Considering a 2010 Ralliart or 2010 WRX
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,186
Likes: 0
From: Inbetween Miami and Ft. Lauderdale
The SST isn't bad. It does have torque limit on the stock clutch packs, which are upgradable. It is a fun transmission to drive but you don't feel 100% connected if you are a die hard conventional manual fan.
You shouldn't be too surprised since, as you might have noticed, most of the people giving their opinions do not own an RA. Here are the main decision points when considering the two cars and which car wins out in each:
Overall cost: Depends. The WRX costs less, but since Subaru is doing better than Mitsubishi, you are more likely to get a better deal on the RA. A lower interest rate plus possible rebates will eat up that $4,000 or so price difference pretty quick.
Cost of ownership: Even. The RA gets slightly (and I do mean slightly) lower mileage than the WRX; however, the RAs are ridiculously cheap to insure. Everything else is a wash.
External styling: Depends. Most people seem to think the RA is a much better looking car, though a few people might disagree. Ultimately, it is a personal choice.
Internal styling: Depends. I think the Recaro package is hard to beat, but some people seem to like the WRX interior more. Again, ultimately, it is a personal choice.
Straight line performance: WRX. This, hands down, goes to the WRX. The ability to launch using the manual transmission plus the power-to-wieght ratio make the WRX hard to beat. Hell, even the STi can't beat it.
Track/autocross performance: RA. The RA just handles better, period. Plus, unless you are a professional driver, I guarantee that some random dude putting his RA in sport mode is going to out shift you around a track. The TC-SST is not as good in a straight line, but it more than makes up for that in road/track style driving.
And there you have it. As you can see, the two cars are too close to call. At the end of the day, you are the one who will be forking over a good chunk of your annual salary to buy the car, so you are going to have to make the call. In my opinion, the biggest advantage the WRX has over the RA driving off the lot are the tires. If you change the tires on both cars, the RA's stopping distance improves drastically, and the RA's slalom speed completely outclasses the WRX.
Some people might not agree with my assessment above, but having owned both a WRX in the past and a RA currently, I think I'm pretty unbaised. The truth is, you won't go wrong buying either car since they are so far ahead of the rest of the competition, imo.
Overall cost: Depends. The WRX costs less, but since Subaru is doing better than Mitsubishi, you are more likely to get a better deal on the RA. A lower interest rate plus possible rebates will eat up that $4,000 or so price difference pretty quick.
Cost of ownership: Even. The RA gets slightly (and I do mean slightly) lower mileage than the WRX; however, the RAs are ridiculously cheap to insure. Everything else is a wash.
External styling: Depends. Most people seem to think the RA is a much better looking car, though a few people might disagree. Ultimately, it is a personal choice.
Internal styling: Depends. I think the Recaro package is hard to beat, but some people seem to like the WRX interior more. Again, ultimately, it is a personal choice.
Straight line performance: WRX. This, hands down, goes to the WRX. The ability to launch using the manual transmission plus the power-to-wieght ratio make the WRX hard to beat. Hell, even the STi can't beat it.
Track/autocross performance: RA. The RA just handles better, period. Plus, unless you are a professional driver, I guarantee that some random dude putting his RA in sport mode is going to out shift you around a track. The TC-SST is not as good in a straight line, but it more than makes up for that in road/track style driving.
And there you have it. As you can see, the two cars are too close to call. At the end of the day, you are the one who will be forking over a good chunk of your annual salary to buy the car, so you are going to have to make the call. In my opinion, the biggest advantage the WRX has over the RA driving off the lot are the tires. If you change the tires on both cars, the RA's stopping distance improves drastically, and the RA's slalom speed completely outclasses the WRX.
Some people might not agree with my assessment above, but having owned both a WRX in the past and a RA currently, I think I'm pretty unbaised. The truth is, you won't go wrong buying either car since they are so far ahead of the rest of the competition, imo.
I haven't posted in the on-topic forums for some time but given that RA owners are giving their opinions, here's a WRX owner's opinion.
Overall cost: Agree with Ladogaboy, depends on the deals.
Cost of ownership: Agree with Ladogaboy, they're basically even. Get insurance quotes to confirm this.
External styling: Personal opinion, like Ladogaboy said.
Internal styling: Again, personal opinion.
Straight line performance: WRX wins this easily. Out of the box it has more power and when you start modding the cars, it will have more given that it has more displacement and a larger turbo. 350 HP and 350+ ft/lbs of torque are but a TBE and tune away.
