| evoWalo |
10-05-2004 11:51 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave1
All good paints evoWALO (yes i understand the article :) ) . I just feel these cars are made for the purpose of all out performance otherwise mitsubishi/ralliart wouldn't have bothered to of made this new Evo when the comments about real world performance CAR magazine made, a normal Evo 7 would do just as well so why not compare it to that and mention its quicker to 60 than most super cars. I am trying to defend the Zonda as I think it was slightly unfairly treaded in this article. But as you pointed out to me it is not a full review/comparison.
|
Making comparisons between the Evo/Imprezza and supercars like the Zonda has been going on for years already. I do sympathize with those rooting for or owning a supercar seeming they paid so much for something that an econobox-derived car can out perform stock. I doubt any stock VII can outrun the Zonda much less the FQ400 and what’s the point on comparing the VII when it’s not being made anymore.
The CAR article highlights the performance aspect of the first FQ400. I can only expect better figures now seeming it’s past the October début date. It also talks about the engineering & design difference between the two to give the article more to talk about. I'm still amazed that a car with a lesser spec can outrun one with better numbers.
As a stock performance car it appears the FQ400 is the best at the moment scoring mid 3s. I'd like to see how it fairs on TG's Powerlaps. My guess is it'll take 3rd or 4th place. I have strong reservations on it being 1st or 2nd. But the Stig is welcome to prove me wrong. ;) |
