Lancer Evo IX MR VS Subaru Impreza STI WRX which one rallies better?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Einhander
  • 20 comments
  • 8,656 views

Mitsubishi Evo IX VS Subraru WRX STI

  • Mitsubishi Evo IX

    Votes: 18 39.1%

  • Subraru WRX STI

    Votes: 21 45.7%

  • Neither, both are the same

    Votes: 7 15.2%
  • Total voters
    46
E

Einhander

Messages
13
OKay, these two cars are one of the best leading rally cars today. but which do you think does rallying better? Lemme get some headliners first off:

This is about Rallying performance, not interior or luxury quality

The Basics:
LANCER EVOLUTION IX

-2.0 Liter Engine, 286 Hp
-Active Sensor Differential (Moves the power to the rear or forward wheels on which one has most grip on it, can be set to gravel, tarmac, or snow environments)
-Super Active Yaw Control (moves power from side to side, Evo can be a one-wheel-drive through really tight corners)
-Tigther gear Ratio since Evo VIII

Subaru Impreza Sti WRX

-2.5 Liter engine, 293 HP
-Faster Acceleration than Evo
-Top speed 143 mph stock
-less turbo lag (not sure about this)


You guys decide, I don't know everything about the impreza sorry. Post your opinions
 
let me guess, another poll where apple is better than orange?:dopey:
Impreza is more raw, whereas Evo is more tech based. The Boxer 2.5 is bound to have more low-end torque, but because of its capacity, it does in sense weigh more than 2.0lt engine.
The evo has Mivec, which does increase its torque figures closer to WRX.
Both cars have pros and cons, so if it was me, i'd go EVO, purely cause its better than STI (not being bias) from perfomance perspective. STi is all muscles, with its brutal 2.5lt turbo engine. But then again, evo has intelligent, with its AYC.
 
They are very close, so it's basically up to you. I'd say if these two race against each other, the better driver wins. So I voted vor "neither...."

Oh and dude, it's Subaru in the headline, not Subraru or what you wrote ... just a typo I know, but it hurts my eyes ;)
 
The Evo IX MR with AYC is only homolgated for group N rallying, while the STi WRX is fully homolgated for group A and as such would qualify for the WRC (the MR does not).

So on those grounds (and between these two cars) the Subaru 'rallies better' as its the only one of the two competing at the higher level.

However if we need to get really fussy here the WRX Sti is only homolgated with the 2 litre engine, the Impreza RS is homolgated to groups N and A with the 2.5 litre engine.

Source
http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/1232859465__Homologation_Country.pdf

My vote however goes to the Subaru, based on Mitsubishi's absence from the WRC at present.

Regards

Scaff
 
*deep breath*

Firstly, the lancer's awd system is inferior to the impreza's. It's transaxle type awd runs at 100 percent front distibution during normal operation. in other words, during normal driving it's a front wheel drive car. However, when you put your foot in it, it is capable of sending AS MUCH AS 50 percent of the power to the rear wheels, never more. now i dont know if that is a disadvantage in rallying but i do know that in terms of on road performance these are the types of systems that give awd cars a bad name. the Impreza's system, although it's not a true "rear wheel drive based" awd system, it's lateral transaxle system (similar to the awd system used in porsche cars, running backwards) runs at a 50/50 bias during normal operation and is capable of sending as much as 65 percent of the power to either end.

point number two. The impreza uses a top mount intercooler, and a scoop pulling air off the hood and forcing it down through the intercooler. the lancer however uses a front mount intercooler (i believe) and more importantly, instead of pulling air off the hood. it has a vent that releases hot engine compartment air out onto the hood. this is a huge advantage for the lancer in terms of front down force. no doubt it plays a big part in the lancers superior handling, compounded by the impreza's poorer weight distribution (biased more towards the front)

point number three. the lancers active yaw (not yawn) controll system is annother big factor, sending power to the outside wheel during hard cornering, allowing the car to "pull" itself around corners. and no the lancer cannot be "one wheel drive" as it can only send 50 percent of it's power to the rear wheels, and i believe the ayc only acts on the rear differential, but i may be wrong. none the less, a big plus for the lancer.

point number four. the impreza is more powerfull, lighter, and with it's better awd system, it has better acceleration than the lancer, especialy in low traction situations like rallying.

The lancer is a bigger, heavyer, less powerfull car, but dynamicly it is a more balanced car, and the ayc fights some of that heft. all in all it's handling is superior to the impreza's and the impreza's slim power advantage isnt enough to make up the ground lost in the corners. so dispite being an impreza fanboy to the core, my vote obviously goes to the lancer.
 
thats interesting. i've always heard that subaru's prime focus was balance. and just being mechanicly proficient rather than using computers and special systems etc.
 
I think that a lot of this boils down to what class of rallying we are talking about, as a lot of comments have focused around the production cars.

