June Motor Trend - New Competition
05-09-2003, 03:38 PM
#31
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: A suburb of Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 2,099
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
3 Posts
Guys,
Competition is good.
Since Porsche decided to get into the SUV market, My opinion is that they have not kept up with the Jones's on the performance front.
Let the Japanese kick Porsches butt back in line, is what I say.
When I first saw the prototype Boxter, I said to my self, I got to have one of those. When they came out, I drove one. I waited. When the Boxter S came out, I drove one. I am still waiting.
While the Boxter is very refined and smooth, it does not raise the hair on my neck like my 951 does. A "Turbo S" Boxter with 350 to 400 rwhp and a convertible top............I may no longer be able to wait.
I wonder if anyone from the Porsche factory reads this board?
Bring it Japan!
Competition is good.
Since Porsche decided to get into the SUV market, My opinion is that they have not kept up with the Jones's on the performance front.
Let the Japanese kick Porsches butt back in line, is what I say.
When I first saw the prototype Boxter, I said to my self, I got to have one of those. When they came out, I drove one. I waited. When the Boxter S came out, I drove one. I am still waiting.
While the Boxter is very refined and smooth, it does not raise the hair on my neck like my 951 does. A "Turbo S" Boxter with 350 to 400 rwhp and a convertible top............I may no longer be able to wait.
I wonder if anyone from the Porsche factory reads this board?
Bring it Japan!
05-09-2003, 10:26 PM
#32
Instructor
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JasonECW:
Bravo your post, I agree with you about the elitist attitude on this board. I think a lot of people tend to forget that the 924/944/968 series have always been treated as the red-headed stepchild of the Porsche family, and as much as we hate it when 911 owners snub us, we, in turn, will do the same to these so-called poser cars and their owners - shame on us all! If Mitsubishi and Subaru are selling well to their target audience, what someone likened as "straight-line riceboys," and laughing all the way to the bank, then good for them. I guess Porsche also is right on target with the "rich-snob *****'s." That would make us hand-me-down victims if we bought ours after the cars got cheap.
I would regret giving up my 89 951, because no matter what car I have driven, be it faster, quicker, better handling, or more utilitarian, none have given me the overall satisfaction in qualities that the 951 has. Hey, it turns out that my supercharged GSR now out accelerates and handles better than my 951 -- I can't argue with hard numbers, but it won't feel as good doing it. Yes, feel is something that I use in rating confidence in a car, and I don't get the same feedback from the GSR as I do from the 951. Yes, breeding is there, but there comes a point when heritage doesn't mean a thing, like did Porsche do us a favor and release the 16-valve turbo engine? Not if it would kill 911 sales, so goes the thinking. ...and we carry their banner? They don't appear to give a crap about anything except their bottom line.
Let's not play the caste game with other auto enthusiasts, after all, how many of us would like Porsche if everyone else did? We wouldn't be so exclusive then, would we? Hey, we're all out to enjoy this thing called the motorcar -- while we still can, so we should be open to different flavors of enthusiasm...
Bravo your post, I agree with you about the elitist attitude on this board. I think a lot of people tend to forget that the 924/944/968 series have always been treated as the red-headed stepchild of the Porsche family, and as much as we hate it when 911 owners snub us, we, in turn, will do the same to these so-called poser cars and their owners - shame on us all! If Mitsubishi and Subaru are selling well to their target audience, what someone likened as "straight-line riceboys," and laughing all the way to the bank, then good for them. I guess Porsche also is right on target with the "rich-snob *****'s." That would make us hand-me-down victims if we bought ours after the cars got cheap.
I would regret giving up my 89 951, because no matter what car I have driven, be it faster, quicker, better handling, or more utilitarian, none have given me the overall satisfaction in qualities that the 951 has. Hey, it turns out that my supercharged GSR now out accelerates and handles better than my 951 -- I can't argue with hard numbers, but it won't feel as good doing it. Yes, feel is something that I use in rating confidence in a car, and I don't get the same feedback from the GSR as I do from the 951. Yes, breeding is there, but there comes a point when heritage doesn't mean a thing, like did Porsche do us a favor and release the 16-valve turbo engine? Not if it would kill 911 sales, so goes the thinking. ...and we carry their banner? They don't appear to give a crap about anything except their bottom line.
Let's not play the caste game with other auto enthusiasts, after all, how many of us would like Porsche if everyone else did? We wouldn't be so exclusive then, would we? Hey, we're all out to enjoy this thing called the motorcar -- while we still can, so we should be open to different flavors of enthusiasm...
05-11-2003, 01:08 AM
#33
Pro
Join Date: May 2003
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 746
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by TurboTime:
<strong>Uh-oh...
