Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Pontiac GTO v. Subaru STi



  • benderofbowsbenderofbows Posts: 544
    Yes, the cars and the competition is great!
  • 442man442man Posts: 210
    I agree as well. I love all Muscle, Mustang-GT0, Vette ETc.... We'll see as gas prices go up, LOL!
  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    Personally, I have yet to experience any of the wobble or body roll alluded to. I've noticed a verticle motion when excellerating which I don't like but I would rather live with it rather than the cure which is probably stiffer springs.
  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    I guess I am as sensitive about the GTO's handling as you are of the Mustang's solid rear. As I said before if the solid rear works for you that's all that counts. The GTO is the best performing car I've had. Like that quote that says "push it harderthe problems become evident" or something like that. I admit I don't go around corners at 50mph but it's handled what I have dished out to it.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 6,916 need to be sensitive at all. You've got a nice car.

    As rorr has said (man, you've got a good memory) we each have our own preferences. Having the good (and sometimes bad) fortune of driving many cars over a short period of time, I preferred the Mustang's suspension. It's more akin to the type of handling I like (sharp and quick) and the ride I like (firmly damped with no uncontrolled movements). You like the GTO's suspension (which was on the "bigger car handling" side of things...something I don't prefer). That certainly doesn't mean everybody is going to like what I do. Nor, does it mean everyone is going to like what you prefer.

    In the end, we drive what we like.

    To dismiss either car for the type of architecture they use for thier respective suspension means someone hasn't driven both, back-to-back.
  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    Speaking of that type of thing, I just watched the STi vs GTO comparo video. I noticed the GTO has like zero brake dive. Start watching at 2:30, where they do the 60-0 test. As it comes to a stop, the entire car was hunkered down while stopping. That's a sign of a combination of good brake biasing, suspension design, shock damping and spring rate. The STi dives noticably more. Of course, the STi stopped faster from 60...but that part impressed me anyway.
  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    You're the only one that's driven them back to back so your opinion carries a lot of weight. At least with rorr and myself.
  • Edmunds compared the RWD GTO to an AWD subaru in a recent comparo and held that the subie was better.

    I have a question: are these cars comparable?

    You cannot compare them! First of all, the Subari is a FOUR DOOR and the GTO is a COUPE,
    Secondly, the Subaru is AWD and the GTO is RWD!

    I don't understand, do the folks at edmunds just want to apologise for glorifying the GTO (2004) when it turned out to be a sales flop, or they just wanted to show bias for foreign cars?

    These two are not even on the same hemesphere, the only thing they have in common is price. Of course AWD is gonna handle better than RWD, i think NASCAR tried that in the 80's or 90's, its just wrong IMO.

    Also, i don't think anyone would cross shop the two cars. And BTW, how many Percocet does it take to wake up in the morning and say the Subaru has a better interrior than the GTO, a car that in Austrailia competes with BMW's?
  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    What SRT-8 is that. Not the 300 I hope.
  • gottabgtogottabgto Posts: 95
    I thought they said the GTO interior was superior by far.
    But I agree - how could they even think of comparing them.
  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    Yeah, the 300. In all honesty, if I was gonna be buying a car in the $30k range, it would probably be a 300C. But I haven't driven one yet.
  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    Edmunds compared the RWD GTO to an AWD subaru in a recent comparo and held that the subie was better.

    But if you read the editors' comments, you'll see that if they had to buy one for everyday use, it would probably be the GTO. That counts for a lot.
  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    Don't get me wrong kev, I'm not knocking the 300C. I'm questioning the 65mph for it through the slalom. The GTO leisurely strolled through the slalom at 60, and the STi sliced through it at 66. At that point Karl claimed that was 2mph faster than the Corvette. Which means the Corvette takes it at 64. See what I'm getting at. The 300C is not going through the slalom faster than a Corvette.
  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    Check out the following forum:

    kevm14, "Karl's Daily Log Book" #611, 23 May 2005 4:02 pm

    I specifically brought up this issue. I was amazed at the apparent handling potential of the 300C SRT-8. If you read through his replies after my initial query, you might be more satisfied. One other amazing tidbit is that a 300 Limited slaloms at below 60, and he estimated a 300C could do, maybe, 60. Chrysler did wonderful things to the suspension. It's the MB in the blood. Ask gguy. He was there.

    As for the GTO's 60mph....I'm not sure. 60 isn't "Bad" per se, but I would have expected a little higher.
  • jontyreesjontyrees Posts: 159
    I think it's kind of an interesting comparison. I own an '04 GTO, and while I like the Subaru, I wouldn't be in the market for one, (too harsh for my everyday driving). Doesn't mean I'm not interested in how they perform next to each other, though. Don't you see STis, or S4s, or M3s, or Cobras in traffic and wonder how your car would stack up?
  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    That's hard to believe...
  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    It was ambiguous. Early on it said the STi had a higher quality interior. Later it said the STi had uncomfortable seats with high friction cloth and the drivers seat wasn't positioned correctly either.....
  • macakavamacakava Posts: 775
  • Been waiting ages for SOMEONE to say that!!!!!!!
    Right on man Right on
  • vf34wrxvf34wrx Posts: 2
    Personally I think that there 0-60 times, and 1/4 mile times really just shows how "good" :confuse: the drivers were. The STi for example has been tested as fast as 12.9 in the 1/4 mile stock. I myself have run 13.2 stock on a warmer day with my 05 STi. Average 0-60 is 4.7-4.8s. 5.8 is closer to a WRX.

    With the GTO, the time they gave 14.0 I see more associated with the older 350hp version. It simply shows that these cars were NOT operated well.

    And in regards to using got to have it factors, what a bunch of crap. I could really care less how some editor or writer rates a vehicles exterior from their own opinion. I think the public is FULLY capable to decide what they do and do not like. The vehicles should be rated on their performance attributes, and perhaps their interior should not be rated, but rather associated to another type of vehicle.

    In the end, even if we were comparing apples to apples (which we are not), the test is usless since the driver apparently cannot push the cars to their TRUE performance limit.

This discussion has been closed.