Exactly, who is going to launch their Ralliart all the time especially with a 10000$ transmission?

 

Still it's easier and less work to floor an automatic car off the line than to continually slip the clutch at green lights to obtain spirited acceleration.

 

I'm not saying that the WRX isn't capable in the snow but having three differentials to one plus settings for gravel/tarmac/snow will obviously improve traction in severe conditions. How can you even debate this?

 

Anybody consistently dumping the clutch on the CSS, MS3 or WRX will eventually regret that as well, although with less repair expense. Really, who normally drives like that on the street?

 

Again you are speculating. For the record the 13G turbo was used on TT V6 engines and Mitsubishi used the 13B on automatic 1G DSM's that made only 185HP. I highly doubt they would use such an old and small turbocharger design for the Ralliart.

 

So? It's also way harder on the transmission since it's not a torque converter auto, it's a twin clutch auto. If you want to abuse your expensive transmission, go nuts, but I suspect most people will want to treat it nicely since if it blows, you're pooched.

 

I've been trying to keep quiet, but you're really pushing it. Find me one link to a 7+ second Ralliart 0-60...people are really stretching the truth now in this forum. Edmunds reported the slowest time I've seen...6.6 seconds, and everyone claimed that Edmunds tests for other cars were also lies in the comparison thread regarding the V6 accord coupe and the V6 altima coupe.

 

Easily, I actually own a WRX and know how it drives. Even the 08s are more than capable in the snow, it's a matter of how you drive. You're crazy if you think that extra 300 lbs won't hurt the Ralliart's ability to handle and brake in the snow.

 

That's why I suspect they're using the 13T which is larger. If the turbo in the Evo is a 16G and we know the turbo in the Ralliart to be different than the turbo in the Evo, we can safely assume that the Ralliart does not have a 16G but a smaller turbo given the power output and boost characteristics.

 

There was a european review that had a horrible 0-60, I believe it was 7.X.

 

Here's the thread, 0-62 in 7.1 seconds. https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...d.php?t=352855

 

Well...R&T said 5.4, Motortrend said 5.6, Popular Mechanics said 5.4, and Edmunds said 6.6. I don't doubt they all did their best to launch by any means necessary.

And before anyone asks, I've got the magazines at home (edmunds is online) if scans are needed to verify their results

 

Oh, and not to start a conspiracy, just something I noticed in the included photos in each of the reviews. The car that Edmunds tested had less than 300 miles on it when they tested it, if you look at the photos in the recent R&T review and in the Motortrend article, you can see the car they're using has just over 2000 miles on it. Doesn't seem accurate to me to be testing a car that hasn't even been properly broken in yet. I'm NOT saying this is the reason, just something I picked up on.

 

I believe all those results but you can't go from 6.6 to 5.4 without changing the way you launch. I suspect that Road and Track absolutely beat on the cars meaning redline clutch dumps for launches. This isn't good for any car. The Edmunds numbers are likely more realistic for a daily driver.

 

That is a very wide swing there... we can conclude nothing