What a great car, I'm glad to hear its getting good reviews. I much prefer the styling of the Lancer/Ralliart/Evo to the Impreza/WRX/STI.
 
Having owned a Lancer GTS, I can certainly say its a fun car to drive, even if the 2.0L base engine is a little anemic. So, I can only imagine how much more fun the Ralliart is.

With the way things are now, cars like this could be the next HUGE thing. I'd like to see some escalating competition here

I think $26K is too high a price point for this car. If it goes over $24K it has some serious competition.

Those stinkin yokohama advan tires suck by the way. Those came stock on my Legacy and what a piece of crap. Anybody who buys the Ralliart is going to want to swap those fast! It'll be interesting to see the first comparison test between the WRX and Ralliart. I think the Subie is lighter...

"In fact most of the car feels very Evo like, with only a missing turbo (the Evo has two, Ralliart one)."
 
Umm...Doesn't the Evo only has 1 turbo (though it is a twin-scroll) and the Ralliart should only have a smaller, single scroll turbo.
 
"On more than one occasion it was the rev-limiter that reminded me to shift, as the engine's ability to spin past 8,000 rpm was hard to keep up with."
 
And isn't the redline only 6,500 rpms?

I guess there's a big difference between "redline" and when the rev limiter steps in.
 
I can think of one way to get that MSRP down a bit - optional old school manual transmission! This TC-SST (is that really what they're calling it?) may be great, but I'm sure a lot of people would prefer a real stick, and many more would at least be willing to accept one if it helped them afford the jump from GTS to Ralliart.
 
Here's hoping the next MS3 has AWD too. That's one consumer comparison test I'd love to be invited to!

Great looking sedan. On exterior styling at least, Mitsubishi hit a home run. I haven't driven anything in the new lancer line, but I like the way they look for sure.

AUTHOR: editor_karl
DATE: 06/20/2008 08:12:53 AM
EMAIL: karl@edmunds.com

I dunno, I just can't get past that big-mouth bass-looking front end... I think I'll pass.
 
Yes, I'm just that shallow.

Karl,
Don't be so wordy in your posts.
 
Part of the reason I haven't traded cars in the last few months, is the Ralliart. I want to test drive one. I thought the GTS was under powered (for my tastes anyway), but I like the looks, and I think the back seats have adequate room for average size adults (a requirement laid down by the wife).

I think the Ralliart's price will be more in the $28K-30K ballpark. :(
 
I think the car is great except for its lack of a manual transmission. Hopefully this car has already prompted Subaru to give the WRX more scoot.

If it's pushing $30k, my "want one" will likely wander to other vehicles.

Karl, I don't doubt the performance of the new Mitsu Ralliart. I had the chance to drive the EVO X GSR. The car sticks to the road corners like a cat turning a corner on a carpet floor. The new Lancer Ralliart will be a good choice for those looking for a AWD for less than $ 30K with the TCSST. I hope Mitsu will offer a 6 speed manual on the EVO X or the Ralliart. The 5spd. on the EVO X turn the RPM's to high on highway when you want to cruise.

what is the point of four cylinder performance if the mileage is going to be akin to a big displacement V6? This is supposed to be about affordable, efficient performance. The Ralliart gets poor mileage for such a small car. 237hp isnt enough to justify that kind of mileage. I assume it will need premium as well.

"237hp isnt enough to justify that kind of mileage. I assume it will need premium as well."
 
It is in this size of car with awd handling. I'd like to see the official performance numbers

This is a really tempting car! I will definitely be checking this one out. If I can get a "spoiler delete" Ralliart, it might be a bit irresistable.
 
The big grille reminds me of an upside down Audi grille. The car itself reads like a B5 or B6 A4/S4.... exciting stuff for $26K!

"I think the Ralliart's price will be more in the $28K-30K ballpark. "
 
Can anyone say...
 
FAIL!!

Exactly, cruiserhead1! It's exciting for $26k or $25k. For more than $28k, they can forget it!

1487,
 
Weight is also another advantage of a 4-cyl engine. Those two extra cylinders to make the V6 adds pretty substantial weight to the front of the car.
 
Considering it's AWD (as clace said) and also that it's turbocharged and weighs significantly more than the last gen Lancer, I'm not surprised that this gets mediocre mileage.
 
I guess it's something Mitsu has to work on. Maybe a retuning for the MMC will bump up MPG estimates.

I'm glad this car doesn't have a stick. It'll appeal to people who have to drive in heavy traffic. I love watching hot shots tool around in traffic dodge trolley tracks in their Evos and STis which the engines groaning at low revs as if they are going to die. 4 cylinder thrum at low RPM is not a sexy sound and trust me, they don't seem to be having fun snicking through the gears.
 
As far as the fuel thristy turbo fours, can someone please tell me why Subaru and Mitsu do not invest in DI powertrains? At least the MS3 gets somewhat respectable EPA mileage due to it's more efficient engine and lack of AWD. Still, if I can have a larger engine of the same power with instant on thrust, I'll take it.

Chavis, if MPGs and fun are important, then the GTI/Jetta 2.0T and Cooper/Clubman S are the best options. For no holds barred though, it seems one must give up mileage.

So Chavis, the automatic will suddenly make the 4-cyl thrum sound more pleasant? Come on..... .
 
Unless a stick is so unprofitable for Mitsu, I don't see why this car shouldn't have one available. IMO it's a blunder on their part. The enthusiast crowd loves manuals, and this car is aimed at them. There are many options for people who value a more refined ride and better fuel economy......the GTI and Mini are better options.

A H4 engine at low RPM sounds fantastic to me!
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Urpx_kDFpU (not my car, same setup - stock exhaust except for Prodrive muffler)
 
We'll see how the Lancer Ralliart's pricing pans out.

You're right, Suby. It sounds great! :)

The MS3's EPA highway is ONE mpg higher than the Ralliart... 26 vs. 25. And the Ralliart is at least 1.5x cooler.
 
However, despite the fact this is is the ONLY car that is distracting my attention from the 128i, the fuel economy, at 3 worse highway than the 128i, is a key factor. I'm not making any decisions until I can build a Ralliart on Mitsu's site and see the final price. I'm very excited to own either, someday.
 
And boxer motors sound awesome (in 4 and 6 cylinder varieties)! I remember listening to sound clips on Manaflow's website and I thought they all sounded pretty lame (except the V8's of course) until I heard the clip of the WRX; it's mean.

"what is the point of four cylinder performance if the mileage is going to be akin to a big displacement V6? This is supposed to be about affordable, efficient performance. The Ralliart gets poor mileage for such a small car. 237hp isnt enough to justify that kind of mileage. I assume it will need premium as well."
 
I do understnad your point but stick a big 3.5L V6 uner its hood and its weight bias would go up significantly which isnt good for handling. The 4cyl is lighter which is one of the reasons why its there.

I agree that a well engineered turbo4 will be lighter than a v6, tough it wouldn't surprise me if there are a few v6 that are lighter than some forced induction fours. Packaging might be another advantage of a 4, tough then you have to figure out how to cool it properly.
 
I wonder if manufacturers could make affordable electronics to allow manual selection of engine maps between power and economy, like F1 drivers do with their car's systems, choosing a power map for say qualifying, and a economical one for plodding along, following the safety car. I know ECUs are very sophisticated and already do this to some degree, but I'm guessing it could be even better if the computer "knew" the driver was driving for economy, instead of always trying to guess when he's trying to save fuel and when he's not.
 
And manual turbo fours don't all sound like crap. I really like the low rev groul of the MS3 :)

bbechtel 16, I agree with you on the mileage but not the looks/coolness. The Ralliart looks quite a bit "hardcore", the MS3 has very understated looks, which I like. But I wish the MS3 had AWD......
 
Santiao, that would be awesome! From an engineering perspective, it should be easy and inexpensive to do.....all that has to be done is to wrtie the ECU's program to have two subroutines or functions and take inputs from a switch! Maybe when the switch is in high position, the ECU would run the high performance subroutine, and in low position run the high economy subroutine.

I'm so torn between the Impreza and Lancer. I think the Lancer looks WAY better, but the Impreza is so much lighter. I think I'd choose the Lancer, not because I don't value performance, but the Impreza looks that bad.

Subaru already allows some engine mapping control with their SI drive, but in the USA that has not trickled down to the Forester or Impreza lines yet.
 
However, Subaru does one odd thing in that the "intelligent" SI setting actually "neuters" the car by cutting overall power. That seems dangerous in that you, the driver, will in that mode not get the responsiveness you might need in an emergency senario. Far better would be for the "intellegent" mode to remap the engine to allow full power in full throttle situations, and remap accordingly for economy benefits during milder acceleration.

I'm guessing things for a econ map would be tricky for turbo engines, but with things like variable geometry turbos, it should be possible, though the inexpensive part might be out of the question for a while.
 
And I'd also agree it's dangerous if the econ mode would leave you with very little power. I'd expect the engines in the turbo cars in this range (Evo, Impreza, Mazda3) to have, say the power/responsiveness of the base engine available to these cars on that theoretical econ mode. In those cars that would still leave you with around 150 HP, not bad at all for fuel sippin.

Santiago, it might be easy for turbo engines.......would it not be a simple matter of reducing the torbo boost pressure in econ mode? Of course, other parts of the engine would also be appropriately adjusted during econ mode.......

Inside Line's Full Test of the 2009 Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart is up, folks!
 
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=127586
 
kurtamaxxxguy, I agree with you about SI-drive. How's your 2009 FXT treatin' ya?

A turbo four is likely a little lighter than a V6 but the point is in this era of high gas prices I dont see the point of a compact sports sedan that gets worse mileage than more powerful V6 midsize cars with higher curb weights. The icing on the cake is the need for premium gas. If this car isnt cheap (meaning starting around $22k or so) its pretty pointless to me. Yes it has AWD but so does the Legacy GT which is in the same price range and I dont think that car has been tearing up the sales charts. Based on the IL road test most V6 family sedans are as fast as the Lancer while getting better mileage. Sure, they cant handle quite as well but a gas guzzling I-4 powered compact is an oxymoron to me.

Thanks for the heads up Loren! The full test is a bit of a letdown, but the Ralliart remains on my VSL. (Very Short List) The lack of handling/braking performance is perplexing and troubling.

1487, the Lancer Ralliart is not about fuel economy or everyday use! It's meant for those who value driving itself over more economic aspects of car ownership. So it's better to have a 4-cyl if it'll make the cars lighter, more balanced and more sporty....even if it's fuel economy is a bit less than decent.
It's not meant to "tear up the chart sales either". The regular Lancer is supposed to do that. This car is aimed at relatively few people....those who want an Evo but can't afford it or are unwilling to spend that much on it.
 
If it's an oxymoron to you then you're not one of target buyers. Heck, I wouldn't buy it myself.....but at least I know what it's meant for.

as the IL test showed, the Ralliart is actually pretty heavy. Its not light or affordable and its not efficient and thus I don't see where it fits in. I guess its truly for those who dream of the EVO but cant afford one.

30k????!! Nevermind my earlier praise, this makes no sense at that price

1487, I don't know anyone who is considering a Ralliart, EVO, WRX or STI has gas mileage first and foremost on their list of concerns.

"1487, I don't know anyone who is considering a Ralliart, EVO, WRX or STI has gas mileage first and foremost on their list of concerns."
 
gas mileage is on a list of top concerns for most car buyers today. Thats my point. To suggest that this car offers so much performance that mileage is irrelevant is ridiculous. M5 owners may not care about gas prices but buyers of $25k cars do. 0-60 in 6.6secs doesnt exactly make this car super fast in today's world of 268hp family sedans.

"gas mileage is on a list of top concerns for most car buyers today. Thats my point. To suggest that this car offers so much performance that mileage is irrelevant is ridiculous. M5 owners may not care about gas prices but buyers of $25k cars do. 0-60 in 6.6secs doesnt exactly make this car super fast in today's world of 268hp family sedans."
 
Exactly. The Ralliart gets 3 mpg better, is $6,000 cheaper, and still offers much of the fun of an Evo (with greater daily drivibility). Sure a V6 powered family sedan may be able to out gun it in a drag race, but that's not the point. Really there aren't many vehicles under 30k than CAN beat a V6 family sedan in a drag race. It's all rather ridiculous if you ask me. The point is the Ralliart packs enough power to entertain you, along with a chassis and drivetrain to keep the smile on your face when the twisties, snow, and even gravel comes. However, the disappointing handling performance steals the thunder of much of my argument. Is Edmunds officially saying the tires or tires/wheels are to blame here?

I dont know but I would be mad if the GTS could outhandle my more expensive Ralliart model. Why would they put weaker tires on the high performance version of the car? That is silly to me.
 
If you only contrast the Ralliart with the EVO then it is indeed a good deal.

"gas mileage is on a list of top concerns for most car buyers today. Thats my point. To suggest that this car offers so much performance that mileage is irrelevant is ridiculous........"
1487, you're hopeless. What would it take for you that realise that the Ralliart is not meant for "most car buyers today"? Its mileage is nothing to write home about, but don't pretend it's a fuel hog. It's not.
 
"0-60 in 6.6secs doesnt exactly make this car super fast in today's world of 268hp family sedans."
This car and the WRX are not about outright speed either. The fact that many family cars would out-run it is not the point.......if it was, nobody would buy it or the WRX.
 
"I dont know but I would be mad if the GTS could outhandle my more expensive Ralliart model."
It's not about handling either. If it was, the 128i would make this car irrelevant. (I'm not saying that the handling is not dissapointing!)
 
Notice that despite the disappointing track performance, "..........[most cars, including the 1-series and the GTS, cannot] launch out of slow-speed corners with the same authority as the Ralliart. Nor can they match the Mitsu's all-weather abilities." That is what the Ralliart is about.
 
"If you only contrast the Ralliart with the EVO then it is indeed a good deal."
For once, I agree with you: the Ralliart is overpriced. It should be $1k or $2k cheaper. I also think the Evo is overpriced.
 
Look, you wouldn't buy the Ralliart and that's okay. I wouldn't either; like you, I think it's a waste of money.
But to say or suggest that the car is useless because of its underwhelming track performance and fuel economy is just silly.......it's an excellent all-weather rally car and there are people for whom those traits are the uttermost priorities. Don't say it's a bad car just because you don't like it and its priorities are not the same as yours.

1487
 
To suggest that this car offers so much performance that mileage is irrelevant is ridiculous.
 
I never made that suggestion. I simply said that gas mileage is not the first thing most buyers of these cars are looking for. As an owner of a WRX wagon there are several things that come before gas mileage on my list of priorities. I suspect I'm not alone here.

+1, Bob. For me, mph > mpg.

"Don't say it's a bad car just because you don't like it and its priorities are not the same as yours."
 
Show where I said the car was "bad" and I'll send you $500. I never said the car was bad. I said I don't see the point of a compact car with less the stellar power and efficiency and a high price. Only because this car is so closely related to the media darling EVO is it entitled to a free pass. The same media who has been wondering aloud why Dodge has a Challenger and why Chevy is launching a Camaro in the era of $4 a gallon gas seems to have no issue with gas guzzling, premium fuel burning AWD sports sedans and hatches as long as they come from Japan. If performance is your primary concern then gas mileage is likely not as important but that logic only seems to apply when talking about cars like the Ralliart. When we shift to other performance cars people say "I dont see a market for this when gas is $4 a gallon".

The RalliArt seems to give Mitsu a direct competitor to the WRX. I still would take a Speed3 over either of them because it looks better, cost less and makes more juice. The reality is non of these cars will be good in the snow without all season tires. I doubt I'd be able to exploit the supposed advantage of the bare bones AWD systems in my day to day driving so they seem more of a handicap than a benefit without the fancy computer controlled systems in the Evo and STi. A FWD car with traction/stability control and good all weather tires will be just as safe as an AWD car.

chavis10
 
I have it on good authority that the '09 WRX is getting a power boost and sharper handling. In fact the MS3 was a car Subaru used to benchmark the '09 model after.
 
We should see it here by the end of the summer—about when the Ralliart hits the showrooms.

Come on, 1487!
 
"If this car isnt cheap (meaning starting around $22k or so) its pretty pointless to me...........
".....a gas guzzling I-4 powered compact is an oxymoron to me."
 
