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
Pontiac GTO v. Subaru STi
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
First the Mustang, now a WRX...
ALSO, with all of this talk about the suspensions (IRS vs Solid), here is my favorite excerpt from the article, concerning the GTOs handling:
"Wobbly suspension...
more engine than the suspension can keep up with...
Big tires, rear-wheel drive and a fully independent suspension can only do so much when they're trying to herd in 3,725 pounds of sheet metal. At moderate speeds the big Goat is stable enough, but push harder and its limitations aren't hard to find.
Driven back-to-back with the Subaru, the GTO feels massive, with slow turn-in and excessive body roll...
Slalom testing confirmed the GTO's clumsiness as it rumbled through the cones at a leisurely 60 mph. The STi knifed through it at 66.7 mph, a Toyota Camry Solara can do it at 60.9 mph.
Dial out the body roll, install a better shifter and swap in a beefier set of tires and this Pontiac could hold its own. As it is now, it's a great motor in need of a better supporting cast."
I mainly used the quotes from the article to point out that the Edmunds editors consider the oft-cited, highly vaunted, much lauded fully independent rear suspension of the GTO to actually be inadequate! Of course overall weight and slow steering were also factors, but they made the point several times that the suspension setup is lacking. Very interesting, considering all the posts about the Mustangs' solid rear, which appears to actually help the Mustang to handle better.
"I couldn't find the article, but it doesn't matter. It was a ridiculous comparison."
Go actually read the article before you call it a ridiculous comparison. Another quote:
"Although drastically different in their design and execution, the 2005 Pontiac GTO and the 2005 Subaru WRX STi both employ this time-tested formula. Think about it. Subaru took its lowly Impreza, added a turbocharged engine, a stiffer suspension and a little extra bodywork and, suddenly, every male under the age of 25 is trading in his girlfriend for one. Sounds like a modern-day GTO to us.
The new GTO takes a more traditional route. Like its legendary ancestors, it's a coupe with classic muscle car credentials like a big V8, rear-wheel drive and a long hood/short deck design. Although it's built in Australia, it's so American it makes Tommy Franks look like a Communist.
Sure, conventional wisdom says if you like one, you wouldn't even consider the other, but we think otherwise."
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=105773?flushCache=true
You should read it; they actually had many complimentary things to say about the GTO as well has some differing opinions for some of the other editors.
"Just another chance to put down the GTO. Whatever, we are used to it."
At least you didn't use the "conspiracy" word. For that, I salute you.
"So come on you mustangers, tell Edmunds you want a comparison with the STi."
Personally, I think they should do a bigger roundup of cars: they did 2 in this test (GTO vs. STi), and 3 in a previous test (Mustang, RX-8, 350z). They need to lump all the RWD/AWD performance cars in the 25-35k bracket together in one big mosh pit and let'em all have at it. Of course, once you include the 'gotta have it' factor, is there any doubt who'll win? :P
I still say it's ridiculous. Your quote confirms it, "drastically different in their design and execution". Another line from the article calls them polar opposites. And that's right. The STi is the last thing on earth I would want to drive. Why hook up two totally different cars. I think the guy who wrote this was actually thinking about the RoadRunner. Yes, I had one of those, it was my second car. No padding, no insulation, bench seats and the cheesiest interior I'd seen up to that time. Oh and you think the GTO has a shifter problem. How about the three foot stick in the RR. Of course it did have Hurst linkage which was cool. The old GTOs were a little more upscale than that. And it makes a stripped Mustang sound like luxury car next to the STi. Yuk. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth...
The article didn't say anything bad about the IRS? I thought it had plenty to say about the GTOs suspension. I quote again:
"[Soft] suspension... makes for a livable daily driver, but dilutes some of its muscle car character...
Wobbly suspension...
...more engine than the suspension can keep up with...
Handling in Short Supply...
push harder and its limitations aren't hard to find...
excessive body roll...
Slalom testing confirmed the GTO's clumsiness as it rumbled through the cones at a leisurely 60 mph... a Toyota Camry Solara can do it at 60.9 mph...
Dial out the body roll... and this Pontiac could hold its own. As it is now, it's a great motor in need of a better supporting cast."
I just point this out again because, judging by all of those comments, the solid rear in the Mustang works better than the IRS in the GTO (no such handling comments from Mustang reviewers), so... end of discussion as to why the Mustang has a solid rear!
"bucket seats aren't big on comfort but new higher friction cloth trim..." Oh yeah, that's what I want, uncomfortable seats with higher friction cloth trim, whatever that is.
"The seating position isn't perfect".
"shifter ...annoying tendency to float while in gear". Don't know what that means.
"...nasty low end drag" and "...understeer emerges".
"ride quality positively punishing". Oh yeah, that's what I want for my $33K, a punishing ride.
"raspy blat, blat, blat..." refering to the exhaust.
"not everyone agreed on its appeal".
This is the car that the GTO lost another one to. Give me a break. Moving on...
"Compared to the frantic delivery of the Subaru, the Pontiac V8 feels like a Lexus".
The overall assessment: One of the best V8's ever made, comfortable enough to drive every day, interior design looks worthy of the price tag.
And finally, "If a 2005 Pontiac GTO pulls up next to you at a local stop light, we suggest paying it some respect". I guess that doesn't mean you guys though.
So the GTO is a powerful, refined automobile, with a soft comfortable ride. Oh the shame of it.
I don't know what GM was shooting for with the GTO. Maybe the suspension was dialed in more for what the Australians prefer? Still, you can't argue the GTO's engine overall "goodness". Same can be said for the Mustang's 4.6L motor, though.
Monaro (GTO) compared very similar to the M5 in Austrailia and competes with it. But you are right, all of a sudden since we get it with a Pontiac badge some people bash it, interesting. My GTO handles just as well or better then my Old BMW 5 series did, go figure? GTO was a lot more reliable then BMW too in my experiences.
June 12th should be interesting. I have respect for both cars, Mustang-GTO etc. STI I have respect for, but I would never pay that much $$ for what is essentially an economy car Impreza.
I have mentioned before but will again, I have tremendous respect for the GTO, especially "if [you] pull up next to one at a stoplight..." because that is what it does best evidently.
I know, yet another IRS/solid rear rehash.....Anyone who believes that a solid axle can deliver the same level of performance as an IRS and still maintain decent ride quality should pick-up a book on chassis engineering and study it . Unsprung weight and roll center height quickly becomes a limiting factor with a solid axle.
The only advantage a solid rear axle has over an IRS is lighter weight, cheaper cost and same or better at STRAIGHT line, 1/4 mile acceleration.
just because Ford screwed up the last IRS in the 1999-2004 Cobra which was a patch in half-baked job, doesnt mean they should give up on it. You wonder if they thought "well, we cant design a proper IRS, so let just stick to solid axles from now on"
Tai-Tang head engineer of the Mustang wanted an IRS, but Ford told him no, to cut down costs. True story. Notice how Tang has changed his tune. He now contradicts his 1st interview, LOL!
The GTO also weighs nearly 300 pounds more then Mustang. But still does a good job at handling. Mustang barely beat it out in C&D comparo.
I've driven both. I agree with him.
And if IRS is so great, then why did the Edmunds' editors have so much to complain about with the GTOs' suspension? (Please re-read above quotes from recent comparison article).
The editor Karl drove an SRT-8 through the slalom in 65.2mph! I just thought that would be fun to mention.
But, as you say, muscle cars are back and they are very good this go round.
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.
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?
Hmmmm.
But I agree - how could they even think of comparing them.
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.
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.
Right on man Right on
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.
Rick
For 'everyday' use a 4-door is much better. It also have a 'usable' trunk.
About the 0-60 times and 1/4 mile. Edmunds never abuses their rides. Check any other mag, and you'll see 0-60 times for the STi all under 5 seconds. 4.8-4.9 is very common.
I used to own an Evo, and it was the same thing here, they pulled 5.something whereas motortrend pulled a 4.69 or something. It's like they don't rev up and clutch dump (although abusive) like the other mags do.
For 'everyday' use a 4-door is much better. It also have a 'usable' trunk.
Have you ridden in both? If you cannot tell the ride quality difference between the two, you are missing some nerves in your back. Which may be the case if you owned an Evo before
Also, 4 doors or not, the back seats of the Evo have no where near the comfort and room of the GTO.
The GTO is more relaxed, while still posessing the ability to get up and run when prodded.
-Adam
Wrong forum for the Mustang comparo, along with wrong information since the GTO beats the Mustang in all performance categories minus a couple useless magazine skidpad and slalom rating.
Otherwise you are right, the GTO is a cruiser and the STI is a performance car. Why they were compared, I shall never know.
I know which one I'd pick to do smokey burnouts in. ;-)
I'd go with the STi as a daily driver because I need 4 doors and the versatility of AWD (with a 2nd set of tires too!).
-juice
Please post links of all these "spinning bearings" stories. In fact, I would be happy if you posted just one valid one for any modern LSx engine. And where are you coming up with the crap about them lowering the redline because of it? Your STI engine redlines a whole 500rpm higher than my LS2. The LS7 redlines at 7000rpms. Any more than that is going to be useless on a pushrod engine anyways as you would have driveability and emmissions problems on factory cars until they can implement cam phasing.
I'm sure you get enough people with, for example, a 98 2.5RS with the gold wheels, who think their cars are just as good as yours. That would irritate me, unless they were cool. For some reason, I associate 2.5RS with poseur.