TTP-Engineering Tunes the 2009 Ralliart 4b11
Ya Ya I understood your point just pointing out the RA isnt as much of a slouch as come people in this thread seem to make it out to be I thought that was made clear too
Last edited by angryGTS; Dec 10, 2008 at 03:26 PM.
Or you cant drive. Its not like the RA is getting spanked in the comparison tests any way, a lousy .3 of a second to 60 compared to the fugly WRX, whats that a not even a nose(you get a regular driver in the WRX lets face it race car drivers aint gonna drive that car the RA will beat it), I bet some wider tires would close that gap, the biggest thing thats holding the RA from getting past the compeitors is the weight and some other minor things like tire/wheel combo. I think it does rather well against its target competitor the WRX they are virtually identical for real world driving which matters the most anyway. The problem with these comparisons anyway(what I think) the testers thought the RA was gonna be just like the Evo so they are subjective especially in the Road and Track comparison, the real world driving isnt as bad as they make it out to be it never takes that long to pass someone, usually I like Road and Track but they FU**** that comparison.
0.3 in a 0-60 doesn't sound like a lot but that's a brief, 5 second jaunt. What happens in the 1/4 mile? What happens above 60 MPH? What happens in more real-world scenarios? All of what you said applies to the Ralliart, how many race car drivers are going to be in the Ralliart? Wider tires are not the main problem in the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times, AWD cars already have a traction advantage and the main area where tires will help is handling and braking. You are correct that some aspects of the comparison are subjective but it seems like people are flip flopping. They like to say that the WRX is ugly (a subjective standpoint) yet they get mad when the Ralliart loses because of objective values (like performance numbers). It's wanting to have your cake and eat it too really.
True but the SST could hurt them in real life as well. It's a double-edged sword really. I have no doubt that the Ralliart could be a damn fine daily driver, I'm just tired of all the BS that comes about when dyno numbers get produced. I've been through it once with my own results and it's always a gong show.
0.3 in a 0-60 doesn't sound like a lot but that's a brief, 5 second jaunt. What happens in the 1/4 mile? What happens above 60 MPH? What happens in more real-world scenarios? All of what you said applies to the Ralliart, how many race car drivers are going to be in the Ralliart? Wider tires are not the main problem in the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times, AWD cars already have a traction advantage and the main area where tires will help is handling and braking. You are correct that some aspects of the comparison are subjective but it seems like people are flip flopping. They like to say that the WRX is ugly (a subjective standpoint) yet they get mad when the Ralliart loses because of objective values (like performance numbers). It's wanting to have your cake and eat it too really.
Sorry but the WRX isnt a monster either
im talking about equal drivers same cars. I thought that is clear. 
You can listen and understand it or you can start argue:
oh he got better tires etc..
If you want to understand the point, you will. If you dont , you might will find out a hard way.
Wont matter for me.
Cheers Rob
You can listen and understand it or you can start argue:
oh he got better tires etc..
If you want to understand the point, you will. If you dont , you might will find out a hard way.
Wont matter for me.
Cheers Rob
Ya its typical econocar GM build quality there, and the government is gonna bail them out too, Id tell them build better cars and lose all your chairman benifits like earning x number millions of dollars a year.
The interior sucks but the rest is pretty solid. I've heard that Chevrolet tested the launch control 400 times to make sure the transmission can hold up.