Notices
09+ Lancer Ralliart General Discuss any generalized technical factory turbocharged Ralliart related topics that may not fit into the other forums.

Car and Driver Comparo is out

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 27, 2008 | 08:11 PM
  #346  
dboz's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
From: ohio
Originally Posted by ambystom01
That's the new WRX, older WRXs with the TD-04-13T struggle to hit 300 whp even with the 2.5 L block and meth injection. It's simply a byproduct of a small turbo (fast spool, sharp high RPM cutoff) and what HP is (torque related to RPM).
Good point. It will take way more involvement to get 09 WRX power numbers out of the RA. So for maybe $1000 at an 09 WRX you are pushing into 300whp and torque range. If you are talking needing a turbo on the RA then you are getting very involved and expensive?
Reply
Old Nov 27, 2008 | 08:23 PM
  #347  
chino ali's Avatar
Evolved Member
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
From: Cybertron
Originally Posted by dboz
Actually the Selby SSC Ultimate Aero is the fastest. There is some good stuff near the end about the VEYRON.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aCmN...eature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvMHS...eature=related
damn.
ok, i have corrected post #339

nice vid. but the music was gay as hell.
+1 and -1 = 0
J/k, that Shelby was very nice, tho.
def pissed off Bugatti.
and it was a manual shifter.

So the 2nd fastest car is a TC-SST.
There you have it.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2008 | 05:48 AM
  #348  
EsRt2evo's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
From: Pgh, PA to Orl, FL
Originally Posted by dboz
WOW!! That is optimistic. So at 310-320 WHP and stay conservative at a 10% powertrain loss (my guess is more), you are hypothesizing 350 crank HP from a car that is 235 stock(115 crank hp increase)...(50% more)? Even the EVO, with its better turbo and a zchip and MBC with an aggressive tune can muster a 107whp gain. With some additional mods I saw one guy hit 335 whp. So to say you expect the RA to get there....good luck with that one.
Also why are you comparing the difference of 115 crank hp to the Evo's 107whp. 107whp is probably more along the lines of 150 crank hp. And that's with two mods. Now throw all stock turbo mods at an Evo and you're looking at 385whp.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2008 | 06:37 AM
  #349  
ambystom01's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 15,634
Likes: 75
From: Canuckistan
And the Evo has a larger turbo capable of making high HP numbers. Seriously, you don't seem to get it. I'm betting that on a road-mimicking dyno (ie. one that gives an accurate depiction of the power you're making in the real world), the Ralliart is probably putting about 160-180 HP to the wheels stock. To get to 300 WHP on the same dyno, you'd need to almost double the output. That's hard as hell to do. The biggest mod will likely be a TBE and a tune but that will probably just push you over 200 WHP. You now need to make 100 WHP with mods that either do jack all (like an intake) or that do very little in terms of peak power (like an intercooler).
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2008 | 07:08 AM
  #350  
EsRt2evo's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
From: Pgh, PA to Orl, FL
Originally Posted by ambystom01
And the Evo has a larger turbo capable of making high HP numbers. Seriously, you don't seem to get it. I'm betting that on a road-mimicking dyno (ie. one that gives an accurate depiction of the power you're making in the real world), the Ralliart is probably putting about 160-180 HP to the wheels stock. To get to 300 WHP on the same dyno, you'd need to almost double the output. That's hard as hell to do. The biggest mod will likely be a TBE and a tune but that will probably just push you over 200 WHP. You now need to make 100 WHP with mods that either do jack all (like an intake) or that do very little in terms of peak power (like an intercooler).
So a 3400lb car with AWD and 160-180whp goes 0-60 in 5.4 sec? Give me a break. Your precious new WRX with 230whp and 3100 lbs does it in only .3 of a second quicker (Unless of course you dump the clutch at redline), and with better tires. Does that make any sense to you? The Ralliart has more then you think stock. I believe one thing (that isn't that far out there IMO) and you believe another, so let's just keep our mouths shut until this thing gets tuned.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2008 | 07:15 AM
  #351  
ambystom01's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 15,634
Likes: 75
From: Canuckistan
Originally Posted by EsRt2evo
So a 3400lb car with AWD and 160-180whp goes 0-60 in 5.4 sec? Give me a break. Your precious new WRX with 230whp and 3100 lbs does it in only .3 of a second quicker (Unless of course you dump the clutch at redline), and with better tires. Does that make any sense to you? The Ralliart has more then you think stock. I believe one thing (that isn't that far out there IMO) and you believe another, so let's just keep our mouths shut until this thing gets tuned.
So you really think the Ralliart was underrated? Look at the older WRX with 2.0 L motor. It also had 230ish HP and it *gasp* puts out similar numbers to the Ralliart. AWD is a major advantage is a 0-60 test and can make an otherwise normal car seem extraordinary. How can a car like the Evo with less than 300 HP have a 0-60 less than 5 seconds (in some cases as low as 4.4 seconds)? Look at the 1/4 trap speeds for AWD cars and compare them to the trap speeds of similarly quick FWD or RWD cars, you'll notice a huge disparity.
How will a tuned Ralliart affect this?
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2008 | 07:15 AM
  #352  
dboz's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
From: ohio
Originally Posted by EsRt2evo
So a 3400lb car with AWD and 160-180whp goes 0-60 in 5.4 sec? Give me a break. Your precious new WRX with 230whp and 3100 lbs does it in only .3 of a second quicker (Unless of course you dump the clutch at redline), and with better tires. Does that make any sense to you? The Ralliart has more then you think stock. I believe one thing (that isn't that far out there IMO) and you believe another, so let's just keep our mouths shut until this thing gets tuned.
OK, so the RA is actually 3500 lbs. So if you do the calculations based on time and trap speed, the RA is 238 crank hp. Barely underrated. The WRX is 256 crank hp, a little overrated as it is advertised at 265.

