Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,565 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://www.subaru.ca/WebPage.aspx?ArticleID=4357&WebPageID=4998&WebSiteID=282

Body
5-door, 5-passenger with wide-fender design

Engine
Horizontally opposed (boxer), turbocharged/intercooled

Block
Specially reinforced die-cast aluminum with integral cast iron cylinder liners, five main
bearings, semi-closed deck cylinder design
Cylinders 4
Displacement 2,457 cc (150 cu. in.)
Bore x Stroke 99.5 x 79 mm (3.92 x 3.11 in.)

Heads/Valvetrain
Aluminum alloy cylinder heads with double overhead belt-driven camshafts (DOHC),
four valves per cylinder, Subaru Dual Active Valve Control System (Dual AVCS)
variable valve timing (operates on intake and exhaust valves)

Compression ratio 8.2:1
Max. boost pressure 760 mmHg / 14.7 PSI
Horsepower 305 @ 6,000 rpm
Torque 290 lb.-ft. @ 4,000 rpm

Fuel/Induction
Aluminum alloy intake manifold, sequential multi-port fuel injection (MFI), electronic
throttle control (ETC) system, high-boost turbocharger, cross-flow intercooler

Ignition
Direct with iridium-tipped spark plugs

Emission control
Bin 5 Tier 2 (EPA) / LEV2-California
Fuel requirement 93 octane required

Drivetrain
Symmetrical All-Wheel Drive with Driver Control Centre Differential (DCCD)
featuring three performance modes and six driver-selectable differential locking
settings; mechanical and electronically controlled limited-slip centre differential; helical
limited-slip front differential and TORSEN® limited-slip rear differential, steering angle
input sensor; multi-mode Vehicle Dynamics Control (VDC) stability and traction
control system with yaw sensor

Transmission
6-speed manual transmission
Gear ratios
1 3.636
2 2.235
3 1.521
4 1.137
5 0.971
6 0.756
R 3.545
Final drive 3.90

Chassis
Unitized body construction with Ring-Shaped Reinforcement Frame structure; high-
tensile steel reinforcements at key structural and suspension-mounting locations

Suspension
4-wheel independent, high-performance sport-tuned

Front
Inverted struts with forged aluminum-alloy lower A-arms, crossmember stiffener bar,
coil springs, stabilizer bar, STI designed components and geometry

Rear
Double-wishbone type with coil springs and damper units, stabilizer bar and STI
designed components and geometry

Brakes
Brembo Performance Brake System, power assisted 4-wheel disc with 4-channel, 4-
sensor Super-Sport Anti-lock Brake system (ABS) with g-sensor; Electronic Brake-
force Distribution (EBD), Brake Assist

Front disc
33 cm (13.0 in.) ventilated with four-piston fixed position calipers

Rear disc
32 cm (12.6 in.) ventilated with twin-piston fixed position calipers

Steering
Quick-ratio rack-and-pinion with engine-speed controlled variable power assist, load-
sensing valve, variable-capacity power steering pump and power steering fluid cooler

Ratio 15.0:1
Turns, lock-to-lock 2.8
Turning circle 36.1

Wheels
Std.: 18 x 8.5JJ BBS® forged-alloy

Tires
Std.: 245/40R18 93W Dunlop SP Sport 600 summer tire

Exterior Dimensions

Wheelbase 262 cm (103.3 in.)
Length 441 cm (173.8 in.)
Height 148 cm (58.1 in.)
Width 178 cm (70.7 in.)
Track (front/rear) 153 cm/154 cm (60.2 in./60.6 in.)

Ground clearance /Curb weight
15.5 cm (6.1 in.)
Curb weight
1,540 kg (3,395 lbs.)

Interior Dimensions

Headroom (f/r) 102 cm/95.5 cm (40.3 in./37.6 in.)
Legroom (f/r) 110.5 cm/85 cm (43.5 in./33.5 in.)
Hip room (f/r) 135.6 cm/135.4 cm (53.4 in./53.3 in.)
Shoulder room (f/r) 139 cm/135 cm (54.8 in./53.2 in.)

Cargo volume
Rear seat up: 0.54 cubic metres (19.0 cu. ft.)
Rear seat down: 1.25 cubic metres (44.4 cu. ft.)

EPA interior volume 94.4 cu. ft.


