M3vs Evo vs STI - Page 2
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 26 of 26

This is a discussion on M3vs Evo vs STI within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; I just took an M3 the other day... I was in a particularly agressive mood and was heavy on the ...

  1. #16
    Registered User speelnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    the mullet godfather "TMR"
    Posts
    1,017
    I just took an M3 the other day...

    I was in a particularly agressive mood and was heavy on the gas at every stoplight. An M3 gets next to me, so I am looking over to see if he wants to go.

    No responce, so I shrug it off. Light turns, I take off normal and by the middle of the intersection I hear him get on it hard. So of course I am on it too.

    By the end of second gear my bumper was about 5ft in front of his. Every time I shifted my car I would dip back about a foot or so until I was in the next gear at which point I would take a few more feet back.

    By the end of fourth when I shut it down I was about a car length on him. He was cool about it and gave me the thumbs up. I said his car looked sweet and we were on our way.
    Former 03wrx, 04sti, 05sti, current 06civic
    "Teacher POWah"
    Team Mullet Racing
    BrianH is my biotch

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #17
    Registered User flyingace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    172
    baaah ! magazine racing..

    Tracks are the real test.

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Brians3000GT
    [B]
    Originally posted by FrankW
    car and driver tv test the STi and EVO8. The STi is quicker to 60, 1/4 mile. The EVO is quicker around the track they tested on.



    yeah you know why?.... Car and Driver hates Mitsu, they've always been biased against them and Motortrend's times have always been faster for Mitsu cars, such as the 1999 VR-4 was rated by Motortrend to do 0-60 in 4.8 and it was rated by C&D at 5.1 - they're pretty good for the most part except for when it comes to Mitsu. Motortrend is somewhat biased towards Subaru though since they rate the 0-60 time for the EVO as 4.59 and for the ST-i as 4.9, i believe for a fact that it's 4.6 for both of them and 13.0 for the 1/4 since i've seen them both run that stock at the track
    Platinum WRX Wagon Cobb Stage2
    TXS stealth back/UP with custom Magnaflow muffler
    whiteline adj rear sb, whiteline Antilift kit, whiteline rear strut brace, front strut brace, MRT lightened pulley
    No more AEM Cai ! , 3/16 mod, Grounding mod, Kartboy SS and bushing, Autometer 3 gauge pack and A-pillar

  4. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    32
    Originally posted by BLITZ's M
    I'm talking about my e36 M3. Of course I'm not talking stock, but I don't know many people with stock M3's.

    Even stock they are not "slow" bye any means. With a good driver a stock e36 can hit high 13's; it's been done. Now are they as fast as an EVO or STI stock for stock? No but they are not slow.
    Yeah but when you start throwing out stats like that it is assumed that it's stock. Furthermore, you could even quote a AA stg 4 with 600 rwhp or something ridiculous like that, but thats really not what we are talking about.

    I do agree with you that the usdm e36 m3 stock isn't the fastest car on the streets, but is quick enough to be a blast to drive. It's funny tho, in '95 when the e36 m3 was first introduced in the U.S. with its 240 hp it was considered a top dog, nowadays even honda accords have 240 hp with their v6's.

  5. #19
    Registered User FrankW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Diamond Bar CA
    Posts
    358
    Originally posted by BLITZ's M
    Ya, you're right bud 250 at the rear wheels and mid to high 13's is slow.
    dude, I didn't even mention "E36 M3 = SLOW" in any part of the post? quit imagine everyone's against your M3, jeez... I said it in comparison to the EVO8 and the STi.

