Pontiac GTO vs. Subaru WRX STi

[BMWDave]

Video at the Link

Introduction
By Ed Hellwig
Date posted: 05-26-2005

Browse through the 700-plus cars available on Gran Turismo 4, and you'll find only one Gran Turismo Omologato. That's GTO if you're under 30. Scroll down to GT4's Subaru WRX section, however, and you'll find 12 versions of the STi. That's Subaru Technica International if you're over 40.

Sony knows its audience, but come on, guys, let's give credit where credit is due. In 1964, the Pontiac GTO was the first production car to demonstrate that adding massive horsepower to a smaller, otherwise innocuous car can be a recipe for greatness.

Although drastically different in their design and execution, the 2005 Pontiac GTO and the 2005 Subaru WRX STi both employ this time-tested formula. Think about it. Subaru took its lowly Impreza, added a turbocharged engine, a stiffer suspension and a little extra bodywork and, suddenly, every male under the age of 25 is trading in his girlfriend for one. Sounds like a modern-day GTO to us.

The new GTO takes a more traditional route. Like its legendary ancestors, it's a coupe with classic muscle car credentials like a big V8, rear-wheel drive and a long hood/short deck design. Although it's built in Australia, it's so American it makes Tommy Franks look like a Communist.

Sure, conventional wisdom says if you like one, you wouldn't even consider the other, but we think otherwise. Our test cars stickered eight dollars apart and are, apart from Ford's bargain-priced Mustang GT, the most powerful rides on the market in their price range. If you want to go as fast as possible without taking out a second mortgage, one of these cars just might be the ticket. Deciding which one is a matter of how you like your speed delivered.

Let the showdown begin.

Attractive Opposites
With four doors, standard all-wheel drive and peaky turbocharged power, the WRX STi turns the muscle car moniker on its head. It may have just a 2.5-liter, four-cylinder engine, but with 300 horsepower, 300 pound-feet of torque and a six-speed manual transmission it's got specs that impress.

For 2005, Subaru has fortified the STi with a new helical limited-slip differential up front, a thicker sway bar in back and lightweight aluminum rear lateral links. The steering rack also received a stiffer mount, a tighter ratio and an auxiliary fluid cooler. The interior got a makeover, too, with improved climate controls and reskinned seats. Our test car also featured a short-throw shifter, titanium shift knob and auxiliary boost gauge.

The GTO also received upgrades for 2005, including 50 more horsepower from a new 400-hp, 6.0-liter LS2 V8, bigger brakes, dual exhaust and a much needed set of hood scoops. The only option is a six-speed manual transmission and thankfully our test car had it.

They're both comfortable enough to drive every day, but unless you drive the tires off them you won't fully appreciate their true capabilities. With that in mind we ripped them through our favorite back roads and pushed them to their limits at the test track. With their garish spoilers and gaping hood scoops, the reactions of onlookers, passengers and anyone else who heard us coming were also noted for good measure.

Conclusion
On paper, the GTO looked tough to beat. A 400-hp small-block V8, six-speed manual, rear-wheel drive ? what more do you need? But the more we drove these cars on the edge, the more we realized that the STi was the real deal. It held its own on the drag strip and flat-out smoked the GTO through the slalom. Plus its backseats come with doors. On the street, more than one editor noted that when it comes to raw, unfiltered feel, it's the Subaru that delivers over the more refined GTO. Add in the STi's higher-quality interior and usable trunk and it's the Subaru that gets our $33K.

[Raza]

every male under the age of 25 is trading in his girlfriend for one

it's so American it makes Tommy Franks look like a Communist.

I like those quotes.  But to the issue at hand...

GTO vs. STi.  It's a question I personally have asked myself over and over.  And every time I came up with the same answer.  GTO.  Or STi.  Funny shit, eh?

I've always been a fan of efficiency.  300 horses from a 2.5L H4? That's efficient.  European in execution even.  And you know how much I like European cars.  Plus, I've never owned an AWD car before, but I've driven, and I like it.

But then again, I've always been a fan of muscle cars--nothing like hundreds of naturally aspirated horsepower at the bottom of your right foot or a growling V8 just in front of you.  

The GTO, compared to the STi, spoils you on the inside.  It's got great leather and a well put together dash.  The GTO's styling for some can leave something to be desired.  Not for me.  But, I'd prefer a smaller wing on the STi, a la the Spec C.  I do love the looks of both, though.  I hate the GTO's hood, though.

No sunroof on either.  So my choice?  Evo!

But between these two, the GTO has it.  Or the STi.  Damn it again.

And technically, Edmunds, there are two GTOs.

[Raghavan]

I like the GTO. It's very sleeper-ish, without the boy-racer type of styling of the STi, and i like the dash and interior of the GTO more than the STi.

