SVT_MAN Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 No surprise here since Edmunds.com is a lousy place, but the Subaru did beat it in many objective tests. More proof that Ford needs to up the ante. One annoying thing is that the Shelby GT is hideously over-priced for the hardware you get. I would have preferred it had they tested a Bullitt against the Subaru. I think it would have fared better. I guess this does proove one thing though: Looks sell. Test is here: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...hotopanel..1.*# I'd never buy a Subaru since it is ugly, but it is quick ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Rather pointless comparo. Might as well put a Corvette Z06 against an F450. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Rather pointless comparo. Might as well put a Corvette Z06 against an F450. case of efficiency and light weiight ( sounds Lotus' like) against muscle....hey read the new M3 is 3912lbs?......anyone? sounds weighty to me...and EVERYONE here says the mustang is a porker! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 case of efficiency and light weiight ( sounds Lotus' like) against muscle....hey read the new M3 is 3912lbs?......anyone? sounds weighty to me...and EVERYONE here says the mustang is a porker! Case of -who cares-, IMO; these cars do not compete for buyers. Period. End of story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 (edited) Rather pointless comparo. Might as well put a Corvette Z06 against an F450. Mustang sells 160,000 to Subaru WRX - ???? If Ford were into Turbo AWD Fusion there would be some connection but I doubt a substantial market exists for such a car. But then again, unless you try you never know.... Edited December 18, 2007 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 (edited) Case of -who cares-, IMO; these cars do not compete for buyers. Period. End of story. wholeheartedly agreed....Mazdaspeed 3, Missing bitzies Evo...more relevent comparison....where they come up with these I don't know... Edited December 18, 2007 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Missing bitzies I prefer "bits o' sushi". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 How incredibly cheap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 How incredibly cheap. yup....NOT a fan of Carrols mis-aligned bling tack ons and 12k signature....gimme a Bullit any day of the week... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT_MAN Posted December 18, 2007 Author Share Posted December 18, 2007 (edited) Those Shelby GTs have the ugliest tack-ons ever. I can't believe Carrol is willing to put his name on that crap. Hood scoops are lame anyway. I wish Mustangs would make their hood scoops functional if they insist on having them. (Comes from owner of 99 GT with ugly hoodscoop ..) Edited December 18, 2007 by SVT_MAN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueblood Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 (edited) The biggest problem with the Shelby GT is it uses the truck tires off the regular GT's that have no traction, put some real sticky high performance rubber on it and it probably would have beaten the Sti in some of the tests. For the money, all Shelby GT's should have good rubber.. Edited December 18, 2007 by Blueblood Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT_MAN Posted December 18, 2007 Author Share Posted December 18, 2007 Mustang sells 160,000 to Subaru WRX - ???? If Ford were into Turbo AWD Fusion there would be some connection but I doubt a substantial market exists for such a car. But then again, unless you try you never know.... As RichardJensen mentioned, they do appeal to entirely different markets. That said, it pretty much proves that the Mustang is getting its butt kicked by cars that are more practical. That is a bit of an embarassment IMO. I think the Shelby GTs are poorly constructed and are an embarassment to the namesake. I think a lot of owners echo this sentiment. Additionally, every article I read complains about misalignments and such. Why would you buy one? You can spend 1/2 as much and get a better looking and sounding car. The only thing I like on the entire car is the grille ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Those Shelby GTs have the ugliest tack-ons ever. I can't believe Carrol is willing to put his name on that crap. Hood scoops are lame anyway. I wish Mustangs would make their hood scoops functional if they insist on having them. (Comes from owner of 99 GT with ugly hoodscoop ..) But those cars had much better looking hoods to begin with. You would think that for 12K you could get a unique hood...or anything unique. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 How incredibly cheap. Did those (or any) Mustangs have a shaker? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT_MAN Posted December 18, 2007 Author Share Posted December 18, 2007 Did those (or any) Mustangs have a shaker? No, Shelby is too cheap to put a Shaker hood on it. Apparently he doesn't care about eroding the Mustang's reputation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Case of -who cares-, IMO; these cars do not compete for buyers. Period. End of story. You have a point, but — "The STI is fitted with 13.0-inch rotors and four-piston Brembo calipers up front, while the Mustang makes due with 11.5-inch rotors and two-piston calipers. Perhaps an even greater factor in our single-stop test are each car's tires. The lighter STI's 245/40R18 Dunlop SP Sport 600 summer tires are far stickier than the Shelby's 235/50ZR18 BFGoodrich g-Force KDWS all-season tires." For what the Shelby costs and weighs, the brakes need improvement, and it would probably cost Ford another $500. The Subaru, though lighter, has bigger, better brakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 No, Shelby is too cheap to put a Shaker hood on it. Apparently he doesn't care about eroding the Mustang's reputation. In all fairness...would you? Espiscially when extremely foolish people are willing to plunk down 12K for some stickers and a signature. Motor Trend reported that, after the stripes are applied, it takes two men only 5 hours to "transform" a normal GT into a Shelby GT. I don't know about you, but if I pay 12K for performance mods...it damn well better take longer than 5 hours to install. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 the Mustang is getting its butt kicked by cars that are more practical Pffft. Puhlease. Friend of mine just bought a late model WRX, and it's as tiny a 4 seater as you can find outside of an Aveo. Heck, I bet rear seat room is only marginally better than the Shelby. The Subie may be a lot of things the Mustang ain't, but practical sure as heck isn't one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueblood Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 You have a point, but — "The STI is fitted with 13.0-inch rotors and four-piston Brembo calipers up front, while the Mustang makes due with 11.5-inch rotors and two-piston calipers. Perhaps an even greater factor in our single-stop test are each car's tires. The lighter STI's 245/40R18 Dunlop SP Sport 600 summer tires are far stickier than the Shelby's 235/50ZR18 BFGoodrich g-Force KDWS all-season tires." For what the Shelby costs and weighs, the brakes need improvement, and it would probably cost Ford another $500. The Subaru, though lighter, has bigger, better brakes. The Mustang GT uses a 12.4 inch front rotor, Edmunds shouldn't be making mistakes like that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 GT Falcons use 14" Brembos w/6 pot calipers on the front and 13" rotors at the rear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moby Vic Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 MSRP for a 2008 Subaru WRX STI is $35,460. What's the MSRP for a Shelby GT? And if you want to make fun of hood scoops, is a WRX STI the best positive example? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT_MAN Posted December 18, 2007 Author Share Posted December 18, 2007 (edited) Pffft. Puhlease. Friend of mine just bought a late model WRX, and it's as tiny a 4 seater as you can find outside of an Aveo. Heck, I bet rear seat room is only marginally better than the Shelby. The Subie may be a lot of things the Mustang ain't, but practical sure as heck isn't one of them. First of all - disclaimer here: I own a 99 Mustang GT. Huge Mustang fan, but the Mustang is just plain not a practical car in most senses of the word. It's for all reasonable purposes a 2 seater with some storage space in back (which I use quite often). Good luck with the Mustang in the snow. Good luck with the Mustang when you need to haul something. I've fit a full-size cooktop microwave in the backseat of my 99, but that was purely lucky that it fit. The Subaru has 4 doors too, so you can not only sit in the back - your passengers can get in there easier as well. And, like it or not, a hatchback IS more practical. Especially in the Subaru's configuration. My point isn't to bash on the Mustang. It's a great car, but I'm playing devil's advocate here. Saying that the Mustang is "good enough" is what got Ford into trouble with the rest of their cars. Although the Mustang is an icon, I think it is dangerous to make the mistake of thinking that it will always sell on its brand image and name alone. Especially when these riveted-on fake hood-scooped "top line" Shelbys are representing the brand as a whole. It's pretty sad that a "special" Mustang has worse build quality than a regular one. And, I know you can say "Boo hoo, Shelby is the one who screwed it up." That