TTP-Engineering Tunes the 2009 Ralliart 4b11
Evolved Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
From: michigan
Ok, lets put everything into perspective..
All the magazine shootouts have been primarily focusing on track-oriented, or straight line performance. The Cobalt SS is typically the lightest car in the comparo (except when the mini is involved), and has a manufacturers claim of about 260hp. So, while it makes similar power to the mazda, and the 09 wrx, it is probably on par with the mazda on powertrain losses, but has the benefit of less weight. With all these things factored in, it should be a rocket in a straight line.
However, according to the following road and track article:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d...risonchart.pdf
it's 0-60 is the same as the ralliart, and 3/10ths of a second slower than the wrx. Admittedly, all acceleration speeds above 60mph, the cobalt is faster, but at that point, there are even more factors involved than just HP, weight, and drivetrain losses.
Therefore, common logic might state that the ralliart must make more power than the cobalt. Am I saying that? No.
Amby, if we apply your logic to all dyno results, then all manufacturer's HP claims are pointless as well, unless every car maker tested their engines at the same place, under the same conditions. So, in reality, it IS possible that the ralliart does make more power than the SS. This could go one of three ways: The SS makes less than 237HP, the ralliart makes more than 260hp, or that both of those ratings aren't accurate (and like you say, power rating are all relative, unless all dynos had to utilize the same method for determining power).
Simply put, given the straight-line performance data of the ralliart, in relation to the other cars it's compared to, it isn't unfair to conclude that given the method mitsu uses to determine their engine's power, they may have understated their own results when compared to an evo x. Do I need to remind everyone that the reason we're primarily focused on the ralliart is because, well, we're on a ralliart message board?
Before I go back to focusing on the ralliart, I just want to put out what's been on my mind since the first time I read a shootout in a magazine pitting the ralliart against whatever else. Specifically, the cobalt SS which gets high praises. I'm not saying it's undeserved, but I really want it to be put into perspective. The ONLY similarities I see between the SS, and the R/A is that they're both built on econo-boxes, they both have turbo-4s, and are intended as a step up in performance from lower trim models. The cobalt SS is the TOP OF THE LINE cobalt, the R/A is NOT the top of the line lancer. Sure, we have to go significantly up in price to get to the highest level lancer, but you're getting significant hardware that the cobalt doesn't even come close to having. So, with the R/A, and the SS, you never really get to compare apples to apples. I haven't driven the SS, but I have tried it's lower sibling - the g5 gt. The suspension is not only uncomfortably stiff (and from what I've heard, the SS is much more so!), but drive it on typical pot hole marked roads in Michigan, and you'll notice how silly torsion beam suspension is in the real world - not on the perfectly smooth track that 99.9% of people NEVER drive on. The R/A is intended to be sort of a grand tourer, where the SS is a no compromise performance front-driver. Lastly, add snow, or rain in the mix, and a quick car like the SS turns into a complete slug. These are all the facts that magazine (purposely?) neglect.
Also, I don't know what you're talking about amby, but the drivetrain on an evo x mr is practically the same as the one on the ralliart. The only major difference is that the ralliart has LSD front and rear differentials, where as the evo has "virtual" limited slips, and on a dyno, that makes no difference. The rest, down to the center diff (except for 5th, and 6th gear) is identical. Maybe some research on your part is in order.
Lastly, amby, I find it interesting how you act like you're above the petty arguments of horsepower comparos, when, from what I could tell, you were the one who started it. And on top of that, seem to enjoy throwing a wrench in people's conversations, just for the sake of who knows what. Subarus are awesome cars (I have a lowly 07 impreza, and my best friend has an 08 wrx), but give credit where credit is due.
I don't see how, or why this thread needed to turn into some sort of competition between the ralliart, and every other car. That's what all these crappy magazine (with all their high-paying sponsors) articles are for. Not everything in life needs to be about some sort of competition.
Ok, that's enough from me.
All the magazine shootouts have been primarily focusing on track-oriented, or straight line performance. The Cobalt SS is typically the lightest car in the comparo (except when the mini is involved), and has a manufacturers claim of about 260hp. So, while it makes similar power to the mazda, and the 09 wrx, it is probably on par with the mazda on powertrain losses, but has the benefit of less weight. With all these things factored in, it should be a rocket in a straight line.
However, according to the following road and track article:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d...risonchart.pdf
it's 0-60 is the same as the ralliart, and 3/10ths of a second slower than the wrx. Admittedly, all acceleration speeds above 60mph, the cobalt is faster, but at that point, there are even more factors involved than just HP, weight, and drivetrain losses.
Therefore, common logic might state that the ralliart must make more power than the cobalt. Am I saying that? No.