[mazda6er]

I like my sports cars impractical. I'll take a 2-door GTO over the super-econocar STi any day.

[Run Away]

If I lived somewhere where it wasn't winter for 6 months of the year, I'd go for the GTO.  

[ifcar]

Raza, I believe the scoopless hood is a no-cost option for 05.  

[mazda6er]

Raza, I believe the scoopless hood is a no-cost option for 05.

Yeah, you can choose to delete it at no charge. Similar to the "spoiler delete" option on some other cars. (i.e. Mustang)

[giant_mtb]

"If it's maximum performance you're looking for, the STi will walk all over the GTO in anything but a dragstrip..."  


That's my favorite part...The STi isn't all that much slower than the GTO in straight-line and the STi isn't even supposed to excel in the straight-line performance! (it's more of a twisty-slidy-rally kinda car)  They said the GTO weighs 400 pounds more than the STi, but it also has 400 more HP and lb-ft compared with the STi...and the GTO is a COUPE yet it's quite a bit heavier.  But yeah...they're both sweet cars, but the STi pretty much takes this one...

[ifcar]

According to many people on C/D, the WRX STi has unimpressive "rolling start" times (5-65). They also said that that 0-60 time was unusually high for the GTO. So who knows?

[giant_mtb]

According to many people on C/D, the WRX STi has unimpressive "rolling start" times (5-65). They also said that that 0-60 time was unusually high for the GTO. So who knows?

Yeah...that debate is still going on...I visit it and comment on it once in a while.  They use arguements such as a 23K Honda whatever can do a rolling start 5-60 time faster than a 33K STi or Evo...  Yet they don't realize that their 60,000 Land Rovers or whatever are slower than a lot of cars that cost 20K...they seem to think that the cost makes it faster or slower.  <_<

[ifcar]

According to many people on C/D, the WRX STi has unimpressive "rolling start" times (5-65). They also said that that 0-60 time was unusually high for the GTO. So who knows?

Yeah...that debate is still going on...I visit it and comment on it once in a while.  They use arguements such as a 23K Honda whatever can do a rolling start 5-60 time faster than a 33K STi or Evo...  Yet they don't realize that their 60,000 Land Rovers or whatever are slower than a lot of cars that cost 20K...they seem to think that the cost makes it faster or slower.  <_<

But a $33K performance sedan being beaten by an Accord is bad. Land Rovers aren't about acceleration figures, they're about off-road luxury. And if there was a $20K SUV that matched it there, there would be many comments about that.  

[giant_mtb]

According to many people on C/D, the WRX STi has unimpressive "rolling start" times (5-65). They also said that that 0-60 time was unusually high for the GTO. So who knows?

Yeah...that debate is still going on...I visit it and comment on it once in a while.  They use arguements such as a 23K Honda whatever can do a rolling start 5-60 time faster than a 33K STi or Evo...  Yet they don't realize that their 60,000 Land Rovers or whatever are slower than a lot of cars that cost 20K...they seem to think that the cost makes it faster or slower.  <_<

But a $33K performance sedan being beaten by an Accord is bad. Land Rovers aren't about acceleration figures, they're about off-road luxury. And if there was a $20K SUV that matched it there, there would be many comments about that.

Well I know...but it seems the general idea in that thread is that the cost means it's fast or slow.  But yeah...it is pretty bad, but then again the STi and Evo aren't biased towards straight-line accleration anyways.

[Run Away]

Looking at the 0-60 figures edmunds got, it looks like they were driving a plain WRX, not an STi.

C&D got 0-60 in 5.9 for it's long term WRX, edmunds gets 5.8 in an STi?

C&D got 0-60 in 4.8 for their '05 GTO, edmunds gets 5.7?

Yeah, there's the factor of tracks, temps, elevation, but the edmunds driver clearly has never drag raced before or something.
Something isn't right.

[ifcar]

For some comparison, even Consumer Reports got 5.5 seconds to 60 with their GTO. And that was with the 5.7-liter. They also got 5.2 with a WRX STi.

[Raghavan]

According to many people on C/D, the WRX STi has unimpressive "rolling start" times (5-65). They also said that that 0-60 time was unusually high for the GTO. So who knows?

Yeah...that debate is still going on...I visit it and comment on it once in a while.  They use arguements such as a 23K Honda whatever can do a rolling start 5-60 time faster than a 33K STi or Evo...  Yet they don't realize that their 60,000 Land Rovers or whatever are slower than a lot of cars that cost 20K...they seem to think that the cost makes it faster or slower.  <_<

But a $33K performance sedan being beaten by an Accord is bad. Land Rovers aren't about acceleration figures, they're about off-road luxury. And if there was a $20K SUV that matched it there, there would be many comments about that.

Well I know...but it seems the general idea in that thread is that the cost means it's fast or slow.  But yeah...it is pretty bad, but then again the STi and Evo aren't biased towards straight-line accleration anyways.

STi's and evo's are more biased towards straight-line acceleration than the accord is...
TROLL!! :angry:  

[giant_mtb]

According to many people on C/D, the WRX STi has unimpressive "rolling start" times (5-65). They also said that that 0-60 time was unusually high for the GTO. So who knows?

Yeah...that debate is still going on...I visit it and comment on it once in a while.  They use arguements such as a 23K Honda whatever can do a rolling start 5-60 time faster than a 33K STi or Evo...  Yet they don't realize that their 60,000 Land Rovers or whatever are slower than a lot of cars that cost 20K...they seem to think that the cost makes it faster or slower.  <_<

But a $33K performance sedan being beaten by an Accord is bad. Land Rovers aren't about acceleration figures, they're about off-road luxury. And if there was a $20K SUV that matched it there, there would be many comments about that.

Well I know...but it seems the general idea in that thread is that the cost means it's fast or slow.  But yeah...it is pretty bad, but then again the STi and Evo aren't biased towards straight-line accleration anyways.

STi's and evo's are more biased towards straight-line acceleration than the accord is...
TROLL!! :angry:

  Geez, sorry.  :P   I am sort of a troll I guess...but not really because all I'm doing is sticking up for the STi...I don't go around saying "yeah! the STi is the best car ever!" because I know it's not...and I'm fine with that...so I'm not really a troll. ^_^

[ifcar]

According to many people on C/D, the WRX STi has unimpressive "rolling start" times (5-65). They also said that that 0-60 time was unusually high for the GTO. So who knows?

Yeah...that debate is still going on...I visit it and comment on it once in a while.  They use arguements such as a 23K Honda whatever can do a rolling start 5-60 time faster than a 33K STi or Evo...  Yet they don't realize that their 60,000 Land Rovers or whatever are slower than a lot of cars that cost 20K...they seem to think that the cost makes it faster or slower.  <_<

But a $33K performance sedan being beaten by an Accord is bad. Land Rovers aren't about acceleration figures, they're about off-road luxury. And if there was a $20K SUV that matched it there, there would be many comments about that.

Well I know...but it seems the general idea in that thread is that the cost means it's fast or slow.  But yeah...it is pretty bad, but then again the STi and Evo aren't biased towards straight-line accleration anyways.

STi's and evo's are more biased towards straight-line acceleration than the accord is...
TROLL!! :angry:

  Geez, sorry.  :P   I am sort of a troll I guess...but not really because all I'm doing is sticking up for the STi...I don't go around saying "yeah! the STi is the best car ever!" because I know it's not...and I'm fine with that...so I'm not really a troll. ^_^

Which is more than many people can claim.    

[Fire It Up]

According to many people on C/D, the WRX STi has unimpressive "rolling start" times (5-65). They also said that that 0-60 time was unusually high for the GTO. So who knows?

Yeah...that debate is still going on...I visit it and comment on it once in a while.  They use arguements such as a 23K Honda whatever can do a rolling start 5-60 time faster than a 33K STi or Evo...  Yet they don't realize that their 60,000 Land Rovers or whatever are slower than a lot of cars that cost 20K...they seem to think that the cost makes it faster or slower.  <_<

YEAH!    I think one Accord 6 speed beat an Evo by 6 cars by the time he hit 110...  

[Raghavan]

According to many people on C/D, the WRX STi has unimpressive "rolling start" times (5-65). They also said that that 0-60 time was unusually high for the GTO. So who knows?

Yeah...that debate is still going on...I visit it and comment on it once in a while.  They use arguements such as a 23K Honda whatever can do a rolling start 5-60 time faster than a 33K STi or Evo...  Yet they don't realize that their 60,000 Land Rovers or whatever are slower than a lot of cars that cost 20K...they seem to think that the cost makes it faster or slower.  <_<

But a $33K performance sedan being beaten by an Accord is bad. Land Rovers aren't about acceleration figures, they're about off-road luxury. And if there was a $20K SUV that matched it there, there would be many comments about that.

Well I know...but it seems the general idea in that thread is that the cost means it's fast or slow.  But yeah...it is pretty bad, but then again the STi and Evo aren't biased towards straight-line accleration anyways.

STi's and evo's are more biased towards straight-line acceleration than the accord is...
TROLL!! :angry:

  Geez, sorry.  :P   I am sort of a troll I guess...but not really because all I'm doing is sticking up for the STi...I don't go around saying "yeah! the STi is the best car ever!" because I know it's not...and I'm fine with that...so I'm not really a troll. ^_^

Which is more than many people can claim.  

like PBH.  