    I see that you mentioned the stats you got is for your own car, but w/ those stats you'll still have a hard time dealing w/ the stock EVO or STi. Kudos to whatever the mods you have on your car. btw, the Euro S52B32 w/ 321hp would still yield more RWHP than yours I believe.

    the E36 M3 w/ the right tunning (turbo, s/c, etc) I've seen people got 600 plus hp out of that thing and has take on the Murcielago, 360 modena, etc.
    Last edited by FrankW; 05-11-2004 at 11:12 PM.
    Nothing but good ol' replicas...on my good ol' poser c240

  6. #20
    Registered User FrankW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Diamond Bar CA
    Posts
    358
    Originally posted by Brians3000GT

    yeah you know why?.... Car and Driver hates Mitsu, they've always been biased against them and Motortrend's times have always been faster for Mitsu cars, such as the 1999 VR-4 was rated by Motortrend to do 0-60 in 4.8 and it was rated by C&D at 5.1 - they're pretty good for the most part except for when it comes to Mitsu. Motortrend is somewhat biased towards Subaru though since they rate the 0-60 time for the EVO as 4.59 and for the ST-i as 4.9, i believe for a fact that it's 4.6 for both of them and 13.0 for the 1/4 since i've seen them both run that stock at the track
    dude, who cares. they are just reference numbers. C&D hates everything that doesn't come w/ the manual when doing their comparison tests.

    different magazines tested their cars differently at different places. They won't all have the same type of numbers.
    Nothing but good ol' replicas...on my good ol' poser c240

  7. #21
    Registered User TurboWill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    LI NY
    Posts
    3,109
    Originally posted by AsianWRX
    Have you taken your Sti to the track yet?
    Yes, The best run i could get was 13.24@ 104mph. But i missed third.

  8. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Hickory, NC
    Posts
    960
    Originally posted by FrankW
    dude, I didn't even mention "E36 M3 = SLOW" in any part of the post? quit imagine everyone's against your M3, jeez... I said it in comparison to the EVO8 and the STi.

    I see that you mentioned the stats you got is for your own car, but w/ those stats you'll still have a hard time dealing w/ the stock EVO or STi. Kudos to whatever the mods you have on your car. btw, the Euro S52B32 w/ 321hp would still yield more RWHP than yours I believe.

    the E36 M3 w/ the right tunning (turbo, s/c, etc) I've seen people got 600 plus hp out of that thing and has take on the Murcielago, 360 modena, etc.
    When they say 600 hp, they mean crank hp. The AA turbo kit puts out about 470whp.
    Mods

    Armed with a rotated Precision 6265 turbo at 35psi and a built 2.5 liter.

  9. #23
    Registered User AwdTurboWrx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sun Valley,CA
    Posts
    5,793
    my friend sold his 95 m3 a couple of months ago..now he got a 98 m3 convertible...time 2 see how i rack up against it
    The Ghosts of Zooph and Sarcasmo Will haunt CLUBWRX forever!!!

  10. #24
    Registered User FrankW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Diamond Bar CA
    Posts
    358
    Originally posted by ilivas
    When they say 600 hp, they mean crank hp. The AA turbo kit puts out about 470whp.
    yup, but that's still whole lot of power to go w/ the fairly light weight body if they strip it down a little.
    Nothing but good ol' replicas...on my good ol' poser c240

  11. #25
    Registered User AwdTurboWrx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sun Valley,CA
    Posts
    5,793
    sorry 2 hijack thread but do 97 and 98 m3's have the same power??? also convertible would be slower right?
    The Ghosts of Zooph and Sarcasmo Will haunt CLUBWRX forever!!!

  12. #26
    Registered User FrankW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Diamond Bar CA
    Posts
    358
    Originally posted by AwdTurboWrx
    sorry 2 hijack thread but do 97 and 98 m3's have the same power??? also convertible would be slower right?
    assume you are talking about the US version. 96-99 they all have the 240hp 3.2L power plant. The 95 had the 3.0L 240hp w/ less useful torque band.

    they convertible is slower due to weight.
    Nothing but good ol' replicas...on my good ol' poser c240

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself. We strongly suggest that you stay away from using aol, yahoo, msn, and hotmail accounts. Sometimes the mail server blocks the emails from our server. As a result you will not receive any notifications including the confirmation email.

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •