# 2011 mustang VS 2011 WRX



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

alright i'm mainly a car guy, very much not a newb to that, and a total newb to mountain bike/trail riding. so far i really like my new hobby, its tons of fun, and it leaves me with new information affecting my upcoming new car purchase.

initially i wanted the 2011 V6 mustang, 30+ mpg, 300+hp, and pretty much the perfect car for me in every way.

...except for lacking in the cargo transport area. i refuse to use a trunk rack on the basis of my car's finish trumps the ease of transporting my bike. well, that and i dont like the idea of something so pricey hanging out for anyone with an exacto knife to just run off with if i need to stop for a burger or whatever.

i THINK i can fit the frame with both wheels removed in the trunk no problem. it doesn't seem to be that big of a stretch but i haven't tried. so thats my first question, "does anyone here havea 05+ mustang that the use to transport a 19" frame mountain bike without a rack?"

so subaru went and ruined my whole plan by making the 2011 wrx totally awesome looking, fast as hell, and still offering the insaaaaaaaaanely handly hatch that offers copious amounts of cargo space for amps, guitars, bikes, and dead hookers. er... i mean... oh nevermind.

i guess the second question isn't really a question but more of a feeler. i have a pretty strong feeling that you guys are gonna go with the wrx but hell lets just throw it out there anyhow.

WRX vs Mustang with preference of the mustang's awesomeness and diggin the WRX's cargo space.

who will win for 2011?!


----------



## eat_dirt (May 26, 2008)

subarus have always been ugly as sin.

but the WRX will always win over the mustang because it's a five door hatch--which can carry bikes in the car, on the liftgate, or on top. then you can cram all of your bike crap into it as well.

the mustang is a two door nightmare for hauling anything. it also has a rear axle that is about as sophisticated as the pickup on your grampas' farm.

and when you go to the trails, the mustang will get stuck in the mud and wet grass while the subie will plod along with its 4WD.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

good points aside from the inaccurate information regarding the mustang's live axle. early predictions is that practicality will win over fun-factor on this forum.

practical VS phun?! who will win! battle of the pp's


----------



## eat_dirt (May 26, 2008)

Killertofu said:


> good points aside from the inaccurate information regarding the mustang's live axle. early predictions is that practicality will win over fun-factor on this forum.
> 
> practical VS phun?! who will win! battle of the pp's


unless you're getting a rare SVT cobra before the mustang abandoned the fox platform for the current "retro" look, you will have a nice, fat, truck liveaxle in the back of your mustang.

just like the kind i have in my land cruiser.


----------



## gtluke (Aug 15, 2007)

you mean the live axle that makes it out handle the IRS in the camaro?


----------



## eat_dirt (May 26, 2008)

gtluke said:


> you mean the live axle that makes it out handle the IRS in the camaro?


the camaro is a bloated school bus when it comes to lateral acceleration.

i'm talking about cars that can handle, like the 370z, or the wrx.


----------



## 245044 (Jun 8, 2004)

If you are a car guy then the WRX would be the better car for. You will be more happy with the WRX because you can modify the car for greater performance with bolt-ons and available tuning. I'm not so sure the V6 Mustangs are going to have any more support than the older V6 models did. Too, the platform of the WRX will better utilize the power due to the AWD. I do like the new Mustang, but really the WRX is a better performance car than the V6 Mustang by a longshot.
You can also get a hitch or roof rack for the WRX.


----------



## nojoke (Apr 15, 2008)

eat_dirt said:



> unless you're getting a rare SVT cobra before the mustang abandoned the fox platform for the current "retro" look, you will have a nice, fat, truck liveaxle in the back of your mustang.
> 
> just like the kind i have in my land cruiser.


Actually the 05+ live axle assembles resemble anything far from prior mustang axle assembles. They were a huge step in the right direction, and way more advanced and tie the car together better on the 05+ platforms.

I have a 720whp 03 Mustang SVT Cobra, and I still have the IRS in the rear, it weighs aprox 120 more lbs than an equivalent solid axle. So there is nothing light about the IRS assemblies. Its plain heavy, and the 05+ platforms are a heavier car anyways to start with. The IRS only came in 99/01 Cobra, and 03/04 Cobra's. I hope ford never uses it again.

The 2011 Gt500 mustang uses the same kind of "live" axle technology and considered the best mustang ever made. and one of the best handling, if not the BEST ever put into a production mustang and sold the public.

Besides this guy is looking at it for a commuter, and something to transport his bike, not a performance vehicle.

If you are sold on the stang, buy a simple bolt on hide-a-hitch and buy your favorite mountain bike rack for use. I see them all the time on mustangs here in Alaska. I know plenty people who daily drive rwd cars all thru the winter here with a decent set of snow tires.


----------



## Hey Hey JJ (Jul 11, 2010)

*You will not be disappointed*


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

nojoke said:


> Actually the 05+ live axle assembles resemble anything far from prior mustang axle assembles. They were a huge step in the right direction, and way more advanced and tie the car together better on the 05+ platforms.
> 
> I have a 720whp 03 Mustang SVT Cobra, and I still have the IRS in the rear, it weighs aprox 120 more lbs than an equivalent solid axle. So there is nothing light about the IRS assemblies. Its plain heavy, and the 05+ platforms are a heavier car anyways to start with. The IRS only came in 99/01 Cobra, and 03/04 Cobra's. I hope ford never uses it again.
> 
> ...


great post with one minor change 

amendment: there is no effing way im putting a trailer hitch on either car.


----------



## shwinn8 (Feb 25, 2006)




----------



## SAL9000 (Apr 16, 2010)

WRX by a country mile. It will be a better performance car, will be far more livable and will be all-weather capable. The only aspect I don't like about Subies is their flat-4 seems to be problematic after ~100k (head gasket job alone can be $1,500 - crack a head or two and that can double). 

I'm on the edge of buying a brand new base model Legacy GT Premium. With bargaining one could be had in the $25k range; it's a VASTLY more upscale car than the WRX; far more than the ~10% price premium would suggest.

True, the Legacy is not available in hatch/wagon any more, but the WRX hatch is tight on cargo room (noticeably less than the WRX sedan). It's also shocking cheap inside and has lots of road noise. I'd suggest driving both.


----------



## bing! (Jul 8, 2010)

Go with the mustang. It's an amazing piece of technology. That live axle is part tradition and part mechanical magic. The engine is almost miraculous for both the v8 and the v6. The subbie wrx is beautiful, however that boxer engine is aged, old tech and has gasket failure issues. An old dog with a new collar. Purely cosmetics, might as well buy a 5 year. Old car with low miles.


----------



## nojoke (Apr 15, 2008)

hahaha, I guess my standards are high, and 300HP doesnt cut it anymore for performance. Wait till ford throws the same motor that is in the SHO into the mustang here in the next couple of years. twin turbo v6. 


The smaller hitches tuck up pretty well, but they probably make some sort of trunk combo I would imagine.


----------



## chiplikestoridehisbike (Aug 8, 2007)

"great post with one minor change amendment: there is no effing way im putting a trailer hitch on either car."

I was going to mention get the mustang and a hitch rack as well. It sounds as if that is the car you want. Maybe you could get a roof rack for the mustang. Other than that from the criteria you have set, you will probably have to make some kind of compromise. I would love a 5 inch all mountain bike, that weighted 18 pounds, was incredibly stable on down hills and could take big hits, carved single track quickly, and climbed like a full rigid steel hardtail, but sometimes you have to be realistic. Those are really two completely different cars. Also, stereotypical banter in this thread is pretty entertaining.


----------



## gtluke (Aug 15, 2007)

go with the subaru if you like boys in sideways hats or women in flannel


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

gtluke said:


> go with the subaru if you like boys in sideways hats or women in flannel


that point alone almost cinches the mustang LOL

the common denominator is 13 second range performance vehicle. pros for the mustang are quality, its more "me", wont break, and RWD > AWD. points for the subaru are cargo space, price point, and it'd be a safer ride while being a bit faster in stock form.

the con for the stang is really only cargo space. everything about the car is better, i guess i could just carpool with a friend if we go do group stuff. con for the scooby is gonna be the realiability/maintenance beyond 100K, the tranny isn't as good as the mustang, and i get less for the same buck in the subaru vs the mustang.

maybe i should buy a 1500 dollar truck with the difference. can ya title something as a farm truck if you live in an apartment?


----------



## chiplikestoridehisbike (Aug 8, 2007)

Why not just get an older SVT Lightning? Faster than either and can haul bike stuff. Either car should last a long time if you maintain it. The only downside to the subaru would be the transmission if beat the crap out of it. AWD puts more stress on the drive train as the wheels are less like to slip when you dump the clutch from a standing start. I have had friends with both cars and not noticed any significant difference in either, unless they did something not so smart. Go with the mustang, you have said 3 times that it is the car you want, just figure out a way to haul you bikes.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

chiplikestoridehisbike said:


> Why not just get an older SVT Lightning? Faster than either and can haul bike stuff. Either car should last a long time if you maintain it. The only downside to the subaru would be the transmission if beat the crap out of it. AWD puts more stress on the drive train as the wheels are less like to slip when you dump the clutch from a standing start. I have had friends with both cars and not noticed any significant difference in either, unless they did something not so smart. Go with the mustang, you have said 3 times that it is the car you want, just figure out a way to haul you bikes.


well because it isn't faster than either, wont have a warranty, won't get 30+mpg. i wish they made a new one that had mid 20's mpg. that'd be rad.

yeah im pretty sold on the mustang. i just thought it'd be a fun discussion. i really like the WRX. too bad i can't have both.


----------



## ssalmons (Apr 15, 2008)

Have you test driven both cars? In my experience, AWD cars are a lot less fun to drive unless there is snow on the ground. Do you live in a climate that would require AWD? I live in St Louis, we get snow maybe 6 times a year, and there is no way I would buy AWD because of our weather. I have had 3 2 wheel drive trucks in the past and I have never been stuck because of snow or ice.

My opinion: buy the Mustang because you obviously want it more than the WRX. Add the hitch, even if you think it is ugly, because it is going to add a huge amount of practicality to an otherwise impractical car.

I have a Mazda 3 wagon with 80,000 miles and i wouldn't toss a muddy bicycle in the back of my car.


----------



## SAL9000 (Apr 16, 2010)

For me, in Seattle, not a lot of snow but with wet roads 6 months out of the year a moderately powerful 2WD car is fairly worthless when it comes to extracting performance. I just have an Accord (albeit with V6) and when wet it takes little throttle to be into traction control (= severely decreased acceleration). AWD that problem mostly goes away.

I also ski and drive over to the eastern part of the state (where there is a lot of snow) so a daily-driver RWD car is a no-go, as is a two-door for practical reasons. Personally, I'd chose a Genesis Coupe V6 if in the market for a moderate performance 2WD RWD coupe.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

SAL9000 said:


> I also ski and drive over to the eastern part of the state (where there is a lot of snow) so a daily-driver RWD car is a no-go, as is a two-door for practical reasons. Personally, I'd chose a Genesis Coupe V6 if in the market for a moderate performance 2WD RWD coupe.


yeah you're best suited with an AWD vehicle. the gen coupe doesn't perform as well as any 2011 mustang and price vs bang the mustang rapes the gen coupe by a longshot.

the trunk is effing tiny, too. there's this tiny little port hole in the back that you can slide a plang of wood or two through.. thats about it.


----------



## bustamove (Aug 12, 2004)

I vote for the Subie for its practicality over the Mustang, AWD advantage, and its dependability up to 100k miles. Yes, the fun factor is lower than a 2011 Stang. And also its fuel economy leaves a lot to be desired as I think about it, but the WRX will get you to the trail and back without you thinking twice about damaging the undercarriage when you have to go off-pavement.


----------



## crank1979 (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm thinking about similiar cars over here. I'm looking at the FPV F6 and the Impreza STi. The STi is a little ahead for me with better handling.


----------



## yoda2 (Nov 3, 2006)

I say go for the Mustang. It seems like Subaru turbo engines like to blow up a lot and need rebuilding/replacing.


----------



## 245044 (Jun 8, 2004)

Real "car guys" don't worry about rebuilding engines because they like it.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

mopartodd said:


> Real "car guys" don't worry about rebuilding engines because they like it.


oh SNAP my credibility is in question!


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> I'm thinking about similiar cars over here. I'm looking at the FPV F6 and the Impreza STi. The STi is a little ahead for me with better handling.


We have the Impreza WRX (not the STi version). It rocks in the snow, rain, and it's really fast. We would love the STi, but they are pretty expensive!


----------



## vrflip (Jul 21, 2010)

If you remove the wheels you can fit your bike in a 2011 Stang, easily. 

fyi, the guy talking trash on the live axle is a moron.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

gticlay said:


> We have the Impreza WRX (not the STi version). It rocks in the snow, rain, and it's really fast. We would love the STi, but they are pretty expensive!


The 2011 WRXs are (finally) pretty agressive, wider, stiffer suspension than previous years, horsepower increase, etc. 2008 was a pretty crappy year, and it was essentially a re-badged Impreza GT from japan, but the 2011 is a pretty good substitute if you can't afford the STI. Run rings around a similer-priced mustang.


----------



## bustamove (Aug 12, 2004)

*Subaru WRX STI video*

My friends over at Driving Sports TV got invited to the WRX STI media event and shot some video footage of the Subaru in its element -- dirt and mud! New for the 2011 Subaru WRX STI is the sedan body style.

http://reviews.carreview.com/blog/video-2011-subaru-impreza-wrx-sti-first-drive/

We have the 2011 Mustang V6 in for testing this week. Attempting to fit a mtn bike inside the trunk or back seat is a major PIA. Yes, the car is fun to drive but I don't see it as a good fit for people who have active outdoor lifestyle.