[ifcar]

According to many people on C/D, the WRX STi has unimpressive "rolling start" times (5-65). They also said that that 0-60 time was unusually high for the GTO. So who knows?

Yeah...that debate is still going on...I visit it and comment on it once in a while.  They use arguements such as a 23K Honda whatever can do a rolling start 5-60 time faster than a 33K STi or Evo...  Yet they don't realize that their 60,000 Land Rovers or whatever are slower than a lot of cars that cost 20K...they seem to think that the cost makes it faster or slower.  <_<

But a $33K performance sedan being beaten by an Accord is bad. Land Rovers aren't about acceleration figures, they're about off-road luxury. And if there was a $20K SUV that matched it there, there would be many comments about that.

Well I know...but it seems the general idea in that thread is that the cost means it's fast or slow.  But yeah...it is pretty bad, but then again the STi and Evo aren't biased towards straight-line accleration anyways.

STi's and evo's are more biased towards straight-line acceleration than the accord is...
TROLL!! :angry:

  Geez, sorry.  :P   I am sort of a troll I guess...but not really because all I'm doing is sticking up for the STi...I don't go around saying "yeah! the STi is the best car ever!" because I know it's not...and I'm fine with that...so I'm not really a troll. ^_^

Which is more than many people can claim.  

like PBH.

Like YOU. :angry:

"i think that all cars should be rwd because thats better."

Grow up.    

[Raghavan]

According to many people on C/D, the WRX STi has unimpressive "rolling start" times (5-65). They also said that that 0-60 time was unusually high for the GTO. So who knows?

Yeah...that debate is still going on...I visit it and comment on it once in a while.  They use arguements such as a 23K Honda whatever can do a rolling start 5-60 time faster than a 33K STi or Evo...  Yet they don't realize that their 60,000 Land Rovers or whatever are slower than a lot of cars that cost 20K...they seem to think that the cost makes it faster or slower.  <_<

But a $33K performance sedan being beaten by an Accord is bad. Land Rovers aren't about acceleration figures, they're about off-road luxury. And if there was a $20K SUV that matched it there, there would be many comments about that.

Well I know...but it seems the general idea in that thread is that the cost means it's fast or slow.  But yeah...it is pretty bad, but then again the STi and Evo aren't biased towards straight-line accleration anyways.

STi's and evo's are more biased towards straight-line acceleration than the accord is...
TROLL!! :angry:

  Geez, sorry.  :P   I am sort of a troll I guess...but not really because all I'm doing is sticking up for the STi...I don't go around saying "yeah! the STi is the best car ever!" because I know it's not...and I'm fine with that...so I'm not really a troll. ^_^

Which is more than many people can claim.  

like PBH.

Like YOU. :angry:

"i think that all cars should be rwd because thats better."

Grow up.  

It's the TRUTH! live with it! :angry:

so i'm a RWD troll. Doesn't mean that i won't own a FWD car. I'd really like a nice CRX you know.  

[Fire It Up]

Hey hey hey...
Dont make me bring out the fire extinguisher.

[Raghavan]

Hey hey hey...
Dont make me bring out the fire extinguisher.

huh?

[GMPenguin]

They're wrong, there are two GTOs in GT4, a '64 and '04. :P

This seems as if it's based solely on perormance also.  This seems like a no-brainer that the just as fast (STi-4.9 & 13.4 vs. GTO-5.1 & 13.3) and more refined RWD coupe would be the better choice.

[Raghavan]

They're wrong, there are two GTOs in GT4, a '64 and '04. :P

This seems as if it's based solely on perormance also.  This seems like a no-brainer that the just as fast (STi-4.9 & 13.4 vs. GTO-5.1 & 13.3) and more refined RWD coupe would be the better choice.

your times seem slow. the Goat can run to 60 in 4.8 seconds, while the STi can only do it in 4.9 sec (both from C&D Jan and Feb issues.) The Goat also trounces it STi in 5-60 mph runs. (5.1 for the goat, 6.4 for the STi.)

[ifcar]

They're wrong, there are two GTOs in GT4, a '64 and '04. :P

This seems as if it's based solely on perormance also.  This seems like a no-brainer that the just as fast (STi-4.9 & 13.4 vs. GTO-5.1 & 13.3) and more refined RWD coupe would be the better choice.

If you're only going to base it on acceleration, sure. But the STi is a far better handler than the GTO. Softness is going to come from somewhere.

[Raza]

They're wrong, there are two GTOs in GT4, a '64 and '04. :P

This seems as if it's based solely on perormance also.  This seems like a no-brainer that the just as fast (STi-4.9 & 13.4 vs. GTO-5.1 & 13.3) and more refined RWD coupe would be the better choice.

I already said that.  Beat you to it, Sir Penguin!

:D