IW STi Forum banner

1 - 20 of 75 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
389 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I think so... It qualifies in every way except that it does not have a v8, but produces the power. Its kinda big beefy and ugly, handling is not what I consider superb like car that perform like it (hell, I get a work out doing the slolum in an AutoX). Jus thinking out loud.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
348 Posts
Not even close, and I don't know what you mean by "it qualifies in every way". I don't know any way that it qualifies. To me, "muscle car" = pushrod V8, RWD, heavy, poor handling, AMERICAN, no amenities...there is no way the STi can be considered a muscle car, unless the only thing you are looking at is quarter mile times. If you think the STi's handling is not "superb", try taking a real muscle car to autocross and see what that feels like. Also...3200 pounds is a featherweight by muscle car standards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,621 Posts
i also own a 1969 Camaro. a classic example of a musclecar. big V-8, RWD. while the STi has the power it does it in a whole differant way. its a technological wonder compared to my 69. the only musclecar left in production is the Ford Mustang. the CAmaro has been killed off and the Dodge Viper does'nt qualify because it costs way too much. when someone builds an STi that has 450lb.ft of torque at 2500rpm we can start calling the STi a musclecar.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,489 Posts
y2ks2k said:
I think so... It qualifies in every way except that it does not have a v8, but produces the power. Its kinda big beefy and ugly, handling is not what I consider superb like car that perform like it (hell, I get a work out doing the slolum in an AutoX). Jus thinking out loud.
According to Project Gotham Racing 2 on the Xbox, it's a "pacific muscle car".

-st
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,621 Posts
ok, seriously...the STi is not a musclecar....and i personally will never refer to it as one. the musclecar was designed to do one thing. GO FAST IN A STRAIGHT LINE!!!! period. it was about stuffing the biggest motor into the car and smoking the tires. yes the STi does make the power but that alone does'nt qualify it as one. musclecars are all about power and nothing else. like i said before. the last of the factory musclecars is the Mustang.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,549 Posts
Well, Hot Rod magazine gave it enough respect to put it head to head with a Cobra - and their write up is surprisingly not 100% anti-STi. 'course, how could it be when the cheaper, lower HP STi meets or beats the supercharged Cobra in every single category. I consider that I have TWO muscle cars, a classic ('69 Firebird 400 conv.) and a modern day. Nobody's right or wrong here, it's just opinion. I say the STi is a modern day muscle car (did ya notice the massive hood scoop and the retro-1970 Dodge Superbird wing??)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,802 Posts
Are you guys using manual diff??

I don't consider the STi a muscle car at all. Call it what you want. I just call it an STi or usually a Subaru. I honestly think with a 2.5L, turbo, 4 doors, and AWD it has no current classification or name. It might be the start of a new one, but definitely not a muscle car. You say muscle car to anyone and first thing they will think of is an old 60s or 70s sports car. To me muscle car = big heavy pig, big engine, a lot of hp, decent at best 0-60 and 1/4 times but usually not that great considering the hp, terrible handling and braking... all the complete opposite of the STi. I don't even consider my Supra to be a muscle car. It actually amazes me that anyone would even compare the STi to a cobra... 2 totally different vehicles in my book.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,482 Posts
I'm glad they did compare them. It means even the domestic only types are waking up to the fact that they are getting beat by cars they can't stand which are much more technically advanced than their cars. If people can become more of car fans and not so much stuck on any one car, the better it is far car lovers in general because there is less attitude and more acceptance around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,621 Posts
If people can become more of car fans and not so much stuck on any one car, the better it is far car lovers in general because there is less attitude and more acceptance around
i did mention i also own a 1969 Camaro as well as the STi. i love them both equally and for differant reasons. but you won't catch me driving the Camaro in the snow, thats a death wish. i know, i tried it and it is a very differant experience from the driving the STi in the snow. heck, i would'nt be driving the new Mustang Cobra in the snow either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
huh??? Import cars cannot be muscle cars. besides, the word "muscle car" is usually used on old ars cars.

Camaros- POS
Mustangs(also known as Rustangs)-faggotts
Vipers-it's fast but NO traction control, what's the point??? a TT Supra beat the crap out of it, i "had" the video.
Corvette-no comment.

LOL j/k
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
RadarOnPaws said:
I'm glad they did compare them. It means even the domestic only types are waking up to the fact that they are getting beat by cars they can't stand which are much more technically advanced than their cars. If people can become more of car fans and not so much stuck on any one car, the better it is far car lovers in general because there is less attitude and more acceptance around.
Here Here!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Did you see hot rod tv? They said" the STI is the modern day hemi cuda." Times are changing, big v-8s are fading out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
963 Posts
OK guys - here I am, the voice of reason (that in itself should scare the hell out of you).

Let us step back in time to oh, around 1963. Affordable cars back then were kind of anemic and boring.

A visionary in GM's Pontiac division had an idea to make an affordable car that had performance in mind... and knew it would sell. Of course the management thought it was a great idea and gave the engineers about $1.50 and 6 months to make it happen.

With limited time and budget, the only sensible thing to do was to work with existing parts and models - there was no way they could even think about building this car from the ground up.

So they took an existing model which happened to be relatively lightweight and dropped the biggest honkin' engine they could find into it. Believe it or not, the car was actually meant to have some handling capabilities as well - and this was thought about and implemented to the extent that Pontiac engineers could do in 1963. Brakes? Bah - who needs brakes?!

So to my mind, a musclecar is defined as a light-weight, high horsepower, high torque vehicle that is based on a pre-existing model. I don't think the number of cylinders in the engine has a damn thing to do with it.

That means that a Mustang is not a musclecar. Well, at least not a '64 - that's just a pony car with a 289 V-8... but a 1968 Mustang 428 Cobra-Jet IS a musclecar. See what I mean?

Therefore the Viper is not a musclecar any more than a Ferrari 360 Maranello is a musclecar - these cars were built from the ground up and have evolved over time.

In conclusion, there is no way I would classify the STi as a musclecar... unless it all started with an existing model, like an Impreza for example, and Subaru dropped in a powerful engine and overhauled the mechanicals, etc.

::light bulb dimly appearing above my head::

WAIT!! The STi IS A MUSCLECAR!!

I feel so much better now :)
 
1 - 20 of 75 Posts
Top