----------



## simple78 (Jul 4, 2010)

its a couple years old but still good info


----------



## shwinn8 (Feb 25, 2006)

gosh... them mustangs look so cute!


----------



## Ruzzo (Aug 21, 2009)

I vote WRX. i can say i am a bit partial after owning three subarus, but they are much more practical and fun when the road goes to dirt. they are very reliable after driving them to 200,000 miles with no problems other than a bad wheel bearing. They do not like to blow up as was mentioned previously, yes the 09's did have an oil consumption problem with the first few cars put on the show room floor, but that has since been resolved. But with the ability to do your own tuning for very cheap with a quick reliable vehicle is a big plus for me.

Mustangs are a decent car that can be reliable and quick as well, but in terms of practicality it falls quite short of subarus in general.


----------



## Jaunty_Joe (Jul 22, 2010)

If you are looking for practical, a WRX will win over a Mustang every time, awd, hatch, etc.. That said, I own a 97 Cobra, and I love it. Sure, it's a PITA to get my bike in and out, but who cares? If you do go with the Mustang, get the SVT suspension package, because it includes a 3.73 LSD rear axle package among other things. Whatever you do, you need an LSD w/ the Mustang. If you get a base model, go to certain sites, PM if you need URL's, and replace that open diff with AT LEAST an LSD, if not a full on Detroit Locker. And, if you don't up the gear ratio, it will feel like a slug off the line. We will have to wait and see what the magic gear ratio is for the new V6 (with my old modular 4V, 4.10's were the magic number) but if Ford is offering a 3.73 gear ratio package...something to keep in mind.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

Jaunty_Joe said:


> If you are looking for practical, a WRX will win over a Mustang every time, awd, hatch, etc.. That said, I own a 97 Cobra, and I love it. Sure, it's a PITA to get my bike in and out, but who cares? If you do go with the Mustang, get the SVT suspension package, because it includes a 3.73 LSD rear axle package among other things. Whatever you do, you need an LSD w/ the Mustang. If you get a base model, go to certain sites, PM if you need URL's, and replace that open diff with AT LEAST an LSD, if not a full on Detroit Locker. And, if you don't up the gear ratio, it will feel like a slug off the line. We will have to wait and see what the magic gear ratio is for the new V6 (with my old modular 4V, 4.10's were the magic number) but if Ford is offering a 3.73 gear ratio package...something to keep in mind.


2011 mustangs dont come with open diffs. BASE models are 305hp, LSD, and 6spd.


----------



## jlang002 (Jan 10, 2005)

SAL9000 said:


> WRX by a country mile. It will be a better performance car, will be far more livable and will be all-weather capable. The only aspect I don't like about Subies is their flat-4 seems to be problematic after ~100k (head gasket job alone can be $1,500 - crack a head or two and that can double).
> 
> I'm on the edge of buying a brand new base model Legacy GT Premium. With bargaining one could be had in the $25k range; it's a VASTLY more upscale car than the WRX; far more than the ~10% price premium would suggest.
> 
> True, the Legacy is not available in hatch/wagon any more, but the WRX hatch is tight on cargo room (noticeably less than the WRX sedan). It's also shocking cheap inside and has lots of road noise. I'd suggest driving both.


I 2nd you on the cheap WRX interior. I had an '05 (and they've probably changed a lot since them) and was very disappointed with the quality of the interior, especially attention to detail. I now have an 07 VW GTI and the difference is night and day, GTI blows away the WRX. Can't comment on the newer WRXs, so if they've improved, ignore everything I just said.
Cheers.
-jon


----------



## rcmay (Jul 18, 2005)

Getting a mustang with a V6 is like buying a S-works Carbon Epic 29'er with Sora Components! If your going to get a mustang, better make sure it has a V8! Have you thought about buying a truck?


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

rcmay said:


> Getting a mustang with a V6 is like buying a S-works Carbon Epic 29'er with Sora Components! If your going to get a mustang, better make sure it has a V8! Have you thought about buying a truck?


do you know anything about the car that you're ragging on?


----------



## rcmay (Jul 18, 2005)

Im not ragging on the car, its actually amazing what Ford has been able to do with a V6. But V6 mustangs are meant for high school cheerleaders! You just cant get a good sounding V6, unless its a turbo.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

rcmay said:


> Im not ragging on the car, its actually amazing what Ford has been able to do with a V6. But V6 mustangs are meant for high school cheerleaders! You just cant get a good sounding V6, unless its a turbo.


aaand thats a no.


----------



## 245044 (Jun 8, 2004)

rcmay said:


> Im not ragging on the car, its actually amazing what Ford has been able to do with a V6. But V6 mustangs are meant for high school cheerleaders! You just cant get a good sounding V6, unless its a turbo.


 X2 

Oh, you forgot old men who have too take Viagra.


----------



## bustamove (Aug 12, 2004)

*A weekend of testing the 2011 Mustang*

A review will eventually be published on CarReview, but here are our initial impressions of the 2011 Mustang V6.

Real world mileage if you have heavy feet: less than 15 mpg
Around town motoring and some freeway without racing at each stoplight: 21 mpg

Best things about the car:

Interior is pretty comfy and the infotainment system is really good and easy to use. Nice leather
Love the phat steering wheel
The steering is damn good. There's actually feedback. It also has a bit of self-centering which is nice because the car is a bit floaty
It looks awesome. I mean AWESOME
Nice that the rear seat headrests fold down for better visibility
After driving this for a few days - LOVE IT. Docile around town, transforms when you put the loud pedal down. Seats are super comfy, awesome ergonomics. And it looks perfect.

Worst things about the car:

Ride. It bobs up and down like a slammed civic. It's much better than the older v-8s but still, wtf? On the flip side it does feel very smooth even supple when not porpoising
The Shaker stereo lives up to its name; speakers frag out at high volume

There is a factory $395 option for a 3.31ratio axle. Absolutely worth adding to the package.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

bustamove said:


> A review will eventually be published on CarReview, but here are our initial impressions of the 2011 Mustang V6.
> 
> Real world mileage if you have heavy feet: less than 15 mpg
> Around town motoring and some freeway without racing at each stoplight: 21 mpg
> ...


i really wish they had the track pack available now. could you be more specific about your comments on the ride? the base suspension is alright but a few other mags got the one that actually had the track pack and said its night and day. basically its the 2009 bullitt/2010 GT suspension bits. you should mention how good that little whore sounds on with the engine at WOT 

what was your average hwy mpg?


----------



## bustamove (Aug 12, 2004)

Killertofu said:


> i really wish they had the track pack available now. could you be more specific about your comments on the ride? the base suspension is alright but a few other mags got the one that actually had the track pack and said its night and day. basically its the 2009 bullitt/2010 GT suspension bits. you should mention how good that little whore sounds on with the engine at WOT
> 
> what was your average hwy mpg?


Good suggestion. We'll definitely mention the acoustics at WOT. That engine and exhaust combo sings better than Jim Morrison.

I have to get back to you on hwy mpg since we haven't taken the time to record highway mileage. I have the Mustang for a couple more days and will report back.


----------



## karlmalone1 (Mar 27, 2008)

With the track pack, the v6 mustang handles amazingly. Not to mention the new v6 is an incredible motor that sound fantastic. And then there's the fact that the mustang undeniably looks cooler. And then there's the fun factor, which is probably in the mustangs favor, especially being rwd. I really like the WRX, i would love to drive one, but if i was putting my money down, it would no question be the mustang.


----------



## nsomniac (Dec 1, 2009)

I don't think there's much of a VS comparo here. These are 2 completely different cars. It's purpose and value VS temporary coolness and impracticality. If you want something that's cool for a couple years but won't carry your bike and a couple friends, buy the mustang V6. Just remember than it will cost loads to improve the performance, and the resell value will depreciate faster than a whore's pants at the sight of Benjamin Franklin. You'd be lucky to get $12k for a used 3 year old v6 mustang right now, and the new performance laden pony car isn't going to depreciate any slower with the GT around. But if you're content with the car the way it is, and plan on driving it until the wheels fall off, then go for it. You will have a blast and spend $28k doing it.

On the other hand, if you want a car that's more of an all purpose vehicle, go with the WRX. It's practical when you need to carry a bike and friends, capable when the weather is inclement, faster with a $500 tune, and you won't lose money hand over fist if you decide to upgrade in a few years. It's sporty looking, although it doesn't have near the cool factor as the stang. The interior is garbage, and it is prone to understeer, but at least you can fix the steering with some sways and possibly coilovers if you decide to get a little more serious. 

Short term the Mustang would be fun, but the impracticality seems like a big trade-off.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

while you are probably wrong about the mustang resale value dropping like a rock you're absolutely right about the practicality vs the fun. i find myself wanting to justify the mustang, resisting the WRX votes, and going back to the fact that i dont really need a 4 door hatch almost all the time. by the time i have a wifey and kids that need legroom the mustang will either be daddy's toy or traded off in favor off something more practical. 

what sucks the most is that i'm waiting on the arrival of the 2011 wrx AND the track pack V6 mustang so until then i'll be going over this in my head like a kid before christmas.


----------



## Lule (May 4, 2009)

nojoke said:


> The IRS only came in 99/01 Cobra, and 03/04 Cobra's.


Didn't the '86 and on GT have IRS? Pretty sure it did.

The turbo Subaru engines have/had a habit of wiping out the head gasket. It could probably be solved with an o-ringed head and a copper HG.

I'm a fan of hitch-mounted racks for the mud factor, but I don't see 2" hitches for either the Mustang or the WRX.

Given that, my vote is for the Subaru for the cargo(bike) aspect.


----------



## nsomniac (Dec 1, 2009)

Killertofu said:


> while you are probably wrong about the mustang resale value dropping like a rock you're absolutely right about the practicality vs the fun. i find myself wanting to justify the mustang, resisting the WRX votes, and going back to the fact that i dont really need a 4 door hatch almost all the time. by the time i have a wifey and kids that need legroom the mustang will either be daddy's toy or traded off in favor off something more practical.
> 
> what sucks the most is that i'm waiting on the arrival of the 2011 wrx AND the track pack V6 mustang so until then i'll be going over this in my head like a kid before christmas.


I don't know how wrong I am about the resale, this took 30 seconds of searching on autotrader in my area.

2007 Mustang V6 w/ 24k miles for $14k at the dealer ($12k if you know anything about negotiating)


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

nsomniac said:


> I don't know how wrong I am about the resale, this took 30 seconds of searching on autotrader in my area.
> 
> 2007 Mustang V6 w/ 24k miles for $14k at the dealer ($12k if you know anything about negotiating)


the new V6 is a completely different animal 

basically the only difference between the GT and the V6 is the front bumper, brembo option, and the 100 extra horsepower.

prior to 2011 the list of things not found on the V6 was about a mile long. so long, in fact, that it wasn't even considered a performance car. things have changed and when things change the market reflects it. expect the 2011 V6 mustangs to go for what the previous GT's went for and the 5.0 mustang variants to increase the resale value of the brand.

secretaries and cheerleaders aren't the only people interested in the V6 model anymore


----------



## mattsteve (Dec 28, 2004)

+1 on the secretaries and cheerleaders. 

Get the WRX. 

Ever notice how bad/outdated even 3-4 year old mustangs look? I don't know how Ford does it, but they have a special way of making a car age at an accelerated rate. 

Get the WRX. And as an added bonus, you won't have to fight open an 8 foot long door every time you get into and out of the car.


----------



## Ruzzo (Aug 21, 2009)

The resale value will undoubtedly drop just as all previous regular mustangs have. Only the special editions have somewhat held there value. I personally have sold a Subaru for more than I bought it for after almost 2 years of ownership and putting over 50,000 miles on it. Grant it that's a rare happening, but that won't happen with a basic mustang. Mustangs are nice looking cars and are fun to drive, but in my opinion certainly not more fun to drive than a wrx. Especially with all of the aftermarket available. The Subaru is definitely a muh more capable car in the fun to drive department. Either way good luck on the decision!


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Killertofu said:


> amendment: there is no effing way im putting a trailer hitch on either car.


:???:

That's the best way to carry bikes.


----------



## Lule (May 4, 2009)

nsomniac said:


> I don't know how wrong I am about the resale, this took 30 seconds of searching on autotrader in my area.
> 
> 2007 Mustang V6 w/ 24k miles for $14k at the dealer ($12k if you know anything about negotiating)


Fully inflated tires are extra.


----------



## nsomniac (Dec 1, 2009)

Lule said:


> Fully inflated tires are extra.


I did say used V6 mustang, if things weren't already falling apart, it wouldn't be right.


----------



## BeakJones (Oct 29, 2008)

Where do you live? Around here in Chicago, every friggin imbecile thinks they need AWD everytime it rains, or when it snows 8 days a year. They also think that 2wd cars are incapable of traveling a dirt road (sounds like a few of those here...)

I, personally, base my decisions on the laws of physics. I also work for a ford dealership, but as the IT person.


----------



## Lule (May 4, 2009)

Chicago, 2009: 28 days, 43" of snowfall. Methinks you should be more reserved with the use of 'friggin imbecile.'


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Lule said:


> Chicago, 2009: 28 days, 43" of snowfall. Methinks you should be more reserved with the use of 'friggin imbecile.'


Rear wheel drive cars with a solid axle drive in snow just fine. That's all we have used to have in Russia - dinky little RWDs. You can manage just fine - with proper tires. 28 days of snow? Oh, the horror.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Lule said:


> I'm a fan of hitch-mounted racks for the mud factor, but I don't see 2" hitches for either the Mustang or the WRX.
> .