Fuel Economy (Est.)

City L/100km 16.4
(mpg) 17


Highway L/100km 12.2
(mpg) 23


Fuel tank capacity
64 litres (16.9 gal)
Only thing I can see different from US spec is that BBS wheels are not an option. Doesn't say anything yet about interior equipment or safety features.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,565 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,565 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Holy F***! Did you read these specs? The only option will be body colour and wheel colour. Comes standard with leather/alcantara seats, DVD navigation with tilt screen, Sirius Satellite radio, Xenon HID, BBS forged wheels, and on and on...only thing missing is an automatic like the SST, and no sunroof.

This thing will probably be over CDN$50K!!! I think a little base GSR might be more in tune with my needs. But I would love to be rolling in this STI!

For all those that wanted the MR in a manual, take a look at the STI, then decide. I know it is fugly, but it will grow on you.
 

·
Resident Narcoleptic
Joined
·
1,696 Posts
damn all the specs for the new STI look so good, aside from of course the obesity.

if I could get past the looks I'd consider it.. I usually love hatchbacks too
 

·
Resident Narcoleptic
Joined
·
1,696 Posts
It's not that the looks grow on you, it's that you learn to avoid looking at it and instead concentrate on how it drives --at least with all the older WRXs and STIs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,565 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Only thing left to know is:

M.S.R.P.
$ TBA

Actually, I like hatchbacks, and I like the look of the STI. Here are the images pulled out of the pdf.
 

Attachments

·
Resident Narcoleptic
Joined
·
1,696 Posts
Obese, but only 3,366 lb., less weight and more power...
I know it's lighter than the Evo X but it's also a smaller car. You gotta understand, I'm coming from a car that weighs 2720 pounds and I think it's heavier than it needs to be :p 3366 pounds would be heavier than my mom's Altima and I think my sister's Maxima
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
I too am considering this car........ :)

Our ADM car will be identicle to your USDM car, but I've read it may be a bit lighter in weight - what or why I don't know ??

All the better for performance and IMHO the looks of this new Sti hatch is nice, not ugly at all ! especially compared to previous rex's, except maybe for those chrome tail lights which no doubt can be changed with alternative aftermarkets before long anyways :)

I'm just waiting to see just how good it turns out to be and it's pricing, I'd still prefer an Evo, but if this car lives up to the claims and is better priced, it might be a goer :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,565 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
I talked to my Subaru dealer today. They said that the two model codes for the STI may actually be optioned differently. For example, they said the 8G1-AA (with Silver BBS wheels) may not have the Nav system as indicated, that only the 8G1-BB (with Gold BBS wheels) would be fully decked out. I find this hard to believe. Anyway, I told them I wouldn't make a decision on what to get until all the details were in and they had a car to view in person.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
For me, it's really going to come down to price. I don't mind the looks of the STI, but certainly prefer the EVO.

Another thing to keep in mind, with the EVO being new (to Canada) it's going to be MUCH easier to get an '08 STI than EVO. Most of the 700 initial EVO's to Canada are already spoken for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,565 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
I know it's lighter than the Evo X but it's also a smaller car. You gotta understand, I'm coming from a car that weighs 2720 pounds and I think it's heavier than it needs to be :p 3366 pounds would be heavier than my mom's Altima and I think my sister's Maxima
Exterior Dimensions Comparison:
Wheelbase: STI 262 cm (103.3 in.) EVO 265 cm (104.3 in.) = + 1.0 in.
Length: STI 441 cm (173.8 in.) EVO 449.5 cm (177.0 in.) = + 3.2 in.
Height: STI 148 cm (58.1 in.) EVO 148 cm (58.3 in.) = + 0.2 in.
Width: STI 178 cm (70.7 in.) EVO 181 cm (71.3 in.) = + 0.6 in.
Track (front): STI 153 cm (60.2 in.) EVO 154.5 cm (60.8 in.) = + 0.6 in.
Track (rear): STI 154 cm (60.6 in.) EVO 154.5 cm (60.8 in.) = + 0.2 in.
Ground clearance: STI 15.5 cm (6.1 in.) EVO 13.5 cm (5.3 in.) = - 0.8 in.
Curb weight: STI 1,540 kg (3,395 lb.) EVO 1,630 kg (3,594 lb.) = + 199 lb.

