Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Pontiac GTO v. Subaru STi
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Bob
Bob
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:
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.
Peace.
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):
http://cobbtuning.com/sti/images/ap-sti-stage2.gif
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.
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.
-juice
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
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...
-juice
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).
-juice
Your numbers are way off.
-juice
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/100430/page001.html
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."
Bob
-juice
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.
-juice
THANK YOU!
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.
You can probably do a search on Car&Driver.com.
-juice
SACRILEGE!!!!!
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.
-juice
-juice
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
Tires are the most important ingredient, followed by the driver, followed by the drive configuration.
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.
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.
-juice
U WONT SEE US SLIDE OFF THE ROAD, YOU WILL SEE US SLIDE RIGHT PASS YOU IN A BLINK OF A EYE BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO SLOWWWWWWWWWWW,
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".
Bill C.
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.
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.
FrEa|<
True. But so is Ford, they were rated as Junk bond status just like GM.
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.