I've heard it hinted at in several posts, and have yet to find the new SCC magazine, but how does this review get so easily ignored? When the Automobile, Road and Track, MotorTrend, and that ridiculous CarandDriver reviews came out, that's all we heard about for weeks. Automobile loved the STi, but thought the Evo was more hair-raisingly fun, R&T gave higher scores to STi in the performance areas, most noteably off-road performance, and all the editors personally picked STi if you read the side boxes, but ultimately picked Evo because it was cheaper*, MT ringer Evo numbers, and CarandDrivers editors inability to drive the STi because, I guess they are like pros. who need a car custom tailored to their style, and can't win otherwise.
Everyone just conceded that the Evo is a better handler, and the STi is some kind of understeering pig, despite near equal skid pad numbers and slalom, and superior high speed braking and interestingly, emergency lane change, which CarandDriver managed to spin as a bad thing. If I recall, the only mag. to go to a track was C&D.
Now, a respected auto review comes out where apparently indeed the STi wins at the track, where we have all been assured that it is impossible, and nobody manages to throw that into every post, or scan the entire article, with color photos as was done to no end when Evo seemed to have a percieved edge. STi is almost in a class all its own. Considering it absolutely smokes the Evo in every speed contest past a 0-60 sprint, in every gear at any speed.
I enjoy magazine comparos, and have not read this for myself, but it's an interesting story just the same. I love this car, sorry for the rant.

* cheaper= NO cruise control! NO height adjustable seat! NO side impact airbags! Are you kidding me? These alone make up the price. No shift light, or buzzer. No outside air temp. No auto A/C. No air filtration system. LSD's, DCCD, 6spd. Where is a competitor for the STi?

 

Just some background on me.... I love cars, cars that go fast turn well brake well and do it all in a package that is convenient, reliable, and practical. So I am looking at the Sti and Evo as great things to be happening to the US market and from the looks of all the reviews really to close to call.

This is a quote from the SCC article
"Both a hugely capable cars. Both surpass most drivers capabilities before reaching their limits. Thet're not just fast. They're ridiculous. And on the right road, we'd match either of them against any other car on the planet."
(SCC July 2003 p56)

They go on to discuss that to really decide between the two cars you need to go drive them. (good luck test driving both of these...)

But the point remains, anything under 5.5 to 60, 14.0 1/4 mile, and .90 of lateral grip, you just wont get a chance to use on a daily basis. These cars have "ridiculous performance. So I say read the mags, test drive what you can, and buy what you can, because it does not look like either one of these cars will dissapoint.

ncsuteg
97 Integra GSR
2004 Evolution or STI ( whichever I can lay my greedy hands on first...)

 

While Mitsu might be allocating "extra marketing dollars" here and there, it seems that a bunch of people who drove the car preferred the handling "feel" of the Evo.

It sounds like the quick steering ratio and the fact that Mitsu got the car well sorted out for track handling made an impression.

Maybe, just maybe... the car does feel better...?

So what?

Who drives at the limit?

And if you want, you can probably completely change the understeer/oversteer balance with an alignment to your liking and a stiffer rear anti roll bar...

 

That's what I'm talkin' bout. Every article seems to be pages of raves about how impressive the STi is, and how it is so much more refined, and offers so much more for your dollar, and is a better all around sports car. Then, at the end, it says the Evo had some kind of crazy, white-knuckle fun brought on by the huge onset of boost after turbo lag, or the feeling of tight steering (which incidently also produces a wider turning radius) which no writer wants to live with, but enjoys for a 15 min trip around the block. They evaluate it on no other criteria but how it is as a weekend warrior, which none of us consumers have the luxury of doing. We want a car that does it all, and kicks a$$ doing it. But writers don't, so they pick the Evo.
The Evo is one dimensional! End of subject. It is meant for low speed auto-X, and that's it. It loses at every other type of competition. And lacks the basics that even make it a decent car to own.

 

I think that most of those rags are pretty unbiased. If they happen to like ones handling better and the power and driveability of the other, then that their opinion. Almost every article I've read stated they have different characters and you would have to choose. I would go for an STi. Easier to put on a rear swaybar than monkey with the Mitsu's already 19 psi mill. That just asking for trouble.

 

Read the times the evo was pulling.....................it was a press car " I have not heard of 1 stock evo running those times! " A guy went down to baytown dragstrip and the fastest he ran was 14.1.........

 

( Individuality ) Some people put there right leg in when dressing others the left. Some like auto-matics others a stick. Some like the grip of Goodyears others BF Goodrich. Some like the RC51 twin power and bottom end torque others the R1. Some like the feel of the Evo and others the Sti. Until you break your leg, replace the clutch ( six times ) in a month, notice Yokahma has a new tire, change the fuel injection mapping on either bike, until you change the spring rates- ECi ect........ ( All in the eye of the beholder).....

 

Are you referring the Motor Trend Shootout? If not, then which issue of R&T has this shootout?