Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the big problem with Subarus and people think they are junk is the STi. They are so easy to modify and upgrade power without needing to do supporting mods.
Everyone I know with a STi got it and was so amazed that they could get so much power, for so cheap.
Then they blew the engine.
Then they blew the transmission.
Then they built the thing right and it worked well.
I think the big problem with Subarus and people think they are junk is the STi. They are so easy to modify and upgrade power without needing to do supporting mods.
Everyone I know with a STi got it and was so amazed that they could get so much power, for so cheap.
Then they blew the engine.
Then they blew the transmission.
Then they built the thing right and it worked well.
that's really not the STi's fault. It's improper knowledge of how to mod a car safely. Most people want to throw on intake, tbe, bov and turbo timer(both of these are absolutely useless in almost every application), and just leave it without doing a proper tune. Or they go big turbo without doing anything else.
that's really not the STi's fault. It's improper knowledge of how to mod a car safely. Most people want to throw on intake, tbe, bov and turbo timer(both of these are absolutely useless in almost every application), and just leave it without doing a proper tune. Or they go big turbo without doing anything else.
Yup - no fault of Subaru. The car works great and lasts a long time when used as designed or proper modifications are done.
Most modern turbos are coolant cooled and the cooling systems are designed so that coolant will circulate after the engine is off (convection currents) - so no need for turbo timers.
That's why I said "from previous conversations." Pay attention. You made a vigorous defense of my car in a previous thread when I vowed this would be my last Mitsubishi unless they seriously step up their game.
I understand you have buyer's remorse and miss your Subaru groupie fan club. No worries. I still think the Ralliart is a decent car, it is just no Evo.
Quote:
It's funny how much your argument makes my point for me even when you believe you're arguing against it. A chassis is NOT part of an AWD system, and when you put the same AWD system in essentially the same chassis but with a different suspension tune and geometry, surprise, you get different results. Point being: the Evo's handling precision owes more to its chassis/suspension tune than the AWD system. Which is not to say the AWD system is deficient or faulty in any way; it does what it's designed to do and it does it well. The Evo is a potent tarmac machine. But when it comes down to limited-grip competition where AWD matters more than street-friendly chassis tuning, Subaru is the preferred tool for the task.
The bolded part is not a fact. It is your unqualified opinion. The Evo9 was designed to do what it does with both the chassis and differentials and wider track from the base Lancer all designed to work together. To separate them out and try to weigh their value against one another WHEN THEY ARE DESIGNED TO WORK TOGETHER just to make some LAME point like it was an accident or dumb luck that an Evo beats an STi in handling contests is just the way fanboys do when they can't accept the facts in front of them.
Judging a car brand based on an used car sounds like a good idea.
Is this directed at me? I believe a 2014 Mitsubishi Evo X's AWD system is superior to any Subaru's. Is that new enough? There will also be a 2015 Evo X.
no conspiracy. Though competitors they are built with slightly different intentions. The EVO has always been the more raw car with stiffer suspension and not quite as comfortable to deal with. The STi has always been heralded as the better daily driver since it's suspension is a little more forgiving. That's where the slightly better handling comes in.
Those last two sentences are incongruous. I admit that the press tend's to award the consolation "don't feel bad, sport - you'll get 'em next time" prize of better daily driver to the STI, but they don't say it means it has "better handling." The more cupholders, nicer looking interior, softer ride accolades come in after the STi has just gotten beat.
I think the big problem with Subarus and people think they are junk is the STi. They are so easy to modify and upgrade power without needing to do supporting mods.
Everyone I know with a STi got it and was so amazed that they could get so much power, for so cheap.
Then they blew the engine.
Then they blew the transmission.
Then they built the thing right and it worked well.
I do not think Subaru's reputation is based on the STi regardless of what happened to some owners. Too small and niche of a market for the general public to take notice.
Subarus of certain eras have some common issues. (Such as head gaskets). Being common, and expensive to have repaired, it gives a negative impression. Overall, the vehicles are very solid and hold up well, but buying certain eras will likely cause an owner to run into an issue, such as this.
I can say they are anyhting special really and know a lot who owned the especially women for some reason.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
