M3 vs. STi

[mdosu]

Originally Posted by radiantm3

I'm not referring only to quality. There are things like EDC and the carbon fiber roof. Yes, it's "mostly" aesthetic, but how much would that add to the price of an EVO? We're not only talking parts, but all the engineering and R&D put into it. Then there's the high-revving S65. How much would it cost Mitsubishi to develop and sell a car with an engine like that? Those things give more value to the M3. Otherwise this forum is full of idiots or people with way too much money.

how much engineering did BMW put into turbocharging.. Let me go ask a 335 owner.
BMW engineer what they do best, Mitsu does what they do best. Otherwise, they're a direct competitors.
I agree Mitsu will incur significant cost developing an engine like the S65, what about BMW incurring costs trying to develop the SWAC system? If you think the SWAC is not complex, please do explain to me how it works and how the S65 somehow is more complex to explain than the S65 operations.

Or if you must do a more apples to apples, do explain how the x-drive 335xi has more engineering put into it then the Evo X.

[madfast]

Originally Posted by captainaudio

And it is also about how convinced the dealer is that he is going to sell it.
If the dealer know that there is high demand there is little incentive to have people test drive.

CA

there ISN'T high demand. that's the point. there's a lot of people wanting test drives, but no actual sales. what the dealer is left with then is a "used car" that nobody wanted even when it was "new".... and the serious buyer? he goes down the street to buy the virgin car after testing yours. its lose-lose for the dealer sometimes...

again its NOT about price. if you walk into a store and ask to open the bag of wonder bread to smell how fresh it is, would they allow that? f*ck no!

[madfast]

Originally Posted by radiantm3

I'm not referring only to quality. There are things like EDC and the carbon fiber roof. Yes, it's "mostly" aesthetic, but how much would that add to the price of an EVO? We're not only talking parts, but all the engineering and R&D put into it. Then there's the high-revving S65. How much would it cost Mitsubishi to develop and sell a car with an engine like that? Those things give more value to the M3. Otherwise this forum is full of idiots or people with way too much money.

that is all bs. give anybody the same budget and they can make just as good an engine and just as good a car. you act as if the fact that the car would be sold for $70K has no effect on how they engineer it.

in fact the N54 uses Mitsubishi turbos so i guess the truth is BMW are too dumb to develop their own turbo right? see what i did there?

[Fanta]

Every car has their own fans and worths their own manufacturer retail price, otherwise manufacturer will retire it or the manufacturer went bankruptcy.
Anyone like to discuss the value between a 2011 Mustang 5.0 and 2011 Subaru STI?
Ford Mustang also has a lot of after market parts.
By the way, I am looking for a good value track car.
PS. One of our driving instructor has a Audi R8 V10 and Porsche GT3-RS, he said that
"GT3-RS is a much better car for track than R8 V10, because the AWD is too heavy."

[radiantm3]

Originally Posted by madfast

that is all bs. give anybody the same budget and they can make just as good an engine and just as good a car. you act as if the fact that the car would be sold for $70K has no effect on how they engineer it.

in fact the N54 uses Mitsubishi turbos so i guess the truth is BMW are too dumb to develop their own turbo right? see what i did there?

You missed my point completely. I agree given the same budget, any manufacturer can potentially build a similar car. My point is that the EVO and M3 weren't built with the same budget. It's obvious that the m3 is a much more expensive car than the EVO given everything that went into engineering and building the car.

[SUB-ZERO]

Originally Posted by madfast

that is all bs. give anybody the same budget and they can make just as good an engine and just as good a car. you act as if the fact that the car would be sold for $70K has no effect on how they engineer it.

in fact the N54 uses Mitsubishi turbos so i guess the truth is BMW are too dumb to develop their own turbo right? see what i did there?

I don't think the Mitsubishi that makes cars is the same Mitsubushi company that makes turbos. Mitsubishi the parent company, makes everything from toasters to dildos (I however think some of the toaster parts made it into the EVO).

If BMW had a company that made turbos, I am sure they would use BMW turbos. However, considering that the turbo market is dominated by a few players (i.e., Mitsu, Garrett, etc...), there is no financial gain for BMW to enter the turbo manufacturing market. However, I would be willing to bet that if BMW did in fact manufacture a turbo, it would be superior to any turbo Mitsu could manufacture. Just take a look at how the S1000RR spanked the likes of Yamaha, Ducati, Suzuki and Kawasaki first year into production.


The only reason that you seem to be justifying your EVO, is because you obviously have never spent any seat time (or sufficient seat time) in an m3. If so, you would of quickly realized that there is absolutely no comparison between the two other than those attributes common to all cars.

Secondly, aside from the mechanical superiority of any BMW over any Mitsubishi (in relative terms), one must consider the intangible attributes offered by both cars (m3 vs Evo). While the Evo does have bragging rights amongst a small group of followers (boys 18-21) and in the WRC, the m3 is known globally for its performance superiority and recognized as a performance machine by adults while continuing to be the wet dream of many 14-30 year old boys and men not to mention the moisture-provoking effects it has on woman of most ages. I say 14-30 years old because 30 seems to be the age in which those who have been dreaming about an m3 finally are able to buy one (either by working hard or living at home with mom and dad).

So, in conclusion, one must recognize that EVOs have their place in performance history along side the WRX and SRT4; they offer a great value if looks is not important and if you don't mind tossing it in the trash 4 years.

And if one saves their lunch money for a day, you can mod them to 1000HP, which, will subsequently increase the level of performance to a level that would rival a Veyron, even if only for a few months until the engine explodes.

Cheers,
SZ

[SUB-ZERO]

Originally Posted by madfast

that is all bs. give anybody the same budget and they can make just as good an engine and just as good a car. you act as if the fact that the car would be sold for $70K has no effect on how they engineer it.

in fact the N54 uses Mitsubishi turbos so i guess the truth is BMW are too dumb to develop their own turbo right? see what i did there?

Another point in regards to your response. It is not that $70k has an effect on how they engineer a car but it is more to who the car will be sold to. EVOs are built and marketed for a different sector of the economy, a different consumer if you will. The likes, dislikes and expectations of consumers in group A differ vastly from those in group B.

In order for Mistubishi to build a product that would rival manufacturers in the premium market, they would have to build a car like the GTR; which by any measure is amazing. However, Nissan has been in the premium market through their luxury brand (infiniti) for a while and has gradually learned how to build such a car. Mitsu on the other hand, is in the other side of the spectrum with inexpensive low quality cars with no experience in building luxury or performance oriented cars (other than the lancer based EVO).

It is my opinion that Mitsubishi is not able to feasibly build a car that competes with anything Nissan, Hyundai or Toyota currently offer not to mention anything that BMW, Merc, or Audi offer.

[madfast]

Originally Posted by radiantm3

You missed my point completely. I agree given the same budget, any manufacturer can potentially build a similar car. My point is that the EVO and M3 weren't built with the same budget. It's obvious that the m3 is a much more expensive car than the EVO given everything that went into engineering and building the car.

yes, and BMW's engineering of the M3 wasn't twice as good as mitsu's engineering of the evo. engineering is only as good as the budget allows. that's my point. M3 is better in all areas, no doubt, but it isnt twice as good. any unbiased person who knows about both cars would agree.

[madfast]

Originally Posted by SUB-ZERO

I don't think the Mitsubishi that makes cars is the same Mitsubushi company that makes turbos. Mitsubishi the parent company, makes everything from toasters to dildos (I however think some of the toaster parts made it into the EVO).

If BMW had a company that made turbos, I am sure they would use BMW turbos. However, considering that the turbo market is dominated by a few players (i.e., Mitsu, Garrett, etc...), there is no financial gain for BMW to enter the turbo manufacturing market. However, I would be willing to bet that if BMW did in fact manufacture a turbo, it would be superior to any turbo Mitsu could manufacture. Just take a look at how the S1000RR spanked the likes of Yamaha, Ducati, Suzuki and Kawasaki first year into production.


The only reason that you seem to be justifying your EVO, is because you obviously have never spent any seat time (or sufficient seat time) in an m3. If so, you would of quickly realized that there is absolutely no comparison between the two other than those attributes common to all cars.

Secondly, aside from the mechanical superiority of any BMW over any Mitsubishi (in relative terms), one must consider the intangible attributes offered by both cars (m3 vs Evo). While the Evo does have bragging rights amongst a small group of followers (boys 18-21) and in the WRC, the m3 is known globally for its performance superiority and recognized as a performance machine by adults while continuing to be the wet dream of many 14-30 year old boys and men not to mention the moisture-provoking effects it has on woman of most ages. I say 14-30 years old because 30 seems to be the age in which those who have been dreaming about an m3 finally are able to buy one (either by working hard or living at home with mom and dad).

So, in conclusion, one must recognize that EVOs have their place in performance history along side the WRX and SRT4; they offer a great value if looks is not important and if you don't mind tossing it in the trash 4 years.

And if one saves their lunch money for a day, you can mod them to 1000HP, which, will subsequently increase the level of performance to a level that would rival a Veyron, even if only for a few months until the engine explodes.

Cheers,
SZ

LOL that was obviously a joke about the turbos. just goes to show how much of a BMW fanboi u are...

S1000RR? funny u should mention that. you DO know that BMW's used opposing cylinders in their bikes for a long time right? you DO know that the S1000RR is a COPY of all those bikes you tried to put down right? look at the S1000RR. what is the lineage of that bike? CBR1000RR? i can trace that bike back to the 1969 CB750. know your history before you spout fanboyisms...

the evo has been using active electronically controlled torque vectoring for more than a decade. even the E9X M3 of today doesnt have that. so i guess mitsu drivetrain engineering is decades ahead of bmw huh?

[luckistryke]

BMW didn't hide the fact that they copied all of best traits from the big 4 Japanese. They copied everthing to a Tee and add electronic magic. They said 'all the development is there, why reinvent the wheel'.

[madfast]

Originally Posted by luckistryke

BMW didn't hide the fact that they copied all of best traits from the big 4 Japanese. They copied everthing to a Tee and add electronic magic. They said 'all the development is there, why reinvent the wheel'.

exactly. so when that fanboi mentioned the S1000RR, i

[FStop7]

Originally Posted by madfast

yes, and BMW's engineering of the M3 wasn't twice as good as mitsu's engineering of the evo. engineering is only as good as the budget allows. that's my point. M3 is better in all areas, no doubt, but it isnt twice as good. any unbiased person who knows about both cars would agree.

My Evo IX felt like it was made out of tin compared to my E46 M3, let alone my E90. Not even remotely close.

[M3LOL]

I came back expecting to find this thread dead.

Earlier someone brought up lap times between the m3 and sti. Here is a vid of the 2011 sti around the ring. I believe it the m3's time is around 8:05?? The new time for the subie is 7:55.

P.S. this is a euro model w/ the 2.0L motor

[Singletrack]

Originally Posted by M3LOL

I came back expecting to find this thread dead.

Earlier someone brought up lap times between the m3 and sti. Here is a vid of the 2011 sti around the ring. I believe it the m3's time is around 8:05?? The new time for the subie is 7:55.

P.S. this is a euro model w/ the 2.0L motor

There is another thread on that car. Based on what I've seen, that car is not the production model, and has various upgrades. Still impressive.

[M3LOL]

Originally Posted by Singletrack

There is another thread on that car. Based on what I've seen, that car is not the production model, and has various upgrades. Still impressive.

Hmm, haven't done much research on this vid, so you may be correct. It is still very cool regardless as you said.

My summary of this thread and my reason for posting it is this: A car can focus on one aspect and be very good at it. A car can be very fast, but a bad road car. A car may be very comfortable but terrible on the track. There are many cars that create a compromise in the middle, the m3 being an example of that. Now if you think there isn't a compromise in an m3 and the comfort it provides? Go over to rennlist and ask gt3 owners their opinion of an m3 on the track. Once you get to a certain price point, usually above 40K you have choices between one purpose cars ie: lotus, a compromise ie: m3, or comfort ie: the majority of bmw's, mercedes, infiniti, etc. At this point in MY life what I look for is more along the lines of a lotus. I will drive a car w/ a fixed back seat, racing harnesses, a car that will beat ur kidney to red when you drive it, as long as all that adds to the experience when i trail brake into a corner, create zero steer, and get through an apex in a 4 wheel drift at WOT. I don't want a car that pushes the seat belt closer to you when you close the door.

What I have found about the bmw community as well is about parallel w/ all car communities. There are some complete dickwipes, but there are some extremely cool, knowledgeable, respectful enthusiasts out there. And to those who still think I'm trolling?? Go F urself

[alms211]

Originally Posted by M3LOL

Hmm, haven't done much research on this vid, so you may be correct. It is still very cool regardless as you said.

