a slap in the face to EVO owners - Tuner-Junction

Clone · #1 (**permalink**) March 14th, 2006, 06:36 PM

Taken from S2Ki

Quote:

There seems to be much confusion on this subject, so we at S2ki, as a public service, would like to clear up this not-so-puzzling mystery once and for all.

For all intents and purposes, most of what’s written also applies to the “performance” offerings from Subaru (the Sti) and to a lesser extent Mazda’s new AWD Mazdaspeed 6.

The Lancer Evolution VIII is a fine car. It has loads of power, even without the aftermarket boost kits so prevalent these days. It handles reasonably well under most circumstances and exceptionally well in the wet, due to its AWD capabilities. It offers a full range of models, from the very Spartan RS, up to the tuner-special MR, and offers it all in a similar price range of an S2000. (A little more or less depending on model, options, and discounts which abound on struggling Mitsubishi’s products)

All the above said, how does the Evo compare to Honda’s S2000? There’s NO comparison!!!! They are two completely different animals and shouldn’t even be spoken about in the same breath.

The LANCER Evolution is based on Mitsubishi’s econobox the Lancer. This is a car designed to be built and sold for a very low cost ($14,599) and provide acceptable performance with good gas mileage. Acceptable performance with good gas mileage… not exactly the benchmarks of the sports car, are they?

I hear the Evo camp screaming… “Our car is as far from those base Lancers as a Nextel Cup car is from your old man’s Chevy!” While this would be yet another example of the monstrously gross exaggeration Evo owners are known for, there is also a modicum of truth in the statement that I’d like to address: While Nextel Cup cars don’t actually share a single part with the production models they’re loosely based on, the Evo too has upgraded a huge number of parts from the base Lancer model for even the entry level Evo the RS. While the motor, transmission, brakes and suspension have been completely upgraded, the chassis and body remain relatively intact. Regardless of upgrades, the bottom line remains that when you drive an Evo, you’re essentially driving the equivalent of a tuners version of a Toyota Corolla.

Even as purpose-built race cars, the Nextel Cup entries are very limited in their handling abilities. Each year, when they take to the course at Infineon Raceway, (a favorite of west coast S2000 racers), they have to do an abbreviated version of the course as their long awkward chassis aren’t able to navigate the tricky middle part of the sport car course.

The Evo is similarly limited. I have driven a number of S2000s and Evos on different California racetracks, and I speak from experience. The Evo is a fast car, that’s relatively easy to drive on-track. The AWD makes recovery from sticky situations much simpler, and the torque advantage allows much quicker recovery from a mistake as well as making gear selection somewhat less of a factor. Lap times are reasonably close to the S2000 with the Honda usually being just a tad faster. The difference in feel is tremendous. While the S2000 is low to the ground with a center of gravity to match, the Evo sits up much higher. The shifter in the S2000 is tight and precise while the Evo shifter feels loose and inaccurate. (In all fairness, I’ve always found the shifter on the Porsches to be pretty sloppy as well, so the Evo’s in good company there) The S2000 just fits better, and it feels like a real sports car. The Evo fells like… well, a tuner Corolla.

While the Evo may be an easier car to drive, it’s capabilities in the hands of an experienced driver prove limited without spending significant $$ on suspension and chassis upgrades. I’ll give a recent example of a clear side-by-side comparison. Recently, I had the pleasure of being an instructor at one of Speedventures High Performance Driving Events (HPDE) at Southern California’s Buttonwillow Raceway. On this particular day, I had one student who had brought his stock ’03 S2000 and another with a nearly new ’06 Evo RS. (about 1000 miles on it) We were running configuration #25 clockwise which has several very high speed sections that should favor the greater powered Evo. Coming out of Star Mazda turn, one can take an almost straight line through the esses and carry very good speed entering the short straight before sunset turn. The S2000 was able to carry greater speed through Star Mazda giving it an advantage entering the esses, but the deficit is made up in the esses with the Evo’s slightly better straight-line acceleration. Exiting the esses, both cars were at similar speed, but this is where the difference in design really shows. In the S2000, I was able to stay full out on the gas and the car would hold the turn beautifully and then whip down the straightaway. When I tried the exact same thing in the Evo, the car just couldn’t hold the turn. We quickly ran out of track and were spinning through the dirt. (My student was surprisingly calm about my off-roading his brand new $30k car through the infield, much to my appreciation)

Don't just take my word for it. S2ki member Dennis Matson owns both an Evo and an S2k; here's what he had to say:

"...if you're an average driver pulling average times, the Evo is the car you'll be happier and faster with. And reliability will probably be right there with the S2000. But if you're a fast driver, the limits of the Evo quickly become extremely frustrating and you'll have to tune the Evo to the limit of reliability (or spend a lot of money on brakes and suspension) to beat an equally fast driver in an S2000."