You've not said one good thing about the car. You say "Only because this car is so closely related to the media darling EVO is it entitled to a free pass." You forget or neglect to mention that it is a very capable rally car that, for most people, is as good as the Evo but costs far less.
 
After all this, can I argue that you see any merit of the car?
 
Well, the G8 is also a not-so-economical performance car but the automotive press has been positive about it. That goes to show that maybe the Camaro and Challenger are being criticiesed because they get something wrong.
 
Chavis, the "fancy computer controlled systems" are aimed to facilitate extremely high performance on the track. For everyday fun-to-drive situations (eg. winding roads or dirt roads), the "bare bones" AWD system of the Ralliart is far more than capable enough.

Since when is a three mode AWD system with triple LSD considered "barebones"? I think you're on LSD.
 
I was starting to think that Chavis and 1487 were being more objective than we give them credit for, but between Chavis' ridiculous claim above and a good point blackadder just made, I'm reassured that they're just nuts.
 
The fact is the G8 is praised by just about everyone while the new muscle cars get mixed reactions. The reason? The G8 is a full sized sedan, so yeah, it's a little heavy, and the handling shows it; but it's a FULL SIZED SEDAN. You expect that with the territory.
 
The new Camaro and Challengers coming down the line suffer the same negatives, because they're basically also full sized sedans. That's the problem, and that's why they get the hate that the G8 and the Charger somewhat dodges. The new muscle cars shouldn't be full sized coupes; what's the point? Remember the RWD Monte Carlo? hmmm.... A full sized coupe is the ultimate bad compromise. Yes the muscle cars of long ago they reminisce of were heavy and ill handling, but does that mean they have to be true to that trait today? I think a lot more people (myself included) would take the impractical, RWD, domestic coupe more seriously if it was smaller and lighter, thus competing better with "alternative offerings". Phrased differently, I'm saying I wouldn't mind the compromise of the coupe body style so much if it was smaller and lighter, translating to better handling, fuel economy, and class leading power/weight ratios.
 
This is exactly why the 128i Coupe has my interest. I'm not one to want a coupe typically; I did own one and it was a PITA. But, the 128i fancies me in so many other ways to such an extent that I'm willing to consider it. It is efficient and has the simplify and handling prowess of RWD.
 
The Ralliart is a compromise of a different sort for me. I'm not a huge fan of AWD and the efficiency penalties that come with it. However, the Ralliart will be available in practical hatchback form, has a state-of-the-art transmission, and is also a hoot to drive. Now if BMW would just get me a 5-door 128i, they could stop Mitsu from sitting on one of my shoulders, assuming the price stays in line.
 
Wow...sorry to go way OT...but I think it's helped get my point across? Why would you buy a heavy, so-so handling (good for the weight granted), gas guzzling, coupe like the Camaro or Challenger when there are better compromises (every vehicle is a compromise) available in the land of $4 gas?

Two points I forgot due to my ridiculously long winded post:
 
1. Bob...thanks for that info. I hope Subaru is able to tweak the WRX into something enthusiasts can valve more. The new Imprezza platform seems really promising; I think it just needs some styling and tuning tweaks to make it a hit again.
 
2. About the Cobalt SS and MS3 vs. Ralliart and WRX. I really don't consider these vehicles to be in the same category. AWD vs. FWD makes all the difference. I prefer RWD, would consider AWD, WILL NOT consider FWD. Putting the amount of power down to the front wheels is just silly. It's akin to my thoughts of FWD 268 hp family sedans (though not as bad).

Pretty much agree with everything you said bbechtel. The Challenger and (I'm assuming) the Camaro are simply TOO BIG to earn true "performance coupe" status.
 
Think of the Bentley Continental GT. Not exactly a nimble, catlike driving experience, but it's not supposed to be, either. It's a big, heavy luxury car built on a big, heavy luxury sedan chassis. Same is true of the Camaro/Challenger, but those vehicles don't offer exceptional luxury OR true performance except in a straightline.
 
Another example: Shelby Mustang GT versus GT500. The GT500 is more powerful, and WAY heavier (and the weight is all on the front wheels). Result? It handles like a pig. The lighter, more balanced Shelby GT is an absolute blast to drive.
 
Sometimes horsepower can't fix everything.

Can I have a job Karl? Pleeeeeeeeaaaaaaassseeee?

Ill give you guys that this car is a decent awd car, with decent performance numbers.
 
But it doesn't stand out at all.
 
Fastest? Nope,
Best Handling? Nope.
Good on Fuel? Nope.
Nice price? Nope.
 
Its in a small awd market, with only one car that directly competes, (wrx).
 
But if you honestly look at this car, it doesn't do anything great, and for 30k.. please.

"I was starting to think that Chavis and 1487 were being more objective than we give them credit for, but between Chavis' ridiculous claim above and a good point blackadder just made, I'm reassured that they're just nuts. "
 
what "ridiculous" statement did he make? If you think saying he prefers the MS3 to the Ralliart is "ridiculous" than I would have to surmise that you are nuts. What is irrational about his statement?
 
As for the G8, it has generally been praised but the fuel economy issue has been raised many times. Many reviewers have said they wonder how the GT model will be received in this era of $4/gallon.
 
As for the camaro I think we need to see the final specs and mileage ratings before jumping to any conclusions. Several sources have indicated the DI V6 will be offered with about 300hp which should yield mileage in the neighborhood of 17/26 on regular fuel which hardly makes the car a gas guzzler. The camaro isnt going to be as long or heavy as the G8. I would think the V8 model should be in the 3700-3800lb range. I find it interesting that you seem to be an expert on the camaro's dynamics before the car is released. My thoughts would be it will take the G8's handling to another level due to lower curb weight. If a compact Ralliart weighs 3500lbs I fail to see how a V6 powered camaro at 3600 or 3700 lbs would be consider overweight.
 
"Putting the amount of power down to the front wheels is just silly. "
 
Modern technology and suspension design has all but eliminated torque steer on cars like the Cobalt SS. There is nothing silly about a powerful FWD car in 2008. I'll take the lighter weight and superior fuel economy of a sporty FWD compact any day. The Cobalt SS weighs about 3000lbs compared to 3500 for the similarly sized and slower AWD Ralliart. The mileage on the SS is about 22/30 or 23/31.
 
"Same is true of the Camaro/Challenger, but those vehicles don't offer exceptional luxury OR true performance except in a straightline. "
 
You have driven the Camaro? I think the G8 has made it very clear that the Zeta platform has nothing in common with RWD muscle cars from the 60s. You are saying the Challenger offers no performance outside of acceleration but other reviews have been complimentary of its handling and most people have said its handling belies its heavy curb weight. The Camaro will NOT be as heavy as the Challenger. The Challenger SRT weighs more than the 4 door G8. If you believe any car weighing more than 3500lbs cant handle that would include cars like the S5, M5, M3, 650i, 550i, XF and many other European cars. Its silly to suggest that once you cross a certain mass threshold cars cannot handle with any alacrity when there are at least a dozen European sedans and coupes on the market that people like you praise for excellent handling. Doesnt the S5 weigh about 3800lbs?

"But if you honestly look at this car, it doesn't do anything great, and for 30k.. please."
 
Its the best looking car in its "category" :P
 
When its time for me to consider a new car, I will strongly consider this vehicle. Unfortunately, in Canada we get screwed for car prices so it'll likely be 40k here.

doug - you got me their, it probably is the most aggersive/best looking in its class

First, let me attack Karl's ridiculous post...
 
"Pretty much agree with everything you said bbechtel. The Challenger and (I'm assuming) the Camaro are simply TOO BIG to earn true "performance coupe" status."
 
How much does an M5 weigh? How much does an RS4 weigh? How much does a 599 GTB weigh? How much does a CTS-V weigh? A 4300lbs car that incidentally can lap the 'Ring faster than a 911 Carrera S- with a freaking automatic. You are way out in left field on this one. An economy car on a 102" wheelbase that weighs 3500+ lbs is what I'd call overweight. When you concentrate a lot of mass on a small footprint, a car will feel heavy. When you spread that same mass over a larger footprint, the car will feel better balanced.
 
"Sometimes horsepower can't fix everything."
 
You are right, that's why there are ENGINEERS that can tune the chassis accordingly. The Camaro is being tuned on the 'Ring, I don't think that Challenger was so I will not defend it as I don't even like the car. The Camaro will weigh less than both the G8 and the heavier Sigma based CTS- both cars have excellent handling so why should we believe the Camaro won't be a dynamic athelete? Bbechtel- maybe Karl's the one on LSD....????
 
"Think of the Bentley Continental GT. Not exactly a nimble, catlike driving experience, but it's not supposed to be, either. It's a big, heavy luxury car built on a big, heavy luxury sedan chassis. Same is true of the Camaro/Challenger, but those vehicles don't offer exceptional luxury OR true performance except in a straightline"
 
Let's clear up your mud pal: the Bently Conti GT is built on a FWD platform (A6/A8 hybrid) with it's heavy W12 hung completely forward of the front axle's centerline along with twin intercoolers and the associated turbocharging plumbing. This car has a relatively short wheelbase and weighs about the same as an Enclave. This car has NOTHING in common with the Challenger or the Camaro as they are proper RWD vehicles with the associated proportions (read: short front overhangs and rearward engine placement) and dynamics yielding a much more favorable distribution of mass.
 
Remarkable, the Conti GT formula is the same format used for the Evo, RalliArt and STi. Take a basic FWD structure, add AWD, add turbos, and cost, and add weight and there you have it. Sorry Karl, try again. Your point backfired.
 
Bbechtel
"Since when is a three mode AWD system with triple LSD considered "barebones"? I think you're on LSD."
 
LSDs are BASIC mechanical reactive systems- not proactive anticipatory electronically controlled wet clutches. The RalliArt has front and rear mechanical LSDs (not 3 as you stated) and a driver adjustable center diff who's (f/r) ratio can be altered. This is as bare bones as AWD systems go and have been used in SUVs for a decade. Nothing fancy and nothing hi-tech. Sorry, try again. Go to school and do some homework before you challenge me on these elementary principles.
  
Secondly, I won't see any benefits of AWD in my daily drives. Maybe you will and have access to a track, I do not nor do I have an desire to spend the time and money to do so. For me, the MS3 would be all I would need to have a little fun for the few occasions where roads open and up and turn curvy. The fact remains I would not pay more than $25k for an economy car, I don't care how much HP it has. Rally car roots hold no value for me so I could care less about finding gravel roads in the middle of nowhere just to attempt four wheel drifts. Different stroke for different folks but you are resembling Karl by attacking anyone who doesn't value of your own opinion. I argue FACTS and could care less about your preference much as I expect you to care about mine. The Speed3 was financially in my grasp as it was only a few thousand more than my loaded Mazda3 but the insurance is too much and it sucks down premium which adds to the cost-per-mile figure.
 
