RE: Impreza STI vs Evo V: Foes Reunited
Discussion
Evo for me every time, they seem to take abuse and lap it up as long as you service them. Subaru's in my experience are the complete opposite, I don't know one person out of the 5 I know who have had/got them which haven't blown up and needed engine replacments. Evo's seem to just look more aggressive and purposeful to me too.
Honestherbert said:
Evo for me every time, they seem to take abuse and lap it up as long as you service them. Subaru's in my experience are the complete opposite, I don't know one person out of the 5 I know who have had/got them which haven't blown up and needed engine replacments. Evo's seem to just look more aggressive and purposeful to me too.
I've heard some scary stories from Evo owners about the number of gearboxes, clutches and so on they've gone through! They certainly aren't immune to engine problems either, the most well known common one being the Evo IV crankwalk issue. Generally solid engines though, even if they do sound like a blender.Most of the stories I hear about Subarus blowing engines are on the internet, I can only think of one among the many Subaru owners I know in the real world, and that was a freshly imported car of unknown history being given an absolute caning.
Just goes to show you can get a completely opposite impression from a small sample size
GravelBen said:
I've heard some scary stories from Evo owners about the number of gearboxes, clutches and so on they've gone through! They certainly aren't immune to engine problems either, the most well known common one being the Evo IV crankwalk issue. Generally solid engines though, even if they do sound like a blender.
Most of the stories I hear about Subarus blowing engines are on the internet, I can only think of one among the many Subaru owners I know in the real world, and that was a freshly imported car of unknown history being given an absolute caning.
Just goes to show you can get a completely opposite impression from a small sample size
I've run well in excess of 650ft/lbs through a standard 6 RS 5 speed box with a twin plate clutch for the last two seasons of hill climbs and sprints and it's showing no signs of dying yet (touch wood). Most of the stories I hear about Subarus blowing engines are on the internet, I can only think of one among the many Subaru owners I know in the real world, and that was a freshly imported car of unknown history being given an absolute caning.
Just goes to show you can get a completely opposite impression from a small sample size
I've had three Evo's and one Scoob and the Evo's are in a different league out the box IMO.
Had an evo vi a few years back. Most confidence inspiring car ive ever had and the handling was sublime, suited to our smashed up b roads ! Id love another but put off by their image now and the running costs dont work out when youre doing the sort of milage I do. Tuned easily to 380 bhp in std internals. Reliable. Tire killing uber mobile. I wonder if we'll see more like it going forward?
PorkRind said:
Had an evo vi a few years back. Most confidence inspiring car ive ever had and the handling was sublime, suited to our smashed up b roads ! Id love another but put off by their image now and the running costs dont work out when youre doing the sort of milage I do. Tuned easily to 380 bhp in std internals. Reliable. Tire killing uber mobile. I wonder if we'll see more like it going forward?
I am guessing it was the GSR.The active yaw control rear diff was a very good development by Mitsubishi. I drove one at Bruntingthorpe and the ECU corrected my attempts at deliberate oversteer every time.
But, at the end of the day, it is what it is intended to be - A driver aid.
Hol said:
I am guessing it was the GSR.
The active yaw control rear diff was a very good development by Mitsubishi. I drove one at Bruntingthorpe and the ECU corrected my attempts at deliberate oversteer every time.
But, at the end of the day, it is what it is intended to be - A driver aid.
Yup gsr with ayc. Fantastic driver aid. Initiallly it would step out, youd get say 10 degree of slip by going I n aggressively on power, then it would detect the slip, apply more torque to the outside wheel to correct.heard of many stories of drivers getting mixed up and binning It when they felt the ayc start to work by pointing the wheel in the wrong dir. The idea was to point the wheel dead where you wanted to go, pin it and ayc sorted the rest for you. Once you were used to it , you could really fly. Love the 4wd system, acd instead of vivacious coupling , was able to put into effect lsd to 3 times the amount of slip given by reg lsd units. The active yaw control rear diff was a very good development by Mitsubishi. I drove one at Bruntingthorpe and the ECU corrected my attempts at deliberate oversteer every time.
But, at the end of the day, it is what it is intended to be - A driver aid.
Unlike Mitsi Subaru bought out a UK designed range of cars and as a result they were deliberately softer than their JDM equivalents.
I alway find it a little odd when people then try to compare EUDM Scoobies to JDM EVO's.
By current track toy is EVO engined.
And the forged engine in it has just gone pop
As has the forged engine in an EVO 6 near me.
I alway find it a little odd when people then try to compare EUDM Scoobies to JDM EVO's.
By current track toy is EVO engined.
And the forged engine in it has just gone pop
As has the forged engine in an EVO 6 near me.
Hol said:
I am guessing it was the GSR.
The active yaw control rear diff was a very good development by Mitsubishi. I drove one at Bruntingthorpe and the ECU corrected my attempts at deliberate oversteer every time.
But, at the end of the day, it is what it is intended to be - A driver aid.
Disagree dismissing it as a 'driver aid'. Without it, the chassis setup would have been almost undriveable.The active yaw control rear diff was a very good development by Mitsubishi. I drove one at Bruntingthorpe and the ECU corrected my attempts at deliberate oversteer every time.
But, at the end of the day, it is what it is intended to be - A driver aid.
Mine did not react to the driver to undo a mistake (ie driver aid) rather is made the chassis react in a predictable way. It did feel strange at first because it would give the impression that the car was rotating so fast on turn in, that huge oversteer was bound to follow and when you instinctively wound off some lock in preparation to catch it, the ayc would prevent the snap oversteer.
It might be a small difference, but I see it as a chassis tuning aid ie it makes the car respond in a certain way. Mine would oversteer on demand on roundabouts, 4 wheel drift at high speed while being stable and never, ever understeer. it did have the Motorsport ECU for the ayc and was well worth it (just wore out the ayc) but I believe the standard program worked the same way just slightly slower in actuation.
GravelBen said:
You can say that again! If you're worried about the internet being full of misinformation then stop spreading it.
Apologies for getting it wrong I also get annoyed by misinformation it's everywhere. So to confirm every EVO/WRX is 50/50 but the DCCD Sti models up to the Hawkeye are 36/64, then hawkeye onwards 49/51? Thanks.Gary C said:
Hol said:
I am guessing it was the GSR.
The active yaw control rear diff was a very good development by Mitsubishi. I drove one at Bruntingthorpe and the ECU corrected my attempts at deliberate oversteer every time.
But, at the end of the day, it is what it is intended to be - A driver aid.
Disagree dismissing it as a 'driver aid'. Without it, the chassis setup would have been almost undriveable.The active yaw control rear diff was a very good development by Mitsubishi. I drove one at Bruntingthorpe and the ECU corrected my attempts at deliberate oversteer every time.
But, at the end of the day, it is what it is intended to be - A driver aid.
Mine did not react to the driver to undo a mistake (ie driver aid) rather is made the chassis react in a predictable way. It did feel strange at first because it would give the impression that the car was rotating so fast on turn in, that huge oversteer was bound to follow and when you instinctively wound off some lock in preparation to catch it, the ayc would prevent the snap oversteer.
It might be a small difference, but I see it as a chassis tuning aid ie it makes the car respond in a certain way. Mine would oversteer on demand on roundabouts, 4 wheel drift at high speed while being stable and never, ever understeer. it did have the Motorsport ECU for the ayc and was well worth it (just wore out the ayc) but I believe the standard program worked the same way just slightly slower in actuation.
Within two years the EVOs had taken over the MLR.
iloveboost said:
Apologies for getting it wrong I also get annoyed by misinformation it's everywhere. So to confirm every EVO/WRX is 50/50 but the DCCD Sti models up to the Hawkeye are 36/64, then hawkeye onwards 49/51? Thanks.
Can be up to 36/64, there are many variations inbetween. Drive my type R, then tell me there's not more than 50% going to the rear wheels 
Both cars have their place, I've had 3 Evo's and 7 Subaru's.
I got my first UK Turbo in 1994, a 6 month old 5 door. It was a great car, but had a shockingly poor interior. I'd had an option on a Evo IV but it fell though and had driven a 2 year old Intergrale. But right or wrong I bought the Subaru and loved it. I took it on Goodwood track days and people were quite shocked about what it could do.
My favortie Subaru was my ex-David Yu beast. A 1998 5 Door with pretty much every option, with PPP and much more. It was mental!
Overall I'd say dynamically the Evo's were better but the Subaru's are easier day to day.
My Tommi was great fun:-
But on the track my RS11 was the business. I had a karting background and hated the electronics on the Evo's.
I got my first UK Turbo in 1994, a 6 month old 5 door. It was a great car, but had a shockingly poor interior. I'd had an option on a Evo IV but it fell though and had driven a 2 year old Intergrale. But right or wrong I bought the Subaru and loved it. I took it on Goodwood track days and people were quite shocked about what it could do.
My favortie Subaru was my ex-David Yu beast. A 1998 5 Door with pretty much every option, with PPP and much more. It was mental!
Overall I'd say dynamically the Evo's were better but the Subaru's are easier day to day.
My Tommi was great fun:-
But on the track my RS11 was the business. I had a karting background and hated the electronics on the Evo's.
iloveboost said:
Ved said:
Can I see your source please as there's so much differing info out there (no pun intended. I think you may have that wrong but I'm happy to be corrected. If we're talking mechanical CDs then yes it would be 50/50 as it can't really do anything but until it has to release but the default for the DCCDs was 59 to the rear (with a few changes per revision) which was my understanding and how it was written up on my Hawkeye and I believe this was also the case in the UK for the 04 WR1 and widetrack Blobeyes. I'm not sure you can send more than 50% to the front though so I'd like to know more about that claim. It should be a rearward push with DCCD in anything other than fully locked as far as I know when I owned mine.
I understand your concerns as the internet is full of misinformation it's one reason I'm always cautious to phrase my speech on here! You'll have to just trust me but I'm sure that every Impreza up to the 'Hawkeye', including all the DCCD ones, is constant 50/50. Apparently they all use a viscous diff which is essentially like an early mechanical pump haldex system in operation and is used by many other cars that were converted from FWD/RWD to AWD for the top performing model. This is the reason they can never put more than 50% of the power to the rear tyres. People get confused because the DCCD can 'unlock' and put more constant power to the front tyres but not the rear ones and also because, like you said, from your Sti 'hawkeye' onwards it is 41/59 and puts more power to the rear tyres. I'm not an expert but I think it's a common myth that any other EVO/Impreza models put more power to the rear tyres.Viscous is 50/50, by its very nature but when there is slip detected front or rear, it can lock and allow the rear or front a greater proportion of torque. There's no real answer, only limits, as when moving, just as the LSDs across the axels behave, the answer is always it depends. For example, if you fully lock a DCCD model and try to do a tight three-point turn, you'll notice the front tyres grip and skip. With an open diff this isn't there as the torque is being distributed proportional to the grip on each wheel. This behaviour is the same on UK non-DCCD models such as mu current one. So while it may be 50/50 at rest it varies greatly when in actual use. Doing this manoeuvre, or just some tight circles with is also a good way to test if any of the diffs are knackered as the inside wheels will not open.
Edited by Ved on Saturday 19th April 17:54
iloveboost said:
Ved said:
Can I see your source please as there's so much differing info out there (no pun intended. I think you may have that wrong but I'm happy to be corrected. If we're talking mechanical CDs then yes it would be 50/50 as it can't really do anything but until it has to release but the default for the DCCDs was 59 to the rear (with a few changes per revision) which was my understanding and how it was written up on my Hawkeye and I believe this was also the case in the UK for the 04 WR1 and widetrack Blobeyes. I'm not sure you can send more than 50% to the front though so I'd like to know more about that claim. It should be a rearward push with DCCD in anything other than fully locked as far as I know when I owned mine.
I understand your concerns as the internet is full of misinformation it's one reason I'm always cautious to phrase my speech on here! You'll have to just trust me but I'm sure that every Impreza up to the 'Hawkeye', including all the DCCD ones, is constant 50/50. Apparently they all use a viscous diff which is essentially like an early mechanical pump haldex system in operation and is used by many other cars that were converted from FWD/RWD to AWD for the top performing model. This is the reason they can never put more than 50% of the power to the rear tyres. People get confused because the DCCD can 'unlock' and put more constant power to the front tyres but not the rear ones and also because, like you said, from your Sti 'hawkeye' onwards it is 41/59 and puts more power to the rear tyres. I'm not an expert but I think it's a common myth that any other EVO/Impreza models put more power to the rear tyres.Viscous is 50/50, by its very nature but when there is slip detected front or rear, it can lock and allow the rear or front a greater proportion of torque. There's no real answer, only limits, as when moving, just as the LSDs across the axels behave, the answer is always it depends. For example, if you fully lock a DCCD model and try to do a tight three-point turn, you'll notice the front tyres grip and skip. With an open diff this isn't there as the torque is being distributed proportional to the grip on each wheel. This behaviour is the same on UK non-DCCD models such as mu current one. So while it may be 50/50 at rest it varies greatly when in actual use. Doing this manoeuvre, or just some tight circles with is also a good way to test if any of the diffs are knackered.
But I could be wrong
GravelBen?
Edited by Ved on Saturday 19th April 17:56
Hol said:
Gary C said:
Hol said:
I am guessing it was the GSR.
The active yaw control rear diff was a very good development by Mitsubishi. I drove one at Bruntingthorpe and the ECU corrected my attempts at deliberate oversteer every time.
But, at the end of the day, it is what it is intended to be - A driver aid.
Disagree dismissing it as a 'driver aid'. Without it, the chassis setup would have been almost undriveable.The active yaw control rear diff was a very good development by Mitsubishi. I drove one at Bruntingthorpe and the ECU corrected my attempts at deliberate oversteer every time.
But, at the end of the day, it is what it is intended to be - A driver aid.
Mine did not react to the driver to undo a mistake (ie driver aid) rather is made the chassis react in a predictable way. It did feel strange at first because it would give the impression that the car was rotating so fast on turn in, that huge oversteer was bound to follow and when you instinctively wound off some lock in preparation to catch it, the ayc would prevent the snap oversteer.
It might be a small difference, but I see it as a chassis tuning aid ie it makes the car respond in a certain way. Mine would oversteer on demand on roundabouts, 4 wheel drift at high speed while being stable and never, ever understeer. it did have the Motorsport ECU for the ayc and was well worth it (just wore out the ayc) but I believe the standard program worked the same way just slightly slower in actuation.
Within two years the EVOs had taken over the MLR.
I just feel that a driver aid, is something that only intervenes when you make a mistake, then takes over and restores control. Whereas the ayc is much more of a device to set the handling characteristics of this chassis. You can still bin one big style. However I would concede that it is an aid in so far as it maintains control of the rear to prevent it spinning which reduces the reliance on the driver to do so.
Took my old ayc to bits. Was a fascinating bit of kit (then BMW started crowing about how they had the first system that worked like this in the x6).
GravelBen said:
I've heard some scary stories from Evo owners about the number of gearboxes, clutches and so on they've gone through! They certainly aren't immune to engine problems either, the most well known common one being the Evo IV crankwalk issue. Generally solid engines though, even if they do sound like a blender.
Most of the stories I hear about Subarus blowing engines are on the internet, I can only think of one among the many Subaru owners I know in the real world, and that was a freshly imported car of unknown history being given an absolute caning.
Just goes to show you can get a completely opposite impression from a small sample size
There were too many ej20's brought over from japan set to run on better fuel, that were then thrashed on piss poor supermarket petrol causing melting of one piston.Most of the stories I hear about Subarus blowing engines are on the internet, I can only think of one among the many Subaru owners I know in the real world, and that was a freshly imported car of unknown history being given an absolute caning.
Just goes to show you can get a completely opposite impression from a small sample size
The 5 speed Evo box was tough as old boots especially with its semi straight cut first, it did whine a bit but could take the torque. I believe the road derived later boxes were not quite as strong.
Gary C said:
Hol said:
Gary C said:
Hol said:
I am guessing it was the GSR.
The active yaw control rear diff was a very good development by Mitsubishi. I drove one at Bruntingthorpe and the ECU corrected my attempts at deliberate oversteer every time.
But, at the end of the day, it is what it is intended to be - A driver aid.
Disagree dismissing it as a 'driver aid'. Without it, the chassis setup would have been almost undriveable.The active yaw control rear diff was a very good development by Mitsubishi. I drove one at Bruntingthorpe and the ECU corrected my attempts at deliberate oversteer every time.
But, at the end of the day, it is what it is intended to be - A driver aid.
Mine did not react to the driver to undo a mistake (ie driver aid) rather is made the chassis react in a predictable way. It did feel strange at first because it would give the impression that the car was rotating so fast on turn in, that huge oversteer was bound to follow and when you instinctively wound off some lock in preparation to catch it, the ayc would prevent the snap oversteer.
It might be a small difference, but I see it as a chassis tuning aid ie it makes the car respond in a certain way. Mine would oversteer on demand on roundabouts, 4 wheel drift at high speed while being stable and never, ever understeer. it did have the Motorsport ECU for the ayc and was well worth it (just wore out the ayc) but I believe the standard program worked the same way just slightly slower in actuation.
Within two years the EVOs had taken over the MLR.
I just feel that a driver aid, is something that only intervenes when you make a mistake, then takes over and restores control. Whereas the ayc is much more of a device to set the handling characteristics of this chassis. You can still bin one big style. However I would concede that it is an aid in so far as it maintains control of the rear to prevent it spinning which reduces the reliance on the driver to do so.
Took my old ayc to bits. Was a fascinating bit of kit (then BMW started crowing about how they had the first system that worked like this in the x6).
Rather than something that STOPS you loosing control in the first place by diverting power and correcting a slide - in such a way that you were not aware of it.
I guess we do just draw that line differently the,...
Question.
Have you driven an RS version of your car?
A totally different experience on the tyre limit that really drives home my point on how AYC makes a huge difference to what is essentially the same car.
Edited by Hol on Sunday 20th April 09:25
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff