DSM guys... best thing about the Ralliart!
Oct 28, 2009, 12:23 PM
#91
Evolved Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: CA
Posts: 901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So now the successes of Ryan Gates can be used as "proof" of the Ralliart's superiority? Does Gates drive a Ralliart? I think not. There's also more to racing success than the engine. Gates is a hell of a good driver and AMS is a great shop with a great team of mechanics. His car is a full blown race car, I believe he even has it down to 2700 lbs.
TurnInConcepts races a WRX and from what I've heard, is dominating its class (breaking several records along the way) so that can be used as "proof" of the WRX's superiority right? What about the Crawford STI? The STIs driven by Ken Block and Travis Pastrana? Once again you've taken the argument to the extreme. How many 500 WHP Ralliarts are running around? None, it's immaterial at this point. There are other factors that limit the car's ability to run these numbers. Moreover, racing is different than street use, in some respects street use is actually harder.
Give me proof that Subaru is making more money than Mitsubishi. Your argument works both ways. As I said before, dealer incentives shouldn't be included as they're too variable. Hell, at one point, local dealerships were selling Evos for 5000$ to 10000$ above MSRP but that was purely a local phenomenon.
TurnInConcepts races a WRX and from what I've heard, is dominating its class (breaking several records along the way) so that can be used as "proof" of the WRX's superiority right? What about the Crawford STI? The STIs driven by Ken Block and Travis Pastrana? Once again you've taken the argument to the extreme. How many 500 WHP Ralliarts are running around? None, it's immaterial at this point. There are other factors that limit the car's ability to run these numbers. Moreover, racing is different than street use, in some respects street use is actually harder.
Give me proof that Subaru is making more money than Mitsubishi. Your argument works both ways. As I said before, dealer incentives shouldn't be included as they're too variable. Hell, at one point, local dealerships were selling Evos for 5000$ to 10000$ above MSRP but that was purely a local phenomenon.
Let's run a cost guesstimate vs. the two cars:
1.) Engine/powertrain = let's say both are on equal ground
2.) Transmission = the DSG is a $1,500 option over the standard 6-speed manual, so if the WRX has the 5-speed... it would probably be a $2,000 option if WRX came with a 6-speed SST
3.) Does the WRX have bigger brakes than the RA? I thought the poor performance on the brakes was attributed to the RA's poor tires and heavier weight. Let's say the brakes are slightly better and it would cost subaru $300 more than Mitsu.
4.) OEM tires = the WRX has slightly better tires than the RA, let's say that $50 more at factory cost. $200 total for 4 tires.
5.) AWD system; RA has an electronically-controlled 3-mode ACD + 2 mechanical LSDs vs. WRX viscous-type center differential = I have no idea who much the cost difference would be, but $1,500 isn't that hard to imagine.
6.) Chassis - Obviously, the RA has a much stiffer chassis and reinforcements vs. the WRX, but let's not count in the cost difference on this one.
Overall, we are looking at:
+$2,000 SST vs. 5 speed stick
- $300 brakes
- $200 tires
+$1,500 AWD differentials
=======
$ 3,000
Of course that is just a guesstimate, but hardly unrealistic that the cost difference to produce both cars by the two brands would be close to that figure.
Last edited by tipoytm; Oct 28, 2009 at 12:38 PM.
Oct 28, 2009, 12:31 PM
#92
Again, my point wasn't about the cars themselves.... I thought we were just talking about the engines alone. You clearly indicated that the 2.5L boxer engine is superior to the 4B11T (we are talking about this in terms of reliability, performance, and potential, right?). My counter is that I don't think it is superior cuz you can't provide a link to where the boxer engine has rivaled the 4B11T as evidenced by Ryan's X. I don't care if there's no 500whp Ralliarts running around, but given how solidly built the engine is, it can be pushed way harder without fearing it'll blow up.
Let's run a cost guesstimate vs. the two cars:
1.) Engine/powertrain = let's say both are on equal ground
2.) Transmission = the DSG is a $1,500 option over the standard 6-speed manual, so if the WRX has the 5-speed... it would probably be a $2,000 option if WRX came with a 6-speed SST
3.) Do the WRX have bigger brakes than the RA? I thought the poor performance on the brakes was attributed to the RA's poor tires and heavier weight. Let's say the brakes are slightly better and it would cost subaru $300 more than Mitsu.
4.) OEM tires = the WRX has slightly better tires than the RA, let's say that $50 more at factory cost. $200 total for 4 tires.
5.) AWD system; RA has an electronically-controlled 3-mode ACD + 2 mechanical LSDs vs. WRX viscous-type center differential = I have no idea who much the cost difference would be but that's probably around $1,500.
