I have been watching this thread for a while and whilst I do agree with a lot of the comments made, there are a few things that I think need to be said. I'm not about to embarrass myself by suggesting that a VR4 can be every bit as good as an EVO, especially the VIIIs and IXs, which really do represent the latest chapters of Mitsubishi's AWD rally platform development. Kevin (4Grim) made a very valid point that if the latest Evolutions weren't significantly better than a car twenty years their senior, it really wouldn't say much about Mitsubishi's R&D section.
That said, having read through a lot of the comments here it is very apparent that the real nail in the VR4s coffin came when Mitsubishi decided to change the orientation of the 4G63 engine in the Evolution IV. If they hadn't done that, I have no doubt whatsoever, that we would all be running MIVEC heads, twin scroll turbos and six-speed gearboxes. The EVO III 16G is a great turbo. You can argue all you want that it can produce as much power as any of the newer EVO turbos, but cost issues aside, I am still sure if it was possible to bolt any later Evolution model manifold and turbo up to our engine and down pipe the EVO III 16G would be a thing of the past. And whilst I understand the logic behind the comments that the cost of the fabrication necessary to fit a later model EVO twin scroll turbo to a VR4 is not worth the moderate power gains it nets, it is the amalgamation of all these little improvements that makes the EVO more 'refined' and why the EVO responds better to mods (i.e. because it is already more efficient).
I have no doubt that later model EVOs do handle very, very well, but it also amuses me how many people play down the handling of the VR4 when so few of them have actually driven a VR4 with a full compliment of real LSDs installed. And by real I mean proper ATB or clutch pack differentials, not the stock 4-bolt viscous units, which really don't do much. I find that particularly ironic in view of the fact that quite a few people have mentioned in this thread and others that what really puts the EVO ahead of the VR4 in the handling stakes is the active centre differential. The bottom line is that very few people are willing to spend the money on a 20 year old car that it would take to address the technological deficiencies that it obviously exhibits.
A VR4 might never be as good as an EVO but if people were willing to spend the money rather than treating the VR4 as a 'budget' performance car, I honestly believe that this huge gap could be closed more than most people would really believe. And that brings me on to my final point. On the race track, even if you could bring a VR4 up to 80% of the potential of an EVO it is going to get embarrassed within a few laps by a good driver in the newer car. I believe the One Lap Team commented upon this when they took the new EVO X on board. But on the street where you can rarely drive at more than 70%, I beg to differ that a VR4 with front, centre and rear LSDs, a six-speed transmission, twin scroll turbo setup, decent suspension and a fully tuned ECU would really be that disadvantaged.
The bottom line is that no-one in their right mind is going to spend $40,000 - $50,000 to build a VR4 to that level when they can pick up a low mileage late model EVO with most of the above for well under $30,000. My point however is that just because no-one is willing to do it, does not mean that the VR4 could never be 'almost as good' as a much newer car whilst retaining all that old school character.
