Pontiac GTO v. Subaru STi

austinstiguy

generally, any upgrade that is in line with the heritage of Subaru is not looked down upon. Chrome is the big no-no or anything associated with "bling." My STi is black with the gold wheels and you find a lot of WRX guys with the gold pro drive P1 wheels and even the 2.5RS guys. STi trunk swaps are common which I think is kind of funny. Many STi owners trade their trunk lid for the flat wing on the WRX or even no wing at all. The trunk lid has to be swapped b/c the holes do not line up but I digress......Lancer people have a worse problem with posers b/c at least the impreza line is all AWD, 4- wheel disc brakes, and two out of 3 models are turbo.

ateixeira

Actually, those rims were 16"x7" but they could fit brake upgrade kits that most 17" rims could fit, so they are seen as desirable in the Impreza community.

Back then the RS has the rear limited-slip diff and it was a lot lighter than today's WRX.

It wasn't a rocket but with 0-60 in the mid 7s and great traction plus light weight, it was a bit more than just a poseur.

-juice

xkss

The Subaru is a rally car while the GTO is a GT car.

The new GTO is a Holden Monaro with some changes like a different fuel tank.

HSV is Holden's performance division. An HSV coupe will handle better than a standard Monaro. So anything HSV uses on an HSV coupe will likely fit on a new GTO

check here

HSV

ateixeira

That 4 door is what the Catera should have been.

-juice

xkss

Cadillac has a new rwd chassis which the CTS and STS use.

ateixeira

I mean back then, when it was being sold.

Catera got a relatively wimpy V6 IIRC.

This platform dates all the way back to a 1993 Opel.

-juice

austinstiguy

They had a great review of the Vauxhall (Holden) Monaro. Jeremy Clarkson had a blast in one, called it a poor man's M6 IIRC. Take the non functional hood scoops off and add a Baer/Brembo brake kit and I would be a very happy man.

jontyrees

Since I wasn't actually planning on hitting the rally circuit in my everyday driver, I went with the ol' goat. Strangely, I use it for driving around in great comfort at (sometimes) high speed, commuting, on weekend trips, etc. I have yet to cruise, burnout or perform donuts.

The STi seems like a cool little car - nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there. I also wonder which is more likely to get dirt under it's tires - an STi or any one of the Navigator/Escalade/LX470/etcs that clog my local grocery store parking lot. I don't imagine either the rally-capabilities of an STi (debatable anyway) or the off-road capabilities of an Escalade are used much, if ever.

ateixeira

Because the Subie uses its AWD every time it rains or snows. Depends on where you live but that could be quite often.

-juice

jontyrees

Nothing wrong with having AWD, especially in rain or snow, (I'm in Austin, TX, so little problem with snow). But to use the Subaru WRC car to assert that the STi is a better car than the GTO is really stretching it. It's almost as bad as buying a family sedan because Jeff Gordon won in one on the NASCAR circuit.

ateixeira

The million dollar WRC car has little in common, but Group N rally cars are basically an STi with a roll cage. So there really is a rallying heritage to those cars.

Pic for fun - this is Karl Schieble's Group N championship car, in a poster I have that he signed for the Subaru Crew here on Edmunds. )

-juice

mustang_svt

If you crash a 3700 pound GTO against a 3300 pound STI, and both of you are killed, did it really make a noise? :sick:

ateixeira

Keep in mind the GTO's platform dates back to 1993, the Subaru has 9 years of structural safety engineering to its advantage.

-juice

merrycynic

It's the amount of crushability not necessarily the weight that provides most of the safety afforded by large cars.

ateixeira

How 'bout avoiding an accident in the first place, with the traction offered by AWD? ;-)

-juice

merrycynic

Amen!

hammen2

Keep in mind the GTO's platform dates back to 1993

Actually, Holden's V-chassis is older than that.

Or, were you referring to the (incorrect) assumption that the V-chassis is based on the Opel Omega? That's been rebutted by some Aussies on another forum. I think I reposted the message in the GTO discussion here.

--Robert

ateixeira

What was the first car that was based on that chassis?

I was under the impression that it shared DNA with the Omega and the Catera.

-juice

hammen2

I can't post the direct URL to this because it's another web site with forums. But, this is interesting, from an Aussie who posted lots of pictures to prove his point:

"Just thought you and some others may like a brief history of the Holden Commodore which is not actually based on the Opel Omega/Cadillac Catera chassis. I live in Australia and I know the full history of the adaptation of the Opel Senator into the Holden Commodore.

Here’s the true story. Opel had a model called ‘Senator’ which Holden decided to base their new car on in the late 70’s to replace their ‘Kingswood’ (and eventually it’s LWB ‘Statesman’) large car range (above) in response to the oil crisis. It also had to replace the smaller Holden Torana. But they had to use Holden’s own designed old cast iron pushrod V8’s and sixes in the new car. But Opel’s Senator was too expensive with it's independent rear suspension. However Opel had a shorter lighter model called the ‘Rekord’ which shared most of the passenger cell with the Senator. So Opel and Holden decided to resurrect an old Opel name and created the 1978 'Commodore’ VB model by using the longer front from the Senator (which could take Holden’s 6-cylinder engine) and the rear doors, quarter panels and suspension of the Rekord which used a cheap live rear axle. And so the first large Holden to be based on an Opel used the Senator’s frame.

However, Holden did a lot of engineering changes for Australia’s harsh conditions but mainly to use as many parts from the old Kingswood to keeps costs down and limit reengineering for its local car parts suppliers here in Oz. Australia is a small market and low costs are critical. And this single fact dictates the entire rest of this story, because Holden and especially it’s suppliers could never afford to use a whole new Opel design. They took the basic new Opel design and crammed it as full as they could of carryover tough, rugged and proven components from previous Holden models. And they still do. Holden eventually upgraded it’s first Commodore by adding the rear doors, third rear window and rear quarters from the Senator making the 1984 Holden Commodore VK virtually an Opel Senator body fitted over a modified Holden Kingswood components and drivetrain.

Then in 1987 Opel brought out the new Senator B and Holden followed with the 1988 Commodore VN, except that while it looks like the Opel Senator B with different grill and rear lights, only the doors are shared with the Opel’s body. Because Holden couldn’t afford to wind tunnel test and develop a new body on it’s own, it used just the shape of the new Opel. But because it had lost sales to Ford’s much larger ‘Falcon’ for ten years it knew it couldn’t use a shape as narrow as the Opel body. Holden also couldn’t afford to use a new Opel frame and suspension, which it would have to reengineer to tougher standards and to suit local parts suppliers anyway. Therefore Holden simply welded sill extensions to it’s previous ten year old Commodore’s floorpan/frame and mounted over that a copy of the new Opel’s body, which had been widened by a few inches. Only the door skins were shared. Unfortunately people complained that the old track width of the wheels looked too skinny under the new wider body and so eventually Holden developed a new Holden designed wider tracked suspension which was fitted to later models of that body style. In 1990 Holden also reintroduced the Statesman model name with a stretched LWB (below bottom) version of the VN Commodore. And this LWB VQ Statesman was fitted with a wider and tougher version of Opel’s independent rear suspension, which Holden had developed. This IRS was later offered as an option on some Commodore models in this body style series from 1991 onwards.

Then in 1994 Opel brought out the brand new Omega B that replaced both the Record and Senator models and ended the inline 6 engines for Opel, using a new V6 and I4 engines (It was also sold in the US as the Cadillac Catera). Again Holden decided to save money by using the wind tunnel tested and developed ‘shape’ of the new Opel. But it again had to widen it. This resulted in the new 1997 VT Commodore using a stylized copy of the now 3 year old Opel Omega. But again locally designed suspension and other locally-sourced parts had to carry over into the new design. Again, only the doors were to be shared with the Opel, as well as a strengthened and modified copy of it’s independent rear suspension (which had been reengineered into a unique Holden version during the previous body) was used. However, as the body team worked on the style of the new VT Commodore (from which the Monaro/GTO was later engineered), even the rear door skins and glass were reshaped and so only the front doors were common with the Opel Omega B/Cadillac Catera. And of course the Holden Commodore now used the Buick 3.8 pushrod motor (with and without supercharger) and the Chevy Corvette LS1 engines matched to locally designed and sourced drivetrains and brakes etc. This also required a totally unique floorpan and framework than the narrower and lighter Opel/Catera.

