ERAU-944

i second the "thats great if you're getting knobby tires and going off-roading" comment

people can trash talk my 944 all day long, i still love it, the styling, the handling, and its got plenty of power for me. i'm not going to run out and buy some new "rally bred" mitsu 4-door ark just cause they slapped some badges on their euro sedan, some brembo brakes, and beefed up the engine. i'll start with a car thats good to begin with, and make it better.

basically, if you're going to go for it, awesome, thats one more porsche left for those of us who know what its for. good luck!

Mike
"at porsche, excellence is expected"
"at mitsubishi, mediocrity is the norm"

UDPride

I think you have to remember, not everyone on here is driving their 944/951 every day to and from work. They are hauling kids, throwing computer boxes in the back, bags of top soil, hauling Granny to the Sams Club, and plowing through a foot of snow because work beckons and there are no stay home snow days. In other words, the Porsche isnt practical every day for some folks. I know its not for me. Theres no way I could live my life as I currently do in that thing. Dont get me wrong. Its my baby and I love it like a child, but I have too many other issues (perhaps joys) in life Id have to cut out to drive that dude 7 days a week. I take my mom places and theres no way shes bending down in that damn thing.

I think the comparison inadvertantly went from apples and oranges to apples and apples. Mitsus and Subarus and rally cars and all the rest aren't Porsches and never will be. They arent designed to be or to do the things Porsches do best. Having said that, these alternatives do retain some serious kick in the pants fun, are more practical for people who have families, live in crappy weather environments, yet retain the youthful sportiness and rush of speed while balancing practicality. And for folks who can only keep one car in the garage, its not always an easy choice of "just keep the Porsche". Perhaps Im lucky b/c I have the best of both worlds but not everyone does (or even wants to) and I can see why someone would at least entertain the thought. To my own selfish admission I live a life of somewhat utter excess thats entirely uncessary. I woldnt hesitate to throw money at an EVO however. They are proven commodities and have been for years. They are part race cars, part family trucksters, part SUVs, part Jap econoboxes. Roll it all into one though and its a fairly good hodgepodge thats not the best at any one thing but damn good at most everything.

Few other responses to above comments-

WRX suspension is indeed spongey at times. Chucking the stock RE-92 rubber and 16" rims will do wonders as the Subaru factory rims/tires are abysmal for anything other than some general winter weather. The STi suspension package makes a huge difference (Jan 2003 R&T has good article on three different WRXs one w/ STi suspension components ($1800 last I checked)).

How fast is the EVO VIII? Dunno. WRX will do 0-60 in 5.6sec fairly consistently at 227bhp. EVO is a larger heavier car but at 270+ bhp I think somewhere between 5.3-5.5 is fairly accurate. Depends on how fast it spools up I guess. I would say WRX spools sort of slow in my opinion but it drops the hammer good thereafter and would rate acceleration after spooling as very good to excellent among turbos. My 951 spools quicker and though chipped, I dont think acelleration after spooling is "way" faster. Faster car yes due to the top end and quicker spool so quicker "quick bursts of speed" but between say 40-100mph over a longer band I cant tell a lick between the two cars. So I would say the EVO VIII probably goes a small step further, as it should considering the price tag. Cant comment on the Mitsu AWD but Im sure its quite good. Its not like they just started making these things.

Beefs? I actually like the VI and VII styling better than the VIII. The VIII seems a bit more subtle, though the spoiler is anything but. Perhaps thats a good thing though because anyone other than folks who read boards like this wont know what the hell it is, so you can proceed to smoke a Mustang Cobra or whatever you like and chuckle along the way, then smoke a few Vettes, Vipers, and Ferraris once the roads get slick.

I just hope some nerd making decisions keeps these things in the US market a while. Just for fun I may hit the Mitsu dealer and test drive one just to see what it can and cannot do. Unlike the P-Car, it cant send a musical note of utter perfection up my spine, but it probably can get my Granny to the Sams Club. God love her.

Loki

I was reading C&D the other day on the WRX STi, Japanese release is a 2.0l twin turbo, US market gets a 2.5l turbo(not for another year of two). Not as much power as the twin turbo 2.0l, but I'll bet you'll be able to squeeze a lot more out of that 2.5l engine. Sorry, can't remember the specs of the 2 engines.

Chris
'86 951 52k

Robby

I know Evo's are slightly heavy, but at 3160lbs a 951's not exactly a lightweight. Consider the size of the cars & the 951 is heavier. A ~3300lb mid-size 4-door makes more sense (ESPECIALLY w/AWD) than a 3150lb two-seater sports car the size of a 1st gen Integra. I think that many on this list consider 944 series cars to be a lot lighter than they really are. EX- E36M3 was ~3300. That's only ~150lbs heavier than 951, and, they offered the M3 in 4-door which only added ~8lbs- chassis was the same- front doors were just cut shorter to add small rears. It's hard for me to believe our cars were so heavy when compared to the M3. The M3 even had a lot of stuff that was heavier then that of 951s- larger brake rotors, wheels, multi-link susp (I ASSUME would add some weight-?), AND, the highest rated chassis of it's time (only the S4 was rated higher). I haven't kept up much since ~2000, but even most of the newest cars supposedly STILL don't have as good & tight, stiff, etc of a chassis as the M3. The 951 was ~3160lbs (2998 curb) while the M3 was ~3300lbs (3140 curb). Compared to cars of it's size, the 951 IS a little heavy- NOT knocking it- just saying...

Accelaration- I have an SCC test (can look it up if anyone wants) on the Evo VI run the 1/4 in the high 12's @ ~110mph- that would roast even a chipped Turbo S. Even more impressive- it could run 14.0 on GRAVEL! That's faster than a brand new, stock Turbo S on pavement...

944/951's get a good rap on this board for high speed accel, but the fact is, a car that runs 0-60 in 5.5 will usually run LOW 14's @ 1/4 @ just over 100mph- they will also, USUALLY, be fairly consistent to 120, 140, etc- Turbo S- 0-60 @ 5.5, 14.2 @ 1/4 @ ~102 & 0-120mph @ ~23sec. The C&D one w/shorter FD ran 22.1- that's a very linear & average acccel curve for a normally geared street car of it's power to weight ratio, etc. If Car X runs 1/4 in 13.8 & Car Y in 14.2, then Car X will usually stay out in front of Car Y, and, the gap will get wider & wider... How would Car Y be able to not only catch up the approximate 4 car lengths to Car X, but actually be able to get around & ahead, assuming proper gear selection, comparably skilled drivers, etc?

I realize that gearing is a major factor, and that there ARE exceptions, AND, that these cars DO feel much more competitive @ higher speeds- I love the way my Turbo S feels in 3rd & 4th- even 5th on the rare occasion I find a good enough place, in a (seemingly) safe enough area, to run in it. These cars DO feel very stable at speed...

I'm not knocking anyone (or any car), or trying to correct, etc, but merely pointing out that accelaration is a physics thing- power to weight w/variables (some of them more important than others) like gearing, RD (an extension of gearing), frictional drivetrain loss, tracion (if at applicable speeds), etc. But again, there ARE some minor exceptions, due to various factors. I think the major factor when people make the statements about 951's being able to beat faster cars at higher speeds, is that from highway speeds, gear selection is of major importance. We ALL know one of the major limitations of our cars is off-boost accel, and when running against another for a "quick burst of accel test," we are quick to downshift to the appropriate gear- thus, the turbo spools VERY quickly since the RPM's have been raised so quickly, etc, allowing us to be at max accel very quickly. The launch in these cars is tricky- wheel spin is a MUST! W/out enough wheelspin, the launch will be toast, but, the balance is sort of delicate b/t wheelspin too. BTW- someone recently asked why a car that they had seen had ran 0-60 faster than 5-60- from a dead stop, you can spin the tires a little- a neccessary act, to keep the engine from bogging (albeit ever so slightly) which would kill the launch. Flooring a car (definately one of these) at 5mph would bog the engine down enough to stall/slow the accel- therefore costing the run a good solid second. ACTUALLY, many people don't know it, but AWD cars will OFTENTIMES run the 1/4 (at LEAST to 60mph) faster on WET pavement than on dry- it's the same exact reason, only compounded, as Audi Q's for instance, wont allow wheelspin (just an instant), eliminating it w/it's extra diffs, therefore hampering the launch- wet pavement allows just enough spin to keep the revs up. I DO have some tests that prove this BTW...

As for the Evo- I like the VI a lot better than the VII- the VI had the big round driving lights (or fogs) that were at the far edges of the bumper, set wider than the actual headlights- gave the car a more aggressive look IMO...

Sorry so long, but that's just my $.02 that led from one tangent to another...

<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />

spidey

The EVO will no doubt be a sweet performing car, but before purchasing you should look at a couple of things. I'll tell you right off that I'm a bit biased (WRX owner), but I think that I'm not as bad as some when it comes to EVO bashing.

1) the looks are very boy-ricer, sorry, boy-racer. If there was an option to delete the altezza style tailights and wing then I would have no problem with how the car looks other that the very pontiac-looking front fascia. However, I'll keep an open mind about the car till I see one in person. I drive a car most people think is on the ugly side but you know from the driver's seat things look pretty good.

2) things you are not getting, mainly the ADC and AYC that make the car such a spectacular (yes its that good) handling car. I wonder how much of this (lack of) wizardry will effect the car's dynamics.

3)competition. here's where things get fuzzy. The STi WRX will be getting here soon, some say as early as january. It will be around 270HP and have a six-speed tranny (weak point on the standard WRX)plus all sorts of STi goodies. In most head to head tests that I have found, most take the STi over the EVO based on a number of things not the least being the overall sense of refinement the suby has. It will cost more than the EVO however. OR you could get a WRX right now and mod away. the car is great fun and easily made very quick under the price of either car.

4) price, ouch 30K hurts.

yes AWD is very good.yes the EVO will no doubt be a very fun car, and will handle commuting/track/auto-x well I'm sure. The biggest selling point for me with the EVO would be the huge DSM aftermarket that you already mentioned. Tons of go-fast parts that have been tested over the years, sounds good to me. In the end its all up to you, at least drive one first if you can.

good luck, and keep us posted!

spidey

[quote]Originally posted by Brett:
<strong>If your going to go get nobby tires and race it around a dirt track then buy all means go for the mitsu.

But on the street my mony is on the porshe EVERY time!!! ricers just cant compete with the 951 on the track! </strong><hr></blockquote>

well that may be the case with some, but lets not get carried away here... remember its more about the driver than the car. Some of you are very uninformed (ERAU944) when it comes to these cars. Check out some comparative tests, EVO's of the past have been some of the best handling/performing cars in the world. They are not just a sedan with some badging. But hey, you're entitled to your opinion.

some of us get out on the <a href="http://isuzu-suvs.com/autox/lrp-11-11-02/proshots/pages/p08_wrx_555.html" target="_blank">track</a> every now and then, hope to see you there

edit: for some reason the pic isn't working check out the link above

doyle

I like the car but for 30+ grand it's not worth it to me. The only problem I have is with the literature. How can Mitsubishi possibly call it "Unassuming" and I also cannot stand the term "Euro Style" as in Euro Style tail lamps. I prefer more of a sleeper. But that's just my opinion.

doyle

Bryan

Latest C&D (2002 Ten Best, Z4 on cover) claims slightly less power for the US Lancer Evo, no active center diff, no active yaw control, no 6-speed (5-speed only), and a different front bumper to better absorb impact inflicted by us dumb american drivers. The tech goodies may be made available in the future. So as usual, the US gets a similar looking but watered down version with all the stuff that makers the car genuinely interesting removed.

Bryan

"At Porsche, we only make sports cars"

Marcus

The euro spec Evo does 0 to 60 in about 4.5 secs and consistently beats the Scooby equivalent in tests. I guess losing the AYC is going to make a fair impact on the car's handling though.

Larry Parker

The simple idea that any 944 series car is better in any way to an evo 7 Is just CRAZY!!!!!

That car is awsome in every way!!!!
You are getting alot of performence for the money!!!!!!! MY S2 cost 45k in 1989 and it cant do half the **** an evo can.....


Who givse a **** if its not a PORSCHE........

Anyone that says its not interesting because its not a porsche if a FOOL!!!!! and knows nothing of motorsports and the love of fine auto's.............................

Stuttgart951

Comparing a 944 Turbo with an EVO or WRX is like comparing F1 with WRC. The cars are built for completely different driving venues. If I got into Rally racing - I sure as hell wouldnt take a 951... but if I got into road racing, I sure as hell wouldnt take an EVO or WRX. Since I have no interest in rally racing or the local stop light scene, Ill stick with the Porsche.


YMMV

thomschoon

I would like to second Larry Parkers response. The simple truth is that there are numerous cars that are faster, better handling, better built, easier to repair than any Porsche. It doesn't make the Porsche any less of a great car. It is okay to like more than one flavor of ice cream and more than one type of car.

back to my hole now

Wachuko

[quote]Originally posted by Larry Parker:
<strong>...

Who gives a **** if its not a PORSCHE........

Anyone that says it is not interesting because its not a porsche is a FOOL!!!!! and knows nothing of motorsports and the love of fine auto's.............................</strong><hr></blockquote>

I am with you... I just love fast cars, all shapes and forms... just some more that other.

Some of the body styles I really love are:

Miura S
The old E30 M3's
The '73 Porsche 911s and RS and RSR
The DeTomaso Pantera
The Nissan 300Z TT and the new 350Z
The Jaguar XJR and a few of the old Jags (classic and timeless style)
An old Corvette (1950ish to 1960ish) and the Z06
Toyota Supra Turbo '93+
The 914
The 944
The 968
The 993 C2S with Aerokit
Ferrari Maranello and 360
and many many others... a really long list to write here...

UDPride

I will say this, though saying it with a bit of hesitancy knowing what board Im saying it on. And let me throw in the disclaimer that I wouldnt sell my 951 if you threatened to chop fingers. But as different as the two cars are, I can say by my own firsthand account that the WRX (you can add EVO to this I guess since its similar car) can do more of the things the 951 can do than the 951 can do of the WRX. Im not saying thats necessarily good or bad. I love the 951 because its like a surgeon's scalpel. Its designed to do a couple things better than everything else (i.e. go fast and carve a turn) but while a WRC car doesnt go faster than a Vette or corner exactly like a 951, its "extremely competent" in everything. Or close enough to give most cars a run for their money. Other than going in bad weather my WRX doesnt do a thing better than all the other cars on the road. But I feel like Im driving a car thats good enough for a podium finish in any test you throw at it. And second or third place aint bad across the board.

And I think unlike some of these upstarts trying to cash in on this niche market like the Neon SRT-4 or whatever, cars like the EVOs and STis and Skylines have been around for a long time. We've just never had a taste of them. They are fairly proven with a large aftermarket that supports them. They win WRCs and so forth b/c of great drivers but also because the cars are perfectly suited to the task of tackling a little bit of everything. They can take a beating yet have a strong parent company behind them that invests money in R&D to make sure these cars are at the forefrunt of their particular niche.

So I compare a Porsche to a bouey knife and a WRC car to a Swiss Army knife. Completely different. And to think the 951 can still hang with cars coming off the assembly line today is an engineering feat of unparalelled proportions. Automotive engineering has come a long way in 15yrs.

Whats all of this mean? Nothing, other than its about time the US buyer was given a chance to buy these kinds of cars -- or not buy them. Why should Europe and Japan have all the cool choices? <img src="graemlins/cussing.gif" border="0" alt="[grrrrrrr]" />

mouse

[quote]Originally posted by Larry Parker:
<strong>The simple idea that any 944 series car is better in any way to an evo 7 Is just CRAZY!!!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Uhhh....what the hell are you talking about? I've got one: IT LOOKS BETTER. Design. Does that count? Can people not have their own opinions and ways of judging cars? I would take any 944 series car over that car. I don't like it. Apparently that makes me crazy!

[quote]<strong>That car is awsome in every way!!!!
You are getting alot of performence for the money!!!!!!! MY S2 cost 45k in 1989 and it cant do half the **** an evo can.....</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well...can the evo haul 50 people? Well, a school bus can! Better go buy a school bus, the evo sucks! Oh, so you don't need to haul 50 people? Did you ever consider that maybe some of us don't need or want a car that's made for dirt roads?


[quote]<strong>...and knows nothing of motorsports and the love of fine auto's............................. </strong><hr></blockquote>

I.e. You? Looks are a great part of my personal "love of fine autos", and many others. Just because you happen to rate cars %100 based on performance doesn't make other people "Crazy" <img src="graemlins/c.gif" border="0" alt="[ouch]" /> for caring about how their car looks. And like UDPride said, it's pretty hard to compare them on performance as well, they are different types of cars for different purposes.