EVO8 and kompressor
11-25-2004, 10:14 AM
#11
Registered User
I had an SLK 230 when they first came out. I put a pully, supersprint headers, & Remus exhaust on it. Made it quite a bit faster. When the S2000 first came out I raced a few and beat them (I think the people were getting used to driving them, figuring out their driving capabilities). Once out for a while, I got beat by the S2K, but not that bad. The new "230" no longer have the 2.3 L SC I4 engine. It is now a 1.8 L SC I-4 putting out 189 hp. With mods it can be decently fast, but not close to an S2000.
An Evo from a roll is not "much" faster than your car. Once he loses his AWD advantage the roll on times of an Evo are not that impressive. He might have more hp/torque than you but now the AWD becomes a disadvantage (weight, and the fact of pushing hp through another mechanical device), not to mention the Evo is substantially heavier than your car.
An Evo from a roll is not "much" faster than your car. Once he loses his AWD advantage the roll on times of an Evo are not that impressive. He might have more hp/torque than you but now the AWD becomes a disadvantage (weight, and the fact of pushing hp through another mechanical device), not to mention the Evo is substantially heavier than your car.
11-25-2004, 12:27 PM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Devil's Island
Posts: 13,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fanman,Nov 25 2004, 11:14 AM
An Evo from a roll is not "much" faster than your car. Once he loses his AWD advantage the roll on times of an Evo are not that impressive. He might have more hp/torque than you but now the AWD becomes a disadvantage (weight, and the fact of pushing hp through another mechanical device), not to mention the Evo is substantially heavier than your car.
LOL, I was not going to comment on this thread, but I had too once I seen this
I've said it a million times and I'll say it again. That is one of the most overrated comments I have ever seen. "the Evo is not fast from a roll" Believe me the Evo is pleanty fast from a roll, yes enough to take out a MB 230 Kompressor or an S2000 (I've done it) When my car was stock I pulled on our S2K from a roll after 4th gear and the S had the advantage by taking off first. Now when we race from a roll, I can put mulitple cars pretty quick.
The guy driving the Evo probably thought he wasnt gonna run since he was messing around and didnt bite. I dont know, too many variables. But I can guarantee you AWD cars are not slow from a roll. With my current mods, turboback and intake, If I leave it in 2nd gear ready to take off (which I love doing) I can pull instantly on most cars. Remember, most Evo's nowadays arent stock, a turboback exhaust and a simple ecu reflash can get an Evo into the 12's add cams and your at mid 12's, not bad for $15-1800.
Anyways, just my .02 cents, not flaming at all, but I have experienced the S vs Evo from a dead stop and roll.
11-25-2004, 12:57 PM
#13
Registered User
I'm not talking about a modified Evo. A bone stock Evo while still fast, from a roll is not as fast as the other cars in it's class. If you look at other 13 sec. cars (ala 911, M3, Corvette) they will all be faster than the Evo from a roll. The Evo is fast but it loses much of it's very high peroformance once from a roll, vs. dropping the clutch at 5000 rpm. I'm not saying it becomes slao, and I never said a Kompressor would beat it, but compared to it's 1/4 mi. times it will lose some of it's performance. Is it faster than the S2000, yes. But is it light years ahead of the S2000 once you race from speed, no.
From Sport Compact Car :
5-60 mph (rolling start)
Stock Evo : 7.2 sec.
M3 : 5.2 sec.
Porsche C4S : 5.5 sec.
Audi S4 : 5.8 sec.
5-100 mph
Stock Evo : 16.0 sec.
M3 : 12.6 sec.
Porsche C4S : 12.4 sec.
Audi S4 : 14.2 sec.
30-50 mph
Stock Evo : 3.2 sec.
M3 : 1.9 sec.
Porsche C4S : 2.2 sec.
Audi S4 : 2.4 sec.
50-70 mph
Stock Evo : 3.2 sec.
M3 : 2.7 sec.
Porsche C4S : 2.5 sec.
Audi S4 : 3.0 sec.
The C5 Corvette would probably even be faster than the above cars from a roll. Not saying a stock Evo is slow, but compared to it's 1/4 mi. times & comparable cars, if you take on an Evo from a roll you have a much better chance than from a stop.
This is not a $ argument so please don't bring that up. I am just pointing out cars with similar 1/4 mi. times, but drastically different stop/roll characteristics.
From Sport Compact Car :
5-60 mph (rolling start)
Stock Evo : 7.2 sec.
M3 : 5.2 sec.
Porsche C4S : 5.5 sec.
Audi S4 : 5.8 sec.
5-100 mph
Stock Evo : 16.0 sec.
M3 : 12.6 sec.
Porsche C4S : 12.4 sec.
Audi S4 : 14.2 sec.
30-50 mph
Stock Evo : 3.2 sec.
M3 : 1.9 sec.
Porsche C4S : 2.2 sec.
Audi S4 : 2.4 sec.
50-70 mph
Stock Evo : 3.2 sec.
M3 : 2.7 sec.
Porsche C4S : 2.5 sec.
Audi S4 : 3.0 sec.
The C5 Corvette would probably even be faster than the above cars from a roll. Not saying a stock Evo is slow, but compared to it's 1/4 mi. times & comparable cars, if you take on an Evo from a roll you have a much better chance than from a stop.
This is not a $ argument so please don't bring that up. I am just pointing out cars with similar 1/4 mi. times, but drastically different stop/roll characteristics.
