john banks

Interesting comparison to the 05 STI. T-uk's father has an 05 STI without the Prodrive pack, and we wondered if the STI was a bit more stable over bumpy roads. The Evo can move about a bit over drain covers etc. Also the rear end feels inherently unstable, presumably set to give a sportier drive. It can be tricky in the wet, agree on lift off, can be quite hairy, but with the diff on gravel it seems more stable in the wet as it keeps the diff locked a bit more and for a bit longer on turn in.

Kyl3cook

I can't understand how you came up with a torque figure from a power figure. I'm just going by what my graphs say, and these are from a DD rolling road, whether these are questionable I don't know.

My graph is in the MLR modified under kyl3cook (271.1 atw) if you want to look

http://www.lancerregister.com/mlr_modified.php

john banks

Your wheel graphs are fine, it is the flywheel extrapolation that is flawed.

Power=torque*RPM/5252 (units BHP and lbft)

365

John, I agree about the rear of the Lancer, it feels very ... for want of a better word wallowy on high speed sweepers. I just bought a MY05 STi and I'm having to eat my words a bit because the car's a big disappointment to me, I think I had my rose tinted glasses on and a big downer on CCC when I sold the FQ340. It's down on power which is easily remedied but the STi seems very heavily sprung in comparison to the Lancer and the seats are night and day worse. It may be a short stay for me, I think I may be going back to the darkside sooner than I thought. I'm going seeing about a brand new IX GSR import tomorrow, that way I don't have to feel bitter when CCC let me down on the warranty.

john banks

I think the styles of the cars are just different and have their advantages in different situations. I think overall I prefer the setup of the Evo as whilst it feels loose it doesn't seem to move too far at the back.

The Fixer

Just to clear something up.....

A certain tuner who operates a DD rolling road do not use the Dyno Dynamics Approx flywheel figures which are calculated automatically from the ATW figures. Instead they use some other calculation and "write" the flywheel figures on the graph using the inbuilt paint style package. If your figures on your original DD graph are not in a red box then they are b*llox and NOT supported by DD or the shootout standard.

kyl3cook, without seeing your original graph I cannot comment further on your Approx flywheel figures.

Conrad

jeremy

John,
Have you sampled any of the Litchfeild cars type20/25? Or a spec C? Supposed to be a bit closer in those Evo departments you like. JL

john banks

I've not jeremy. I couldn't find a JDM Scooby to try even remotely nearby. I'd be happy with either car, just when I tried an Evo I was sucked in by the tunability and the steering/seats/chassis.

Conrad, I think this practice should stop if these are shootout graphs. I won't quibble over 15-20 BHP, it is less than the inflation I expect from the most optimistic rolling roads, but I will certainly make noises over 60 lbft differences and implausible torque figures for the engine size and boost level used.

When I said 26% losses earlier, I should correct to say 24%, with the commonly used 0.76 multiplier. The point still stands though, in the midrange the losses are only 9% at Dastek.

MadGrip

Nice VII for sale HERE with sensible mods & 360 bhp ,330 lb/ft

jamesbWRXRA

MR 340 for sale on private sale items on scoobynet 05 plate 9500 miles he says he will take 18K for it as he needs money for project.Hell of a car.

Kyl3cook

stupid cheap price. If it's the same one that was advertised on the MLR, I think it's gone now.

nickwrxstiV2

Yeah it's gone!

gatty

if you got the dosh , get one ! nough said there ace trouble is you have a choice and in my opinion for 17k the evo will give you more . go on be a dosser!!

evo 8 driver / life after owning a spec c aint all bad!!