Lan Evo vs WRX

  • Thread starter Thread starter jeffgoddin
  • 19 comments
  • 5,947 views
jeffgoddin

jeffgoddin

still team Edward!
Premium
Messages
3,957
United States
Cleveland
Read back in the 4cyl sedan comparo that somebody'd like to see a Lan Evo vs WRX comparo through the years, so...

Just want to run this by the gallery to see if this is fair/if I'm missing anything.

I'll be looking at four sets of battles, between models of the same year and approximately the same stock weight. Each battle will include three events, one basically stock, one moderately tuned, and one highly tuned, with weight to power ratios set the same. Here are the pairings:

Battle of 1994: Lan Evo II vs WRX Sedan
Battle of 1995: Lan Evo III GSR vs WRX STi Sedan II
Battle of 1998: Lan Evo V RS vs WRX STi Type R V
Battle of 1999: Lan Evo VI RS vs WRX STi Type R VI

There will be 12 events total, and in the event of a tie, I'll run the last three pairings against each other at full tuning, since the Lan Evo II doesn't get RM. Of course if I have to do this the Lan Evo will be heavily favored since it gets like 28, then 50, and finally 123 more hp than the WRX...

Any other pairings that should be included? Was thinking maybe 22B vs Mine's Lan Evo for example. For 1996 and 1997 there weren't any closely comparable pairings that I could see.
 
I actually tried something like this but it was a full-out JDM comparo, where I tuned every car to around 400 horsepower. I had the Skyline GTS-Type M, the Supra Sz-R, the Evo VI, and the Impreza WRX Coupe and the Prelude. I found that the Evo and Impreza were the top two cars in every category, rally, short track and test course. The WRX completely destroyed the EVO's times in Rallying at Pikes Peak, however the WRX would have difficulties keeping up with the WRX lap times at Rome Circuit and at Seattle Circuit. The WRX would be better at the test course. I never had the time to write all of the info down, but I do remember which cars did what.
 
Only looking at tarmac at this point, though it might be more appropriate to compare them on the dirt, since that's what they were meant for.

Have only started to run the second battle. The Lan Evo II sits much higher than the WRX and has softer springs, leading to much less responsive cornering, so in the first two tarmac battles the WRX was the clear winner by 1 sec per lap average, but on dirt the Lan Evo might actually have the better setup. In the near stock tuning, the Lan Evo definitely suffered from the stock tranny's 5th gear being way too tall, another indication of a rally setup perhaps, but even with custom tranny the WRX has a less peaky and more generous powerband, so the Lan Evo was still at a disadvantage due to its engine in the moderately tuned event.

I just have never spent much time with the rally events so wouldn't be excited to do much testing there, but maybe I'll try it.
 
Cool comparo 👍 Personally I'm an Evo man, and I have a friend who is an STi man. We used to have 2P battles all the time up and down Pikes Peak. Red vs Blue (just like the GT symbol ;)). Good times...

I find the STis are better on dirt, but Evos are better on tarmac. Just a personal observation though, I haven't tested them on purpose. The Evo might benefit because they can have Yaw Controller upgrade as well.

You might also want to test the rally cars against each other. Both are year 1999 IIRC. From my experience they are very close in laptimes at Tahiti Maze.

The 22B would never stand a chance against the Mine's Evo (400+ HP stock), unless you tune it. But then it wouldn't be a fair comparison.
 
Parnelli Bone
I did something similar a few years back in the GT4 forum
Click to expand...

In fact you also did this in the GT2 forum back in 2008!

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=111648

So it looks like this has been covered already, but I'm already mostly through my own testing, which has been fun for me, so I'll go ahead and report my results so far.

For all battles:

near stock tuning means adding sport tires and suspension, clutch-1, fly-2, and enough hp to get the same weight to power ratios.

moderate tuning means hards, semi-race suspension, custom tranny, clutch-2, fly-3, brakes, weight reduction stage 1, and enough additional hp to get to about the middle of the weight to power range available in the battle.

heavy tuning means softs, pro suspension, custom tranny, clutch-3, fly-3, custom lsd, brakes, weight reduction 3, and enough hp to pretty much peak out the weight to power range available in the battle.

