Just got my current issue of Car and Driver (February 2005) and they test the MR and STi. Don't me to spoil it but the STi lost, again. It's pretty much the same old story....just too much damn understeer for the Subie, which seems to be the universal complaint from any mag testing. I really hope Subaru is paying attention to all this. How much more could it possibly cost to put in the Spec C steering rack and some pink springs? Even C&D made this point saying, "...we think some subtle chassis tuning on the STi would likely make it quicker everywhere" (this was taken from the additional article testing both cars' AWD systems). Once again, it takes so damn long for America to get the "good stuff," if we ever get it at all....

 

Yes, for the sub-article testing the AWD system was left in automatic and the MR was in "tarmac" mode. To try and make it a more level-playing field, both cars were also mounted with Kuhmo Ecsta MX rubber. Actually, the Subie's drivetrain seems to be a bit better at putting the power down, especially in adverse conditions. On a split-traction surface (one side on a water-soaked tiled lane and the other on dry concrete) the STi went from 5-50mph in 4.7 sec vs the MR's 5.4. Other results were similar but one to note was the autocross time...both were identical at 52.8 seconds.

 

A thicker rear sway would definitely help (1-2mm), especially an adjustable one. I also don't know why Subaru has yet to up its tire size to a 235 unit. It would've seemed logical since they increased the rim width on the '05's. This would've helped with turn-in a bit and perhaps understeer as well (although not as much as the bar would). The one thing I wish could be changed are some of the dimensions. The STi is smaller than the Evo in every category that counts towards handling. It's wheelbase is 3.3 inches shorter, it's 1.2 inches narrower and it's front/rear track is about an inch smaller. The only place it comes out on top is height, where it's 3/4" shorter than the MR in stock form. This may not sound like alot, but as in racing even the smallest changes can lead to dramatic results. Despite the Evo's heavy front balance compared to the STi (60/40 vs 58/42), Mitsubishi just seemed to get it better in terms of suspension geometry and spring rates, especially the front. If Subaru would incorporate the Spec C's dimesions into it's USDM STi's, add it's steering rack and play with the spring rates, I think some of these magazine testings would turn out much different. Hey, we can hope and pray tho.....

 

I'm still torn between Subaru's reasoning behind some of their USDM decisions. Personally, I believe the whole "no replacement for displacement" thing is not completely applicable to the younger generation. For me, I'm more into technology and extracting the most power out of the smallest possible motor. I love the high revving, high strung motors much more than I do the big V8's (with the exception of the Ferrari F430 lol). It's just personal preference. The new Vette and GTO are kick *** cars, I would just prefer an Evo or STi over them if I had to pick. In this case, I think Subaru has made "assumptions" as to what we want. Did they give us a watered down STi because they thought that's what we wanted or because it's in their self-interest to keep the best (Spec C) to themselves? I do not know the answer to that question. I agree with their decision regarding the 2.5L motor, as our gas is crappy and from a company view, they have to ASSUME STi owners will use the lowest grade gas possible, when in reality 99.9% of them won't. Plus, we do love torque, and the extra the 2.5 provides is a welcome addition. Engine wise I think the Evo and STi are pretty much on the same level, they just used different philosophies to get there. However, like Mario Andretti said, "power is nothing without control" and Subaru left a bit out in the control department. Maybe it's because US roads are much worse than Japan's, or maybe they wanted to retain that "rally" setup, who knows. They're only a couple tweaks away from putting the Evo to shame, so maybe in '06 they'll surprise us.....

 

I can't see how stretching the wheelbase, adding the Spec C's steering rack and springs could push it up that high, but I'm also not a car manufacturer so maybe it could. The MR's already 35K anyway. Even if it did, they could just do it like they did the '04 model, delete the stereo and additionally make the rear wing an option (I can live w/o it). I can ADD a stereo and even springs, but stretching the wheelbase would be damn near impossible and adding the steering rack would be too because it would have to come from a RHD Spec C which would take some major engineering to retrofit into a USDM car....and yes it is true, as long as the owner is happy with their car, it doesn't really matter what anyone else says/thinks....

 

I don't think Subaru want's to keep 'the good stuff' in Japan. The 2.5 liter engine is simply a better engine for the US market. The 2.0 would be strangled on US 91 Octane even moreso then the Evo's 2.0. The Spec C makes at least 320 HP but is equivelant to a staged engine with free flowing AND THEREFORE ILLEGAL exhaust.
The Spec reduces understeer by reducing weight. It reduces weight by removing the air bags and front subframe, along with smaller seats which means the car is less safe (and possibly not legal...again in the States) People who whine about not having 'whatever' always leave out these little details.

The two features of the Spec that are realisticly applicable to the US are.

* The quicker steering rack of the Spec C. Fun but won't actually make the car any faster handling. It isn't available here because it is lhd only, and a new one would have to be made for the US model.

* The pink springs which I haven't driven but which have gotten praise from those who've swapped them out. You can get these on the aftermarket if you want along with a quicker rack from Rev labs.

If the STI produced the same auto-x time as the Evo in the C&D test, then I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it didn't exactly stink, handling wise.

 

Actually, have the magazine in front of me. The Evo seems to be faster on tighter courses and the STi on more open courses. The Evo has less understeer and a quicker rack. I think it would have been closer if they had played with the DCCD, I think with the STi's better weight dist. you could set it up to handle better in the end. IMHO