As Dennis mentions, a “stock” Evo can be tuned (at significant expense) to turn just as well as an S2000, (The cars tuned by Robispec of California are particularly good examples) the truth remains that even after an investment of $60k plus, you’ll still just have a really-really hot tuner-Corolla. (If you’re going to spend $60k, you might as well buy a ‘Vette. You still won’t be quite as fast on the track, but you’ll have an excuse to wear those gold chains you’ve still got sitting in your underwear drawer.)

The S2000 is a purpose-built sports car that sells for the incredible bargain price of under $35k. There is no other Honda vehicle based on the same chassis. There is no other Honda vehicle which uses the S2000s phenomenal F20 or F22 power plants. It is ready for the track the moment it rolls off the showroom floor. The brakes, suspension, and every other significant element of the S2000 was designed and built exclusively for this totally unique Honda offering. The phenomenal handling and near perfect weight distribution aren’t the result of which aftermarket parts Honda threw on after the fact as is the case with the Evo. These very deliberate performance characteristics are the product of the fundamental strategy behind this incredible vehicle, to offer the public a superior sports car experience at a significantly lower price than the competition.

The design target of the S2000 was never “acceptable performance with good gas mileage”… it was planned and built from the ground up for both straight-line and lateral speed. (Decent gas mileage was just a bonus of the incredibly efficient 4cyl. power-plant) The chassis, suspension, engine, transmission, and all other performance elements of the S2000 were inspired by Honda’s incredibly successful racing program. They’ve packed all that on-track know-how into a street car that offers the public what Car and Driver referred to as “the most fun you can have south of Ferrari prices” and caused another car mag to comment: “The S2000 is essentially a formula one car with electric windows.”

If you want a fast car that can also haul Aunt Bertha and her bridge club down to the senior center, or actually be useful on a trip home from Home Depot, then I think the Lancer Evolution VII, Subaru Wrx Sti, Mazdaspeed 6, Dodge SRt4, or VW GTi are all excellent choices.

If you want a true purpose-built sports car with acceleration, handling, finesse, and top down, wind-in-your-hair thrills, sell the house, live in a cardboard box, and buy a new Ferrari 430 Spider. Of course if you’d rather keep the house, the S2000 is a very close second choice. (Oh yeah… with what you’ll save on servicing the Ferrari over a few years, you’ll be able to buy two more S2000s)

Ferrari, Porsche, Lotus, BMW, these are the marquees to compare the S2000 against… not some poser-tuner Corolla.

scottigee · #2 (**permalink**) March 14th, 2006, 07:45 PM

That's very well written, but subjective, and I happen to disagree with the fundamental argument that S2000>Evo for a track performance vehicle.
I do agree that the fit and finish of the S2000 are of a higher quality than that of the Evo, but Mitsu has clearly allocated the cost of design/build to boost, awd, AYD, ACD, & other go fast, stop & turn well tricks.
this driver obviously had trouble migrating from the RWD to AWD platform; and I'd venture that performance wise the results will vary greatly by driver. You see my sig - I'm on an essentially stock suspension, and I was wooping up on the S2000 that was at the track that day.
I happen to think that Honda's goal with the S2k was to offer a capable roadster, with phoenominal fit and finish, that would appeal to a crowd seeking a sexier, higher quality, higher performance FR-Convertible option than the Miata.
I think Mitsu's goal with the Evo was to bring best-in-class tuned performance to the world in mass-production form.
In that sense I think Mitsubishi has executed much better when it comes to building a track ready performance monster; and that is what they set out to do.
Honda saught a more civilized vehicle, that is still very capable, but track-readiness is secondary.

