LATEST MOTOR Trend: Ralliart 0-60 5.6s, 0.89g skidpad

hibby · Jul 25, 2008, 08:38 PM

A few thoughts...

The 5.6 seconds to 60...we know how to get it there (brake-torque). Is this the same magazine that said that's how they achieved 5.6, or was that Car and Driver?

The 0.89 g....how do you come up with a number that's >10% above where everybody else says the car is? I think I recall hearing once that skidpad numbers can't really be compared perfectly because some mags use one size of skidpad, while others use a different size (200 ft. vs. 300 ft. or something).

Your comments please...

dboz · Jul 25, 2008, 09:31 PM

I saw that today also. I was pretty happy with those numbers. The brakes were a little disappointing though.
Also, some have mentioned that the SST tranny is not good to torque load it with the brakes. I don't know about that, since it obviously gets loaded on the MR during launch mode. As far as the G's, I personally don't think it will be that big of a deal in daily driving. If you want one to Auto X then time to be concerned.

**otter** · Jul 25, 2008, 09:36 PM

200' skidpad is the standard size and what I'd expect all magazines to use. However, if they're not using the same skidpad, then the results aren't comparable, due to differences in surfaces, cleanliness, etc.

It's pretty obvious, from the various tests out there, that the first thing every owner will need to do is put a wider wheel/tire combination on the car.

VincentX · Jul 25, 2008, 10:24 PM

Nice to hear.

hibby · Jul 25, 2008, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dboz

As far as the G's, I personally don't think it will be that big of a deal in daily driving.

Here's my issue...I drive a 2003 Century. Nice car, decent motor, handles a bit better since I upgraded my tires, but it's still a boat, and it's not that fast. At times, it's like driving a couch. The Cars.com database lists my Century as 0.78g on the skidpad. (It's also worth noting that the car does this on P205/70SR15 rubber.) I figure with the new tires (a decent set of Goodyear all seasons), I'm at or near 0.80. They list it at ~3350 pounds, so it's a bit lighter than the Ralliart...let's blame the all-wheel drive gear. Anyhow...

A bunch sources have claimed the Ralliart is showing 0.80g. I just can't see myself driving an all-wheel drive "sport sedan" that can't pull more lateral g-load than a 6-year-old Buick, especially when the Ralliart is running ****ing summer rubber on 18s. I have definitely found the point on the Buick where the grip begins to run out. That's fine. It's a Buick. I won't tolerate that on a sporty car.

That said, I'm still very much interested in the Ralliart, but it needs to represent a considerable upgrade from what I have now in every aspect, not just acceleration and looks. If it can't do what I want, I guess I'm either getting a Legacy 2.5 GT, waiting for the WRX to get de-uglied, saving for an Evo, or hunting for another nice AWD option.

MY SOURCE FOR BUICK STATS: http://www.cars.com/go/compare/trimC...=USB30BUC011A0

dklau33 · Jul 26, 2008, 12:14 AM

Is this in the latest issue of Motor Trend? If so can't wait to get mine in my box.

100$ GUY · Jul 26, 2008, 10:40 AM

All good, but where is the link to the article????

VincentX · Jul 26, 2008, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hibby

Here's my issue...I drive a 2003 Century. Nice car, decent motor, handles a bit better since I upgraded my tires, but it's still a boat, and it's not that fast. At times, it's like driving a couch. The Cars.com database lists my Century as 0.78g on the skidpad. (It's also worth noting that the car does this on P205/70SR15 rubber.) I figure with the new tires (a decent set of Goodyear all seasons), I'm at or near 0.80. They list it at ~3350 pounds, so it's a bit lighter than the Ralliart...let's blame the all-wheel drive gear. Anyhow...

A bunch sources have claimed the Ralliart is showing 0.80g. I just can't see myself driving an all-wheel drive "sport sedan" that can't pull more lateral g-load than a 6-year-old Buick, especially when the Ralliart is running ****ing summer rubber on 18s. I have definitely found the point on the Buick where the grip begins to run out. That's fine. It's a Buick. I won't tolerate that on a sporty car.

That said, I'm still very much interested in the Ralliart, but it needs to represent a considerable upgrade from what I have now in every aspect, not just acceleration and looks. If it can't do what I want, I guess I'm either getting a Legacy 2.5 GT, waiting for the WRX to get de-uglied, saving for an Evo, or hunting for another nice AWD option.

MY SOURCE FOR BUICK STATS: http://www.cars.com/go/compare/trimC...=USB30BUC011A0

Wow, relax man. I remember long time ago that the first Evo that was brought to the US only produced .89g or .90g. The skidpad number from this test is not bad at all especially from a car that weighs close to 3,500 pounds and tires that are way are too narrow and or don't have enough stickiness to its rubber compound. Skidpad numbers are not absolute indicators of handling performance. We will not be certain of what the Ra will be capable of until we get much more data released from magazines and people that will actually own the Ra. Keep in mind that the variables to consider in these test such as driver skill, traction conditions, and weather conditions can vary significantly from mag to mag. Don't give up on the Ra yet.

100$ GUY · Jul 26, 2008, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VincentX

Wow, relax man. I remember long time ago that the first Evo that was brought to the US only produced .89g or .90g. The skidpad number from this test is not bad at all especially from a car that weighs close to 3,500 pounds and tires that are way are too narrow and or don't have enough stickiness to its rubber compound. Skidpad numbers are not absolute indicators of handling performance. We will not be certain of what the Ra will be capable of until we get much more data released from magazines and people that will actually own the Ra. Keep in mind that the variables to consider in these test such as driver skill, traction conditions, and weather conditions can vary significantly from mag to mag. Don't give up on the Ra yet.

In fact, the skidpad number from this test is awesome.
Wonder what happened....

VincentX · Jul 26, 2008, 11:07 AM

^Yes, it was awesome actually.

VincentX · Jul 26, 2008, 11:10 AM

The Evo X's skidpad # is .99g to 1g. The Ra seems to be Evo Jr. as of now.

100$ GUY · Jul 26, 2008, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VincentX

The Evo X's skidpad # is .99g to 1g. The Ra seems to be Evo Jr. as of now.

hahaha, can u imagine it?

ANyway, where is the link to this article??

VincentX · Jul 26, 2008, 11:14 AM

If you put tires as wide as the Evo X on the Ra and with proper suspension mods to get the most out of the wider tires its skidpad # should match or surpass the Evo X's.

hibby · Jul 26, 2008, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VincentX

Wow, relax man. I remember long time ago that the first Evo that was brought to the US only produced .89g or .90g. The skidpad number from this test is not bad at all especially from a car that weighs close to 3,500 pounds and tires that are way are too narrow and or don't have enough stickiness to its rubber compound. Skidpad numbers are not absolute indicators of handling performance. We will not be certain of what the Ra will be capable of until we get much more data released from magazines and people that will actually own the Ra. Keep in mind that the variables to consider in these test such as driver skill, traction conditions, and weather conditions can vary significantly from mag to mag. Don't give up on the Ra yet.

No worries. Still very interested in this car -- I just have to make sure it's good so I can buy it with no regrets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 100$ GUY

ANyway, where is the link to this article??

Not online yet.

desperado-c · Jul 26, 2008, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dboz

I saw that today also. I was pretty happy with those numbers. The brakes were a little disappointing though.
Also, some have mentioned that the SST tranny is not good to torque load it with the brakes. I don't know about that, since it obviously gets loaded on the MR during launch mode. As far as the G's, I personally don't think it will be that big of a deal in daily driving. If you want one to Auto X then time to be concerned.

This is a very interesting question and has been rolling around the back of my brain since C&D posted their test spec sheet showing that they brake torqued the RA to get there superior time: is the MR's launch control no different from brake torquing? If so, it hardly seems worth the effort to add it, so I gotta believe it's more sophisticated than that.

The next question is whether brake torquing is all that bad for the SST. With two different mags potentially having done it now, I have to think that Mitsu is telling them it's okay to do .