Deathsythe

Ok, I'm not going to argue with you. You clearly won't actually go do all of the research and actually see that you are incorrect so I'm not going to continue. You are so biased towards Subaru that you can't/ won't listen to reason. And for warranties, I don't care what Mitsubishi is known for. When I looked at both cars Mitsubishi had a better warranty plain and simple. Nothing to dispute. You mention "fun" being a factor, let's try to quantify "fun." Better yet, put that as a selling point next to the car. "Hey folks, this car is "fun." That is the most vague, immeasurable, subjective notion of the bunch. You say it lacks the power for fun? Tell that to someone with an AE86 or a Miata....give me a break....You mention stock breaking being inadequate, I put proper tires on and did a 60-0 stop that almost made my eyes pop out. As for what car mags choose you act as if the subaru and MS3 are way better, you appear to be very subie-biased.


Edmunds 2008

Final Thoughts
This is the second time the 2008 Mazdaspeed 3 has beaten the 2008 Subaru Impreza WRX in a head-to-head comparison, so we're not surprised to see this result again. Frankly, we're a little confused by Subaru's strategy. It's the most expensive car in the test, yet it's the least involving to drive. And, symmetrical all-wheel drive or not, its powertrain doesn't come close to matching the Ralliart's sophistication or confidence.

The 2009 Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart, however, puts up a genuine fight with a good overall driving experience and lots of amenities. If it cost $1,000 less and had better tires, the Ralliart would win this contest hands down.



Edmunds 2009

WRX Wins by 4.9 Points
Although it doesn't turn into a corner like an old-gen WRX, the 2009 Subaru Impreza WRX is the better of these two sport compacts. It doesn't matter that the 2009 WRX lacks fancy differentials and a twin-clutch gearbox. It's quicker, lighter and cheaper than the 2009 Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart.
Still, had our instrumented tests with the Lancer Ralliart on RE050As counted, the Subie's lead would narrow to 1.8 points. Factor in the higher evaluation scores a Ralliart with stickier rubber would likely get and the Mitsu might squeeze out a victory. The fact that tires matter so much says a lot about this rivalry. In spite of their different hardware, the 2009 Subaru Impreza WRX and 2009 Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart are so closely matched that it doesn't take much to tip the scales.
There's also a lot of emotion that we can't measure. Although the 2009 WRX is the winner here, we can't agree on which one feels better on our favorite roads.


All in all, I respect your love for subarus, but they are not they are not the best thing since sliced bread. As for 2009-2010 the RA appears to be the most complete, technologically advanced, and well optioned vehicle of the 3. Some may prefer what they want and that's good. Some may value speed over tech and vice versa but the best middle ground that gives you a little bit of all is the RA. I'm sorry if good tech and corrosion warranties don't sway your car making decision, that's all on you. But that's responsible car buying. If you want something that has "enough" horsepower, just go buy a Corvette or Bugatti. and When those don't have enough power for you or impracticality, possibly purchase a F22 Raptor or Joint Strike Fighter. I mean come on...

ambystom01

iTrader: (7)

What research do you speak of? I've looked at all the stats, I've read all the reviews, I have been on this forum for some time after all.
Funny how you say I'm biased towards Subaru as the same could apply to you in regards to Mitsubishi. You'll freely disregard the opinions of multiple professional reviewers as if you're in on some secret that they aren't privy to.
There is a difference between a warranty plan and warranty service. As an example, tune your Ralliart and see if Mitsubishi will agree you cover transmission problems. By contrast, when Subaru was suffering engine problems in a select number of 08 and 09 WRXs, they covered any and all engines that were affected, even ones that were modified.
This is just hilarious to me, you want to disregard the all important fun factor because it can't be quantified yet you complain that the reviewers only focus on the quantifiable traits of performance. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, if you want reviewers to see if your way and look past the quantifiable numbers, you must be willing to do the same. Actually read the reviews you speak of, they rarely say "because the WRX was faster in the 0-60 and 1/4 mile, it's the better car". You'll also notice I own a Miata as well as a WRX. The Miata is fun because it's RWD, small, lightweight and perfectly balanced. The same applies to the AE86. However, none of these terms apply to the Ralliart. It isn't RWD, it isn't small, it isn't lightweight (it's the heaviest in its group) and it isn't perfectly balanced. Comparing the Ralliart to the Miata is like comparing a bodybuilder to a ballerina.
You cannot discuss modified cars in this thread, they're irrelevant. You can put better tires on the WRX and zomg, it has even better braking and handling! Hell, let's fix that pesky body roll with a nice set of SPT springs straight from a Subaru dealership.

Last I checked, it was 2010, digging up reviews or comparisons involving the 2008 Subaru WRX is about as relevant to this thread as reviews of the 2004 Ralliart.

So if they put stickier, more expensive tires on the Ralliart, thereby increasing the cost difference between the two cars even more, it can perform as well as the bone stock 2009 WRX, shocking. I never would have guessed that stickier tires would make a car handle and stop better .

Where did I say the Subaru was the bestest thing ever? In fact, in my first post, I clearly say it boils down to personal preference. My issue with your posts are that they contain incorrect information and are an attempt to rationalize your opinion by throwing mud at the other teams, which is silly. All of the cars involved in this review have merits, resorting to this kind of petty defense mechanism is stupid and if anything, just hurts the Mitsubishi community even more. As you say, the Ralliart is the middle ground, jack of all trades, it does nothing extraordinary, it just does everything well. It's the swiss army knife of the group. Unfortunately, not a lot of people get aroused by swiss army knives. You can make all the hyperbole arguments you want but they accomplish nothing.
You say it's responsible car buying, who are you to say what's responsible car buying? As I said, I don't care about hard drives, fancy speakers, whatever, that's not why I buy a car like a Ralliart, WRX, MS3, etc. If I wanted a car with those features, I'd also want a car with better fuel efficiency, better insurance rates and more comfort like a Lexus or a Volvo. If I want a car that gets my heart pumping and funnels blood away from my brain, I want power, handling and fun. This is the sport compact segment we're talking about after all, not the "driving your grandma to choir practice" segment. If the car doesn't move my soul, it's not worth my time. It would be irresponsible for me to buy a car based on all the tech it has.
If you want to make the Ralliart out to be a jack of all trades car, that's fine but maybe we should be comparing it to the base Mazda3, 2.5i (or Legacy even), etc. since you apparently don't want it to compete against other performance minded vehicles.

Deathsythe

Incorrect, comparing the 2008 is perfectly applicable for the reason that it is on the same chassis code/ body style. The 2004 Lancer is not on the new body/chassis as the current iteration.

As reviewers seeing my way, the problem is not me wanting them to use some mystical factor they can't quantify it is taking more categories into consideration to make a full and adequate review. Obviously they aren't omniscient.

As for comparing the Miata and RA, there was no comparison. I referred to the RA "not making enough HP to be fun comment." Obviously the Miata has next to none and so does the AE86, and they are plenty fun. The RA is more than enough for fun, and when changing modes on the tranny and inducing oversteer, it's easy. Hence the torque numbers of the RA.

As for tires, the same cannot be said for the WRX. It had good tires to start with, add better tires and the gain would be minimal. The RA had terrible tires, when you change them to good tires the difference is huge because the previous tires were not up to par in the first place.

As for the RA, it has an EVO AWD system, EVO engine and EVO exhaust. It is meant to be an on and off road, all weather rally-type performance car. That was it's purpose. You want to test sporty in that class then make the MS3 and Impreza race on snow and rain. The subaru would do well but the MS3 would fail. Plus the RA has selectable center diff settings, which means it's more versatile, unlike the Impreza and the MS3. Not only that but most normal reviewers know that more torque than HP always = this "thrill" you keep talking about. The RA excels in this.

You talk about heavy? That heaviness has helped me far more in the snow and rain than it did with a 2800lb impreza.