Johnlude85 · #3 (**permalink**) March 14th, 2006, 08:09 PM

i dont care what anyone says...evos are sick. i dont doubt that an s2 could take one on the track, ive driven both and the s2000's handle absolutely amazingly! i couldnt believe it.

fwdtamiya · #4 (**permalink**) March 14th, 2006, 09:07 PM

Nice read, but i don't agree with much said about the evo in that article

Seems he was trying to see both sides, but couldn't figure out how to take off his blinders

s2kpr · #5 (**permalink**) March 14th, 2006, 09:16 PM

Nice, i dont absolutely agree with some points, and im a hardcore s2000 fan & Owner, but most of it is true, i havent driven yet a mitsubishi evolution, i hope i can test it out soon so i can make my own judgement.

Nice find clone!

macbasq · #6 (**permalink**) March 14th, 2006, 09:32 PM

From the dictionary:

"sports car" n.
An automobile equipped for racing, especially an aerodynamically shaped one-passenger or two-passenger vehicle having a low center of gravity and steering and suspension designed for precise control at high speeds.

hmmm... that eliminates a lot of cars if one goes strictly by definition.

i would argue that the Evo 8 is indeed a competitive choice. Albeit apples and oranges to an FR car and an AWD one, but even so it does offer competition. As far as it goes with it being a tuner-corolla, what about the different performance levels in all cars? for the sake of sticking with Honda, let's compare the CRX HF and the CRX SiR. BIG differences between those two cars, but essentially the same chassis. What about the all mighty M3? Just because the car is based on the somewhat tame three series does that make it any less capable? It even says it in the name, LANCER Evolution VIII. it's no secret it shares a chassis and components. I wouldn't discredit any car because it happens to share a platform with a car that sips gas and hauls the kids to soccer practice. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't discredit that tuner-corolla either, as long as it has some fast track times.

When it all boils down, many S2K owners have a lot of pride in their rides, and they're don't like to be associated with what could be considered a lesser ride. Yes, S2Ks were engineered specifically to be S2Ks. So what? So were Miatas (i'm 85% certain of this). That doesn't make Miatas better than Evos as far as performance goes.

Whoever wrote that article is probably frightened by the thought of getting beaten by a tuner-corolla, and I hope that at the next track day, they get walked on by one.

scottigee · #7 (**permalink**) March 14th, 2006, 11:00 PM

Let's also not forget that the Corolla, and the Lancer, and the civic, are damn fine cars....great platforms to build upon. There's no shame in maxing out a platform from the factory. it's not like Evo's are breaking in half because they're overpowering their Lancer chassis...they hold up great.

Glenfiddich_man · #8 (**permalink**) March 14th, 2006, 11:25 PM

MX-5/miata>S2000

+RandomHero+ · #9 (**permalink**) March 15th, 2006, 01:46 AM

yeah to me that whole story seemed a bit one sided, the dude obviously loves his S2000, and everything about it, but he kept refering to it as a "tuner carolla"

now his story about spinning of into the dirt...... i imagine since he said that the evo was faster in the straights he not gonna be able to go WOT into the corner, also adding to this is the stance...the S2000 is a raodster and sits low to the ground. the EVO is essentially....a rally based street car with a generally high stance, now a lower slower car is of course gonna be able to hold tight and take the carner at speed better...where as the higher faster car...is gonna get a bit squirelly if not carefull.

i have personally been in one amazing ride in an evo before 135 on an access road 120-0 in about like 100 feet i dunno that was scary sheet, i could smell burnt brakes (prolly cause they were new) and we took a highway interchancge cloverleaf thingy at close to 80mph (maybe faster i was falling outta my seatbelt). all of this was done in a brand new EVO with 10 miles on it, by the dealership owner.

honestly im not ragging this guy or ragging the S2000, but cmon this guy is totally one sided, and yes the evo and S2K are like apples and oranges

Clone · #10 (**permalink**) March 15th, 2006, 09:53 AM

yeah, I agree it's definitely a little one sided... shit, I found it on an S2000 owner's message board... so yeah, a little one sided. The owner just likes his S more is all...

it doesn't really matter. it's pretty much for entertainment purposes anyway... no one ever said it was fact.

it's still a good read

s2kpr · #11 (**permalink**) March 15th, 2006, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenfiddich_man

MX-5/miata>S2000

s2kpr · #12 (**permalink**) March 15th, 2006, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottigee

Let's also not forget that the Corolla, and the Lancer, and the civic, are damn fine cars....great platforms to build upon. There's no shame in maxing out a platform from the factory. it's not like Evo's are breaking in half because they're overpowering their Lancer chassis...they hold up great.

