jazket

iTrader: (1)

then they'd be all over the street and we'll no longer have a rare car... but it's good for aftermarket nonetheless

oh I think I just had a vision where I went soft and bought me Benz or Lexus cars and got out of the whole performance car business .... dire future!

fugiwara

iTrader: (124)

Even though the cost of EVO X is higer but due to the slow sales there are more room for negotiation. Back in the 2003 when evo first came out it's hard to knock off few thousands of the sticker and some dealer even charges over sticker, same thing with 2005 MR.

Ladogaboy

iTrader: (1)

Nobody has explained in a way that you are willing to accept or consider valid. If you need a few reasons why it makes sense:

1) A 54 hp difference between the RA and the EVO is more acceptable than, say, a 40 hp difference for marketing purposes. If you get too close in power output, people will question where their money is going.

2) It is much safer to understate the hp numbers, especially after what happened to Mazda and their RX8 debacle. If you overstate hp numbers, it can come back to bite you. If you understate hp numbers, NOBODY is going to say, "I demand my money back because you gave me MORE than I paid for!" I would say that most companies understate their power ratings just to err on the side of caution.

3) Playing off of #2 (and this is something that you alluded to yourself), the company's hp rating is usually under worst-case scenarios. I would think that most of us are interested in the power our cars produce under NORMAL conditions. And as I mentioned earlier, there was a power loss on my A/C dyno run, but it was not a significant loss of power.

I know you won't consider those points to be valid, but they make sense to me.

Ladogaboy

iTrader: (1)

Many dealers through out that period had dealer markups. One local dealership was asking $6,000 more for their EVOs. If you were lucky, you could talk them down to $4,000. And that is OVER sticker!

That dealer is out of business now.

ETS Michael

iTrader: (91)

Come on 5 speed ralliart!

tipoytm

Let's not forget that the Ralliart is a much heavier car compared to the competition. That's what I've been pointing out; how much a great value it is if you look real close... it has a 3-mode electronically-controlled ACD (Active Center Differential) and two mechanical LSDs (front & rear), which was pulled directly from the EVO IX. Look at the WRX, it has one simple & very dated viscous-type center differential, that's it. Weight difference on that alone is big! Let's look at the transmission, WRX's simple & traditional 5-speed which should be at least 100 lbs. lighter than the Ralliart's sophisticated TC-SST tranny. Look at the chassis, the RA has a lot of reinforced components compared to the WRX, making it more stiff, but of course has a weight penalty. The ralliart has much more technology & advanced equipment compared to cars in its price range & class. It probably goes without saying that Mitsubishi's cost to produce one Ralliart sedan is a lot more than Subaru's cost to produce one WRX sedan (ie. Subaru is making a lot more profit than Mitsu per car sold, at least in the US). Factor in deals that can be had on Mitsu vehicles (haggling at the dealer + factory incentives), the RA is truly a lot of car for the money.

But you can't ignore the added weight, that's why it was inferior in performance stats to other sport compacts on a couple of magazine reviews... and the crap stock tires didn't help either.

With that said, it makes for a great starter platform. It has potential. Mod it, put boltons, tune it... replace those crappy OEM tires, upgrade some engine bay components to slightly used Evo X parts that are being sold cheap. These things can easily transform the RA if you want to compete on the track.

Unfortunately, your average car buyer doesn't research deeper on what equipment or technology the car comes with, they mainly look at advertised horsepower, 0-60 & 1/4 mile stats, etc. That's probably why RA sales or popularity isn't as competitive as the others.

Ladogaboy

iTrader: (1)

Just on the aside: The WRX doesn't have any mechanical differentials. It has a viscous center and open front and rear viscous differentials. Either way, you're right, a huge difference in weight.

tipoytm

Woops... corrected! TY

Fourdoor

iTrader: (11)

You weighed each of these cars with the driver that was doing the 1/4 mile testing right after the 1/4 mile was done so you know what the fuel load was? Man, you must have some great connections in the automotive journalism industry! Or you just pulled some weights out of your @ss and plugged them into a formula to "prove" it is inaccurate. Guess which way I am leaning towards on the above two options.

