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.
Okay I don't know about that. The Evo, like the STi is a pure rally-bred car. AWD grip with the right set of tires sticks like glue.
AWD doesn't stick like glue any better than a properly tuned RWD setup. In fact it has a greater propensity for understeer because the front wheels are driven. The exception would be setups like the 911 Carerra and the Infiniti AWD setup which only send power to the front wheels if the rear wheels break loose. But then you have to contend with the added weight of the AWD setup versus their 2WD counterparts. Notice that when Porsche gets really serious about performance, as in the GT2 and the GT3, they ditch the AWD setup in favor of RWD only.
AWD doesn't stick like glue any better than a properly tuned RWD setup. Notice that when Porsche gets really serious about performance, as in the GT2 and the GT3, they ditch the AWD setup in favor of RWD only.
Exactly: 'properly tuned' setup. You said the Evo wouldn't have a prayer...
It is easier to swing the tail-end out on a RWD, but too much power and you might be drifting when you're trying to stick, plus: AWD setups are usually heavier and are ditched in favor of weight-loss
Right, I said this in context of a C6 versus an Evo. And I stand by that.
It is obvious, in stock terms that an Evo can't beat a 'Vette in the quartermile. I'm still unclear what you mean when you said an Evo doesn't have a prayer, because I think an Evo would perhaps do more damage on a road course whereas on the drag strip it's almost full 2 seconds slower
I agree to an extent that theres no replacement for displacement, but a turbo creates just as much torque as a V8 does. Heck, the stock SRT-4 I drove felt ballsier than any Z28 Ive ever driven. Turbos create great thrust, and it comes in a blast, unlike the linear thrust of a V8. BOTH can shove you back in the seat easily.
And revving to 8K is fun!
Yeah but then you got turbo lag...
Really I have no argument with anything you say but I still have my doubts that it is that easy to get a civic into the 10's, not without a 200 shot of nitrous. And hey, the bottle is great, but it lasts for 4 runs and your out.
Really, if I was a kid wanting to a strip/street car I would buy a fox body mustang or something, or a late model chevy with a small block, take all the pollution crap off, and spend $3,000 to tear down and rebuild the motor with new heads, intake, carb, headers, etc. There you have a 450 HP car for a fraction of the price it takes to bring a 4 cylinder to that power range. Hey add nitrous if you want, 150 shot, and you have a car in the 11's probably, maybe 10's with slicks.
One benifit over a low tech muscle car to today's imports is the ease and inexpense of working on them. And cheap aftermarket parts. You don't need a doctorates degree and a laptop to rebuild them.
Yes all these new generation cars are techonological marvels - SRT-4's and Evo's, WRX's. Very fast cars. But, dude, the SRT-4 is still a Dodge Neon. What's the fun and excitement of owning a Neon.
One benifit over a low tech muscle car to today's imports is the ease and inexpense of working on them. And cheap aftermarket parts. You don't need a doctorates degree and a laptop to rebuild them.
Yes all these new generation cars are techonological marvels - SRT-4's and Evo's, WRX's. Very fast cars. But, dude, the SRT-4 is still a Dodge Neon. What's the fun and excitement of owning a Neon.
Not so much for the newer imports but Civic/Integra engine swaps are super cheap. They make $1100 turbo kits
As far as an SRT-4 still being a Neon, well...the same could be said about an EVO still being a Lancer and a WRX being an Impreza. The SRT-4 is a 2.4L monster. It's only setback IMHO is its FWD
Actually the new 'Vette has 436HP, not 376. And the only reason an Evo comes close to touching it in a 1/4-mile is because of the benefit of AWD on launch. (It also helps that the Evo has a 4.51 axle ratio versus 3.42 for the 'Vette.) Race from a roll and the Evo doesn't have a prayer. Take them to a road course and the Evo doesn't have a prayer. Race further than 1/4-mile, where the 'Vette is already a couple car lengths ahead and has an additional 10mph of trap speed, and the Evo comes up looking like a wheezer. When the Evo runs out of steam, the 'Vette is still pulling like a freight train and will very handily outrun an Evo. And all this is true of the '07 Vette, much less the '08 with an additional 36 HP.
Not to turn this into a Evo vs Vette fight...but....