Now then...

Battle of 1994: Lan Evo GSR II vs Impreza WRX Sedan
1st Event: Seattle Circuit
Evo II at 262 hp: 1:43.418
WRX at 262hp: 1:41.864
Conclusion: dominant win by the WRX due to many factors. The Evo II has a powerband which peaks at the redline, While the WRX peaks well below redline and is flat after that. Evo II sits much higher than WRX and has softer suspension. Finally, Evo II has a 5th gear stock which is much taller than any other gear, and this does have an impact on lap times in 2 places at Seattle.

2nd Event: Laguna Seca
Evo II at 310 hp: maybe 1:26 at best
WRX at 315 hp: 1:25.215
Conclusion: gap has tightened considerably with custom tranny, but powerbands still radically different, and handling with fixed spring rates still favoring WRX.

3rd Event: Trial Mountain
Evo II at 361hp: 1:24.527
WRX at 364hp: 1:24.868
Conclusion: slight victory for the Evo II at the extreme! hard to understand since WRX has better DF, powerband, and ride height, but with pro suspension at last I was able to tighten up the Evo II's springs. Perhaps the Evo II is simply a better base model, but stock tuned more for rally than road. Consider also that the Evo II has another 80hp it can add on top if the 361hp it had for this event, while the WRX is just about fully tuned, and you have to wonder which really is the absolute best road model of 1994...

Overall result of battle of 1994: 2 conclusive wins for WRX, one close match slightly in favor of Evo II, award 2 points WRX and 1/2 point Evo II.

Subjective opinion: Evo II definitely developed some moves that were both fun and effective, while the WRX has a far superior powerplant and still handles well. Given custom tranny and pro suspension at any hp I think they're pretty close models.

Have 1995 and 1999 also done, with just one more event from 1998, but I'll report them all later.
 
Battle of 1995: Evo III GSR vs WRX STI II Sedan
Event 1: Red Rock
Evo III at 274hp: 1:24.540
WRX II at 270 hp: at worst 1:23
Conclusion: dominant win by WRX, Evo still has wierd 5th gear which is even more critical at Red Rock, as well as also sitting higher and having softer springs, so the WRX made it around all the sweeping corners at a higher speed.

Event 2: Deep Forest
Evo III at 332hp: about 1:28.7
WRX II at 328hp: 1:27.720
conclusion: dominant win by WRX. suspension settings still favor WRX, and again the WRX II has a far superior powerband than the Evo III, especially when you can fully take advatage of it with a custom tranny.

Event 3: Trial Mountain
Evo III at 381hp: 1:23.897
WRX II at 377hp: 1:24.099
conclusion: damnit again, the Evo III eventually comes out superior when it finally gets pro suspension (albeit by the slimmest of margins...) despite a still worse powerband, DF, and ride height. even closer this time, though.

Overall result of battle of 1995: same as battle of 1994, 2 points WRX for dominant wins, 1/2 point Evo for very close win. Ultimate hp closer in 1995, Evo III with 411 and WRX II with 383, but obviously for the highest powered events a fully tuned Evo III will school a fully funed WRX II.

Subjective opinion: same as battle of 1994. without the custom tranny, WRX rules. without pro suspension, WRX still better than Evo. But with both, they're about the same on the road. So I imagine at a rally the Evo III would dominate the WRX II.
 
Last edited:
Nice job !! I'm looking forward to next battles ! It could be nice to see how the electronic devices launched on the Evo 4 (AYC and ACD) are rendered in the game, and the difference they made compared to the Evo 3 or the WRX. Using the same tracks as the 1995 Battle will help...
 
Keep it coming 👍 Sucks to see the Evo lose so badly, but at least it can still salvage some pride when fully tuned :lol:
 
Battle of 1998: Lan Evo V RS vs Impreza WRX STi V Type R
1st Event: Tahiti
Lan Evo V at 301hp: 1:08.479
Impreza V at 300hp: 1:08.532
Conclusion: both have nice arched powerbands finally, Evo still sitting higher and with softer springs, but WRX has final gearing too tall and also 4th and 5th are too tall, so it turns out almost a tie.

