Pontiac GTO v. Subaru STi



  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    I just can't see the fun in a hard and uncomfortable ride. Now offroad is a different story. You expect that. But how many STi owners actually go offroad?
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    And how does it not live up to its potential?

  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Have you driven one?

  • max19max19 Member Posts: 22
    Vortec trim Supercharger.
    Upsolute ECU.
    K&N air filter.
    Power increase of 34% with and existing horsepower of 400 and a rear wheel HP
    with a level of boost of 7psi and 92 octane fuel is a 185 HP. It is even more HP gains but bottom line is that the Supercharger will use at least 16 to 20% of the increase HP to work but it makes up greatly with the gains.

    Yeah, I know, "You said Ram Air not Supercharger", and after this instalation I still have an extra $6000.00 to blow on other stuff.

    By the way for you weight watchers, if you are having problems with your 0-60 and 1/4 mile numbers, try first of all doing so with an almost empty fuel tank (4 gallons at least) and follow BMW's M3 spec of leaving the spare tire out of the picture. Different test are done differently by all manufacturers.

    Have fun driving gentlemen. :shades:
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    I never, ever said that AWD was purely marketing. There is a difference between "marketing" and brand identification.

    Mazda has attempted to make all of their offerings in various segments (small car, midsize family hauler, minivan, convertible, etc.) different from other makes in the same segment by offering better (sportier) handling. Not massive power or super economy or appliance-like reliablity. This is 'brand identification'. HOW this difference in handling is brought to the public's attention ("zoom zoom") is marketing.

    Suburu's decision to go AWD with all models/all trims/all the time is a decision aimed at brand ID. HOW this is relayed to the public (commercials, participation in motorsports, etc.) is marketing.

    Yes, AWD matters in some climes and some situations were traction is not optimal. No one here is saying that for dusty, gritty, slushy conditions the GTO should still be the weapon of choice. What I was responding to was the aparent assertion by unctarheel that for ALL situations AWD ruled and that the performance future belongs to AWD. I disagree.

    "When was the last time you saw a WRC pic were the car was not sideways?"

    Works great......on dirt. But I don't think many potential buyers of GTO's are that concerned with the ability to drift the car on a gravel/dirt road. Perhaps I should amend my statement to refer to pavement.

    "smoky burnouts
    AWD can make a car easier to drive fast, but not faster

    Those two statements are a clear contradiction."

    Not a clear contradiction; those two statements are completely unrelated. With big smoky burnouts, the aim is NOT simply going fast. The aim is the big smoky burnout. Yes, it's juvenille, but people sure love'em at the end of a NASCAR event.

    This whole thing is pointless. I'm reminded of a debate between the merits of WRC vs. NASCAR. The both have their salient points, but they're just aimed at different audiences.

  • jsh139jsh139 Member Posts: 42
    I'm sorry if I didn't catch your sarcasm, it seemed like you were trying to state a fact to me. I wasn't commenting on the $14K spent on the STi (which I also think is rediculous). I was commenting on your +145 bhp increase.

    I'm glad that you can gain 40 hp with $1K (still unsubstantiated). Many people are gaining about 40-50 crank hp with just a turboback exhaust (about ~$700-$900) on their STis. Some additional engine tuning will make it more reliable, so many add an ECU reflash to that (~$500-$800).

    Here's a dyno graph of a turboback exhaust and ECU reflash ($1625 total price for this setup. Highly regarded as one of the best):


    BTW, if you did not have your car dynoed, then you realistically cannot claim that the tuning added 8% or 32 hp. When I said 15-20 hp, I meant at the wheels. You have to calculate drivetrain losses.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Let's look at this more closely, does it slow down a car? How much weight does it add? How much does it hurt fuel efficiency?

    The "slow down the car" theory has to do with additional drivetrain losses due to the increase friction of an extra axle and differential. This is a factor when you do not have enough power to break traction.

    With the GTO or STI, that is simply not the case. Both have way more than enough power so any small losses only mean slightly less tire spin. The point might be valid with a base Impreza, until you recall that Subaru owners live in snow country.

    This extra drivetrain loss is offset by increased traction when you do have this kind of power. If you have enough power to break traction, energy is merely wasted as tire spin. AWD has more traction and less tire spin. This is why AWD can achieve such quick launches.

