DSM guys... best thing about the Ralliart!
Oct 26, 2009, 04:43 PM
#46
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Inbetween Miami and Ft. Lauderdale
Posts: 2,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Oct 26, 2009, 05:28 PM
#47
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!
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!
So when the WRX is overrated by 9 HP, you don't seem to care but if the Ralliart is underrated by 13 HP, it's a significant difference leading to claims of it being underrated by the factory? The formula is simply too general for such a claim, if the variation is as little as 5%, that's 10 HP right there. I'm willing to bet that the variation is more than that. Yes it is math but it's not taking into account all the variables, it is merely a general idea, even the website states that very clearly.
Edit: I retried it again using the performance numbers here http://www.insideline.com/mitsubishi...-ralliart.html. With a weight of 3662 lbs (curb weight + 200 lbs for a large male driver), the power would be 223 HP or 242 HP (a 19 HP spread) . Decreasing the weight would obviously bring these numbers down. However, if we use the numbers from this review http://www.insideline.com/subaru/imp...preza-wrx.html, the Ralliart has either 253 HP or 244 HP, a 9 HP spread. The WRX is again making either 259 or 253 HP. The STI is apparently makes either 300 or 281 HP (20 HP deficit) or 302 HP or 283 HP (depending on which model exactly was used). Using the numbers produced by Motortrend http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...est/index.html, the WRX would be making 274 or 275 HP. Does this mean the WRX is also underrated? No, the results are not accurate enough to make such a claim. Further evidence would be needed before you could conclusively state that.
Last edited by ambystom01; Oct 26, 2009 at 05:51 PM.
Oct 26, 2009, 08:36 PM
#48
When the person who says this:
Then goes on to say that 1/4 mile times and trap speed can not be used in any way to judge the HP of a car it makes me realize they just like to argue. If you are going to pee on my leg, and tell me it is raining I will tell you that you are full of $hit.
Hell, if every post about why the Ralliart is great wasn't posted in by someone who doesn't own one it might help. I wasn't the one who brought up drag strip performance as a measure of HP in this thread.... the person arguing AGAINST it tried to use it to prove his point... and when I called him on it once again flipped the script and started arguing the opposite of his pro drag strip comparisons post in this thread. There is no pleasing some people.
Keith
The 0-60 numbers are swayed a bit because of the AWD, the car can get out of the hole fast but look at the 1/4 mile times and trap speeds and the 0-100 MPH, fine for a 3500 lb car with 237 HP but not exactly fantastic if it has 250 HP.
This isn't the 60s and we're certainly not in Japan, companies can't get away with lying about numbers anymore.
This isn't the 60s and we're certainly not in Japan, companies can't get away with lying about numbers anymore.
Hell, if every post about why the Ralliart is great wasn't posted in by someone who doesn't own one it might help. I wasn't the one who brought up drag strip performance as a measure of HP in this thread.... the person arguing AGAINST it tried to use it to prove his point... and when I called him on it once again flipped the script and started arguing the opposite of his pro drag strip comparisons post in this thread. There is no pleasing some people.
Keith
Last edited by Fourdoor; Oct 26, 2009 at 08:42 PM.
Oct 26, 2009, 08:59 PM
#49
When the person who says this:
Then goes on to say that 1/4 mile times and trap speed can not be used in any way to judge the HP of a car it makes me realize they just like to argue. If you are going to pee on my leg, and tell me it is raining I will tell you that you are full of $hit.
Hell, if every post about why the Ralliart is great wasn't posted in by someone who doesn't own one it might help. I wasn't the one who brought up drag strip performance as a measure of HP in this thread.... the person arguing AGAINST it tried to use it to prove his point... and when I called him on it once again flipped the script and started arguing the opposite of his pro drag strip comparisons post in this thread. There is no pleasing some people.
Keith
Then goes on to say that 1/4 mile times and trap speed can not be used in any way to judge the HP of a car it makes me realize they just like to argue. If you are going to pee on my leg, and tell me it is raining I will tell you that you are full of $hit.