You can do a hitch on the 2008+ WRX, usually they are 1.25, which is fine for transporting bikes, but if you can get a 1.25 on there you can usually do a 2" without much trouble. Carrying any 4-bike rack on a car that small is not really a good idea, 2" reciever or not.

Anyways, doing the math, the power-to-weight ratio of the WRX is better than the 300hp mustang. It also doesn't take much $$$ to seriously bump the wrx's power up some.


----------



## BeakJones (Oct 29, 2008)

Lule said:


> Chicago, 2009: 28 days, 43" of snowfall. Methinks you should be more reserved with the use of 'friggin imbecile.'


No. Absolutely not. It's hard to fully understand without living here so I can see where you're coming from with that statistic. I also love your avatar and agree with you fully there.

Why does everyone assume you can get more power out of a subaru engine? It already has a higher HP per Liter number so wouldn't it physically be easier to get more mustang power? I dont know any of the aftermarket products in circulation and know Subaru has a large following so it might be easier in that regard. From a physical standpoint it should be easier to get more power from the mustang.


----------



## Lule (May 4, 2009)

I'll preface this comment that I have never built a Subaru or Ford engine, but you are correct as the engine stresses will be less in the Mustang (3.7l). 300 distributed over six cylinders is better than over four. This especially true with boosted engines. It could explain the head gasket issue on the turbo Subarus. 

Thanks for the support on the NORML issue. It's kind of my cross to bear. I have this pipe dream of our nations leaders using logic and common sense for developing laws. I'm holding my breath...


----------



## BlackCanoeDog (Jul 26, 2003)

Lule said:


> It could explain the head gasket issue on the turbo Subarus.


Not to disagree with your general premise, but actually the Subaru head gasket issue was with the non-boosted engines! The 2.0L boosted 02-03 WRX has been very reliable. I still drive an '02 WRX wagon( actually new in Oct'01 ) and its been a great car! Still very tight and I hope to have it for some years yet!


----------



## CONoobie (Jul 2, 2010)

BeakJones said:


> No. Absolutely not. It's hard to fully understand without living here so I can see where you're coming from with that statistic. I also love your avatar and agree with you fully there.
> 
> Why does everyone assume you can get more power out of a subaru engine? It already has a higher HP per Liter number so wouldn't it physically be easier to get more mustang power? I dont know any of the aftermarket products in circulation and know Subaru has a large following so it might be easier in that regard. From a physical standpoint it should be easier to get more power from the mustang.


I only know a little about cars, but you can very easily get ~40 to 50 (maybe a little more?) HP out of a turbo engine just from a chip that modifies engine management. That costs around $500 or so. There is no way you can add 50 HP ish to a normally asiprated engine for $500 (at least I don't think there is a way, I am not a mechanic ).

So normally, when comparing a regular, non force induction engine to a turbo engine, it is easier and cheaper to up the power on the turbo engine (up to a point obviously, but I believe the WRX can safely be "chipped" and still be reliable). I have a turbo Audi, and the difference between stock, and chipped is noticeable.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

BeakJones said:


> Why does everyone assume you can get more power out of a subaru engine? It already has a higher HP per Liter number so wouldn't it physically be easier to get more mustang power? I dont know any of the aftermarket products in circulation and know Subaru has a large following so it might be easier in that regard. From a physical standpoint it should be easier to get more power from the mustang.


Well, I don't assume this, I know this, because I've done this.

With a NA engine, even if you get a "free flow" intake and exhaust, the engine isn't going to really suck any more air, or put any more fuel in there. The engine management system makes sure of this. Even when the engine management system is tweaked, you can't get much more because you can't increase the pressure of the air (amount of air) much, nor can you change the compression ratio. So unless you are actually adding a turbocharger or supercharger to a NA engine, there aren't very huge gains that can be made, especially with a relatively simple change.

With a turbo engine, you can simply tell the engine-management to rev the turbo up higher/sooner, building up more pressure, or more pressure earlier. This does increase the amount of oxygen going in there, and consequently more fuel can be burned, and more HP can be generated. This is very common. Further more, putting a different intake and especially a different exhaust can make a big difference, as the exhaust is what drives the turbo. This lets the turbo spin even faster, and generate more pressure. Putting an "exhaust" on a car always seems like the thing to do, yet most people don't realize that the gains are very minimal, and even with a turbo car, unless you are putting on a turbo-back exhaust, you aren't getting much. Some people just do the "axle-back" thing, which doesn't take into accoun the down-pipe or mid-pipe and catalytic converters. But when you open these up, then you get a pretty big increase, assuming the engine management can handle it (there are relatively easy upgrades for that). Next, you can put in a bigger intercooler relatively easily. This can cause more lag depending on how big it is, but usually a significantly bigger one is not going to cause any crazy lag, and dropping the intake temperature, even a little bit, results in more HP.

Then of course there is using a bigger turbo, upgrading the fuel injectors/rails/pump, and so on. Not as easy as the above, but still stuff that can be done.

So yes, it is relatively easy to extract more HP out of a turbo engine.

Also, you can't just go putting a turbo on a non-turbo car. Turbo-cars have low compression ratios because the turbo does a lot of the "compressing". They have high-pressure fuel systems that deliver much more fuel into the cylinders, to help cool the engine/turbo and to provide the required ratio of fuel to air. They usually have forged pistons/cylinders, and so on, and if you go putting a turbo on an engine that was not designed for it, it's going to end badly.

Getting 300hp out of the mustang V6 is probably a lot more "maxed out" in terms of compression ratio and the fact that it's a V6. It probably requires some good (but common these days) engine management to avoid detonation.


----------



## 245044 (Jun 8, 2004)

BlackCanoeDog said:


> Not to disagree with your general premise, but actually the Subaru head gasket issue was with the non-boosted engines! The 2.0L boosted 02-03 WRX has been very reliable. I still drive an '02 WRX wagon( actually new in Oct'01 ) and its been a great car! Still very tight and I hope to have it for some years yet!


 Too, Subaru has switched to a MLS (Multi layer steel) headgasket so leaks/failures should be long forgotten.


----------



## Lule (May 4, 2009)

BlackCanoeDog said:


> Not to disagree with your general premise, but actually the Subaru head gasket issue was with the non-boosted engines! The 2.0L boosted 02-03 WRX has been very reliable. I still drive an '02 WRX wagon( actually new in Oct'01 ) and its been a great car! Still very tight and I hope to have it for some years yet!


It's okay to disagree. I based my statement on my recent research on reliability ratings of the Outback, Impreza, and Legacy. It appeared that the turbo engines were exhibiting higher-than-average head gasket failures. The WRX wasn't on my list. It's too sporty(quick) for my wife to drive.

(I'd like to have one though.)


----------



## yoda2 (Nov 3, 2006)

But with the Ford engine you can easily supercharge it and get a lot more power. True you can do some engine management, bigger turbo type work on a WRX, but it seems like those engines blow up after a short while. At least that's what I've seen with a couple people I've known who have done that and I've personally saw WRX engine blow up at a track event. It also seems like the Subaru transmissions have a hard time handling all that extra power.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Why the heck would one modify engines on a new car? I can not believe that it is cheaper or yields better results then just buying a better car to start with. Even if you wring out a few dyno HP out of a dingy little engine - it would not make your transmission any smoother, or suspension any better.

Personally I believe in buying a better make and model - without all the silly options usually available. Second from the cheapest package usually does it.

One of the nicest little cars I have had was SVT Focus with 6sp. Bought one that was sitting in a garage for a year for very cheap - and sold it (  too small for a bigger family) for more then I have paid. It convinced me that Ford can make nice cars when they want to. It was not terribly fast, but drove very well and was well appointed - sort of a European idea of performance.


----------



## nsomniac (Dec 1, 2009)

Curmy said:


> Why the heck would one modify engines on a new car? I can not believe that it is cheaper or yields better results then just buying a better car to start with. Even if you wring out a few dyno HP out of a dingy little engine - it would not make your transmission any smoother, or suspension any better.
> 
> Personally I believe in buying a better make and model - without all the silly options usually available. Second from the cheapest package usually does it.
> 
> One of the nicest little cars I have had was SVT Focus with 6sp. Bought one that was sitting in a garage for a year for very cheap - and sold it (  too small for a bigger family) for more then I have paid. It convinced me that Ford can make nice cars when they want to. It was not terribly fast, but drove very well and was well appointed - sort of a European idea of performance.


It's called customizable performance. And we're not talking about a few dyno hp on a dingy car. We're talking about 20% increases in power for mods that cost under $1.2k No it doesn't make the suspension better, or the transmission smoother, but it doesn't hurt either of those either. The question is why you would buy a car that doesn't have a decent tranny or suspension to begin with. Personally, your idea of a good suspension and mine are probably quite different, just like it would be with most people. SVT focus suspension are nowhere near stiff enough for me, and the stock clutch/tranny can't hold the power I would want to run with it. That's why I own an evo, with significantly more HP and much stiffer suspension.

It's all dependent on what you want out of your car. I personally don't know many non-supercar vehicles out there that I wouldn't immediately modify to fit my handling/power requirements.


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

This thread is cracking me up. 

What's wrong with putting the bike(s) in the back of a pickup? Seems like it would make more sense than trying to stick bikes on either of the nancy-mobiles mentioned.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nsomniac said:


> Personally, your idea of a good suspension and mine are probably quite different, just like it would be with most people.


Oh, certainly. I currently drive a R350 M-B's minivan being happy as a clam with its performance - which I define as a smooth, solid ride to the mountains when loaded with gear. Before kids - 325 XiT station wagon was my favorite ride - with its wallowy suspension by BMW's standards. SVT Focus was about as firm as I can tolerate. I just mentioned it as an example that Ford does make decent cars IMO.


----------



## SAL9000 (Apr 16, 2010)

It is relatively easy to get more power out of a turbo car, but one has to ask, If it's so easy, why doesn't the automaker do it from the factory? It's primarily because doing such a thing adversely affects driveability (lag, throttle response) and durability. 

Outside that, should one experience a turbo or engine failure during the warranty period watch your warranty claim get denied. Resale will also suffer.

I agree with what was mentioned previously - bucking up at the time of purchase to buy the desired performance in a factory stock car is the only way to go. FWIW, I've learned this the hard way.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

SAL9000 said:


> It is relatively easy to get more power out of a turbo car, but one has to ask, If it's so easy, why doesn't the automaker do it from the factory? It's primarily because doing such a thing adversely affects driveability (lag, throttle response) and durability.


It also affects corporate average EPA mileage numbers.

And the truth is - most people with money to pay for a new car do not care about such silly things. And nobody cares about excitable youth who feel like a dyno curve or axle lift of their ride somehow defines them as a man.


----------



## jlemond (Aug 6, 2010)

After reading through this thread I would like to point out that the 09 on WRX does not have the old head gasket problems of the 07 and previous models. the new WRX has stronger internal and other than the 08 models are not showing any problems engine wise. Also the tyranny is being pushed farther power wise than previous year model WRX's. I have a 09 and no problems with it at all.


----------



## SAL9000 (Apr 16, 2010)

Curmy said:


> It also affects corporate average EPA mileage numbers.
> 
> And the truth is - most people with money to pay for a new car do not care about such silly things. And nobody cares about excitable youth who feel like a dyno curve or axle lift of their ride somehow defines them as a man.


I'd be surprised if Subaru was close to having CAFE issues as it doesn't have to balance against larger vehicles like those of many other auto makers.

As to the issue itself, mpg will only be noticeably affected only when on boost; government test regimes for mpg more or less do not reach boost levels - it is a relatively sedate test.


----------



## 245044 (Jun 8, 2004)

jlemond said:


> After reading through this thread I would like to point out that the 09 on WRX does not have the old head gasket problems of the 07 and previous models. the new WRX has stronger internal and other than the 08 models are not showing any problems engine wise. Also the tyranny is being pushed farther power wise than previous year model WRX's. I have a 09 and no problems with it at all.


 Too, I don't think it was the WRX necessarily that was having issues, but rather the STi, and it was piston issues with highly modded engines.


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

It seems pointless for someone to coop themselves up in an overly expensive, complex, small, and not particularly fast car like the Subaru WRX STI, and then try to carry bicycles with it.

Take fuel mileage for example:

The highway fuel mileage of the WRX STI is 23 mpg, and if you stick a bike on the roof, that's going to drop to less than 20 mpg. The the 505 horsepower 7.0 liter V8-powered 198 mph Z06 Corvette gets more than 23 mpg on the highway.

Or consider value:

You can literally buy two Ford Ranger pickups for the same amount of money as one WRX STI. You won't need to spend any money on a bike rack, and your fuel mileage won't go down when you throw your bike in the bed. By the way, the Ranger has highway mpg numbers as high as 27 mpg.

Or performance:

Even with all the "look at me" Batmobile hood scoops and wings, the "Fast and Furious" stickers, the whoopie-cushion exhaust sounds, and Ken Blocks race numbers, a trailered-in turbocharged WRX rally race car with a full roll cage can't get around a rally course as quickly as something as pedestrain as a single-cylinder dual-sport dirt bike:






And if you're looking for REAL performance, there are a number of open-class Supersport solutions available for around $13,000 that are all capable of 0-60 in about two and a half seconds, 9 second quarter miles, 185 mph top speeds, and 1.4g lateral acceleration, on stock-sized DOT-legal tires. And they get about 40 mpg.

Heck, compared to buying a WRX STI, you could buy a Ranger pickup AND an open-class Supersport, and still have $5,000 left over for a brand new mountain bike of your choice.


----------



## chiplikestoridehisbike (Aug 8, 2007)

"It seems pointless for someone to coop....."

Candidate for the most unintelligent post in a while. Basically you are arguing that there are number of vehicles that can outperform an STI in specific categories. I am not an STI fan by any means, but this is weak at best.


