Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 1/5/2003 6:29:07 PM EST
[url]http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/autoshows/2003/la/2003_los_angeles_day_two.xml[/url] [img]http://www.caranddriver.com/image_cache/DATA/Caranddriver/images/autoshow/2003/la/03la_mitsu_evo.jpg[/img] 270 horses, Brembo brakes, 0-60 in a bit over five seconds, $29K. I wish the rice boys would ditch those silly wings, though.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 6:37:52 PM EST
I would never buy a Mitsubishi simply due to their dumb ass commercials on the radio. And I would go crazy without a truck of some sort, even if it is just a Ford Ranger.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 6:46:34 PM EST
Depending on what Subaru brings in with the STi it may be over 270hp. I am with you on the wings. I have a fairly low key spoiler on my Scooby WRX, it's the stock one. The car just looked naked without it. [;)] When the STi comes out it will have a wing too, I think it has something to do with the class specs on certain WRC classes. I know the BMW M3 in '90 (?) had a sptipulation that the car had to be made en mass and over 3000 units per year or whatever and the car had to have all the stuff the showroom car had. Thus the little Bimmer got a mini-rice wing so the race car coould have it (it really needed it though [bounce]). Ed
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 7:17:24 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 8:54:28 PM EST
This is what I want: [img]autoshow.msn.com/autoshow2003/photos/L_preview_subaru_wrx.jpg[/img] I have a WRX wagon that I just love. Like the new design though and now they are going to have leather and sunroofs. The STi should put out more HP than the Evo because the Subaru execs said that's what they were planning. It's pretty easy for them to tweak a lot of power out of that engine. The only problem would be price, some say up to 35K. That is just way too much IMHO for a high power econobox. I love my car, but that is pretty much what it is.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 9:01:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/5/2003 9:02:54 PM EST by Graffiti]
Having owned Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX, lets just say Mitsubishi sucks. It was the most unreliable piece of crap I've ever owned. But, it drove awesome on the snow (with AWD traction) and turbo engine is a good base for performance mods. It was funny watching people in Jeep Grand Cherokee who thought they owned the winter streets, wetting their pants when I drove right past them at high speed. I can't afford a new car now but I don't mind owning Impreza WRX someday. I saw a survey on some Japanese car magazine. They seem to like the WRX very much. It was on top 5. Lancer Evo was towards the bottom of the list. It even ranked below the Nissan Skyline GTR.
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 8:00:01 AM EST
Originally posted by ratters: That is just way too much IMHO for a high power econobox. I love my car, but that is pretty much what it is.
View Quote
That's like saying a Mustang SVT Cobra is just a high powered econobox. They do sell the little V6 powered cloth seat bottom feeder Mustangs too. The RS and WRX have two very different suspensions, do not share engine blocks, heads, or induction method. The seats in the WRX are designed for a totally different purpose. It comes with a 6-disc in-dash changer. Power locks, windows, mirrors, alarm, and alloy wheels. Seems kind of arbitrary to me. The WRX is a very distant cousin to the RS. The RS is an econobox, the WRX is not an RS. Ed
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 9:25:49 AM EST
2 words.....FUCK Mitsubishi!! I have a 2000 Eclipse Gt, and while it is nice looking, that is where it stops. The factory will NOT back up their product. There is a HUGE issue with the clutch, wheels, axles, moonroof, etc, in these cars and the factory won't own up to any of it. Thousands and thousands of people have the same problems, but the factory continues to claim nothing is wrong. Mitsubishi will NEVER get any of my money again, period!
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 10:13:27 AM EST
I would go for the SRT-4 and save myself 10 grand.
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 10:22:11 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/6/2003 10:29:37 AM EST by SHIVAN]
Originally Posted By killingmachine123: I would go for the SRT-4 and save myself 10 grand.
View Quote
Yep, and you'd be down to a FWD car weighing 300lbs - 500lbs less still putting up the same performance numbers. Interesting how the Neon does the 0-60 and 1/4 in about the same time, but the WRX weighs in at a lot more.....hmmmmmm...wonder how that happens? OH, and BTW the SRT-4 will not even be close to the performance of the STi and EVO, so you'll be left to add the bigger Brembo brakes, bigger turbo, chip, suspension, wheels, etc to get to a pieced together car that only [b]equals[/b] the STi and EVO. I'll take the factory Subaru warranty and a kick ass AWD system. If the SRT-4 is the solution to this equation for you, THEN YOU HAVE MISSED THE POINT OF THE EVO AND WRX. [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 10:49:31 AM EST
Hmmm, didn't realize that Mitsubishi had that many quality problems. Too bad--looks like a great car on paper. So probably a WRX in another year or so. How much does the 5-door give up to the 4-door?
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 11:03:47 AM EST
The sedan is rated at 3085 and the wagon is 3175 or something like that. So maybe about .1 or .2 seconds 0-60.
