Last post on Apr 18, 2008 at 4:24 PM
You are in the Subaru Impreza
What is this discussion about?
Subaru Impreza WRX STi, Ford Shelby GT500, Car Comparisons, Sedan
Comparison Test: Ford Mustang Shelby GT vs. 2008 Subaru Impreza WRX STI - So why compare two cars whose target customers are so different? Well, first of all, they cost the same. The STI is slightly pricier at $39,440, only marginally more than the $39,180 Shelby. With as-tested prices within $300 of each other, the reality of cross-shopping these two on price alone isn't an arguable point. (more)
#1 of 96 Article Comments -
by Karen@Edmunds HOST
Dec 17, 2007 (9:49 am)
Look no further than the hood scoops on the 2008 Subaru Impreza WRX STI and 2007 Ford Shelby GT to find the fundamental difference in their personalities. It's here that both cars' sense of purpose and ability is displayed prominently and publicly as a statement of their true character.
Post your comments about the article here!
Comparison Test: Ford Mustang Shelby GT vs. 2008 Subaru Impreza WRX STI
#2 of 96 Re: Article Comments - [KarenS]
Dec 17, 2007 (9:55 am)
Oh no, not again!
It's going to be the same thing as the STI vs. GTO thread, apples vs. oranges.
All I will say is a buyer will have a clear preference for one or the other, and I doubt this test will sway anyone either way.
#3 of 96 one thing ford has
Dec 17, 2007 (10:59 am)
YOU CAN GET A CONVERTABLE!
#4 of 96 Re: one thing ford has [chasbike]
Dec 17, 2007 (2:36 pm)
It's a timeless arguement. RWD muscle car v. road course handling all weather car. They have almost nothing in common and really wouldn't appeal to the same set of people IMHO.
For boulevard cruising pumping out vanilla ice, I'd say go for the stang.
For tearing up the road course or mountain roads, the subaru will be the one to have.
Heck you can't even get an independent rear suspension on the mustang, even the GTO had that!
#5 of 96 Re: Article Comments - [KarenS]
Dec 17, 2007 (3:59 pm)
Of course the only thing they really have in common is price and fun factor. After that, I agree with the previous posters, "apples and oranges". No mention of practicality, reliability, insurance, maintance or resale. Just another "dog and pony show" article posted to incite juvenile arguments. It is interesting that before the original WRX, it was Subaru who used to be ridiculed for the fake scoops.
#6 of 96 Why a Shelby? It's a $13K badge and paint job.
Dec 17, 2007 (6:44 pm)
Do a test of a Mustang GT at $26K vs something else for $26K. See how the results come out then. The Shelby is a badge and paint job and not much else.
#7 of 96 I've seen faster stock Mustangs
Dec 17, 2007 (6:50 pm)
Whats interesting is MT got a 13.5 second 1/4 mile time out of a 2005 Mustang GT with the new 5 spd. automatic. I've always noticed the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are a little slow on Edmunds, no matter what the vehicle. Every once in a while, they aren't, but I would say more often than not, other auto rags show faster test numbers. Interesting.
Personally, I think the Shelby Mustang is a huge waste of money at almost 40 large. I really like the regular Mustang GT - one of the coolest cars out there for the money, and at the moment, I'm seriously considering taking advantage of the low financing and just getting one (or maybe a VW GTI, not sure). As far as the Shelby goes, adding a lot of badging, and some better brakes to a regular Mustang and charging $10k more is not a good value at all. I could probably take a stock Mustang GT, add $10k worth of performance parts to the motor and run in the mid to low 12s, if not faster in the 1/4, easily embarrassing a stock STI. Hey, I think the Subie is super cool, but I think a modified Mustang GT would be a lot faster in the 1/4, and that would be more fun for me personally. Now, to make it handle and feel like an STI, that's a different story, and probably couldn't be done, its not in the Mustang's nature. Well, I say I enjoy 1/4 mile performance more, and deem it more important, but who's to say why I really can't get the VW GTI out of my head? Hmmm? Oh well.
#8 of 96 Just my opinion
Dec 17, 2007 (7:00 pm)
While I agree that the STI is definitely a better performer, I have to say it's butt ugly. Most guys/gals that like fast cars, like hot looking fast cars, not goofy looking fast cars. Even if that car had another 100hp, I wouldn't be caught dead in it. Also, I think that specialty Mustangs (shelby gt500,gt and bullitt) are WAY too much for what they are.
#9 of 96 Re: Article Comments - [merrycynic]
Dec 18, 2007 (7:14 am)
Totally apples to oranges. However, I can attest to lots of experience driving both a muscle car and an AWD turbo. I have a 92 Mustang GT w/ 347 Stroker, supercharged and 487 hp. My best friend owns a Mazdaspeed6, one modded with engine management system, CAI, BOV and turbo back exhaust. He also has a 1970 Chevelle SS with a 396 bored to a 408 with 515hp. I must say that both muscle cars are down right scary! Scary in a fun way, and you get a feel of sheer power that throws you in your seat. The Mazdaspeed, on the other hand, gives you so much confidence on any road condition, or type. You can slam the throttle into corners and the car responds flawlesly. Totally different driving experiences.
I can see where the STi would be the most total fun to drive, where as muscle cars give you a total rush when you slam on the throttle, but, you are limited in the conditions you can drive it in.
#10 of 96 Re: Article Comments - [aviboy97]
Dec 18, 2007 (8:43 am)
Doesn't matter how the Subaru performs - It could outperform an F355, I still wouldn't buy it.
It looks like one of those ridiculous rice burners that you see on Too Fast, Too Stupid, etc...
I'm sorry, but the look/image that the car gives you is SO important!