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

I always recommend using the correct tool for the task at hand.

In this particular case, what is the task at hand?

I highly doubt that he is trying to win a race in the snow with his mountain bike on the roof, while setting a fuel mileage record in the smallest car possible.


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

A lot of people tend to buy Subaru cages because they have an aversion to synthetic fibers, personal hygene, life outside of college, alarm clocks, heterosexuality, shaving, firearms, employment (except for IT and cat shelters), and red meat.


----------



## nsomniac (Dec 1, 2009)

Every time a car thread is brought up, RIS comes trolling with his "you should buy a sportbike" shtick. Obvious troll is obvious. He couldn't even get the cars this thread is about correct, so please don't feed the troll. Christ, look at his last two posts if you need evidence that he offers nothing to this thread or the forum.


----------



## nsomniac (Dec 1, 2009)

SAL9000 said:


> It is relatively easy to get more power out of a turbo car, but one has to ask, If it's so easy, why doesn't the automaker do it from the factory? It's primarily because doing such a thing adversely affects driveability (lag, throttle response) and durability.
> 
> Outside that, should one experience a turbo or engine failure during the warranty period watch your warranty claim get denied. Resale will also suffer.
> 
> I agree with what was mentioned previously - bucking up at the time of purchase to buy the desired performance in a factory stock car is the only way to go. FWIW, I've learned this the hard way.


Lag and throttle response mainly occur with big turbo kits, not your more simple modifications common to f/i cars. As I said before, $1200 can usually net you around 50hp, something unheard of in n/a vehicles at that price. That's an exhaust and tune. There is nothing but improved performance at that level. The only potential life lost would be to the turbo, but that depends on the vehicle. Car companies don't tune cars close to their potential because they don't want to warranty what stupid people might do with them. When a car has a custom tune and another part is added/subtracted, it needs re-tuned. If they didn't pre-program the afr's as low as they do, some guy at high altitude that throws an intake on his car could experience detonation and that creates the whole "subaru's engines are blowing up" scare. Manufacturers of f/i cars are extremely cautious about their initial tunes.

As far as the warranty getting denied - pull the tune off the car prior to taking it in. Also, the warranty can't be denied without proof that the modification was what caused the failure.

Manufacturers are great at building cars that perform for pedestrian use. Anyone who wants more out of their car either has the option of saving up for a supercar, or modifying what is available to meet their needs. Saying it's all about bucking up and buying what you want from the start is like saying you shouldn't put aftermarket parts on your bike, you should buy it with what you need from the factory. Not too many manufacturers or car models have the best of everything you could want.


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

nsomniac said:


> As far as the warranty getting denied - pull the tune off the car prior to taking it in. Also, the warranty can't be denied without proof that the modification was what caused the failure.


Warranty fraud is never a good idea.


----------



## nsomniac (Dec 1, 2009)

Read the second sentence. Dealers like to blame altered tunes for everything and anything under the sun, especially for people not willing to fight it. De-tuning a vehicle removes that from the equation. Fraud would be asking them to warranty something that was caused by something you remove.


----------



## CONoobie (Jul 2, 2010)

So where is the car that can haul stuff like a pick up, go as fast as a high end sport bike, and costs as much as a V6 Mustang or WRX (not an STI)... Hmmmm, no where.
Whatever car the OP chooses, there will be compromises, just have to figure out what is most important to you and go from there.


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

nsomniac said:


> Read the second sentence. Dealers like to blame altered tunes for everything and anything under the sun, especially for people not willing to fight it. De-tuning a vehicle removes that from the equation. Fraud would be asking them to warranty something that was caused by something you remove.


You should quit while you're behind.

Warranties covers defects, not damages.

If I have a technician tear down your engine and find a hole in one of your pistons, that's damage. YOURS. Not mine. Not the dealerships. Not Subaru's. YOURS. I can only charge the manufacturer to repair YOUR engine if my tech finds a defect. Pistons don't put holes in themselves. YOU would pay to fix YOUR engine in that scenario.

I've been down this road dozens and dozens of times. It's best to just man up and be honest from the get go. If there has been an attempt to conceal modifications, it is almost always found out. There's always evidence. And once you've lied to the dealership, you're not going to be getting any goodwill assistance. Ever.

Besides, even if your attempt to deceive is successful, who exactly do you think you'd be putting one over on? The cost of warranty fraud, just like the cost of any other kind of theft, is paid for by honest customers, through increased prices. All you'd be doing is ripping off everybody else who buys a Subaru.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

chiplikestoridehisbike said:


> Candidate for the most unintelligent post in a while.


He has a number of those. Wait until he starts comparing cars to motorcycles. Oh, he already does. Prime example of the teenager level understanding of what performance means that I was talking about.


----------



## 245044 (Jun 8, 2004)

RIS said:


> A lot of people tend to buy Subaru cages because they have an aversion to synthetic fibers, personal hygene, life outside of college, alarm clocks, heterosexuality, shaving, firearms, employment (except for IT and cat shelters), and red meat.


A lot, no, maybe some. :thumbsup:


----------



## nsomniac (Dec 1, 2009)

Yeah, I'm not biting on his troll bit again. If he can't manage to read, it's his problem. I thought it was pretty obvious when I said "Fraud would be asking them to warranty something that was caused by something you remove", and never made any mention of making a dealer repair anything but defective equipment, but apparently that was too complicated for him. I've seen dealers try to deny claims on suspension parts, power windows, etc, all because an engine was tuned. In that respect, people just need to use their head. If you've got a clutch that goes out after a few months of torturous use, it's not getting warrantied. Suck it up and buy a better purpose built clutch. Same goes for any other part subjected to abuse. 

And whatever you do, ignore RIS posts. You'll get sucked into his miserable existence filled with biker boyz, nothing on 4 wheels being good at anything besides carrying things, and a lifelong obsession with trolling to feel better about how bad your life sucks.


----------



## Monk_Knight (Aug 1, 2008)

The cool factor of the stang? Everyone has one! Seriously... maybe if you were rocking a '68 then you'd have some cool factor, but most of the new ones just scream that you bought the car because you think it's cool to have a mustang.

Personally... I like the look of the WRX more... plus it's faster; plus you can actually drive it in snow, mud, etc; plus you can carry more then a couple bags of groceries in it.


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

mopartodd said:


> A lot, no, maybe some. :thumbsup:


You should see the bohemian granola-munchers in the service department waiting room with the Fast and the Furious goof-balls. Talk about an awkward silence...


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

Monk_Knight said:


> Personally... I like the look of the WRX more... plus it's faster...


I'd be interested in seeing some actual test results regarding the "faster" part.

It occurs to me that the $22,000 / 31 mpg V6 Mustang has 40 horsepower more than the $25,000 / 25 mpg base model WRX.

And the $29,000 / 26 mpg Mustang GT has more than 100 horsepower more than the $35,000 / 23 mpg WRX STI.

Or, to put it another way, the $22,000 / 31 mpg V6 Mustang has the same horsepower as the $35,000 / 23 mpg WRX STI.


----------



## nsomniac (Dec 1, 2009)

OP - Just in case you wanted a single source review for both vehicles, they can be found here. The WRX in the test is the sedan version, but the hatch has never been a significant weight increase over the sedan in the past, and the performance is usually unchanged.

These tests won't help you decide which one fits your needs better, but if you had questions like "how could one car have more power and be slower" because you were an idiot and didn't understand curbweight, suspension, drive train, and gearing, this should clear that up for you.

Highlights:
WRX 0-60: 4.7 sec
Mustang 0-60: 5.4 sec

WRX 1/4 mile 13.5 sec 
Mustang 1/4 mile 14.0 sec

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/10q1/2011_ford_mustang_v6-short_take_road_test
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/10q3/2011_subaru_impreza_wrx-first_drive_review

Neither of them would touch a motorcycle though. Even if it gets a little cold going over the pass.


----------



## BeakJones (Oct 29, 2008)

RIS said:


> If I have a technician tear down your engine and find a hole in one of your pistons, that's damage. YOURS. Not mine. Not the dealerships. Not Subaru's. YOURS. I can only charge the manufacturer to repair YOUR engine if my tech finds a defect. Pistons don't put holes in themselves. YOU would pay to fix YOUR engine in that scenario.


What in Gods name are you babbling about? That would definately be covered by the warranty unless it was PROVEN that the customer caused it. If it was a defective part that caused it, then the damage is covered. I work for Ford, I see THOUSANDS of these per year and know an idiot when I see one!

*edit* I see you can't even understand why a car with more power might be slightly slower?! You take stupid to a staggering new level!


----------



## SAL9000 (Apr 16, 2010)

nsomniac said:


> Lag and throttle response mainly occur with big turbo kits, not your more simple modifications common to f/i cars. As I said before, $1200 can usually net you around 50hp, something unheard of in n/a vehicles at that price. That's an exhaust and tune. There is nothing but improved performance at that level. The only potential life lost would be to the turbo, but that depends on the vehicle. Car companies don't tune cars close to their potential because they don't want to warranty what stupid people might do with them. When a car has a custom tune and another part is added/subtracted, it needs re-tuned. If they didn't pre-program the afr's as low as they do, some guy at high altitude that throws an intake on his car could experience detonation and that creates the whole "subaru's engines are blowing up" scare. Manufacturers of f/i cars are extremely cautious about their initial tunes.


Nah, automakers wouldn't spend millions $$$ to over-develop an engine only to neuter it because of being afraid. Said automaker would (and does) gets it just about right right out of the box.



> As far as the warranty getting denied - pull the tune off the car prior to taking it in. Also, the warranty can't be denied without proof that the modification was what caused the failure.


My hunch is that being flash memory Subaru has made it such that it is possible to tell that an ECU has been reflashed (thought that's a guess). But as another poster mentions, this is fraudulent behavior.



> Manufacturers are great at building cars that perform for pedestrian use. Anyone who wants more out of their car either has the option of saving up for a supercar, or modifying what is available to meet their needs. Saying it's all about bucking up and buying what you want from the start is like saying you shouldn't put aftermarket parts on your bike, you should buy it with what you need from the factory. Not too many manufacturers or car models have the best of everything you could want.


Yeah, more or less true; I was a little harsh on that. My point is that putting $5k into a $25k WRX may get you on-paper acceleration stats of a C6, M3 or 911, but yeah, it won't be as reliable or durable and won't be warrantable. Sure one sidesteps the $50k - $90k cost of true hi-po cars but the trade-offs are substantial (and not worth it IMO).


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

nsomniac said:


> OP - Just in case you wanted a single source review for both vehicles, they can be found here. The WRX in the test is the sedan version, but the hatch has never been a significant weight increase over the sedan in the past, and the performance is usually unchanged.
> 
> These tests won't help you decide which one fits your needs better, but if you had questions like "how could one car have more power and be slower" because you were an idiot and didn't understand curbweight, suspension, drive train, and gearing, this should clear that up for you.
> 
> ...


I hope that you realize that since you "outed" yourself as a liar and a thief, your words have no value.

And as another example of your ongoing integrity deficit, I must point out that the Subaru article that you referenced was not a test at all. It was a "First Drive" editorial, that quoted performance information that was several years old, and it was for vehicles other than the 2011 WRX.



BeakJones said:


> What in Gods name are you babbling about? That would definately be covered by the warranty unless it was PROVEN that the customer caused it. If it was a defective part that caused it, then the damage is covered. I work for Ford, I see THOUSANDS of these per year and know an idiot when I see one!


You work for Ford, or you work for a Ford dealership?

I was a Ford factory-trained technician, a service consultant, and a service manager. I've been around the block a time or two, and it sounds like you've never read Ford's P&P manuals. The Magnuson-Moss Act makes no mention of damage. Only defects. A hole melted in a piston is not a defect of the piston. It is damage that was sustained by the piston.


----------



## chiplikestoridehisbike (Aug 8, 2007)

"I always recommend using the correct tool for the task at hand."

RIS by your logic he should definitely pick up one of these:

http://www2.showroom.fordvehicles.com/Showroom.jsp?space=Trucks

He could buy 3-4 of them for the price of 1 vette.

Gets a combined 23 mpg, not some fantasy land downhill, tailwind hwy mileage.

And it offers real performance compared to the uber gay, small penis, look at me in my pretend race leather garb sport bike riders of the world who clog up the track and rev around town with their "I am so fast I just smoked a minivan" d bag driving in traffic. As shown here 



 it is easily twice as fast as a sport bike, so for real performance, get the van.

Oh and you can lock your bike up as well as live in it down by the river. So forget the STI for sure and pass on the Mustang and get the right tool for the job.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

RIS said:


> I'd be interested in seeing some actual test results regarding the "faster" part.
> 
> It occurs to me that the $22,000 / 31 mpg V6 Mustang has 40 horsepower more than the $25,000 / 25 mpg base model WRX.


You my friend, are an idiot. It doesn't matter how much HP it has, it matters what the HP to weight ratio is. The WRX wins. It also will do far better in handling due to the lighter weight.


----------



## 245044 (Jun 8, 2004)

Jayem said:


> You my friend, are an idiot. It doesn't matter how much HP it has, it matters what the HP to weight ratio is...*AND HOW MUCH HP GETS TO THE GROUND.* The WRX wins. It also will do far better in handling due to the lighter weight.


FIXED.


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

Jayem said:


> You my friend, are an idiot.


You are not my friend, and we shall now explore who the idiot is:



> It doesn't matter how much HP it has, it matters what the HP to weight ratio is.


Since my experience with sanctioned NHRA drag racing only goes back to the '70s, I certainly don't know everything. But I have a fairly decent handle on horsepower to weight ratios and how they relate to terminal velocity. And it does matter how much horsepower a vehicle has, because that has a huge effect on the horsepower to weight ratio.

To further explore this, consider the following:

WRX STI advertised horsepower to weight ratio: 3395 pounds / 305 horsepower = 11.1 pounds per horsepower
2011 Mustang V6 advertised horsepower to weight ratio: 3453 pounds / 305 horsepower = 11.3 pounds per horsepower
2011 Mustang GT advertised horsepower to weight ratio: 3605 pounds / 412 horsepower = 8.7 pounds per horsepower
BMW S1000RR advertised horsepower to weight ratio: 403 pounds / 193 horsepower = 2.0 pounds per horsepower

WRX STI acceleration: 0-60 mph 4.8 seconds, 1/4 mile 13.5 @ 100.6 mph (Motor Trend)
2011 Mustang V6 acceleration: 0-60 mph 5.1 seconds, 1/4 mile 13.7 @ 102.0 mph (Motor Trend)
2011 Mustang GT acceleration: 0-60 mph 4.3 seconds, 1/4 mile 12.8 @ 110.8 mph (Motor Trend)
BMW S1000RR acceleration: 0-60 mph 2.5 seconds, 1/4 mile 9.5 @ 156.0 mph (Motor Cyclist)



> The WRX wins. It also will do far better in handling due to the lighter weight.


Please tell me that you're not hanging all your worldly hopes on 58 pounds. I'd be more inclined to focus on some significant difference, like the fact that the V6 Mustang costs $13,000 less than the WRX STI, and it gets up to 8 mpg more on the highway. Or the fact that the Mustang GT costs $6,000 less and gets 3 mpg better on the highway (not to mention the fact that it waxes the WRX's hairless little butt).

In any case, I'll try to let you down easy. Motor Trend's test of the 2011 V6 Mustang produced .96g of lateral acceleration. Motor Trend's test of the WRX STI Special Edition (lightweight club racer with Japanese Spec C suspension) produced .94g of lateral acceleration, which was easily matched in their testing of the 2011 Mustang GT.

References:

Motor Trend test of 2010 WRX STI SE:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests...preza_wrx_sti_special_edition_test/index.html

Motor Trend test of the 2011 Mustang V6:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_1003_2011_ford_mustang_v_6_test/index.html

Motor Trend test of the 2011 Mustang GT:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_1003_2011_ford_mustang_gt_premium_test/index.html

Manufacturer's specifications of the 2010 WRX STI:

http://www.subaru.com/vehicles/impreza-wrx/sti/features-specs.html

Manufacturer's specifications of the 2011 Mustang V6:

http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2011_Mustang_V6_Specs.pdf

Manufacturer's specification of the 2011 Mustang GT:

http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2011_Mustang_GT_Specs.pdf

Manufacturer's specifications of the 2011 S1000RR:

http://www.bmwmotorcycles.com/us/en/index.html

8.48 @ 158 mph on an S1000RR with a stock engine:






Three more 8-second laps on a stock wheelbase / stock engine S1000RR:


----------



## Eric91Z (Aug 6, 2010)

To the original poster: just like a new bicycle, get out there and drive as many of both that you are interested in and buy which one you like best! Especially since this thread seems to have gotten so far off topic.

When it comes to the base cars themselves I say evaluate what you will really use it for. I have driven a lot of Mustangs, Camaros, and other RWD vehicles as daily drivers year round. With a good set of winter wheels/tires I could go about anywhere I wanted. My old Crown Vic with Blizzak WS-60's on it would go through about anything, stop, and turn.

That being said, it was big, had big doors, hard to fit in a garage with another vehicle, and was just not overly fun to drive due to the size. Yes, the F-Bodies and Mustangs I have owned, raced and driven are fun, but since having my Subaru ('09 Outback Sport) I have really enjoyed being in a smaller car. Perfect for my active lifestyle and my 5 year old daughter can now open the car doors without my help to get in on her own! By the way, one thing to take into consideration if that the WRX and STi both take premium fuel. Not sure on the Mustang. That was one of the reasons I went with the OBS is it has the non-turbo motor, but I do miss the power.

As for upgrades, there are plenty for both - or I assume there will be plenty for the new V6 Mustang soon. Probably more than the past as they say the V6 Mustang with the Trak Pak is more fun to drive than the GT as far as handling goes.

Anyway, the Subaru with Blizzaks on it handled the 90+ days of continous snow on the ground and record breaking snow fall amounts we had here in Iowa last year. Love my Subaru and will replace it with another when this one wears out.

That being said, I feel the Ford has more technology in it in some areas: SAT/NAV, Sync, etc. Subarau radios really suck unless you get the factory sub and only listen to CD's or an iPod! But I do also love my heated windshield that keeps the wipers clear of ice!

Couple pics:


















Good luck in your decision!


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

RIS said:


> You are not my friend, and we shall now explore who the idiot is:


The data I have says that a 2011 mustang V6 coupe with MT is 3750. You are saying the mustang is 3453, ok.

I don't know why you keep mentioning the Subaru WRX STI, it's as if you never read the title of this thread? I also have to ask why you are mentioning the V8 mustang? That is also not one of the cars being discussed here.

The specs for the WRX are 265hp and 3174lbs.

WIth some minor modding, the WRX will easily have a higher hp/weight ratio.

If you're going to try and throw the "idiot" card back in my face, the least you can do is actually read the thread. Nearly 300lbs lighter is a pretty good chunk, and yes, it's going to be a much more nimble car.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

Jayem said:


> The data I have says that a 2011 mustang V6 coupe with MT is 3750
> 
> I don't know why you keep mentioning the Subaru WRX STI, it's as if you never read the title of this thread? I also have to ask why you are mentioning the V8 mustang? That is also not one of the cars being discussed here.
> 
> ...


your data is wrong or you read it wrong. the 2011 V6 is 3450.

the base WRX runs the same quarter mile as the STI. the lack of power and lighter weight just balance out.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Killertofu said:


> your data is wrong or you read it wrong. the 2011 V6 is 3450.
> 
> the base WRX runs the same quarter mile as the STI. the lack of power and lighter weight just balance out.


True, but the STI has upgraded brakes, anti-sway, suspension, 6 speeds (the gear change makes the 0-60 not all that impressive and so on), better acceleration at top-end, etc. But again, this thread isn't about the STI or the GT.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

Jayem said:


> True, but the STI has upgraded brakes, anti-sway, suspension, 6 speeds (the gear change makes the 0-60 not all that impressive and so on), better acceleration at top-end, etc. But again, this thread isn't about the STI or the GT.


which accounts for the extra weight, cost, and is totally irrelevant...


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

The base model WRX does not compare well against the base model Mustang V6.

In terms of acceleration, they are virtually indistinguishable.

The highway fuel mileage of the Mustang V6 is about 6 mpg higher than the base model WRX.

The Mustang V6 costs about $3,000 less than the base Model WRX.

But the biggest difference is in the handling. As I pointed out above, the Mustang V6 is capable of .96g of lateral acceleration. The base model WRX is only capable of about .85g of lateral acceleration. That's a pretty huge difference. Like the difference between a Porsche and a Park Avenue. If you drove them back-to-back, the WRX would feel like a sinking oil tanker.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/hatchbacks/112_0810_2009_subaru_impreza_wrx_test/index.html


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

RIS said:


> The base model WRX does not compare well against the base model Mustang V6.


I wonder - how many people should tell you that you are an idiot before you take a hint?

Nobody cares about apples to oranges comparison. And only a few poseurs suffering from delayed puberty do share your definition of "performance".


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

Curmy said:


> I wonder - how many people should tell you that you are an idiot before you take a hint?
> 
> Nobody cares about apples to oranges comparison. And only a few poseurs suffering from delayed puberty do share your definition of "performance".


the OP cares. its not apples to oranges. they're performance cars and both have pros and cons.

im enjoying this thread


----------



## SKPhoto816 (Aug 5, 2010)

I've been using a 2007 WRX Wagon since it was new. I've stuffed large multiple large framed bikes in there at the same time (current record is a Titus FTM, Santa Cruz Superlight, and a Trek road bike; all the wheels resting on top of the frames and a pretty girl in the passenger seat). Third Subaru I've owned, great cars for mountains/hills/whatever. Best upgrade (besides a hitch and hitch mounted rack so the dog could come too) is tossing on some Forester shocks to give it a lift and wail on it up mining roads. Pretty reliable things with great capability. That being said, the mustang is much prettier. Either way you'll have a fun car.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Killertofu said:


> the OP cares. its not apples to oranges. they're performance cars and both have pros and cons.


OP did not sound like a retard justifying preconceived decisions based on a few irrelevant numbers. When picking between and apple and an orange - at least do not base it solely on the average weight of the fruit.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

RIS said:


> But the biggest difference is in the handling. As I pointed out above, the Mustang V6 is capable of .96g of lateral acceleration. The base model WRX is only capable of about .85g of lateral acceleration. That's a pretty huge difference. Like the difference between a Porsche and a Park Avenue. If you drove them back-to-back, the WRX would feel like a sinking oil tanker.


You're confusing grip with handling, they are not the same thing.

Steady state lateral acceleration tells you how grippy the (stock) tires are. That's about all.

BTW I'm not saying either car handles better, but throwing out a bigger skid pan number as a way to quantify one cars handling being better than another is a face palm moment.

And as far as comparing peak HP numbers (the numbers the mags tout), well that doesn't tell the whole story. Total area under the HP and Torque curve tells a compete story.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

SKPhoto816 said:


> Best upgrade (besides a hitch and hitch mounted rack so the dog could come too) is tossing on some Forester shocks to give it a lift and wail on it up mining roads. Pretty reliable things with great capability. That being said, the mustang is much prettier. Either way you'll have a fun car.


Nice mod! I have a 04' Forester XT with a 5speed + worn down studded snow tires that grip very well on dirt/gravel. So much fun to come in a little hot, lift the throttle, swing the back out and then punch the throttle and slide out of the corner. The wife doesn't not share my enthusiasm, unfortunately.

If I didn't live at 9,000ft and hit 12-14K passes + snow and dirt roads I think I rather a naturally aspirated RWD car though.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

curmy - the OP doesn't feel this to be irrelevant information, thus, it isn't.



Steve71 said:


> You're confusing grip with handling, they are not the same thing.
> 
> Steady state lateral acceleration tells you how grippy the (stock) tires are. That's about all.
> 
> ...


lateral grip has everything to do with handling. i dont know RIS at all but as a car guy i can tell he knows what he's talking about here.

1. how "grippy" the stock tires are is determined (heavily) by the ability of the suspension to effectively manage the load.

2. the lighter AWD car has worse numbers than the heavier RWD car. the car with more actual tire grip and less weight to abuse that grip... did worse. think about it.

besides, i've driven both and the WRX is a boat compared to the mustang even without the track pack. its noticible.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Killertofu said:


> curmy - the OP doesn't feel this to be irrelevant information, thus, it isn't.


That does not make RIS any less of what he is. Which was my point.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

Curmy said:


> That does not make RIS any less of what he is. Which was my point.


sorry, i guess i have a bad habit of not responding to people based on preconceived notions.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Handling is more the cars tendency to over-steer/under-steer and how (and how quickly) it reacts to throttle and braking inputs at the limit of grip. There are a boat load of factors that come into play. 

Which car handles better, a stock FWD Civic with R compound tires, or a 911 with all crappy all-seasons?

Obviously the 911 will handle better, but the Civic will put down a bigger skid pan number.

Grip by itself is pretty useless and un-rewarding to drive if the car handles like poo.

BTW I'm not saying the mustang handles like poo.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

Steve71 said:


> Handling is more the cars tendency to over-steer/under-steer and how (and how quickly) it reacts to throttle and braking inputs at the limit of grip. There are a boat load of factors that come into play.
> 
> Which car handles better, a stock FWD Civic with R compound tires, or a 911 with all crappy all-seasons?
> 
> ...


lateral grip has nothing to do with handling. gotcha.

wow.


----------



## AWDfreak (Jan 28, 2007)

Killertofu said:


> lateral grip has nothing to do with handling. gotcha.
> 
> wow.


Not necessarily. From my understanding, lateral grip numbers only determine how well a car can hold a corner. When it comes to changing direction (in places such as an extremely twisty mountain pass), slalom speed tends to be more relevant.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

AWDfreak said:


> Not necessarily. From my understanding, lateral grip numbers only determine how well a car can hold a corner. When it comes to changing direction (in places such as an extremely twisty mountain pass), slalom speed tends to be more relevant.


so holding a corner has nothing to do with holding a series of corners?


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Killertofu said:


> lateral grip has nothing to do with handling. gotcha.
> 
> wow.


I never said they had nothing to do with one another. I said they are not the same thing.

Sorry if I've confused you.

[Edit]

Here is a wiki on car handling - take note of the sentence I've highlighted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_handling

Car handling and vehicle handling is a description of the way wheeled vehicles perform transverse to their direction of motion, particularly during cornering and swerving. It also includes their stability when moving in a straight line. Handling and braking are the major components of a vehicle's "active" safety. *The maximum lateral acceleration is sometimes discussed separately as "road holding"*. Handling is an esoteric performance area because rapid and violent maneuvers are often only used in unforeseen circumstances. (This discussion is directed at road vehicles with at least three wheels, but some of it may apply to other ground vehicles.)