Hell, if every post about why the Ralliart is great wasn't posted in by someone who doesn't own one it might help. I wasn't the one who brought up drag strip performance as a measure of HP in this thread.... the person arguing AGAINST it tried to use it to prove his point... and when I called him on it once again flipped the script and started arguing the opposite of his pro drag strip comparisons post in this thread. There is no pleasing some people.
Keith
This was my point with the whole "the 1/4 mile numbers make sense" argument. If the Ralliart is making the claimed 237 HP, the 1/4 mile times and other performance indicators are fine. They're not the fastest out there, they're not the slowest but they're OK. However, if you suddenly want to argue that it's making an additional 13 HP over the rated HP, it goes from perfectly fine to a bit of underperformer given it's 0-100 MPH times, 20-60 MPH times, etc. The 0-100 MPH time for the Ralliart is 15.1 seconds according to R&T. With 237 HP and a high curb weight, this is fine and makes sense. Compare it to others out there though. The Evo X GSR and MR have times of 13.3 and 13.7 seconds respectively. The 09 WRX is 13.5, MS3 is 13.8 and the GTI is 16.8. The 0-60 times of the AWD cars mentioned are not that far off however suggesting to me that while the Ralliart can get out of the hole fast, it simply doesn't have the power to move that weight once it's moving. The Evo X GSR is roughly the same weight as the Ralliart yet it's more than a second faster to 100 MPH.
Edit: I tried the calculator again using the R&T results for the old Evolution RS. According to the calculator, that car would have 308 HP, 20 HP over the rated HP of 286. Do you think the Evo 9 was really making 308 HP? Using the numbers for the Lamborghini Gallardo Superleggera, it would be 434 HP or 490 HP, it's rated at 522, do you think Lamborghini overrated it by 30 HP? The calculator is at best a tool to estimate power, it isn't accurate or precise enough to be useful in reaching conclusions.
Last edited by ambystom01; Oct 26, 2009 at 09:13 PM.
Oct 27, 2009, 01:02 PM
#50
Evolved Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: ATLANTA
Posts: 1,259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My main points were these:
1. We have a great car at a reasonable price.
2. The AWD 1G DSM's were a great car at a reasonable price, the AWD 2G DSM's were a great car at an unreasonable price.
I base number 2 on a comparison with it's competition in the car industry. In particular look at the Ford Mustang. In the early 90's (1990/1991) you could get a Ford Mustang with 215 HP for around the same cost you could get a 1G AWD dsm with 195 hp... pretty comperable performance AND price. By the late 90s you could get a 2G AWD DSM with 210 HP, or for the same price get a Mustang Cobra with 320 HP. No comparison on the $$$ to performance ratio.
They did the same thing to with the 3000GT. In the early 90's (91/92) you could get a 1G AWD 3000GT with 300 HP for the same cost as a Corvette of the same year with 250 HP... pretty comparable performance and price due to the much lower weight of the Corvette. By the late 90's you could get a 2G AWD 3000GT with 320 HP for the same price as a Corvette of the same year with 345 HP... during that some time period both the DSM and 3000GT gained a huge amount of weight while the Mustang and Corvette went up in weight very little. The Corvette performance skyrocketed upwards while the 3000GT for the most part stayed the same.
They priced themselves out of the market and wondered why the cars didn't sell. They have now returned to a reasonable price point and are doing much better. They are still one step behind the current competition on advertised HP from the factory. The WRX STi has had a higher advertised HP from the day it arrived here compared to the same year EVO, and the regular WRX has more advertised HP than the Ralliart. A 30 HP bump on the EVO and Ralliart would cost Mitsubishi very little, and would increase sales.... someone please explain to me why they haven't figured this one out?
Keith
1. We have a great car at a reasonable price.
2. The AWD 1G DSM's were a great car at a reasonable price, the AWD 2G DSM's were a great car at an unreasonable price.
I base number 2 on a comparison with it's competition in the car industry. In particular look at the Ford Mustang. In the early 90's (1990/1991) you could get a Ford Mustang with 215 HP for around the same cost you could get a 1G AWD dsm with 195 hp... pretty comperable performance AND price. By the late 90s you could get a 2G AWD DSM with 210 HP, or for the same price get a Mustang Cobra with 320 HP. No comparison on the $$$ to performance ratio.
They did the same thing to with the 3000GT. In the early 90's (91/92) you could get a 1G AWD 3000GT with 300 HP for the same cost as a Corvette of the same year with 250 HP... pretty comparable performance and price due to the much lower weight of the Corvette. By the late 90's you could get a 2G AWD 3000GT with 320 HP for the same price as a Corvette of the same year with 345 HP... during that some time period both the DSM and 3000GT gained a huge amount of weight while the Mustang and Corvette went up in weight very little. The Corvette performance skyrocketed upwards while the 3000GT for the most part stayed the same.
They priced themselves out of the market and wondered why the cars didn't sell. They have now returned to a reasonable price point and are doing much better. They are still one step behind the current competition on advertised HP from the factory. The WRX STi has had a higher advertised HP from the day it arrived here compared to the same year EVO, and the regular WRX has more advertised HP than the Ralliart. A 30 HP bump on the EVO and Ralliart would cost Mitsubishi very little, and would increase sales.... someone please explain to me why they haven't figured this one out?
Keith
They dont want the fast and furious crowd to choose their brand.. same reason they fudged up the 2000 year eclipse..
Oct 27, 2009, 01:35 PM
#51
Evolved Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: ATLANTA
Posts: 1,259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oct 27, 2009, 01:40 PM
#52
Evolved Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: ATLANTA
Posts: 1,259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Oct 27, 2009, 01:45 PM
#53
Evolved Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SL,UT
Posts: 3,601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Ralliarts are the best deals out there for a performance sedan, period.
Comparing 28,000 for a DSM from that era to 28k today with worse economy is not as far of a spread monetarily considering the state of the economy. People are not spending money like they use to, period and more people are on a budget as well as finance companies tightening finance terms.
Comparing 28,000 for a DSM from that era to 28k today with worse economy is not as far of a spread monetarily considering the state of the economy. People are not spending money like they use to, period and more people are on a budget as well as finance companies tightening finance terms.
Oct 27, 2009, 03:51 PM
#54
Evolved Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: CA
Posts: 901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True, if you are talking about the RA in pure stock form w/ those crap OEM tires. If a buyer just picks a car at face value, then the Ralliart is not the best choice. I'd buy it because it has potential. Point me to a sport compact that has a highly tunable motor+turbo, AWD w/ electronically-controlled ACD plus front+back mechanical LSDs, auto-manual tranny, etc. at $25K? I thought so...
Last edited by tipoytm; Oct 27, 2009 at 03:56 PM.
Oct 27, 2009, 03:59 PM
#55
True, if you are talking about the RA in pure stock form w/ those crap OEM tires. If a buyer just picks a car at face value, then the Ralliart is not the best choice. I'd buy it because it has potential. Point me to a sport compact that has a highly tunable motor+turbo, electronically-controlled ACD, front+back mechanical LSDs, auto-manual tranny, etc. at $25K? I thought so...
Oct 27, 2009, 04:21 PM
#56
Evolved Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: CA
Posts: 901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^ LOL, your logic is just different than mine and some of the other guys here on what is suppose to be a Ralliart enthusiast forum :-) Tell me this, does it cost the same for Subaru to produce the WRX's 5-speed manual tranny w/ Mitsu's 6-speed TC-SST tranny? I read somewhere here that the whole assembly costs $6K brand new... expert reviews have praised its performance and drivability constantly. Let's take a look at the 4B11T engine compared to the Rex's 2.5L Boxer engine, are you saying it is superior? AMS just broke 750whp on the 4B11T... Ryan gates is running over 500whp on the stock block and winning time attack races since last year. Cobalt's Brembos? I'd most certainly take the Evo9's/RA's AWD (ACD+2LSDs) over that. Brakes are far easier to upgrade.