    Fact: In C&D tests, the Forester XT had a quicker hole-shot than the Ferrari Enzo. Up to 30mph, the Subaru is actually ahead.

    Weight - Subaru has several different systems but they typically add about 150 lbs extra when compared to a FWD car. The difference would actually be less compared to RWD because those tend to weight more than FWD because of the longer driveshaft.

    Also, 150 lbs in the big picture is just 5% extra weight, and it helps weight distribution too. FWD cars are usually 60/40, while AWD is typically 45/55 for better balance. The GTO and STi are probably close here, i.e. both are better balanced than FWD would be.

    Fuel efficiency - if buyers of these two vehicles even care, that is. AWD will cost you 1-2 mpg, not that significant. Especially not to this type of customer.

    To summarize, look again at those 3 issues. Is the STi slower? No. Is it heavier? No. Is it less fuel efficient? No.

    Subaru specializes in AWD, so they've developed systems that leach very little power (yet effectively put down more of it), weight little, and enact only a small penalty in fuel economy.

  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "Fact: In C&D tests, the Forester XT had a quicker hole-shot than the Ferrari Enzo. Up to 30mph, the Subaru is actually ahead."

    Ever look at the torque curve on a Prius? With that electric motor giving 295 ftlbs at 0-1200 rpm, I'll bet it has a quicker hole-shot than a STi. Up to, oh, about 4 mph, the Prius may actually be ahead. :P

    "If you have enough power to break traction, energy is merely wasted as tire spin."

    I'll bet GTO owners just HATE it when that happens..... :P
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    LOL! :D

    I've driven one and gave it a good review for that reason - low-end torque is phenomenal. It feels faster than it is.

    You want to talk about weight penalties, though...those batteries...

  • gxpgtodanmangxpgtodanman Member Posts: 210
    Most interesting is that the GTO 6.0 liter V8 gets about the same city and gas mileage as the Subaru 2.5 liter 4 cylinder when both are equipped with 6 spd manuals. 17/25 GTO and 18/24 Sti. Both use premium gas. Like you said, I didn't buy the GTO for gas mileage.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I bet that 6th ratio is nice a tall.

    Not that you'll get more than 12mpg in either of these cars if you drive as described above (sideways, burnouts, 0-50, 5-60, etc).

  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    By turning in 14.1 second quarter miles.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Even the Forester last tested by Car & Driver managed a 13.8 second quarter. And that engine is de-tuned to make 90 fewer horses than the STi, plus it's heavier and less aerodynamic.

    Your numbers are way off.

  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    Well golly gee willickers. Subaru must be the perfect car.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    I'm assuming you're referring to the Edmunds STi/EVO test here.


    Well, juding by the following quote, they didn't seem very disappointed:

    "Not many cars could outgun this Subie in a stoplight sprint — with all that usable power, this car is scary quick. Zero to 60 takes just 5.8 seconds and the quarter-mile is unreeled in 14.1 seconds. Amazingly, these times are but one-tenth of a second different from those of the Evo."

  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    No such thing.

  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    Yes, I'm refering to the Edmunds test and others for that matter. I didn't say 14.1 is slow or I'd have to say my own car is slow. But ybnormal claims 12.9 in the 1/4 so he probably thinks 14.1 is slow. Which is my point, which is the STi often doesn't reach the figures released by Subaru.
  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    Well, your description sounds about as close as you can get.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    You gotta put it in context. Mileage is not good, but it's good within its class, i.e. cars that can perform that well.

    The perfect car would have 700hp running on water and spew gold nuggets out of the exhaust. Like I said, there's no such thing.

    Subaru tends to release conservative numbers. More often than not, the magazines and on-line publications beat those times. Edmunds' car was just one exception, and it could be as simple as the conditions on their track that day (heat, humidity, etc). One result certainly is not gospel. Look at the whole range of performance measures, then it's a lot more significant.

    Example: Car & Driver tested a couple of S2000s, and in the exact same model their own 0-60 times varied from 5.8 to 6.8 seconds. Now that's the difference between a very quick car and an average performer. We're talking the same magazine here! Both 2.0l models so same powertrain.