Last edited by dboz; Nov 28, 2008 at 07:43 AM.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2008 | 07:28 AM
  #353  
dboz's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
From: ohio
Originally Posted by EsRt2evo
Also why are you comparing the difference of 115 crank hp to the Evo's 107whp. 107whp is probably more along the lines of 150 crank hp. And that's with two mods. Now throw all stock turbo mods at an Evo and you're looking at 385whp.
Because it means you need to get more power out of the RA compared to the X to get those numbers you are shooting for. The X can barely do it. It is a dyno fact that the MR dynoes 10-20hp less than the GSR. So, to hit your 310-320whp on the RA, you will need to get an average of 15 more hp out of the RA engine compared to the EVO GSR. Since a good EVO GSR is about 330-340whp that means a good MR is 315-325whp which is right in your estimate for the RA. Considering the RA does have some differences with the EVO, mainly turbo and its setup (not swappable) there is NO WAY you are going to get there. To be able to do the same thing with the X, 50% gain, that means the X would need to put down 435 crank HP. Again, even figure 5% loss for powertrain, and you are talking 400-410 whp, that has not yet happpened that I am aware of. You are going to be doing some serious upgrades to do that on the X. So with the known RA deficits compared to the X, that is just going to be WAY optimistic to achieve.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2008 | 08:34 AM
  #354  
Robevo RS's Avatar
Evolved Member
15 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (16)
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,535
Likes: 60
From: Park Ridge N.J.
Originally Posted by dboz
OK, so the RA is actually 3500 lbs. So if you do the calculations based on time and trap speed, the RA is 238 crank hp. Barely underrated. The WRX is 256 crank hp, a little overrated as it is advertised at 265.
i dont think the RA is 3500 lb. I think it is much lighter. Like around 3300lb.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2008 | 09:01 AM
  #355  
dboz's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
From: ohio
Originally Posted by Robevo RS
i dont think the RA is 3500 lb. I think it is much lighter. Like around 3300lb.
Just going by the curb weight listed by C & D. If was was 3300 that would make the HP numbers lower of course. ROBEVO, I like the new logo!! STY!!
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2008 | 09:16 AM
  #356  
Robevo RS's Avatar
Evolved Member
15 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (16)
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,535
Likes: 60
From: Park Ridge N.J.
thanks. I loved STI until i drove the 08.
twice last week.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2008 | 09:42 AM
  #357  
EsRt2evo's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
From: Pgh, PA to Orl, FL
Originally Posted by ambystom01
So you really think the Ralliart was underrated? Look at the older WRX with 2.0 L motor. It also had 230ish HP and it *gasp* puts out similar numbers to the Ralliart. AWD is a major advantage is a 0-60 test and can make an otherwise normal car seem extraordinary. How can a car like the Evo with less than 300 HP have a 0-60 less than 5 seconds (in some cases as low as 4.4 seconds)? Look at the 1/4 trap speeds for AWD cars and compare them to the trap speeds of similarly quick FWD or RWD cars, you'll notice a huge disparity.
How will a tuned Ralliart affect this?
Didn't the 2002-2005 WRX have curb weights of around 3,000-3,050lbs? If so I doubt the RA is putting down the same HP and achieving the same 0-60.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2008 | 09:49 AM
  #358  
hibby's Avatar
Evolved Member
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 784
Likes: 0
From: PA
Originally Posted by Robevo RS
i dont think the RA is 3500 lb. I think it is much lighter. Like around 3300lb.
Originally Posted by dboz
Just going by the curb weight listed by C & D.
It's closer to 3500 than it is to 3300.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2008 | 10:09 AM
  #359  
ambystom01's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 15,634
Likes: 75
From: Canuckistan
Originally Posted by EsRt2evo
Didn't the 2002-2005 WRX have curb weights of around 3,000-3,050lbs? If so I doubt the RA is putting down the same HP and achieving the same 0-60.
It's around 3100 lbs or so. Don't forget the way in which HP is rated changed.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2008 | 10:54 AM
  #360  
EsRt2evo's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
From: Pgh, PA to Orl, FL
Originally Posted by ambystom01
It's around 3100 lbs or so. Don't forget the way in which HP is rated changed.
True. So in that case the old WRX's were making 150whp and the RA's are making 180whp. Either way you look at the RA is still putting down more. You can not argue that it takes more power to move a 3400lb car to 60 then it does to move a 3100lb car to 60 in the same time.
Reply



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:41 AM.