I really don't think it competes, at least not in ways that can be easily reviewed. It certainly has more features than other cars in the comparison but I don't know of any car guy that will be swooning over the navigation system or the stereo when they're not cornering as hard as they should be or braking as fast as they should be or accelerating as they should be. Those things hurt the driver's experience.

 

Ok we are talkin about AWD cars why are u bringin a civic into this? Overweight or not it still runs in its class. U might as well say the Evo is not in the STi league cause its 300lbs heavier. As i said b4 lookin at the power and the weight the times it puts up is not bad. considering the lighter cars with more power (minus ur wonderful WRX) are not as quick or jus .1 or .2 secs quicker. Yes i agree the RA needs better suspension and brakes but it holds its own.

 

And again, how so?

 

When you say MS3 i say not Rally and is FWD. Although 2010 i see that Mazda will be making it AWD. It being said at 2010 who knows what other cars will top it.

 

If you're pure argument is that the WRX is almost as fast as the STI thus the STI is a waste, a civic can be made to be just as fast as an Evo for cheaper so is an Evo a waste? If you want an AWD car, use an older Eclipse. AWD seriously helps the RA and the WRX in the 0-60 times. If you read other reviews, you'll notice that they chastise the Ralliart for it's lack of power once the speeds actually get above 60 MPH. I don't think it holds it's own at all given it's lackluster performance in the Road and Track comparison as well (close to 2 seconds off the lead time in a 45 second autocross course).

 

I have to agree. How is the 2010 Mazda 3 better?

 

2010 mazda3 looks like it's been **** on.

(fixed that for ya...)

 

And i say again it does need better brakes and suspension, i agree on that but u can't say it doesn't hold its own. More HP would help too but the car does perform well.

 

Tru. I don't like the design of the new Mazda 3. I'm hoping the MS3 looks better than stock.

 

Performs well compared to what? I think it's best in class for features and it's a good looking car but it's not a performer, at least not stock or for this year. I'm sure Mitsubishi will do something, but the 2009 Ralliart was a bit disappointing.

 

^ ok sir. if i dont stop now, we'll just go round and round.................

 

that mazda really reminds me to the European Focus RS....

 

How many violent launches to attain the 4.7 0-60 time do you think a WRX could handle? If you look at the 5-60 times which are more real-world numbers the Ralliart and WRX are tied for fastest at 6.3 seconds. Most people that go on test drives will be using their butt dynos and the Ralliart will feel equally as fast to the average driver. I don't think Mitsubishi needs to add any power to the Ralliart as it's already plenty quick for the street which is what it was designed for.

 

this thread is going to end up just like the others lol...

 

The R/A for the original niche it was suppose to be and that was to bridge the gap between the Lancer and the X.
It is great.
I had the Lancer and went and upgraded to the R/A and I have not been disappointed.
The magazines are reviewing and comparing it, pound for pound to cars that is in the same segment and might have negatives, but they never said that the car was unacceptable. Editors have still picked the car over the others, buyers have bought it, so from a magazine perspective, it might not be so competitive.

Certain consumers, such as myself are making the same comparison but not as direct due to my preferences.
For i have test drove all of them except for the SS.
Which i won't even bother to. Cause i really dislike the way the SS looks above any of the cars that is in the segment.
But I am also making a comparison to the Lancer GTS. And it is a major difference in the performance and handling.

Is it competitive, maybe not in the eyes of the magazines. But to people who have certain preferences, it is very competitive, even if the car is more expensive then the next. That will depend on the buyer themselves.

I could have bought any of those cars including the X (GSR ONLY) or the STI.
or the Ms3
or the SS
or the WRX
or the R32
or the GTI or GLI
or the IS250 AWD or 350
or the Nissan 350z Nismo
I cross shopped the R/A with all of these cars.
But I still bought the R/A.

It is competitive for the buyer.
Intelligent people who buy cars don't depend on reviews solely.
It's basically a more-in-depth brochure.

Ask an 09 Cobalt SS owner his opinion.
I seen on the Chevy forums, that 09 SS owners are gloating how it can beat the X on the track and in a str8 line and how it's looks kills the X design.
IMO, that's some delusional s**t.



oh yeah, one more thing.
food for thought.
we all know that the best car in the segment is the COBALT SS.
HP, performance, etc. It was in all the reviews.
That being said,
HOW MANY OF YOU ARE NOW GOING TO GO BUY THE SS?