As for the "swiss army knife excitement," I beg to differ. In a places with bad winters and decently hot summers, something that has fun in both types of weather is what wins. Not only that, but you talk about the sport compact segment and excitement, what is exciting about the subaru that looks like a saturn as was admittedly meant by subaru to be more of a compromise to widen their share in the market and not meant to look like the all out aggressive sports compact of the past few years. As well as the MS3, both with those huge "grins". How can you get "ooos and ahhhs" in a sports compact when the styling is admittedly meant to be less aggressive?

I am to say what responsible car buying is because I know the definition of the word. Being responsible in car buying would be weighing all of the information and making an educated and informed decision . I stated to you the information about warranties, tech, performance, etc. and demonstrated an informed and balanced decision due to all for the information. Yes, someone may choose another car, and that car may work better for their needs, but with all the factors on the table, the most unbiased middle ground would be the RA.

ambystom01

iTrader: (7)

This just shows how little "research" you've actually done. Subaru made some very significant changes for the 2009 model year. The power was increased to 265 HP from ~224 HP using a different turbo, the suspension was stiffened, the tires were changed and there were other changes as well. Nicely done, you've effectively shot yourself in the foot.

If you took the time to read the reviews, you'd notice they have multiple categories, they are not simply looking at one side of a vehicle. Generally they look at things like performance, which can be quantified, interior quality, which cannot, price, etc. It's hilarious that you have to resort to questioning the work of professional reviewers as if you could do it better .

As an owner of a Miata, you're well off base here. The two cars are vastly different. Trying to argue that the Ralliart has the same soul as the Miata is ridiculous. Guess what, the 2009 WRX has more power than the Ralliart and weighs less, according to your argument here, it would be even more fun.

I honestly have to ask, how much experience do you have with cars? Swapping good tires for better tires will always make a dramatic difference. In the case of the review you're talking about, they swapped the Ralliart's tires for Bridgestone RE050s, which, according to Tirerack, are in a class above the WRX tires meaning they're even stickier. A better review would have been to put the same tire on both vehicles. Given that even with stickier tires, the Ralliart merely kept up and did not blow the WRX out of the water, I suspect that with equal tires, the WRX would still edge out a slight advantage in handling numbers.

Of course this argument had to be made. You don't drive an Evo. Saying it has Evo parts is irrelevant. Moreover, what Evo do you speak of? It doesn't have the Evo X AWD system and, while it has the same short block, it doesn't have the full Evo X engine anymore than the WRX has the STI engine (even though it too has the same block as it's big brother). Everything you've said here easily applies to the WRX, it too is an on and off road, all weather rally-type performance car.
Who the **** races a stock car in the snow? Seriously, how do people rationalize this argument in their head? Do you drive well above the speed limit when it's raining heavily or snowing?
Once again, the WRX has more power than the Ralliart and weighs less (thus it has a higher power to weight ratio or higher torque to weight ratio) so it would excel even more than the Ralliart in this respect. The MS3 likely has a greater torque to weight ratio as well.

That's nice, in that case you should buy the heaviest car possible and get yourself an old-school wood panel station wagon. Last I checked though, we were talking about performance cars where weight is a disadvantage.

All of the cars in the review fit that bill fine. You don't need AWD to have fun in winter or to simply drive in them. FWD cars are not these lame ducks some condescending AWD owners like to make them out to be, unless you plan on driving like a moron, you won't have issues with a car like the MS3.
I saw that one coming from a mile away "the Subaru doesn't look fast". Wow, that's the best argument possible here? Seriously? Which would you rather have, a car that looks fast but is slow or a car that looks pedestrian, which also means it doesn't attract attention from cops or wannabe Vin Diesels, but is actually fast? Unless you spend the majority of your time looking at your car not driving it, I fail to see how looks play a role in that fun factor. Hell, the fun cars you mentioned earlier are no beauty queens, the AE86 looks like a box on wheels and the Miata makes even the toughest man look like a hairdresser but they're fun.

Of course, with your vast knowledge base, as shown in this thread, you're the one who tells the world what the responsible buy is. Ignore the fact that you're trying to treat subjective issues as objective truths, ignore the fact that you're attempting to dismiss the quantifiable traits in favor of qualitative factors while at the same time apparently trying to bat them away, you're the master of deciding which car is the best.
If the Ralliart is the most unbiased middle ground choice, how do you explain how not a single comparison from a variety of magazines (Motortrend, Edmunds, Car & Driver, Road & Track) have not chosen it as their pick in the segment?

Edit: To give a brief summary as to why your argument makes no sense, it's full of misinformation, incompletely researched conclusions and is frankly all over the place. You appear to want to use the Ralliart's power as a reason why it's the better choice yet you ignore the fact that it doesn't have the most power in the group nor the best power to weight ratio. You have previously tried to dismiss the performance aspects all together yet here you are trying to use them to your advantage and refer to the Ralliart as a performance car. You cannot have it both ways, if you want to disregard the performance components, fine but in that case, the review at hand is more or less irrelevant to you anyways since they were comparing performance cars with the understanding that in that segment, the performance aspects of the performance cars are an important factor.

jazket

iTrader: (1)

Dear Lord......

Guys guys, seriously?

Deathsythe

Since you appear to skew what I say I will be the bigger man and let you be wrong.


Subaru made big changes but not large enough that it is a different generation of the car. a 2008 and 2009 are not different cars.

As for reviewers being infinitely correct that's like saying I can't dispute the quality of work a newspaper or news network does. They have mistakes and do things crappy all the time, just look at Fox news...

Obviously I never stated that the RA had more torque than the WRX, I simply stated that it had more than enough to have fun, since you seem to think that it does not. Not only that but the RA 253lb ft of torque which last I checked was more torque than the 244lb ft that the WRX has. Yes, it may be heavier but it, combined with the EVO 9 AWD system can induce oversteer easily by putting more power to the rear. More than enough for some fun. You really should try to read the information.....

I ask how much experience with cars do you have? Yes tires make a huge difference as I stated, but if you already have decent tires (WRX) there isn't much as much room to move up as you would with a car going from terrible tires to good tires...It's not rocket science. Law of diminishing returns, as applied to tires.

As for the EVO statements, the WRX doesn't have the Sti's SI drive, It has no LSD old or new generation, at least the RA has the EVO 9 AWD, AWC, EVO MR tranny.

Yeah I wish some people did rationalize arguments in their heads. The race would be a test just like all the mags have on a closed course. I clearly and obviously never said "race on the street." the race/review would obviously demonstrate real weather abilities of a car that is anywhere on the planet that has weather, not just perfect sunny days every day, perfect roads and now rain or snow.


The funniest thing about your point is that your information is woefully incorrect

I obviously never said that the "Subaru didn't look fast", you had the quote right above your retort! What I said was that they designed it to be less aggressive and sporty for mass consumption. Why have a car that's as ugly as sin, but fast just to sit in the corporate parking lot and drive on the highway? You can have all the speed you want but the philosophy with subaru this iteration was 70% speed 30% looks, The RA is closer to 60% looks 40% speed, which is more of an attempt at a middle ground than the subaru. The same can be said about tech in the two cars. As for the MS3 it was all function over form. the design was made to have the best drag coefficient on the road, they worked around that to find a look that could "work".

Your biased opinions have obviously caused you to become angry and skew my clearly stated sentences in a manner that makes them seem different from what they are.

And no.......we are not talking about "performance cars" we are talking about sport compacts. Cars meant to be sporty, semi practical and be beefed up versions of their lower counterparts. They are not meant to be road going race cars. (those are EVOS and STIs) They are meant to be daily drivers capable of an entertaining highway drive and the occasional valley/ canyon carve. They are meant to have a little bit of everything so that they can be a good bridge between honda civics and EVOs. That's what you don't understand... Just like PC reviews that call an $800 PC a "budget" PC, your perceptions have been skewed.


You keep saying i'm trying to have things both ways when I clearly am not. I have been perfectly clear with what I have said. Your statements have been full of your own misquotes when you have my quotes right above your very sentence!

It's honestly a joke that I keep entertaining this!


Their is no reason to keep discussing this with such incorrect information.
I respect you for your opinion but I think you should step back, take a breath, look at the info, stop misinterpreting my sentences and have a nice day. If you don't like the mitsu's that much, head over to Nasioc and RS25. Then there you'll find lots of subie owners doing what you are doing now. They'll complain about how crappy the Impreza is and how slow it is etc. Every forum I join for a car has people like that. The grass is always greener on the other side. When I buy the BMW next and join their forums, i'm sure they'll be talking about Merc's being better just to cause controversy. It's ok, every forum member has their purpose in the sea of lurkers, over posters, trolls, political activists. I harbor no ill will towards you....

krnkimchi702

iTrader: (2)

i was hoping it didn't come to this.. if you guys want to continue this argument. please take it to pm

ambystom01

iTrader: (7)

I will sum this up as follows, stating that the 2008 WRX is the same as the 2009 is the equivalent of saying that despite a large increase in power, widespread suspension revisions and other dramatic changes, the 1992 Dodge Viper is the same as the current version since it is fundamentally the same car with the same name and general look. I do find it rather humorous that you find my mistake regarding the WRX's torque so problematic despite the fundamental point remaining true (the WRX has a higher torque-weight ratio therefore it should be better at the things requiring torque according to your logic) yet appear to have no issue with your own mistake that misstates the power by 40 HP, completely disregards the upgraded suspension, tires, etc. but hell, that's Evom for you.
As for the rest, given that a moderator does not want this to continue any further, and given that this is simply a repeat of discussions that have been going on for the past 2 years, I will simply say that you make various incorrect statements regarding the cars in question which makes the conclusions you form ultimately baseless. I'm sure your fellow Ralliart owners are glad to hear you say that their car is not a performance car.

tipoytm

I've debated with Amby on multiple WRX vs. RA threads since last year...

Deathsythe, we share the same "outlook"/opinion regarding this matter... but trust me, it is pointless to argue with Amby :-)

OniLancer

Not trying to support any car as better than the other. But an FYI for the guy that said heavier/sturdier is safer... that is not always the case. Being an engineer, I have to say that a well engineered car works no matter what the weight. Check this link

http://auto.freedomblogging.com/2009...-crash-worthy/

Deathsythe

Yeeeeeah, I see that. Haha. Oh well, I don't fault people for having strong opinions, it's a good thing I suppose. haha.

tipoytm

My final thoughts:

WRX = better out-of-the-box performing car
RA = better overall-package (tech,bells/whistles,sophisticated tranny & AWD, more options), can keep up with the WRX once you wear out the OEM tires and upgrade to better ones

Going to leave out looks, cuz that's a matter of personal taste. Both have good mod potential. No clear winner on reliability & warranty, WRX has a traditional manual which should be more reliable, but the RA does have a bullet-proof engine (no bad history yet).

To sum it up: you can't go wrong with either one, go pick whatever your heart tells you.

ambystom01

iTrader: (7)

My final thoughts:

WRX= better overall performer, can be upgraded to even better performance, doesn't have as much tech but makes up for it in other areas
RA= better tech, can be upgraded

To sum it up: As I've been saying time and time again, it boils down to personal preference. Using phrases like "better overall package" just muddies the water. Whether the tech, engine, power, transmission, etc. are important for you in a car is subjective, not objective. If you don't use a sunroof, listen to the radio 90% of the time, like to shift for yourself, the Ralliart seems like a poor choice. If you don't like the sound of a boxer motor, rarely drive aggressive, love things like navigation, built in hard drive, etc., the WRX seems like a poor choice.

tipoytm

I like chocolate :-) Have you tried Soya milk-choco drinks? My personal favorite.

EDIT(ed) my post above to expand what I meant by "overall package".

ambystom01

iTrader: (7)

Expanded on that point in my post.