My summary of this thread and my reason for posting it is this: A car can focus on one aspect and be very good at it. A car can be very fast, but a bad road car. A car may be very comfortable but terrible on the track. There are many cars that create a compromise in the middle, the m3 being an example of that. Now if you think there isn't a compromise in an m3 and the comfort it provides? Go over to rennlist and ask gt3 owners their opinion of an m3 on the track. Once you get to a certain price point, usually above 40K you have choices between one purpose cars ie: lotus, a compromise ie: m3, or comfort ie: the majority of bmw's, mercedes, infiniti, etc. At this point in MY life what I look for is more along the lines of a lotus. I will drive a car w/ a fixed back seat, racing harnesses, a car that will beat ur kidney to red when you drive it, as long as all that adds to the experience when i trail brake into a corner, create zero steer, and get through an apex in a 4 wheel drift at WOT. I don't want a car that pushes the seat belt closer to you when you close the door.
What I have found about the bmw community as well is about parallel w/ all car communities. There are some complete dickwipes, but there are some extremely cool, knowledgeable, respectful enthusiasts out there. And to those who still think I'm trolling?? Go F urself

If this is what YOU know you want in a car and obviously the M3 doesn't do it then why in the hell do you want to engage those that do have them in converstaion to state this? I know why. It's purely because you want to "stir the pot". That, plus the fact that you created a screen name like "M3LOL" and just joined the forum to post this thread, is the epitome of a troll.

Now, I'm off to go F myself

[Fanta]

Originally Posted by alms211

If this is what YOU know you want in a car and obviously the M3 doesn't do it then why in the hell do you want to engage those that do have them in converstaion to state this? I know why. It's purely because you want to "stir the pot". That, plus the fact that you created a screen name like "M3LOL" and just joined the forum to post this thread, is the epitome of a troll.

Now, I'm off to go F myself

+1. I believe your F is stand for "Fun. Fun. Fun. Having more fun and Joy"

[brava09]

Obviously a troll.


He feels unsecure.

[SUB-ZERO]

Originally Posted by madfast

LOL that was obviously a joke about the turbos. just goes to show how much of a BMW fanboi u are...

S1000RR? funny u should mention that. you DO know that BMW's used opposing cylinders in their bikes for a long time right? you DO know that the S1000RR is a COPY of all those bikes you tried to put down right? look at the S1000RR. what is the lineage of that bike? CBR1000RR? i can trace that bike back to the 1969 CB750. know your history before you spout fanboyisms...

the evo has been using active electronically controlled torque vectoring for more than a decade. even the E9X M3 of today doesnt have that. so i guess mitsu drivetrain engineering is decades ahead of bmw huh?

It is not being a fanboi. You are comparing an EVO, which by any meausure is a modified version of the shittiest car ever (the Lancer), to an M3. Well, the Cavalier is probably the shittiest car ever, but the Lancer is a close second.

Before you say it, yes, the M3 is based off a 3-series, which by any measure, is one of the best or best car in it's segment. Any 3-series is leaps and bounds better than an EVO, not faster obviously, but better. An M3 is leaps and bounds better than every 3-series, even the new 335is which is really nice and very fast. So by logic, it stands to stay that the M3 is a stratosphere away from the econobox that is an EVO.

Now, in regards to the S1000RR. BMW had to be competitive in order to race bikes. They obviously have to build a bike to some type of acceptable standard in order to make it competitive and within regulations. Very much like the EVO and WRX in the WRC (Liter displacement, etc...). Anyways, BMW took existing technology and built a bike that can outperform their competitors. Technology builds on itself. What did you expect? For them to build a completely new propulsion technology for a bike? I'm sure they borrowed from Ducati, Yamaha and Suzuki and re-engineered the components and mechanical interfaces between them in order to achieve a higher level of performance. That's why I made the example of the turbo; if BMW were to build one, I am sure it would be engineered and built better than anything Mitsubishi can produce, even if it borrows from the original Mitsubishi design.

However, this thread is a waste. One day, when you actually drive an M3, you will understand everything that you are being told. Until then, beleive that your EVO is the greatest performing machine modern engineering has to offer.

-SZ

[madfast]

Originally Posted by SUB-ZERO

that's why I made the example of the turbo; if BMW were to build one, I am sure it would be engineered and built better than anything Mitsubishi can produce, even if it borrows from the original Mitsubishi design.

These are the words that can only be said by a FANBOI

you believe that anything BMW touches turns into gold. even the absolute inane sh*t that comes out of your mouth....

[SUB-ZERO]

Originally Posted by madfast

These are the words that can only be said by a FANBOI

you believe that anything BMW touches turns into gold. even the absolute inane sh*t that comes out of your mouth....

Lol! Ok, it is insane to think that BMW has better design, engineering and manufacturing capability than Mitsubishi. I must be crazy! You should go back to your shit box Lancer and stroke it's oversized wing now.

-SZ

[crackberry]

wouldnt sit in a sti. no thank you.
hatchbacks get a huge in my books