True , but its still isnt a performance oriented chassis, it has its limits

fwdtamiya · #13 (**permalink**) March 15th, 2006, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by s2kpr

True , but its still isnt a performance oriented chassis, it has its limits

I've yet to hear of the chassis limiting it, all cars have their limits. And based on the history/work of the evolution line and the constant high tuned builds on the evolution 8 chassis, i'm going to say the S2000 has more limits. And if we go into chassis limits, the evolution doesn't have a convertable model to design their chassis around.

macbasq · #14 (**permalink**) March 15th, 2006, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fwdtamiya

I've yet to hear of the chassis limiting it, all cars have their limits. And based on the history/work of the evolution line and the constant high tuned builds on the evolution 8 chassis, i'm going to say the S2000 has more limits. And if we go into chassis limits, the evolution doesn't have a convertable model to design their chassis around.

i'd be interested in seeing how much torsional force would be required to deflect the chassis one inch for each car.

ThirdLane · #15 (**permalink**) March 15th, 2006, 10:51 PM

s2000's limit is very high. most drivers wouldn't come close to reaching those limits but s2k at their limit is very scary though at least the pre-2004 s2k's were. they were known for their finnicky manners at the threshold of their limits. friend's dad had a 2003 s2k and drove it to a local scca meet and ended up bringing it back on a flat bed. he ended up smashing the left rear on a conrete barrier. mind you he holds scca competition license and is an avid autocrosser. he told me that thing snap oversteered without warning. just gave out, instead of a progressive(his word) break away. very scary according to him. i believ honda fixed that with the 2004 and up s2k's with revised suspension tuning.

mad-ass · #16 (**permalink**) March 15th, 2006, 11:08 PM

very good read.

fwdtamiya · #17 (**permalink**) March 15th, 2006, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macbasq

i'd be interested in seeing how much torsional force would be required to deflect the chassis one inch for each car.

That would require...like 50k + the actuall testing and...time

I would love to see the same thing though, and if we could throw in a few more cars like an eg or an ek

But I see what you're getting at, it's not about the chassis, I just thought i'd throw out my POV on the Evo vs S2 chassis

macbasq · #18 (**permalink**) March 15th, 2006, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fwdtamiya

That would require...like 50k + the actuall testing and...time

I would love to see the same thing though, and if we could throw in a few more cars like an eg or an ek

But I see what you're getting at, it's not about the chassis, I just thought i'd throw out my POV on the Evo vs S2 chassis

I'm sure the Honda engineers know from using CAE programs, they just don't publish those specs. but what do you mean that it's not about the chassis? the chassis has a huge effect on how a vehicle handles. what i was going for was that since the S2K is a convertible, i'd question it's rigidity. i just wanted to see how they stack up to eachother.

s2kpr · #19 (**permalink**) March 16th, 2006, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThirdLane

s2000's limit is very high. most drivers wouldn't come close to reaching those limits but s2k at their limit is very scary though at least the pre-2004 s2k's were. they were known for their finnicky manners at the threshold of their limits. friend's dad had a 2003 s2k and drove it to a local scca meet and ended up bringing it back on a flat bed. he ended up smashing the left rear on a conrete barrier. mind you he holds scca competition license and is an avid autocrosser. he told me that thing snap oversteered without warning. just gave out, instead of a progressive(his word) break away. very scary according to him. i believ honda fixed that with the 2004 and up s2k's with revised suspension tuning.

What circunstances were involved in the accident ? because there are many factors that can cause an accident, even most experienced drivers must learn how to drive this car, and its not very easy to control under hard oversteer, and for me, AP2 s2k's suspension setting are too bald for me

s2kpr · #20 (**permalink**) March 16th, 2006, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macbasq

I'm sure the Honda engineers know from using CAE programs, they just don't publish those specs. but what do you mean that it's not about the chassis? the chassis has a huge effect on how a vehicle handles. what i was going for was that since the S2K is a convertible, i'd question it's rigidity. i just wanted to see how they stack up to eachother.

The s2k has a very rigid chassis,and suspension setup. that is what made me buy it, besides looks and the awesome engine it has.

And also chicks dig the car jajaja