Under non-optimum track conditions the trap speed method is more accurate estimate of crank HP than the ET method. But, anyone who pulls numbers out of their @ss to plug into a formula isn't really interested in accuracy so who cares?

Keith

ambystom01

iTrader: (7)

1) That's intra-manufacturer competition, which may not be ideal, but is a hell of a lot better than inter-manufacturer competition. By downgrading the Ralliart, Mitsubishi would make the Evo look better, yes, but would also make the WRX, MS3, Cobalt SS, etc. look better. It would be a stupid move.
2) As I said, the way in which power is rated has changed. If you want to be certified, you need to have a technician present. This means you can't overplay or downplay the results. While it is true that under-stating is safer from a complaints standpoint, it's also dangerous from a marketing standpoint.
3) They take the average HP, not the worst one. Some cars will naturally be higher or lower due to engine tolerances.

ambystom01

iTrader: (7)

I used the same assumption for all, I added 200 lbs to the curb weight. The fact that in some cases there's a 20 HP range depending on what factor (time or trap speed) they used suggests something is off.

Fourdoor

iTrader: (11)

And you mean to tell me you didn't notice that the cars with the wide gap between the ET and trap speed calculation methods are FWD and the cars with the narrow gap between ET and trap speed calculated HP are AWD? Your "something is off" is called traction! Under bad track conditions (IE bad traction at the launch) the trap speed estimate of HP is more accurate.

The examples YOU provided show why. Even though YOU are the one who illustrated this point, you will now find some way to make it slant in the "trap speed don't mean $hit" direction.

If the WRX was track tested at near sea level on a 70 F day (wild speculation), then averaging the HP numbers based on the track results gets you 256 HP. It is off by 9 F'ing HP. Wildly inaccurate in your book.... damn near dead nuts on in mine.

If the formula works for one car it works for another. It is math we are talking about here, not somebody's biased opinion or slanted reporting. There is no bias input to the formulas, just numbers. You can bias the results by putting in erroneous data, or by not reporting weather conditions if they vary wildly from standard temperature and pressure. But if you are honest then the results are accurate. It's really simple.

Weather conditions DO play a big part in the HP a car makes on any given day, and that is why these formulas are great for showing how much HP a given car made on a given day under specified weather conditions. If your car runs 13.2 at 104 on a cool autumn day it is pretty cool, if it runs the same times in the middle of summer with temperature over 100 F it is much better.... The cars made the same HP, but the one that did it in the summer heat has the potential to run even faster times when autumn temperatures hit. The car that did it in the cool temperatures will run slower in the summer heat. There is no weather correction built into the formulas, but you can do it yourself manually if you choose too.

The car you love the most points out how accurate the formulas on that web site are. Just because the results for other cars don't match your pre-concieved notions don't shoot the messenger.

Keith

PS: This shows how much more honest Subaru is about reporting HP numbers! That should make you happy!

show time

Man why do all of the good posts here keep getting ruined by pointless arguing All of you stop trying to prove what ever it is that you think is wright and be F**KING positive.

tipoytm

^ Cuz some car owners are really passionate about their cars (lots of love) and don't want to admit it if someone else makes better sense :-) I know cuz I'm guilty sometimes, but not as much as some of the other guys here LOL

show time

True ^ I am just tired of every single blog turning into a frickin argument that ends up so far off topic its not even funny(you know who you are). I am very passionate about my car and I come to this forum for info on my ride not pissing matches. The dyno sheets I love the, the write up on the 4B11 T I love the, talking about why the R/A is a great buy I love, real info not opinions from Cpt. BS. Lets let Buschur racing have their time and we will see that the R/A IS THE BEST BANG FOR THE BUCK!