Amby, if we apply your logic to all dyno results, then all manufacturer's HP claims are pointless as well, unless every car maker tested their engines at the same place, under the same conditions. So, in reality, it IS possible that the ralliart does make more power than the SS. This could go one of three ways: The SS makes less than 237HP, the ralliart makes more than 260hp, or that both of those ratings aren't accurate (and like you say, power rating are all relative, unless all dynos had to utilize the same method for determining power).
Simply put, given the straight-line performance data of the ralliart, in relation to the other cars it's compared to, it isn't unfair to conclude that given the method mitsu uses to determine their engine's power, they may have understated their own results when compared to an evo x. Do I need to remind everyone that the reason we're primarily focused on the ralliart is because, well, we're on a ralliart message board?
Before I go back to focusing on the ralliart, I just want to put out what's been on my mind since the first time I read a shootout in a magazine pitting the ralliart against whatever else. Specifically, the cobalt SS which gets high praises. I'm not saying it's undeserved, but I really want it to be put into perspective. The ONLY similarities I see between the SS, and the R/A is that they're both built on econo-boxes, they both have turbo-4s, and are intended as a step up in performance from lower trim models. The cobalt SS is the TOP OF THE LINE cobalt, the R/A is NOT the top of the line lancer. Sure, we have to go significantly up in price to get to the highest level lancer, but you're getting significant hardware that the cobalt doesn't even come close to having. So, with the R/A, and the SS, you never really get to compare apples to apples. I haven't driven the SS, but I have tried it's lower sibling - the g5 gt. The suspension is not only uncomfortably stiff (and from what I've heard, the SS is much more so!), but drive it on typical pot hole marked roads in Michigan, and you'll notice how silly torsion beam suspension is in the real world - not on the perfectly smooth track that 99.9% of people NEVER drive on. The R/A is intended to be sort of a grand tourer, where the SS is a no compromise performance front-driver. Lastly, add snow, or rain in the mix, and a quick car like the SS turns into a complete slug. These are all the facts that magazine (purposely?) neglect.
Also, I don't know what you're talking about amby, but the drivetrain on an evo x mr is practically the same as the one on the ralliart. The only major difference is that the ralliart has LSD front and rear differentials, where as the evo has "virtual" limited slips, and on a dyno, that makes no difference. The rest, down to the center diff (except for 5th, and 6th gear) is identical. Maybe some research on your part is in order.
Lastly, amby, I find it interesting how you act like you're above the petty arguments of horsepower comparos, when, from what I could tell, you were the one who started it. And on top of that, seem to enjoy throwing a wrench in people's conversations, just for the sake of who knows what. Subarus are awesome cars (I have a lowly 07 impreza, and my best friend has an 08 wrx), but give credit where credit is due.
I don't see how, or why this thread needed to turn into some sort of competition between the ralliart, and every other car. That's what all these crappy magazine (with all their high-paying sponsors) articles are for. Not everything in life needs to be about some sort of competition.
Ok, that's enough from me.
Ok, lets put everything into perspective..
All the magazine shootouts have been primarily focusing on track-oriented, or straight line performance. The Cobalt SS is typically the lightest car in the comparo (except when the mini is involved), and has a manufacturers claim of about 260hp. So, while it makes similar power to the mazda, and the 09 wrx, it is probably on par with the mazda on powertrain losses, but has the benefit of less weight. With all these things factored in, it should be a rocket in a straight line.
However, according to the following road and track article:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d...risonchart.pdf
it's 0-60 is the same as the ralliart, and 3/10ths of a second slower than the wrx. Admittedly, all acceleration speeds above 60mph, the cobalt is faster, but at that point, there are even more factors involved than just HP, weight, and drivetrain losses.
Therefore, common logic might state that the ralliart must make more power than the cobalt. Am I saying that? No.
Amby, if we apply your logic to all dyno results, then all manufacturer's HP claims are pointless as well, unless every car maker tested their engines at the same place, under the same conditions. So, in reality, it IS possible that the ralliart does make more power than the SS. This could go one of three ways: The SS makes less than 237HP, the ralliart makes more than 260hp, or that both of those ratings aren't accurate (and like you say, power rating are all relative, unless all dynos had to utilize the same method for determining power).
Simply put, given the straight-line performance data of the ralliart, in relation to the other cars it's compared to, it isn't unfair to conclude that given the method mitsu uses to determine their engine's power, they may have understated their own results when compared to an evo x. Do I need to remind everyone that the reason we're primarily focused on the ralliart is because, well, we're on a ralliart message board?