doesn't matter. Shelby or not, poorly fitted parts on a Mustang erode the brand IMO. In all fairness...would you? Espiscially when extremely foolish people are willing to plunk down 12K for some stickers and a signature. Motor Trend reported that, after the stripes are applied, it takes two men only 5 hours to "transform" a normal GT into a Shelby GT. I don't know about you, but if I pay 12K for performance mods...it damn well better take longer than 5 hours to install. See my words above your quote. It's stupid for Shelby to make a quick profit right now if it isn't putting the brand in a position to maintain profits in the future. I'm not saying it's that bad, but dang, this is not a good "leader" for the Mustang brand. IMO, if you want to see quality modified Mustangs look at Roush. Edited December 18, 2007 by SVT_MAN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 The Mustang GT uses a 12.4 inch front rotor, Edmunds shouldn't be making mistakes like that... And yet they are.......? For all this ranting about the public demanding quality cars, we, collectively, have come to accept incredibly crappy reporting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 (edited) My point exactly from the other day. The Fast & Furious street racer idolizes a Subbie STi or Evo. Okay, so it's quicker. Its got boost. It's got AWD. Who cares? If point A to point B is what you care about, then you're missing the point. It's how you get there and the Mustang gets there just about as quick. So what if its not as fast as Subaru's purposefully built top-end hatchback rocket? I like the American feel of a long hood where I can see most of it. I don't like expansive dash tops. I understand the jittery Hurst shifter at high RPM. I dig the basso exhaust over the wind up of the turbines on the Subbie. The youth with copious amounts of help from the media are being brainwashed against American muscle with articles like this one. If somebody likes the grasp of the STi's AWD system and can stomach the look, so be it. However, this just proves a lot of what I was saying. The Japanese are steering our own trends and methodically convincing us that their automotive ideals are leading edge. That's one reason I like the Panther quite honestly. Its the anti-Camry and the anti-Accord. It gets the job done with American ingenuity...albeit through the Canadian assembly plant, but you understand the point I'm sure. Its a American-inspired car with RWD and V8. Its a car that can get by without any influences from the Japanese auto market and recalls all the good things that Ford was doing before they let it slip away. The car is better now than it was 10 years ago. Certainly, the Mustang is, but because of lamebrain comparisons like these, it gives the Mustang a black eye. Give me a choice between the Shelby GT and the Subaru WRX STi...I dare you. Have fun with that little Subbie. Nevermind wishing me the same with the Shelby, because I guarantee I wouldn't look back. Edited December 18, 2007 by Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 (edited) The Subaru has 4 doors too, so you can not only sit in the back - your passengers can get in there easier as well. And, like it or not, a hatchback IS more practical. Especially in the Subaru's configuration. My point isn't to bash on the Mustang. It's a great car, but I'm playing devil's advocate here. Saying that the Mustang is "good enough" is what got Ford into trouble with the rest of their cars. Although the Mustang is an icon, I think it is dangerous to make the mistake of thinking that it will always sell on its brand image and name alone. So the Mustang should be a 4 door AWD hatchback? Obviously, OBVIOUSLY, any "Mustang" as 'practical' (snort) as a Subie WRX would -not- be a Mustang. It would be a travesty if it bore the "Mustang" name. And trust me, I know you love your Mustangs, but have you ever spent any quality time with a WRX type thing? -NOT- practical. If the non -STI- editions are any point of reference, they ride about as well as a conestoga wagon, they're noisy, and the back seats, while easier to -get into- are, once the doors are shut, about as bad as the Mustang, a quick check shows the WRX with a whopping 2.5" legroom advantage (33.5" vs 31.0"), or not enough vs. not enough. Whatever can be said about the Mustang's deficiencies should not be said in reference to a totally different car. Frankly, I think the Mustang needs a better interior (quieter/better materials), and that's about it. Make IRS an option for people that want to throw money down the toilet--or people who think their last name is Andretti and their local expressway a race track, but for the love of Pete, don't make it AWD, and don't make it some Subie wannabe. Edited December 18, 2007 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.