IW STi Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,343 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Greetings all:

I've been following the STi for a year or so and lurking here. After 15 years with the CRX I think it's almost time for something new. The field seems to be down to STi, Evo and S2000. I've driven the Sube and Honda, but not the Mitsubishi.

Basically, I have two questions: 1.) In all the STi vs Evo reviews and commentary I've read, no one talks about reliability. I'm pretty skeptical about Mitsubishi over the medium to long haul. It seems like the Sube would be much more reliable... and that one could mod out differences like steering ratio and understeer if needed. Any thoughts? 2.) #3200 is pretty heavy. The STi (and I would assume Evo too) transmits a lot less road feel than a roadster. Has anyone given any serious thought to getting a few pounds out of their STi without trashing the interior or throwing off the balance?

I'm hoping to benefit from the insight of some of you who have lived with the car for a few weeks or months. A test drive really dosen't give you that.

Thanks a lot!
Paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Thoose were my choices along with a f150 lightning (build quality and fuel mileage scared me away) I actually rented a s2000 for a day to check it out and it was a fun ride but you had to rev the nuts off to get anywere BUT the top down fun was hard to walk away from. handleing/ride very simialr to the sti, brakes well my sti brakes seem to suck compared to what evryone else feels and I think when my car got pdi'ed they went crazy with tire shine and got some one the rotors but anyway, the sti has torque and lots of it something missing in the s2000 also there are few go fast goodies that really make the car any faster and they are very pricey (o but you have to love the sound when the vtec kicked in it sounds fast) as for the evo I have owned 2 mistu's bot eclipes turbo all wheel drive the x-fer case blew out of the 93 covered under recall and crank walk on the 97 warrenty but still they are pushing 19lbs of boost so where is left to upgrade? Also for my $30000 the sti just seemed to justify the price hardware wise sure I may never need 3 limited slips, adjustable toqrue split and all but at least I have it...hope that helps
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,468 Posts
sciolist said:
IAfter 15 years with the CRX...
welcome to the forum. when i bought my se-r in 91, i was this close to getting a crx. i still think they're very cool cars!

sciolist said:
It seems like the Sube would be much more reliable.
this is our believe also. (note i didn't say "hope".)

sciolist said:
...one could mod out differences like steering ratio and understeer if needed.
understeer shouldn't be a problem at all, if it's really there. regarding steering ratio, i *guess* this mod can be done (any mod can be done for the money), but i'm not sure it's worth the effort. in this case, shorter is better, but 2.7 lock-to-lock is pretty good isn't it? better than the m3, s4, among others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,343 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
drhyed:

I agree that the vtec is a cool feature. My CRX has a mildly built B16... it's fun to be able to rev to 9K. If I got the S2000, I would probably go the f/i route to put a little more power into the equation. My impression was that the S2000 was a much more visceral driving experience than the STi. I think a lot of that is the weight difference. The S is the logical progression from the CRX, but it is much more specialized (limited) than the STi. The STi I drove pulled down really well. I didn't run it enough to get a sense of fade resistance, but I expect those brakes have substantial staying power.

4mla1fn:

Yes, the CRX is a heluva car. Diminuative perhaps, but with lots of growth room built in. With a proper swap and some suspension work it really is fun to drive. Mine has been back and forth across the country nine times and on numerous extended road trips. I've lived out of it for a year, frozen it to the ground in 12" deep mud and run it pretty hard on the street. It still screams. The original clutch was still going strong at 187K when I swapped it.

I'd really like to keep most of that recreational driving experience in the new car. I guess the STi would just need to be "scaled up" 150% to account for the additional weight.

Now that I live out in Central Oregon, the AWD thing is definitely a factor. Even from a practical standpoint, dirt and snow capabilities are issues. The fact that the STi takes these to a recreational level is a huge bonus. I do think it gives up some feel on the pavement though...maybe that's partly a matter of tuning.

I think the STi's steering ratio is about 15:1 and the Evo's is about 13:1. The CRX's is about 18.5:1 stock, so either of the rally cars are going to be pretty quick. Honestly, I think 13:1 might be a bit darty for a daily driver.

Thanks guys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,468 Posts
sciolist said:
I think the STi's steering ratio is about 15:1 and the Evo's is about 13:1. The CRX's is about 18.5:1 stock.
so enlighten me. i've seen these ratios, but didn't understand what they were referring to; 15:1 is 15 of what to 1 or what? i've always figured lock-to-lock was a sufficient measure. however i'm figuring out (on the fly) why it might not be; two cars with the same lock-to-lock could produce very different amounts of angular changes in the front wheels. i assume the steering ratio measure provides a way to compare apples and apples.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,343 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Well I'll state right up front that I'm not a "car guy"... so anyone else feel free to chime in and correct me.

My assumption is that the steering ratio is the ratio of steering wheel rotation to road wheel rotation. 15:1 would mean that the road wheels were rotating 1/15 of the steering wheel turn and 13:1 would equate to 1/13.

"Turns lock to lock" tells you how many steering wheel rotations are required to execute the entire steering range, but since ranges vary from car to car, that would not be a valid indicator of relative ratio. Obviously changing the diameter of the steering wheel would also affect this ratio.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,468 Posts
sciolist said:
My assumption is that the steering ratio is the ratio of steering wheel rotation to road wheel rotation.
ah! i see. so our steering is 2.7 lock-to-lock which equals 360degrees * 2.7 = 972degrees. with a ratio of 15:1, that means our steering sweeps the wheels through an angle of 65degrees; i.e. 32.5degrees to the left and 32.5 degrees to the right. neat. so the ratio is a way to compare apples to apples. thanks.

sciolist said:
Obviously changing the diameter of the steering wheel would also affect this ratio.
actually, the ratio isn't affected by the *size* of the steering wheel. all it does is change how much force is needed to turn the wheel; a smaller wheel will require more force whereas a big wheel requires less force.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,343 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Point well taken 4, that was pretty poorly stated.

I was thinking in terms of circumfrential travel. If you rotate a larger diameter wheel 6" you're going to get less turn than the same 6" rotation of a smaller diameter wheel (assuming equal ratios). I think from a subjective standpoint, that effects a person's perception of handling response... particularly with power steering.

On a related note, I believe some racks have non-linear ratios. In other words the pinion has a continuous pitch, but the rack's is varied. Presumably the assumption is that tighter turns are going to be taken at lower speeds, so the extreme ends of the rack are more aggressively threaded. Or conversely, the center of the rack is relatively more mildly threaded for high-speed stability.

Don't some Bimmers have this feature?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,468 Posts
sciolist said:
I was thinking in terms of circumfrential travel. I think from a subjective standpoint, that effects a person's perception of handling response... particularly with power steering.
ah. yep, i agree.

sciolist said:
I believe some racks have non-linear ratios. In other words the pinion has a continuous pitch, but the rack's is varied.
interesting, i'm curious how that actually works. i gotta do some searches. (drat, i should be writing a paper; not talking cars. back to work...)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
710 Posts
As for reliability, Subaru is the only car company that had every one of their models recommended in the 2003 auto report issue of Consumer Reports. BTW, it was in CR where I first learned of the STi being available.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
By the way, there's no quicker steering rack you can put in the STi. Prodrive makes one (rally part), but it's like $10k or something. The Japanese racks are all RHD.
 

·
retired mod
Joined
·
4,012 Posts
is the ratio on LHD euro models the same as usdm?
 
T

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
One of the major reasons I went with Subaru was for it's reliability. Being the owner of a Toyota, that was a major factor in my choice of cars (among many others). Also keep in mind that the Evo is not sold in Canada because it failed the 8km bumber crash test, so that should tell you a lot also. As for the S2000, I'm sure it's a great car and would love to drive one, but it's not as pratical as a daily driver as the other 2 cars mentioned. Of course I come from Canada so expect lots of snow, slush and pot holes. My car needs to run in minus 40 C and up to plus 45 Celcius. How well does the S2000 handle in a snow storn anyhow? :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
turbs said:
...Also keep in mind that the Evo is not sold in Canada because it failed the 8km bumber crash test, so that should tell you a lot also...
Mitsu decided not to make the bumper 8km compliant. They could have if they wanted to but chose not to. It was not just somehitng that failed. I'm not defending them just pointing out that it was a conscious decision on their part.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top