Before I go back to focusing on the ralliart, I just want to put out what's been on my mind since the first time I read a shootout in a magazine pitting the ralliart against whatever else. Specifically, the cobalt SS which gets high praises. I'm not saying it's undeserved, but I really want it to be put into perspective. The ONLY similarities I see between the SS, and the R/A is that they're both built on econo-boxes, they both have turbo-4s, and are intended as a step up in performance from lower trim models. The cobalt SS is the TOP OF THE LINE cobalt, the R/A is NOT the top of the line lancer. Sure, we have to go significantly up in price to get to the highest level lancer, but you're getting significant hardware that the cobalt doesn't even come close to having. So, with the R/A, and the SS, you never really get to compare apples to apples. I haven't driven the SS, but I have tried it's lower sibling - the g5 gt. The suspension is not only uncomfortably stiff (and from what I've heard, the SS is much more so!), but drive it on typical pot hole marked roads in Michigan, and you'll notice how silly torsion beam suspension is in the real world - not on the perfectly smooth track that 99.9% of people NEVER drive on. The R/A is intended to be sort of a grand tourer, where the SS is a no compromise performance front-driver. Lastly, add snow, or rain in the mix, and a quick car like the SS turns into a complete slug. These are all the facts that magazine (purposely?) neglect.
Also, I don't know what you're talking about amby, but the drivetrain on an evo x mr is practically the same as the one on the ralliart. The only major difference is that the ralliart has LSD front and rear differentials, where as the evo has "virtual" limited slips, and on a dyno, that makes no difference. The rest, down to the center diff (except for 5th, and 6th gear) is identical. Maybe some research on your part is in order.
Lastly, amby, I find it interesting how you act like you're above the petty arguments of horsepower comparos, when, from what I could tell, you were the one who started it. And on top of that, seem to enjoy throwing a wrench in people's conversations, just for the sake of who knows what. Subarus are awesome cars (I have a lowly 07 impreza, and my best friend has an 08 wrx), but give credit where credit is due.
I don't see how, or why this thread needed to turn into some sort of competition between the ralliart, and every other car. That's what all these crappy magazine (with all their high-paying sponsors) articles are for. Not everything in life needs to be about some sort of competition.
Ok, that's enough from me.
All the magazine shootouts have been primarily focusing on track-oriented, or straight line performance. The Cobalt SS is typically the lightest car in the comparo (except when the mini is involved), and has a manufacturers claim of about 260hp. So, while it makes similar power to the mazda, and the 09 wrx, it is probably on par with the mazda on powertrain losses, but has the benefit of less weight. With all these things factored in, it should be a rocket in a straight line.
However, according to the following road and track article:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d...risonchart.pdf
it's 0-60 is the same as the ralliart, and 3/10ths of a second slower than the wrx. Admittedly, all acceleration speeds above 60mph, the cobalt is faster, but at that point, there are even more factors involved than just HP, weight, and drivetrain losses.
Therefore, common logic might state that the ralliart must make more power than the cobalt. Am I saying that? No.
Amby, if we apply your logic to all dyno results, then all manufacturer's HP claims are pointless as well, unless every car maker tested their engines at the same place, under the same conditions. So, in reality, it IS possible that the ralliart does make more power than the SS. This could go one of three ways: The SS makes less than 237HP, the ralliart makes more than 260hp, or that both of those ratings aren't accurate (and like you say, power rating are all relative, unless all dynos had to utilize the same method for determining power).
Simply put, given the straight-line performance data of the ralliart, in relation to the other cars it's compared to, it isn't unfair to conclude that given the method mitsu uses to determine their engine's power, they may have understated their own results when compared to an evo x. Do I need to remind everyone that the reason we're primarily focused on the ralliart is because, well, we're on a ralliart message board?
Before I go back to focusing on the ralliart, I just want to put out what's been on my mind since the first time I read a shootout in a magazine pitting the ralliart against whatever else. Specifically, the cobalt SS which gets high praises. I'm not saying it's undeserved, but I really want it to be put into perspective. The ONLY similarities I see between the SS, and the R/A is that they're both built on econo-boxes, they both have turbo-4s, and are intended as a step up in performance from lower trim models. The cobalt SS is the TOP OF THE LINE cobalt, the R/A is NOT the top of the line lancer. Sure, we have to go significantly up in price to get to the highest level lancer, but you're getting significant hardware that the cobalt doesn't even come close to having. So, with the R/A, and the SS, you never really get to compare apples to apples. I haven't driven the SS, but I have tried it's lower sibling - the g5 gt. The suspension is not only uncomfortably stiff (and from what I've heard, the SS is much more so!), but drive it on typical pot hole marked roads in Michigan, and you'll notice how silly torsion beam suspension is in the real world - not on the perfectly smooth track that 99.9% of people NEVER drive on. The R/A is intended to be sort of a grand tourer, where the SS is a no compromise performance front-driver. Lastly, add snow, or rain in the mix, and a quick car like the SS turns into a complete slug. These are all the facts that magazine (purposely?) neglect.
