That's fine, but declaring it the best DD isn't possible since that claim is subjective not objective.

 

Quoted in case you decide to change it. You'll notice that personal attacks not only spoil the discussion but also have no place on Evom.

 

Trubo and I can't be the only ones I assure you that like it for a DD. Amby you should actually try an RA some day, you might actually like it!!! But guess if that were to happen you'd have to go to the wrx site and raz everyone on how much better it is than a wrx. Now that would be fun no???

 

I actually want to drive a Ralliart or an MR but unfortunately that's not easy when you have no plans on buying. Funnily enough I have defended the Ralliart and the Evo on Evom and on other forums when appropriate.

 

Fine discuss away. why would someone post a pic of a troll for you though? I'm not the only one having a hard time swallowing your comments. Please be Moderator like then (suggesting of higher regard than joe poster) and show us (not speculating) why what ever car is this or that and not craming your views of it down our throats.

back to topic
Car and Diver comparo....... I prefer the RA for a DD over the WRX due to the fact that I wanted a paddleshift trans instead of a stick as I do alot of stop and go city driving and wanted something new. I don't like front wheel drive cars so the other in the comparo didn't interest me. I wanted awd and I had two choices for that price point, so I chose the RA.

 

? I have posted numerous fact-based arguments that you and others have chosen to ignore. Obvious ones, the fact that somehow, on the dyno people have decided to use, the Ralliart posts numbers barely under it's crank HP rating and within spitting distance of the Evo. Of course this was blown over. Funny how people want to say their opinions but when someone says a conflicting view, it's all of the sudden a problem. Moderators have opinions too.

 

Thanks for your discression in defending.

I tell you what, you and I are not actually that far apart. If you come through Kelowna Or I come through Calgary I would be glad to swap cars with you, if you agree for a fun test and discover session, in all seriousness. This could be a good learning expirience not only for you and me but many other readers on this form. Then you could honestly say you comments on the car first hand. What you think?

 

That could work although being realistic by the time one of us is in the other city/town, your car is likely to be modified and mine will be even more modified than it is now. Eventually I'll find a way to drive a stock Ralliart, maybe in the summer (no point testing it during the winter).

 

Hold up homeboy, if u got somethin to say bout my post then say my name along wid it. It wasnt an opinion its on paper and that would mean u calling the tuner company that did the dyno run liars. And since u are still dwelling on it i will photocopy the magazine for u as i couldnt find an online link.

 

Since the WRX crushes the RA from 30-50 MPH, the RA must be really good from 5-30 MPH which, just for street acceleration, does make for a quick ride and a good feel. That all makes sense as many that have tested both cars thought the RA felt as quick as the WRX. If you never got to run them up to higher speeds, the WRX pulls hard, the RA does feel "out of gas" after 40MPH or so, just my seat of the pants opinion. Maybe the zCHIP will help out some in that regard. Especially if they can get it to hold the RPM's higher. In sport, I think it always was shifting about 4k. Of course with the salesman in there, I did not manually try to shift at 6000 RPM so there may be some performance at those levels.

 

The WRX does not 'crush' the R/A in those numbers.
It's almost even.
Using Road and Tracks November numbers, it's real close.


0-50mph

SS: 4.4
Ms3: 4.3
R/A: 4.0
WRX: 4.0

0-60:

SS: 5.4
Ms3: 5.7
R/A: 5.4
WRX: 5.1

 

Please read what was written. I said the WRX CRUSHES the RA from 30-50. WRX 10.8 Ra 15.3. I ALSO said that the RA is pretty good from 5-30MPH. As evidenced by your numbers. Please post the zero to 100 numbers from the Road and Track. ALSO, C&D uses HIGHLY accurate GPS equiptment to get their numbers, so I think they are very solid figures. You can argue driver skill if you want, but I would say that would only hurt the WRX since it is more variable than the auto/manumatic

 

GPS is not highly accurate for this sort of timing... I know that's not technically what you said -- technically you meant highly accurate for a GPS system, whatever that may mean -- but it's highly misleading to call any GPS system "highly accurate" for measuring speeds over tenths of seconds.

 

No I meant highly accurate period. You are just wrong on that. So, lets see, within 2-3cm and +/- 100 nanoseconds (tenths of seconds are like years in relation). Yeah, your right, that is not HIGHLY accurate.


Distance measurements obtained by integrating the speed over a set course show excellent accuracy - typically a few centimetres over distances of many tens or even hundreds of meters. The accuracy of the distance measurement from a 100mph brake test to a full stop is typically in the range of 2-3cm.


GPS has over-achieved its original goals in almost every way - including its reliability, the life expectancies of the satellites, and its accuracy. Because of this, most GPS timing and frequency equipment manufacturers ignore the ICD-GPS-200 so they can specify their equipment at better than the +/- 100 nanosecond level of UTC accuracy.

http://www.dynoplus.co.uk/dynostar.shtml


http://edageek.com/2008/09/11/oem-vehicle-testing/


Although GPS is well known for navigation, tracking, and mapping, it's also used to disseminate precise time, time intervals, and frequency. Time is a powerful commodity, and exact time is even better. Knowing that a group of timed events is perfectly synchronized is often very important. There are three fundamental ways we use time. As a universal marker, time tells us when things happened or when they will. As a way to synchronize people, events, even other types of signals, time helps keep the world on schedule. GPS satellites carry highly accurate atomic clocks. And in order for the system to work, our GPS receivers here on the ground synchronize themselves to these clocks. That means that every GPS receiver is, in essence, an atomic accuracy clock.

 

I did and here is the chart, again.
Same chart that i got DBA readings for the cabin noise.
And i am not going to compare which magazine has more accurate tools.
I don't care what anyone says.
That is just BS if someone is going to argue that point.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d...risonchart.pdf

from 30 to 50 mph
1.8 to 4.0 seconds - for WRX
1.9 to 4.0 secondes - for R/A
According to these numbers, how is the WRX crushing the R/A in 30-50mph?

The R/A and WRX is neck and neck in this chart from 0-60 all around.
whether you measuring from 10-60, 20-60, 30-60.

These debates are getting real ****.
I have completely lost the whole point of this debate.
What are you guys trying to prove now?

Either way, i think I am done, here.
I already contacted TTP about the Zchip, their reply will determine my next move.