11-25-2004, 01:30 PM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Devil's Island
Posts: 13,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice...Although, I dont like going by magazine #'s I know what your saying. Im not trying to make it an arguement. I was mearly pointing out most say its slow from a roll, which its not.
LOL, put it this way, when I was thinking about getting the Evo. I had heard they are slow from a roll, and they lose their steam after 80-100, so I was like "damn, im gonna get smoked by Civics after 100mph"? Once I got it, and it was broken in I tested it out and it hit 140 like nothing and was still pulling.
BTW, I just drove an 04 Cobra (probably get flamed for this) but it felt slow compraed to my Evo. I was thinking about a Cobra until the test drive. It made me appreciate my Evo even more if anything.
LOL, put it this way, when I was thinking about getting the Evo. I had heard they are slow from a roll, and they lose their steam after 80-100, so I was like "damn, im gonna get smoked by Civics after 100mph"? Once I got it, and it was broken in I tested it out and it hit 140 like nothing and was still pulling.
BTW, I just drove an 04 Cobra (probably get flamed for this) but it felt slow compraed to my Evo. I was thinking about a Cobra until the test drive. It made me appreciate my Evo even more if anything.
11-25-2004, 01:55 PM
#15
Banned
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bothell
Posts: 2,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fanman,Nov 25 2004, 01:57 PM
30-50 mph
Stock Evo : 3.2 sec.
M3 : 1.9 sec.
Porsche C4S : 2.2 sec.
Audi S4 : 2.4 sec.
50-70 mph
Stock Evo : 3.2 sec.
M3 : 2.7 sec.
Porsche C4S : 2.5 sec.
Audi S4 : 3.0 sec.
Stock Evo : 3.2 sec.
M3 : 1.9 sec.
Porsche C4S : 2.2 sec.
Audi S4 : 2.4 sec.
50-70 mph
Stock Evo : 3.2 sec.
M3 : 2.7 sec.
Porsche C4S : 2.5 sec.
Audi S4 : 3.0 sec.
Actually, the Evo is not in the same class as those cars. It has at least 50 hp less than those. The reason it's almost nearly as fast in the 1/4 mi is because of the AWD; otherwise, from a roll, of course it would be slower because of the much less hp. You should compare it to a 350Z or Mustang GT or some other cars in the same hp range. From a roll, it's still as fast or faster than those cars. Therefore, the AWD disadvantage is not as big as you think.
11-25-2004, 09:45 PM
#16
Registered User
Originally Posted by Officer_down,Nov 25 2004, 10:55 PM
Were these measured in top gears? If so, it's meaningless in relation to racing.
Actually, the Evo is not in the same class as those cars. It has at least 50 hp less than those. The reason it's almost nearly as fast in the 1/4 mi is because of the AWD; otherwise, from a roll, of course it would be slower because of the much less hp. You should compare it to a 350Z or Mustang GT or some other cars in the same hp range. From a roll, it's still as fast or faster than those cars. Therefore, the AWD disadvantage is not as big as you think.
Actually, the Evo is not in the same class as those cars. It has at least 50 hp less than those. The reason it's almost nearly as fast in the 1/4 mi is because of the AWD; otherwise, from a roll, of course it would be slower because of the much less hp. You should compare it to a 350Z or Mustang GT or some other cars in the same hp range. From a roll, it's still as fast or faster than those cars. Therefore, the AWD disadvantage is not as big as you think.
In terms of pure 0-60 & 1/4 mi. times the Evo is very much in line with these cars and has posted similar #'s. This does come from the AWD advantage, and after the 1/4 mi. or from the rolls the Evo is obviously at a disadvantage. The reason why I brought this up was that people look at the 1/4 mi. times or 0-60 and assume that the Evo would slaughter an S2000 like an M3, or 911 would. I'm trying to point out that this would not be true if they raced from a roll. That the results would be closer. From a $ & hp perspective the Evo is closer to a 350 Z or Mustang GT, but we are not talking about $ here, but just performance/race from a roll. I still think the Evo would be faster, but I don't think it would be a bad race. That test has not been done yet (350Z vs. Evo vs. Mustang GT). I would not throw a bunch of #'s together from different tests becasuse I think that is inaccurate. Different drivers, different conditions, different tracks. The example I pointed out, all the cars were in a single test, so same drivers, same conditions, same track.
11-26-2004, 09:30 AM
#19
Registered User
I agree with your posts. From a roll the Evo will post times that would probably be a little bit better than the 350Z or Mustang GT. At that point the only disadvantage of the AWD is the slight weight increase of the AWD system & maybe 1%-2% drivetrain loss of the power having to go through the AWD system at speed. Those of us who actually know/driven these cars know that. I just didn't want some people looking at the 0-60 & 1/4 mi. times and assume the Evo is that fast across the board. Fast, hell yeah.
MrGTR,
I only posted what was in the article. Everybody was slow in the article. They were running 13.6's for the M3 & 911. They had a seperate Vishnu Evo stage 0 car, that was clobbering the other cars in the 0-60 & 1/4 mi. tests but still could not post faster "roll" numbers than the M3 or 911.
MrGTR,
I only posted what was in the article. Everybody was slow in the article. They were running 13.6's for the M3 & 911. They had a seperate Vishnu Evo stage 0 car, that was clobbering the other cars in the 0-60 & 1/4 mi. tests but still could not post faster "roll" numbers than the M3 or 911.