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

Steve71 said:


> I never said they had nothing to do with one another. I said they are not the same thing.
> 
> Sorry if I've confused you.


the implication that you pushed is that skid PAD numbers have jack to do with handling.

okay, well you can believe that but the entire performance industry and every car guy on the planet disagrees. i mean, as long as your comfortable with that then more power to ya lol


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Killertofu said:


> the implication that you pushed is that skid PAD numbers have jack to do with handling.
> 
> okay, well you can believe that but the entire performance industry and every car guy on the planet disagrees. i mean, as long as your comfortable with that then more power to ya lol


See wiki as linked above. It totally supports what I'm saying.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

Steve71 said:


> See wiki as linked above. It totally supports what I'm saying.


your misinterpretation of what wiki says just further supports the fact that my conveying real world experience is probably a waste of time. i mean, what do i know? i've just been in the performance industry and have modded everything from mustangs to ferraris.

but hey, you go with wiki. i'm prolly just making this crap up.


----------



## AWDfreak (Jan 28, 2007)

Killertofu said:


> so holding a corner has nothing to do with holding a series of corners?


No, not at all. They're both relevant, but I feel that slalom speed is more relevant. Not that my opinion matters at this point with these facts being thrown around.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

AWDfreak said:


> No, not at all. They're both relevant, but I feel that slalom speed is more relevant. Not that my opinion matters at this point with these facts being thrown around.


here's my review: the mustang handles better even without the track pack 

the stang is obviously more focused and the WRX is obviously more practical in terms of cargo.

this thread is more about the practical points of the mustang (mpg/features) vs its impracticality VS the practical points of the WRX (cost/cargo) vs the impractical parts (mpg/features).

what we're exploring is the trade offs that are required for each performance car. both perform in the same ballpark with the mustang having the edge on handling and the WRX having the edge on acceleration.

maybe we can all be friends now


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Killertofu said:


> your misinterpretation of what wiki says just further supports the fact that my conveying real world experience is probably a waste of time. i mean, what do i know? i've just been in the performance industry and have modded everything from mustangs to ferraris.
> 
> but hey, you go with wiki. i'm prolly just making this crap up.


I'm game, please enlighten me as to how I'm misinterpreting the wiki article. 

Road holding and handling are not the same thing (fact). It's silly to compare two car's road holding (lateral skid pan numbers) with different tires.

If the cars have the same tires, air pressure, drivers and skidpan + track temp, then and only then can you make any kind of meaningful comparison about *road holding*. But it still tells us almost nothing about how the car handles. Handling is a dynamic quality that can't be given a number, on the other hand road holding is a static quality that is quantifiable with a skid pan number.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

OK Mr Tofu, if you're having trouble with the wiki, here's an old top gear video for you to watch.

Note they say at the onset, "It's important to distinguish between handling and road-holding, or handling and grip as we'll term it."


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

Steve71 said:


> OK Mr Tofu, if you're having trouble with the wiki, here's an old top gear video for you to watch.
> 
> Note they say at the onset, "It's important to distinguish between handling and road-holding, or handling and grip as we'll term it."


/facepalm

1. you're acting as if the cars are running r compound VS runflats and that just isn't so.
2. you're doing semantic summersaults to deal with the obvious fact that one car outhandles another
3. your previous logic was "skidpad numbers are just a show of how much grip a car has" which is really kind of silly when you think about the fact that its an AWD car that is LIGHTER vs a RWD car that is HEAVIER.

the WRX has more grip per lb, therefore, should have the higher skidpad number but the stang (which has less grip per lb) schools it hard shooting a battleship sized hole in your theory.

lastly, we aren't talking about RALLY cars or driving in the RAIN or DRIFTING therefore lateral grip has everything to do with the two cars' ability to throw their weight around corners. on top of that, i've driven both and im telling you that the numbers fit. the WRX has a crapton more body roll than the stang and that translate to crappier numbers.

cereally, bro.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

skid pad.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Killertofu said:


> 2. you're doing semantic summersaults to deal with the obvious fact that one car outhandles another


Huh? Obvious?

On a gravel road or an ice track which one would you choose? AWD with all season tires or RWD with low profile summer tires? How often would a normal person without aspiration of donating his organs pull a turn at a limit of natural grip? What is more likely surface that you will encounter - icy slush on the streets, or clean test track?

Track numbers, skid pad numbers are only correlated with real world performance numbers.

When I had my AWD BMW wagon - I could not care less that an RWD with sport package would "outhandle" it on a test track for the same price. It would not drive up a forest access road, and it would suck in a ski resort parking lot or on a snowy pass. AWD "outhandled" where I actually drive a car.

Test track lateral grip is not equivalent to real world handling. For practical definitions of handling.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Killertofu said:


> 1. you're acting as if the cars are running r compound VS runflats and that just isn't so.


No, that was just an exaggerated example to prove my point that handling and grip are not the same thing. I have made NO comment on the tires on either the mustang or the wrx.



Killertofu said:


> 2. you're doing semantic summersaults to deal with the obvious fact that one car outhandles another


I've never stated which car I feel handles 'better'. My point is that you can't extrapolate handling from a skidpan #.



Killertofu said:


> 3. your previous logic was "skidpad numbers are just a show of how much grip a car has" which is really kind of silly when you think about the fact that its an AWD car that is LIGHTER vs a RWD car that is HEAVIER.


Once again, you can't compare skidpan #'s unless the cars have


Steve71 said:


> the same tires, air pressure, drivers and skidpan + track temp


And BTW, AWD has no advantage in a steady state test like a skidpan. Google 'traction circle' and you'll learn why.



Killertofu said:


> the WRX has more grip per lb, therefore, should have the higher skidpad number but the stang (which has less grip per lb) schools it hard shooting a battleship sized hole in your theory.


It has more grip under acceleration, but AWD does not give it more steady state cornering grip in a skidpan test. Why? Once again goolge 'traction circle'. This is basic 101 track driving stuff.


Killertofu said:


> lastly, we aren't talking about RALLY cars or driving in the RAIN or DRIFTING therefore lateral grip has everything to do with the two cars' ability to throw their weight around corners. on top of that, i've driven both and im telling you that the numbers fit. the WRX has a crapton more body roll than the stang and that translate to crappier numbers.


I have never said that one car can out handle the other. Never. All I'm saying is that you can't say one car handles better than another based on skid pan number.

Personally if I lived at sea level, outside of the snow belt, and wasn't going to mod either car, I'd take a really good look at the mustang. As I've already said in this thread, I prefer naturally aspirated RWD cars, but since I live at 9,00ft in the rocky mountains a turbo & AWD are necessary evils.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

Steve71 said:


> No, that was just an exaggerated example to prove my point that handling and grip are not the same thing. I have made NO comment on the tires on either the mustang or the wrx.


wow, handling and grip are not the same thing. no kidding. really? i mean really. wow. im glad you told us that because i was over here thinking "the ability of a tire to grab some asphalt is exactly the same as the total suspension including the tire grabbing the asphalt".

grip is the ability that the car has to stick to the road. handling is a more comprehensive overview of the car's ability to navigate crap. for the purposes of a skidpad and slalom grip and handling can be used interchangeably. thats what you don't seem to get.

so basically you're going on about some semantic bullcrap. awesome. im glad we had this time together.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

Curmy said:


> Huh? Obvious?
> 
> On a gravel road or an ice track which one would you choose? AWD with all season tires or RWD with low profile summer tires? How often would a normal person without aspiration of donating his organs pull a turn at a limit of natural grip? What is more likely surface that you will encounter - icy slush on the streets, or clean test track?
> 
> ...


neither cause i dont drive on ice or rally gravel. problem solved.

the mustang beat the WRX in handling. i drove both. /story


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

Killertofu-

Sorry. I'm working nights and sleeping days. Seems like every time I lay down to take a nap, an estrogen tornado whips through this thread.

I think what Curmy's emotional histrionics have blinded him to is that you ARE the OP. It's just silly for him to argue with you about what you meant.

AWD freak "Subaru / car enthusiast" is obviously justifying his infatuation with Subaru cars. Kind of like the ricer kids with Honda Civics, that will attempt to argue until they're blue in the face about the physics of how 200 "V-Tec" horsepower are allegedly more powerful than 200 "regular" horsepower.

And, exactly as you had surmised, Steve71 is well and truly getting all tangled up in semantics regarding stuff that he read on the internet.

All things being equal, if you had your choice of which car to take out onto a road course, and you knew ahead of time that both had very similar acceleration capabilities, but one pulled .85g on a skid pad and another pulled .96g on a skid pad, which one would you choose? Probably the same one that I would.

And you were correct about me. I was racing cars before a lot of the forum members here were born, I have earned an expert road racing license, and I have served as a road racing instructor.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

RIS said:


> Killertofu- And you were correct about me. I was racing cars before a lot of the forum members here were born, I have earned an expert road racing license, and I have served as a road racing instructor.


yeah but WHAT ABOUT WIKIPEDIA?! surely experience doesn't trump wikipedia!


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

Steve71 said:


> OK Mr Tofu, if you're having trouble with the wiki, here's an old top gear video for you to watch.
> 
> Note they say at the onset, "It's important to distinguish between handling and road-holding, or handling and grip as we'll term it."


Steve71-

Here's a few more Top Gear videos that you may want to consider when educating yourself on the internet regarding motorsports:


----------



## 245044 (Jun 8, 2004)

Killertofu

Can you please give us your definition of a "CAR GUY?"

To me, a car guy is a guy who buys a car, any car, and works on it to get the car the way he wants it...and I don't mean by slapping stickers and fake vents on it either, but rather getting into the exhaust changes, induction modifications, engine control upgrades, valve sizing, compression ratios, etc. A person who is going to rebuild his motor after he blows it up from 200 HP/ liter so it can handle it the next go round.

I like the Mustang, but from the car guy standpoint the Subaru offers more through the aftermarket. History has shown that the V-6 Mustang has never had good support.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Killertofu said:


> neither cause i dont drive on ice or rally gravel. problem solved.
> 
> the mustang beat the WRX in handling. i drove both. /story


Then you probably should preface your generic statements about "obviously" and "better" with full disclosure what you are talking about.

Because vast majority of normal people are much more likely to encounter ice and gravel then a closed circuit skid pad or an autocross track.

I also drove both - and I would much rather handle WRX then Mustang for a weekend trip to the mountains. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with defining handling and performance in that way - nothing whatsoever. Some opinionated morons, like RIS, may not get it, but that does not change that simple fact.

But... it is painfully obvious - if you like Mustang - get it. What stops you?


----------



## SAL9000 (Apr 16, 2010)

Some of this trolling is good - "estrogen tornado" had me LOL.

First, the base Mustang V6 is absent the GT's Track Pack goodies (this will cost extra), and ALL of 'em are governed to 113 mph.

Second, the Mustang V6 is a 14.0 sec car, which is a materially slower car than a 13.5 sec car like the WRX/STi (~4-5 car lengths). 

Third, mag racing MPG figures is a mega Picard face palm. The test is so gamed by automakers it's comical. Drive the Mustang V6 like an American male and you'll get at best low 20s.

Even this new Mustang V6 is still what non-V8 Mustangs have been since 1964 - a cheapie version for those who can't/won't step up to the hi-po Mustang yet still want the styling and legacy. Sounds like damnation but not really; it's good for what it is but the WRX is the better performer stock, and vastly so when roads get wet or snowy.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

mopartodd - i think we're on the same page.
curmy - nothing is stopping me. this is good sport. i wont buy a car unless i have to have it. im not there yet.
sal9000 - its a high 13 second car (on 87 octane) that gets 30+mpg (verified by myself) and the wrx is mid to high 13's (on 91 octane) 4 cylinder that gets 25mpg.

intake, exhaust, handheld tuner = more power and no speed limiter


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

SAL9000 said:


> Second, the Mustang V6 is a 14.0 sec car, which is a materially slower car than a 13.5 sec car like the WRX/STi (~4-5 car lengths).


I don't know where you got those figures, but they match the references made on page one of this thread to information contained in two Car & Driver links.

The problem with that, as I've already pointed out, is that one of those two links isn't even a test- it was an editorial.

The other challenge is that Car & Driver does not make a habit of actually taking their test vehicles to a drag strip to test them for acceleration- they use the same type of onboard accelerometer that the ricers do.

Motor Trend actually takes their test vehicles to a drag strip. I posted two actual Motor Trend tests. The results were 13.5 @ 100.6 for the WRX, and 13.7 @ 102 for the Mustang V6. That's kissing close. The 0-60 times also reveal pretty much what's happening here. I'll give my take on it:

Both cars have 305 horsepower. Both weigh within about 50 pounds of each other. Their acceleration is pretty much identical. The 0-60 times reveal that the Subaru is able to perform a launch at the drag strip just a little bit quicker (and I'm talking about the first foot or two of movement). Which is really handy, if you can get your opponent to come to a complete stop on a billiard-table smooth rubber-covered slab of concrete sprayed with VHT traction compound so that you can rev your Subaru engine to the moon and drop the clutch in a manner typically done by those who do not buy their own half-shafts. Then the Mustang V6 slowly but surely makes that difference right back up, as evidenced by it's slightly higher terminal velocity. In reality, human reaction times vary more than the performance "difference" measured between these two cars, and a driver's ability (and willingness) to launch either one of these cars is going to vary a whole heck of a lot more than that.

Now the difference between the 13.5 @ 100.6 WRX pass and the 12.8 @ 110.8 Mustang GT pass is a little more significant. Three-quarters of a second and more than 10 mph will show, and unless you've got an exceptionally good driver in the Subaru, and an exceptionally bad driver in the Mustang GT, the Mustang GT is probably going to get there first. Anywhere other than a drag strip, it would be no contest.



> Even this new Mustang V6 is still what non-V8 Mustangs have been since 1964 - a cheapie version for those who can't/won't step up to the hi-po Mustang yet still want the styling and legacy...


Yup.



> ...Sounds like damnation but not really; it's good for what it is but the WRX is the better performer stock,...


Not even the "Spec C" festooned WRX STI Special Edition lightweight club racer can match the 2011 Mustang V6. And it you get the Mustang GT, which is still thousands of dollars less, it leaves the Subaru even farther behind.



> ...and vastly so when roads get wet or snowy.


I don't race on wet or snowy public roads, and I think the OP has already communicated that he doesn't either.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

BTW this is actually the first tie that the GT and base model have been pretty much the exact same car with the exception of the engine.

there's literally no reason to buy a 5.0 unless you just want more power and a different front bumper. same tranny, axle, brakes, interior, and now the thing runs 13's in base trim.

i didn't know about the speed limiter thing, though. gotta wait on a handheld tuner to come out for sure, now


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

Hey, I'll just throw this out there for consideration:

For $18,715 you can buy a brand new Chevy Silverado full-sized pickup truck, and that price would include the following three options:

302 horsepower 4.8 Vortec V8 engine
3.73 rear axle ratio
Heavy-duty automatic locking rear diff

I'm not saying that it's in any way faster than the other vehicles that we've been discussing, but dang...

You can fill the bed with bikes and gear, have plenty of room in a full-sized cab for you and several passengers, get up to 22 mpg on the highway, and it comes with A/C, power steering, tilt steering wheel, AM/FM radio, intermittent wipers, 4-wheel ABS, traction control, 6 air bags, automatic headlights, daytime running lamps, tire pressure monitoring system, a 5-year 100,000 mile powertrain warranty, and 5-year 100,000 mile roadside assistance.

At that price, it would also leave you enough money left over to personalize it with your choice of aftermarket wheels and tires, and still come in at less than the other vehicles that we've been discussing.

And remember, throwing a bike in the bed does nothing to the fuel mileage, as opposed to putting it on the roof rack of a Subaru. The truck would probably end up getting better highway fuel mileage than the Subaru.

Again, just throwing it out there...


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Hmm, 68.6mph for the 2011 Mustang V6 through the slalom.

I can't seem to find a number for a 2011 WRX, but the 2009 got 68.5, BUT the 2011 is significantly wider with stiffer suspension bushings and better tires stock.

This would indicate that the 2011 does better than the 2009 version. Maybe not huge, but probably enough to beat the 'stang.


----------



## SAL9000 (Apr 16, 2010)

Where the Mustang V6 may pull ahead is not till after 100 mph, which for all intents and purposes is useless on public roads. The thrust and squirt ability of the WRX in everyday/real world/legal realm of driving; 0 - 70 mph, any and all road and traffic conditions; is simply going to be higher - not by leaps and bounds, but noticeable. 

As to the mention of the GT, only one reputable mag test has showed a sub 13 sec 1/4 mile - most all other tests show 13.0 - 13.3, which is a disappointment. Not sure what's going on but the car isn't quite living up to expectations considering the heavier Camaro SS has shown to be a consistent 12.9 - 13.0 performer. 

Personally I don't think there's a reason to get the Mustang V6. The exhaust note alone is enough to justify the relatively small price premium for the GT. Plus the GT is bound to hold resale better and have far more mod options.


----------



## AWDfreak (Jan 28, 2007)

RIS said:


> Killertofu-
> 
> Sorry. I'm working nights and sleeping days. Seems like every time I lay down to take a nap, an estrogen tornado whips through this thread.
> 
> ...


Horsepower is horsepower, no matter what the engine.

As for me being like a ricer, uh, no. I know god damn well AWD has its disadvantages. I know damn well that a skidpad number can determine a car's ability to hold a corner. I know damn well horsepower is horsepower.

I am also very aware of my Subaru fanboyism, but I acknowledge other cars as well. And since the OP wants a Mustang over a Subaru, all the better for him. Once in a while, I wished my Subaru wagon was RWD. Despite my username and fanboyism, I don't limit myself as much as I appear to.

Sheesh, this board can get hectic.


----------



## SAL9000 (Apr 16, 2010)

AWDfreak said:


> Horsepower is horsepower, no matter what the engine.
> 
> As for me being like a ricer, uh, no. I know god damn well AWD has its disadvantages. I know damn well that a skidpad number can determine a car's ability to hold a corner. I know damn well horsepower is horsepower.
> 
> ...


WRX STi turbo F-4: 305 hp @ 6,000 rpm, 290 lb-ft @ 4,000 rpm
Mustang V6: 305 hp @ @ 6,500 rpm, 280 lb-ft @ 4,250 rpm
335i turbo I-6: 300 hp @ 5,800 rpm, 300 lb-ft @ 1,500 rpm

And as we know, the 335i despite being the heaviest of the three is also the quickest, despite having the worst power/weight ratio. Why?

Yes, horsepower is horsepower, but until all cars have CVTs the area under the speed/torque curve is as paramount as the peak power number, in determining acceleration performance.


----------



## AWDfreak (Jan 28, 2007)

SAL9000 said:


> WRX STi turbo F-4: 305 hp @ 6,000 rpm, 290 lb-ft @ 4,000 rpm
> Mustang V6: 305 hp @ @ 6,500 rpm, 280 lb-ft @ 4,250 rpm
> 335i turbo I-6: 300 hp @ 5,800 rpm, 300 lb-ft @ 1,500 rpm
> 
> ...


Wow, the BMW's inline-6 makes a ton of torque down low.
As much as I love Subarus, I'd imagine the V6 Mustang probably has a better torque curve. The STI is probably the peakiest engine, but I haven't confirmed that.


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

SAL9000 said:


> Where the Mustang V6 may pull ahead is not till after 100 mph, which for all intents and purposes is useless on public roads.


Sal, you're missing what's really going on here. I already explained it earlier:



RIS said:


> I posted two actual Motor Trend tests. The results were 13.5 @ 100.6 for the WRX, and 13.7 @ 102 for the Mustang V6. That's kissing close. The 0-60 times also reveal pretty much what's happening here. I'll give my take on it:
> 
> Both cars have 305 horsepower. Both weigh within about 50 pounds of each other. Their acceleration is pretty much identical. The 0-60 times reveal that the Subaru is able to perform a launch at the drag strip just a little bit quicker (and I'm talking about the first foot or two of movement). Which is really handy, if you can get your opponent to come to a complete stop on a billiard-table smooth rubber-covered slab of concrete sprayed with VHT traction compound so that you can rev your Subaru engine to the moon and drop the clutch in a manner typically done by those who do not buy their own half-shafts. Then the Mustang V6 slowly but surely makes that difference right back up, as evidenced by it's slightly higher terminal velocity. In reality, human reaction times vary more than the performance "difference" measured between these two cars, and a driver's ability (and willingness) to launch either one of these cars is going to vary a whole heck of a lot more than that.


Just because the Mustang V6 is measured as going faster at the quarter mile speed traps does not mean that it's going slower everywhere else.

You kind of got it backwards. The Mustang V6 is going to eke out a small advantage in acceleration everywhere except for the first foot or two, and even then, that's only going to happen by severely abusing the Subaru with a high-rpm clutch drop on a well-prepared launch surface. So on public roads, and especially if not from a dead stop, the Mustang is probably going to carry a slight advantage.



> The thrust and squirt ability of the WRX in everyday/real world/legal realm of driving; 0 - 70 mph, any and all road and traffic conditions; is simply going to be higher - not by leaps and bounds, but noticeable.


I was born into the auto industry and I've been racing since the '70s, but I am not familiar with this "thrust" and "squirt ability" that you refer to. Can you define and objectively measure this "thrust" and "squirt ability" that you are referring to, because it sounds like more Type "R" double-speak to me.



> As to the mention of the GT, only one reputable mag test has showed a sub 13 sec 1/4 mile - most all other tests show 13.0 - 13.3, which is a disappointment. Not sure what's going on but the car isn't quite living up to expectations considering the heavier Camaro SS has shown to be a consistent 12.9 - 13.0 performer.


That's okay, because there have apparently been NO tests published on the 2011 WRX. One is more than zero.



> Personally I don't think there's a reason to get the Mustang V6. The exhaust note alone is enough to justify the relatively small price premium for the GT. Plus the GT is bound to hold resale better and have far more mod options.


You would spend $7,000 for an exhaust note that you prefer?

I think the Mustang V6 sounds just fine. It sounds like a 300+ horsepower, double overhead cam (quad cam), four valve per cylinder engine exhaling through dual exhaust. Would it sound better to you if it were Japanese?


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

SAL9000 said:


> 335i turbo I-6: 300 hp @ 5,800 rpm, 300 lb-ft @ 1,500 rpm


Where the heck are you getting that information from?












> And as we know, the 335i despite being the heaviest of the three is also the quickest, despite having the worst power/weight ratio.


0-60 in 5.1 seconds and a 13.6 quarter mile is the quickest? You may want to check that again. It sounds about the same as the 2011 Mustang V6 and the WRX to me.

http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/0609_2007_bmw_335i_dynamometer/index.html


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

I'm stuck at the station working on a report for a little bit, so I have a special offer, just for the night shift:

Name any car, and I'll guess where the horsepower and torque curves cross (the rpm point at which the engine's horsepower number is the same as how many pound-feet of torque it is producing).


----------



## Mike Gager (Jul 30, 2010)

subaru has a "rod pitching stopper" in the options list for the WRX!

i had an old chevy that pitched a rod right through the side of the block, would have been nice to have one of these back then!


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

SAL9000 said:


> And as we know, the 335i despite being the heaviest of the three is also the quickest, despite having the worst power/weight ratio. Why?
> .


Well, one reason is that it actually puts 300lb/ft to the ground, as seen in the numbers above. Many say that the "300hp/300lb/ft" of the 335 is actually quite a bit higher at the flywheel, since it dynos at 300 or so.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Killertofu said:


> for the purposes of a skidpad and slalom grip and handling can be used interchangeably. thats what you don't seem to get.


You're right I don't get it. Just like I don't get what you said here:



Killertofu said:


> the WRX has more grip per lb, therefore, should have the higher skidpad number but the stang (which has less grip per lb) schools it hard shooting a battleship sized hole in your theory.


Sounds to me like you don't really understand basic physics (shrug). I'd love to hear you explain that one . Did you Google traction circle yet?


----------



## chiplikestoridehisbike (Aug 8, 2007)

"Name any car, and I'll guess where the horsepower and torque curves cross"

BMW 335i


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

chiplikestoridehisbike said:


> "Name any car, and I'll guess where the horsepower and torque curves cross"
> 
> BMW 335i


5252 rpm.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

RIS said:


> 5252 rpm.


LOL that was my guess! 



Steve71 said:


> You're right I don't get it. Just like I don't get what you said here:


here, i'll try to break this down for you. heavier cars need more tire patch because they need more friction to grab the road because they have more weight that gets loaded on the tires while pushing the envelope. much lighter car with about the same contact patch has the advantage in terms of grip. therefore, if this car with the advantage doesn't do as well in handling tests the fault is then on the suspension.

then there's the fact that of the 2 cars in question the base mustang handles better. i was impressed with the WRX on every level except for how boaty it felt. the stang was remarkably sure footed and it didn't even have the performance pack (wide tires, stiffer suspension, better brakes).



> Sounds to me like you don't really understand basic physics (shrug). I'd love to hear you explain that one . Did you Google traction circle yet?


it sounds to me like the only stuff you know about cars is what you read on the internet.


----------



## nsomniac (Dec 1, 2009)

This is what happens when RIS posts in a thread. We go from talking about merits/downsides of 2 vehicles to discussing motorcycles and completely different car models. I'd say your contributions are worthless, but then I'd have to call them contributions.


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

Killertofu said:


> LOL that was my guess!


Yer killin' my action here. 

I got the first one right.

Who's next? Pick any car, and I'll guess where the horsepower and torque curves cross, as described above.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Killertofu said:


> here, i'll try to break this down for you. heavier cars need more tire patch because they need more friction to grab the road because they have more weight that gets loaded on the tires while pushing the envelope. a much lighter car with about the same contact patch has the advantage in terms of grip. *therefore, if this car with the advantage doesn't do as well in handling tests the fault is then on the suspension*.


This would only be correct if both cars had the same tires. And they don't.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

nsomniac said:


> This is what happens when RIS posts in a thread. We go from talking about merits/downsides of 2 vehicles to discussing motorcycles and completely different car models. I'd say your contributions are worthless, but then I'd have to call them contributions.


personally i think the OP is enjoying the crap out of this thread :thumbsup:

RIS is offering good data and has the experience to back it up.



Steve71 said:


> This would only be correct if both cars had the same tires. And they don't.


dude, they're street tires. that argument doesn't float.

225/45 R17 summer-performance - WRX <--- shorter sidewall = crisper handling
225/60 R17 BFGoodrich Radial T/As - mustang <---taller sidewall = crappier handling (those goodrich tires suck BTW)


----------



## Hfab5 (Aug 10, 2010)

Now you're talking my language! I've been building hot rods for years. Mustang vs WRX (It's still a Subaru)Go with the Mustang. You CAN'T go wrong. The '11 is the best mustang yet not to mention the aftermarket following you'll enjoy. That new v-6 is bad-a$$, great on gas, and the handling is dead on! Flowmasters and a high-flow K&N  . Nephew was pulled between the Mustang and the Camaro. He choose the Mustang and wondered why he second guessed himself in the first place. He too has a mountain bike and has a trunk mounted rack. We drove from NY(Upstate) to Michigan and back. You WILL be suprized how good it rides. The Mustang...:thumbsup:


----------



## chiplikestoridehisbike (Aug 8, 2007)

"5252 rpm."

Is it 5252rpm or 4200rpm? The graph you posted earlier to prove your point that the 335 was not as fast as the GT or v6 shows 4200rpm. So are you posting bad info to prove your narrow view points or are you just full it/yourself? Also glad you know the top secret formula to torque calculations.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Killertofu said:


> dude, they're street tires. that argument doesn't float.
> 
> 225/45 R17 summer-performance - WRX <--- shorter sidewall = crisper handling
> 225/60 R17 BFGoodrich Radial T/As - mustang <---taller sidewall = crappier handling


There is a vast discrepancy between grip over the spectrum of street tires. Unless you're comparing apples to apples you're just wasting your time.

