Evo X vs Golf R. Any point in the EVO these days?
Discussion
I've not really had much interest in cars over the last seven or eight years or so and I've fallen a bit behind the state of play, but I had a very brief go in a mate's new Golf R estate on Saturday. Aside from the drone, curiously coming from the windscreen, I was quite impressed with it. It really does seem to be all things to all men, I do understand why they're so popular.
But the last performance car I wanted was an Evo X SST, and sadly I've not had ago of one yet, so I wondered, how would the two stack up against one another on the road?
Given the Golf looks so much more easy to live with, is there actually any point in opting for the aging Lancer these days? Even if you did want performance over creature comforts?
But the last performance car I wanted was an Evo X SST, and sadly I've not had ago of one yet, so I wondered, how would the two stack up against one another on the road?
Given the Golf looks so much more easy to live with, is there actually any point in opting for the aging Lancer these days? Even if you did want performance over creature comforts?
I think you can make the same case for lots of old performance cars these days, and it's a harder decision as the cost of the old school stuff isn't that low anymore. I'm just looking at it from a point of view in general, as I have no direct specific experience of either car or any 4wd for that matter, but I do have a old Jap performance car that if I hadn't bought it years ago I don't think I'd buy one now at the current prices given the more modern alternatives.
Why I keep mine is my thought is that I can keep it going for far less that a newer car. Basically if I had an Evo for a few years and was no longer paying the purchase price back I doubt I'd be looking to get a Golf R, but if I used to have an Evo 5-6 years ago and want to get back into a performance 4wd I'd now be giving the Golf serious consideration.
Why I keep mine is my thought is that I can keep it going for far less that a newer car. Basically if I had an Evo for a few years and was no longer paying the purchase price back I doubt I'd be looking to get a Golf R, but if I used to have an Evo 5-6 years ago and want to get back into a performance 4wd I'd now be giving the Golf serious consideration.
I've always wanted an Evo. I used to obsess about them when i was a fair bit younger and couldn't give a toss about any supercar or anything else, at the time. I was never that keen on the X model but it's really grown on me since.
The realisation when you're older is actually running them; they are expensive. Servicing, parts, consumables, fuel, tax, etc. Evo's are a proper driving experience but the Golf R is fantastically competent and accomplished.
I'd really struggle to look past the Golf. They're fantastic all-rounders but they definitely loose the character and the sense of occasion that the Mitsubishi has by the bucket loads. I'd have been made to say this all those years ago.
The realisation when you're older is actually running them; they are expensive. Servicing, parts, consumables, fuel, tax, etc. Evo's are a proper driving experience but the Golf R is fantastically competent and accomplished.
I'd really struggle to look past the Golf. They're fantastic all-rounders but they definitely loose the character and the sense of occasion that the Mitsubishi has by the bucket loads. I'd have been made to say this all those years ago.
Haven't driven either, but I reckon a Golf R wouldn't see which way an Evo or Scoob went on a country road due to the Haldex. I'm unsure about the Evo but I understand Scoobs have a much more complex 4wd system than the fwd-biased Haldex, providing even power spread over all wheels instead of powering the backs when required. Obviously the Golf would be a much better daily though.
Fairly sure the the lowest output Evo is the FQ300, so FQ360s and FQ400s should be faster in a straight line as well.
More than likely will be corrected on some of that!
Fairly sure the the lowest output Evo is the FQ300, so FQ360s and FQ400s should be faster in a straight line as well.
More than likely will be corrected on some of that!
Having owned an evo and borrowed a golf r for two weeks, I think the Golf gives a less communicative experience in both steering feel(inert), traction aural experience. The evo has a proper 4wd setup not a haldex system, the latter giving better mpg but less instant traction and no steer from the rear and as such, adding the golfs excessively light powered steering, a general disconnected feeling. Thats just my opinion of course and i'm sure ill be shot down or corrected. Id prefer to pay the extra running costs of an evo for a more pure experience. I dont think theres any car out there that can really compete for overall traction, braking and direction change that the evo offers down the broken tarmac of most uk b roads, the golf skipped all over the place where the evo remained supple and handled it with ease. The fact that youre not nanny'd with all the driver aids that the Golf forces you to live with as you're not able to turn it off fully, detracts from the experience, part of fun of such a car is learning the limits and not having tech kick in and sort it all out for you. The Golfs an accomplished car and pretty much replaces where the evo left off, but I personally dont think its a perfect replacement and my money would still go on an evo or maybe even a focus which is the closest we'd get to the diff that an evo has (bar the central diff) but i dont think tghe Golf requires the driver skill to get it to go down a b road in quite the same fashion as the evo as you end up leaning on the electronic aids.