2nd Event: High speed Ring
Lan Evo V at 375hp: 58.443
Impreza V at 375hp: 59?
Conclusion: Lower ride height and tighter springs with semi-race suspension worked against WRX at HSR, creating traction loss in a couple of places. Whatever the cause, Lan Evo dominant winner here.

3rd Event: SSR5
Lan Evo V at 473 hp: 1:17.798
Impreza V at 472 hp: 1:18.493
Conclusion: dominant win by Lan Evo, over a second faster per lap on average. pro suspension allowed springs to be tightened, and Evo seemed to have better traction/less understeer, resulting in better handling and consistently better section times.

Overall conclusion of battle of 1998: 2 dominant wins and one close win by Lan Evo V, award 2 1/2 points.

Subjective conclusion: what happened between 1995 and 1998??? Mitsubishi did something right, and now Subaru is the underdog. After running these tests, I'd take the Evo V RS over the WRX STi V any track any day. Perhaps this is because I'm getting to test the RS instead of the GSR for the first time?
 
Battle of 1999: Lan Evo VI RS vs Impreza WRX STi VI Type R
Event 1: SSR5
Lan Evo VI at 305 hp: 1:28.529
Impreza VI at 305 hp: 1:29.7?
Conclusion: okay, this battle may be open to debate. stock gearing for the Evo was way too short, so I swapped in a custom tranny and set all gears the same as stock except final to give it a chance to get up to speed. after doing this, it won handily, but with stock gears, it would have lost for sure. accepting tranny swap, WRX seemed to lose grip too easily, and its powerband dropped too much to redline.

Event 2: Grindelwald
Lan Evo VI at 380hp: 1:18.064
Impreza VI at 380hp: 1:17.606
Conclusion: Evo VI powerband now peaks above redline, so WRX has more power available on average, and that's the bottom line here.

Event 3: SSR5
Lan Evo VI at 473 hp: 1:19.057
Impreza VI at 473 hp: 1:18.510
Conclusion: something telling here, since this is the exact same final event as the battle of 1998, and the Impreza does almost exactly the same, while the Lan Evo is over a second slower. For some reason, Mitsubishi swapped out what was a great engine in 1998 for something inferior in 1999.

Overall result of battle of 1999: First event debatable, but call it a fair win Lan Evo VI, 1 point awarded. Last two events go to WRX, though Event 2 was close, award 1 1/2 points WRX.

Subjective opinion: seems like Mitsubishi screwed up a good thing in several ways in 1999...

Total result: WRX 5 1/2 points total, Lan Evo 4 1/2 points total, close decision in favor of WRX.

Analysis through the years: the characters of both the Lan Evo and WRX changed greatly over the years 1994-1999, both in stock form and in highly tuned states. The Lan Evo had one truly dominant year, 1998, but the WRX was the overall better vehicle in 1994, 1995, and 1999, though it was never totally dominant.
 
If I recall, the Evo VI was a much softened version of the V. This arose because customers were apparently complaining about the ride quality of the Evo V in normal city driving. I think the VI comes out a few months after the V, so it would seem that it's a 'botched' Evo (similar to GT2 vs GT1 :lol:). I also agree that the VI has ridiculously short stock gear ratios. It makes for great low-down acceleration, but even on a moderately long straight it will top out.

Interesting also that the WRX comes out as the overall winner. I'm not trying to undermine your testing, as I'm sure they're all excellent, accurate and fair, but in all motoring magazines I've read the consensus is that Evos has always been a bit better than WRXs. They're very close, but the Evo is always just a bit more chuckable in the corners. The gap has narrowed considerably with the Evo X however, as Mitsubishi has decided to go down the 'soft' route again.
 
Well, this is just how PD modeled the Evo and WRX, and doesn't necessarily correspond to real life experience.

