stealership called me within 20 minutes - guess it was a slow night! Here's some of the crap they spewed:

1. "The EVO RS was discontinued in 2005 because nobody wanted one" then why does the Mitsu website show the RS as a 2006 model? Because the stealer is misinformed or lying. KBB.com shows the RS listed as a 2006 model as well.

"These cars were stripped and didn't have any features"... right about that.

2. They "usually get a few grand over sticker for an MR" but only get 1 or 2 a year. "If you're serious" they might let one go at Sticker, but no less! MSRP $36,894.00 and Invoice $34,727.25 (with destination)

3. They'd sell an Evo IX "below sticker" but "there isn't much mark-up". Invoice on an EVO IX is and MSRP is 31,994.00 and Invoice is $30,188.43 (with destination). $1800 ish.

4. High pressure salesman suck. I'll warn my friend to stay away from DonHerring Mitsubishi.

There's 3 more Mitsu dealers nearby... for my friend.

DON HERRING NORTH MITSUBISHI - (Est. 6.038 miles)
4225 WEST PLANO PARKWAY
PLANO, TX 75093-0000
(972)387-8600

LEWISVILLE MITSUBISHI - (Est. 23.93 miles)
1651 S. STEMMONS FREEWAY
LEWISVILLE, TX 75067
(972)353-9300

FAZELI MITSUBISHI - (Est. 26.50 miles)
16200 LBJ FREEWAY
MESQUITE, TX 75150
(972)270-2080

DON HERRING IRVING MITSUBISH - (Est. 31.07 miles)
698 E. AIRPORT FREEWAY
IRVING, TX 75062
(972)785-3000

C3 · 11-10-2005, 08:39 AM

Re: EVO: IX vs MR vs RS?

I believe Jim Harris got his at Lewisville Mitsubishi, so you may want to swing by there when you go to get the car, Terry

**hancheyb** · 11-10-2005, 09:08 AM

Re: EVO: IX vs MR vs RS?

I think a IX is the way to go, BUT I think the '05 VIII might be better even with the 8 less hp. I read some places that said the MIVEC (VVT) stuff might get in the way of tuning or it would take awhile to get tuned. An '05 VIII has the same diffs as the '06 and would short term be easier to get s/w for. Who knows. '05 nose doesn't look as good as the IX.

Let's see. If I sold my car, I could almost pay off the minivan and then I'd still meet my one loan requirement. Hmm....of course, then I'd have a stock Evo not worth a darn in autocrossing.

BTW, I looked at Herring a couple of years ago before i bought my car. Same thing, high pressure and high prices.

**Paul** · 11-10-2005, 10:20 AM

Re: EVO: IX vs MR vs RS?

Originally posted by hancheyb

I think a IX is the way to go, BUT I think the '05 VIII might be better even with the 8 less hp. I read some places that said the MIVEC (VVT) stuff might get in the way of tuning or it would take awhile to get tuned. An '05 VIII has the same diffs as the '06 and would short term be easier to get s/w for. Who knows. '05 nose doesn't look as good as the IX.

The '06 has an improved turbo also. I think I would lean towards the '06 IX, check tranny ratios first though, make sure it works.

**Redwood** · 11-10-2005, 10:42 AM

Re: EVO: IX vs MR vs RS?

Originally posted by C3

I believe Jim Harris got his at Lewisville Mitsubishi, so you may want to swing by there when you go to get the car, Terry

Jim Harris went to the dark side?

**hancheyb** · 11-10-2005, 11:20 AM

Re: EVO: IX vs MR vs RS?

Originally posted by Redwood

Fair asked for me to post about weight/transmission ratios. Here are a bunch O specs on the Evo IX models

http://features.evolutionm.net/newsitem/91

Curb Weight:

RS 3219lbs
IX 3263lbs
MR 3285lbs

Non MR is 41 mph in 1st, 59.8 mph in 2nd
MR is 40 mph in 1st and 59.7mph in 2nd

**McCall** · 11-10-2005, 11:25 AM

Re: EVO: IX vs MR vs RS?

Originally posted by Fair!

A friend is looking to get one of these Evo thingies and I put in a "Dealer quote request" online, for him.

A "friend"?? For "him"?? hhhhmmmmm....This coming from a guy who only has one car right now for two people.

Fair = Future boooost bugy owner

**hancheyb** · 11-10-2005, 11:35 AM

Re: EVO: IX vs MR vs RS?

I guess that's ONE way to increase STU attendance. I'm going to buy an F body and Mustang too.

**Redwood** · 11-10-2005, 11:54 AM

Re: EVO: IX vs MR vs RS?

Motor Trend - ’06 Evo IX MR vs. ’06 Impreza WRX STI

Our Mission: Wring out these two rally-bred machines at the dragstrip, on the handling course, and at the tracetrack, and pick a winner--- a dream assignment if these two cars weren’t so damned evenly matched.