Track/autocross performance: WRX, I have no idea why someone would say RA given that the RA puts down worse handling numbers than the WRX and we have yet to see a shootout (like the MRT shootout) where the RA wins. The RA is not an Evo, it doesn't have S-AYC, it doesn't have Brembos and it doesn't have the track-oriented suspension. Yes it can handle well but as we have all seen, you need to replace the tires and upgrade the brakes which adds 2000$ to the cost rather quickly. Even with new tires, the RA doesn't blow the doors off the WRX as Edmunds showed (even though they put better tires on the RA than the WRX had). It does make a huge difference though and makes the car far too close to determine a winner.
Drive both and decide for yourself.
Overall cost: Agree with Ladogaboy, depends on the deals.
Cost of ownership: Agree with Ladogaboy, they're basically even. Get insurance quotes to confirm this.
External styling: Personal opinion, like Ladogaboy said.
Internal styling: Again, personal opinion.
Straight line performance: WRX wins this easily. Out of the box it has more power and when you start modding the cars, it will have more given that it has more displacement and a larger turbo. 350 HP and 350+ ft/lbs of torque are but a TBE and tune away.
Track/autocross performance: WRX, I have no idea why someone would say RA given that the RA puts down worse handling numbers than the WRX and we have yet to see a shootout (like the MRT shootout) where the RA wins. The RA is not an Evo, it doesn't have S-AYC, it doesn't have Brembos and it doesn't have the track-oriented suspension. Yes it can handle well but as we have all seen, you need to replace the tires and upgrade the brakes which adds 2000$ to the cost rather quickly. Even with new tires, the RA doesn't blow the doors off the WRX as Edmunds showed (even though they put better tires on the RA than the WRX had). It does make a huge difference though and makes the car far too close to determine a winner.
Drive both and decide for yourself.
Last edited by ambystom01; Dec 13, 2009 at 05:25 PM.
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,186
Likes: 0
From: Inbetween Miami and Ft. Lauderdale
It has been researched and proven that right now the WRX has one of the highest insurance rates out there. I read it about 2 months ago from yahoo or msn (i can't remember). This isn't the original link that i read it from but this is the same info i had gotten:
http://www.insurancerate.com/expensi...mpreza-wrx.php
http://www.insurancerate.com/expensi...mpreza-wrx.php
I haven't posted in the on-topic forums for some time but given that RA owners are giving their opinions, here's a WRX owner's opinion.
Overall cost: Agree with Ladogaboy, depends on the deals.
Cost of ownership: Agree with Ladogaboy, they're basically even. Get insurance quotes to confirm this.
External styling: Personal opinion, like Ladogaboy said.
Internal styling: Again, personal opinion.
Straight line performance: WRX wins this easily. Out of the box it has more power and when you start modding the cars, it will have more given that it has more displacement and a larger turbo. 350 HP and 350+ ft/lbs of torque are but a TBE and tune away.
Track/autocross performance: WRX, I have no idea why someone would say RA given that the RA puts down worse handling numbers than the WRX and we have yet to see a shootout (like the MRT shootout) where the RA wins. The RA is not an Evo, it doesn't have S-AYC, it doesn't have Brembos and it doesn't have the track-oriented suspension. Yes it can handle well but as we have all seen, you need to replace the tires and upgrade the brakes which adds 2000$ to the cost rather quickly. Even with new tires, the RA doesn't blow the doors off the WRX as Edmunds showed (even though they put better tires on the RA than the WRX had). It does make a huge difference though and makes the car far too close to determine a winner.
Drive both and decide for yourself.
Overall cost: Agree with Ladogaboy, depends on the deals.
Cost of ownership: Agree with Ladogaboy, they're basically even. Get insurance quotes to confirm this.
External styling: Personal opinion, like Ladogaboy said.
Internal styling: Again, personal opinion.
Straight line performance: WRX wins this easily. Out of the box it has more power and when you start modding the cars, it will have more given that it has more displacement and a larger turbo. 350 HP and 350+ ft/lbs of torque are but a TBE and tune away.
Track/autocross performance: WRX, I have no idea why someone would say RA given that the RA puts down worse handling numbers than the WRX and we have yet to see a shootout (like the MRT shootout) where the RA wins. The RA is not an Evo, it doesn't have S-AYC, it doesn't have Brembos and it doesn't have the track-oriented suspension. Yes it can handle well but as we have all seen, you need to replace the tires and upgrade the brakes which adds 2000$ to the cost rather quickly. Even with new tires, the RA doesn't blow the doors off the WRX as Edmunds showed (even though they put better tires on the RA than the WRX had). It does make a huge difference though and makes the car far too close to determine a winner.
Drive both and decide for yourself.
You shouldn't be too surprised since, as you might have noticed, most of the people giving their opinions do not own an RA. Here are the main decision points when considering the two cars and which car wins out in each:
Overall cost: Depends. The WRX costs less, but since Subaru is doing better than Mitsubishi, you are more likely to get a better deal on the RA. A lower interest rate plus possible rebates will eat up that $4,000 or so price difference pretty quick.
Cost of ownership: Even. The RA gets slightly (and I do mean slightly) lower mileage than the WRX; however, the RAs are ridiculously cheap to insure. Everything else is a wash.
External styling: Depends. Most people seem to think the RA is a much better looking car, though a few people might disagree. Ultimately, it is a personal choice.
Internal styling: Depends. I think the Recaro package is hard to beat, but some people seem to like the WRX interior more. Again, ultimately, it is a personal choice.
Straight line performance: WRX. This, hands down, goes to the WRX. The ability to launch using the manual transmission plus the power-to-wieght ratio make the WRX hard to beat. Hell, even the STi can't beat it.
Track/autocross performance: RA. The RA just handles better, period. Plus, unless you are a professional driver, I guarantee that some random dude putting his RA in sport mode is going to out shift you around a track. The TC-SST is not as good in a straight line, but it more than makes up for that in road/track style driving.
And there you have it. As you can see, the two cars are too close to call. At the end of the day, you are the one who will be forking over a good chunk of your annual salary to buy the car, so you are going to have to make the call. In my opinion, the biggest advantage the WRX has over the RA driving off the lot are the tires. If you change the tires on both cars, the RA's stopping distance improves drastically, and the RA's slalom speed completely outclasses the WRX.
Some people might not agree with my assessment above, but having owned both a WRX in the past and a RA currently, I think I'm pretty unbaised. The truth is, you won't go wrong buying either car since they are so far ahead of the rest of the competition, imo.
Overall cost: Depends. The WRX costs less, but since Subaru is doing better than Mitsubishi, you are more likely to get a better deal on the RA. A lower interest rate plus possible rebates will eat up that $4,000 or so price difference pretty quick.
Cost of ownership: Even. The RA gets slightly (and I do mean slightly) lower mileage than the WRX; however, the RAs are ridiculously cheap to insure. Everything else is a wash.
External styling: Depends. Most people seem to think the RA is a much better looking car, though a few people might disagree. Ultimately, it is a personal choice.
Internal styling: Depends. I think the Recaro package is hard to beat, but some people seem to like the WRX interior more. Again, ultimately, it is a personal choice.
Straight line performance: WRX. This, hands down, goes to the WRX. The ability to launch using the manual transmission plus the power-to-wieght ratio make the WRX hard to beat. Hell, even the STi can't beat it.
Track/autocross performance: RA. The RA just handles better, period. Plus, unless you are a professional driver, I guarantee that some random dude putting his RA in sport mode is going to out shift you around a track. The TC-SST is not as good in a straight line, but it more than makes up for that in road/track style driving.
And there you have it. As you can see, the two cars are too close to call. At the end of the day, you are the one who will be forking over a good chunk of your annual salary to buy the car, so you are going to have to make the call. In my opinion, the biggest advantage the WRX has over the RA driving off the lot are the tires. If you change the tires on both cars, the RA's stopping distance improves drastically, and the RA's slalom speed completely outclasses the WRX.
Some people might not agree with my assessment above, but having owned both a WRX in the past and a RA currently, I think I'm pretty unbaised. The truth is, you won't go wrong buying either car since they are so far ahead of the rest of the competition, imo.
Newbie
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
From: NYC
Newbie
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
From: NYC
Everyone here always talk about mod and performance; there are a lot of other things you need to consider when you are going to buy a car like a ralliart or WRX or EVO or STI; no offense but, i never will buy a EVO with that price; STI? i don't like hatchback and is no commercial at least in the USA; for a normal daily use a car like a ralliart or the wrx is enough; if i were willing to spend more than $30K in a car there are a lot of options to choose like BMW and Mercedes; at the end mitsu ralliart or subi wrx are pricey cars
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,186
Likes: 0
From: Inbetween Miami and Ft. Lauderdale
You do have full manual control when u switch it over using the shifters or the gear lever but in terms of controlling the clutches via clutch pedal. The driver doesn't engage the clutches but the computer does. But it wouldn't shift if you don't if you are in manual mode.
Last edited by boondoc; Dec 13, 2009 at 07:07 PM.
