GTO vs Charger SRT-8

[SJ_GTI]

I didn't buy the magazine because I am too cheap. Anyone else here have it?

I did glance through it on the rack. It seemed like they liked the SRT-8 better. Only surprising thing to me was they said the GTO was faster (if only marginally) but they liked the refinement and interior/options of the Charger. I was surprised a bit because I thought the 300C SRT-8 was faster than the GTO...?

Anyway I am looking forward to seeing it on their website. Its a good comparison, though techincally the GTO is priced more like the Charger R/T. Its a shame GM won't make a "tuned" version of the GTO...tighter suspension, tighter steering (lower ratio if nothing else), bigger wheels (fatter rubber), etc...techincally I don't even think it would need more power. I think Charger/Mustang/GTO is a better comparison than 300C/CTS-V/GTO to be honest. The GTO was just too inexpensive for that test, even if it was pretty close in raw HP.

Looking forward to seeing the next Mustang Cobra too.

[Raza]

This should be coming in the mail soon, so I'll toss up what I thought about the article here when it does.  

Motor Trend seems to have a fixation on these cars.  They drove around Detroit in the Charger, Mustang, and GTO, and they remade Bullitt with a specially painted Mustang GT (sans wing) and a Charger, and now this.  

[TBR]

This is why I still think MT is a waste of money, they have already done similar comparision tests three times! (IIRC)  

[SJ_GTI]

This is why I still think MT is a waste of money, they have already done similar comparision tests three times! (IIRC)

Can you show me where. I can't seem to find any.

I found a test of the CTS-V vs 300C SRT-8 vs GTO and a Mustang vs GTO but nothing else. I didn't even see a Charger vs Mustang article that raza mentioned.

Anyway I would rather read about these cars than the newest Accord, Camry, or Hyundai...but to each their own I guess... :ph34r:  

[ifcar]

Charger vs. Mustang was the Aug 05 cover story.  

[SJ_GTI]

They must be slow to update their website then, because I looked and its still not there.

Was this an actual roadtest ot something else?

[TBR]

Why do four comparos when one will do? Sorry, rereading the same stuff every three months doesn't make MT worth my money.  

[ifcar]

They must be slow to update their website then, because I looked and its still not there.

Was this an actual roadtest ot something else?

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/...litt/index.html

[ifcar]

Why do four comparos when one will do? Sorry, rereading the same stuff every three months doesn't make MT worth my money.

They weren't identical comparos, they had different cars and different price ranges.

On the subject of more similar comparisons, I was rather peeved that C/D conducted the Evo vs. WRX STi test twice (with the same result) and will undoubtedly do it again with the 06 updates, but that doesn't put me off to the magazine entirely.

[TBR]

Perhaps two would have worked better than just one, but it definitely wasn't
necessary to do 4 different comparision tests:

Test 1: 300c SRT8 and CTS-V
Test 2: Charger, GTO, and Mustang

[ifcar]

But all of those cars weren't available for the same comparison test.

If you don't like multiple comparisons of similar cars, you're not going to like the next IFCAR comparison: 3 sets of family sedans, $20K, $25K, and $30K. <_<

[TBR]

Then wait a couple of months, it won't be the end of the world. Though, really, the Charger would be the problem car and it has no business being compared to coupes anyway.

[ifcar]

You think coupes can't compete with sedans? Of course they can, particularly when they're all sporty vehicles. M3 vs. S4, for example.

And I still don't see how doing similar comparisons a few times makes you hate a magazine. I don't know if R/T has changed since I dumped my subscription, but they almost never did comparos at all when I had it (maybe 3 in a year).

[TBR]

They normally do one every issue. I am just getting tired of seeing the same couple of cars on every cover. Plus, the writing isn't as good as R&T's anyway, and the selection of cars they test is smaller than C/D's.

[ifcar]

R/T does comparos a lot now? I may have to re-subscribe.  

[SJ_GTI]

TBR you apparently had a mental block against MT.

1 Comparison: Mustang vs GTO
2 Comparison: CTS-V vs 300C SRT-8 vs GTO
3 Comparison: Mustang vs Charger R/T
4 Comparison: GTO vs Charger SRT-8

The only one that is out of place a bit is the GTO in the CTS-V vs 300C due to price and Sedan/coupe issues (though it kept up with the other on performance).