6.) Chassis - Obviously, the RA has a much stiffer chassis and reinforcements vs. the WRX, but let's not count in the cost difference on this one.
Overall, we are looking at:
+$2,000 SST vs. 5 speed stick
- $300 brakes
- $200 tires
+$1,500 AWD differentials
=======
$ 3,000
Of course that is just a guesstimate, but hardly unimaginability that the cost difference to produce both cars by the two brands would be close to that figure.
Let's run a cost guesstimate vs. the two cars:
1.) Engine/powertrain = let's say both are on equal ground
2.) Transmission = the DSG is a $1,500 option over the standard 6-speed manual, so if the WRX has the 5-speed... it would probably be a $2,000 option if WRX came with a 6-speed SST
3.) Do the WRX have bigger brakes than the RA? I thought the poor performance on the brakes was attributed to the RA's poor tires and heavier weight. Let's say the brakes are slightly better and it would cost subaru $300 more than Mitsu.
4.) OEM tires = the WRX has slightly better tires than the RA, let's say that $50 more at factory cost. $200 total for 4 tires.
5.) AWD system; RA has an electronically-controlled 3-mode ACD + 2 mechanical LSDs vs. WRX viscous-type center differential = I have no idea who much the cost difference would be but that's probably around $1,500.
6.) Chassis - Obviously, the RA has a much stiffer chassis and reinforcements vs. the WRX, but let's not count in the cost difference on this one.
Overall, we are looking at:
+$2,000 SST vs. 5 speed stick
- $300 brakes
- $200 tires
+$1,500 AWD differentials
=======
$ 3,000
Of course that is just a guesstimate, but hardly unimaginability that the cost difference to produce both cars by the two brands would be close to that figure.
You're confusing racing with street use, the two are not the same. The Evo motor is a very stout motor but so is the STI/WRX motor. Both have proven to be very reliable when modded sensibly. There are plenty of folks with 400 WHP STIs and WRXs on stock blocks that don't have any issues. Hell, I'm at 300 ft/lbs of torque at the wheels right now and haven't had any issues even with track use. As I said, unless you plan on building an absolute monster, there is no discernible difference between the two. If you do plan on building a monster, you wouldn't buy the Ralliart or the WRX anyways, you'd buy their bigger brother car (Evo or STI).
The 2.5 L engine can be an advantage as well. The extra displacement means more torque and the larger stock turbo means more power in general. Almost all STIs and WRXs that I've seen make more torque than HP and they generally make it at a lower RPM. That is an advantage. The 2.5 L is also very reliable (within reason) and has a high potential, high enough for 99% of users.
Your cost estimate is at best an estimate, we really have no idea how much the various parts cost. One factor that isn't considered is quantity, given the larger size of Mitsubishi vs. Subaru, they likely buy more of the various parts from their respective manufacturers thus reducing their cost. I really cannot see the cost of the two cars being that different, investors generally don't like that kind of thing. Moreover, if Mitsubishi can offer these great deals, they have to have wiggle room on the cars, they're not going to take a hit on them.
Oct 28, 2009, 12:45 PM
#93
Evolved Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: CA
Posts: 901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oct 28, 2009, 12:49 PM
#94
Once again, my point was that you had previously listed all the things you want in a car or all the things that you felt made a car superior. Those happened to be features that only the Ralliart had. Thus I suggested that if someone wanted a 2.5 L boxer motor, the only option is the WRX which could lead to the same conclusion that it is superior.
Oct 28, 2009, 01:01 PM
#95
Evolved Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: CA
Posts: 901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again, my point was that you had previously listed all the things you want in a car or all the things that you felt made a car superior. Those happened to be features that only the Ralliart had. Thus I suggested that if someone wanted a 2.5 L boxer motor, the only option is the WRX which could lead to the same conclusion that it is superior.
Oct 28, 2009, 01:15 PM
#96
I thought we are trying to be as objective as possible. Clearly, you can't use the 2.5L boxer engine vs. the 4B11T tactic (since you now say neither is superior to the other). Still, value for value (ie. cost for cost), you can't ignore that the two biggest plus(s) to the RA are the SST transmission and the EvoIX AWD system (ACD+2LSDs) which are rather expensive high-tech systems that happen to come standard in the car ( Assuming those kind of things attract to a potential buyer). That's not hard to comprehend, right?
The SST is also a major limitation for the Ralliart. Sure it's fancy and sure it's expensive but it's relatively weak. That's a potential drawback for sales.
Once again, you're ignoring the rest of the car. As I have said many times, I think it's highly unlikely that Mitsubishi is not making a decent profit on the Ralliart, a profit similar to that with the WRX. Remember, MSRP to MSRP, the WRX is cheaper (assuming you want to count the Ralliart with the nice seats, not the basic model).