I also wonder what it would have been like to test an RS version of the Evo II and Evo III against the corresponding WRX STi's. Seems like the GSR versions were a step down in performance from the RS. And as I noted above, the Evo II and III were just too high and soft to produce the same handling agility that the WRX had, UNTIL you slap on pro suspension, and then in both cases the Evo's beat the WRX's. Also, the engine in the Evo II has power peaking at redline, not ideal, and the engine in the Evo III is more peaky than the engine in the WRX II. This makes the fact that at close to full tuning the Evo II and III beat the WRX even more surprising, and points to the probability that in some hard to quantify way the Evo is a better base vehicle.

As far as rigorousness of testing goes, I've settled on the following method:

Once I pick a weight to power to tune to, I look in my list of events for one which is competitive at or just better than that ratio (in the case of the near stock tuning of the Evo II vs WRX, I tuned to 4.81kg/hp and chose 4WD-2 Seattle as the battle venue.) After tuning whatever I can (adjusting gears or suspension, etc.) I start running some serious Test Laps.

My goal is to run 10 laps total, including the race. So since 4WD-2 is a 2 lap race, I run 8 Test Laps. Then I watch the replay of the Test Laps and record all the section and lap times. Finally I run the race, again watching the replay and recording all times.

Then I do some math, subtracting section time 3 from section time 2 to get the time it took me to get through section 3, for example. Then I can identify the fastest time for each section from among all 10 laps. Finally I add these best times together to get what I use for the comparison as a best lap time.

Yes, I use an excel spreadsheet to do the math for me, so all I have to do is sit there with my laptop and enter numbers as I watch the replay.

Theoretically, the time I get is about the same as the best lap time I would see if I did 10x10x10x8, or 8000, laps (the last x8 is because I only get 8 times to compare for the first section, since the start of the race and of the test laps includes starting from a stop...)

I've done some analysis on this method, and it appears that after 4 or 5 laps of testing on average I'm already very close to my ultimate best lap time, within about 1/3%. By the time I finish my 7th lap I'm within 1/8% of the time I get after 8 laps on average. It makes a nice smooth curve (suggesting that I am indeed comparing enough data) which suggests that after 10 laps my best lap time is plus or minus about 1/15%, so for a 90 second lap, that's +/-0.06 second. In many of my comparisons, you will see results which put cars this close or less together. In fact, there is no statistically significant difference between cars which are less than twice this figure apart in my comparos (0.120 second or less in the case of a 90 second lap.) By increasing my test to 12 or 15 laps, I could reduce this to perhaps 1/30% or 1/50%.

Of course, there is a big assumption I'm making to simplify this analysis: my performance from lap to lap is independent, and each time I'm driving a section I'm trying to do the best I can without memory of previous laps, drawing upon a consistent skill set.

If in fact I get better over the laps, or if instead I get into a rut, or if perhaps my skills are not consistently applied, then I can not make this assumption. And in fact in my experience I see too many examples of best section times on either a first lap of the test or the last lap of the test, showing that I do indeed both get into the rut of being overly cautious after a first lap and get better and/or get out of that rut for the last lap of the test. And then there's the problematic race laps, where I could be drafting, and where my adrenaline will perhaps improve my reflexes and focus, etc.

So, to step back a little bit from my earlier claim that this is like a best lap in 8000, no, that's not quite true. How many factors of dependence do I introduce in practice? Hard to say, but probably not more than 100, which means than on average the lap time I get this way is at least a best in 80, and is still accomplished in at most 1/4 of the time then (counting the replay, too...) And I'm willing to bet the truth is more in the middle, something like a best in 400-1000 laps. But that's a bet I'm not really interested in testing... (imagine getting my initial result and then going back and doing laps until I finally get an equal or better time in a single lap, recording what lap that was, and then doing it like 10 more times with different cars/tunings. No thanks!)
 
jeffgoddin
Battle of 1998: Lan Evo V RS vs Impreza WRX STi V Type R
1st Event: Tahiti
Lan Evo V at 301hp: 1:08.479
Impreza V at 300hp: 1:08.532
Conclusion: both have nice arched powerbands finally, Evo still sitting higher and with softer springs, but WRX has final gearing too tall and also 4th and 5th are too tall, so it turns out almost a tie.