It's a strange situation isn't it. And maybe even more so with the fast estates (like the E63 / RS6 review on the site today). And then again, how often do you hear (or think) that super cars are pointless now.
There is more to a car than its performance / competence / comfort / running costs - and how all of those things are balanced against each other. Really focused cars offer something different, a different way to enjoy driving. If you have to run only one car, then you're spoiled for choice today as they are so competent at everything. But if you want something that's thrilling and difficult and that makes you work at it... You've a much smaller pool to look at and this is where things like the Evo can still work.
There is more to a car than its performance / competence / comfort / running costs - and how all of those things are balanced against each other. Really focused cars offer something different, a different way to enjoy driving. If you have to run only one car, then you're spoiled for choice today as they are so competent at everything. But if you want something that's thrilling and difficult and that makes you work at it... You've a much smaller pool to look at and this is where things like the Evo can still work.
Hammy98 said:
Haven't driven either, but I reckon a Golf R wouldn't see which way an Evo or Scoob went on a country road due to the Haldex. I'm unsure about the Evo but I understand Scoobs have a much more complex 4wd system than the fwd-biased Haldex, providing even power spread over all wheels instead of powering the backs when required. Obviously the Golf would be a much better daily though.
Fairly sure the the lowest output Evo is the FQ300, so FQ360s and FQ400s should be faster in a straight line as well.
More than likely will be corrected on some of that!
I had a Revo Stage 1 R and it would have no problem keeping an Evo in shape. The 400 might have the better but it wouldn't be night and day.Fairly sure the the lowest output Evo is the FQ300, so FQ360s and FQ400s should be faster in a straight line as well.
More than likely will be corrected on some of that!
Even at stage one a DSG car will go to 60 in 3.7 seconds and on to 100 in less than 10. I'm pretty sure the Golf will be ahead of anything other than the 400 (maybe not by much) until both cars topped out, again the Golf having the higher top end so would "win".
Whether it's more fun than an Evo is another matter all together, my Focus RS is way more fun than the Golf but theres no getting away from the fact that a Golf R with a £600 remap is a properly quick car.
Guy at work had a TME, he speaks very highly of it, now has a 4wd Audi and said they dont compare, that said his Audi is 9 years old so guessing newer ones are perhaps a bit more playful.
He explained that the Evo didnt have traction/Stabilty control but had Active Yaw Control and that was the way it did what it did, 4wd oversteer drifts etc.
I think that is perhaps where the difference is even though I havent driven either, been on track in an evo and the driver was having massive fun.
He explained that the Evo didnt have traction/Stabilty control but had Active Yaw Control and that was the way it did what it did, 4wd oversteer drifts etc.
I think that is perhaps where the difference is even though I havent driven either, been on track in an evo and the driver was having massive fun.
Tuvra said:
Whether it's more fun than an Evo is another matter all together, my Focus RS is way more fun than the Golf but theres no getting away from the fact that a Golf R with a £600 remap is a properly quick car.
I'd considered the Focus RS but would need huge reassurances regarding the prevalence of the engines destroying themselves. Then again I'd similarly not trust anything made in Germany these days without a big warranty.Perhaps it's just rose tinted specs, but this was always the huge selling point of "that-era" of Jap cars though, you had the performance safe in the knowledge you could buy an utterly abused example, and it would just get on with it.
I should probably just save the pennies for a GTR. At least then I could make myself feel better about running costs by comparing it to supercars.
Tuvra said:
Hammy98 said:
Haven't driven either, but I reckon a Golf R wouldn't see which way an Evo or Scoob went on a country road due to the Haldex. I'm unsure about the Evo but I understand Scoobs have a much more complex 4wd system than the fwd-biased Haldex, providing even power spread over all wheels instead of powering the backs when required. Obviously the Golf would be a much better daily though.
Fairly sure the the lowest output Evo is the FQ300, so FQ360s and FQ400s should be faster in a straight line as well.
More than likely will be corrected on some of that!
I had a Revo Stage 1 R and it would have no problem keeping an Evo in shape. The 400 might have the better but it wouldn't be night and day.Fairly sure the the lowest output Evo is the FQ300, so FQ360s and FQ400s should be faster in a straight line as well.
More than likely will be corrected on some of that!
