The M3 engine is not understressed, getting 300bhp+ from a little over 3 litres in a normally aspirated engine takes a fair ammount of skill from BMW....its the Evo's engine which is understressed, 300bhp from a 2 litre turbo is f**k all....they sell the Evo FQ400 in Britain with over 400bhp and full manufacturers warranty, rally teams tune them higher still.
As for driving in ice or snow, 4WD always trumps 2WD regardless of all the toys like traction control etc....2WD cars havent been used in rallying for decades, when it comes to ultimate control on slippery surfaces go for 4WD.
The lack of power before the turbo comes on boost is actually beneficial when driving in tricky conditions....you just keep the engine below 3000rpm and its as friendly and docile as can be, coupled with 4WD i'd take the Evo in snow anyday.
BMW may be percieved as a quality manufacturer but that depends on how you define quality?....is quality a solid build and luxury interior or is quality longevity and reliability?
In every motoring survey conducted in the UK for the last god knows how many years the jap cars have shown themselves to be the most reliable while the 'quality' german makes like BMW and Mercedes continue to slip down the rankings....
...however, they're both nice cars.
I'd take the BMW, more fun to be had with RWD...
I'll take your last point first, typical Japanese manufactures (ie. Honda and Toyota) are considered better in regards to build quality than the big 3 German automakers. Mitsubishi is not a typical Japanese automaker. Mitsubishi is a third tier Japanese automaker, in fact they are on the verge of pulling out of the US all together. Compare Acura, Honda, Toyota and Lexus with Audi, BMW and Mercedes all you want but don't compare Mitsubishi with them. In fact, Mercedes has had many issues with build quality lately so they are a step below the big Japanese automakers.
Mitsubishi's build quality is not good. They are on par with the Chrysler family of cars. In fact I believe Chrysler might have a stake in Mitsubishi.
Did you really say that a 2.0 liter inline 4 putting out over 300 hp via turbocharging and intercooling isn't stressed? Are you serious? Yet you think a 3.3 liter inline 6 putting out roughly the same horsepower is stressed? LOL I'm not quite sure if you actually believe that or if you're just clueless.
100 horsepower per liter naturally aspirated is a good amount and twenty years ago it would have been an incredible amount, not today. The Evo puts out nearly 150 horsepower per liter via turbocharging which puts incredible stress on the engine yet you don't think it's stressed. I'm still a little shocked by that.
You're right about the 4wd trumping 2wd in the snow and ice but I still don't like the on/off nature of the Evo's engine regarding driving in dangerous conditions in a big city, where body lives. Although you're wrong about the benefits of way the engine produces power. The problem is that the power hits too suddenly as opposed to the constant stream of power that naturally aspirated engines produce.
If for example body were to mistakenly get into the powerband coming around a corner in the snow in the city he could slide too far and swipe parked cars which are everywhere in Boston.
Of course he could do the same in an M3 but he would be able to better modulate the power because of the way it comes on, which is smooth and steady. As far as handling goes considering the M3's rear wheel drive he'd be dealing with oversteer which can be controlled with the throttle.
If the Evo weren't turbocharged and it generated it's power through size and natural aspiration I wouldn't be posting any of this. The Evo would be the clear winner.
In fact I'm really looking for situations to be negative about with the Evo, 4 wheel drive is so much better in the snow and ice that it's not even debatable.
I don't really like Mitsubishi, I don't think they build quality.