PDA

View Full Version : 2010: Mazdaspeed3 vs Lancer Sportback Ralliart vs Impreza WRX vs GTI


Motor
03-09-2010, 03:45 PM
Comparison: 2010 Mazdaspeed3 vs 2010 Mitsubishi Lancer Sportback Ralliart vs 2010 Subaru Impreza WRX vs 2010 Volkswagen GTI (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/hatchbacks/112_1004_mazdaspeed3_mitsubishi_lancer_sportback_r alliart_subaru_wrx_volkswagen_gti/index.html)
Spring Chickens: Four Youthful Expressions of High Performance -- and Proof that Fowl Play was Never so Much Fun

In addition to the Mazda and Subaru, we brought along the all-new Mitsubishi Lancer Sportback Ralliart and the sixth-generation Volkswagen GTI. The fifth-gen GTI, you may remember, won our last sport-compact shootout, a test that included sedans, hatchbacks, front-drivers, all-wheel-drivers, turbos, and natural aspirators. For this go-'round, though, we invited only turbocharged four-door hatchbacks, in search of the ultimate utility missile. Would the all-new Vee-Dub retain its title? Would the Mazda have the speed to throw an upset? Or would the all-wheel-drive Mitsu and Subaru, for years rally archrivals, be the bearers of bad news to their front-drive foes?

In some regards, the Lancer is as sharp as the weapon its namesake brought to battle. The six-speed TC-SST twin-clutch automatic, for instance, is a quick-firing, intuitive gearbox that dispels any wonderment as to why the Ralliart doesn't offer a manual. The steering too is precise, beautifully weighted, and full of feedback. Then there's the utility factor, in which the Mitsu tops all others in cargo capacity with the rear seat down-46.6 cubic feet, to be exact. That's an impressive figure, especially considering the steeply raked C-pillar that signifies the Sportback moniker.

Unsurprisingly, the Lancer puts up the least favorable lateral acceleration (0.84 g), figure eight (26.6 at 0.67 g), and 60-to-0 braking (115 feet). Mitsubishi, it seems, needs to let more of the Lancer Evo goodness trickle down to the Ralliart.
http://image.motortrend.com/f/28229083+w750/2010-mitsubishi-lancer-ralliart-sportback-front-three-quarter.jpg

Except for a 2006 Impreza WRX STI sedan and a slammed 350-horse 2008 Cobb Tuning STI, the slightly modified WRX you see here is the quickest Subaru Motor Trend has ever tested. Well, at least to 60, which takes a scant 4.5 seconds. Quarter mile? Will 13.3 at 101.3 mph suffice? Better yet, the WRX isn't any slower to 60 than that '06 STI (it's equally quick) and is only 3/10ths behind at the quarter. And remember: That STI ran a 300-horse flat-four, a six-speed manual, a more advanced all-wheel-drive system, and bigger, stickier rubber.

So what kept the WRX from ranking higher? In light of the others', the Subie's helm comes across numb. "Steering is the least sharp of the bunch," says MT road test editor Scott Mortara. The five-speed too, even with the short-shift kit and STI bushing, feels sloppy and rubbery at times and could certainly use a sixth cog for highway duty. As for the interior, St. Antoine notes, "Interior is functional -- good seats, simple controls -- but it looks really dated, with outmoded display fonts and materials." Not that there isn't plenty to love with the WRX (c'mon, 4.5 seconds, anyone?). Mortara, who ranked the WRX second, sums it up: "Who needs an STI with this car around?"
http://image.motortrend.com/f/32427663+w750/2010-subaru-impreza-WRX-SPT-front.jpg

If the WRX is a slip-sliding rally machine, the Speed3 is a point-and-shoot race car. The Mazda simply feels way more dialed in, ready to consume apexes for breakfast and checkered flags for lunch. There's no slop or slack on the Speed's menu. Sure the suspenders are discernibly tauter -- the downside is a more jarring ride -- but the reward is 0.90 g of lateral grip (best of the group) and a chassis that always feels alive. The body exhibits just a smidge of roll entering a turn, so steering inputs prompt instantaneous response. On-center steering feel is firm and precise, making the Subaru's feel loose and vague in comparison. Further, the standard six-speed manual offers a tightly spaced pattern that borders on Miata slickness, although a couple of us found it too tight on occasion, making it difficult to engage the desired gear.

