IW STi Forum banner

3821 - 3840 of 3886 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,383 Posts
That's just not true in real world situations. Stock for stock the 2 cars have identical 0-60, and the average E.T's are within 2-3 tenths, of course the mustang with over 120 more horsepower is going to have a higher trap at the end of th 1/4 but the E.T is a drivers race. The cars also have similar top speeds, with the STI having an advantage there as well.

I agree from a roll the mustang will have the edge stock for stock. Throw in a few bolt ons on the stock 2015 STI though with a good tune and the Mustang is going to loose a LOT of its advantage. The 2015 mustangs are heavier than the 2011-2014's as well and the STI isnt. But a stage 2 STI vs a stock 2015 GT is a coin toss any day..not the blow out you make it out to be...just ask the OP he pulled the GT he raced fair and square. It's by no means a guarantee that every roll race will be won by the mustang either, the STI is still fast enough especially with a tune that the mustang probably wont win if the driver makes a mistake and won't catch up. That mustang GT got owned because the cars are so close that in real world street scenarios if the driver isnt good he looses. Simple as that.

LOL, tell yourself whatever you need to sleep better at night.

Just so you know a stock STI is nowhere close in straight line. It is close to an 05-10 3 valve stock for stock, but any year 5.0 will freight train one.

The STI is a badass car, it's just dog shit slow from a roll in real world applications. Sorry that's the truth. Maybe it seems fast if you're coming from a 115hp civic or something like that but anyone with any experience around any even semi quick cars knows the STI is an easy target on the highway. Sorry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,954 Posts
LOL, tell yourself whatever you need to sleep better at night.

Just so you know a stock STI is nowhere close in straight line. It is close to an 05-10 3 valve stock for stock, but any year 5.0 will freight train one.

The STI is a badass car, it's just dog shit slow from a roll in real world applications. Sorry that's the truth. Maybe it seems fast if you're coming from a 115hp civic or something like that but anyone with any experience around any even semi quick cars knows the STI is an easy target on the highway. Sorry
FYI I destroyed a bolt on Mustang GT from a 25 MPH roll in my completely stock 06, looked at him in my rear view while he was roaring and banging gears and couldnt catch me; all it takes is being in the right gear. None of the 4.6's would even race me, the most common thing I was asked by pre coyote mustang drivers was how much I paid for my car, they were all intimidated. STI's are not "dog shit" slow from a roll vs plenty of cars when you say those things you just don't sound like you know all there is to these cars.


No where near as big a gap as your making it sound from a stage 2 STI VS a stock 2015 GT LOL Also there are very very very few sedans with 300 horsepower that can do the 0-60 sprint in 4.5 seconds and the 1/4 in 13 flat at over 103 completely stock right off the showroom floor, let alone keep up with a car with 125 more horsepower. You and a handful of other on here always seem to forget that in these comparo's. And LOL that the stock 4.6 Mustangs can post the same 0-60 and 1/4 as an STI. The coyote stangs finally gave them an advantage over the STI's but the 4.6's were no competiton for an STI stock for stock at all.

Stock for stock the coyote stangs can post the fastest times vs the STI that's pretty common knowledge, but it's still relatively close. One mistake by the mustang driver(mainly and most commonly spinning the rear tires and fishtailing) and he'll see STI tail lights.

STI's are only fast if comming from a 115 horsepower civic??? Dude your dillusional or just being tongue in cheek, can't tell if your actually serious. Oh wait I forgot, arent you the guy that only considers cars with 1000 WHP fast???

Stage 2 STI vs stock 2015 mustang and the STI is faster in more scenarios than not. That would include 0- basically anything LOL, and top speed. Mustang can win roll races as long as conditions are good and no mistakes are made otherwise a stage 2 2015 STI can EASILY hang with a stock 2015 GT.

Please list all the 300 horsepower sedans that can hit 0-60 in 4.5 and do the 1/4 in 13 flat. I'm waiting.

Too funny.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
377 Posts
I deal with mustangs as a mustang enthusiast. While its primarily what i mod and buy and help my local mustang community with ive had 2 sti myself and buying another in sept. Youre experience with mustangs is based of bullshit drivers. Your experience with them isnt what generally happens. Its clear you have no concept of net torque or how it works either. Stop using magazine times to base your 0-60 argument too. Its weak and owners experienced with rwd will do better. I take it you dont even realize stock for stock, the best coyote time on stock tires vs the best sti time is a 13mph trap difference and an et difference of almost a full second of the gt doing 12.2. That is clearly a faster car. Just deal with it. You have zero idea what youre saying. Its not a big deal to be wrong. But your essays farther showing youre wrong doesnt help you. The gt is a superior car. That said ive chosen to sell ny gt500 and go back to an sti over a gt. However i did strongly kick around the idea of the gt. Still do and probably still will til i order another sti soon.

That said the sti is slow as hell stock, as is the gt. I personally find anything slower then single digits slow. However ive had 7 single digit cars. You do eventually get used to high hp and find most cars boring. He isnt delusional. Fast is a subjective term. Most people have no idea what really fast feels like.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,954 Posts
I deal with mustangs as a mustang enthusiast. While its primarily what i mod and buy and help my local mustang community with ive had 2 sti myself and buying another in sept. Youre experience with mustangs is based of bullshit drivers. Your experience with them isnt what generally happens. Its clear you have no concept of net torque or how it works either. Stop using magazine times to base your 0-60 argument too. Its weak and owners experienced with rwd will do better. I take it you dont even realize stock for stock, the best coyote time on stock tires vs the best sti time is a 13mph trap difference and an et difference of almost a full second of the gt doing 12.2. That is clearly a faster car. Just deal with it. You have zero idea what youre saying. Its not a big deal to be wrong. But your essays farther showing youre wrong doesnt help you. The gt is a superior car. That said ive chosen to sell ny gt500 and go back to an sti over a gt. However i did strongly kick around the idea of the gt. Still do and probably still will til i order another sti soon.
Saying an STI is only fast compared to a 115 horsepower civic IS in fact dillusional, actually comical and makes him sound like he doesnt know what he's talking about, and why I don't take his reply's seriously.

Yup I already said that the coyotes can post faster times stock for stock. That's common knowledge..I mean it has 420+ Horsepower LOL. It just hasnt been my experience that the mustangs win all the time. And I am aware of the gap in the fastest ever stock coyote times vs the fastest STI times but I am also aware of coyote 1/4 mile times varying all over the place. All I am saying is that In real world racing the STI is capable to keep up if the conditions arent right for the mustang that's been my experience, which is always possible and the STI can pull off the upset....that's not the same as saying the Mustang isnt the faster car...obviously it has the edge now and since 2011 and is faster. But Statements like any 5.0 Mustang will frieght train an STI arent true in real world street scenarios. Of course the Mustangs have the capability to post a faster times than the STI, but they dont always do it. That's all I am saying.:tup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
377 Posts
Yup I already said that the coyotes can post faster times stock for stock. That's common knowledge..I mean it has 420+ Horsepower LOL. It just hasnt been my experience that the mustangs win all the time. In real world racing the STI is capable to keep up if the conditions arent right for the mustang, which is always possible. Statements like any 5.0 Mustang will frieght train an STI arent true in those scenarios. Of course the Mustangs have the capability to post a faster times than the STI, but they dont always do it. That's all I am saying.:tup:
i edited my post incase you missed it. You didnt convey that message very well in your previous posts. However man is right. If nothing is wrong with the gt and the driver has any decent rwd experience, yeah he will beat stock sti and non aggressive tuned stg 2 sti. For the sti to stand any real chance with equal drivers, sti would need e85 on its stock turbo and ewg with elh headers. Even then itd barely win. At least from a roll. Bragging about beating a crappy driver isnt besting the other car its simply being a better driver then the other person. As long as people know they beat the driver its a non issue. Until they think they actually beat the other car, thats an issue and usually what happens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,954 Posts
i edited my post incase you missed it. You didnt convey that message very well in your previous posts. However man is right. If nothing is wrong with the gt and the driver has any decent rwd experience, yeah he will beat stock sti and non aggressive tuned stg 2 sti. For the sti to stand any real chance with equal drivers, sti would need e85 on its stock turbo and ewg with elh headers. Even then itd barely win. At least from a roll. Bragging about beating a crappy driver isnt besting the other car its simply being a better driver then the other person. As long as people know they beat the driver its a non issue. Until they think they actually beat the other car, thats an issue and usually what happens.

