OK, I finally got out to test drive a RA today. Here is my take. Keep in mind I have been shopping the 09 WRX and have driven that twice.

I think the RA looks really good. Nice and aggressive. The interior is very cheap. The GTS seats are also cheap. They were not firm and the side bolsters on the seat bottom are going to wear quickly (cheap foam). All power buttons were minimal and flimsy. I felt like the dash was too low. I lowered the seat a lot and still felt like it was a bit off somehow. The steering wheel is very nice. I thought the steering was tight and responsive. The dash has a lot of bad plastic and is very drab, even with the faux carbon fiber. It is just very stark, almost depressing. I did not care for the instrumentation either. The controls are very simple.

The ride was noisy and firm. Road noise was loud and road joints were heard and felt. The engine was loud but sounded good. The WRX is much more refined in ride quality in my opinion.

The SST. I personally was shopping the RA for the trans. I have to say it was a MAJOR disappointment. Had plenty of time to test it in both modes, shift manually and let it shift for me both in city and on highway. In town the thing is terrible if in sport mode. Revs all over searching for a gear, very lurch oriented and would be terrible on gas (I realize it is probably not for in town driving on a regular basis in this mode but for me I don;t know when I would really use it). In normal it was OK but still seemed to surge a lot. There was a lot of turbo lag in my opinion. Way more than the WRX. The lag plus the trans was bucking the car. You hear a lot of noise then things kick in and you go pretty good. I just did not feel like it was as great as I thought it would be. Very artificial.

The car is nice, and I am sure for those that don't drive a stick, they will love it as it is more involving than a regular auto. But to me the SST would get old quick. In normal mode it would be livable and acts pretty much live a normal auto except it has much better downshifts.

I am sure this will bring down the thunder on me. I really wanted to like it. I think the AWD system is better than the WRX. If I can get an 08 closeout, I may step up to an X. They still have 3 and they have been sitting on them for months already.

For my money I think the WRX is a better car than the RA. Maybe it is my age. I am sure a lot of you younger guys will really like it. I need to digest things a few days and maybe go back for another drive just to be sure.

 

^^^I guess it just goes to show the different opinions of everyone. I bought the car for the exact opposite reasons you stated, haha. Also if you thought the RA had turbo lag you'll be in for a big surprise with the X. Good luck.

 

The SST only hunts really if you confuse it, the problem is sudden slow downs where you might want to go from 4th to 2nd in town, and with the
SST they are on the same tranny so it takes a few seconds to select it. Only around town doing random stuff could I confuse the tranny and throw it off, but out cruising it was great. Miles ahead of the BMW SMG which feels absolutely terrible as far as simulating driving a manual.

 

Lol, welcome to the dark side. Wait until you drive a stage 2 WRX, 1000$ and you can suddenly give STIs and Evos a hard time.

 

get WRX

 

you need only a tune on those /less then 1K/
and bye bye

 

I agree. I was on and off the gas a lot. It was a test drive. In steady acceleration and cruising it was fine.

 

Some new numbers on the WRX from Car and Driver.

PERFORMANCE:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.7 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 12.9 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 19.7 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 6.3 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.5 sec @ 102 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 142 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 160 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.87 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 18/25 mpg
C/D observed: 20 mpg

I think that is knocking on EVO numbers and for a lot less money. I say, what does this do for the EVO not the Ralliart. If it is performance you are after on a budget, this looks like a no brainer.

 

damn.
impressive numbers
That is hp per dollar there.

 

That blew me away. The RA will not even be in the ballpark when they do a head to head. If they test the WRX vs. the X then maybe they have a comparo. RA better step it up in 2010.

Here are the only X numbers I could find. Edmunds so they are always a little slow but here you go.

Here are its numbers:
0-30 mph: 1.7 seconds
0-45 mph: 3.1 seconds
0-60 mph: 4.9 seconds
0-75 mph: 7.2 seconds
Quarter-mile: 13.6 seconds at 101.3 mph

30-0 mph: 28 feet
60-0 mph: 112 feet

600-foot slalom: 70.7 mph
200-foot skid pad: 0.99g

 

those are impressive numbers. they are backed up by motor trend too, so i am thinking it is actually that fast.

maybe i'll just stick to a CBE and suspension bits and call it good.

 

It looks like a great straight line car. Even if it's as fast as an EVO in a straight line it doesn't handle, break near as well nor does it look good or even decent. I don't car what Subaru fanboys say the interior is cheap (the silver painted plastic on the dash especially looks terribly cheap) and the seats are garbage.

 

I bet you it will brake and handle better than the Ralliart which was the intention in the first place. It's not like the Ralliart/Lancer has a great interior, it's still plastic and faux CF.

 

Nm

 

yes it's not an EVO X. EVO X rules forever. but it is a nice car for the money at least? ok, and it's ugly as Polar Bear Scat, but for the money?