Pontiac GTO v. Subaru STi

1246789

Comments

  • gnxdanmangnxdanman Member Posts: 18
    Actually the GTO was rated #1 by JD pwr and associate as BEST APPEALING SPORTY CAR. GM was just named best long term reliabliity by JD pwr as well.

    Remember GM OWNS 20% of Subaru since 1999 ! They are supposed to be using some of the AWD Subaru components in future GM cars...
  • gnxdanmangnxdanman Member Posts: 18
    Where I live many of the High School students have late model WRX which looks like STI in the parking lot, Mustangs, Camaros etc. They are probably under their parents insurance I'm sure. That would be one high bill.

    In fact I have seen many kids, 17 to 21 in my neigbhorhood with WRX's... Even ones with the real loud can exhaust. Parents probably pay the car payment and insurance, I would imagine.
  • irnmdnirnmdn Member Posts: 245

    My favourite car out of all I've owned was the 'Vette. I'm not sure if the motor was genuine, but who cares when you can take 1000cc motorbikes away from the lights?


    I don't know what 1000cc motorbike you can take with vette. A 600cc Hon/Kaw/Suz/Yam sportbike will absolute humiliate the 'vette, lets not even talk about R1 or Hayabusa.
  • stiguy1stiguy1 Member Posts: 3
    For power in straightaways, go with GTO.
    For rally, Auto-X or AWD FUN, go with the STi.(Fun in the winter also)
  • stiguy1stiguy1 Member Posts: 3
    This is like comparing an SRT-4 to a WRX.
  • merrycynicmerrycynic Member Posts: 340
    What's best for you? As for me, my choice is the best.
  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    Frankly, we do know how lucky we are...

    A Vauxhall Monaro sells for $60K over there? It sounds like some people in England appreciate American muscle (I'm assuming it has the LS1 or LS2).

    I doubt whether you would have enough change to buy a '67 GTO, at least over there. And speaking of old GTOs, how do you think an old goat would handle in the rain? Just about as good as that old vette of yours I bet. I love the old GTO's but wouldn't want to drive one today. I have an '04 GTO and it blows the doors off the old GTOs in every way except looks. If I could afford one for a Sunday driver then perhaps, but I can't so that's that.

    With narrow roads and a rainy climate, the Subaru sounds like a good choice. But where I live, with wide boulevards and freeways, I'll take the GTO.
  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    Actually I just saw a new report. I think it was J D Powers but not completely sure. Neither Pontiac or Subaru made it. A Lexus 430 was the top luxury model. Malibu was the top mid-size and a Buick was the premium mid-size. Miata was the top sporty car and Porsche the spremium sports car. I don't know which catagory the GTO or STi were in....
  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    Thank you. That's what I keep saying. Oh yeah, don't forget the comfy seats in the GTO.
  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    Is there really an '04 GTO out there with 40K miles on it?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    My guess is the 400hp GTO will have better resale, because it is selling better and at higher prices, too. They just turned it up a notch and it seems like that was enough to get it over the crest of the hill.

    That might actually be what's hurting the less powerful original.

    High School students have late model WRX which looks like STI

    True, but imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and the STi is the real thing. Plus, I bet kids do the same thing to base Monaros in Australia.

    SRT-4 is FWD. GTO is RWD. STi is AWD with a rear bias. So it's closer to the GTO than it is to the SRT-4, but I agree they're all quite different.

    -juice
  • stiguy1stiguy1 Member Posts: 3
    Actually, depreciation for a Subaru vehicle, especially for an STi, is less likely to happen. Ever since the wrx came out, the vehicles value has held up pretty good these few years, also very few people that own a subaru rarely parts with them which causes kind of like a shortage or hard to get a hold of one because the resale value is pretty high. Subaru IMO will never depreciate like a HONDA nor a TOYOTA.
    A very well engineered company, only main problem I guess that everyone has with driving one would be the bad Fuel mileage you get from them. But I guess the price you pay for an AWD Turbocharged boxer car is what you get.

    Have fun!
  • gnxdanmangnxdanman Member Posts: 18
    I wouldn't say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery in this case.... being as though the WRX came out first, before the STi, at least here in the USA. I can NOT personally tell the dif between the 2. Many kids here DEBADGE the back, so it's even harder.

    As for kids doing the same to the Base Monaros in Austraila? Can't comment, I don't live there. I do know the Monaro V8 is one EXPENSIVE car down under, it starts at $60k Austrailan which is $44K USA!

    Both STi and GTO seem to be rare, I barely see either one on the road. Although I do see MANY Impreza's and WRX on the road though... That is a good thing.

    What is physical dif between STi and WRX? From rear if I see one?
  • minimoog2228minimoog2228 Member Posts: 6
    "Where I live many of the High School students have late model WRX which looks like STI in the parking lot, Mustangs, Camaros etc. They are probably under their parents insurance I'm sure. That would be one high bill.

    In fact I have seen many kids, 17 to 21 in my neigbhorhood with WRX's... Even ones with the real loud can exhaust. Parents probably pay the car payment and insurance, I would imagine."

    A wrx can be bought used for 20k. I see 20k cars in high school lots but never do i see a 35k evo mr or wrx sti.
  • minimoog2228minimoog2228 Member Posts: 6
    "This is like comparing an SRT-4 to a WRX."

    WRX owners so hate the srt-4, why? Oh yeah cause stock for stock srt-4s smoke wrxs all day long and they don't blow tranys or cost 3k less than an evo. When the WRX was the only turbo compact it was a great car but now with the evo, sti and yes the srt it looks slow and over priced. The Srt is faster and post better skid pad numbers than a WRX (wrx not the sti). Hell in last months issue of sport compact car they have a shoot out between 10 compact cars and the srt got better lap times on a road course in the RAIN than the STI only being beat by the evo! I have driven both the srt and wrx and as for performance the srt>wrx. 180whp (the advertised 227 is to the crank) < 230whp
  • gnxdanmangnxdanman Member Posts: 18
    Never said I saw a STi in a HS parking lot, I said I have seen the WRX which looks very similar to STi to me from a distance.

    I would never pay $33k for a car that looks like a base $19k Impreza with tacky spoilers and etc, but to each their own, my opinion and 2 cents.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Believe me, early WRX owners knew plenty about the WRC Impreza cars and tried their darndest to make their car look like them. The Mid-Atlantic region went as far as personalized plates, one said "STI 4USA" and the other said "GOT STI".

    The differences? The spoiler is standard on the STi and N/A on the WRX, plus there is the badge and a little lip on the fender to accomodate 8" wide rear rims. Rims and tires, of course, bigger scoop on the hood, different seats. Stuff like that.

    Of course underneath the engine, transmission, and AWD system are different as well. Even the differentials and steering gear.

    SRT-4 is a phenomenal value and Dodge was very, very smart to not include Neon in the name.

    -juice
  • gnxdanmangnxdanman Member Posts: 18
    Around me Alot of people have put the STi spoiler on their WRX.

    SRT-4 is still a $22k+ Neon regardless of what Dodge called it.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Yes and no. I think the SRT-4 is hand picked and built with extra care, plus the powertrain is solid. Dodge even warranties the Mopar parts you buy and install on it.

    -juice
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Here is Subaru's econobox, for those clearly not at all familiar with the brand.

    Above that, they have an R2. Above that they sell a Justy in some markets.

    Impreza is their C class car, basically a mid-size in Europe, premium compact here. It never was their econobox.

    -juice
  • kevm14kevm14 Member Posts: 423
    Subaru IMO will never depreciate like a HONDA nor a TOYOTA.

    Wrong, way wrong. Look it up. Honda and Toyotas have the highest resale of any car in the world, pretty much. Corolla, Civic, Camry, Accord, the minivans, the trucks (toyota of course), etc.
  • kevm14kevm14 Member Posts: 423
    When the WRX was the only turbo compact it was a great car but now with the evo, sti and yes the srt it looks slow and over priced.