"Wow...sorry to go way OT...but I think it's helped get my point across? Why would you buy a heavy, so-so handling (good for the weight granted), gas guzzling, coupe like the Camaro or Challenger when there are better ..."
 
Are you aware that C&D recording 12 and 13 mpg for the STi and Evo back in an '03 comparo over 1000 miles of driving? About that same you'd expect from a 403hp Escalade that weighs 5500+ lbs with AWD and 22" rims.

If I'm not mistaken the Conti GT weighs about 5500lbs compared to 4100 for the Challenger and a likely sub 3900lb curb weight for a Camaro with LS3. I think a 1000lbs+ wieght advantage is more than enough to ensure than the Challenger and Camaro have nothing in common with a nearly 3 ton Bentley coupe that is nowhere near 50/50 weight distribution. The Bentley weighs more than every V6 crossover on the market a while the Camaro will be hundreds of pounds lighter than the smallest V6 crossover. The Camaro wont even weigh as much as a Vue V6.

1487- the practice of logical analyzation of facts is hereby prohibited in this blog.

1487: "what "ridiculous" statement did he make? If you think saying he prefers the MS3 to the Ralliart is "ridiculous" than I would have to surmise that you are nuts. What is irrational about his statement?"
 
Chavis: "LSDs are BASIC mechanical reactive systems- not proactive anticipatory electronically controlled wet clutches. The RalliArt has front and rear mechanical LSDs (not 3 as you stated) and a driver adjustable center diff who's (f/r) ratio can be altered. This is as bare bones as AWD systems go and have been used in SUVs for a decade. Nothing fancy and nothing hi-tech. Sorry, try again. Go to school and do some homework before you challenge me on these elementary principles."
 
That was a pretty sad and underhanded attempt to discredit me 1487. I think it's obvious what statement Chavis made that I found ridiculous. But since you seem to be incapable of reading comprehension I'll quote myself for you.
 
"Since when is a three mode AWD system with triple LSD considered "barebones"? I think you're on LSD."
 
"I was starting to think that Chavis and 1487 were being more objective than we give them credit for, but between Chavis' ridiculous claim above*snip*"
 
OK Chavis...of all the AWD vehicles on the market, what percentage have front AND rear mechanical limited slips, AND a center differential with a three option variable torque split? And what percentage of that percentage has proactive anticipatory electronically controlled wet clutches in addition? The Ralliart may not have the best AWD system available, but it's certainly not the worst and calling it barebones is not a matter of opinion; it's simply false.
 
1487: "You have driven the Camaro? I think the G8 has made it very clear that the Zeta platform has nothing in common with RWD muscle cars from the 60s. You are saying the Challenger offers no performance outside of acceleration but other reviews have been complimentary of its handling and most people have said its handling belies its heavy curb weight. The Camaro will NOT be as heavy as the Challenger. The Challenger SRT weighs more than the 4 door G8. If you believe any car weighing more than 3500lbs cant handle that would include cars like the S5, M5, M3, 650i, 550i, XF and many other European cars. Its silly to suggest that once you cross a certain mass threshold cars cannot handle with any alacrity when there are at least a dozen European sedans and coupes on the market that people like you praise for excellent handling. Doesnt the S5 weigh about 3800lbs?"
 
Chaivs: "How much does an M5 weigh? How much does an RS4 weigh? How much does a 599 GTB weigh? How much does a CTS-V weigh? A 4300lbs car that incidentally can lap the 'Ring faster than a 911 Carrera S- with a freaking automatic. You are way out in left field on this one. An economy car on a 102" wheelbase that weighs 3500+ lbs is what I'd call overweight. When you concentrate a lot of mass on a small footprint, a car will feel heavy. When you spread that same mass over a larger footprint, the car will feel better balanced."
 
I don't think you understand my position on the issue of weight (maybe this was directed more at Karl, whom I'm not speaking for here). I think all cars should weigh around 3000 pounds, except full sized cars. The weight of modern cars (of most makes/segments) is simply ridiculous. Yes, there are plenty of heavy cars that perform well for their weight, but they would handle, brake, accelerate, and sip gas EVEN BETTER if they were lighter.
 
Chavis: "Secondly, I won't see any benefits of AWD in my daily drives. Maybe you will and have access to a track, I do not nor do I have an desire to spend the time and money to do so. For me, the MS3 would be all I would need to have a little fun for the few occasions where roads open and up and turn curvy. The fact remains I would not pay more than $25k for an economy car, I don't care how much HP it has. Rally car roots hold no value for me so I could care less about finding gravel roads in the middle of nowhere just to attempt four wheel drifts. Different stroke for different folks but you are resembling Karl by attacking anyone who doesn't value of your own opinion. I argue FACTS and could care less about your preference much as I expect you to care about mine. The Speed3 was financially in my grasp as it was only a few thousand more than my loaded Mazda3 but the insurance is too much and it sucks down premium which adds to the cost-per-mile figure."
 
So you just told me you could care less (I believe you meant couldn't care less) about my preferences after sharing yours, OK.
 
Chavis: "Are you aware that C&D recording 12 and 13 mpg for the STi and Evo back in an '03 comparo over 1000 miles of driving? About that same you'd expect from a 403hp Escalade that weighs 5500+ lbs with AWD and 22" rims."
 
No I wasn't, and I don't care, nor do I find it relevant to the conversation. The mileage that enthusiast minded auto journalists "achieve" is unbelievable. I think they should starting spreading their "hyper-galloning" techniques to the unwashed masses. I don't ever pay much mind to their numbers. I also find this irrelevant to me at least as I have no desire to own vehicles such as the STi and Evo. I don't want the compromise in fuel costs, purchase price, and insurance associated with those types of vehicles. I do bend this line of thinking however, when I consider RWD domestic thrills. The sounds and vibrations of V8 power is just part of their character and attraction, and is hard to deny, even with GM's HF V6 options.

bbechtel- I see this is going to be difficult- but here goes:
  
"OK Chavis...of all the AWD vehicles on the market, what percentage have front AND rear mechanical limited slips, AND a center differential with a three option variable torque split? And what percentage of that percentage has proactive anticipatory electronically controlled wet clutches in addition?"
  
RWD based vehicles with optional AWD systems DO NOT need front a LSD. Why? Simple- most of their torque will be directed to the rear wheels and torque steering will never be an issue. A nose heavy FWD based AWD vehicle can benefit from an LSD because a higher percentage of torque will be used on the front axle and a limited slip will prevent the engine from overpowering a particular wheel once it becomes unloaded under power. As a said before, this is not a high tech solution by any means. A front limited slip is a crutch needed by unbalanced overpowered FWD vehicles to lay down power effectively.
  
"The Ralliart may not have the best AWD system available, but it's certainly not the worst and calling it barebones is not a matter of opinion; it's simply false"
  
You are WRONG. It is bare bones, get over it and I never said it was the worst. As I just told you, I argue the facts and the fact is the RalliArt's AWD system is not complicated, hi-tech or cutting edge. I'm sure it's quite effective but facts are facts. Most current AWD vehicle has a fixed ratio open center differential. Some have an electronically controlled center diff that can INFINITELY adjust their ratio when conditions warrant and other have Torsen center diffs that react based on automatic electronic braking of a spinning wheel which prompts torque to be shifted to the other wheels. The RalliArt simply gives the driver 3 settings to adjust this fixed center ratio preemptively- not rocket science by any means. In essence, it lets the driver control the ratio as opposed to the making the adjustments it self. Other systems will automatically make these changes on the fly. In its defense, the system makes since in that it's simplicity is geared towards hi performance driving as opposed to foul weather grip. Electronic more complicated systems are better at keeping you on the road by avoiding unnecessary wheel spinning thereby adding more precise control of the vehicle.
  
Dude, this is what your wrote: "...Why would you buy a heavy, so-so handling (good for the weight granted), gas guzzling, coupe like the Camaro or Challenger when there are better ..."
  
You were the one saying that the Camaro and Challenger are gas guzzlers. I informed you that these small compact cars will guzzle just as much gas when driven in aggressive manner so it's entirely relevant to the conversation. YOU are the one who introduced mileage into the equation. I stand corrected, the proper results were 13 and 14 mpg in that Car and Driver comparo.

"A front limited slip is a crutch needed by unbalanced overpowered FWD vehicles to lay down power effectively. "
 
Thank you for agreeing with me that high horsepower FWD vehicles are silly. Also you still haven't answered my question.
 
"You are WRONG. It is bare bones, get over it and I never said it was the worst. As I just told you, I argue the facts and the fact is the RalliArt's AWD system is not complicated, hi-tech or cutting edge. I'm sure it's quite effective but facts are facts. Most current AWD vehicle has a fixed ratio open center differential. Some have an electronically controlled center diff that can INFINITELY adjust their ratio when conditions warrant and other have Torsen center diffs that react based on automatic electronic braking of a spinning wheel which prompts torque to be shifted to the other wheels. The RalliArt simply gives the driver 3 settings to adjust this fixed center ratio preemptively- not rocket science by any means. In essence, it lets the driver control the ratio as opposed to the making the adjustments it self. Other systems will automatically make these changes on the fly. In its defense, the system makes since in that it's simplicity is geared towards hi performance driving as opposed to foul weather grip. Electronic more complicated systems are better at keeping you on the road by avoiding unnecessary wheel spinning thereby adding more precise control of the vehicle."
 
Isn't calling an AWD system barebones nearly the same thing as calling it the worst? Again, the FACT is it isn't either because there are plenty of other AWD systems with less of a feature set. I'm not claiming it to be innovative or anything, it's from the last gen Evo for God's sake! But it isn't barebones either. And just because something isn't electronic or hasn't been around for a while doesn't make it a negative. The ICE has been around for over 100 years and we still use it. The wheel?
 
Once again, I won't consider an Sti, Evo, OR SRT Challenger for reasons I mentioned above, so it's irrelevant to me. I dream closer to the ground among the likes of the 128i, the Ralliart, and maybe the new Camaro if it wasn't so big. I realize the weight will probably be pretty close to the Ralliart, but the Ralliart at least owes part of its weight to AWD and 2 extra doors. These new muscle cars are just big.
 
All this discussion does leave my hype meter on the Ralliart falling though. It's heavier than I'd like (what isn't?), it supposedly has a front biased torque split (no fun), the mileage isn't as good as I'd like, and the more I look at it the more I think it isn't that good looking. I think it's back to the 128i for me!

"Isn't calling an AWD system barebones nearly the same thing as calling it the worst?"
 
Nope, those are your words, not mine. LSDs are basic mechanical systems with little sophistication. They are purely reactive and qualify to be labeled as bare bones. You are attaching the negative connotation to the phrase "bare bones," not me. They are effective in their mission but nothing noteworthy.

"I think all cars should weigh around 3000 pounds, except full sized cars. The weight of modern cars (of most makes/segments) is simply ridiculous."
 
If we could just get rid of airbags, crumple zones, sound deadening, nav systems, power seats, sunroofs and wheels larger than 15" all cars would weigh around 3000lbs.
 
"Thank you for agreeing with me that high horsepower FWD vehicles are silly. Also you still haven't answered my question. "
 
I dont think he said high powered FWD cars a silly. He did say that you need a LSD in a FWD biased AWD car to help that car make proper use of a powerful engine. Its apparent to everyone that pays attention that FWD and performance are not mutually exclusive. The new MAxima is the latest example of a powerful FWD car that doesnt suffer from torque steer. Weight distribution is still an issue but if you are talking strictly about driveability there is nothing wrong with modern FWD sports sedans or compacts.
 
"These new muscle cars are just big. "
 
When have muscle cars ever been small? They are not import compacts begging to huge exhaust tips and Enkei stickers on the windsheild. Considering how spacious the G8 is I would expect the Camaro to actually have a usable backseat and trunk. The Challenger is a huge car but you can use the rear seats and it has 16 cu ft of trunk space which makes is somewhat practical as a daily driver. If the Camaro comes in at 190" or so in length I think it will be fine.

"Nope, those are your words, not mine. LSDs are basic mechanical systems with little sophistication. They are purely reactive and qualify to be labeled as bare bones. You are attaching the negative connotation to the phrase "bare bones," not me. They are effective in their mission but nothing noteworthy."
 
Yeah whatever... Open front and rear diffs with a fixed center torque split would be bare bones, anything beyond that is not bare bones.
 
"If we could just get rid of airbags, crumple zones, sound deadening, nav systems, power seats, sunroofs and wheels larger than 15" all cars would weigh around 3000lbs."
 
I think it would be great if we could get rid of airbags numbering more than 4 and most wheels measuring more than 17". Many cars base curb weights don't include optional nav systems (10 pounds?), power seats (100 pounds?), and sunroofs (30 pounds?). I'm pretty sure the cars of 15 years ago that did weigh around 3000 pounds had both sound deadening and crumple zones. Our technology and engineering is much better today, but we can't seem to keep weight in check.
 
"I dont think he said high powered FWD cars a silly. He did say that you need a LSD in a FWD biased AWD car to help that car make proper use of a powerful engine. Its apparent to everyone that pays attention that FWD and performance are not mutually exclusive. The new MAxima is the latest example of a powerful FWD car that doesnt suffer from torque steer. Weight distribution is still an issue but if you are talking strictly about driveability there is nothing wrong with modern FWD sports sedans or compacts."
 
Torque steer is just one of the many issues with trying to extract maximum performance from a FWD vehicle. Weight distribution is another, as you mentioned. Another issue is the inherent understeer. The laws of physics can't be broken; when you do all your steering and power application with the same axle, you'll overwhelm the tires much sooner. The late brake, late apex, late throttle style of driving required to extract maximum performance from a FWD is counterintuitive for anyone that isn't a FWD race car driver. Yes you can make it work, and you can still have fun, but it certainly isn't ideal.
 
"When have muscle cars ever been small? They are not import compacts begging to huge exhaust tips and Enkei stickers on the windsheild. Considering how spacious the G8 is I would expect the Camaro to actually have a usable backseat and trunk. The Challenger is a huge car but you can use the rear seats and it has 16 cu ft of trunk space which makes is somewhat practical as a daily driver. If the Camaro comes in at 190" or so in length I think it will be fine."
 
Isn't the traditional muscle car formula putting a "big" engine in a "small" car? Back in the day, when muscle cars were invented, all cars were big, and I believe the muscle cars were relatively small in comparison? Remember Karl's comparison of the old Challenger vs. the new one? The new one makes the old one look small! I'm not sure of the relevance of exhaust tips and Enkei stickers to this discussion... It's nice that the Camaro and Challenger likely have usable back seats and a decent sized trunk, but is that what performance COUPE buyers are really concerned about? (Says the "practical" guy wanting a 128i Coupe, LOL) It just would be nice if there more more compact options. Hopefully GM will stay the course with a Pontiac branded 3 series fighter I hear about here and there.

"Yeah whatever... Open front and rear diffs with a fixed center torque split would be bare bones, anything beyond that is not bare bones"
  
Wrong buddy. That system you just described is what many companies have gone to because it's lighter in weight and it's electronic operation can be tied in with the ABS, traction and stability control systems for an intergrated solution. Limited slips are the old school low tech way of applying power AFTER slippage has already occured. Wet electronically controlled clutch packs are the current state of the art as the can anticipate (via feedback from yaw, lateral and steering sensors) where the vehicle is headed before it gets there and properly distribute torque accordingly. No LSD can do that. The RalliArt's system cannot do that, it's basic. Why is that so hard to understand?
  
"Torque steer is just one of the many issues with trying to extract maximum performance from a FWD vehicle. Weight distribution is another, as you mentioned. Another issue is the inherent understeer. The laws of physics can't be broken; when you do all your steering and power application with the same axle, you'll overwhelm the tires much sooner"
  
Do these issues that apply to less than 10% of drivers outweigh the packaging efficiency of the traditional FWD vehicle? No. No one is claiming to reverse the laws of physics however measures have been taken to make a FWD car fun and powerful. That is a fact. Civics, Altimas and Accords will never be RWD but they will still have high performance engines with good HP and won't succumb to nasty torque steer.

I'm not nuts about the grill.