Ha Ha Ha Ha. How did you round 5.7 seconds down to 5 seconds. You are a fanboy face it. Face it your arguments for the STI don't hold water when you are denouncing the Ralliart for the same thing.

Also I have yet to see a comparison where the STI as fast than the EVO GSR in a straight line. According to Road and Track the EVO X GSR pulls away siginificantly over 100 mph;
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d...Vwrx_chart.pdf

You are making this way too easy for me lol.

 

Check the R&T and C&D times, they're both around 5 seconds (I think 5.1). The Evo is also around 5.1 0-60 MPH so nice try on that one. Considering the WRX has a 0-60 of 5.1, it makes logical sense that the STI would be around that as well.
Why am I a fanboy, because I can actually work out that a 2 second difference on a 45 second course is a larger difference than a 5 second difference on a 3 minute road course? Granted I didn't graduate with a degree in math but I'm pretty sure that 2/45s is larger than 5/180.
Both the STI and the Evo are capable of 5ish 0-60 times (you are free to check the times listed in R&T). I agree that the Evo will pull at 100 MPH speeds because the turbo is larger.
I love how you're accusing me of being a fanboy yet the same arguments apply to you, it's fantastic. Moreover, when did I diss the Evo and how is the Evo applicable to the Ralliart? The Evo is a competitor to the STI, that's obvious to anyone.

 

No it's because the EVO 4B11 is stronger remember the EVO has a 300lb weight disadvantage yet is as fast or faster than the STI at all speeds. That stronger engine is in the Ralliart and with some minor ecu tuning sould be able to put out some pretty respectable times.

Road and track clocked the EVO X at 0-60 in 4.9 seconds and the STI at 5.0 seconds. Also Car & driver clocked the GSX at 0-60 in 4.6 seconds and STI at 5.0 seconds. Read the article where your beloved Subaru finishes last again and load the test sheets;
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...omparison_test

That 0.4 second 0-60 mph difference between the EXO X GSR and STI is the same as the 0.4 second 0-60 mph difference between the 09 WRX and in your words the slow Ralliart. Sorry I'm not going to argue about your hypothetical theories of how the Ralliart would fare against the WRX on a different track. I'll stick to published numbers to keep contradicting you.

 

The Evo uses a larger turbo than the STI, that is a fact. If you've ever seen the two compared next to each other it's startling really. At 100 MPH speeds, I don't think weight is as big an issue as say when launching. At those speeds the larger turbo makes a big difference since it's not running out of steam.
The engine isn't what makes the Evo faster since the engine outputs are the same. The Evo has nearly telopathic computers which make it's handling just plain stupid really. You'll notice that these computers are not present in the Ralliart.
I have the issue with that comparison and yes the STI finishes last. Again, so what? The performance numbers are almost the same and in other comparisons the STI and Evos finish so closely (ie. the times are less than second apart) that you would be hard pressed to notice a difference. This tells you that the two cars are very comparable and what you might be seeing is differences in driver capabilities. In the real world, the Evo and STI are essentially different brothers from different mothers.
You're taking the times from the C&D test yet in the R&T test the difference is 0.1 of a second. In no review has the Ralliart clocked a better time than a 5.4 0-60. That 4.6 0-60 for the Evo is also somewhat perplexing since it's faster than pretty much any time out there. I'm not going to get dragged into another Evo vs. STI pissing contest but based on pretty much every review, the WRX is faster than the Ralliart, end of story.

 

2. How did a traditional auto come into this?? Traditional auto's both slow in shifting and also retard in the gear selection.

3. Making no sense if they would charge logically more for a SST?? Sorry, but that's such a naive thinking. Not to mention a poor business proposal for anyone. What about the cost of extra research? The cost of extra trial & error? The cost of everything else that they are unfamiliar with?

So tell me, if you are a company and there's a new product. Would you 1) rather spend time to come out with something that's already been proven and ensure to sell, or 2) spend time on something that's new and will take much more effort to find out because of its newish factor???

If you choose 1. i applauded that you are still part of this real world. If you pick 2. i applauded that you still have a dream.

 

2. Some autos aren't that bad, modern torque-converter transmissions can shift reasonably fast. As another example, look at a CVT transmission as in the GTS. It can "shift" (albeit falsely) but it's not superior either. Logically no shifts should be the best but that's simply not the case. At the moment there simply isn't an ECU that can match the human brain in all conditions. Some reviews have noted this where the transmission is confused as to what gear it should be in.
3. I don't see the issue. If they used the MR as their base, their base cost would increase and they would pass this on to the consumer. The amount of R&D is irrelevant of the transmission, they wouldn't need to adjust the maps or anything like that, just mod the engine. You did raise the main point, unfamiliarity. You may be comfortable putting all your eggs in the basket of an unproven technology, but I'm not.
Something else to consider, if they went with the TC-SST, they could sell more units theoretically since it wouldn't limit the car to people who can drive stick.

 

I dont think you understand how this transmission works. I suggest you go drive either an MR or a RA in all available modes before posting.

 

I understand and saw the video amby was referring to. That error was due to the driver and the computer. Anyone that has driven an MR for more than 30 minutes knows that he should have paddle shifted into first in that U-turn. The driver was unfamiliar with how the MR tranny works and just left it in full auto mode, the computer was shocked by him trying a hand brake U-turn and did not go into the right gear for the situation. This is not an everyday driving or track situation, it was more of a rally setup if you ask me. So yes the programming may fail, but in the end an experienced driver can over come that by going into manual mode.

 

How is what I said wrong? Some reviews have noted that the transmission seems confused at times (mainly at the track) and shifts needlessly. I would love to drive an MR but I'm not willing to put a 5000$ deposit down on a car that I have no intention to buy. Moreover, I would hate to be that douchebag that bags on someone's potential car.

 

Different video altogether. I agree that an e-brake U-turn isn't even close to normal.

 

When one is racing they are in manual mode. The computer does not shift the car for you. So im not sure why you're comparing an ECU to the human brain.

 

What's the point in having the TC-SST if you're not going to actually use the modes (ie. Sport, Super Sport)? Why not save the thousands and buy a traditional manual? To clarify this point, if you're just running the car in manual mode, you still need to provide an input to get the car to shift. I fail to see how pulling a paddle is substantially different than pushing a shift lever into another gear. Some people have argued that a traditional manual is "distracting" but the same could be said of the TC-SST in manual mode.

 

The Canadian ones are also stupidly tight in evos and RA's. Test drove tonight and loved it. far superior to the wrx 265 in fit and finish, drive ability, and looks. yes on paper it's down a few ponies and I think its a bit underated myself! but I'll be happy to challenge a subie any time. You better be able to shift fast! That SST is pretty quick! mine is Black with the premium package! yes it was lots of money to look like a GTS, but truth is I bought it because of what it is and what it can do with the ammenaties to go along with it, ie: bluetooth, nav, leather recaros, bulit proof evo block, exhaust, and aluminum hood, and it actually doesn't look like it got the corolla S ugly stick! IMO
C

 

It's down a lot of ponies but it's got a good amount of torque which I suspect is due to a smaller turbo (which also explains it's lack of umph in the higher speeds). It's good to here you found a car you like. Something people need to keep in mind is it's up to them to decide which car is right for them, the magazines just give them the numbers.

 

Everythings speculation until both cars get into hands of some reputable tuners.