Also, I don't know what you're talking about amby, but the drivetrain on an evo x mr is practically the same as the one on the ralliart. The only major difference is that the ralliart has LSD front and rear differentials, where as the evo has "virtual" limited slips, and on a dyno, that makes no difference. The rest, down to the center diff (except for 5th, and 6th gear) is identical. Maybe some research on your part is in order.
Lastly, amby, I find it interesting how you act like you're above the petty arguments of horsepower comparos, when, from what I could tell, you were the one who started it. And on top of that, seem to enjoy throwing a wrench in people's conversations, just for the sake of who knows what. Subarus are awesome cars (I have a lowly 07 impreza, and my best friend has an 08 wrx), but give credit where credit is due.
I don't see how, or why this thread needed to turn into some sort of competition between the ralliart, and every other car. That's what all these crappy magazine (with all their high-paying sponsors) articles are for. Not everything in life needs to be about some sort of competition.
Ok, that's enough from me.
If we say that the Ralliart is underrated, shouldn't we also say that the WRX is underrated? The same exact logic applies. We might as well say that all cars are underrated.
I trust manufacturer's numbers for one main reason, they have to adhere to strict rules and from what I can tell, the numbers are standardized to some extent. I find it very illogical to believe that a manufacturer would underrate their own vehicle in a market where HP claims are a sales point. Moreover, I don't think it makes any sense that the Ralliart is making near Evo numbers when the performance simply doesn't add up.
Not every manufacturer has a lineup structured like Mitsubishi or Subaru thus it isn't really fair to say that the Ralliart isn't the top of the line Lancer therefore it shouldn't be compared to the top of the line Cobalt. The top of the line Cobalt is cheaper than the Ralliart, so why should it be put up against the MR which costs thousands more? It seems like everyone likes to play the "apples to oranges" argument when the comparison is unfavorable but they can't scramble fast enough to spout "the truth" when the comparo comes out favorably. Imagine if the Ralliart won all the comparisons, would we still be having the same discussion? I highly doubt it, it's simply human nature.
The Evo X MR does not have the same drivetrain. The Evo X MR has different diffs and the obviously superior S-AWC system (which includes S-AYC). The Ralliart on the other hand is using the older Evo IX drivetrain. Maybe some research on your part is in order.
When did I act like I'm above this type of discussion? I'm simply frustrated with the way in which people on all forums handle dyno numbers. I truly wish that numbers were never discussed because, as displayed in this thread, the vast majority of people have no idea what they mean and are simply looking for the "pissing up the wall" answer. You'll also notice that my first post was this
I don't know why people are freaking out, the Ralliart was never meant to be a race car, it was designed to be a good daily driver. With a good tune, the car will be plenty quick for driving around town. Some people are acting as if this news has completely destroyed the cars viability or that there is some grand conspiracy involving Mitsubishi, Getrag, various tuners and various automotive magazines designed to unfairly bad-mouth the transmission's capabilities. I'm sorry, but we could have seen this coming from a mile away and some of us have been saying it for months now. If this news is so unsettling, you might as well go buy a 5-speed Evo. For 90% of people, this isn't a big deal and the car will still be fine for what they need.
Last edited by ambystom01; Dec 10, 2008 at 10:14 PM.
Evolved Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
From: michigan
Yes, I know that AWD significantly helps to launch a car (I also owned a 1st gen Talon TSi), but you can still gets VERY good launches from 2wd with the proper tires, and setup. Also, in the cast of the R/A, it doesn't have a "launch control", something the cobalt SS does. Oh, and remember how I mentioned tires? The SS has better tires than the R/A. While I can't say with absolute certainty, but experience leaves me to believe that between the two cars, the AWD in it's 0-60 times only offers perhaps a marginal benefit. The car with the real benefit is the SS with less drivetrain loss, and about 600lbs less curb weight(!).
>>If we say that the Ralliart is underrated, shouldn't we also say that the WRX is underrated?
This was basically my point, and from what I can tell, your point all along. But what I was primairly talking about is that the R/A is possibly underrated compared to the EVO. I just didn't mention the WRX because that's not the point I'm making.
Also, you reinforced my point about not comparing apples to apples. I'm actually complaining about how sick I am of reading how every magazine is comparing these particular vehicles that in my eyes, are much different from each other. The only reason I compared an SS to an EVO is ONLY because each car is the top of that particular models lineup. The R/A isn't set up for maximum performance, where as the SS IS.. Again, the only comparison I would make is that they're both based on econo-boxes, and they both have turbo-4s.. THAT'S IT!
>The Evo X MR has different diffs and the obviously superior S-AWC system (which includes S-AYC). The Ralliart on the other hand is using the older Evo IX drivetrain. Maybe some research on your part is in order.
