Ask the Car People.SM


Pontiac GTO v. Subaru STi

471 messages,  Last post on May 06, 2008 at 8:58 AM

You are in the Pontiac GTO Forum.

What is this discussion about? Pontiac GTO, Subaru Impreza WRX STi, Coupe

Messages Page 3 of 48

#14 of 471 Re: GTO vs STi [benderofbows] by sputterguy

May 28, 2005 (6:01 pm)

Replying to: benderofbows (May 28, 2005 1:57 pm)
Here we go again. You were mighty selective about the quotes you chose. I realize now you were just refering to the suspension but it came off sounding much worse. Let me select some quotes about the car that won.
 
"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.

#15 of 471 Re: GTO vs STi [benderofbows] by graphicguy

May 29, 2005 (9:58 am)

Replying to: benderofbows (May 28, 2005 1:57 pm)
bend....when I was test driving the GTOs, handling was my biggest complaint. Driving the Mustang on the same day as the GTO and the handling differences become apparent.
 
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.

#17 of 471 Re: GTO vs STi [sensai] by 442man

May 31, 2005 (6:22 am)

Replying to: sensai (May 28, 2005 2:30 pm)
I would never compare or cross shop a front drive mundane Solara to a GTO or Mustang. Best the Solara does is low to mid 7's with optional V6, with the std 4 banger its 8 to 9 seconds. Not much performance for me anyway. Remember a top of line Solara is $30k+.
 
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.

#18 of 471 Re: GTO vs STi [benderofbows] by 442man

May 31, 2005 (6:34 am)

Replying to: benderofbows (May 27, 2005 12:14 pm)
I would never cross-shop the STI against the GTO or vice versa. Strange comparo in a way. They are two different cars. Sorry but I would never pay $30k+ for what is essentially a Impreza economy car. Don't care how much 300+ hp it makes. All the kids, 25 and younger seem to be buying them and modding them. Nasty sound to me whenever I hear one. The big fart can exhaust which sounds like a lawn mower on steroids, but I guess the newer kids like that sound. I don't. My opinion. Not to mention the GTO is much more refined of a car, ride-sound etc. Ever ride in a WRX? Feels like there are no shocks. To each their own.

#19 of 471 Re: GTO vs STi [sputterguy] by benderofbows

May 31, 2005 (6:41 am)

Replying to: sputterguy (May 28, 2005 6:01 pm)
Sputter; yes as I stated, I just used the quotes as relevant to the "IRS vs. Solid" suspension discussion. Sure you can pull negative quotes about the Subaru as well, of course each and every car made has downsides, e.g. price, room, etc. I was only "selective" in my quotes about the GTO as related to handling. Some posters here continue to harp on the fact that the GTO has it and the Mustang does not, and speak like it (the GTOs' IRS) is somehow superior. Every article I've read about the GTO which was written post-2005 Mustang gives the nod to the Mustang in handling overall.
 
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.

#20 of 471 IRS vs solid rear[benderofbows] by 442man

May 31, 2005 (10:01 am)

Replying to: benderofbows (May 31, 2005 6:41 am)
....." (the GTOs' IRS) is somehow superior.".....
 
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.

#21 of 471 Re: IRS vs solid rear[benderofbows] [442man] by graphicguy

May 31, 2005 (11:09 am)

Replying to: 442man (May 31, 2005 10:01 am)
Hmmmm....I never heard Tang contradict anything. As he's stated many times, he'd put the Mustang's solid rear engineering up against IRS. He went onto say based on how well the Mustang's suspension turned out, the added cost, weight and complexity of an IRS was not worth it.
 
I've driven both. I agree with him.

#22 of 471 Re: IRS vs solid rear[benderofbows] [442man] by benderofbows

May 31, 2005 (11:40 am)

Replying to: 442man (May 31, 2005 10:01 am)
Well, if the solid rear is so bad, then why are the reviews of Mustangs' handling so good?
 
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).

#23 of 471 Re: IRS vs solid rear[benderofbows] [442man] [graphicguy] by 442man

Jun 01, 2005 (6:35 am)

Replying to: graphicguy (May 31, 2005 11:09 am)
Tang originally said in his first interview that he wanted the IRS. but the bean counters, "accountants" at Ford told him NO!!! Then again they perfected the Solid Rear to be very good BUT!!!! Rumor now says that the mustangs Solid rear axle cost more then an IRS> They spent alot of $$ on it. Kudos to the Stang. As I have remained I love both cars. Muscle cars to the Extreme.

Messages Page 3 of 48

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement