Jump to content

Shelby GT gets beaten by Subaru


SVT_MAN

Recommended Posts

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.

It's a hell of a lot more practical than the prancing pony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

It's a hell of a lot more practical than the prancing pony.

So says the guy who's never owned one or ridden in one.

 

The only 'practical' advantage of the WRX is its second set of doors. If you can think of a way to turn the Mustang into a sedan....................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you go right ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

I'm really not advocating that they turn a Mustang into a Subaru. Mustang needs to stay RWD, V8 powered in the GT model.

 

In terms of the Subaru STi, I don't doubt that the old Subarus were impractical and noisey inside. I haven't been in the new STi though. I've been in an old WRX, and while it wasn't fantastic, I didn't find it horrible. Two inches in the backseat doesn't seem like a lot until you actually sit back there. It's the difference between having your knees against the seat and having your knees ALMOST touching the seat.

 

I personally don't understand why Edmunds.com tested a Subaru against a Mustang - two totally different cars ... that said, I still maintain that it shows Ford needs to try harder on their hardware. They need better brakes (even if Edmunds.com did get the size wrong). They need better interiors. They need more power.

 

I know kids aren't the only people that buy Mustangs, but right now - bang-for-the-buck wise, I can see some kids going to the Subaru over the Mustang as an all around car.

 

By the way, Mustang should always be a 2 + 2 ... wasn't saying they should turn it into a sedan. That said, Ford DOES need a sedan that is sporty now.

Edited by SVT_MAN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you know this how?

Because you'd've been all 'I've lalalalalalalala' if you had any first hand experience.

 

I have.

 

I can tell you the only practicality comes from the second set of doors.

 

 

And once again, if you can figure out a way to turn the Mustang into a sedan so it can better compete with the WRX..............................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be my guest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because you'd've been all 'I've lalalalalalalala' if you had any first hand experience.

 

I have.

 

I can tell you the only practicality comes from the second set of doors.

And once again, if you can figure out a way to turn the Mustang into a sedan so it can better compete with the WRX..............................

Be my guest.

I've driven the WRX (2002) and ridden in one. Hell, the interior is almost as cheap as the Mustangs.

 

 

And where did I say that the Mustang should compete with the WRX? All I said was that it is a more practical car...which it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I said was that it is a more practical car...which it is.

No, you said it was "a hell of a lot more practical". I'm assuming you meant "hell" in its standard sense as a meaningless intensifier, as in "a whole lot more practical".

 

And, quite simply, it isn't "a whole lot more practical." At least not by this reasonable person's definition. Nor apparently, by your own definition, as you've subsequently said only that it is "more" practical, which, by virtue of its extra doors, it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They need more power.

Okay that's just silly. You can buy a 300hp Ford car for $25k. That's ridiculously cheap. RIDICULOUSLY cheap.

 

As far as Ford needing a sporty sedan, that's not the pressing need; the pressing need is where the bulk of the market is at, not in the fringes. For all the ink the WRX and such garner, this product is a marginal entry from an extremely marginal company.

 

Ford should be more concerned about what Honda and Toyota are doing, and what they can do to better please the 150k people a year that buy their Fusions.

 

And, with the 33.5 vs 31 rear seat dimension, it's a question of how far into the seat back your knees are pressed if you are an average adult. The Mustang will merely be slighly -more- uncomfortable. Both will make you miserable. The Mustang is execution by an axe, the WRX, execution by a guillotine; sure one's not as bad, but neither is all that appealing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you said it was "a hell of a lot more practical". I'm assuming you meant "hell" in its standard sense as a meaningless intensifier, as in "a whole lot more practical".

Well, since we are assuming...I assumed you meant, "If you can think of a way to turn the Mustang into a sedan....................you go right ahead" that it was an impossible feat to add two doors to the Mustang. If is as hard as you say it is, then, yes, the WRX IS a HELL of a lot more practical.

 

You can squeeze two people in the rear seat of a WRX without too much trouble. You can't in a Mustang.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assumed you meant, "If you can think of a way to turn the Mustang into a sedan....................you go right ahead" that it was an impossible feat to add two doors to the Mustang.

It's not impossible to add 2 extra doors to a Mustang. You just add the two extra doors, launch it as the 'new and improved Mustang', and then pull it off the market a year or so later because the sales just didn't turn out the way you thought they would.

 

Also, I see we're back to 'hell of a lot more practical'. Glad to see you're a man of conviction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

As has been said, comparing the Mustang and HP Subaru is like comparing apples and oranges. The Subaru is more like a tuner, rally car, and the Stang is a modern muscle car. They are totally different. And I think the Shelby Mustang is a bit faster than tested. Car and Driver turned a 0-60 time of 4.9 with a stock Mustang GT. That is plenty fast. Maybe the Shelby needs a tire with better grip. Yeah, to me the Shelby Mustang is a rip off. The stock Mustang GT is just as fast or faster, looks better, and costs a lot less. With some decent tires, the Shelby Mustang ought to be able to do a 4.7 0-60 time.

 

This was a stupid test comparing apples and oranges. If you want a tuner car, buy a tuner car like the Subaru...the Japanese AMC. If you want a sport coupe, buy yourself a Mustang or wait for the Camaro or Challenger. Simple as that. I hate tuner cars. They under full throttle sound like farting. I saw a Subie driver standing on his from low speed and yes it was scary looking from sidewalk. I wanted to run away. The Subie sounded awful under full throttle, the suspension looked like it was trying to pull itself apart, and the turbo boost must not be fun as it comes on and wrenches the car like that. Subies are for girls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay that's just silly. You can buy a 300hp Ford car for $25k. That's ridiculously cheap. RIDICULOUSLY cheap.

 

As far as Ford needing a sporty sedan, that's not the pressing need; the pressing need is where the bulk of the market is at, not in the fringes. For all the ink the WRX and such garner, this product is a marginal entry from an extremely marginal company.

 

Ford should be more concerned about what Honda and Toyota are doing, and what they can do to better please the 150k people a year that buy their Fusions.

 

And, with the 33.5 vs 31 rear seat dimension, it's a question of how far into the seat back your knees are pressed if you are an average adult. The Mustang will merely be slighly -more- uncomfortable. Both will make you miserable. The Mustang is execution by an axe, the WRX, execution by a guillotine; sure one's not as bad, but neither is all that appealing.

 

 

Yeah, Subies are a very marginal company. Boxy cars with boxy motors. Little, boxy wagons that females drive who are working on their PHD's. They are the new AMC's. They have their little, tiny, hard core following that will just keep trading in for a new Subie time after time no matter how old they get. Like grow up and get yourself a car. I know in Metro Detroit you are always about 30 miles away from nearest Subie Dealer, and still these people will buy them with Chevy or Ford Dealer block away. And Subies have had their share of recalls and their market share never tops 2% of market, and if anything is trending down. The Tribeca was a disaster. Boxy wagons that have no room between tailgate and back seat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i would agree the shelby gt needs some serious rethinking on the part of ford...sadly i love mustangs, but the shelbygt needs to go away..it is not worth 40 grand for that car....and yes the hood scoop looks like a jc whitney product from 1982..it is a piece of crap....this car should have been a gt350 and equipped as such...get with it ford....we are all not lame-o's out here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i would agree the shelby gt needs some serious rethinking on the part of ford...sadly i love mustangs, but the shelbygt needs to go away..it is not worth 40 grand for that car....and yes the hood scoop looks like a jc whitney product from 1982..it is a piece of crap....this car should have been a gt350 and equipped as such...get with it ford....we are all not lame-o's out here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lame Comparo... two different cars... sure the STI out ran the stang in drag during test, but like they said they where beating the fudge out of the sub.. the 4.6 stang can do that all day, doubt the Sub could... another thing, it has AWD.. doubt it spins that much, but some nicer tires on stang and it keeps up or is better... i actually think this shows the stang is pretty damn good considering a vehicle win very close hp and TQ number that is considerably lighter and has AWD with better tires can barely outrun the stang? Sub can afford to put all them goodies on the car, they dont make that many of them...

 

also, the sub's are nice yes.. but once i hear people say how they dominate the WRC i just give them the ford racing pamphlet i got from last year and now this... Foci win manu championship.. beat down on subby... maybe for should make a cool ass Foci rally car for the street... beat the subby on road along with race road too then.. sweeeeeet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all those that are bitching about the tires on the Mustang, what would you rather have if your driving your car every day? High Performance tires that suck in the rain and snow, or more Docile all season performance tires? I'll give up a .25 of a second or whatever to have safer tires on the street vs a high performance only tire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can squeeze two people in the rear seat of a WRX without too much trouble. You can't in a Mustang.

 

Oh come on, the back seat isn't THAT damn small in the Mustang. I can fit two people in the back of my Cobra just fine, and that has a SMALLER back seat than the S197. I wouldn't recommend it for a road trip, but for a quick jaunt down the highway, it's really not a big deal...unless I was friends with more NBA players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just my 2 cents... STis are fast, neat and id like to drive one , drifting and rallying, looks like fun. BUT my cousin has one and drives it like its meant to be, drifted, gravel roads, autocrossed etc, and you know what, hes been back to get the damn thing fixed so much its ridiculous. Balls joints, driveshafts, centre Diff, rear diff, front diff, and other things i cant recall. I love mustangs, have an 88 5.0L for what its worth, and it doesnt break!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just my 2 cents... STis are fast, neat and id like to drive one , drifting and rallying, looks like fun. BUT my cousin has one and drives it like its meant to be, drifted, gravel roads, autocrossed etc, and you know what, hes been back to get the damn thing fixed so much its ridiculous. Balls joints, driveshafts, centre Diff, rear diff, front diff, and other things i cant recall. I love mustangs, have an 88 5.0L for what its worth, and it doesnt break!