I was arguing that from a dig a stage 2 2015 STI vs a Stock 2015 GT is going to be MUCH closer than what he was saying.....specifically that a stage 2 STI significantly closes the gap on a stock mustang such that it's going to be very close.....and that in street races the stage 2 STI is going to have a better chance of winning than a stock sti vs a stock mustang. I know the Mustang is a faster accelerating car, that's common knowledge now, never agued that at all. It's an impressive muscle car.

I can't take him seriously because he makes statements like the STI is only "fast" compared to a 115 horsepower Civic. Ok then list all the 300 horsepower sedans that can hit 0-60 sprints in 4.5 seconds and do the 1/4 in 13 flat completley stock and right off the showroom floor. All I hear is crickets and deflection to out of context comments such as only cars with 1000 hp are "fast" LOL.

And of course 1000 WHP cars are "FAST" LOL....common knowledge but throwing those cars into threads like this is out of context, WAY out of context. Why dont I just say that those cars are slow as shit compared to a 5000 horsepower Top Fuel Dragsters, of course they are slower LOL. I Just can't take that kind of out of context rhetoric seriously. ANd oh ya...that list please:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,190 Posts
I dont know whats going on here but I come from a 2014 mustang gt track pack. I know how to drive as I took a bone stock 2000 gt into 13.9 quarter mile times which is nearly impossible on a stock mustang of that year. Anyways stock for stock my 2014 mustang gt would absolutely destroy my 2015 sti. Cant say if the 15 mustang would be any different. However wot corner carver is what I got the sti for. I wouldnt try that in the stang.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
377 Posts
I dont know whats going on here but I come from a 2014 mustang gt track pack. I know how to drive as I took a bone stock 2000 gt into 13.9 quarter mile times which is nearly impossible on a stock mustang of that year. Anyways stock for stock my 2014 mustang gt would absolutely destroy my 2015 sti. Cant say if the 15 mustang would be any different. However wot corner carver is what I got the sti for. I wouldnt try that in the stang.
Thats a very uncommon time for the edge 2 valve. Very impressive sir. :tup: those damn 2 valves needed turbos in a bad way to be worth a damn. Those times it was all about the cobras. if i recall wasnt like the best time recorded time 13.7 for a 2v?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,190 Posts
Thats a very uncommon time for the edge 2 valve. Very impressive sir. :tup: those damn 2 valves needed turbos in a bad way to be worth a damn. Those times it was all about the cobras. if i recall wasnt like the best time recorded time 13.7 for a 2v?
I have to mention I was bone stock except for nitto drag radials. The car wasnt too happy I was shifting so hard and fast I felt like I broke my arm. What a feelng though breaking a 13.9 when most awesome drivers could only get a 14.1 out of them at the time. Not sure what the best times ever recorded were.

On a side note, I was in my stock 15 sti when I saw a nice hawkeye wingless, dont know if it was sti or wrx, we started a pull and when I heard the external wastegate it was over before it started. I feel slow now :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,954 Posts
I had an 85 XR7 with the stock ford 2.3 Turbo that ran 14.5's with an auto and 3.55 rear gears. Only mods were 3" catless downpipe and T/3 T4 hybrid turbo....non intercooled. I didnt beat many mustangs with it, but it beat a LOT of imports.

If you want to see what the potential of the mid 80's 2.3's were...Look up Joe Morgan and his 2.3 turbo transplanted into a Ford Pinto. It ran 10's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,954 Posts
The blocks on those 80's 2.3 turbo fords were really tough....very high nickle content in them...removed the cylinder head on mine to have it rebuilt at 170,000 miles and could still see crosshatch in the cylinder bores...I almost couldnt believe it, reinstalled the cylinder head with that stock block and was running 14's. A popular mod at the time was to replace the stock flat tappet cam with a ford roller cam from the 2.3 Ford Ranger pick up trucks. My original cam was wiped out due to the mileage so I did that swap..the ranger cam actually had milder lift and duration than the stock cam, but less friction and less overlap, so it helped torque. The valve seats were prone to cracking as well as the turbo exhaust housing at the wastegate. My turbo was still good at 170,000 miles but I replaced it for a better one that was close to stock specs. Miss that car a lot.