  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "...and in the exact same model their own 0-60 times varied from 5.8 to 6.8 seconds."


    I wish more people would understand that there can be a huge difference in times between supposedly identical cars and QUIT relying so much on 0-60 times as points of contention. Otherwise, all that is happening is 'magazine racing' to see who can find the quickest published times for their vehicle of choice.

    Same applies to skidpad numbers and braking numbers.

    Just out of curiousity juice, would you happen to have at hand the 5-60 numbers for the two S2000's mentioned? I would be willing to bet these numbers were much closer to one another, showing just how critical the launch is to getting good numbers from a high rpm/low torque car.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I used to keep back issues but I stopped after it just got piled up too high and I rarely ever referred to them.

    You can probably do a search on Car&Driver.com.

  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    You don't keep all your back issues of C&D???

    SACRILEGE!!!!! ;)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    To be honest I think their writing isn't as good as it used to be. Plus they get a little too political. I often skip the editorials.

    Remember - it's just one opinion. I drive as many cars as I can to form my own opinions, and I quite often disagree with them.

  • gxpgtodanmangxpgtodanman Member Posts: 210
    Pontiac realeased numbers of 4.6 seconds 0-60mph for the Automatic GTO and 4.7 seconds for the 6spd manual. 1/4 mile was 13.0 for auto and 13.1 stick. It's in their official 2005 brochure for the car. Also in 1 or 2 magazine advertisements as well. That is the fastest I have ever seen for a stock GTO. Go figure? You have to avg all the #'s.
  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    That is exactly what I am talking about. The time you say is atypical, I say is typical. By virtue of the fact that times vary so much. We already hashed this out in the GTO vs Mustang forum and the conclusion I believe is there are too many variables and the biggest one may be the driver. So on any given day any of these cars can come out on top. Which is what I said earlier. If for whatever reason the STi is off, he will see my tailights. Of course the converse is true But I would rather lose to a faster car than a slower car that I should have beat.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Not street race at all.

  • max19max19 Member Posts: 22
    Will smoke the GTO 1st gear from a stop. I will give you that. But as a GTO owner I will also tell you that an STi will pose no threat to a GTO after both cars are rolling. I even found a website that shows a street race between an '05 GTO and a '98 Corvette and the GTO smokes the Corvette 3 out of 4 times from a stop. They key ingredient is the driver, that is for sure.

    Not for you GTO owners: Wheel hopping looks nice and agressive but does nothing if trying to get to the 4.7 seconds posted by Pontiac. What I do is what Pontiac does with their cars when they test them. First of all half way to 4 gallons of gas in your tank will do wonders. I personally did a 0-60 in 4.8 seconds but that of course is not accurate, is just guessing with a stop watch and a friend taking the speed with a radar (police radar) and those can be 1.5 to 5 mph off the real deal. Taking this factors into consideration it could hjave been as bad as 5.0 and as good as 4.6 seconds.

    I am having fun with this car!!!! :P
  • njswamplandsnjswamplands Member Posts: 1,760
    in the snow....
  • kevm14kevm14 Member Posts: 423
    Same as you'll do if you leave the stock summer tires on your STi.

    Tires are the most important ingredient, followed by the driver, followed by the drive configuration.
  • max19max19 Member Posts: 22
    Thank you for your concern but in Atlanta we don't get a lot of snow and compared to other states, not a lot of black ice patches nor ice storms. Good snow tires and driving SLOW will get you without sliding of the road. Experienced drivers should have no problems if they have good tires and drive slow. I will beleive I will see more STi owners actually off road in the snow being so confident on their AWD. It is not wise to defy mother nature my friends no matter what you have under the hood or drivetrain.
  • njswamplandsnjswamplands Member Posts: 1,760
    you have to go up a steep grade to get to my area of homes and the rwd people park their cars at the bottom and have their awd friends drive them up unless the plow has been around. always tell the new people that move in as you see their rwd stuck on the hill.
  • gxpgtodanmangxpgtodanman Member Posts: 210
    I live in Northern NJ near NY and have no need for AWD at all, just my 2 cents. RWD or FWD works fine
  • merrycynicmerrycynic Member Posts: 340
    I've had the embarssment of having to be pulled out of inclined driveways with both FWD and RWD, but have never suffered that humility with my AWD car. BTW, they were all equipped with "all season" tires.
  • sensaisensai Member Posts: 129
    All season tires were invented because us lazy American's don't swap out for snow tires in the winter. In the end, they do nothing well.

    Anyways, RWD + true snow tires = no problem in snow, albeit not as good as AWD. Then again, almost every car/truck I have seen in a ditch over the last few years has been AWD or 4WD because people get an invinsibility complex with those setups.
  • merrycynicmerrycynic Member Posts: 340
    Guilty as charged. Though in my defense, prior to my awd Subaru I lived in an apartment. There just wasn't any place to store another set of wheels. I still am willing to deal with the compromise. It's rare that I have to do any extended driving in anything but light snow. So far I have been satisfied with awd and all season rubber.
  • gxpgtodanmangxpgtodanman Member Posts: 210
    I put metal studded tires on my RWD Caprice Wagon in the winter months here and never have a problem in the snow. I agree most of the people I have seen stuck in ditches in the winter here were SUV's or AWD, they think they are invincible and can drive fast.

    Never had a problem with FWD in the snow. Some of my best winter cars had FWD with regular tires.

    I have seen AWD and 4x4 SUV get stuck on inclined driveways, es my Uncles steep one.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Now you're talking, but they're not legal in my state. :(

  • merrycynicmerrycynic Member Posts: 340
    I think your right about the "invincibility" syndrome endemic to many suv drivers. Many of them seem to disregard the laws of physics. With all that weight and high center of gravity, what the hell is going through their minds? I find my Subaru has just enough ground clearance and is lean enough to manage quite nicely. Of course reason prevails, as awd doesn't do much for braking.
  • gtodongtodon Member Posts: 7
  • max19max19 Member Posts: 22
    Edmunds got it all wrong from the beginning. The only comparison is the vehicle prices. Nothing else compares. All I can hear from the Sti people is the AWD and the Slalom superior performance. Clear it is. The STI does a lot better, that is one of the features of the car, the car is not by any means a Grand Tourer. It is not as comfortable as the GTO. If you guys like to take on big engines and more expensive GT's just take a look at a Ferrari Scaglietti($260K) a Bentley Continental GT($158K), a DB9 ($160K) and a Mercedes CL600 ($135K) to see their Lane Change MPH time is as good or even worst than the GTO to compare with.

    Slalom respectively, Ferrari did 64.2 MPH, Bentley did 57.4 MPH, DB9 did 60.3 MPH and the Mercedes did 59 MPH. Yeah. A Toyota Solara can drive by a Bentley, Mercedes and a DB9 on slalom at 62 mph...Wow! So what is the point? A GT a grand tourer is built for LONG TRIPS and drag racing type of driving, not off road or slalom tests.

    4 door vs. 2 doors
    V8 vs. V4
    GT vs. AWD

    Edmunds really had a couple of short circuits when they did this comparo based on "street racing".
  • icedragon2000icedragon2000 Member Posts: 1
    The Subaru STi is a 4 door car. In fact at this moment there is no 2-door Subaru being produced. Nice post.
  • muohiomuohio Member Posts: 1
    Another point to remember is that the GTO comes with all season tires. I'm sure a set of summer tires like the STi and a set of performance springs would help a lot. The tires on the STi are unsafe in snow as the soft compound turns rock hard and has poor thread design for anything beyond rain.
  • kodenamekodename Member Posts: 141
    This is why GM is in such a pickle styling wise. Edmunds wants to compare a GTO to a Subie! Subarus are fine automobiles, but any buyer who looks at these models as comparable just shows how BAD GM has fumbled again and again on the Goat since 1970. The current styling exersises making the press as possible future GTO's only continue the trend of butt ugly japan inspired goofyness. For god sake GM , go back and build off a 1969 GTO for inspiration , or just give it up. Your only embarassing yourself. The current GTO is no head turner that's for sure, it's like the Astek veresion of a muscle car. Pontiac is the new Oldsmobile of the 90's--nothing but dull copy-cat GM rental cars. That goes for the Soltice as well.
    Bill C.
  • gxpgtodanmangxpgtodanman Member Posts: 210
    The current GTO is no head turner that's for sure, it's like the Astek veresion of a muscle car. Pontiac is the new Oldsmobile of the 90's--nothing but dull copy-cat GM rental cars. That goes for the Soltice as well. "

    My GTO turns heads where-ever I go. Many people coming up to me saying Nice-car etc, asking questions. Last time I checked, rental cars don't have 400 horsepower V8's under the hood with 6spd manuals. The 1995 Olds Aurora was anything but DULL. In fact people complained it was OVER-styled, thus the reason GM toned "dulled" it down for 2001.

    The Current GTO is the most powerfull one ever made and would embarrass a 1964 to 1974 GTO in every performance category.

    Actually the 1995 Olds Aurora was anything but DULL from a styling standpoint.
  • kodenamekodename Member Posts: 141
    Yeah , right. So much for your listing of stats, yet it isn't selling well at all. It's fallen so short of expectations that GM no longer wants to talk about it. I've not seen your GTO, but everyone I've seen looks like a 2 door Grand Am. Ok , it's fast if that's all you wanted. The original GTO was more than an engine, now it's a 2 door Australian Grand AM with a Corvette motor. Forgive me for not bowing to your big humpin' motor.No matter how fast it goes, it's bland, and that's not just one person talking.......look at the numbers.....The "new" GTO has been a failure.As for "the current GTO would embarrass all 64-74 GTO's"....I can only add"That's why it's selling so well I guess" I'll still say the new GTO is a styless,nearly invisible failure, no matter how fast it goes. You say the new GTO is a head turner???? What color is the sky on your planet? :-) Bill C.
  • gxpgtodanmangxpgtodanman Member Posts: 210
    The orig. 1964 & 1965 GTO was just a rebadged Tempest with GTO option package.... BTW the 1971 to 1974 GTO's sold far WORSE then the new GTO.

    You can say whatever you want about my car being a failure. Your opinion. All I got to say is that I'm 100% happy with my GTO/Holden Monaro performance, handling, interior, etc and that is all that matters to me. I don't care what other people think of my car. I bought it for me, not for them. Different strokes for dif. folks. I like the car. To each their own.

    We will agree to disagree. End of Story. :):)
  • freak showfreak show Member Posts: 21
    To a point i do agree that the goat is TOOO bland......well i guess all the model in the gm stable (pontiac,chevy,buick,gm,saturn) are butt ugly expect some exceptions(corvette). That is why gm is in such a financial disaster ....they are in terrible need to go back to the drawing boards or just start copying the styling cues frm the japanese brands cause with this lineup the really dont have a future.
  • gxpgtodanmangxpgtodanman Member Posts: 210
    "That is why gm is in such a financial disaster .."

    True. But so is Ford, they were rated as Junk bond status just like GM.
  • kodenamekodename Member Posts: 141
    I'd have nothing negative to say if GM would have called the GTO by a more fitting name. Call it the G8 maybe, but not GTO. GTO's looked like it had a purpose, even when it was a 1964 LeMans, it stood out in a good way. Those mid 70's models were poorly rebadged Chevy Novas, and by then the muscle had left, the muscle car era was over. Can't it be said that ANY 2005 car will out perform any simular sized 1968 car? Not sure that's a valid bragging point. Anyway, I hope your GTO gives you years of service. Bill C.
  • gxpgtodanmangxpgtodanman Member Posts: 210
    Talking about more fitting names....off topicf...Chrysler is using the revered Charger name on a 4 door sedan with automatic tranny only. Thats pretty sad. In my opinion. To me that is a lot more negative then GM calling the Holden Monaro a GTO. At least monaro meets the specs, 2 door midsized car with manual or automatic tranny and pwrful V8 engine only. Meets all the specs the GTO's of 1964 to 1974 did! Now we have the hood scoops too! As some say, it looks like a Grand Am. A Grand AM with a 400hp Vette LS2 motor under the hood. Sounds good to me !!

    Too bad GM can't bring the Holden lineup here from Austrailia. They have 4 door versions of the GTO, El Camino styles, etc. Commodore. It's a shame that Holden makes GM's best interiors.
This discussion has been closed.