http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...mktid=cj260233

 

Yeah, that comparo was mentioned in the beat to death, 5489547758437854 page thread.

 

Yeah that's the Never End Fight; In my opinion, neither wins, Cause for the Ralliar to beat the WRX it has to have more power/less weight and the WRX to beat the Ralliart needs too have better styling/more technology; So there you go, each car falls short on TWO important things;

IMO I like 'em both...

Why instead of rivalry, can't they simply be "The Two Rally-affordable-4bangers-quick-pocket-rocket-brothers of the Best-in-class-4Bangers-Rally-bred-SuperCarKiller-pocket-rocket-kings?



yeah... u smell fanatism don't ya?

 

I agree wholeheartedly

 

Reading the Evo X Vs. G8 GXP comparo from edmunds, I find it interesting that they say the X slaloms @ 69.7mph, while the comparo between the R/A and the 09 WRX (where they change the tires) cites the R/A's slalom speed @ 69.3mph........... Uhhhh, only a .4mph difference between the X and the R/A when the R/A has stickier rubbers? While one or the other, or maybe even both are inaccurate, I'm sure it still gives all the current R/A owners a warm fuzzy feeling deep inside

 

"The Evo's 69.7-mph slalom run handily stuffs the GXP's 63-mph performance, and could have been better if its all-wheel-drive system had faster reflexes. In these circumstances, more of the Evo's performance envelope can be used more of the time, so one turn seems to flow naturally into the next. The Mitsubishi is simply faster and more engaging in these conditions than the GXP."


There's one benefit of the R/A's mechanical front and rear LSDs out the previous gen evos.

 

I'd be curious what kind of times the 09' WRX would be posting if they weren't allowed to drop the clutch off the line vs the RalliART(no break torquing)? I think it would be a better "real world test" then what is done here so far.

I imagine they are really beating on the WRX to get those numbers, but probably the same thing could be said for the RalliART, too.

 

Different days, different drivers. I'm not sure how big an advantage the Evo's S-AYC is in the slalom anyways.

 

Exactly, both cars are bagged on as hard as possible to get the test data. Brake-torquing the TC-SST isn't a good idea but neither is dropping the clutch at 6000 RPM. In real world situations, they're probably a bit closer but you can't argue with the simple power to weight advantage of the WRX. It's like the SS, it's lightweight with plenty of power, no wonder it's as fast as it is.

 

^^^Yep, damn safety features weighing it down. They could have at least tried to make the RA lighter, oh well...

 

Yeah, seeing every article I ever read has different results proves that theory.

As far as the slalom is concerned, I would imagine that any such maneuvering is the entire purpose of an active rear/front diff. It's when the car is turning that it transfers torque to the outside wheels. But since it relies on sensors -> computing ->electrically controlling the diff, that a test such as the slalom will highlight the latencies in the system. Of course, in real world, and typical track driving, it's not as apparent.

 

Safety features is good if you want your vehicle to last.

Making the car lighter would have either taken something away from it, or would have made it more expensive due to the cost of light weight, but strong materials.

 

Keep in mind that the car is bigger than the previous generation and that extra weight is what is drawing reviewers to talk about how nice the ride is for a DD. Softer suspension, more weight= cushier ride.

 

I really doubt that the minor latency in the system is detectable. Yes it's electronic, but so are some throttle systems, key locks, etc. Mechanical systems have delays as well, parts don't start moving instantly. I'm not sure if a slalom is enough to highlight the S-AYC diff in the Evo since the steering inputs and changes are relatively small.

 

Yeah. Maybe, maybe not. I can't say for certain because I never driven an X.. Not to mention in the slalom. But, that's the way the article made it sound, so that was just my theory on why it would react slower than something like a mechanical LSD.