In the first comparison lets first realize there was no SRT-8 models in existence so they couldn't have been included. The CTS-V is nearly double the price of the Stang (and ~20k more expensive than the GTO) and its a sedan so it would have been out of place. Was this a bad comparison to do at the time? They would have been crazy not to...every other magazine was doing the same comparison and it was the big talk of the forums back then if I recall. I bet it sold an aboslute ton of copies to boot.

In the second comparison like I said the GTO was a little out of place, but the SRT-8 was brand new and it certainly made sense to cmpare to the existing king of American sports sedans.

In comparison 3 they are comparing the Stang (which they preferred over the GTO even though it didn't perform as well) to the brand new Charger R/T. Pesonally I think this would have been a good place for the GTO as well (consider that the Charger R/T is a couple grand more expensive than the Goat...) but it wouldn't have fit with their Bullit theme. Besides it would have been doing the exact thing you despise as the GTO is included in a different comparison a few months later...

In comparison 4 they are putting up the brand new Charger SRT-8 against the GTO, currently the top performance American car under 40k (again they may have preferred the Stang but the GTO generally beat it in performance). Absolutely no overlap with the Stang Charger R/T comparison whatsoever.

I think their comparison schedule is pretty darn good myself.

The only thing I will say is I feel bad for the GTO. In the one comparison where it was the best performer it didn't get picked as the favorite anyway, and since then it has only been paired against cars much more expensive (which reminds me...somewhere in the mix they also compared the GTO to the MB CLK55...). If you are a GTO fan you would probably be prtty frustyrated with them.  

Personally I would love to flog a Mustang GT, Charger R/T (or SRT-8), and GTO on the same track and make a pick for myself. The cars are close enough in price/performance that it would really come down to taste as to which anyone would choose IMHO.

[TBR]

Sorry, I still say it was unnecessary to do 4 comparision tests involving many of the same or very similar cars within 6 months. Perhaps my frustration is really with all of the micro comparos MT seems to like so much (they seem to be uncapable of getting more than 4 cars together at once, which means a lot of comparos with many of the same cars).  

[SJ_GTI]

Sorry, I still say it was unnecessary to do 4 comparision tests involving many of the same or very similar cars within 6 months. Perhaps my frustration is really with all of the micro comparos MT seems to like so much (they seem to be uncapable of getting more than 4 cars together at once, which means a lot of comparos with many of the same cars).

Those comparisons are spaced out well over a year, and again if they wanted to do them all at once they couldn't have done any comparisons in the meantime! They only ones that possible could have been done at the same time/issue are the Stang/Charger R/T comparo and the GTO/Charger SRT-8 comparisons but those are 4 distinct cars anyway.

Th only thing I could possibly see is some "Goat" fatigue. Its been in 4 of the 5 comparisons.  :o  

[Raza]

I prefer a number of two or three car comparisons, as opposed to 37 car comparos.  It really gets boring after a while.  When you dedicate your page space to only two cars, they can go more in depth.  Look at C/D's recent comparison of entry luxury models.  Each car only got about a page of space, or less.  That's not enough room to give any real information, especially since these are the people that get to tear into a car more than the average test driver, so they should be able to notice more things and tell you more about it than a supervised 5 minute drive.  

[TBR]

A small comparo every once in a while is fine (ie, when a single new model comes out, I am fine with them just comparing it to the class leader), but all these little ones with the GTO, Mustang, and LX cars are getting annoying, especially since the LX cars don't compete with the Mustang or GTO anyway.

Also, MT's comparos don't have much more info on each particular car than C/D's do.

[Laconian]

MT's comparos are far too noncommital for me. They always end up with a shrug and "well, they're both pretty good, so..."

[TBR]

Actually they have started showing a finishing order.

[ifcar]

I prefer a number of two or three car comparisons, as opposed to 37 car comparos.  It really gets boring after a while.  When you dedicate your page space to only two cars, they can go more in depth.  Look at C/D's recent comparison of entry luxury models.  Each car only got about a page of space, or less.  That's not enough room to give any real information, especially since these are the people that get to tear into a car more than the average test driver, so they should be able to notice more things and tell you more about it than a supervised 5 minute drive.

They've already done a full Road Test on almost everything that goes into a comparo. The way I see it, the Road Test gives the information about the car, and the comparison determines how that makes it better or worse than its competitors, without restating the entire road test.