Celica Forums General Discussion Exterior Evo vs. WRX

What do you guys think is the best overall car? Looks performance, upgrades available?

overall i would chose the STI...i think thats what you meant. IF not then i would chose an EVO over a WRX.

I would take the STI b/c of it's wider body stance, better looks IMO and more bhp.

i would say EVO...
there is a modded EVO engine putting out more than 800hp (6xx on wheel considering the 25% lost..)
but then i dont know about the STi engine's limits..

i think the STi's new look looks better than EVO
overall...maybe EVO? i don't know, i think the ACD and AYC should give you better corning ability over STi...

those are my thoughts ~

If you read the Subaru boards, most STI owners admit that the EVO has a slight over all performance advantage from the factory in terms of handling and acceleration.

Comparing an EVO to an STI is like compairing an RSX to a GTS. The RSX technically has a slight advantage, but when it comes down to it, it's really going to be a drivers race.

I personally like the looks of the EVO better than the STI.

I personally like the boxer engine that the STI has better than the traditional engine in the EVO.

For what it's worth, I drive a 1991 Subaru Imprezza wagon as a winter beater and it has over 250,000 miles on it and it still runs like a champ. In fact, I still average 25mpg from the engine, and it doesn't leak/burn any oil/fluids. Mitsubishi's in general tend to be a little more problematic when you modify them for more power. It's not to the point where they would be considered unreliable, but you just seem to have more problems with a souped up Eclipse or 3000GT for example, than you would with a souped up Honda/Toyota/Nissan. So I would say that Subaru probably has a slightly more reliable engine, but Subarus are known for having weak transmissions, so it has the disadvantage there.

Basically, each car has little advantages and disadvantages, but over all, the two cars are pretty much equal IMO.

I'd take the WRX over the Evo. I'd take the STI over anything under 40g's.

Basically, you have to look at the quality of the base model the cars are built on. The Lancer is by far the least appealing car on the road. The base model Impreza is still a car of good quality.

Appearance-wise, even when you totally rip the Lancer apart to turn it into an Evo, it still seems too long, too narrow, and a little bit clumsy.

STi all the way. I will never own a mitsu.

sti! more power, looks more aggressive imo.
also i read somewhere(nc.org post) that brand new evo's already had rust on them which is not cool.

For straight-line acceleration, the STi wins. In the curvies, the Evo wins. Just depends what you want.

Of course, you have to consider looks and reliability too.

The STI just demands respect. The EVO may have similar performance but they pick the ugliest car in the entire line up to build up.

I think it comes down to personal preference. Test drive them both and decide what YOU want. I would never buy a car or do modifications based soley on what "a bunch of people think".
RAW

If ya look for the bang for the buck the evo is hella better. Subaru is overcharging. the STI beat the evo by .1 in the 1320. so why should you pay 6-9 thousand more??? The evo has more modding abilities

You should pay more for an STi because they're limited to far less produced per year than the EVO.

The EVO shares zero parts with the Lancer, I wouldn't look at it in that sense at all. Both of these cars are purpose built for the WRC and have features you would not be able to get aftermarket. Overall, I would say the EVO is more nimble but the STI is better looking and both are cars that would kick our Celica asses easily.