If you’re on of those who skip to the spec chart to see who won, let’s save you the paper cuts. You’ll find the following differences: 0.0 second to 60mph, 0.3 second to 100mph; 0.3 second and 0.1mph at the quarter mile, 1.0mph in the slalom, 0.01g on the skidpad, and 0.39second a lap on the racetrack. There. Go ahead. Pick a winner.

It’s clear the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution IX MR and Subaru Impreza WRX STI (that’s now a capital “I” for 2006) are optimized to the same formula specified by the WRC rally racing series in which they participate. Almost. The U.S. version of Subaru STI deviates from the maximum 2.0-liter rules by adding a half-liter of engine displacement. Of course, the racing versions of both are tuned. Lightened, and upgraded within the rules to withstand the rigors of racing in a wide variety of environments. Other than that, what’s built into the foundations of these street cars (especially bodywork above the bumpers) is what’s required on the race cars.

For those keeping track, here’s a short list of mechanical changes since this duo was last featured in “Hatfields and McCoys” (October 2004). The Evolution MR has gained variable valve timing (MIVEC) on its intake valves, producing a more generous throttle response at a lower rpm—and it’s readily apparent from 3500rpm and up. The difference isn’t as easy as looking at a 205 versus 2006 MR dyno chart, which shows only marginal changes to the curve.

Combined with a revised, freer-flowing turbo housing and new exhaust system, horsepower has increased to 286. Incidentally, that new exhaust system sounds much better. The previous Evo sounded like a vacuum that’s sucked up a sock. The new one has a much throatier rasp akin to a dog expelling kibble. Adding MIVEC meant revising the cylinder-head casting and gasket. The new casting, along with longer-threaded spark plugs, better resists heat. Stronger alloy pistons and new rings are said to reduce oil consumption by about 10 percent. There’s also a new bell housing cover designed to reduce interior noise.

To feed the higher-output motor, the fuel pump is able to deliver a seven-percent capacity increase over the previous one. Shifting six gears got easier and more precise due to Teflon-lined shift cables and a better shift-stroke stopper. The clutch has received a wide-angle damper to quell vibration noise. Aerodynamically, there are subtle revisions. A new front fascia resulted in the deletion of the triangular grille splitter and more cooling for the intercooler below. The carbon-fiber rear wing is now hollow to reduce upper body weight, and the uprights that support it are body colored. Dealer-installed options (neither of which was on our tester) include a front air-dam extender and a rear-wing wicker bill that claim to reduce lift and drag. Rooftop vortex generators remain standard but are now body colored.

In the Subaru camp, mechanical changes are fewer and less evident. The open planetary center differential is now controlled electromechanically, and its default front/rear distribution ratio has been changed from 35:65 to 41:59. A torque-sending mechanical limited-slip device replaces the previously hydraulically controlled unit to speed reaction of the torque distribution. The Tribeca’s steering-angle sensor has been added to the array of electronics that direct the operation of the STI’s center differential. In manual mode, the diff can still be progressively locked in any of six positions up to a 50/50 distribution. Carbon-reinforced synchronizers smooth shifts into fourth, fight, and sixth gears.

Aero tweaks come at the expense of looks—or is that vice versa? The new airplane-inspired front fascia is said to be slipperier and more efficient, which allowed a smaller hood scoop to be fitted. A new STI-specific roof vane spoiler borrows the Evo MR trick of pulling airflow down against the rear glass to allow clean air to act on the rear wing, thus increasing its effect. No word on how much extra downforce is made, but we assume it’s up from the previous 2005 STi’s 50 pounds at 100mph. Tucked under the rear bumper, the new diffuser actually helped us vacuum our slalom course, producing a dusty roostertail as it flew past.

Have all the hours Mitsubishi and Subaru engineers spent tweaking and fiddling with these cares made a difference?

Not Really.

Racing teams will appreciate the help where WRC Championship points are won and lost within tenths of a second. In the real world, however, both the MR and the STI are still supremely capable and entertaining and only fractionally more so this time around. We’d still bet money on either one against a Lamborghini or Ferrari on the right track. Yes, those hard-core Evo or STI fans who spend hours in their respective online forums might feel a nuance here and there, but neither one has leapfrogged the other. In fact, the Evo and STI perform closer than ever before.

Overlaying this year’s best lap onto last year’s, the 2006 Evo MR’s lap time improved by 0.63 second. The gain appears to come from that 10-horse increase over last year’s. The graphic of each of the acceleration zones shows a slightly steeper incline with the 2006 MR. The new car’s top speed on the back straight increased to 99.6mph , where the old MR achieved 96.9mph. Analyzing the lateral and braking g-loads each car produces is an exercise in subtlety. A node here and a blip there differentiate old from new, but all in , they’re indistinguishable from one another.

Last year, our early build-2005 STi tester felt slow compared with other examples previously tested. With over 1600 miles on this year’s STI, it had been broken in properly and produced all the power it should. As a result, the lap time, comparing last year’s to this, improved to a greater degree compared with the two Evos. The speed trade for nearly the entire lap for the 2006 STI is higher than last year’s car.