To reaffirm that the Commodore and Omega are two different engineering products, you can visually see that the Commodore is a much wider and bigger vehicle than the Omega. And look at things like the roof of each. Note that the Omega’s roof is a single pressing while the Commodore has a three-piece pressing. Given that the passenger cell is a major frame component in a monocoque design - this is a significant difference on it’s own. But also follow the carriage line under the side windows forward to where they intersect the front. Note how this virtually straight line sweeps over the top of the Omega headlights yet intersects the side blinkers on the Commodore. And the bonnet shut lines on the Commodore are more inboard than the Omega’s. This is because the entire shape of the front and even the substructure in the Commodore are different And underneath is even more different. A car needing to carry a heavy cast iron 5.0 and 5.7 Holden V8 (and then the 5.7 LS1) has to have a different frame from a vehicle that uses 4 cylinder engines and whose heaviest engine is an alloy 3.0 V6.

And that is the story of how and why the Australian Commodore, from which the Monaro/GTO was derived, may have a similar ‘look’ to Opels, from whom the styling was sourced. However, underneath the skin, which they don’t even share, they are completely different animals."

exalteddragon1

Aviod a crash is to be a better driver. No AWD of stability controll will help you if your a bad driver. Also, The GTO is more comfortable from what i have heard, and if its a more pleasing car, meybe the driver is more pleasing too.

Personally, I would not be caught dead is a "Subaru WRX" it looks like some childs toy blown up to face the real world. I like the looks of this new 2005 GTO much better.

The engine is also better, (no turbo) its pure power. No replacement for displacement baby!

ateixeira

A skilled driver would better be able to make use of the AWD traction, too.

Some say the STi's massive wing is childish, sure, but what about the GTO's flared nostrils (hood scoops)? And the color choices, too. It's not any different, really, these are extreme cars meant for a targeted audience.

The power is more than fine, it's just pulling a lot of weight.

hammen2: thanks for sharing the elaborate history of the Holden car on which the GTO is based, quite a journey!

-juice

sputterguy

The GTO is designed to navigate the dirt roads of Australia. The Subaru is designed to get to the supermarket through rain and snow. I will take the GTO over the Subaru.

2nr3

Performance wise doesnt the WRX have the advantage? It has better handling and a stronger engine. The GTO has close to 400 hp and torque and from what I've seen it is doing 0-60 in the upper 5's while the WRX has 300 hp and torque and can do 0-60 in lower 5's and high 4's. Also the WRX uses a 2.5 liter engine and pushes out 300hp n torque while the GTO has 6 liters and has near 400. Regardless of the turbos and other modifications the subaru engine still looks better compared to the GTO.

sputterguy

I think the performance is similar except for the slalom. Now if you want your performance to come with an exaggerated hood scoop and spoiler (silly looking if you ask me), uncomfortable seats, a punishing ride, poor visibility, and whatever sound that 2.5 makes compared to the throaty rumble of the 6.0, then certainly the Subaru looks better.

2nr3

Isn't the WRX faster than the GTO accerlation wise in the 0-60, 0-100, and the quater mile by at least a second though? Also the body on the WRX serves some purpose. There is a reason behind most of the features on the body.

sensai

It is faster to 60 thanks to the launch advantage of AWD. Any other acceleration measurement the GTO wins.

sputterguy

I don't know where you get your information. The GTO has no problem getting to 60mph in less than 5 seconds. Now if the WRX does it in the low 4's that is something. In fact, 300 hp out of a 2.5 is awsome. That said, the sound it makes is awful. AT 2.5L the engine is overworked and it can't have that much of a top end. "There is a reason behind most of the features on the body". The hood scoop is way out of proportion. It just doesn't take in that much air. And if it really needs that rear wing then it must have a stability problem at higher speeds.

merrycynic

You obviously prefer the GTO. Go buy one. Your extrapolated rationalization is unlikely to convert the rest of us.

14seconds

While I would love to have either car, I like to think long-term. The small-block 350 is one of the best engines on earth. I have a '96 Roadmaster with 140k miles that keeps going and going. It can take on most of the sport-compact crowd, which is fun with my wife, 2 kids, and air on full-blast. I believe that in 10 years' time, the GTO will be running strong, while the STi engine would have gone to pot and then some. I would settle for either car, myself, but it looks like a new Neon with a sub 10k pricetag is what I can aspire to now. Or in 10 years, I can look forward to a just warn-in GTO...

ateixeira

The GTO is designed to navigate the dirt roads of Australia

Not really, read the long history above and you'll see that Holden basically recycled and combined platforms designed in other places. They wouldn't have the resources to design a clean-sheet car.

Besides, Subies were designed to withstand rallies, not Holdens.

-juice

PS pic for effect

ateixeira

rorr

"The GTO is designed to navigate the dirt roads of Australia."

I'll believe that the next time I see a GTO with Roo bars...... :P

ateixeira

Maybe, that model I'd believe. But the suspension is lifted, different.

-juice

sputterguy

"You obviously prefer the GTO. Go buy one." I do and I did. I'm not trying to convert anyone. I guess we are stuck together because of the Edmunds comparison, which I said was ridiculous from the start. They service two different markets. But I won't keep quiet when someone says a Subaru is better than a GTO.

ateixeira

In some ways it is. Just like the GTO is better than the STi in some ways.

I don't think either one can reasonably claim they are better in every way.

-juice

sputterguy

I think you need to reread the history of the Holden. I started rereading it and this is practically the first thing I read, "Holden did a lot of engineering changes for Australia's harsh conditions...".

sputterguy

Very funny. Seriously, if you ever get a chance considering how rare the GTO is, look underneath the engine. There you will find a skid plate, the only use of which I can think of would be for off road use, ie. the back roads of Australia. Unless the pavement over there is that uneven.

ateixeira

"Holden did a lot of engineering changes for Australia's harsh conditions..."

I believe the Ute (that's the open bed pickup) has a live axle with leaf springs for this reason precisely. That's probably the model they're talking about, not the GTO they send here, which surely has a differently tuned suspension anyway.

Australia is a huge market for Subaru, they even sell models with low-ranges there, so any tuning that applies to the Holden would apply to Aussie Subies as well. Not that any of those suspensions make it to the US.

-juice

sputterguy

What's silly is your statements like "Keep in mind the GTO's platform dates back to 1993, the Subaru has 9 years of structural safety engineering to its advantage".

I just reread the GTO/STi comparison which this forum stems from and the only thing I could find that the STi beats the GTO is in the slalom. So, there is one way that the Subaru can beat a GTO.

As for the flying WRX, when was the last time you did that? Or for that matter, when was the last time you even drove in the dirt?

sputterguy

Please remember this is the history of the Monaro. I haven't seen one reference to the Ute. I've only seen references to car platforms that eventually led to the GTO. And the car, whether badged as Monaro or GTO is sold there in those conditions.

I have seen that Australian guy hawking the Subaru wagon and I'm sure it's a good car especially over there. But I'll stand by my original statement that over here it is used for grocery shopping...

ateixeira

You think that's silly? LOL

I don't own a WRX, so the answer is never. My Forester, which shares the Impreza's chassis, has been on the beach, farmlands, and dirt trails in the Pine Barrens, so basically I use the AWD all the time, since you're wondering. Places a RWD GTO couldn't dream of going.

here it is used for grocery shopping...

Let me ask you this, you don't think the GTO spends most of its time grocery shopping or at the mall?

Oh, right, it's used for heavy-duty off roading, rock hopping, of course!

Seriously, what's the difference that you are trying to highlight between these two cars? You're talking about capabilities that neither of these cars were tuned for. The suspensions are tuned for pavement of course.

WRX has a direct rally heritage. Group N cars add only safety equipment. Holdens drive on Australian dirt roads and so do Subarus, so what.

-juice

ateixeira

There must be grocery stores at these Rally Cross events, because half the competitors are Subarus:

http://www.rivergate5speed.com/scca/rallycross/results20050430.html
http://www.sfrscca.org/RallyX/scoring/RXScores.2005.5.14.pdf
http://www.oregonrally.com/?page=results

Perhaps you haven't bothered to research SCCA RallyCross at all. It's nicknamed Spec Subaru.