Inside, the Mazda delights with a modern, jazzy cockpit replete with Bluetooth phone and audio connections, automatic climate control, and leather-and-cloth seats. Our tester came with the $1895 Tech Package, which adds Bose audio, satellite radio, navigation, and pushbutton start. All said and done, our Speed3 cost just $25,840, or over $2000 less than the Mitsu and Subaru's base prices. So despite a "compact" nav screen that St. Antoine describes as "a bit of a laugher" and that nagging torque steer, the Mazda is one speed trap in which we're happy to get caught.
http://image.motortrend.com/f/32427708+w750/2010-mazdaspeed3-front-three-quarter.jpg

This we know: The GTI ranks last in acceleration times (6.0 from 0-60, 14.5 at 97.1 in the quarter) and behind the Mazda and Subaru in lateral acceleration (0.87 g), figure eight (26.5 at 0.67 g), and 60-to-0 braking (112 feet). This we also know: The GTI is the hot hatch we'd want parked in our garage. Heresy, you say?

At $32,360, our tester didn't exactly come cheap. But take away some of the dispensable options-$2750 Autobahn package (leather, sunroof), $1750 nav, $700 bi-Xenon headlamps-and the bottom line drops to $27,160. And that's with the $1100 DSG, $750 18-inch alloys, and $199 Bluetooth. And for another $140, summer tires can be had. Regardless, whether at $27,000 or $32,000, the GTI is a winner. Per St. Antoine: "Not the fastest machine in its class, but far and away the best enthusiast's car. Worth every bit of its bottom line."
http://image.motortrend.com/f/26768567+w750/2010-volkswagen-gti-front-three-quarters-driver.jpg
http://image.motortrend.com/f/32194860+w750/sport-hatchback-comparison-front-view-2.jpg

GSBoek
03-09-2010, 05:25 PM
Forced to choose, I'd go for the WRX.

jdmravi
03-09-2010, 05:32 PM
Forced to choose, I'd go for the WRX.

:werd:

jlitman
03-09-2010, 06:27 PM
I definitely find the Lancer to be the least objectionable.

Gas-n-Grease
03-09-2010, 09:28 PM
I'd probably be stuck between the MS3 and WRX...

celicayounggun
03-09-2010, 09:47 PM
STi for the win

yodaddyguido
03-09-2010, 11:38 PM
ms3 for me. not that color though, gads.

GSBoek
03-10-2010, 03:46 AM
STi for the win So I take it that you wouldn't pick any of these four then. :)

celicayounggun
03-10-2010, 03:55 AM
So I take it that you wouldn't pick any of these four then. :)

yeahh haha i just re-read the OP, well here's how it goes, i'd take a WRX, but kill for an STi :gap:

Anger Red GT-S
03-10-2010, 04:30 AM
Ehh.....don't like any of these really but i'll take an STI......and why is it the GTI always seems to win these kinda shootouts??It's pratically the worst out of the four.Not to mention the gay a$$ plaid seats that they should have pitched over a decade ago.Ehh....maybe MT got a nice check from VW.....just like Car and Driver seems to get checks from BMW.....they should rename that rag BMW and Driver...... :chuckles:

marc
03-10-2010, 07:44 AM
The reason the GTI always wins is because it rides the nicest, has the best interior, the best fit and finish and has a solid, hefty feel. Not to mention it gets great fuel economy and has a kick ass transmission.

The MS3 feels like a minivan on stilts and rattles like a tin can.

The WRX is like wearing a condom between the road - everything is super numb and there's no feedback.

I haven't driven the Lancer but its ugly as sin and weighs a billion pounds, plus it has that hideous Mitsubishi interior and that legendary Mitsubishi "build quality".

I'd take the GTI over any of these any day as well. It just drives so much better, plus you can easily make more power with one, if your penis is so small that you need to prove something in your hatchback on your way to work or Costco.

roaf85
03-10-2010, 08:23 AM
The reason the GTI always wins is because it rides the nicest, has the best interior, the best fit and finish and has a solid, hefty feel. Not to mention it gets great fuel economy and has a kick ass transmission.

The MS3 feels like a minivan on stilts and rattles like a tin can.

The WRX is like wearing a condom between the road - everything is super numb and there's no feedback.

I haven't driven the Lancer but its ugly as sin and weighs a billion pounds, plus it has that hideous Mitsubishi interior and that legendary Mitsubishi "build quality".

I'd take the GTI over any of these any day as well. It just drives so much better, plus you can easily make more power with one, if your penis is so small that you need to prove something in your hatchback on your way to work or Costco.

+1

EuGeNiLe GTS
03-10-2010, 10:39 PM
the mitsu, build quality rep are from people who dont know anything about cars..

if i wanted a performer i would get an EVO X GSR, not that slow more expensive MR.. a tune and its wel over 300 AWHP pretty much stock, where as the STi needs a few mods just to get to there with their bigger motor yet supposedly higher rated hp rating.. oh and it is the understeer king

Anger Red GT-S
03-11-2010, 04:31 AM
The reason the GTI always wins is because it rides the nicest, has the best interior, the best fit and finish and has a solid, hefty feel. Not to mention it gets great fuel economy and has a kick ass transmission.

The MS3 feels like a minivan on stilts and rattles like a tin can.

The WRX is like wearing a condom between the road - everything is super numb and there's no feedback.

I haven't driven the Lancer but its ugly as sin and weighs a billion pounds, plus it has that hideous Mitsubishi interior and that legendary Mitsubishi "build quality".

I'd take the GTI over any of these any day as well. It just drives so much better, plus you can easily make more power with one, if your penis is so small that you need to prove something in your hatchback on your way to work or Costco.

I see what you're saying,but this is about performance,not comfort.If I wanted comfort i'd find some luxo-cruiser that's to my liking.I agree with you though on the Lancer....I wouldn't want to even bother test driving something that's a$$ ugly.Sorry man,i'm just not feeling the GTI at all.

marc
03-11-2010, 06:31 AM
the mitsu, build quality rep are from people who dont know anything about cars..

if i wanted a performer i would get an EVO X GSR, not that slow more expensive MR.. a tune and its wel over 300 AWHP pretty much stock, where as the STi needs a few mods just to get to there with their bigger motor yet supposedly higher rated hp rating.. oh and it is the understeer king

Sorry but I've owned a Mitsubishi, and known people who have owned Mitsubishis. The build quality on my Eclipse GSX was pure garbage. Yes, the car itself was reliable but the panel gaps, rattles and general materials were crap. Same with the EVO IX I was in. Same with every 3000 GT VR-4 (not to mention my friends who had those cars were constantly dealing with reliability issues).

There's a reason they get such low scores in consumer reports - a company that buys its own cars instead of getting ringers from the company's fleets, and tests them for years, not just a day or a week.

marc
03-11-2010, 06:37 AM
I see what you're saying,but this is about performance,not comfort.If I wanted comfort i'd find some luxo-cruiser that's to my liking.I agree with you though on the Lancer....I wouldn't want to even bother test driving something that's a$$ ugly.Sorry man,i'm just not feeling the GTI at all.

If this is performance then why are you looking at sport compact cars instead of performance cars?

These cars all make compromises by seating 4 and having hatchbacks. They are about comfort and hauling with performance thrown in.

These things get their doors blown off by real sports cars such as the S2000, RX-8, 350Z, almost any BMW coupe, any Porsche coupe, as well as the Corvette, Mustang and Camaro.