Your criteria is different from mine. I look for superior technology and value. You are probably looking for a more traditional car w/ a stick shifter and higher performance numbers right out of the box.
Your criteria is different from mine. I look for superior technology and value. You are probably looking for a more traditional car w/ a stick shifter and higher performance numbers right out of the box.
Last edited by tipoytm; Oct 27, 2009 at 07:26 PM.
Oct 27, 2009, 04:30 PM
#57
^ LOL, your logic is just different than mine and some of the other guys here on what is suppose to be a Ralliart enthusiast forum :-) Tell me this, does it cost the same for Subaru to produce the WRX's 5-speed manual tranny w/ Mitsu's 6-speed TC-SST tranny? I read somewhere here that the whole assembly costs $6K brand new... expert reviews have praised its performance and drivability constantly. Let's take a look at the 4B11T engine compared to the Rex's 2.5L Boxer engine, are you saying it is superior? AMS just broke 750whp on the 4B11T... Ryan gates is running over 500whp on the stock block and winning time attack races since last year. MS3's Brembos? I'd most certainly take the Evo9's/RA's AWD (ACD+2LSDs) over that. Brakes are far easier to upgrade.
Your criteria is different from mine. I look for superior technology and value. You are probably looking for a more traditional car w/ a stick shifter and higher performance numbers right out of the box.
Your criteria is different from mine. I look for superior technology and value. You are probably looking for a more traditional car w/ a stick shifter and higher performance numbers right out of the box.
Of course it doesn't cost Subaru as much to produce or rather buy (since neither Subaru or Mitsubishi makes their transmissions in house) their 5-speed transmissions vs the TC-SST in the Ralliart. The Ralliart also costs more to buy so I don't see your point.
There are 700, 800, 900, 1000 WHP STis running around so does that mean the WRX can be tuned to that extent? Sure if you want to drop thousands (probably close to a hundred thousand) of dollars into it. Same applies to the Ralliart. Sure the engine can be modified to handle 750 WHP but A. the transmission would explode, B. it would cost a lot of money and C. any idea of reliability would be gone.
The Cobalt SS has Brembos, I'm not sure about the MS3. A Cobalt person would equally well argue that they can modify the suspension, upgrade the front diff (it has an LSD in the front stock as well) to something more hardcore, upgrade the engine, etc. and run circles around the Ralliart so naturally this makes it a superior vehicle right? Hell, the Cobalt SS is as fast as an MR around at least two tracks according to Car & Driver and Motor Trend so it must the best for everyone.
Brakes are not easier to upgrade, at least not if you want them doing right. I don't think there is any area of tuning or modifying that is necessarily easier to do than another, it's a matter of what you want and how much you have to spend. To really give the Ralliart's brakes a full overhaul (new calipers, larger rotors, any hub changes if needed to stop pad knockback) would cost a lot of money. Those changes wouldn't be needed for 99% of people though, most would be fine with some nice pads and nice tires.
I look for the same basic things you do, I like value for money (I'm not rich) and I like "technology" to an extent. However, what I view as value for money is different than what you view as value for money or what somebody else views as value for money, we all have our own priorities. I think the Ralliart is an OK package and I like certain aspects (namely the seats) but the rest just doesn't do it for me. I couldn't care less about how much the transmission costs or how "advanced" people claim it is, I want a manual and that's that. I couldn't care less about Ryan having 500 WHP on the stock block because I wouldn't want a 500 WHP Ralliart. I want a car that I wouldn't have to dump money into just to keep me happy and unfortunately the Ralliart falls into that category for me. If others are happy with it though, that's great. To say that the Ralliart is superior to others is flawed, if it was superior, it would be the fastest, the best handling, the best braking, etc. It's an imperfect car like every other car out there.