New June Motor Trend has the $30K 2003 Mitsu Lancer Evolution with 271 Hp and 273 Tq, 0-60 @ 4.59 receiving rave reviews, like "For $30,000, you can't go wrong. I'm blown away."
Know your enemy - Sun Tsu
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">My guess is that many of the 951's with aftermarket chips and lightly modified would clock in at the same HP.
But my lightly modified 951 (never had the hp rated) won't do a 4.59 for 0-60. I am lucky to get 6.5; my goal is around 300 hp and around 5 sec 0-60. (i am new at the launch technique for a car with turbo lag). So what accounts for this fast time of MitsuLancer? Is it AWD or maybe it has a close ratio 6 speed or what?
<strong>Uh-oh...
New June Motor Trend has the $30K 2003 Mitsu Lancer Evolution with 271 Hp and 273 Tq, 0-60 @ 4.59 receiving rave reviews, like "For $30,000, you can't go wrong. I'm blown away."
Know your enemy - Sun Tsu
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">My guess is that many of the 951's with aftermarket chips and lightly modified would clock in at the same HP.
But my lightly modified 951 (never had the hp rated) won't do a 4.59 for 0-60. I am lucky to get 6.5; my goal is around 300 hp and around 5 sec 0-60. (i am new at the launch technique for a car with turbo lag). So what accounts for this fast time of MitsuLancer? Is it AWD or maybe it has a close ratio 6 speed or what?
05-11-2003, 03:07 AM
#34
Instructor
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you'd like to see the texbook definition of "ugly", pick up a copy of the June'03 Car and Driver and look at the cover. Then, turn to page 40 for further proof if you're still not convinced. Compare what you see to the graceful lines of your 951.
Get a load of the Subaru's hood intake (which is large enough to ingest farm animals) and its wing, which almost makes the Lancer look refined and understated by comparison. How the trend of rear wings (regrettably started by the '93 TT Supra) still endures is beyond me. What next for Japanese cars: fender skirts that automatically retract at speed for improved coefficient of drag? Pastel body cladding? Pass the Dramamine and give me a break.
If you read the C&D article, you'll find these souped-up econoboxes have rock hard suspensions, push like crazy, are noisy as hell, and can only replicate sub 5-second 0 to 60 times, by doing high-rev clutch-killing hole-shots. The "street start" times (rolling 5 MPH start to 60) posted by C&D in the same article are far more representative of real world driving and present a different picture. It doesn't take much hard driving to expose their economy car underpinnings.
I'm not trying to be a snob. I have no particular allegiance to either Germany or Japan. I'll buy from the country/marque that makes the best car. But, having owned several Japanese cars over the years (including a '91 MR2 Turbo and a '94 TT Supra), I honestly believe that they don't measure up to German cars in terms of roadworthiness and construction. I'd rather be doing triple digit speeds in my '93 BMW 325is as opposed to the '94 TT Supra that I traded it for. The Bimmer wasn't nearly as fast, but it was rock-solid at speed. The BMW's gearbox, clutch takeup, throttle response, and forgiving suspension all came together to make the Bimmer somehow greater than the sum of its parts. It felt more connected to the road and more satisfying to drive than the Toyota, but I recognize that your YMMV. To be fair, I have nits to pick with German cars too, but at present, I'll only lust after cars built closer to the Alps than Mount Fuji.
Get a load of the Subaru's hood intake (which is large enough to ingest farm animals) and its wing, which almost makes the Lancer look refined and understated by comparison. How the trend of rear wings (regrettably started by the '93 TT Supra) still endures is beyond me. What next for Japanese cars: fender skirts that automatically retract at speed for improved coefficient of drag? Pastel body cladding? Pass the Dramamine and give me a break.
If you read the C&D article, you'll find these souped-up econoboxes have rock hard suspensions, push like crazy, are noisy as hell, and can only replicate sub 5-second 0 to 60 times, by doing high-rev clutch-killing hole-shots. The "street start" times (rolling 5 MPH start to 60) posted by C&D in the same article are far more representative of real world driving and present a different picture. It doesn't take much hard driving to expose their economy car underpinnings.
I'm not trying to be a snob. I have no particular allegiance to either Germany or Japan. I'll buy from the country/marque that makes the best car. But, having owned several Japanese cars over the years (including a '91 MR2 Turbo and a '94 TT Supra), I honestly believe that they don't measure up to German cars in terms of roadworthiness and construction. I'd rather be doing triple digit speeds in my '93 BMW 325is as opposed to the '94 TT Supra that I traded it for. The Bimmer wasn't nearly as fast, but it was rock-solid at speed. The BMW's gearbox, clutch takeup, throttle response, and forgiving suspension all came together to make the Bimmer somehow greater than the sum of its parts. It felt more connected to the road and more satisfying to drive than the Toyota, but I recognize that your YMMV. To be fair, I have nits to pick with German cars too, but at present, I'll only lust after cars built closer to the Alps than Mount Fuji.