Earth to Amby.. I already mentioned the diffs. And if you know anything about diffs, they're only important for traction in straight line, and in turns. THEY MAKE NO DIFFERENCE ON A DYNO! the S-AWC is purely electronics - and instead of offering a hardware LSD, it modulates the brakes at all 4 corner individually, in a sense making them dynamic virtual LSDs.
So, let me break it down. The dual clutch manu-matic in the evo MR, and the R/A is, as far as we know, both the SAME. In fact, even the multiplate electric center diff is the same in both cars. All you have left is the front, and rear diff. The only benefit one might have over the other in terms of performance is that the ones used on one car may be slightly lighter than the ones used in the other car. Lighter diff internals may equate to slightly less total powertrain losses, but in the case of these two cars, it would be so negligible, that I wouldn't even bother factoring them in. So, for all intents in purposes, both drivetrains on the dyno should be identical. Thanks for listening.
Lastly, why do you care what people are saying about dyno results? If you feel you know better than them, then why not leave it at that? You're acting like it hurts your feelings. Being a frequent user of the internet, I find it very easy to ignore stupid posts, and comments by people that I can tell have no idea what they're talking about. Maybe you should learn to do the same, and let people live in their bliss, instead of starting a war.
>>If we say that the Ralliart is underrated, shouldn't we also say that the WRX is underrated?
This was basically my point, and from what I can tell, your point all along. But what I was primairly talking about is that the R/A is possibly underrated compared to the EVO. I just didn't mention the WRX because that's not the point I'm making.
Also, you reinforced my point about not comparing apples to apples. I'm actually complaining about how sick I am of reading how every magazine is comparing these particular vehicles that in my eyes, are much different from each other. The only reason I compared an SS to an EVO is ONLY because each car is the top of that particular models lineup. The R/A isn't set up for maximum performance, where as the SS IS.. Again, the only comparison I would make is that they're both based on econo-boxes, and they both have turbo-4s.. THAT'S IT!
>The Evo X MR has different diffs and the obviously superior S-AWC system (which includes S-AYC). The Ralliart on the other hand is using the older Evo IX drivetrain. Maybe some research on your part is in order.
Earth to Amby.. I already mentioned the diffs. And if you know anything about diffs, they're only important for traction in straight line, and in turns. THEY MAKE NO DIFFERENCE ON A DYNO! the S-AWC is purely electronics - and instead of offering a hardware LSD, it modulates the brakes at all 4 corner individually, in a sense making them dynamic virtual LSDs.
So, let me break it down. The dual clutch manu-matic in the evo MR, and the R/A is, as far as we know, both the SAME. In fact, even the multiplate electric center diff is the same in both cars. All you have left is the front, and rear diff. The only benefit one might have over the other in terms of performance is that the ones used on one car may be slightly lighter than the ones used in the other car. Lighter diff internals may equate to slightly less total powertrain losses, but in the case of these two cars, it would be so negligible, that I wouldn't even bother factoring them in. So, for all intents in purposes, both drivetrains on the dyno should be identical. Thanks for listening.
Lastly, why do you care what people are saying about dyno results? If you feel you know better than them, then why not leave it at that? You're acting like it hurts your feelings. Being a frequent user of the internet, I find it very easy to ignore stupid posts, and comments by people that I can tell have no idea what they're talking about. Maybe you should learn to do the same, and let people live in their bliss, instead of starting a war.
Evolving Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 261
Likes: 1
From: Kelowna, CANADA
Hey Madcows! I already had that show down with amby in the 'comparison' thread, and I finally gave up, you should read it, it's quite entertaining in the last 10pages or so!!
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...383242&page=25
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...383242&page=25
Last edited by C2Rally; Dec 10, 2008 at 11:00 PM. Reason: post link
Yes, I know that AWD significantly helps to launch a car (I also owned a 1st gen Talon TSi), but you can still gets VERY good launches from 2wd with the proper tires, and setup. Also, in the cast of the R/A, it doesn't have a "launch control", something the cobalt SS does. Oh, and remember how I mentioned tires? The SS has better tires than the R/A. While I can't say with absolute certainty, but experience leaves me to believe that between the two cars, the AWD in it's 0-60 times only offers perhaps a marginal benefit. The car with the real benefit is the SS with less drivetrain loss, and about 600lbs less curb weight(!).
>>If we say that the Ralliart is underrated, shouldn't we also say that the WRX is underrated?
This was basically my point, and from what I can tell, your point all along. But what I was primairly talking about is that the R/A is possibly underrated compared to the EVO. I just didn't mention the WRX because that's not the point I'm making.