Now this is fine as far as group N (national and regional rally championships) goes, as the cars are still very strongly related to the production car. However if we are looking at the WRC, then the cares are group A and are very, very different to the production cars.

In the case of the WRC discussions on the relative merits of each 4wd system are to a large degree irrelevant, as is the AYC (not permitted), weight distribution, balance, etc. These cars may look like the road going versions, but the changes are major.

Regards

Scaff
 
Scaff
The Evo IX MR with AYC is only homolgated for group N rallying, while the STi WRX is fully homolgated for group A and as such would qualify for the WRC (the MR does not).

So on those grounds (and between these two cars) the Subaru 'rallies better' as its the only one of the two competing at the higher level.

However if we need to get really fussy here the WRX Sti is only homolgated with the 2 litre engine, the Impreza RS is homolgated to groups N and A with the 2.5 litre engine.

Source
http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/1232859465__Homologation_Country.pdf

My vote however goes to the Subaru, based on Mitsubishi's absence from the WRC at present.

Regards

Scaff
Click to expand...


Oh, and here's where it really gets complicated. Scaff, I'm amazed that you have the homologated vehicle lists, bravo.

That 2.5 ltr engine homologated for the Impreza RS is a non-turbo sohc version; the car was homologated for a one-make rally series here in Australia back in 2004.


Please note the lack of a bonnet scoop for the intercooler....there isn't one.

There are no 2.5 ltr turbocharged engines homologated for Group N or A by either manufacturer that I know of.

In terms of which manufacturer is better for rallying, I think most posts here have focused a bit too much on road-car performances rather than the requirements for rally cars and, to be honest, the answer has varied over the last ten years, certainly in Group N Production car spec. Here is how I think the balance has shifted over the years, based on PWRC as well as Australian rally teams:

Lancer Evo I-III were very good, possibly having slight edge over equivalent STi models.

Evo IV was a dog in most respects, STi version 3, 4, and 5 were better.

Evo V was ok, but the Evo VI was a rocket, significantly quicker than STi versions 5 and 6.

Subaru then had the advantage as Evo's VII and VIII were tough to set up; these were the first to use AYC and an active centre diff in the rally cars and it proved to be unreliable and/or unpredictable in a rally setting. Nowadays the Evo IX and the 2006 STi are pretty close in terms of performance on the stages.
 
inferno
*deep breath*

Firstly, the lancer's awd system is inferior to the impreza's. It's transaxle type awd runs at 100 percent front distibution during normal operation. in other words, during normal driving it's a front wheel drive car. However, when you put your foot in it, it is capable of sending AS MUCH AS 50 percent of the power to the rear wheels, never more. now i dont know if that is a disadvantage in rallying but i do know that in terms of on road performance these are the types of systems that give awd cars a bad name. the Impreza's system, although it's not a true "rear wheel drive based" awd system, it's lateral transaxle system (similar to the awd system used in porsche cars, running backwards) runs at a 50/50 bias during normal operation and is capable of sending as much as 65 percent of the power to either end.

point number two. The impreza uses a top mount intercooler, and a scoop pulling air off the hood and forcing it down through the intercooler. the lancer however uses a front mount intercooler (i believe) and more importantly, instead of pulling air off the hood. it has a vent that releases hot engine compartment air out onto the hood. this is a huge advantage for the lancer in terms of front down force. no doubt it plays a big part in the lancers superior handling, compounded by the impreza's poorer weight distribution (biased more towards the front)

point number three. the lancers active yaw (not yawn) controll system is annother big factor, sending power to the outside wheel during hard cornering, allowing the car to "pull" itself around corners. and no the lancer cannot be "one wheel drive" as it can only send 50 percent of it's power to the rear wheels, and i believe the ayc only acts on the rear differential, but i may be wrong. none the less, a big plus for the lancer.

point number four. the impreza is more powerfull, lighter, and with it's better awd system, it has better acceleration than the lancer, especialy in low traction situations like rallying.

The lancer is a bigger, heavyer, less powerfull car, but dynamicly it is a more balanced car, and the ayc fights some of that heft. all in all it's handling is superior to the impreza's and the impreza's slim power advantage isnt enough to make up the ground lost in the corners. so dispite being an impreza fanboy to the core, my vote obviously goes to the lancer.
Click to expand...

it is said that the Lancer was lighter than the subrearu i believed, at least the UK version that is, but I dunno about US vers
 
But that makes little difference in rallying ability since there is a vast amount of weight you can remove when you're preparing a car for rallying.

For Group A the minimum weight is 1230 kg, which I admit is difficult (or at least expensive) for the later Imprezas and Evos to get to, but for Group N the minimum weight is somewhere around 1320-1350 kg, a much easier proposition.
 