05-11-2003, 05:53 AM
#35
Racer
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: California
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of those 2 cars (I believe it the Mitsubishi) runs 19.5 lbs boost!! The other (Subaloo) runs 14.5. Hope they have effecient knock sensors. I purchased a 1988 Mazda 626 turbo in 1988. I drive it extremely hard. It has over 380,000 miles and the head has never been off. The first turbo died at 375,000. I do not believe it was the turbo's fault. It was mine for not checking the cat. Cat was clogged, turbo overheated.
05-11-2003, 10:56 AM
#36
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by gatorbait:
<strong>If you read the C&D article, you'll find these souped-up econoboxes have rock hard suspensions, push like crazy, are noisy as hell, and can only replicate sub 5-second 0 to 60 times, by doing high-rev clutch-killing hole-shots. The "street start" times (rolling 5 MPH start to 60) posted by C&D in the same article are far more representative of real world driving and present a different picture. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">According the C&D article:
Mitsu Lancer Evo 0-60 in 5.0, 5-60 in 6.7, 1/4 mile in 13.6 @ 101 mph.
Subaru WRX STi 0-60 in 4.6, 5-60 in 5.8, 1/4 mile in 13.2 @ 103 mph.
The WRX does a reasonable 5-60 time but the Evo really lags behind here. The C&D article noted problems with the uneven power delivery of the Evo.
Also, note that even though the 1/4 mile times for both vehicles are rather impressive, the trap speeds are not so high. The AWD and relatively short gearing produce fast launches off the line but once under way, the real grunt at speed doesn't appear to be there.
<strong>If you read the C&D article, you'll find these souped-up econoboxes have rock hard suspensions, push like crazy, are noisy as hell, and can only replicate sub 5-second 0 to 60 times, by doing high-rev clutch-killing hole-shots. The "street start" times (rolling 5 MPH start to 60) posted by C&D in the same article are far more representative of real world driving and present a different picture. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">According the C&D article:
Mitsu Lancer Evo 0-60 in 5.0, 5-60 in 6.7, 1/4 mile in 13.6 @ 101 mph.
Subaru WRX STi 0-60 in 4.6, 5-60 in 5.8, 1/4 mile in 13.2 @ 103 mph.
The WRX does a reasonable 5-60 time but the Evo really lags behind here. The C&D article noted problems with the uneven power delivery of the Evo.
Also, note that even though the 1/4 mile times for both vehicles are rather impressive, the trap speeds are not so high. The AWD and relatively short gearing produce fast launches off the line but once under way, the real grunt at speed doesn't appear to be there.
05-11-2003, 11:18 AM
#37
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by Jake951:
<strong>Also, note that even though the 1/4 mile times for both vehicles are rather impressive, the trap speeds are not so high. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">For comparison purposes, check out the August 2001 issue of C&D. The Boxster S does the 1/4 in 13.9 @ 102 mph. The Corvette does 13.1 @ 111 mph! You can see the difference.
<strong>Also, note that even though the 1/4 mile times for both vehicles are rather impressive, the trap speeds are not so high. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">For comparison purposes, check out the August 2001 issue of C&D. The Boxster S does the 1/4 in 13.9 @ 102 mph. The Corvette does 13.1 @ 111 mph! You can see the difference.
05-11-2003, 12:15 PM
#39
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by shortyboy:
<strong>doesnt the 951 clock in a 1/4 mile at 13.5?ive seen it posted on flat-6.net.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">The factory spec for the Turbo S was 13.5. However, almost everybody agrees that was an optimistic number. The magazine tests showed around 14.0 @ ~100 mph. The non-S was a few tenths slower in the 1/4.
<strong>doesnt the 951 clock in a 1/4 mile at 13.5?ive seen it posted on flat-6.net.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">The factory spec for the Turbo S was 13.5. However, almost everybody agrees that was an optimistic number. The magazine tests showed around 14.0 @ ~100 mph. The non-S was a few tenths slower in the 1/4.
05-11-2003, 01:42 PM
#40
AutoX
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The WRX STi and Lancer Evo are much more than one-trick stoplight racers. They both have great motor sports heritage of multiple manufacturers' and drivers' rally world championships. The mechanical package and even the garish bodywork evolved out of rally competition.