Also, you reinforced my point about not comparing apples to apples. I'm actually complaining about how sick I am of reading how every magazine is comparing these particular vehicles that in my eyes, are much different from each other. The only reason I compared an SS to an EVO is ONLY because each car is the top of that particular models lineup. The R/A isn't set up for maximum performance, where as the SS IS.. Again, the only comparison I would make is that they're both based on econo-boxes, and they both have turbo-4s.. THAT'S IT!
>The Evo X MR has different diffs and the obviously superior S-AWC system (which includes S-AYC). The Ralliart on the other hand is using the older Evo IX drivetrain. Maybe some research on your part is in order.
Earth to Amby.. I already mentioned the diffs. And if you know anything about diffs, they're only important for traction in straight line, and in turns. THEY MAKE NO DIFFERENCE ON A DYNO! the S-AWC is purely electronics - and instead of offering a hardware LSD, it modulates the brakes at all 4 corner individually, in a sense making them dynamic virtual LSDs.
So, let me break it down. The dual clutch manu-matic in the evo MR, and the R/A is, as far as we know, both the SAME. In fact, even the multiplate electric center diff is the same in both cars. All you have left is the front, and rear diff. The only benefit one might have over the other in terms of performance is that the ones used on one car may be slightly lighter than the ones used in the other car. Lighter diff internals may equate to slightly less total powertrain losses, but in the case of these two cars, it would be so negligible, that I wouldn't even bother factoring them in. So, for all intents in purposes, both drivetrains on the dyno should be identical. Thanks for listening.
Lastly, why do you care what people are saying about dyno results? If you feel you know better than them, then why not leave it at that? You're acting like it hurts your feelings. Being a frequent user of the internet, I find it very easy to ignore stupid posts, and comments by people that I can tell have no idea what they're talking about. Maybe you should learn to do the same, and let people live in their bliss, instead of starting a war.
>>If we say that the Ralliart is underrated, shouldn't we also say that the WRX is underrated?
This was basically my point, and from what I can tell, your point all along. But what I was primairly talking about is that the R/A is possibly underrated compared to the EVO. I just didn't mention the WRX because that's not the point I'm making.
Also, you reinforced my point about not comparing apples to apples. I'm actually complaining about how sick I am of reading how every magazine is comparing these particular vehicles that in my eyes, are much different from each other. The only reason I compared an SS to an EVO is ONLY because each car is the top of that particular models lineup. The R/A isn't set up for maximum performance, where as the SS IS.. Again, the only comparison I would make is that they're both based on econo-boxes, and they both have turbo-4s.. THAT'S IT!
>The Evo X MR has different diffs and the obviously superior S-AWC system (which includes S-AYC). The Ralliart on the other hand is using the older Evo IX drivetrain. Maybe some research on your part is in order.
Earth to Amby.. I already mentioned the diffs. And if you know anything about diffs, they're only important for traction in straight line, and in turns. THEY MAKE NO DIFFERENCE ON A DYNO! the S-AWC is purely electronics - and instead of offering a hardware LSD, it modulates the brakes at all 4 corner individually, in a sense making them dynamic virtual LSDs.
So, let me break it down. The dual clutch manu-matic in the evo MR, and the R/A is, as far as we know, both the SAME. In fact, even the multiplate electric center diff is the same in both cars. All you have left is the front, and rear diff. The only benefit one might have over the other in terms of performance is that the ones used on one car may be slightly lighter than the ones used in the other car. Lighter diff internals may equate to slightly less total powertrain losses, but in the case of these two cars, it would be so negligible, that I wouldn't even bother factoring them in. So, for all intents in purposes, both drivetrains on the dyno should be identical. Thanks for listening.
Lastly, why do you care what people are saying about dyno results? If you feel you know better than them, then why not leave it at that? You're acting like it hurts your feelings. Being a frequent user of the internet, I find it very easy to ignore stupid posts, and comments by people that I can tell have no idea what they're talking about. Maybe you should learn to do the same, and let people live in their bliss, instead of starting a war.
My point was never that the Ralliart and the WRX are underrrated, I don't think that makes any sense.
Again, why should the Cobalt be put up against the Evo? The price isn't close, and the power is off as well. If you expect an exact match, all comparisons are useless.
Clearly you're missing something in regards to the drivetrain. Diffs are going to affect how much power you put to the ground, they naturally sap some of the power. If one car has diff A and another car has diff B, the amount of power used can be different.
Why I care is because I hate it when people get on the fanboy wagon and live in ignorance. The same applies to Subaru people, Honda people, whoever really. It's pretty hypocritical for you to play the "don't post" argument when you yourself are posting.
I find it hilarious how people are so focused on the dyno issue (which shouldn't even be an issue) that they missed over a post I and another member made, namely praising the 37 WHP gain made by TTP. If we assume that the Ralliart has 237 HP, a 27 WHP gain is pretty damn good. Right there you're at 270-280 HP with a good boost in torque. That will make for a fun daily driver.
"But what I was primairly talking about is that the R/A is possibly underrated compared to the EVO."
" Also, I don't know what you're talking about amby, but the drivetrain on an evo x mr is practically the same as the one on the ralliart."
"So, let me break it down. The dual clutch manu-matic in the evo MR, and the R/A is, as far as we know, both the SAME. "
"THEY MAKE NO DIFFERENCE ON A DYNO! the S-AWC is purely electronics - and instead of offering a hardware LSD, it modulates the brakes at all 4 corner individually, in a sense making them dynamic virtual LSDs"
so what you saying the RA is under rated,vs the X. SO basically the are closer in power then actually its announced. If i got your posts right.
evoX MR 08
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do.../pageId=134355
Ra 09
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do.../pageId=141244
here is an out takes
...................RA...........................X MR
weight........3512 lb......................3594lb
hp -tq......237hp-253tq...............291hp-300tq
0-60............6.6 sec.....................5.2 sec
1/4 mile....14.8 sec@94,6mph.......13.9 sec@98.8 mph
so here it is the same magazine test,which makes it fair. I hope at least we can agree on that. Same track same guys .
the RA is lighter 82 LB, and "down" by 54hp-47 lb.
so the question is, do they under rated the RA, if the performance numbers are :
0-60 is 1.4 sec slower
1/4 mile 0.9 sec and 4.8 mph slower?
But only 82 lb lighter?
PS: im using the X MR as a reference , because it was used by others as a reference firts.
" Also, I don't know what you're talking about amby, but the drivetrain on an evo x mr is practically the same as the one on the ralliart."
"So, let me break it down. The dual clutch manu-matic in the evo MR, and the R/A is, as far as we know, both the SAME. "
"THEY MAKE NO DIFFERENCE ON A DYNO! the S-AWC is purely electronics - and instead of offering a hardware LSD, it modulates the brakes at all 4 corner individually, in a sense making them dynamic virtual LSDs"
so what you saying the RA is under rated,vs the X. SO basically the are closer in power then actually its announced. If i got your posts right.
evoX MR 08
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do.../pageId=134355
Ra 09
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do.../pageId=141244
here is an out takes
...................RA...........................X MR
weight........3512 lb......................3594lb
hp -tq......237hp-253tq...............291hp-300tq
0-60............6.6 sec.....................5.2 sec
1/4 mile....14.8 sec@94,6mph.......13.9 sec@98.8 mph
so here it is the same magazine test,which makes it fair. I hope at least we can agree on that. Same track same guys .
the RA is lighter 82 LB, and "down" by 54hp-47 lb.
so the question is, do they under rated the RA, if the performance numbers are :
0-60 is 1.4 sec slower
1/4 mile 0.9 sec and 4.8 mph slower?
But only 82 lb lighter?
PS: im using the X MR as a reference , because it was used by others as a reference firts.
Last edited by Robevo RS; Dec 11, 2008 at 07:28 AM.
Exactly, the performance numbers don't support this underrated argument. I don't even understand why this is an issue in the first damn place, no one is bashing the Ralliart or TTP, they're simply saying that the Ralliart is making the listed HP and torque. What's next, people will be accused of bashing for saying the Ralliart skid pad numbers or pointing out that the car has 4 wheel disc brakes?
"But what I was primairly talking about is that the R/A is possibly underrated compared to the EVO."
" Also, I don't know what you're talking about amby, but the drivetrain on an evo x mr is practically the same as the one on the ralliart."
"So, let me break it down. The dual clutch manu-matic in the evo MR, and the R/A is, as far as we know, both the SAME. "
"THEY MAKE NO DIFFERENCE ON A DYNO! the S-AWC is purely electronics - and instead of offering a hardware LSD, it modulates the brakes at all 4 corner individually, in a sense making them dynamic virtual LSDs"
so what you saying the RA is under rated,vs the X. SO basically the are closer in power then actually its announced. If i got your posts right.
evoX MR 08
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do.../pageId=134355
Ra 09
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do.../pageId=141244
here is an out takes
...................RA...........................X MR
weight........3512 lb......................3594lb
hp -tq......237hp-253tq...............291hp-300tq
0-60............6.6 sec.....................5.2 sec
1/4 mile....14.8 sec@94,6mph.......13.9 sec@98.8 mph
so here it is the same magazine test,which makes it fair. I hope at least we can agree on that. Same track same guys .
the RA is lighter 82 LB, and "down" by 54hp-47 lb.
so the question is, do they under rated the RA, if the performance numbers are :
0-60 is 1.4 sec slower
1/4 mile 0.9 sec and 4.8 mph slower?
But only 82 lb lighter?