The result is a 1.6-second-quicker lap time and a 2.8mph-higher top speed. The improvement in corner exit speeds, where the new center differential may have shown an advantage, couldn’t be measured. Last year’s car was more apt to rotate into a tail-out counter-steering slide. This year, though that technique is still possible, it requires more effort and commitment to make it happen. The former STi trait of nosing into a corner when the throttle is lifted (and drifting out when the gas pedal is mashed) seems to have gone away with the old center diff. Too bad, because it was one of the things to point to as a divergent trait between Evo and STi. The new STI is just a hair more neutral than its predecessor. As with the Evos, the STi versus STI g-loads are only slightly different and can’t be viewed as conclusively better or worse.

Only after combining the best laps of the 2006 Evo and 2006 STI do marked differences become evident. Analysis shows the Subaru slightly more “chuckable” than the Mitsubishi, exhibiting a number of higher g-load spikes than the Evo, which shows smoother curves. This is further supported by a particular set of esses where the STI enters at a higher speed and spikes the g-load prior to the exit. The driver reported more confidence throwing the STI because he knew it would reward him with a lurid slide.

The Evo, on the other hand, did what it was designed to do—remain neutral. In fact, when it’s pushed beyond what the tires can maintain, the Evo merely goes wide of the intended path, all four tires giving up simultaneously. Whatever’s attempted—lifting or matting the gas pedal, tugging at the steering wheel, over-committing to a corner—the Evo just sticks and goes. Do the same in the STI, and there’s always oversteer in reserve. The only time the Evo oversteered on command was in the slalom where the center differential’s “Gravel” setting proved more useful (and quicker) to rotate the car for each successive cone. On the racetrack, it was less useful than the “Tarmac” setting. In the end, the Evo IX MR was 0.39 second quicker around the racetrack than the Impreza WRX STI.

Ready for that winner thing?

No doubt, the Mitsubishi is a dedicated, well-sorted track machine—and so is the Subaru. Which is more fun is a different story. With performances so close, it boils down to brand preference, aesthetics, price, and personality.

It’s impossible to pick one over the other based solely on the test numbers. Evolutionists will always be so, and Subaristas will remain loyal, as well. While it’s certain neither one of these cars will wind up on display at the Guggenheim, the Subaru just looks weirder this time around. The new, more feminine grille, even in its smaller-than-Tribeca scale, doesn’t do the STI justice.

The Evo, while looking like a car that could change shape into a 15-foot robot at the push of a button, does have a purposeful honesty to it. The beauty lies in what it does: finely crafted sharp-edged fins, vents, wings, and things that exploit the wind, cool the engine, and look the part. They all seem appropriate to the car and what it’s meant to do.

Not so the STI, which has a more malleable nature. You can grab it by the scruff of its neck and throw it around, and it’ll reward you with heroic deeds. From the way you can launch it from 6000rpm with all wheels spinning to the way you can drive it slideways around a corner, it lets you have more fun than the Evo does. (Yes, there’s still a software-regulated hardware protecting 5000-rpm rev-limited from a standstill that won’t all the Evo IX to unleash enough power to bark the tires on dry-pavement launches.)

Then there’s the price. Last time around, the Evo MR was about $1200 costlier. This time, that difference has jumped to almost $3000. Most of us—although not the entire staff, it must be said—feel okay saving that much money for the added driving pleasure in an uglier car.

Okay, we picked a winner—but do we now have two hairs where there was once one?

1st Place: STI – more fun than the Evo; tossable and a more rewarding drive.

2nd Place: Evo – Dedicated machine; cool looks—but more expensive than its rival.

’06 Mitsubishi Evo IX MR vs. ’06 Subaru Impreza WRX STI

Price $36,564 $33,620
Weight (lbs) 3283 3315
0-60 (secs) 4.5 4.5
0-100 (secs) 12.4 12.1
¼ mile 13.3@103.4 13.0@103.5
Braking 100-0 306ft 320ft
Braking 60-0 107ft 108ft
Skidpad 0.92g 0.91g
Figure Eight Lap(secs) 25.4 25.5
1.56mi road course (secs) 93.8 94.2
Mileage (city/hwy) 18/24 18/24
Observed mileage 20.6 19.6

**hancheyb** · 11-10-2005, 12:05 PM

Re: EVO: IX vs MR vs RS?

That's very interesting. How many car competitions have been THAT close? Mustang/Camaro, one has always been ahead, etc. Now, what happens when you make a STU Evo and STI? I think we should do our own test and publish an article. We'll collect all the data at our January Test N Tune.

**McCall** · 11-10-2005, 12:08 PM

Re: EVO: IX vs MR vs RS?

Originally posted by hancheyb

That's very interesting. How many car competitions have been THAT close? Mustang/Camaro, one has always been ahead, etc. Now, what happens when you make a STU Evo and STI? I think we should do our own test and publish an article. We'll collect all the data at our January Test N Tune.

So which STU car will you be in B? The Evo or Sti?

Announcement

EVO: IX vs MR vs RS?

EVO: IX vs MR vs RS?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment