[Iguana]

Originally Posted by Mikael1052

There is nothing lamer than a fake hood scoop. Of course, Mustangs have featured them for years. The hypocrisy of false aerodynamic elements that serve only to create drag.....inexcusable. I shouldn't complain - their inclusion contributes heavily to the Mustang sucking which is a good thing - because I HATE Mustangs.

LOL, its a classicly american car. what can you do? At least this current generation Mustang is MUCH better than the previous generation. I remember back in high school around 2000 when some kids would show up in the parking lot of the school in their "mustang GT" which was actually a standard mustang but with a fake GT badge and rev at people. People were like 'ooohhh, a mustang, awesome!" and then the supra showed up and blew the doors off the thing. Then a year later or so, the WRX landed and that was the nail in the coffin for the V6 mustang. LOL.

SEriously, what was the output for that V6 mustang circa 2000? It was something around 180 or so right? Or less? The current V6 mustang makes somewhere around 200 I think.

I digress. The mustang was never meant to be more awesome than the WRX or STI, but it does have a loyal following and a rich history.

[sneekyseven]

Originally Posted by Mikael1052

There is nothing lamer than a fake hood scoop. Of course, Mustangs have featured them for years. The hypocrisy of false aerodynamic elements that serve only to create drag.....inexcusable. I shouldn't complain - their inclusion contributes heavily to the Mustang sucking which is a good thing - because I HATE Mustangs.

I agree. Which is why I'd always be reluctant to get a FMIC... rendering the hood scoop useless.. idk..

[Digitalfiend]

Originally Posted by Iguana

They said in the article that the STI is probably the only car that requires 2 shifts to get to 60 and yet still does it in less than 5 seconds. Makes you wonder how fast it woudl be if 2nd gear could snag 70.

It would probably be slower. Shorter gears = faster acceleration, period. A better solution would be to raise the redline to 7500 (and make enough power to avoid needing to shift) and hit 60 in 2nd that way. The car would fly if it could keep the shorter gears and have a higher redline w/power.

[Rootus]

Originally Posted by Mikael1052

The hypocrisy of false aerodynamic elements that serve only to create drag.....inexcusable.

Kinda like the STI wing? Don't tell me how it creates downforce if you drive sufficiently fast. For a street car it provides drag and extra weight.

I HATE Mustangs.

Envious? Why would you hate an inanimate object? Because they're so much more popular than Subarus?

[elirentz]

Originally Posted by Rootus

Kinda like the STI wing? Don't tell me how it creates downforce if you drive sufficiently fast. For a street car it provides drag and extra weight.

Say what you want it is still functional. I like having the wing stock because I like to race my street car and its nice to have a functional aero piece stock that doesn't bump me up a class. Is it almost useless for sane street driving yes, a non functional piece is always useless.

Then again subaru has been guilty of their own non-functional hoodscoops from time to time

[Rootus]

Originally Posted by elirentz

Say what you want it is still functional. I like having the wing stock because I like to race my street car and its nice to have a functional aero piece stock that doesn't bump me up a class.

A class? AutoX? The wing would hurt more than help in autox . On a road course I could see it maybe helping down the straights . But the STI is a street car, Subaru did the wing because it makes it look like the rally car somewhat ("rally inspired"). Similar reasons why Shelby puts the hood scoop on their GT. Looks like an old Shelby.

Street cars are heavily influenced by cosmetic desires, no doubt about it. And I'm not saying that is a bad thing. As long as the car performs to my expectations, I do absolutely want it to look good doing it.

I still say the comparison Edmunds did is pretty bad. I would have expected the STI to stomp the Mustang, because in reality the STI is $10K more car.

[Pre]

Originally Posted by elirentz

Say what you want it is still functional. I like having the wing stock because I like to race my street car and its nice to have a functional aero piece stock that doesn't bump me up a class. Is it almost useless for sane street driving yes, a non functional piece is always useless.

Then again subaru has been guilty of their own non-functional hoodscoops from time to time

What they should have done from the beginning is make it an optional piece. With all the dipsheits putting the wings on the back of Civics, Eclipses, etc, some of us want nothing to do with that scene whatsoever. I'm glad the new Hatch is absent of such a wing. Good job Subaru you are going to get my $

[STI_Mike]

awesome video +1 for the imports

[stealthsti06]

Originally Posted by Mikael1052

There is nothing lamer than a fake hood scoop. Of course, Mustangs have featured them for years. The hypocrisy of false aerodynamic elements that serve only to create drag.....inexcusable. I shouldn't complain - their inclusion contributes heavily to the Mustang sucking which is a good thing - because I HATE Mustangs.

agreed hate mustangs with a passion!!

[elirentz]

Originally Posted by Rootus

A class? AutoX? The wing would hurt more than help in autox . On a road course I could see it maybe helping down the straights . But the STI is a street car, Subaru did the wing because it makes it look like the rally car somewhat ("rally inspired"). Similar reasons why Shelby puts the hood scoop on their GT. Looks like an old Shelby.

Street cars are heavily influenced by cosmetic desires, no doubt about it. And I'm not saying that is a bad thing. As long as the car performs to my expectations, I do absolutely want it to look good doing it.

Yeah I drive mine around town and autox with a trunkless wing and road course with the wing (it does help) but what I'm saying is that eventhough the main reason is for similar look to the rally car at least it is functional and not purely cosmetic.

[Templar]

I am not a Mustang hater here but both these cars serve different missions. The Mustang is what is is. A throw back to the muscle car era of straght line performance. The STi is what it is. A water down version of one of the best rally cars the world has ever seen. Not to mention one of the best AWD drive trains and engine designs to be produced. Both cars can be a lot of fun. Its the buyer who's gotta choose what he or she wants out of a car.

[Jaws]

This comparison is just about completely pointless.

The Mustang costs $25k.

The STi costs $35k.

I agree with everything Rootus has said so far. Always an unbiased opinion.

[STIVendetta]

Originally Posted by Jaws

This comparison is just about completely pointless.

The Mustang costs $25k.

The STi costs $35k.

I agree with everything Rootus has said so far. Always an unbiased opinion.

Shelby GT Cost more- base than the 08 STI- Base
CONSUMER INFO BASE PRICE $36,970 PRICE AS TESTED $38,790
And still KICKS it"s A$$.




2007 Ford Shelby GT Specs - First Test Road Test & Revew - Motor Trend

[Rootus]

Originally Posted by STIVendetta

Shelby GT Cost more- base than the 08 STI- Base
CONSUMER INFO BASE PRICE $36,970 PRICE AS TESTED $38,790
And still KICKS it"s A$$.

I think you missed the point. It is disingenuous to compare the STI to a Shelby GT in the first place, since the Shelby GT is a Mustang GT with a pretty body kit and a Carrol Shelby plaque on the dashboard. Strictly in terms of performance, which is what I suspect you mean when you say "KICKS it"s A$$", the actual comparison is a $35K STI against a $25K Mustang GT. I'd feel foolish gloating about that.

[STIVendetta]

Originally Posted by Rootus

I think you missed the point. It is disingenuous to compare the STI to a Shelby GT in the first place, since the Shelby GT is a Mustang GT with a pretty body kit and a Carrol Shelby plaque on the dashboard. Strictly in terms of performance, which is what I suspect you mean when you say "KICKS it"s A$$", the actual comparison is a $35K STI against a $25K Mustang GT. I'd feel foolish gloating about that.

I understand what you are saying.....but it is what it is..The Shelby GT still has more hp "(319)" Regular mustang (300) both high-performance V8"s....when I said Kicked-A$$- I'm saying it is "good to see" a small 4cyl-high-performance Turbo 305-hp beat out 319-hp V8....let alone a 300 hp high-performance V8 (Mustang)......So the Shelby GT costing more than the base STI 305-hp and having more HP and being a V8 is a plus....Not feeling foolish and not Gloating....just checking a video out and feeling good about the STi and the "shown results".
Thanks for the reply.