I dont know why I put 376hp, I know it has 436 this year. Anyways, my point is, the Evo is a superior car in many aspects. Sure its down over 100 hp and is a full second slower to 60 and 100 mph, and had a 40 mph disadvantage in top speed, but who really goes that fast (unless youre stupid)? On an average road, the Evo wins. Stoplight to stoplight? Evo. Braking? Evo (157ft 70-0 vs 161 ft 70-0--Car and Driver). Roadholding? Evo (.96 G vs .95G Vette--Car and Driver). Ive also seen a episode of Best Motoring where a Vette and Viper were thrown up against some Evo and STi variants. The Viper held up pretty good for a few laps, but the Vette quickly faltered. At some points in the Vette's in-car camera, it was so far behind that you couldnt see the other 3 cars.
Add to that the fact that the Evo is over 20 grand (!!!!!!!!) cheaper, offers 4 seats, cheaper to insure, killer aftermarket support, better reliability, etc, etc and I think you know who the winner is here. The Vette edges it out 0-60 and 1/4 mile, but unless youre on a drag strip every single day, those #s dont mean a thing on the streets where traffic, imperfections, oil, etc are the name of the game. I wont even mention what happens to Vettes when the road conditions are a shade less than perfect. Evos are superior, thats the fact. Its an all-around car, whereas the Vette isnt. Id love to see a Vette in some gravel or mud, snow would be an impossibility for the Vette. Evos thrive in those conditions. Plus, the 20 grand you save on the Evo would make for a nice turbo, exhaust, computer, coilover, tire, fuel system upgrades (and then some) which would put the Evo into a whole other category.
AWD doesn't stick like glue any better than a properly tuned RWD setup. In fact it has a greater propensity for understeer because the front wheels are driven. The exception would be setups like the 911 Carerra and the Infiniti AWD setup which only send power to the front wheels if the rear wheels break loose. But then you have to contend with the added weight of the AWD setup versus their 2WD counterparts. Notice that when Porsche gets really serious about performance, as in the GT2 and the GT3, they ditch the AWD setup in favor of RWD only.
Very true. A proper setup race car with RWD is superior to AWD, but were talking street cars here. And insane handling RWD cars are out of price range of most Americans anyways. And its true that AWD cars understeer more than RWD cars, but whats nice about AWD is the capability to go WOT on corner exit, which is a gamble in RWD cars. Also, AWD cars are less prone to LTO when the go pedal is released. And rear/mid-engined RWD cars are only for pros IMO. It takes ALOT of skill to drive a GT2 or GT3 on the track, or even a MR2 for that matter. AWD is superior in most aspects, especially rain, snow, etc.
Id also like to add the fact that the STi has a variable diff setup, allowing for torque biasing. You can make it up to 70 (rear) and 30 (front) if you want, lessening understeer greatly. Just thumb the dial in the center console on the STi and you can choose gravel, tarmac or snow settings.
Really I have no argument with anything you say but I still have my doubts that it is that easy to get a civic into the 10's, not without a 200 shot of nitrous. And hey, the bottle is great, but it lasts for 4 runs and your out.
Really, if I was a kid wanting to a strip/street car I would buy a fox body mustang or something, or a late model chevy with a small block, take all the pollution crap off, and spend $3,000 to tear down and rebuild the motor with new heads, intake, carb, headers, etc. There you have a 450 HP car for a fraction of the price it takes to bring a 4 cylinder to that power range. Hey add nitrous if you want, 150 shot, and you have a car in the 11's probably, maybe 10's with slicks.
One benifit over a low tech muscle car to today's imports is the ease and inexpense of working on them. And cheap aftermarket parts. You don't need a doctorates degree and a laptop to rebuild them.
Yes all these new generation cars are techonological marvels - SRT-4's and Evo's, WRX's. Very fast cars. But, dude, the SRT-4 is still a Dodge Neon. What's the fun and excitement of owning a Neon.
Getting a Camaro into the 10s will cost as much as a Civic, because youll still need pistons, maybe a cam, the turbo or supercharger, a little shot of No2, etc, etc. But Civics are cheaper base cars to begin with, so making a 10 second Civic Id venture would be cheaper than making a Camaro run 10s.
Also, hp gets you moving, but 450hp in a 4K lb car isnt crap. Put 450 into a Civic and youll be in the 10s or 11s no problem. See what Im saying? The hp per lb ratio is what needs to be taken into consideration. True a Camaro might cost less to get to 450 hp, but a Civic with only 300 hp would probably run the same 1/4 based on its hp per lb ratio.
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.
