SS/SC vs STi/EVO
09-01-2007, 02:06 AM
#1
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: 04-18-06
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS/SC vs STi/EVO
Just wondering since GM likes to post false information (205fwhp when its about 220whp) I'd like to take the whp to weight ratio into further consideration versus our popular Sti's and EVO's. I'm not too sure if they are 300 hp to wheels or flywheel stock but if they are to the flywheel then I am correct to say that the SS/SC is faster by simply putting on stage 2?
09-01-2007, 02:16 AM
#2
New Member
Join Date: 07-22-07
Location: Sandy, UT
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sti's are now rated at 293 at the flywheel and evos i think are 286. With stage 2 you might be able to beat a stock one from a roll, but from a stop they will still eat you alive.
09-01-2007, 02:18 AM
#3
Member
Join Date: 05-24-06
Location: Fridley, mn
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09-01-2007, 02:22 AM
#4
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: 04-18-06
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah obviously FWD vs AWD. But I was just wonderin about the hp/weight ratio, thats all that matters to me 
Seems like a stock SS/SC (about 220whp) would be faster than a stock EVO now. Im seeing 286hp and 3285 weight. Wow thats heavy. AND WOW I just checked out the STI 3351 pounds, good lord. It should be faster than both right?
Seems like a stock SS/SC (about 220whp) would be faster than a stock EVO now. Im seeing 286hp and 3285 weight. Wow thats heavy. AND WOW I just checked out the STI 3351 pounds, good lord. It should be faster than both right?
Last edited by SSBOOST; 09-01-2007 at 02:27 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
09-01-2007, 02:54 AM
#5
New Member
Join Date: 07-22-07
Location: Sandy, UT
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah they are heavier than our cars, but still pretty light for AWD. I had an STi before my SS/SC, and it was a whole other monster. I've raced an EVO from a roll and it pulled on me. You would think by looking at the factory numbers for both, but I have a friend with an 05 EVO that put down 274 to the wheels bone stock.
Last edited by RedbaltSS; 09-01-2007 at 02:59 AM. Reason: Bad link
09-01-2007, 03:35 AM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: 02-03-07
Location: Missouri
Posts: 2,553
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say I test drove an Evo (I can't remember what year it was) and it was EXTREMELY slow...I was really disappointed. I did test drive a slightly modded 05 STi and that car moved...no way in hell would it compete with our Cobalt
09-01-2007, 03:39 AM
#12
Banned
Join Date: 01-12-07
Location: N. Side Chi-Town
Posts: 6,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
with a s2+ cobalt would put up a good battle...i beat a sti that had cobb s2 and turbo back exhaust by about 2 cars...he had a passanger and i didnt...he ran a 12.8@103mph i ran a 13.6@108mph
09-01-2007, 03:44 AM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: 02-03-07
Location: Missouri
Posts: 2,553
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think trap speed is a better indication of how the car performs over trap time. Clearly we can't hook up from the "get-go" but once it's moving it pulls
09-01-2007, 03:45 AM
#14
Banned
Join Date: 01-12-07
Location: N. Side Chi-Town
Posts: 6,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09-01-2007, 05:36 AM
#16
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: 07-02-07
Location: Bensenville, IL
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ya sti's are easy from a roll, are gears are so long compared to theirs. they have to shift more , plus they are heavy. from a dig sti and evo ftw, roll cobalt ftw... ive takin modded stis from a roll by about 2 cars
09-01-2007, 05:40 AM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-27-07
Location: USA
Posts: 1,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just wondering since GM likes to post false information (205fwhp when its about 220whp) I'd like to take the whp to weight ratio into further consideration versus our popular Sti's and EVO's. I'm not too sure if they are 300 hp to wheels or flywheel stock but if they are to the flywheel then I am correct to say that the SS/SC is faster by simply putting on stage 2?
And seeing that an Evo weighs in at 3300lbs, that means their lbs/whp ratio is 14.66.
Compare that with the average SS/SC weighing in at 2950lbs. and running about 215whp stock, and you get 13.72 lbs./whp.
So while the Evo's AWD greatly helps their starting line acceleration, it also takes a toll on their drive train hp loss. The Evo actually suffers 22% drive train hp loss, whereas our SS/SC only experiences 13-15% drive train loss.
Even if we take into account the lower figure of only 13% drive train loss, with 215whp that means our cars are making 245hp at the crank.
And that's why with any kind of race other than from a standstill, our SS/SC's will give the mighty Evo's a good run for their money.
09-01-2007, 05:48 AM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: 03-17-06
Location: Moncton Newbrunswick Can.
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quick search of various Evo forums does in fact show that those cars are only pulling about 225whp stock.
And seeing that an Evo weighs in at 3300lbs, that means their lbs/whp ratio is 14.66.
Compare that with the average SS/SC weighing in at 2950lbs. and running about 215whp stock, and you get 13.72 lbs./whp.
So while the Evo's AWD greatly helps their starting line acceleration, it also takes a toll on their drive train hp loss. The Evo actually suffers 22% drive train hp loss, whereas our SS/SC only experiences 13-15% drive train loss.
Even if we take into account the lower figure of only 13% drive train loss, with 215whp that means our cars are making 245hp at the crank.
And that's why with any kind of race other than from a standstill, our SS/SC's will give the mighty Evo's a good run for their money.
And seeing that an Evo weighs in at 3300lbs, that means their lbs/whp ratio is 14.66.
Compare that with the average SS/SC weighing in at 2950lbs. and running about 215whp stock, and you get 13.72 lbs./whp.
So while the Evo's AWD greatly helps their starting line acceleration, it also takes a toll on their drive train hp loss. The Evo actually suffers 22% drive train hp loss, whereas our SS/SC only experiences 13-15% drive train loss.
Even if we take into account the lower figure of only 13% drive train loss, with 215whp that means our cars are making 245hp at the crank.
And that's why with any kind of race other than from a standstill, our SS/SC's will give the mighty Evo's a good run for their money.
very true
09-01-2007, 02:47 PM
#21
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: 04-18-06
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09-01-2007, 02:59 PM
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: 10-01-06
Location: Newport News, VA from Pittsburgh, Pa
Posts: 3,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the weight is a funny thing. I read in car and driver the our cars are 2850, road and track had 2725, I think it was compact car that said 2925. So, I guess its a big guesstimation...lol
09-01-2007, 04:12 PM
#23
New Member
Join Date: 08-10-07
Location: FT Campbell
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cammed evo
Hey, I have a friend that has a cammed evo and it's tunned. You guys are talking about running from a roll, but he doesn't do that kind of racing, however from a dig, he is running 7.9s in 1/8 mile and 12.6 in 1/4 mile. Hope that helped.
09-01-2007, 04:17 PM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-17-07
Location: right behind you.
Posts: 9,378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
huh...what? a cammed evo with a tune will rip you a new *******. With just a tune and tbe on the IX's you wouldn't be able to keep up at all.
09-02-2007, 01:15 AM
#25
Banned
Join Date: 09-01-07
Location: CT
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
