Subaru EVO?

I just saw another article about the new WRX STI. Had this photo:

I thought "man that looks like an EVO". Here's one now:

But is that necessarily a bad thing?

i'm curious about the amount of suspension travel it has. I'm not trilled about the MASSIVE front overhang, Subaru needs to come out with something smaller if they ever want to venture back into rally. It doesn't look bad at all, but it reminds me of the legacy gt from 2 generations ago if updated for today

I just showed a co-worker who commented, so an evo and focus st had an unprotected makeout session

In reply to captdownshift:

They won't return to rally until the rules are changed or Subaru makes an inline engine. The top tiers of the sport have a spec trans, which requires an inline engine.

Not that Subaru did very well anyway..

captdownshift wrote: i'm curious about the amount of suspension travel it has. I'm not trilled about the MASSIVE front overhang, Subaru needs to come out with something smaller if they ever want to venture back into rally. It doesn't look bad at all, but it reminds me of the legacy gt from 2 generations ago if updated for today I just showed a co-worker who commented, so an evo and focus st had an unprotected makeout session

With the way that Subaru connects the motor to the transmission to get the front drive component of AWD, the overhang has to be there. The entire motor, plus part of the transmission is in front of the centerline of the front wheels. Its a built-in compromise of the packaging.

Every vehicle has its compromises.

"Its what makes a Subaru, a Subaru!"

Knurled wrote: In reply to captdownshift: They won't return to rally until the rules are changed or Subaru makes an inline engine. The top tiers of the sport have a spec trans, which requires an inline engine. Not that Subaru did very well anyway..

Me thinks you need to read up on your rally history. Scoobie 3 WRC manufacturers world titles to 1 for MisterBitchy

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

Knurled wrote: In reply to captdownshift: They won't return to rally until the rules are changed or Subaru makes an inline engine. The top tiers of the sport have a spec trans, which requires an inline engine. Not that Subaru did very well anyway..

Me thinks you need to read up on your rally history. Scoobie 3 WRC manufacturers world titles to 1 for MisterBitchy

Who said the standard for WRC performance was Mitsubishi?

Compared to Citroen, Peugeot or Lancia they are both way down in the standings.

EvanB wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

Knurled wrote: In reply to captdownshift: They won't return to rally until the rules are changed or Subaru makes an inline engine. The top tiers of the sport have a spec trans, which requires an inline engine. Not that Subaru did very well anyway..

Me thinks you need to read up on your rally history. Scoobie 3 WRC manufacturers world titles to 1 for MisterBitchy

Who said the standard for WRC performance was Mitsubishi? Compared to Citroen, Peugeot or Lancia they are both way down in the standings.

Fair enough, but back in the Group A days when cars were 'relatively' close to production the Delta Integrale, Cosworth Sierra, Legacy/Impreza/WRX/STi and MisterBitch Evo's all won their fair share of championships. For many many years since then the pretty much default go too club car with turbo and AWD has been Scoobie. It's almost inconceivable to say they weren't that good.

EvanB wrote: Who said the standard for WRC performance was Mitsubishi? Compared to Citroen, Peugeot or Lancia they are both way down in the standings.

All companies that burned (10's? 100's??) of millions upon millions of dollars for decades at the sport. Subaru essentially came and went, same with Mitsubishi. Both kicked ass, and then the rules were written as such to sort of neuter them.

i'll say this, the lack of mechanical DNF's on stage for subarus is impressive. the fact that they don't have a super 2000 car using the new wrx lump planned is well...

NGTD wrote: With the way that Subaru connects the motor to the transmission to get the front drive component of AWD, the overhang has to be there. The entire motor, plus part of the transmission is in front of the centerline of the front wheels. Its a built-in compromise of the packaging. Every vehicle has its compromises. "Its what makes a Subaru, a Subaru!"

Actually... if you look at the engine layout, Subarus are better for packaging. Most transverse AWD setups are spaced forward so the axles angle back to the hubs, for firewall/steering clearance. Subarus put the rack under the engine and everything is spaced back so the axles angle forward (significantly!) to the hubs. A Subaru engine length-wise is not really all that much different than a transverse engine width-wise once you stick the manifolds on the front of it. And, the kicker, Subarus only have the engine in front of the front wheels, the trans is entirely behind it save for part of the input shaft and bellhousing. A transverse AWD will have the entire engine AND entire trans in front of the front wheels... advantage: Subaru.

This isn't like the old Audis with the iron five hung way over the nose, set forward to clear the firewall mounted rack.

Now, the question remains - if Subarus are so good in theory, why does everyone say the Evos own its face when it comes to handling? I suppose the answer is that a car is not its spec sheet, you can theorize about advantages all you want but it means nothing if someone else got the suspension geometry or the Ackerman curve or the center diff better.

Adrian_Thompson wrote: For many many years since then the pretty much default go too club car with turbo and AWD has been Scoobie. It's almost inconceivable to say they weren't that good.

And here I thought it was the Evo III/Evo IV.

Lancia pwned everyone in Group A until they left. Just like they pwned in Group B.

Interesting: Mitsubishi campaigned a Group A car in the WRC era. Their return with a WRC spec car did not fare well.

captdownshift wrote: i'll say this, the lack of mechanical DNF's on stage for subarus is impressive. the fact that they don't have a super 2000 car using the new wrx lump planned is well...

Find a way to connect a flat four to a transverse AWD transmission and give Subaru a ring. Super 2000 has a spec transmission, you use it or you don't play. The spec transmission is transverse with a front diff that is externally adjustable only with tools (no active diffs).

I get the feeling that Subaru knows the evo is no longer competition in the retail segment, and they're updating the WRX/STi accordingly

Subaru has been stealing styling from others for a little while I think in the 2000s they realized they could not make a good looking car after the GC8 so they went off the wall for a while then stole the Mazda 3 design in 08ish now its the EVO.

Less then surprised, just wish they would make something I would lust after again not some half assed built "it will do" car.

Last I heard the evo is done after the current model.

In reply to Knurled:

I think its that the evo has always had a better chassis for tarmac and the subaru for off road.

i heard Subaru got out of Rally because they outlawed the "Coexist" bumper sticker, and they wanted all the teams to put one on their car so that the average Subaru owner could relate to it...

EvanB wrote: Last I heard the evo is done after the current model.

I heard that about the last one, too. I think the product planning goes something like this:

"We want to concentrate on fuel efficient cars not these irresponsible high powered things."

(later)

"Hey guys, I gave it some thought, and it would probably be really dumb of us to stop making our only car that people actually want to buy."

It seems like there are two kinds of Mitsubishi owners: People who want Evos, and people who want something cheap but the Kia dealership wouldn't approve their loan.

In reply to yamaha:

I think a few losers of the rallycross national challenge would beg to differ.

Yah, out of two Evos entered, there were three national champions driving them. PA was won with the same car that won SA down to the SA-legal tires, and MA was won in a PA-legal car. Again.

Freakin' Evos. They collectively beat like fifty Subaru drivers.

I like the ferrari FF driveline layout. If subaru really wanted to make a performance car they'd do something like this dry sumped to keep the engine mounted nice and low.

EvanB wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

Knurled wrote: In reply to captdownshift: They won't return to rally until the rules are changed or Subaru makes an inline engine. The top tiers of the sport have a spec trans, which requires an inline engine. Not that Subaru did very well anyway..

Me thinks you need to read up on your rally history. Scoobie 3 WRC manufacturers world titles to 1 for MisterBitchy

Who said the standard for WRC performance was Mitsubishi? Compared to Citroen, Peugeot or Lancia they are both way down in the standings.

Well to be fair only one of those 3 actually made an affordable road car, none of them now, and thats really what matters here.

It's not like anything done at WRC has any bearing with real life anyway.

Even toward the end of the Group A days when cars theoretically had to be homologated, they didn't look anything like what you'd find on the street except for superficially. WRC rules basically cut the pretense out, because the rally cars were all "funny cars" anyway.

Group N was where you saw cars that were much much closer to what you could actually buy on a showroom, except nobody made new cars that met the rules anymore, so Group N was morphed into Super 2000 (not the old Super 2000 that was turned into Super 1600 when the S2000 cars were sometimes faster than WRC) which is basically the WRC rules with a spec gearbox and no turbo allowed.

Take away the dramatic action shot, and it looks like a boring economy car with a Pep Boys wing. Ugh.