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 1:00:08 PM EST
From what I read the Subie WRX is going to be getting a facelift when the STi comes out. The shot I saw in MotorTrend or something similar looked really nice, I would love the car if they lost the bugeye look it currently has. 270+ hp with AWD (and the potential for more power...) is a great car for ruling the standing start races on the street. Wish they would offer the STi as a two door too, don't think they are though... That EVO just looks too ugly though.
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 4:25:53 PM EST
Originally Posted By SHIVAN: That's like saying a Mustang SVT Cobra is just a high powered econobox. They do sell the little V6 powered cloth seat bottom feeder Mustangs too. The RS and WRX have two very different suspensions, do not share engine blocks, heads, or induction method. The seats in the WRX are designed for a totally different purpose. It comes with a 6-disc in-dash changer. Power locks, windows, mirrors, alarm, and alloy wheels. Seems kind of arbitrary to me. The WRX is a very distant cousin to the RS. The RS is an econobox, the WRX is not an RS. Ed
View Quote
The parts I'm talking about that make it an econobox are the tinny sheetmetal, the headliner materials and the general quality of construction. You don't hear this much road noise in a BMW, and the quality of the total package is much higher. Of course that is why they are twice as much. My point was the basic underpinnings are very econobox like. I think your comparison to the Cobra is very appropriate. Sure it has gobs of HP, but the body seams are typical wide as the grand canyon and uneven, same as the econobox Mustang. Don't get me wrong, I love my car. I researched it extensively and to me it was the best balance of perfomance and practicality, but I am realistic to what it is.
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 8:58:03 PM EST
The STI is coming to the US in the form of a 2.5l turbo with 6spd tranny, ACVS, Brembo brakes, HID lights etc. 300 horsepower and 300lb/ft torque. Going to be one badass car :) Pricing will probably be in the 32k range but that won't be released till later this spring.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 6:46:52 PM EST
Originally Posted By Ratters:
Originally Posted By SHIVAN: That's like saying a Mustang SVT Cobra is just a high powered econobox. They do sell the little V6 powered cloth seat bottom feeder Mustangs too. The RS and WRX have two very different suspensions, do not share engine blocks, heads, or induction method. The seats in the WRX are designed for a totally different purpose. It comes with a 6-disc in-dash changer. Power locks, windows, mirrors, alarm, and alloy wheels. Seems kind of arbitrary to me. The WRX is a very distant cousin to the RS. The RS is an econobox, the WRX is not an RS. Ed
View Quote
The parts I'm talking about that make it an econobox are the tinny sheetmetal, the headliner materials and the general quality of construction. You don't hear this much road noise in a BMW, and the quality of the total package is much higher. Of course that is why they are twice as much. My point was the basic underpinnings are very econobox like. I think your comparison to the Cobra is very appropriate. Sure it has gobs of HP, but the body seams are typical wide as the grand canyon and uneven, same as the econobox Mustang. Don't get me wrong, I love my car. I researched it extensively and to me it was the best balance of perfomance and practicality, but I am realistic to what it is.
View Quote
Roger that, but I misunderstood you to believe that leather and a sunroof = non-econobox. Sorry. [slap]
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 7:20:48 PM EST
Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
Originally Posted By killingmachine123: I would go for the SRT-4 and save myself 10 grand.
View Quote
Yep, and you'd be down to a FWD car weighing 300lbs - 500lbs less still putting up the same performance numbers. Interesting how the Neon does the 0-60 and 1/4 in about the same time, but the WRX weighs in at a lot more.....hmmmmmm...wonder how that happens? OH, and BTW the SRT-4 will not even be close to the performance of the STi and EVO, so you'll be left to add the bigger Brembo brakes, bigger turbo, chip, suspension, wheels, etc to get to a pieced together car that only [b]equals[/b] the STi and EVO. I'll take the factory Subaru warranty and a kick ass AWD system. If the SRT-4 is the solution to this equation for you, THEN YOU HAVE MISSED THE POINT OF THE EVO AND WRX. [rolleyes]
View Quote
The difference in performance is the all wheel drive. Its also the diference in price. No 2WD car can take down a AWD car of the same horsepower, even if the AWD weighs more. Anyone who has watched racing in the last 15 years has seen Audi Quattros "hobbled" by ballest, turbo air intake restrictions, and undersized tires utterly destroy one racing series after another till they were eventually banned virtually everywhere.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 7:32:08 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/7/2003 7:33:30 PM EST by SHIVAN]
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
Originally Posted By killingmachine123: I would go for the SRT-4 and save myself 10 grand.
View Quote
Yep, and you'd be down to a FWD car weighing 300lbs - 500lbs less still putting up the same performance numbers. Interesting how the Neon does the 0-60 and 1/4 in about the same time, but the WRX weighs in at a lot more.....hmmmmmm...wonder how that happens? OH, and BTW the SRT-4 will not even be close to the performance of the STi and EVO, so you'll be left to add the bigger Brembo brakes, bigger turbo, chip, suspension, wheels, etc to get to a pieced together car that only [b]equals[/b] the STi and EVO. I'll take the factory Subaru warranty and a kick ass AWD system. If the SRT-4 is the solution to this equation for you, THEN YOU HAVE MISSED THE POINT OF THE EVO AND WRX. [rolleyes]
View Quote
The difference in performance is the all wheel drive. Its also the diference in price. No 2WD car can take down a AWD car of the same horsepower, even if the AWD weighs more. Anyone who has watched racing in the last 15 years has seen Audi Quattros "hobbled" by ballest, turbo air intake restrictions, and undersized tires utterly destroy one racing series after another till they were eventually banned virtually everywhere.
View Quote
Sir, I knew the answer to the question.[bow] I knew that despite having a lower trap speed than a Z28, the WRX makes up all the time in it's 14.1 sec 1/4 mile in the first 150 feet, where the AWD is using power -- not wasting it on lost traction.[banghead] I was simply illustrating to our boy wonder, and his Neon, that this was not in his league. He bailed though.....[lol] Cheers, Ed
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 7:54:05 PM EST
Call me old school, but I don't think I could stomach paying that much for a car that has an inline four, be it tourbocharged or not. The subaru's flat four intregues me since it reminds me of an aviation engine, but it's still a rather large amount of money for a small displacement engine. Albeit there just isn't the choice in sports cars that there used to be. Personally I can't wait for the RX-8. Plus Toyota is bringing back the Supra, with the adittion of a model with the same V-8 as the Lexus SC430, the Fords bringing back the GT40 and has a much kewler Mustang waiting in the wings. The next few years are going to be a sports car renisance, I think I'll just save my money and get something that has more cylinders then passenegers! (unless it has rotors instead, lol)
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 8:02:11 PM EST
Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist: Call me old school, but I don't think I could stomach paying that much for a car that has an inline four, be it tourbocharged or not.
View Quote
Nah, I'll just call you midwest. V8 muscle or bust. [banghead] Whatever floats your boat. I'm sure Ferdinand Porsche would have a thing or two to say about your disdain for lower displacement turbocharged boxer motors. That said, I am a huge fan of the 93-96 RX7's. My favorite car, bar none. Fragile though....too bad too. Very much fun to drive at 300hp+. [flag][wow]
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 5:34:14 AM EST
Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist: Call me old school, but I don't think I could stomach paying that much for a car that has an inline four, be it tourbocharged or not.
View Quote
Nah, I'll just call you midwest. V8 muscle or bust. [banghead] Whatever floats your boat. I'm sure Ferdinand Porsche would have a thing or two to say about your disdain for lower displacement turbocharged boxer motors. That said, I am a huge fan of the 93-96 RX7's. My favorite car, bar none. Fragile though....too bad too. Very much fun to drive at 300hp+. [flag][wow]
View Quote
Yeah, I used to have a 94 RX-7 Touring that was my tuner car. Put a single turbo conversion on it, quite a bit of other stuff. Absolutley great car, just alot of maintnance with it. I'm not a V-8 mafia guy like some of the muslce car people are, I am just a big proponet of having engines that produce horsepower and are still naturally aspirated. I've had so many problems with Turbos latley, formerly on the RX and with my Esprit (now there's a sweet car with a turbo four) that I just think it's beter to up the displacement. Subaru is owned by Porche isn't it? I would love to see a WRX with the flat six out of the Boxster S, now that would be sweet.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 5:52:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/8/2003 5:53:26 AM EST by SHIVAN]
Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist: Yeah, I used to have a 94 RX-7 Touring that was my tuner car. Put a single turbo conversion on it, quite a bit of other stuff. Absolutley great car, just alot of maintnance with it. I'm not a V-8 mafia guy like some of the muslce car people are, I am just a big proponet of having engines that produce horsepower and are still naturally aspirated.[red]Better for transitional acceleration, or passing. It goes when you press the pedal, not when the "turbo juice" gets to the pistons.[:D][/red] I've had so many problems with Turbos latley, formerly on the RX and with my Esprit (now there's a sweet car with a turbo four) that I just think it's beter to up the displacement.[red]Racer's mantra: There's no replacement for displacement. {Very true, but the turbo/supercharger is a great equalizer if you know what you are doing.}[/red] Subaru is owned by Porche isn't it?[red]I believe that Porsche is owned by the Audi/VW Group. Subaru is a wholly owned subsidiary of Fuji Heavy Industries -- at least last I checked. [;)][/red] I would love to see a WRX with the flat six out of the Boxster S, now that would be sweet.[red]The Legacy B4 is supposed to make it here with possibly a 2.5L flat-4 and either a bi-turbo arrangement like in JDM or with a single bigger turbo. 270+hp. S4 killer. Maybe they will turbo the H6 3L and then we'll have some fun.[/red]
View Quote
[bannana]
Top Top