^^^^Is the suspension that bad really though? Edmunds tested the WRX and it got the same on the skidpad .81, but bested the Ralliart in the slalom. Better braking number, quicker to 60, through the quarter. It just seems the WRX is the better package.
I disagree. I think that the two cars are very closely matched, and it comes down to what you’re looking for. It's true, the Edmunds review wasn't all roses. But Edmunds is good about that...they point out the shortcomings of most cars they drive, whereas C&D tends to treat every new car as the greatest thing ever. Instead of reading the Edmunds review of the Ralliart in isolation, I think it’s worth reading the review of the Ralliart back-to-back with their review of the 2008 WRX.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=127586# (Ralliart)
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=121788 (WRX)
OUT-OF-THE-BOX:
The WRX definitely has an advantage in performance numbers. Faster to 60 mph by either 0.7 or 0.3 seconds, depending on how you launch the Ralliart. Same skidpad numbers. The WRX is 0.3 seconds faster through the quarter-mile, though the Ralliart is 0.2 mph faster at the end of it. The WRX stops from 60 mph in 7 fewer feet.
However, and there’s a big however, the subjective feel of the cars is the opposite of the performance numbers. Edmunds wrote:
In truth, the Lancer Ralliart feels much faster than its time slip suggests.
* * *
But you should consider that this car is tuned for hard driving in the real world, not on a skid pad or drag strip. Do like we did and take Mitsu's 'tweener to a dirt portion of Mulholland Drive or to our favorite, Glendora Mountain Road (a.k.a. GMR), and this car starts to come together as if it deserves its Ralliart badges.
* * *
Sure, the Ralliart sheepishly understeers into corners, but man, does it exit like a lion. There's no question the active center differential plus front and rear limited-slip diffs are sorting out the best way to put the power down. Switch off the standard stability control and the Ralliart provides as much breathtaking oversteer in high-speed esses as you dare attempt.
* * *
the Ralliart's pedal feedback, ability to modulate minute pressures and unfaltering fade-free brakes are fantastic out here.
* * *
Does Subaru have reason to worry? You bet it does, especially since it decided to make the 2008 Impreza WRX Sedan appeal to a wider cross-section of buyers. The Lancer Ralliart now stands alone as the low-cost entry-level rally car.
For comparison, here's what they said about the subjective driving experience of the WRX:
The chassis setup is also noticeably softer [than the previous generation WRX] and there's no shortage of body roll.
* * *
On paper, it sounds as if the WRX really hasn't changed, but the WRX we loved for its finger-in-the-air attitude is gone, replaced by a WRX with its finger on the pulse of the mainstream market.
* * *
But where the old car was tossable, the new car is simply soft.
* * *
Despite a better slalom number, the softer chassis calibration compromises the WRX's once-healthy appetite for shredding back roads. As a driver's car, we found it less inspiring.
* * *
And there's understeer. Plenty of it.
* * *
We loved the old car's commanding bite while bending it into a corner and its willingness to adjust its line in the middle of the corner. Now we feel less like we're driving a rally car and more like we're driving a Camry.
So it looks to me that, out of the box, the WRX wins by objective measurements, the Ralliart wins on the subjective front. Since I don’t race (either formally or informally), subjective performance is more important to me than objective performance. Your mileage may vary.
WITH MILD MODIFICATIONS:
Here, I think the Ralliart would win. It’s much easier, and probably cheaper as well, to put lighter wheels and better tires on a car than to get into suspension tuning (where less-than-expert matching of aftermarket components can improve one bit of handling while ruining everything else).
WITH SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATIONS:
Here, I think the WRX would win. Twin-clutch automated manual transmissions generally aren’t made to handle much more horsepower than stock. With the WRX’s transmission, though, the sky is the limit—and the engine has proven that more power can be added easily and reliably. The same distinction is true when comparing electronic AWD systems (Mitsubishi) with mechanical (Subaru).
CONCLUSION:
You pay significant attention to objective performance figures. Seems to me that you'd rather drive the car that IS faster than the one that FEELS sharper. And when you modify cars, you go all-out (i.e., your Supra). For you, the WRX would be the better choice, no doubt.
I don't give a rat's ass about objective performance figures, but excessive body roll and a "sedate" feel drives me up the wall, even if the car is quite fast objectively. And when I modify cars, I tend to prefer little tweaks, and I balk and get nervous about doing more harm than good when I consider big jobs. I'd be happy swapping out a car's wheels and tires, but replacing shocks
and struts
and roll bars is a bit much for me. For me, the Ralliart would be the better choice.