The lancer is easier to tune for power than the impreza. One chip in the evo and a racing exhaust will take it up near to 400hp.
 
Poverty
The lancer is easier to tune for power than the impreza. One chip in the evo and a racing exhaust will take it up near to 400hp.
Click to expand...

Same with the Impreza. And why shouldn't it ? 2 litre / 2,5 litre turbo engine...
 
A chip and an exhaust will add a lot of power to the impreza as well, but..

Getting the cam timing right on the impreza is one of the most difficult and important engine tuning aspects.

It's tough though because with the horizontally-opposed layout there are 4 cams, all controlled by a single belt running across the front of the engine. It's possible to have one bank perfectly timed and have the other bank out by a few degrees.

Oh, and although the later STi road cars have 2.5 litre engines, the homologated rally cars still have 2 litres.
 
VTRacing
A chip and an exhaust will add a lot of power to the impreza as well, but..

Getting the cam timing right on the impreza is one of the most difficult and important engine tuning aspects.

It's tough though because with the horizontally-opposed layout there are 4 cams, all controlled by a single belt running across the front of the engine. It's possible to have one bank perfectly timed and have the other bank out by a few degrees.
Click to expand...

Ok, it might be a little trickier, but not impossible to achieve when I have a look at Impreza tuners worldwide. And I think the 0,5 litre advantage kind of compensates the problem you mentioned.

Oh, and although the later STi road cars have 2.5 litre engines, the homologated rally cars still have 2 litres.
Click to expand...
Sure, but I was talking about tuning of road cars, as did poverty I assume, since chip/racing exhaust tuning is not relevant for FIA homologated cars, as we all know rally cars have different needs like massive torque etc, they are not allowed to have 400 hp, already have catless exhausts etc etc
 
Max_DC
Ok, it might be a little trickier, but not impossible to achieve when I have a look at Impreza tuners worldwide. And I think the 0,5 litre advantage kind of compensates the problem you mentioned.


Sure, but I was talking about tuning of road cars, as did poverty I assume, since chip/racing exhaust tuning is not relevant for FIA homologated cars, as we all know rally cars have different needs like massive torque etc, they are not allowed to have 400 hp, already have catless exhausts etc etc
Click to expand...

And here I was looking at the title of the thread, "which one rallies better?" ;)

Chip and exhaust tuning is relevant for FIA homologated cars, just about every subaru and mitsubishi rally car has an aftermarket computer.

Setting the timing on an Impreza is not difficult, but to do it properly for motorsport as far as I'm aware often requires adjustable cam gears. For a road car, yes the extra 0.5 litre is helpful but it's not necessarily the end of the story. If, because of the cam timing problems, a Subaru owner can only get the same power from a 2.5 litre motor as a Mitsubishi can from a 2 litre, it's a moral victory to the Mitsubishi owner. ;) :dopey: I'm sure that's the way die-hard Mitsu fans would see it.

Also, who says road cars don't have a need for massive torque?

Rally cars have huge torque figures relative to horsepower not only because it's useful but because the engines do not rev very high. The reason they don't rev very high is because of the turbo restrictors mandated by the FIA. For Group N (production cars) the restrictor is 32mm, rather than the road car's 45mm or so. This means that at higher revs, beyond 5500 rpm or so, the engine simply cannot ingest enough air. This limits the horsepower of the motor.

I know this is a simplification, but since horsepower is a function of torque x revs, if rally cars with no restrictor were capable of sucking in the air required to rev at 8000 or 9000rpm the horsepower figure would be enormous (ie Group B levels 500-600 hp). That's why restrictors were introduced in the first place, and that's why there's now such an emphasis on torque.
 
ill go with subaru,ive seen a bunch of lancers breaking axles and they just pushed me away from them for that reason,my friends owns a rexxie(subaru)
and its a great car.

and by the way the cars weigh the same.
info gotten from a supercompact car mag.
 
Mitsubishi Evo IX all the way man. IMO Subaru's suck and the styling for them has been going down hill (thanks to GM 👎) I mean for a while they looked sweet but now they are what I call a Saabaru. (if you don't get that part nvm....)
 
First of all,this is OLD NEWS! Since when this thread is started?(December 03,2006) I rest my case.But i do have a few things to say,if we are talking about rally production cars (Group N cars) i would have to say Subaru is better simply because their car is still rallying (especially the WRC cars).It seems the Evo IX is more for tuners (several cars made it onto the cover of a magazine,more than an Impreza i think...).But if we are talking about car performance,the Evo had done better than the Impreza and mind you,an Evo IX MR (or a FQ model) made more horsepower than the STi (or the ST204).I think it was around 320hp.And with the AYC and Active differential,it made the Impreza look dull :) .But this thread shouldn't be discuss anymore,lets get on with another new generation of the Evo and the Impreza.
 

Latest Posts

Back