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)
#77 of 96 Re: WRX vs Mustang [paisan]
Jan 05, 2008 (8:18 pm)
Blue hairs drive everyting....fact is, that might be the only people who can afford the insurance. Take a look at Vette owners.
BTW, no intention to sounding condensending....it is the internet, hard to type emotions or read sarcasm.
#78 of 96 Re: WRX vs Mustang [paisan]
Jan 05, 2008 (8:38 pm)
Who cares about options? We are talking about car vs car for performance. Mustang GT's can be bought all day long for way less then an STI. Perhaps it is supply and demand, but it all starts with an MSRP.
Ford will sell 200,000 GT's this year. I believe the STI production is more like under 10,000. Obviously the buyers are different in many ways between the two. I would doubt that many potential buyers even consider both models.
The STI vs GT-500 is a much better comparison because the price tags are more similar. However, the stupid GT-500's are still going for $20k over sticker....again, that old supply vs. demand thing.
That being said, the market has determined that the GT-500 is a more desirable car.....at least for the moment.
The one thing that is desirable about a mass-produced, plentiful car is the availability of modifications. The Mustang after-market is huge. Mods are cheap and plenty of power is on the table.
A GT500 for about $1500 more will produce 650 hp.
The warranty argument is naturally valid. However, those that mod generally don't care about warranties. Or, you can have the dealer install, pay more, but in some cases still retain factory warranty.
Worse thing that can happen is a blown motor, right? Finding a lightly used GT motor for $700 - $1000 is a pretty easy find.
So, I guess if you are looking for a performance car that is 4 seasons and don't intend to mod that much, then the Subie gets the vote. Otherwise, Mustangs are a lot less expensive to be made to go in a hurry.
Many Mustang owners that I know, don't use them as their daily driver. Though many do and naturally the Subie would be better suited especially if you live in the snow belt.
Laslty, don't get so sensitive about my comments. They are cars....nothing more. The forum is about comparing the GT-500 to the STI....I would choose the GT-500, but I would still not want to be caught in a race vs an STI on a country, hilly road. Throw in some rain....and the race even gets more out of whack. But, then again, I don't race unless it is at a drag strip and they close down in the rain.
#79 of 96 Re: WRX vs Mustang [waterdr]
Jan 06, 2008 (5:19 am)
But, then again, I don't race unless it is at a drag strip and they close down in the rain.
Goes back to the apples to oranges thing.
I only race on a road race course, which is curvy, hilly, etc. and they don't close down in the rain.
Different strokes for different folks.
#80 of 96 Re: WRX vs Mustang [paisan]
Jan 06, 2008 (7:06 am)
One of the reasons actually why I like to watch Formula One and not NASCAR.
#81 of 96 Re: WRX vs Mustang [waterdr]
Jan 06, 2008 (7:00 pm)
Yeah I've become fond of the Rolex racing as well, since they run in all weather. Great to watch tire-strategy in changing conditions.
By the way if you are an F1 fan c'mon over to the Motorsports section where I'm a host and post up when next season rolls around.
#82 of 96 Re: WRX vs Mustang [waterdr]
Jan 07, 2008 (7:55 am)
LOL, you think this is the same as a Shelby Cobra?
More like a Shelby CSX.
This is a badge job, nothing special at all.
Heck, even the CSX got engine upgrades over the Shadow ES turbo.
#83 of 96 Re: WRX vs Mustang [ateixeira]
Jan 07, 2008 (8:07 am)
If you think a 5.4 motor with a super charger (vs a 4.6 w/o a blower), different tranny, suspension, seats, and some styling cues is "re-badging" then I would agree.
The GT-500 is WAY different then a stock GT.....even more so then the GT-500 was different then a stock Mustang all the way back in 1967.
As a Marketing Manager, the term "re-badge" is incorrect....."brand extension" would be more appropriate.
#84 of 96 Re: WRX vs Mustang [paisan]
Jan 07, 2008 (8:08 am)
Sounds cool...I am a real Formula novice, but would like to learn more. I enjoy watching the races.
#85 of 96 Re: WRX vs Mustang [waterdr]
Jan 07, 2008 (9:21 am)
This isn't a GT500, it's a Shelby GT.
Big, huge actually, difference.
#86 of 96 Re: WRX vs Mustang [ateixeira]
Jan 07, 2008 (9:28 am)
Well hell! My fault. I thought we were talking about the GT-500.
The Shelby GT (or CS) is just a stupid, re-badged GT that cost a bunch more money for really nothing. My comments to this point have been based on a GT-500. The CS is over-priced.