updated wrx... what does this mean for the ralliart
I think we need to give both cars a few more weeks for people to buy and experience them. Its still way to early for both wrx 09 and ralliart 09 to reach the consumer side. I'm sure after few weeks or months, R/T, Motortrend, autoblog and other magazine and reviewers would have a more detailed comparison between those 2 models side by side.
I wouldn't go that far, the Evo is a completely different beast. At a track, the STI would beat the WRX and the Evo is definitely a competitor to the STI.
I think we need to give both cars a few more weeks for people to buy and experience them. Its still way to early for both wrx 09 and ralliart 09 to reach the consumer side. I'm sure after few weeks or months, R/T, Motortrend, autoblog and other magazine and reviewers would have a more detailed comparison between those 2 models side by side.
Newbie
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
From: California
, due to you can see the major difference between the two on performance. I did felt alittle bit sad 
on my MS3 after the new WRX 09 came out this month, it just killed my MS3 easily with their new upgrades. But oh well thats how technology is, there would be always new things coming out. And heck my car is 24 OTD only anyways :P.
Evolved Member
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 1
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
http://forums.beyond.ca/attachment.p...postid=2630364
BTW: That's the final results from the Car & Driver Lightning Lap.
Last edited by heavyD; Oct 9, 2008 at 11:42 AM.
That's one test, albeit not exactly a good one for the STI. As I said before, for the average person, the difference is minimal and even for the average track the difference will be minimal. As an obvious example, most comparisons seem to show lap times that vary by less than a second (or less than a tenth of a second in some cases).
I'd buy one
Last edited by slim8605; Oct 9, 2008 at 12:52 PM.
Evolved Member
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 1
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Yet you keep talking about this single Road & Track comparison of the WRX and Ralliart like one comparison is all that counts.
You say a six second difference between the EXO X and STI is a minimal for the average person yet the Ralliart is closer to the WRX and you have called the Ralliart slow several times in this thread.
It is really starting to smell like fanboyism isn't it.
As I said before, for the average person, the difference is minimal and even for the average track the difference will be minimal. As an obvious example, most comparisons seem to show lap times that vary by less than a second (or less than a tenth of a second in some cases).
It is really starting to smell like fanboyism isn't it.
Yet you keep talking about this single Road & Track comparison of the WRX and Ralliart like one comparison is all that counts.
You say a six second difference between the EXO X and STI is a minimal for the average person yet the Ralliart is closer to the WRX and you have called the Ralliart slow several times in this thread.
It is really starting to smell like fanboyism isn't it.
You say a six second difference between the EXO X and STI is a minimal for the average person yet the Ralliart is closer to the WRX and you have called the Ralliart slow several times in this thread.
It is really starting to smell like fanboyism isn't it.
Yet you keep talking about this single Road & Track comparison of the WRX and Ralliart like one comparison is all that counts.
You say a six second difference between the EXO X and STI is a minimal for the average person yet the Ralliart is closer to the WRX and you have called the Ralliart slow several times in this thread.
It is really starting to smell like fanboyism isn't it.
You say a six second difference between the EXO X and STI is a minimal for the average person yet the Ralliart is closer to the WRX and you have called the Ralliart slow several times in this thread.
It is really starting to smell like fanboyism isn't it.
In what way is the Ralliart closer to the WRX? Did they test the new Ralliart and the new WRX in the Lightning Lap shootout? The WRX is faster to 60, faster in the 1/4 mile, shows better handling numbers and shows close to a 2 second difference in a sub-1 minute autocross course. What do you think would happen on a larger course with more straight aways (something they complained about with the Ralliart), more high speed corners and more quick braking zones? I promise you it'll be a far larger difference than the 5 seconds between the Evo and the STI considering an autocross course should be reasonably good for the Ralliart (speeds are lower and the car can stay in it's peak range better).
Compare the performance numbers of the STI to that of the Evo, they are nearly identical. The 0-60 times are the same, the 1/4 times are the same and the handling numbers are so high for both that you couldn't realistically test them on the street.
You can claim fanboyism all you like but the data suggests otherwise.
Newbie
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
From: Sydney
2. Why is a TC-SST transmission superior? Can it hold more power? Can it shift smoother? Is it more reliable?
3. The FQ series is Mitsubishi to an extent. Why doesn't Mitsubishi recommend the TC-SST for their most powerful cars? Why are the fastest cars around the ring still traditional manuals?
People can claim all they want that the TC-SST is superior but as I said before, there is no evidence to support this. It's a cool technology but it's still in its infancy and too declare it the best now is just silly.
3. The FQ series is Mitsubishi to an extent. Why doesn't Mitsubishi recommend the TC-SST for their most powerful cars? Why are the fastest cars around the ring still traditional manuals?
People can claim all they want that the TC-SST is superior but as I said before, there is no evidence to support this. It's a cool technology but it's still in its infancy and too declare it the best now is just silly.
3. Yes, its only to an extent. But as i said, they are only seriously no more than a tuner shop, who's aim is to gain money in the shortest period of time. Therefore the use of manual. What FQ uses, got nothing to do with Mitsubishi's recommendation as Mitsubishi don't buy the car off them and resell it. They have to make their own sales.
I do agree that its still in its infancy and no one can/should declare it as the best for NOW. However at the same time, there's also no proof to say manual is/will be superior to the SST technology.
2. That doesn't make it superior, a traditional auto eliminates the possibility of a miss-shift and can indeed shift faster than a human (in some cases) but they're not better than a human under all conditions.
3. The people who produce the FQ series are not just a tuner shop, they're HKS who work in conjunction with Mitsubishi (much like STI or Mugen). http://www.mitsubishi-cars.co.uk/evo...x/overview.asp. It's somewhat damning that FQ decided not to use the TC-SST. You can argue it's a profit based decision but that doesn't make sense, they would logically charge more for a TC-SST containing car thus their profit would be identical.
3. The people who produce the FQ series are not just a tuner shop, they're HKS who work in conjunction with Mitsubishi (much like STI or Mugen). http://www.mitsubishi-cars.co.uk/evo...x/overview.asp. It's somewhat damning that FQ decided not to use the TC-SST. You can argue it's a profit based decision but that doesn't make sense, they would logically charge more for a TC-SST containing car thus their profit would be identical.