PS: im using the X MR as a reference , because it was used by others as a reference firts.
" Also, I don't know what you're talking about amby, but the drivetrain on an evo x mr is practically the same as the one on the ralliart."
"So, let me break it down. The dual clutch manu-matic in the evo MR, and the R/A is, as far as we know, both the SAME. "
"THEY MAKE NO DIFFERENCE ON A DYNO! the S-AWC is purely electronics - and instead of offering a hardware LSD, it modulates the brakes at all 4 corner individually, in a sense making them dynamic virtual LSDs"
so what you saying the RA is under rated,vs the X. SO basically the are closer in power then actually its announced. If i got your posts right.
evoX MR 08
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do.../pageId=134355
Ra 09
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do.../pageId=141244
here is an out takes
...................RA...........................X MR
weight........3512 lb......................3594lb
hp -tq......237hp-253tq...............291hp-300tq
0-60............6.6 sec.....................5.2 sec
1/4 mile....14.8 sec@94,6mph.......13.9 sec@98.8 mph
so here it is the same magazine test,which makes it fair. I hope at least we can agree on that. Same track same guys .
the RA is lighter 82 LB, and "down" by 54hp-47 lb.
so the question is, do they under rated the RA, if the performance numbers are :
0-60 is 1.4 sec slower
1/4 mile 0.9 sec and 4.8 mph slower?
But only 82 lb lighter?
PS: im using the X MR as a reference , because it was used by others as a reference firts.
Oh give me a break. You're using the worst numbers possibly obtained. Is this the same MR putting down 201whp (see i can use the worst numbers too haha). And even mitsu themselves has the RA weighing in at 34xx not 3500. It's already known the Evo has the crappiest tune ever. Hell people are picking up 20whp with just the dealer reflash, it's THAT bad. Quit getting so bent out of shape over the RA. 237 claimed crank horsepower does NOT equal 220whp. Therefore it is UNDERRATED.
Exactly, the performance numbers don't support this underrated argument. I don't even understand why this is an issue in the first damn place, no one is bashing the Ralliart or TTP, they're simply saying that the Ralliart is making the listed HP and torque. What's next, people will be accused of bashing for saying the Ralliart skid pad numbers or pointing out that the car has 4 wheel disc brakes?
Evolved Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
From: michigan
I thought I made myself pretty clear that I think it would be unfair to compare the evo to the SS. My point is that I find the comparison of the R/A, and SS equally unfair. From my perspective, they're totally different cars. So, how can you compare totally different cars? You can't. If you try, it's strictly opinion, or subjective.
I'm not missing any factors regarding the drivetrain. That's a FACT. Sorry if it offends you, but you either lack knowledge in the involved mechanical principals, or you're just purposely trolling, amby.
You restated what I already did regarding the diffs. Yes, the evo has different front and rear diffs than the R/A. The difference however, will be totally negligible on a dyno. In fact, since the evo doesn't use traditional mechanical limited slips, there is a good possibility that the diffs in the evo have less mass than the ones in the R/A, so in reality, the evo might have slightly less drivetrain loss. But again, the difference would certainly be unnoticeable.
Remember, differentials are practically passive unless their is either a difference in grip between opposing wheels, or if they're rotating at different speeds - both conditions that do not occur on a dyno.
Also, I won't stand behind any claim of the R/A being underrated compared to an evo. Though, I will support that it IS A POSSIBILITY. Whether it makes sense or not. I believe back in the 70s, chrysler had a motor that was spec'd at 400-some-odd horsepower. When that motor was taken to an independent dyno shop, they found that it made power more in the neighborhood for 800HP! Why would they say it only made 400? You can ponder on that a bit.
I'm not missing any factors regarding the drivetrain. That's a FACT. Sorry if it offends you, but you either lack knowledge in the involved mechanical principals, or you're just purposely trolling, amby.
You restated what I already did regarding the diffs. Yes, the evo has different front and rear diffs than the R/A. The difference however, will be totally negligible on a dyno. In fact, since the evo doesn't use traditional mechanical limited slips, there is a good possibility that the diffs in the evo have less mass than the ones in the R/A, so in reality, the evo might have slightly less drivetrain loss. But again, the difference would certainly be unnoticeable.
Remember, differentials are practically passive unless their is either a difference in grip between opposing wheels, or if they're rotating at different speeds - both conditions that do not occur on a dyno.
Also, I won't stand behind any claim of the R/A being underrated compared to an evo. Though, I will support that it IS A POSSIBILITY. Whether it makes sense or not. I believe back in the 70s, chrysler had a motor that was spec'd at 400-some-odd horsepower. When that motor was taken to an independent dyno shop, they found that it made power more in the neighborhood for 800HP! Why would they say it only made 400? You can ponder on that a bit.