2nd Event: High speed Ring
Lan Evo V at 375hp: 58.443
Impreza V at 375hp: 59?
Conclusion: Lower ride height and tighter springs with semi-race suspension worked against WRX at HSR, creating traction loss in a couple of places. Whatever the cause, Lan Evo dominant winner here.

3rd Event: SSR5
Lan Evo V at 473 hp: 1:17.798
Impreza V at 472 hp: 1:18.493
Conclusion: dominant win by Lan Evo, over a second faster per lap on average. pro suspension allowed springs to be tightened, and Evo seemed to have better traction/less understeer, resulting in better handling and consistently better section times.

Overall conclusion of battle of 1998: 2 dominant wins and one close win by Lan Evo V, award 2 1/2 points.

Subjective conclusion: what happened between 1995 and 1998??? Mitsubishi did something right, and now Subaru is the underdog. After running these tests, I'd take the Evo V RS over the WRX STi V any track any day. Perhaps this is because I'm getting to test the RS instead of the GSR for the first time?
Click to expand...

Try the STI V vs. the GSR with every non-engine upgrade and no weight reduction, my GSR in these specs can beat S-class cars quite easily
 
Try the STI V vs. the GSR with every non-engine upgrade and no weight reduction, my GSR in these specs can beat S-class cars quite easily
Click to expand...

I tried to pick the versions which were almost the same weight stock, and for the 1998 models this was the RS and the Type R STi.

You're saying another comparison to make would be the GSR vs the sedan STi, and that the GSR would still dominate? I had wondered about that, so thanks for answering my question.

I had guessed that the GSR was some kind of a big step down from the RS, since the previous battles saw the GSR lose to the STi, and now here was an RS and all of a sudden it's dominant, but it sounds like all around Mitsubishi just came out with a better product than Subaru in 1998.
 
Whoa! Been a while since you posted in the GT2 forum Jeffgoddin, would you consider doing a comparo with the rally car versions of the Impreza and Lancer but on street tracks? It would prove in theory who developed the best non-production versions of their cars, and make the comparo complete.
 
Well, the WRX is 1230kg/483hp=2.547kg/hp and the Evo is 1030kg/434hp=2.373kg/hp. Using my formula that for every 40kg in weight diff there should be a 1% change in kg/hp, too, I'd predict that these two would be approximately comparable if the Evo had a weight to power ratio of 2.419kg/hp, which is 2% higher than 2.373kg/hp, so I'd say the Evo would have a slight advantage on a balanced track.

Tell you what, I'll compare the two on Apricot Hill, SSR5, and Deep Forest, all higher speed tracks, to try to offset the advantage the Evo should have. I think the results would then be fair. I'll get to this in a few days.
 
Well, sorry to disappoint, but since I run my comparos in AT, there's only a 1% chance the WRX rally car can beat the Evo rally car. Reason: while the Evo has a beautiful fat arched powerband pretty much constant from 6-7000 rpm and redline at 7125, the WRX has a very peaky powerband maxing out at like 7500rpm and dropping precipitously to the redline of 9125rpm, losing probably 150hp before it gets there.

bottom line: even driven MT and geared to maximize power, the WRX is not going to have even 90% the (adjusted) average weight to power ratio of the Evo, and driven AT it won't have more than 80% power on average.

I'll probably still try Apricot hill, but my guess is that the Evo will win by 2 seconds or more.
 
Ran Apricot Hill with the rally cars, Evo first to give the Impreza the advantage of getting a more practiced run. Evo pulled in laps around 1:15.5 consistently, Impreza at 1:16.5, a second slower. Closer than I'd guessed, but still a clear win for the Evo.

Now, if someone wanted to compare running MT and setting gears so you shift at like 8200 down to 6800, you could probably get the gap to narrow to 0.5 second, but there was also a handling difference. The Evo had better grip around wide turns, and that's at least 0.5 seconds the Impreza couldn't make up on this course.

Even though it was the loser, the Impreza was fun to drive, nice moves using weight transfer and a little drift here and there. Too bad power peaks at 7500 rpm but the redline's at 9125...
 

Latest Posts

Back