05-11-2003, 08:04 PM
#41
Burning Brakes
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by Jake951:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by Jake951:
<strong>Also, note that even though the 1/4 mile times for both vehicles are rather impressive, the trap speeds are not so high. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">For comparison purposes, check out the August 2001 issue of C&D. The Boxster S does the 1/4 in 13.9 @ 102 mph. The Corvette does 13.1 @ 111 mph! You can see the difference.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Bottom line is the Subie is still done in the quarter .7 quicker than the Boxster S and only .1 slower than the Vette.
The reason they keep putting wings on their cars is because race cars have them. Race cars have them because they drop lap times.
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by Jake951:
<strong>Also, note that even though the 1/4 mile times for both vehicles are rather impressive, the trap speeds are not so high. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">For comparison purposes, check out the August 2001 issue of C&D. The Boxster S does the 1/4 in 13.9 @ 102 mph. The Corvette does 13.1 @ 111 mph! You can see the difference.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Bottom line is the Subie is still done in the quarter .7 quicker than the Boxster S and only .1 slower than the Vette.
The reason they keep putting wings on their cars is because race cars have them. Race cars have them because they drop lap times.
05-11-2003, 08:32 PM
#42
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
As much as I disagree w/the general "elitist" attitude, the street cars have the wings for no other reason than "bling bling". Don't confuse a fast 1/4 time with a fast car, 4 wheel drive, redline launches do wonders for a 1/4time, curiously though their traps speeds are a little low, hmmm... 
Ahmet
Ahmet
05-11-2003, 09:58 PM
#43
AutoX
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The street cars have wings to allow the rally machines to have wings. Group A rally regulations required homologation of new parts. WRC is not quite as strict with regards to homologation, but the WRX STi and Evo we see on the US market are eveolved from cars that saw international level competition. Subaru Prodrive probably spends more developing and running their Imprezas in WRC every year than any active Porsche racing team.
05-12-2003, 01:05 AM
#44
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Is that why the STi comes w/a 2.5liter engine? The evo has a very similar engine to the eclipse of almost a decade ago? I disagree with you, sure competition improves the breed, etc. etc. but the street cars sold today from mitsu or subaru aren't exactly based on their rally cars, or vice versa. I would go so far to say that they don't share any more than they absulutely have to. Competition based rear spoiler? It differs from model to model (WRX vs. WRX STi), is completely absent in some models (base RS), optional etc. Learning from competition? The intercooler is mounted above the engine in the street version, infront of the radiator in the WRC car. The street cars all have single piston rear brakes for the US market. The 4 wheel drive system they try to tie back to their racing heritage shares practically nothing with the race version. This is all fair ofcourse, it doesn't have to as the street car makes much less power, and isn't intenden for the same type of use.
All of this said I might pick up a WRX, I think they're awesome cars and the rest of the whole 9, good value for the money, etc. I might even get out of Porsches for a while but I still don't think they're exactly comparable. Anybody who's had a stock WRX (or one that somewhat resembles a stock WRX)on track will tell you, they push like crazy, feel light at speed, and the brakes fade, very very badly. This is not the case with most Porsches, 951 certainly included.
Ahmet
All of this said I might pick up a WRX, I think they're awesome cars and the rest of the whole 9, good value for the money, etc. I might even get out of Porsches for a while but I still don't think they're exactly comparable. Anybody who's had a stock WRX (or one that somewhat resembles a stock WRX)on track will tell you, they push like crazy, feel light at speed, and the brakes fade, very very badly. This is not the case with most Porsches, 951 certainly included.
Ahmet
05-12-2003, 03:56 AM
#45
AutoX
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today's street cars are not exactly the same as the rally cars. WRC rules were not requiring the manufacturers to release homologation street cars. However, Mitsubishi's Evo VI was still a Group A car, and in fact even the Evo VII that competed in WRC had identical bodywork to the street car.
Likewise, the STi has an aerodynamic package pretty close to last year's WRC car. The US STi does have a larger engine than the WRC machine to make similar power to the 2.0 liter JDM cars on inferior fuel.
It's true the WRC cars have much more exotic mechanicals than the street cars. Just the Prodrive transmission itself in the WRC car costs more than the whole STi street car.
I agree that the WRX doesn't take too well to the track. However, every Evo since 1998's Evo V has been a terrific track car.
Likewise, the STi has an aerodynamic package pretty close to last year's WRC car. The US STi does have a larger engine than the WRC machine to make similar power to the 2.0 liter JDM cars on inferior fuel.
It's true the WRC cars have much more exotic mechanicals than the street cars. Just the Prodrive transmission itself in the WRC car costs more than the whole STi street car.
I agree that the WRX doesn't take too well to the track. However, every Evo since 1998's Evo V has been a terrific track car.