In conclusion, as I have said time and time again, pick whichever car you personally like, there's no need to attempt to justify your decision by degrading other cars out there. If the sole reason why you buy a car is because you think others aren't as good, you're really missing the point. Buy a car because it's the one you like, the one that makes you smile when you drive it.
Last edited by ambystom01; Oct 27, 2009 at 04:36 PM.
Oct 27, 2009, 04:37 PM
#58
Evolving Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: INDY
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oct 27, 2009, 04:41 PM
#59
LOL now we have a Beamer boy on here to. And once again the comments are not on topic HHHMMMMMFF I am shocked. 0-60 IN 5.8! Performance that. Buschur/RRE/AMS/UR/TTP racing if you dont know who they are LOOK IT UP have there hands on the R/A and hands down ARE making it a monster of a car. Once again this car is a great platform with sick AWD, SAME MOTOR AS THE EVO, and more high tech equipment then any other car even close to its price range. BOOST BOOST gone. Achhhoooo (puke beamer) Gazuntite.
Buschur and AMS are also working on other cars so naturally they can use that as "proof" to their awesomeness right? I have yet to hear about this monster Ralliart, do you have a link?
Equipment does not make a car superior, if that was the case, there would be no place in this world for cars like the Evo RS, the Miata, the S2000 CR, the Lotus Exige, etc. Some people do not put a value on fancy transmissions, trick differentials that take the skill out of driving fast, hard drives bigger than those in computers 5 years ago, etc.
Oct 27, 2009, 05:12 PM
#60
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CA
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as value for the money, the RA really should top even the most objective person's list. You're getting hardware that, two years ago, came on a car that cost $8,000 to $10,000 more. You get the same engine as a car that currently costs $8,000-$10,000 more. You get one of the most advanced transmissions currently available (and one that happens to cost more than half the value of the vehicle if you were to buy it new). You get a better driveline than any of the cars in the same class. I'm sorry, but a FWD car with an LSD is still just a FWD car.
Add to that the possibility of great deals/rebates and 0% APR financing (my guess is that a LARGE number of people on these boards got the 0% APR), and it is hard to argue the overall value.
As for the shortcomings of the car, I don't think a single car today is manufactured and sold without some sort of shortcomings. Cars are always about give and take. I had to give up a lighter more mod-friendly car in order to gain a roomier car that other people could drive.
As for the obvious shortcomings (that are universally deemed to be negatives), they are some of the easiest to remedy. Power-to-weight ratio? ECU reflash and you're putting down stock EVO numbers (nothing to scoff at). Braking distance? A new set of tires (people have to buy these eventually anyway), and you'll drop at least 10 feet in your 60-0 breaking. $100 for new pads and you'll drop even more plus alleviate a good amount of fade.
Anyone who wants more than that (regardless of what car they buy), is going to be throwing down a lot more money anyway. At that point, the choice between cars in the RalliArt's class is purely aesthetic.
Add to that the possibility of great deals/rebates and 0% APR financing (my guess is that a LARGE number of people on these boards got the 0% APR), and it is hard to argue the overall value.
As for the shortcomings of the car, I don't think a single car today is manufactured and sold without some sort of shortcomings. Cars are always about give and take. I had to give up a lighter more mod-friendly car in order to gain a roomier car that other people could drive.
As for the obvious shortcomings (that are universally deemed to be negatives), they are some of the easiest to remedy. Power-to-weight ratio? ECU reflash and you're putting down stock EVO numbers (nothing to scoff at). Braking distance? A new set of tires (people have to buy these eventually anyway), and you'll drop at least 10 feet in your 60-0 breaking. $100 for new pads and you'll drop even more plus alleviate a good amount of fade.
Anyone who wants more than that (regardless of what car they buy), is going to be throwing down a lot more money anyway. At that point, the choice between cars in the RalliArt's class is purely aesthetic.