 

 

lol, old foxbody 5.0 HOs are indistructible from my expierence..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all those that are bitching about the tires on the Mustang, what would you rather have if your driving your car every day? High Performance tires that suck in the rain and snow, or more Docile all season performance tires? I'll give up a .25 of a second or whatever to have safer tires on the street vs a high performance only tire.

 

I just park the stang and take the Taurus when the weathers back. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all those that are bitching about the tires on the Mustang, what would you rather have if your driving your car every day? High Performance tires that suck in the rain and snow, or more Docile all season performance tires? I'll give up a .25 of a second or whatever to have safer tires on the street vs a high performance only tire.

 

LOL, high performance tires ARE safer, and handle rain quite well, if you live where it snows a lot you should be using snow tires anyway.

 

I can't think of another performance car that uses non-performance tires other than the Mustang, Mustangs aren't meant to tackle rough weather anyways, we make lots of trade offs, tires should ever be one of them.

 

The Mustang has a great chassis that can't be exploited until you put good rubber on it, and it's why it gets it's ass kicked in every comparison test, all the other performance cars get by just fine with performance rubber, do some reading about tire technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, high performance tires ARE safer, and handle rain quite well, if you live where it snows a lot you should be using snow tires anyway.

 

I had Summer only tires on the 98 Mustang GT and the SVT Focus, and both of them sucked outside of 40+ degree non-rain days. Once I switched over to an All season tire on the SVT, it ran great in the rain and snow

 

I can't think of another performance car that uses non-performance tires other than the Mustang, Mustangs aren't meant to tackle rough weather anyways, we make lots of trade offs, tires should ever be one of them.

 

I have no idea where you getting this info for the Mustang, but here are the OEM Tires, straight from Tirerack.com :

 

18 inch Tire: BFGoodrich g-Force T/A KDWS (Ultra High Performance All-Season)

 

17in Tire: Pirelli PZero Nero M&S (Ultra High Performance All-Season)

 

They might "suck" in your option, but they are rated as High Performance tires.

 

I have the 18in Tires on my car and they are pretty decent for driving around on every day. In my case, my Mustang GT is my primary mode of transportation and I'll take the bite in the ass or whatever you want to call it to have a car that is safer for day in day out driving then something that is so geared to performance that it hinders it for that same job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had Summer only tires on the 98 Mustang GT and the SVT Focus, and both of them sucked outside of 40+ degree non-rain days. Once I switched over to an All season tire on the SVT, it ran great in the rain and snow

 

 

People don't buy sports cars to drive them through rain and snow. I have tires people mostly use for autocrossing and road racing on my Focus, it hardly ever rains in L.A. Never snows, and they are much better in the rain than the stock all season tires due to their tread design.

 

I have no idea where you getting this info for the Mustang, but here are the OEM Tires, straight from Tirerack.com :

 

18 inch Tire: BFGoodrich g-Force T/A KDWS (Ultra High Performance All-Season)

 

17in Tire: Pirelli PZero Nero M&S (Ultra High Performance All-Season)

 

They might "suck" in your option, but they are rated as High Performance tires.

 

 

They do suck, calling them high performance tires is nothing but marketing, a true hi-po tire can't be an all season tire, and I've driven both tires in GT's and on a Shelby GT, both on the street and the track, they give up grip way too quick, period. And compared to a Mustang that's running good tires there's no comparison, most of the people who think the new Stangs can't handle because of the rear axle don't realize that it's the tires, not the suspension design. I've been in an 06 GT around corners on mountain roads that would scare most people and leave many sports cars costing much much more in the dust, with the only change to the car being tires.

 

I have the 18in Tires on my car and they are pretty decent for driving around on every day. In my case, my Mustang GT is my primary mode of transportation and I'll take the bite in the ass or whatever you want to call it to have a car that is safer for day in day out driving then something that is so geared to performance that it hinders it for that same job.

 

 

Again, most high performance tires these days that aren't strict race tires will do better in the rain than your factory all seasons, the BFG KDW's have superior grip in wet and dry than their cheaper all season tires found on the Mustang. You can have better grip in wet and dry conditions, and of course it doesn't help that Ford downgraded the tires on the S197 from the SN95 cars, a 235/55 just doesn't cut it, try driving a new Mustang with some 265-275/40's all the way around and you'll discover just what the S197 can do.

 

Nobody does comparison tests to see which sports car handles the rain and snow better than one another, so it's lame how Ford let's the Mustang get ripped for it's handling when it's due to the ice skates they put on it..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...