Interior Dimensions Comparison:
Headroom (front): STI 102 cm (40.3 in.) EVO 100.5 cm (39.6 in.) = - 0.7 in.
Headroom (rear): STI 95.5 cm (37.6 in.) EVO 93.5 cm (36.9 in.) = - 0.7 in.
Legroom (front): STI 110.5 cm (43.5 in.) EVO 107 cm (42.2 in.) = - 1.3 in.
Legroom (rear): STI 85 cm (33.5 in.) EVO 91.5 cm (36.1 in.) = + 2.6 in.
Hip room (front): STI 135.6 cm (53.4 in.) EVO 135.5 cm (53.3 in.) = - 0.1 in.
Hip room (rear): STI 135.4 cm (53.3 in.) EVO 137.5 cm (54.1 in.) = + 0.8 in.
Shoulder room (front): STI 139 cm (54.8 in.) EVO 139 cm (54.7 in.) = - 0.1 in.
Shoulder room (rear): STI 135 cm (53.2 in.) EVO 138 cm (54.3 in.) = + 1.1 in.

Cargo Volume Comparison:
Rear seat up: STI 0.54 m^3 (19.0 cu.ft.) EVO ? Lancer (11.6 cu.ft.) = - 7.4 cu.ft.
Rear seat down: STI 1.25 m^3 (44.4 cu.ft.) EVO N/A (seats do not fold)

Engine Comparison:
Displacement: STI 2,457 cc (150 cu.in.) EVO 1,998 cc (122 cu.in.)
Bore x Stroke: STI 99.5 x 79 mm (3.92 x 3.11 in.) EVO 86.0 x 86.0 mm (3.4 x 3.4 in.)
Compression ratio: STI 8.2:1 EVO 9.0:1
Max. boost pressure: STI 760 mmHg / 14.7 PSI EVO ?
Horsepower: STI 305 @ 6,000 rpm EVO 291 @ 6,500 rpm
Torque: STI 290 lb.-ft. @ 4,000 rpm EVO 300 @ 4,400 rpm

STI has more interior space for driver and front passenger, Evo has more interior space for rear passengers. Evo is bigger on the outside but not on the inside. STI has more cargo space with seats up and tons more space with seats down (if that matters to you). Torque peak and horsepower peak is sooner in the STI. Power to weight ratio is higher for the STI. Is the Impreza based WRX STI really that much of a smaller car than the Lancer based Evo? I don't think so. They are both considered compact cars.
 

·
Resident Narcoleptic
Joined
·
1,696 Posts
wow nice digging with that info!

Since the evo really isn't that much bigger (pretty minimal differences in each dimension) the weight increase seems like a bit much. I also didn't realize the stroke on the subie engine was so short! wow. <3 the square bore/stroke of the Evo motor :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,565 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
<3 the square bore/stroke of the Evo motor :)
Yeah, I believe KMXxBadboy mentioned this peculiarity of the Evo engine in another thread. What does the bore/stroke mean in terms of engine performance, reliability, etc.?
 

·
Resident Narcoleptic
Joined
·
1,696 Posts
Here is some reading that really doesn't get you anywhere near a good answer but gives some general info:
http://g-speed.com/pbh/bore-vs-stroke.html

basically it depends on the engine, engines from other companies can't be compared, etc.. undersquare might be advantageous for some motor and for others oversquare may be.

Very generally, an oversquare engine (as the STI motor is) is more reliable, experiences less friction (as it has a shorter stroke), and can rev higher versus an undersquare. A disadvantage is reduced low end torque, as torque has much to do with the 'torque arm' distance from the crank, which on a short stroke motor is obviously smaller than a long stroke. From wikipedia I read that they tend to have lower fuel economy and higher emissions. Of course it's all very general, and much of it comes from research from very antique engines.

A square engine, in theory, can run a higher compression ratio given the same octane, or at the same compression ratio can run a lower octane than an oversquare engine. I don't know how significant of a difference we're talking about here though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
Great info there guys interesting reading.... :)

From what I know Subaru will be going to direct injection on their engines before long, so the bore/stroke ratio of the 2.5 is ideally suited to this next upgrade of theirs :)

Mitsubishi were always chasing after more torque and low down response from their engine, so maybe that's why their engines have a long stroke.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top