The SVO's(as well as the 87-88 Thunderbird turbocoupes) had the intercooler and a better ECU with more aggressive maps...actually had 2 maps from the factory..there was a button on the dash that would switch to a 93 octane map. Very cool and under rated cars...hard to find now....always wanted one, probably my favorite mustang to want to actually own someday.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,383 Posts
FYI I destroyed a bolt on Mustang GT from a 25 MPH roll in my completely stock 06, looked at him in my rear view while he was roaring and banging gears and couldnt catch me; all it takes is being in the right gear. None of the 4.6's would even race me, the most common thing I was asked by pre coyote mustang drivers was how much I paid for my car, they were all intimidated. STI's are not "dog shit" slow from a roll vs plenty of cars when you say those things you just don't sound like you know all there is to these cars.


No where near as big a gap as your making it sound from a stage 2 STI VS a stock 2015 GT LOL Also there are very very very few sedans with 300 horsepower that can do the 0-60 sprint in 4.5 seconds and the 1/4 in 13 flat at over 103 completely stock right off the showroom floor, let alone keep up with a car with 125 more horsepower. You and a handful of other on here always seem to forget that in these comparo's. And LOL that the stock 4.6 Mustangs can post the same 0-60 and 1/4 as an STI. The coyote stangs finally gave them an advantage over the STI's but the 4.6's were no competiton for an STI stock for stock at all.

Stock for stock the coyote stangs can post the fastest times vs the STI that's pretty common knowledge, but it's still relatively close. One mistake by the mustang driver(mainly and most commonly spinning the rear tires and fishtailing) and he'll see STI tail lights.

STI's are only fast if comming from a 115 horsepower civic??? Dude your dillusional or just being tongue in cheek, can't tell if your actually serious. Oh wait I forgot, arent you the guy that only considers cars with 1000 WHP fast???

Stage 2 STI vs stock 2015 mustang and the STI is faster in more scenarios than not. That would include 0- basically anything LOL, and top speed. Mustang can win roll races as long as conditions are good and no mistakes are made otherwise a stage 2 2015 STI can EASILY hang with a stock 2015 GT.

Please list all the 300 horsepower sedans that can hit 0-60 in 4.5 and do the 1/4 in 13 flat. I'm waiting.

Too funny.
Just because you beat some horrible driver in an 3V Mustang means nothing. Stock for stock, their performance numbers in terms of acceleration are almost on point with each other. That is a fact, and there is no disputing that. Sure from a dig on the street the STI will win 90% of the time, if the Mustang driver sucks, but it is very clear you're inexperienced with many other cars hence why you do not know these simple things.

Yeah, if you are coming from slow ass family car, like a Civic, or Cobalt, then yes the STI will feel quick. If you've ever been even slightly quick factory cars(think C6, 5.0, SS Camaro, etc), then you will quickly realize that the STI is very sluggish and has almost nonexistent top-end. You do realize mid to low 13'[email protected] is like bottom of the food chain for production cars, regardless of price, right?

I don't get why you keep bringing up, and boasting about 4.5 0-60 and low 13's off the showroom floor? Those are some weak ass times my friend, any decent SUV nowadays is better than that. I can seriously list about 5-7 SUV's, yes SUV's that will beat a stock. Money obviously not being a factor in that comparison ;) Don't get me wrong, I think the STI is a badass car, I just know first hand its weak points, and I am not afraid to admit it. I know damn well when a car like an ST, MS3, WRX, Golf R, etc pull up on the highway, that there is a good chance they are going to be door-to-door with me. IMO all those cars are slow as shit, lol.

I was arguing that from a dig a stage 2 2015 STI vs a Stock 2015 GT is going to be MUCH closer than what he was saying.....specifically that a stage 2 STI significantly closes the gap on a stock mustang such that it's going to be very close.....and that in street races the stage 2 STI is going to have a better chance of winning than a stock sti vs a stock mustang. I know the Mustang is a faster accelerating car, that's common knowledge now, never agued that at all. It's an impressive muscle car.

I can't take him seriously because he makes statements like the STI is only "fast" compared to a 115 horsepower Civic. Ok then list all the 300 horsepower sedans that can hit 0-60 sprints in 4.5 seconds and do the 1/4 in 13 flat completley stock and right off the showroom floor. All I hear is crickets and deflection to out of context comments such as only cars with 1000 hp are "fast" LOL.