Even at stage one a DSG car will go to 60 in 3.7 seconds and on to 100 in less than 10. I'm pretty sure the Golf will be ahead of anything other than the 400 (maybe not by much) until both cars topped out, again the Golf having the higher top end so would "win".
Whether it's more fun than an Evo is another matter all together, my Focus RS is way more fun than the Golf but theres no getting away from the fact that a Golf R with a £600 remap is a properly quick car.
If it hasn't happened already, I'm surprised the likes of EVO haven't done a big test of Imprezas and Evos versus the latest crop of 4WD hatchbacks.
I'd be curious on the whole assumption that the Evo would be quicker 'in the twisties'. I imagine the Golf is far easier to extract performance from.
I'd be curious on the whole assumption that the Evo would be quicker 'in the twisties'. I imagine the Golf is far easier to extract performance from.
I've not driven a manual Evo 10 but I owned a Evo 6 and have driven the Golf R and think the Golf would probably be quicker and certainly much easier to drive, but the Evo would feel quicker and is much more of an event to drive , its a proper rally car feel vs a shopping hatch
The Golf gives Evo performance that you can live with , it comes with economy, practicality and reliability
The Golf gives Evo performance that you can live with , it comes with economy, practicality and reliability
I was totally set on buying an EVO X. From first seeing one, I wanted one. I read all about them and when I found myself in the position to be able to buy one I headed straight to the nearest dealer which had a manual and an SST in stock so I could pick which I preferred. I've never been more disappointed by any car. Prior I'd driven an EVO V which was superb. To be fair it had been extensively worked but none the less it was just great to drive. The X was just dull. The SST box was horrid, the manual felt like it needed another gear or different ratios and even the speed couldn't redeem the car for me. I actually tried another few at a different dealer as I couldn't believe the car I'd wanted for so long was so uninspiring but they were the same too. In the end I bought a Litchfield Impreza from a friend.
I've not driven the Golf R but I've driven the GTI and I'd have that over an EVO X any day. I still want an EVO VI TME though!
I've not driven the Golf R but I've driven the GTI and I'd have that over an EVO X any day. I still want an EVO VI TME though!
Yipper said:
The Evo was years ahead of its time. A legendary car. But it's aging fast now and the brand has gone a bit council.
Get the R and remap it. Few cars will beat it today.
Depends whether you want enjoyment or just to go faster than anything else for the least money.Get the R and remap it. Few cars will beat it today.
Evos aren’t council, there was a time perhaps but they have gone up in price and are to expensive to run for that demographic now, think they will go stratospheric price wise at some point if stuff like Escorts have, TMEs are already pricey, it will drag the others up, same for decent in ruined Imprezas.
There just aren’t that many evos out there,
A Golf R is a hell of a car but no shortage, any evo bought now is an investment, anything that was really good with rally pedigree is sure to appreciate, Golf R is a different proposition, much easier to live with and though they don’t drop like a stone they won’t go up, not for years and sheer numbers will keep prices down, no sporting history to call on either.
Have noticed Imprezas get a bit expensive as well, used to be loads for four or five grand, not so many now, and where did all those two grand NA import Supras go ?
Everything interesting has gone up.
Hammy98 said:
Haven't driven either, but I reckon a Golf R wouldn't see which way an Evo or Scoob went on a country road due to the Haldex.
More than likely will be corrected on some of that!
It's a complete myth that Haldex is suboptimal. Once upon a time (a couple of decades ago) maybe, but not now.More than likely will be corrected on some of that!
Mitsubishi's system was only notable due to the torque vectoring rear diff. Subaru have had minimal tech on their 4wd for years.
I would expect the driver aids on the Golf R to be massively more effective than anything on the Mitsubishi, so apart from any power advantage I wouldn't expect the Evo to leave the Golf behind.
hondansx said:
If it hasn't happened already, I'm surprised the likes of EVO haven't done a big test of Imprezas and Evos versus the latest crop of 4WD hatchbacks.
Well, there's no similar age Mitsubishi Evo to compare the latest hot-hatches to. So, in terms of fairness, that's probably why it's not been done.They could compare it to the latest WRX STi. However, it's been reviewed as pretty outdated now. It's got the same 2.5 engine, with renowned issues, as used in the older models, it's typical Impreza mpg i.e. not good and nowhere near the new cars and much more to tax than the new hatches aswell.
I reckon there's really no point. It's already been basically outclassed by the new class of "shopping trolleys", as they are so commonly referred to on here.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff