After driving the WRX STi, I just had to also test its archrival, the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution. But how?
(Note: This is a slightly more polished version of a review I posted back in October 2004. I just learned that there are two listings, and my original review was the only one at the other listing. There is no need to read both reviews.)
Evos had always been scarce, and the only one at the dealer nearest me was the 2005 MR edition with an official “do not demo” sticker attached to the window.
But the week after driving the STi I had my oil changed at a Mazda dealer in another part of town, and the Mitsubishi dealer next door had a 2003 Evo parked outside. As with the STi, I assumed that with a used Evo it would be easier to get a test drive without swearing my willingness to buy one on the spot. (Sure, the STi and Evo are cars I could conceivably buy if I loved them, but as a rule I never claim I’m ready to buy that day.)
I inquired inside, and learned that the car was actually new, with only 153 miles on the odometer. (I never obtained a full explanation of why a car that had been manufactured in September 2003 had so few miles, only that “it had never been titled.”) New or not, I got my test drive. Two in fact, the second without the salesman.
I was taking a considerable risk here. My favorite cars tend to be compacts, and, along with the STi, the Evo is the highest performance compact going. So this was a car I might really love and have to dig up the cash for.
After driving the Evo, I returned to the Subaru dealer and drove a second WRX STi, to confirm my impression of the differences between them. My conclusions follow.
Styling
Neither the STi nor the Evo is a beauty. Still, the Evo's exterior is more attractive than that of the run-of-the-mill Lancer it is based on. Credit large alloys and a sleeker front end. Both the Evo and the STi are available with a huge trunk-mounted wing, and those I drove were so equipped. I suppose it's there to broadcast that this is no ordinary compact. Every time I glanced in the rearview mirror, though, my initial reaction was that another car was right behind my rear bumper.
Inside both supercompacts are rather pedestrian. But where the STi’s interior is merely plain, with solid materials, the Evo’s interior looks and feels cheap. The climate control knobs feel especially flimsy. This is probably my largest issue with the car, and the one that keeps my lust at bay: I cannot imagine spending $30,000 for a car with an interior unfit for a $10,000 car. And I’m not comparing the Evo to more expensive cars. The interior in the Protege5 I paid $13,000 for puts this one to shame, and that in the high teens Mazda3 is in another league.
Accommodations
You sit lower in the Evo than in the STi, or the instrument panel is taller, or both. Whatever the reason, I prefer the STi's more open driving position. Neither driver's seat is adjustable for height, and at its standard height the Evo’s seat felt too low relative to the steering column to me. I had a hard time adjusting the wheel to please both my hands and my eyes. I have to see the instruments, especially since the Evo, unlike the STi, has no beep to warn of the approaching redline, so my hands lost out.
The Recaro buckets in the Evo are reasonably comfortable and provide exceptional lateral support—an advantage over the STi’s merely very good seats if you expect to explore the car’s cornering ability. The Recaros have a rotary recline adjuster, which is bad for accessibility but good if levers always leave you wanting a position between detents.
The Lancer is a half-foot longer than the Impreza, yet somehow this does not translate into a roomier rear seat. That in both cars is pretty tight, but both heads and knees are most in danger of making contact with the ceiling and front seatbacks, respectively, in the Evo. The Evo’s rear seat is also positioned low to the floor, so forget about thigh support.
Trunk space is okay in both cars, but folding rear seats have been sacrificed on the altar of structural rigidity.
On the Road
Now for the reason people buy these cars. Unlike the American market STi, the Evo adheres to the World Rally Championship's 2.0-liter standard, so it's down a substantial half a liter. Still, it kicks out 90 percent of the STi’s power, 271 vs. 300. The obvious source: more boost, a lofty 19 pounds vs. 14.5 in the STi.
More boost and smaller cylinders translate into a much weaker engine before the boost kicks in, and greater boost lag as well. While the STi engine’s power is generally RIGHT THERE, with the Evo it takes a moment or two after you floor the throttle for serious thrust to occur. Not only must boost pressure build up, but this is simply a peakier engine. In the STi, major power is available from the high 2000s. The Evo's powerplant needs about another thousand rpm.
The sounds made by both engines differ, as might be expected from an flat vs. an inline configuration. But it’s more than this. In the STi you hear every last mechanical component—the engine, the transmission, the driveline. In the Evo you mostly hear the turbo. It’s a loud one, whether by location or design much louder than that in the Subaru. Given the boost lag I mentioned earlier, the sound you often hear is of this turbo spooling up. The Evo engine might be quieter, but it is less smooth. At idle the engine vibrates the whole car. Rigid engine mounts?
Boost lag isn’t all bad. While the STi is a bit difficult to drive around town—keep the revs low or it just wanted to go—drive the Evo normally and the engine doesn’t feel all that different than that in a regular Lancer. If you want big power, you have to seek it. Frankly, the 2.4-liter in the Lancer Ralliart feels stronger in typical suburban driving (i.e. engine speed under 3500).
Of course, seek and yee shall find. Keep the engine on boil and the Evo is a very quick car, a touch quicker than the STi in one comparison test. In the STi’s defense, it has six more closely spaced ratios vs. the Evo’s five, and this forces an extra shift before sixty. Pick a speed other than sixty that requires the same number of shifts, and the STi should have a slight edge.
Subjectively, the STi feels considerably quicker than the Evo. Credit a much plumper midrange, shorter gearing in those crucial first few gears, and much less turbo lag. When the Evo’s turbo is pumping out those nineteen pounds of air the car flies, but because this power comes on more gradually—the Mitsu doesn’t produce a kick in the lower back to nearly the degree the Subaru does—the car feels less quick than it is. Let’s just say that once I glanced down and spotted the Evo's speedo needle FAR closer to the triple digit mark than I thought it was. Thankfully, the Evo’s Brembo brakes feel even stronger than those fitted to the STi.