And of course 1000 WHP cars are "FAST" LOL....common knowledge but throwing those cars into threads like this is out of context, WAY out of context. Why dont I just say that those cars are slow as shit compared to a 5000 horsepower Top Fuel Dragsters, of course they are slower LOL. I Just can't take that kind of out of context rhetoric seriously. ANd oh ya...that list please:D
First of all, I know exactly how capable a stage 2 STI is. My first STI was stage 2 pro-tune, and I drove the wheels of the car. I have actually beat a '11 stock 5.0 in that car from a roll, but I am an exception. If he was as good of a driver as I, he likely would have pulled me.

I will give you some benefit of the doubt, since I do know that a well driven stage 2 STI is pretty quick on the street if you are an amazing shifter. However, given an equal driver in a 5.0 of any year, and from a 40-140mph race, the STI is going to probably be an easy 4-5 cars back. It won't be close, that is a fact. From 0-100mph the STI will have a chance and will be a driver race, but from a 40+ roll, forget it.

I'm glad you think your car is fast, that to many is funny. Most car guys would laugh at the idea of a 13 second car being considered fast, but you may be an exception, that of course is unless we are talking strictly a auto-x/track car, then big power isn't necessarily as important. You are more than welcome to brag to us how good the STI 0-60 time is, but this is the street racing thread, where in most places anything trapping less than 110mph IMO is too slow to even bother racing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
I've highway rolled 3 separate 5.0 mustangs in my 2015 STi and pulled on all three. Of course, my STi isn't stock other than the turbo and headers....but still it never occurred to me that all three of those mustang drivers didn't know how to downshift and press the gas, and THAT'S the only reason I pulled on them...hmmm...interesting. Tell me more about how a stock 5.0 stang with a good driver is guaranteed a win vs a modded stock turbo STi from a roll.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,383 Posts
I've highway rolled 3 separate 5.0 mustangs in my 2015 STi and pulled on all three. Of course, my STi isn't stock other than the turbo and headers....but still it never occurred to me that all three of those mustang drivers didn't know how to downshift and press the gas, and THAT'S the only reason I pulled on them...hmmm...interesting. Tell me more about how a stock 5.0 stang with a good driver is guaranteed a win vs a modded stock turbo STi from a roll.
Lol, like I said, most of the drivers are bullshit. Numbers don't lie. Maybe you're a skilled driver in comparison?

I'll bet you car doesn't break 110mph trap speed in the 1/4 unless you're on E85.

Equal drivers the 5.0 isn't losing.

Shit I don't even like Mustangs, but I look at all everything objectively and my experience says otherwise.

Yes it is possible for a 5.0 to lose to a stock STI. Anything is possible. Point is all things equal the 5.0 is faster.

I absolutely raped a stock '15 in my Evo before I sold it, yet the same exact night we were dead nuts even with my buddies 5.0 w/cat back up until 125mph. STI was easily outclassed in that particularly cruise/race.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
You dequalify other responses by saying if a mustang driver lost they must have been a crap driver. Yet, you seem to be confident that every time an STi beat a mustang, the STi driver was a professional, lol. 90% of Subaru drivers I know can't drive for shit. It can't be that every time an STi beat a 5.0 the stang driver was an idiot and the STi was a pro, lol. I know the numbers, but I'm just saying it's possible real world stuff sometimes plays out differently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,383 Posts
You dequalify other responses by saying if a mustang driver lost they must have been a crap driver. Yet, you seem to be confident that every time an STi beat a mustang, the STi driver was a professional, lol. 90% of Subaru drivers I know can't drive for shit. It can't be that every time an STi beat a 5.0 the stang driver was an idiot and the STi was a pro, lol. I know the numbers, but I'm just saying it's possible real world stuff sometimes plays out differently.
My point is yes anything can happen on the street. From an objective stand point though STI needs at least E85 and FBO to hang, in my experience.

My 360whp evo was dead nuts with a '11 Gt500 from a 45 roll, but I still know if it wasn't an old man driving the car he would have smoked me.

Basically if you 5.0 loses to a stock STI you should burn that POS to the ground lol.

Trust me, I think the new STI is nasty. Way cooler than Mustang IMO, but it is definitely slower.

Anyways carry on I don't think we should clog this thread up, if anyone wants to have a logical argument I will comply via PM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,954 Posts
999....I'm sorry but if your admitting that a 300 horsepower 4 cylinder STI sedan can beat a 430 horsepower Coyote GT from 0-100 and in the same debate call the STI slow I just can't get on board with your thinking that the STI is still considered slow. Or that it only feels fast compared to civics. Anyawy I'm Still waiting for that list of sedans with 300 horsepower that make the STI look slow! I wasnt asking for a list of 450+ horsepower SUV's LMFAO. You really like to deflect from the question by bringing in classes of cars that are COMPLETELY out of context to the debate.(ex; 1000 WHP street freaks). Now your talking about $60,000 450 ++ horsepower SUV's???? DUDE! Stay in context will you please. You simply don't understand that a SEDAN with just 4 cyl, and only 300 horsepower that can sprint from 0-60 in 4.5 run the 1/4 mile in 13 seconds flat and top out at 164/165 MPH is absolutely NOT common at all in the automotive market place. The other sedans and many coupes in the market place that can equal or beat those times need 100++ more horsepower to do it. That's how good the STI platform is.


I'm not an expert driver and I really pulled that mustang hard from a 25 MPH roll, Heck I even kept it in first too long and chirped the tires when I banged second...if anything he was probably a better driver than me, I did'nt hear him miss any shifts and his car was LOUD and still all I saw was headlights in my rear view. If it had been a coyote 5.0 he would have pulled me I'm sure(assuming he got traction). Anyway I have smoked a handful of other 300 horsepower rated sedans and coupes with ridiculous ease, such that I could feather the top of each gear to play with how bad I was beating them. I can tell you emphatically that my 300 horsepower STI definately made other 300 horsepower cars look slow by comparison.

No one is saying the mustang is'nt the faster car in ideal conditions and good drivers, it has 120+ more horsepower dude!!! you know that. What is being said is that the cars are "close enough" performance wise that not every 2015 mustang is going to "freight train" every 2015 STI in a street race especially not a stage 2....because even though a stage 2 STI is still going to be less than the Mustangs Stock HP, the acceleration of the Stage 2 STI is going to be faster...on average. The performance margins of the 2 cars are much closer than they are to average family cars like civics...

You cant come up with a list of 300 Horsepower 4 cyl sedans that can equal or beat the STI because there isnt enough of them to make a list. Its simply not common performance for a car with its specs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,383 Posts
999....I'm sorry but if your admitting that a 300 horsepower 4 cylinder STI sedan can beat a 430 horsepower Coyote GT from 0-100 and in the same debate call the STI slow I just can't get on board with your thinking that the STI is still considered slow. Or that it only feels fast compared to civics. Anyawy I'm Still waiting for that list of sedans with 300 horsepower that make the STI look slow! I wasnt asking for a list of 450+ horsepower SUV's LMFAO. You really like to deflect from the question by bringing in classes of cars that are COMPLETELY out of context to the debate.(ex; 1000 WHP street freaks). Now your talking about $60,000 450 ++ horsepower SUV's???? DUDE! Stay in context will you please. You simply don't understand that a SEDAN with just 4 cyl, and only 300 horsepower that can sprint from 0-60 in 4.5 run the 1/4 mile in 13 seconds flat and top out at 164/165 MPH is absolutely NOT common at all in the automotive market place. The other sedans and many coupes in the market place that can equal or beat those times need 100++ more horsepower to do it. That's how good the STI platform is.


I'm not an expert driver and I really pulled that mustang hard from a 25 MPH roll, Heck I even kept it in first too long and chirped the tires when I banged second...if anything he was probably a better driver than me, I did'nt hear him miss any shifts and his car was LOUD and still all I saw was headlights in my rear view. If it had been a coyote 5.0 he would have pulled me I'm sure(assuming he got traction). Anyway I have smoked a handful of other 300 horsepower rated sedans and coupes with ridiculous ease, such that I could feather the top of each gear to play with how bad I was beating them. I can tell you emphatically that my 300 horsepower STI definately made other 300 horsepower cars look slow by comparison.

No one is saying the mustang is'nt the faster car in ideal conditions and good drivers, it has 120+ more horsepower dude!!! you know that. What is being said is that the cars are "close enough" performance wise that not every 2015 mustang is going to "freight train" every 2015 STI in a street race especially not a stage 2....because even though a stage 2 STI is still going to be less than the Mustangs Stock HP, the acceleration of the Stage 2 STI is going to be faster...on average. The performance margins of the 2 cars are much closer than they are to average family cars like civics...