    Isn't that the truth! The WRX is, and has been, pretty mediocre as far as speed goes. Some people hear "AWD" and "turbo" and assume it must be capable of beating a Corvette.
  • gnxdanmangnxdanman Member Posts: 18
    Look it up. Honda and Toyotas have the highest resale of any car in the world, pretty much. Corolla, Civic, Camry, Accord, the minivans, the trucks (toyota of course), etc.

    True, but all New cars, even imports, Honda etc lose $$ regardless of brand as they age. The best cars to maintain or increase in value are CERTAIN classic and vintage cars, esp old American muscle, 442, GTO, Vette, Stang etc.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    0-60 comes in the high 5 second range for the WRX, you have some impossibly high standards! Unless you were being sarcastic. Because it just isn't true.

    I mean, c'mon. Mediocre? Think about what you are saying, and what that does to your credibility.

    I have a link at work, I'll look it up tomorrow, but WRX had the best resale in its class, beating any/all Hondas and Toyotas it competes with.

    -juice
  • gnxdanmangnxdanman Member Posts: 18
    Yes and no. I think the SRT-4 is hand picked and built with extra care, plus the powertrain is solid. Dodge even warranties the Mopar parts you buy and install on it

    Chrysler makes a profit on the SRT-4 because it is so CLOSELY related to the Neon The car shares the PT Cruisers Turbo engine and it's stickshift chrome ball. A few other improvements otherwise the interior is similar to the Neon

    Regardless it definitely a lot of bang for the buck at $19 to $22k range
  • merrycynicmerrycynic Member Posts: 340
    For me, at least for the time being, there are no comparisons. I have a wrx sport WAGON. Subaru, please bring on a full blown STi wagon.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    FYI, CNN/Money was the source for the info I mentioned.

    -juice
  • kevm14kevm14 Member Posts: 423
    0-60 comes in the high 5 second range for the WRX

    I don't care what you pull out of magazines. A stock WRX is NOT a fast car. They run high 14s @ 93mph or so. DSMs have been doing that since the early 90s. If you want a magazine explanation for how slow a stock WRX is (you seem to be a magazine racer), look at the 5-60mph, compare to "slower" cars and get back to me. I think my point will be proven. Unless your benchmark for speed is a 2001 Camry LE 4-cylinder.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    All it takes is a little skill to keep it in the boost. Not difficult for most of us...

    It's not so different for a GTO - you can't just stand on the throttle and expect a good launch. You'll burn the tires right out from under you.

    -juice
  • merrycynicmerrycynic Member Posts: 340
    That all depends on your criterion. I don't believe the WRX was intended for the drag strip. I do believe you can drive it faster than different cars on different roads in different weather.
  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    "It's not so different for a GTO". Sure it is. It's the exact opposite. With the Subaru you have to have your foot in it just to get off the line. The GTO has to power down to launch. The Subaru has to be in boost to get boost. The GTOs power is all there all the time. Any speed any gear. (Well, not 6th gear at 10mph).
    If I meet a Subaru on the road he better have his turbo on or else with turbo lag he is history. That's the difference. Got it?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    The STi doesn't have the same level of lag as the plain WRX. You seem to be talking about the base WRX, which isn't the topic of this thread.

    Got it?

    Any driver with skill can outrun your 350hp GTO in an STi.

    -juice
  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    I'm talking about any turbo. And the fact that the Subaru has to be on it all the time. And I have instantaneous power at my fingertips.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    You would have to surprise someone to beat them in an acceleration run. Sucker punch, basically.

    I'd argue that the STi's turbo is the best of both worlds - quick when it needs to be, and more efficient off boost when it doesn't. So you have a choice, and a skilled driver would never be caught in the wrong gear.

    All that is required is skill, that's the bottom line.

    A big V8 is probably better for a novice, though.