Oct 28, 2009, 01:44 PM
#97
Evolved Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: CA
Posts: 901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You used the 4B11T as a point for why the Ralliart was superior thus I countered with the 2.5 L motor from the WRX. As I have said time and time again, it was meant to counter the highly restrictive list you gave previously. Neither motor is absolutely superior to the other, they both have their pros and their cons.
The SST is also a major limitation for the Ralliart. Sure it's fancy and sure it's expensive but it's relatively weak. That's a potential drawback for sales.
Once again, you're ignoring the rest of the car. As I have said many times, I think it's highly unlikely that Mitsubishi is not making a decent profit on the Ralliart, a profit similar to that with the WRX. Remember, MSRP to MSRP, the WRX is cheaper (assuming you want to count the Ralliart with the nice seats, not the basic model).
The SST is also a major limitation for the Ralliart. Sure it's fancy and sure it's expensive but it's relatively weak. That's a potential drawback for sales.
Once again, you're ignoring the rest of the car. As I have said many times, I think it's highly unlikely that Mitsubishi is not making a decent profit on the Ralliart, a profit similar to that with the WRX. Remember, MSRP to MSRP, the WRX is cheaper (assuming you want to count the Ralliart with the nice seats, not the basic model).
Of course I meant base vs. base comparison (don't include the seats). Compare each standard equipment... what's the difference in MSRP, $1,500? That alone is the likely cost difference between both car's AWD systems. What about the tranny?
Oct 28, 2009, 01:49 PM
#98
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CA
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that we're comparing a FWD Chevy to an AWD Mitsubishi, 11 seconds isn't that big of a deal. It is a difference, yes, but the fact that a FWD car is so close is pretty impressive in my books. I'm not sure if it was done with the same driver, I suspect Chevy hired one of their own.
Actually read the C&D article, they used professional drivers (some quite well known apparently). Motor Trend had a similar result so if you trust Motor Trend more, there you go.
I'm well versed in racing and the traction circle, thank you. It doesn't change the fact that a FWD car can be very quick, it's simply a matter of knowing how to drive it. Sure you don't see a lot of 500 WHP FWD cars out there but 300 WHP is common. With that kind of power, and the lower weight of most FWD cars, they're a potent track vehicle. Why do you think so many people race Civics, RSXs, Integras, etc? The Chevy team broke several records with their Cobalt time attack car. Chris Rado is currently pushing the envelope of what FWD can do with his Scion. Unless you're racing at the highest level, the old FWD vs AWD vs RWD argument doesn't mean squat.
I know of many performance oriented people who don't want to spend money if they don't have to. This is what makes the STI and Evos so potent, they come from the factory ready to hit the race track. The same can be said of the 09 WRX, sure the tires aren't superb, but they're adequate, same for the brakes. The first few days I tracked my car I used the stock brakes. I had different tires because the 07 came with RE92s, all-season tires.
I'm not telling people they're wrong for liking the Ralliart, since my first post I've been pushing this idea that people should go with whatever they like. I do however dislike the general attitude of people attempting to rationalize their decisions by attacking the other side. Arguing that the Ralliart is the best value while openly dismissing or downgrading the qualities of other cars is ridiculous and does nothing more than make people look like fanboys. When people make statements like "The RA is awesome, X cars are crap" (a comment I'm sure we've all seen), it really does come off as fanboyism crap, especially when that same individual completely ignores any and all evidence indicating the flaws in that logic.
If you're free to state your opinion, why am I not free to state mine?
Actually read the C&D article, they used professional drivers (some quite well known apparently). Motor Trend had a similar result so if you trust Motor Trend more, there you go.
I'm well versed in racing and the traction circle, thank you. It doesn't change the fact that a FWD car can be very quick, it's simply a matter of knowing how to drive it. Sure you don't see a lot of 500 WHP FWD cars out there but 300 WHP is common. With that kind of power, and the lower weight of most FWD cars, they're a potent track vehicle. Why do you think so many people race Civics, RSXs, Integras, etc? The Chevy team broke several records with their Cobalt time attack car. Chris Rado is currently pushing the envelope of what FWD can do with his Scion. Unless you're racing at the highest level, the old FWD vs AWD vs RWD argument doesn't mean squat.
I know of many performance oriented people who don't want to spend money if they don't have to. This is what makes the STI and Evos so potent, they come from the factory ready to hit the race track. The same can be said of the 09 WRX, sure the tires aren't superb, but they're adequate, same for the brakes. The first few days I tracked my car I used the stock brakes. I had different tires because the 07 came with RE92s, all-season tires.
I'm not telling people they're wrong for liking the Ralliart, since my first post I've been pushing this idea that people should go with whatever they like. I do however dislike the general attitude of people attempting to rationalize their decisions by attacking the other side. Arguing that the Ralliart is the best value while openly dismissing or downgrading the qualities of other cars is ridiculous and does nothing more than make people look like fanboys. When people make statements like "The RA is awesome, X cars are crap" (a comment I'm sure we've all seen), it really does come off as fanboyism crap, especially when that same individual completely ignores any and all evidence indicating the flaws in that logic.
If you're free to state your opinion, why am I not free to state mine?
Anyway, opinions are like... well, you know. Anyway, all I'm saying is, if people feel that the RA is a great value, let them. I know why I bought my car. In hindsight, I would have done things slightly different, but that has less to do with the car and more to do with the dealership.
Oct 28, 2009, 02:11 PM
#99
Evolved Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: CA
Posts: 901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This Chris Rado? http://www.ndnguyen.com/?p=546
Anyway, opinions are like... well, you know. Anyway, all I'm saying is, if people feel that the RA is a great value, let them. I know why I bought my car. In hindsight, I would have done things slightly different, but that has less to do with the car and more to do with the dealership.
Anyway, opinions are like... well, you know. Anyway, all I'm saying is, if people feel that the RA is a great value, let them. I know why I bought my car. In hindsight, I would have done things slightly different, but that has less to do with the car and more to do with the dealership.
Last edited by tipoytm; Oct 28, 2009 at 02:14 PM.
Oct 28, 2009, 02:15 PM
#100
Let's pause for a bit and read the part of this thread where I first posted... follow all the posts after that. All I said that were the big advantages (value-wise) are the SST and the AWD differentials... nowhere did I say the 4B11T was superior to the WRX's boxer engine. It was YOU who made the "RA doesn't have the 2.5L" advantage statement initially. I then countered that uhmm, I don't see how that is an advantage. See... who's making things up now?
Of course I meant base vs. base comparison (don't include the seats). Compare each standard equipment... what's the difference in MSRP, $1,500? That alone is the likely cost difference between both car's AWD systems. What about the tranny?
Of course I meant base vs. base comparison (don't include the seats). Compare each standard equipment... what's the difference in MSRP, $1,500? That alone is the likely cost difference between both car's AWD systems. What about the tranny?
True, if you are talking about the RA in pure stock form w/ those crap OEM tires. If a buyer just picks a car at face value, then the Ralliart is not the best choice. I'd buy it because it has potential. Point me to a sport compact that has a highly tunable motor+turbo, AWD w/ electronically-controlled ACD plus front+back mechanical LSDs, auto-manual tranny, etc. at $25K? I thought so...
This was my first post in response to yours above
What you've basically done is define your criteria so specifically that only a single car (the RA) fits it. The MS3 is tunable, the WRX is tunable, the Cobalt SS is tunable, but they don't have the other stuff you talked about. At the same time, the Ralliart doesn't have Brembos (the Cobalt SS does), it doesn't have a 2.5 L boxer motor (the WRX does), it doesn't have a manual transmission (all three cars I've mentioned do), etc. If you're criteria for a car are as you've stated, than naturally the Ralliart is the best because it's the only car with those criteria. To expand that notion to the entire sport compact market is ridiculous, other cars have specific areas where they are clearly better than the Ralliart. If you like the Ralliart as a whole package, that's great but not everyone does. I wouldn't buy one right now, I'd probably go for an 09 WRX hatchback if I had to buy a car within that bracket. This "it has potential" argument is itself flawed, all cars have potential if you have the money. A 92 Civic has a lot of potential if you're willing to drop 10000$ into the car.
Oct 28, 2009, 02:28 PM
#101
Evolved Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: CA
Posts: 901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And you are correct, considering the standard equipment included in the RA's package... it does make for a great car (if you like technology and overall value) in the $25K sport compact segment. You can quote me on that. However it is not necessarily the superior car cuz stock-for-stock performance, there are better ones out there (yep, like the WRX that you love so much) :-)
Last edited by tipoytm; Oct 28, 2009 at 03:32 PM.
Oct 28, 2009, 03:37 PM
#102
Evolved Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: ATLANTA
Posts: 1,259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wow .. you guys are really going deep..lol but fact is on paper and on track the stock WRX out performs the stock RA and most agree that the RA looks better than the WRX.. and most feel that for the price the RA should have better stock HP.. Subi bumped up the HP on the WRX and mitus should have done the same for the RA..
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Abacus
Project Cars / Build Threads
202
Mar 4, 2024 10:36 AM
AWCAWD
Outlander Sport
22
Mar 28, 2016 10:09 PM