You cant come up with a list of 300 Horsepower 4 cyl sedans that can equal or beat the STI because there isnt enough of them to make a list. Its simply not common performance for a car with its specs.
I am not sure what you're even arguing at this point.

Sure the STI has a impressive 0-60 time for only 300hp. Take away its AWD and that time creeps up into the high 5 second range. The ONLY reason that the car is quick 0-60 is because of its ability to launch hard thanks to extremely aggressive gearing along with AWD. I will agree that the STI punches above its weight class at low speed races/dig racing, but from a highway roll it is easily outclassed by most performance cars. Yeah top speed of 160mph is sooo impressive especially when it takes 2 miles to reach LMAO. That is literally not even relevant when it takes miles to attain that speed.

Once you go stage 2 or similar, the car is a blast, I won't lie. Its seriously a great setup for the street. I consider it well balanced and very fun to drive, but fast is not something I would call it. Mildly quick fits better IMO.

Anyways, it doesn't really matter. I am not sure why you are so obsessed and defensive with this car? Makes no sense to me.

I'm not sure why you want me to list of cars that compare in that price range. That isn't relevant to me. I am not hating on the STI, I am more or less just giving my point of view on why the car is slow in a straight line. I am not sure why anyone would really argue that fact, anyways.:confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,954 Posts
I'm not sure why you want me to list of cars that compare in that price range. That isn't relevant to me. I am not hating on the STI, I am more or less just giving my point of view on why the car is slow in a straight line. I am not sure why anyone would really argue that fact, anyways.:confused:

I just want you to educate me. Where are all these 300 horsepower sedans, or even coupes that can equal or beat the STI?? You make it sound like they are everywhere. You said that the STI is just an average performer relative to most average cars and you've said that in other threads as well. So I just wanted you to list all of these average cars that can equal or beat the STI's performance stats, because I know i have looked for them and I can't find any that can match the STI's 0-60. 1/4 mile 0-100 or top speed, let alone handeling. The cars that I do find, are the ones you have already mentioned. The High performance camaro's and mustangs with 120++ more horsepower. Or other cars that cost 10,000 on up more and much more horsepower..which are relative uncommon on the roads. So again compared to the VAST majority of cars you'll encounter in daily driving the STI is in fact fast. You kept bringing up cars completely out of context, like 1000 WHP street machines and mega dollar and mega horsepower SUV's which are completely opposite of what you were saying were average cars. Also I don't know why it's so hard to downshift to the right gear in an STI and dust pretty much every modern "family" sedan, that you seem to think will be able hang with an STI from 45 MPH on up...sure maybe for a few seconds but after that it's night night when the STI starts pulling to its 160MPH + top speed.

As far as stage 2 2015 STI vs a stock 2015 mustang GT, your also taking things out of context a bit. As far as what it takes for the STI to put out the same horsepower numbers as the 420++ stock GT you are correct in that it will take an aggressive stage 2 with E85 to equal the numbers or just get close. But what you arent stating accurately is that a stage 2 2015 on E85 will easily out accelerate a 2015 stock GT, because as you seem to have started to understand the STI platform is so good that it punches way above it's weight(your words) for the horsepower it puts out such that an STI with the same horsepower is going to blow the mustangs doors off.....is there a sweet spot that the 2015 GT will generally always out pull the STI stock or stage 2, sure and you mentioned that. But there are also sweet spots the STI has that it will generally out pull the GT stock and stage 2.

As for top speed any car that can go over 160 MPH better have several miles clear in front of them if they are going to do it. I get what your saying relative to highway pulls to top speed and how quickly one car can get there over another and sure a 420+ horsepwer Mustang will have an advantage there, but the STI still ultimately can pull out a few more MPH....so on a test road that lets each car get to it's top speed the STI will be as fast or faster at the limit...again with 120++ less horsepower , extra parasitic loss from allwheel drive sedan etc etc. 165 MPH??? That's is a fast car in the context of what we are talking about and way faster than the majority of average modern production cars you'll see in daily driving on the street.
 
3821 - 3840 of 3886 Posts
Top