Fanman

Here are the numbers :

0-60
Evo 5.9
M3 5.4
C4S 5.5
S4 5.6

1/4 mi.
Evo 14.0
M3 13.6
C4S 13.6
S4 13.8

5-60
Evo 7.2
M3 5.2
C4S 5.5
S4 5.8

60-0
Evo 113 ft.
M3 110 ft.
C4S 112 ft.
S4 118 ft.

Skidpad
Evo .93
M3 .91
C4S .94
S4 .88

Lap Time (Streets of Willow)
Evo 1:37.41
M3 1:38.08
C4S 1:36.29
S4 1:39.98

Overall, they proclaimed the Evo as the winner because it performed well and seriously undercut the european automobiles. They said the Porsche was an amazing car, with the best brakes (only car whose brakes never faded during the whole test period), great precise steering, and handled very well (could not throw out the tail or get understeer), the M3 was probably the best driving experience. The S4's brakes cooked on a downhill aggresive drive, and they mentioned more than a few times the weight. They commented that they had gotten faster times on the EVO before but because of the hot weather it seemed to be suffering the most. They also had a Vishnu tuned EVO that basically killed everything else out there for about another $4200 (power, suspension, rims).

EvoVII

Nice read.. must have been bad conditions.. Evo's can usually easy break 14 in the 1/4 mile... Scot (member on this board), runs mid to high 13's and i think his car is stock (but not sure)

DavidM

5-60 = Evo 7.2

Thanks for the info, but the above really stardled me. Thats is a slower figure then for the S2000 and S2000 is really renouned for not being suited to the 5-60mph test (ie. due to it's low-end power deficit). I would have thought that the EVO would really dominate this category ... I'm basing thins on my knowledge of EVO VI which has incredibly short gearing and a lot of low-end power.

I'm surprised that the EVO VIII really that slow in the 5-60mph sprint ... I was expecing it to return around 6secs for this increment. To put this into perspective, the new Z4 3.0 returned 5.9secs for the 5-60mpoh increment just a month or two ago.

ps. The 5-60mph S2000 times that I'm refering to are from Car&Driver and re 6.8 and 7.0sec respectively (ie. 2 different tests).

pps. I'm surprised by the slow M3 lap-time that they manged. It's 2 secs of the 911 C4S's time and in most tests the M3 laps cosistantly in the same ballpark as the 911 C2 (sometimes fraction quicker, sometimes slower).

Scot

i am still waiting to get my magazine in the mail, but someone on the evolution board stated that it was 90F outside.... which would possibly cause the Evo to run slower (14.0 seconds is awful)...but I would imagine the other cars ran shitty compared to what they are capable of too.

I think car and driver got a 5-60 of 6.5 seconds or slower also........bllaaaa.

If all goes well, I will be taking my totally stock evo to Maple Grove Raceway friday night to retest.... I only got one decent run in the last time at a smaller track and got the 13.46.

Wonder why they didn't test the STI in that test..??.... Too bad the STI doesn't have the handling and feel of the Evo....it would be the clear winner if it did.

edit - vroom - great idea bout the tires... i guess since sportbikes only have 2 tires the cost is cheaper.....

Also, I would imagine it takes 15 laps or so to really get the feel of a car and the limits..... so that alone would create 2-3-4 seconds a lap difference on any car.... plus they had been driving the Evo off and on for the past 2-3 months worth of tests....so that should help it's laptimes...

vroom

To compare a SCC test to a Car and Driver test will not yield any accuracies. SCC seems to have the least sophisticated test equipment of the pack. I'm pretty sure an EVO runs the 5-60 faster than an S when run together under the same conditions.

One place I feel that we don't get a fair measure of the other cars compared to the EVO (or STI) is on the track and on the skidpad, as the EVO's tires are just plain more sticky. It would be cool sometime to see car tests like they do SportBike tests where they slap on the same rubber to equalize the variables. But then, the bike guys just seem to get true performance much better than the car mags.

All in all, EVO is the class car out now when price is taken into account, wish it were for sale 6 years ago when I needed a 4 seater as my only ride. I prefer the STI aesthetically, but it's on road performance just doesn't match up.

Gotta run out and pick up that issue of SCC, as I dropped the subscription a year ago.

protokultur

As if another demonstration was needed of this fact:

The EVO is without a doubt the best buy on the market if you want to go fast. It makes the C4S seem ridiculously overpriced, especially. What is insurance like for an EVO with a 17-year male old urban driver, I wonder?

AbusiveWombat

Another culprit for the low times is the EVO's clutch. They mentioned that it was the same car they tested a few months ago and this time around the clutch was slipping a bit. The EVO's clutch is the weak point on the car and it doesn't take many launches before it starts to slip.

AbusiveWombat

SCC's reason for not testing the STi was that they chose the EVO over the STI in their comparison.

Fanman

They did mention that the extreme heat had a bigger effect on the EVO vs. the other cars. Also the C4S is pretty much faster than the C2 in most track conditions, with a skilled driver. It is a little bit slower on the straights but with bigger, stronger brakes, and better chassis dynamics it has lapped most tracks faster than even the C2 w/sports suspension. I was pretty surprised by the 5-60 figure for the EVO as well, but figure due to heat, and the worn clutch that might have had something to do with it. I said the M3 is basically the most fun to drive, but that the europeans have managed to incoporate both comfort AND performance (albeit at a far greater cost), while the EVO had performance but left the comfort part wanting. I guess the 350Z Touring or NSX would be a closer fit to the german cars.

00S2K01S4

The S4 was also experiencing the hot weather right? I think maybe there was something wrong with the Evo.