Shift quality is iffy in both cars, but more in the STi than in the Evo. The STi’s shifter is downright crunchy, with some balkiness thrown in for good measure. In comparison, with the Evo’s shifter you merely feel every last bit of the mechanism as you snick from gate to gate—even more than I recall in the Lancer Ralliart that supposedly uses the same shifter. I would expect no less from a short-throw shifter, except that the Subaru Legacy’s optional short-throw shifter is buttery smooth from gate to gate, a pure delight. This is the shifter the STi and Evo should have.
The engine gets most of the public’s attention, but what really made me interested in driving the Evo was its steering. Steering feel is my big thing. The STi’s steering disappointed me, with an overly damped feel for my tastes. (Note: The steering of the regular WRX was significantly improved for 2006, and the STi's might have been upgraded at the same time.) I’d read that the Evo had a significant advantage in this area. Well, it does. The Evo’s steering is much quicker, with a more direct feel. Too quick for typical driving? Not for me, but maybe for you.
That said, even the Evo’s steering trails that of a good sports car. Its feel remains less direct than in a Miata or MR2. Why can’t a sedan steer like a sports car? I seriously want to know.
The Evo, like the STi, channels power through all four wheels, and this makes for generally balanced handling. Where the STi feels more hunkered down (I suppose the loud mechanical soundtrack has something to do with this) the Evo feels more agile. I usually prefer agile, but both have their attractions for me in this case. In either car power oversteer is easy to produce and easy to catch once produced. Both corner with very little lean, courtesy of extremely stiff suspensions.
I did encounter one issue with the Evo that I haven’t read about elsewhere. A few times when I eased off (but not entirely off) the throttle when driving quickly through a turn, the car bucked as if the engine was hitting the rev limiter. Engine speed was about 4000 RPM, so the rev limiter was clearly not involved. And the fuel tank was half full, so I do not suspect starvation. (Also, the Evo is designed for racing, which would involve much harder turns than I was subjecting it to.) Just a lot of driveline lash that surfaces when torque is reduced? Just this particular car?
Now we come to the area that killed the STi for me: ride quality and noise levels. Both cars are very stiffly sprung. Magazines have stated that the STi rides more smoothly than the Evo. This needs to be qualified. First, the tires on the Evo are significantly quieter both in terms of “roar” while going down the road and the “bump-thump” when going over tar strips and the like. Although noise levels are separate from ride quality they do influence the perception of ride quality. Second, while the Evo reacts more sharply to bumps and chuckholes in the road, especially at moderate speeds, the STi’s ride is busier, especially at highway speeds. The motions in the STi are less abrupt, but they are more frequent. The constant vertical motions on the highway in the STi combined with its high level of tire roar are much more objectionable to me than the Evo’s greater roughness over road imperfections. In short, for me the Evo is the more suitable car for regular driving.
Mitsubishi Evo Reliability
Some things I cannot practically cover within the context of a review because of frequent changes, a large number of variables, or both. One of these is reliability information. However, many people are interested in such information, so I've started collecting my own data. Results, once they are available, will be posted to my site, www.truedelta.com, with updates every three months.
Unlike other sources, TrueDelta will clearly identify what difference it will make if you buy an Evo rather than something else by providing "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats (among others). You will be able to specify the number of years, annual miles, and types of repairs to include in Mitsubishi Evo reliability comparisons.
Before I can report results, I need data on all cars--not just the Evolution--from people like you. To encourage participation, those who help provide the data will receive free access to the site's reliability information.
For the details, and to sign up, visit www.truedelta.com.
Mitsubishi Evo Pricing
Current prices and price comparisons for the Evo can be found here:
http://www.truedelta.com/models/Lancer.php
I wrote the following back in the fall of 2004.
The regular Evo is a few thousand dollars less expensive than the STi, while the new even higher performance MR version costs a few thousand more than the STi. Both cars hold their value well. The Subaru dealer had three STi’s, and even the 2004 with 37,000 miles on it had a “sale price” of $24,995. The asking prices for the other two were around thirty. With the new 2003 Evo I drove the dealer would not go below $28,000. With a real deal on the car I might have truly been tempted, but why buy a two-year-old car, even if new, for nearly as much as a 2005?
The bottom line: drive them both, then buy the one you like. The prices are much closer together than the cars’ characters, so the latter rather than the former should be the deciding factor.
Last Words
So, which would I buy? This is a tough one, because both cars possess serious flaws. With the Evo, I just cannot imagine spending $30,000 for a car with such a cheap interior. I also didn’t care for its driving position, but could have adapted to it. With the STi, I found the ride quality and road noise levels at highway speeds close to unbearable. A different tire might fix the noise issue. I suggest that used on the Evo. The ride quality might also improve with different tires, but this is less likely. An aftermarket suspension is a dicier proposition.
One the positive side of the ledger, the STi has the better engine, while the Evo has better steering. Usually this would incline me toward the Evo, but the thrust produced by the Subaru engine is intoxicating.
Ultimately if forced to choose between these two cars I’d opt for the Subaru for the wrong reason—its interior doesn’t feel as cheap.
No one needs to comment that I must be getting old. Thanks to these cars I’ve figured that out already.
My reviews of related vehicles:
Audi S4
Dodge Neon SRT-4
Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart
Subaru WRX STi
Amount Paid (US$): 32000
Model Year: 2003