    -juice
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    I think the point is that, yes, IF you are on your toes and IF one keeps the STi on the boost, it is hellacious fast. But, if you take off from a light at 'normal' revs and punch it, it is still pretty quick, just not NEARLY as fast as a high rev, drivetrain-abusing, clutch-killing launch (remember, some slippage HAS to occur and with AWD that slippage will all be in the clutch).

    Here's the numbers (from C&D tests):

    STi: 0-60 in 4.6 seconds (with a high rpm abusive clutch drop)
    5-60 in 5.8 seconds
    That's a 1.2 second difference depending on starting style. This is indicative of the fact that if you are NOT on the boost, hard and heavy, the car is not nearly as fast.

    GTO: 0-60 in 4.8 seconds (having to soft pedal to avoid excessive tire spin)
    5-60 in 5.1 seconds

    Note the small disparity between the standing start and 'street' start in the GTO. This is indicative of the fact that all the power is there whenever you need it. Note the fact that for a good lauch, the driver has to soft pedal it a bit to avoid massive tire smoke. Note the fact that the only abuse to the GTO is to the (relatively) inexpensive tires.

    Note the large disparity in the STi. This is indicative of the fact that if you DON'T do a high rpm clutch drop, to keep the motor from bogging, you would be dead meat to a GTO.

    These are both very quick cars, but you need to realize they each have their performance strengths and weaknesses. The GTO is very very quick in a more relaxed way. Strong off the line, strong at highway speeds, with good (albeit 'heavy') handling. It is a strong, comfortable cruiser that may not be a ballerina in the curves but it's not tripping over it's own feet either.

    The STi is also very very quick but in more of a frenzied, frantic way. It's forte is more handling on very twisty roads, blasting from apex to apex with the motor at full boil, and very good performance in inclement weather or subpar driving surfaces.

    They each represent extremely good examples of DIFFERENT performance schools of thought. I realize they are both priced similarly but they appeal to completely different types of drivers. Personally, I think a comparison between the two is ridiculous and was probably meant to be more tongue in cheek than you guys are treating it.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I believe your numbers are for the 400hp GTO, while sputterguy has the 350hp model. His isn't nearly as quick, yet he boasts as if it were.

    Plus, if you are racing, you are racing, and the STi driver would be on his toes and in the boost.

    I acknowledged the GTO's throttle response a looooong time ago, yet the GTO folks can't seem to acknowledge anything at all about the STi, going as far as calling it an econobox. You gotta laugh at that.

    I fully agree with the last 3 paragraphs you wrote.

    There are just a few folks in this thread that are firmly planted at one extreme or the other and can't seem to admit to any single quality the other car has, it's ridiculous.

    Honestly this thread is purely adversarial and contributes nothing to anyone.

    -juice
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "I believe your numbers are for the 400hp GTO, while sputterguy has the 350hp model."

    Correct. But rather that try to 'argue' a point against a single individual and the car that single individual has, I'd rather discuss (as reasonable as I'm able) aspects of the cars in question as they are currently sold. Which means, for the GTO, 400hp.

    "Plus, if you are racing, you are racing, and the STi driver would be on his toes and in the boost."

    Correct again. And I'm sure the STi is insanely quick once you are up to speed. But what the street start shows is that when the boost is NOT up, the power is much lower. But if you're not slipping the clutch at lauch so that the boost is KEPT up, then the motor will bog and you'll be looking at GTO taillights. And if you ARE slipping the clutch at launch to keep the boost up, then I would worry about clutch life. The STi is a very very quick car, but it was NOT built for drag racing.

    "Honestly this thread is purely adversarial and contributes nothing to anyone. "

    Oh, I don't know about that juice.......I've gotten more than a few chuckles out of it from an outsider's perspective ;)
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "5-60 in 5.8s is still quick, IMO."

    To tell the truth, I'd LOVE to have a car capable of that kind of speed - but then I never intended to drag race my Celica. It was bought for different attributes.

    I think the problem(s) arising from this thread come from differing opinions of what constitutes "performance". Both cars will put some serious grins on their driver's faces, so long as the driver puts the car in it's proper environment.

    "Your level of tolerance is higher than mine."

    Only because I've got no dog in this hunt. I can't remember the last time somebody accused me of having a high tolerance level. :P
  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    Ok. With a proper launch you can take me off the line. But that's it. I've got you on top end. Remember, the '04 GTO and the "05 GTO have the same limit. And I think rorr was being generous with the Subaru's low end. What I read here in an earlier post was over 7 seconds for 5-60. And that was a professional driver. I can do better than that. So your statement "Any driver with skill can beat an '04" better do better than that. Don't be so quick to dismiss the '04 GTO
    as there are any number of situations it will come out on top.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "And I think rorr was being generous with the Subaru's low end."

    Hey, don't blame the messenger. I got all my figures from Car and Driver's website. You can find the 5-60 figure of 5.8 sec. for the STi from their June 2003 issue:

    http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article_id=6640

    The standard Subaru WRX does have a 5-60 time of over 7 seconds (7.4-7.5 for their 40,000 mile long term tester), but we aren't talking about the WRX. The WRX and the STi are different cars. This is the STi vs. GTO thread, right?
  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    "I believe your numbers are for the 400hp GTO, while sputterguy has the 350hp model. His isn't nearly as quick, yet he boasts as if it were".

    Oh really. Let me refer you back to the GTO/STi comparison test this forum started from. Here is a quote. "As easy as it is to launch, our '05 didn't run any quicker than the 350hp version we tested a year ago." That means that the '04 GTO that Edmunds tested beat the '05 STi they tested. Read the article. Any questions?
  • ClairesClaires Chicago areaMember Posts: 1,222
    and let's keep it civil, please.

    ClaireS, Host
    Coupes & Convertibles | Vans & Minivans

    MODERATOR

    Need help getting around? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Tell everyone about your buying experience: Write a Dealer Review

  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    This topic is about the STi, so let's stick with the 5.8 figure.

    Most mags' results showed a significant improvement in the '05 GTO, Edmunds' results were not typical.

    -juice
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Just so you don't think I'm making that up...

    the disparity is quite apparent as the GTO has moved below five seconds for the 0-to-60 sprint-that's M3 territory

    For the '04 they got 0-60 in 5.3 and 5-60 in 5.8, which by the way ties the STi 5-60 and loses 0-60, so the turbo lag can't possibly be that bad. And if it's slow, then so is the '04 GTO that only tied it in a running start.

    For the record I still think both are fast.

    For the '05 they got a dramatic improvement, 0-60 in 4.8 and 5-60 in 5.1, which is quicker in a running start but not as quick in a launch from a dead stop.

    So you can't say the STi is slow, even off boost, it builds up boost quickly enough to keep up with a 5.7l V8 GTO. Not bad.

    -juice
  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    Oh, I wasn't blaming you. I thought it was a case of one magazine came up with one number and another came up with a different one. But I went back and found the post I referenced and to my chagrin, the 7 plus seconds was for what the poster refered to as "lesser" WRXs. My mistake.

    Still, 5.8 seconds for 5-60 seems slow to me. Pontiac claims 5.3 seconds in 0-60 which I don't believe anyone has ever managed to do. But Edmunds did manage it in 5.5 seconds. So for a car with no turbo lag, 5.8 seconds is well beyond doable...
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "Still, 5.8 seconds for 5-60 seems slow to me."

    Well, all I can say to that is we all have a different definition of 'slow'........
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Yeah, I'd hate to imagine what you think is fast. Maybe this? :o)

    -juice
  • njswamplandsnjswamplands Member Posts: 1,760
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    C'mon, everyone knows mike doesn't drive that speed.

    He goes faster. :-)

    -juice
  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    The 0-60 time seems too fast and the 5-60 time too slow. I haven't personally seen a 5.3 for the 0-60 and have never seen any figure for the 5-60 so I will take your word for it.

    I agree, both cars are fast. I've said that.

    Yes, the '05 got a dramatic improvement. But the '04 didn't get slower just because the '05 got quicker.
This discussion has been closed.