-juice

freak show

welll both these cars were never designed to daily chores....in any case these cars (EVO n mustang GT included) are performance based. i just find the ol' goat to be really plain jane,Pontiac could have done a better job of it. if ur in market for performance, you really won't give a rats [non-permissible content removed] about the seats or the cheap material used so people get over the fact tht pontiac is more comfortable. in my case i just love to fell every crease in the road!!!(my back never hurts). given the choices if i really wanted a real muscle car i would opt for the mustang. but have never been a big fan cause have never liked the idea of stuffing a big ol' V8 into a small body. Which leaves me with the option of STI or EVO. have been driving a 02 WRX for the past 2 years and just love its performance. never had any problem with it except the brakes. they usually last me 3-4 mths but giving the aggressivness in ma driving i guess its quite normal. i really would pick the STI blinded folded cause i just like the aggressive loook of it. u buy these cars cause u really want to stand out in the crowd. So with the STI's better approach to the body work (which is indeed functional unlike the goat) and best specs ever seen in a 33K car STI is the clear winner

PS my WRX can do 0-60 in mid/lower 6 so just cant understand the fact tht with almost 80hp more,how can the dif be in tenths of a second. Have seen spec in other websites where they have done 0-60 in upper 4's. :confuse:
FrEa|<

some pics of 2007 WRX prototype JDM SPEC tell me what u think http://www.japanesecarfans.com/news.cfm/newsid/2050616.001

ateixeira

Should get more torque, but the same HP rating, too.

-juice

sputterguy

If you like to feel every bump in the road I guess you have the right car. "Punishing ride, uncomfortable seats", sounds great to me. Don't like a big V8 stuffed into a small body. I guess that means you like a small engine in a small body. Totally different markets and unfortunately we are thrown together here. Your performance is good, but you lose in the 0-60, in the quarter, and in top end. You guys all start out saying how you are faster, but then the real world intrudes and the GTO always wins in the real world.. Then you say 'it's only a tenth of a second'. Well, this isn't horseshoes. Close doesn't count. You lose.

If you like the aggressive look of ther STi that's fine with me.. I can understand that. But to call it functional. Ok, technically speaking it's functional. But, do you have ram air? No, then it doesn't add to hp. So, its for looks only. And a turbo. Bring hot waste gases back to the engine. Yow! That's gotta hurt enging life. And that wing? Do you really need that? If anything, the STi is great handling. All wheel drive and all that. So what's with the wing? Your top end isn't that high. Admit it, it wasn't built for top end. It's a 'rally' car. Unless of course it's that unaerodynamic boxy shape. So once again, looks only. And that price tag. If you are actually paying $33K for that car then you are paying thousands more than the GTO. I can't see paying more and getting less, but I don't understand the market for the car either. But in the end with all the performance, hp, and handling we will both meet down at the grocery store just like I said.

ateixeira

Street racing? Pathetic. Go to a track with curves and let's see. Last time I visited Summit Point it was chock-full of WRX and STi entries.

The air scoops feed a functional intercooler, it's a top mount. That hood scoop is very much necessary.

Those "hot waste gases" you mention are cooled by said intercooler.

-juice

jsh139

FYI, the turbocharger doesn't bring "hot waste gases" back into the engine. It just uses the exhaust gases to spin a turbine. This turbine is connected by a shaft to a compressor, which draws in ambient air.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/turbo.htm

Also, the internals of turbo engines are typically beefed up to handle the extra stress.

ateixeira

Forged pistons
Semi-closed deck block
Sodium-filled exhaust valves

All upgrades that the non-turbo EJ255 does not get.

-juice

ibmgtodriver

:P I dont think they even sat in the GTO. It gets high marks from everyone for its interior even car and driver. The seats are GM's best. And once you get in the back, the seats are just as comfortable and roomy as up front. Yeah, getting in the back is a bit of a pain, but if I wanted 4 doors, I would have not bought the Goat. And a 6.0 sec 0-60? who was driving, my mother? 4.9 for the 6 speed, 4.6 for the auto. This review was bull. Obviously another "journalist" who is in love with japan. Once again Edmunds misses the mark. This car should have been compared with the 330csi to be comparable.

sputterguy

Yeah, you guys are racing each other down at the tract. Just don't show up at the drag strip. You don't like street racing. Well, one of you challenged me earlier and said he would meet me on the street. So sooner or later you will run into a GTO on the street and that's where you lose.

Ah, the hood scoop feeds an intercooler. So, your cooling your intercooler? Very clever.

And the waste gases are cooled. So the only damage is to the turbo bearings. Oh wait, I know, they are titanium so they last forever.

What a cool car. Too bad it doesn't sound more manly.