Last post on May 06, 2008 at 8:58 AM
You are in the Subaru Impreza
What is this discussion about?
Pontiac GTO, Subaru Impreza WRX STi, Coupe
#5 of 471 Re: Pontiac GTO vs. Subaru STi Comparison Test [sputterguy]
Jun 02, 2005 (5:31 am)
Yeah, the 300. In all honesty, if I was gonna be buying a car in the $30k range, it would probably be a 300C. But I haven't driven one yet.
#6 of 471 Re: Pontiac GTO vs. Subaru STi Comparison Test [kevm14]
Jun 02, 2005 (7:11 am)
Don't get me wrong kev, I'm not knocking the 300C. I'm questioning the 65mph for it through the slalom. The GTO leisurely strolled through the slalom at 60, and the STi sliced through it at 66. At that point Karl claimed that was 2mph faster than the Corvette. Which means the Corvette takes it at 64. See what I'm getting at. The 300C is not going through the slalom faster than a Corvette.
#7 of 471 Re: Pontiac GTO vs. Subaru STi Comparison Test [sputterguy]
Jun 02, 2005 (11:02 am)
Check out the following forum:
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.
#8 of 471 Re: Pontiac GTO vs. Subaru STi Comparison Test [kevm14]
Jun 02, 2005 (3:32 pm)
That's hard to believe...
May 27, 2005 (11:39 am)
I couldn't find the comparison but it doesn't matter. It was a ridiculous comparison. The STi is 500 pounds lighter and has all wheel drive I believe. Not a comparison at all. Just another chance to put down the GTO. Whatever, we are used to it. But, as bender just put it 'first the Mustang and now the STi'. Fine, now that both those cars beat the GTO, let's see them go at it. That would be a better comparison. Their weight is closer and they both claim 300hp. That seems more of a realistic matchup. Plus it would give you a chance to test out that solid rear axle. So come on you mustangers, tell Edmunds you want a comparison with the STi. Or maybe you don't want to go up against a smaller, lighter car with similar hp?
#10 of 471 Re: GTO vs STi [sputterguy]
May 27, 2005 (12:14 pm)
Article is HERE
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."
#11 of 471 Re: GTO vs STi [benderofbows]
May 27, 2005 (3:59 pm)
I read the article. I don't think it had anything bad to say about the IRS, only the usual litany of a soft ride and slow steering. Edmunds did not have to run it against the STi to come up with that.
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...
#12 of 471 Re: GTO vs STi [sputterguy]
May 28, 2005 (1:57 pm)
"I read the article. I don't think it had anything bad to say about the IRS"
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...
...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!
#13 of 471 Re: GTO vs STi [benderofbows]
May 28, 2005 (2:30 pm)
Well then explain why no other reviews have said such nonsense about the suspension. Explain why the GTO pulled a better number than the Mustang in R&T's figure 8 test. Explain how a similar car called a Monaro was compared to a M5 and said to have similar handling, but all of a sudden it cannot outhandle a Toyota Solara now that it has a Pontiac badge on it? I cannot wait until June 12th when they put these cars on a real race track and we get to watch the Mustang get spanked.
#14 of 471 Re: GTO vs STi [benderofbows]
May 28, 2005 (6:01 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.