Put the same tires on both cars and you can compare road holding. Handing is subjective and what is ideal, will vary from person to person and road surface to road surface.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

Steve71 said:


> There is a vast discrepancy between grip over the spectrum of street tires. Unless you're comparing apples to apples you're just wasting your time.
> 
> Put the same tires on both cars and you can compare road holding. Handing is subjective and what is ideal, will vary from person to person and road surface to road surface.


very thin. very thin.

thats the polite way of saying you have no idea what you're talking about.



chiplikestoridehisbike said:


> "5252 rpm."
> 
> Is it 5252rpm or 4200rpm? The graph you posted earlier to prove your point that the 335 was not as fast as the GT or v6 shows 4200rpm. So are you posting bad info to prove your narrow view points or are you just full it/yourself? Also glad you know the top secret formula to torque calculations.


oh man. this is awesome. i'll give you guys a hint: he's right check the data.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Killertofu said:


> thats the polite way of saying you have no idea what you're talking about.


It's one thing to say someone doesn't know what they're talking about, but it's entirely another thing to prove it. Please feel free disprove anything I've said.

Saying I'm right you're wrong doesn't cut it.


----------



## nsomniac (Dec 1, 2009)

Killertofu said:


> personally i think the OP is enjoying the crap out of this thread :thumbsup:
> 
> RIS is offering good data and has the experience to back it up.
> 
> ...


I have no problem with you enjoying the derailment of your own thread, but most people don't prefer it that way. Now the "good data" and experience part is a little misleading. He already lied when he said C&D tests were unreliable because they use accelerometers, as if they were plug in units that get their data from the ecu or something. He also completely disregards that if the testing method is accurate for capturing data, then the information between two cars using the same gathering method would be relevant, but instead he says the Motor Trend testing procedures at a strip were superior. It's what he does - if the information doesn't fit his opinion, he'll lie or tell you it doesn't matter. If he can't prove his point, he'll start talking about how it's all "pointless" because you should be buying a motorcycle anyway.

It's not coincidence that almost everyone on this forum does their best to just ignore him, he's no different than every other troll that just eats away at threads.

Oh, and for reference, C&D tests acceleration via GPS and adjusts results for temp / air pressure / wind. But it must be done with some ricer unit, right RIS?

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/08q3/how_does_c_d_test_cars_-info/acceleration_and_braking_page_2


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

I'd just like to add that there is more to cars than numbers.

Do you like the car? Which one do you like better?

Screw the numbers. I like riding 29ers better, even though their benefits have not been proven as such. Nobody has reliable lap times, or cornering numbers. All I know is I _think _they have better traction, I _think _I clean more stuff, and I _think_ I'm faster.

All I know is I have more fun on a 29er. I enjoy riding it more.


----------



## nsomniac (Dec 1, 2009)

After a little more research, it appears his beloved Motor Trend uses the exact same methods to test their acceleration and braking, because it is more accurate.

Motor Trend

Car and Driver


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

chiplikestoridehisbike said:


> "5252 rpm."
> 
> Is it 5252rpm or 4200rpm? The graph you posted earlier to prove your point that the 335 was not as fast as the GT or v6 shows 4200rpm. So are you posting bad info to prove your narrow view points or are you just full it/yourself?


Go back and READ the dyno chart, like Mr. Fu told you to. On this particular chart, the torque numbers are scaled on the right, and the horsepower numbers are on the left. On this chart, they don't line up.

I was correct. The horsepower number for this particular vehicle matches the torque number at exactly 5252 rpm.



> Also glad you know the top secret formula to torque calculations.


Torque is not calculated. It is measured.

And horsepower is not measured, it is calculated.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

Steve71 said:


> It's one thing to say someone doesn't know what they're talking about, but it's entirely another thing to prove it. Please feel free disprove anything I've said.
> 
> Saying I'm right you're wrong doesn't cut it.


there's nothing special about the two sets of tires in question. in fact, the mustang is at the disadvantage due to the higher sidewall.

if you knew anything about cars that would count as evidence but since you dont you can't interpret that. i can't cram knowledge into your head. the fact that you can't look at the data and understand it really isn't my problem, the information is there and if you were a car guy you'd know it in the same way that i knew RIS was going to post 5252rpm.

its just common knowledge amongst folks that are into that sort of thing. you guys can talk circles around me about bikes and stuff but in this area i have a lot of knowledge and experience.


----------



## All_talk (Jul 13, 2009)

I’m gonna weight in on the original topic just for fun. And I will say up front that I am a Subaru fan, I didn’t start out that way, these little cars have earned it, at least for me. I currently own 5 Subarus all older (’87 to ’97) and all with over 200,000 miles, 3 of them with over 300,000. Now they haven’t gone that far without maintenance, but less than any other brand of car I’ve owned. My point is the durability is there.

My current daily is a ’91 Legacy turbo sedan with a slightly worked over JDM 2.0 and some suspension bits, and on the fun-o-meter it gets very high marks. It’s not much to look at and the chicks don’t dig it but I’m an old man and I don’t really care about such things. What I do like is the fact that in nearly any conditions, up to thick gravel or ice, my traction exceeds my power. I can, at will, trounce the throttle, strait line or in a corner, I’m not saying I don’t get wheel spin, it’s just a non-event in the Subie. The limited slip diffs (center and rear) are butter smooth at balancing the torque and you just keep your foot planted and steer. This may not be a traditional measure of performance or handling but when you are pulling out of a gravely side street into speeding traffic, having the confidence to drop the clutch and hit it is a measure of something. Point of all this is, in real world, on the street driving I believe the Subaru has a “performance” advantage.

Gary

P.S. This post may bring up the “AWD cars are easy and require no skill to drive” argument. But as long as I’m $hitin and getin out in front of the 2WD wheel spinner you can stand back at the stop sign debating it all you want.


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

pimpbot said:


> I'd just like to add that there is more to cars than numbers.
> 
> Do you like the car? Which one do you like better?
> 
> ...


Excellent point.

I suspect that what attracts people to particular cages doesn't have that much to do with performance anyway. I suspect that the primary motivation is often the desire to project a particular image.

But one of the major problems with trying to impress other people is that the image that is perceived by others may not be the image that was intended. As a motorcycle rider, I see this most often with Harley operators.

They want to be seen as unique, rebeling against conformity, but in reality, the bulk of them are lemmings: Buy a Harley, remove the mufflers, install as many chrome-plated sculls as possible, and then dress up in their Village People costume:






They want to be seen as fearless. But they operate some of the slowest motorcycles around.

They want for people to be afraid of them. The highest evolution of their Walter Mitty delusions would involve being mistaken for an OMG member. But this is what most of us think about them:






In the end, their desperate efforts to attract chicks actually attract other out of shape losers just like themselves.

the parallel here is the WRX crowd. I suspect that they are hoping that driving a WRX will make chicks think that they are cool. But I suspect that the message that is actually being received is that they flip burgers and live with their mom so that they can make house payments on their WRX, that their last car was a "freestyle" BMX bicycle, that their car before that was a skateboard shaped like a popsicle stick, and that they probably spend all of their free time playing video games.


----------



## All_talk (Jul 13, 2009)

RIS said:


> ...
> 
> the parallel here is the WRX crowd. I suspect that they are hoping that driving a WRX will make chicks think that they are cool. But I suspect that the message that is actually being received is that they flip burgers and live with their mom so that they can make house payments on their WRX, that their last car was a "freestyle" BMX bicycle, that their car before that was a skateboard shaped like a popsicle stick, and that they probably spend all of their free time playing video games.


And Mustang drivers are all sporting muscle shirts, drink beer, live in trailer courts and beat there girlfriends.

I see your point but it goes both ways.


----------



## nsomniac (Dec 1, 2009)

Did I mention that when RIS is proven wrong, he ignores the evidence and pretends he's still right?


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

All_talk said:


> This may not be a traditional measure of performance or handling but when you are pulling out of a gravely side street into speeding traffic, having the confidence to drop the clutch and hit it is a measure of something.


And now somebody who gets it...


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

nsomniac said:


> Did I mention that when RIS is proven wrong, he ignores the evidence and pretends he's still right?


Looking at the rambling projection of his insecurities in a post above, he is in a need of professional help.


----------



## AWDfreak (Jan 28, 2007)

Curmy said:


> Looking at the rambling projection of his insecurities in a post above, he is in a need of professional help.


Agreed.

He has some of his facts right, but now he's resorting to personal insults. "WRX owners buy WRX's to be cool". Really? It could go either way with a Mustang or WRX, but I doubt real enthusiasts buy vehicles because they look cool, they buy it because it's what they want.

I got a mountain bike because I like to bike off-road, not because I want to look tough (I'm far from tough anyways)

I drive a Subaru Outback because I want to get car-like handling, with a bit of off-road capability and space for shoving cargo/bikes in. And if I had a WRX, I'd get it because it has AWD, it's pretty fast, and I could get myself a lift kit and make it decent on trails. Much more difficult to do that on a Mustang, not that the Mustang isn't fun.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

do you guys think that you might be taking things personally and that might actually make you look kinda silly?

im not butthurt because you think i sport muscle shirts, drink beer, live in trailer courts and beat my girlfriend because it isn't true. something to think about.


----------



## kanai (Aug 26, 2008)

i'm surprised this thread hasn't been locked yet... 

so did you get the mustang? it seems as if you're leaning in that direction.


----------



## karlmalone1 (Mar 27, 2008)

Killertofu said:


> personally i think the OP is enjoying the crap out of this thread :thumbsup:
> 
> RIS is offering good data and has the experience to back it up.
> 
> ...


The v6 that pulls .96g on the skidpad has the track pack which has 255/40ZR19 Pirelli Pzeros, which are an extremely grippy tire, and shorter sidewalls. A mustang v6 with the tires you mentioned would pull substantially less g's on the skidpad, probably in the mid .80s.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

karlmalone1 said:


> The v6 that pulls .96g on the skidpad has the track pack which has 255/40ZR19 Pirelli Pzeros, which are an extremely grippy tire, and shorter sidewalls. A mustang v6 with the tires you mentioned would pull substantially less g's on the skidpad, probably in the mid .80s.


the tires i posted were for reference of the cars i drove. you're right bout the pzeros, they're killer.

im more interested in real world experience than bench racing


----------



## Hfab5 (Aug 10, 2010)

Wow, this was a long thread! Seems it went full spectrum. Bottom line... speed wise they're pretty much the same. Mustang 305hp-280ft tq, the Sub 265hp-244ft tq. On paper the Mustang wins no contest-BUT the Subs lighter weight 3174 to the Stangs 3456 should pretty much be a dead heat. Yeah the Sub has AWD which "helps"(my opinion) drivers who lack in "some" driving skills(again my opinion), while "knowing" how to drive a 6 speed RWD vehicle again puts you pretty much in a dead heat. It's pretty much who's behind the wheel(I use to drag race). If SPACE is what you're looking for, the WRX has it in the bag. As was said before, it's what YOU like... but one more thing. Don't think just because your bike is in the car instead of outside the car someone won't walk off with it.
Believe me, if they want it bad enough they will get it.


----------



## SAL9000 (Apr 16, 2010)

RIS said:


> Where the heck are you getting that information from?


Two recommendations:

1.) Auto rags are some of the WORST technical resources extant.

2.) Inertial chassis dynos absolutely suck.

From BMW's website: "Generating 300 hp and 300 lb.-ft. of torque at 1400-1500 rpms..."



> 0-60 in 5.1 seconds and a 13.6 quarter mile is the quickest? You may want to check that again. It sounds about the same as the 2011 Mustang V6 and the WRX to me.
> 
> http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/0609_2007_bmw_335i_dynamometer/index.html


Nah, 335i is a bit faster than that, and thus quicker than a WRX and way quicker than a V6 Mustang. Note the 335i does not have AWD yet still bests the STi up to about 100 mph, and thereafter absolutely walks it.


----------



## SAL9000 (Apr 16, 2010)

RIS said:


> Sal, you're missing what's really going on here. I already explained it earlier:


I gotcha more or less overall but you're incorrect on "kissing close." 13.5 vs. 13.7 is to 2-3 car lengths - in drag speak, and easy win.



> You kind of got it backwards. The Mustang V6 is going to eke out a small advantage in acceleration everywhere except for the first foot or two, and even then, that's only going to happen by severely abusing the Subaru with a high-rpm clutch drop on a well-prepared launch surface. So on public roads, and especially if not from a dead stop, the Mustang is probably going to carry a slight advantage.


Nah, the WRX will best the Mustang V6 every time up to ~100 mph if driven properly, and won't have to dump the clutch at 5,000 rpm either. Add less-than-perfect or wet roads and it's a no contest.



> I was born into the auto industry and I've been racing since the '70s, but I am not familiar with this "thrust" and "squirt ability" that you refer to. Can you define and objectively measure this "thrust" and "squirt ability" that you are referring to, because it sounds like more Type "R" double-speak to me.
> 
> That's okay, because there have apparently been NO tests published on the 2011 WRX. One is more than zero.


Have Mustang V6 try to keep up with a WRX on city and suburban roads with light to moderate traffic, some stop lights, left lane campers, etc., and you'll see EXACTLY what I mean. The Mustang V6 will simply play second fiddle. Less than perfect roads to upset the live rear axle or if roads are wet the WRX will stomp the Mustang V6.



> You would spend $7,000 for an exhaust note that you prefer?
> 
> I think the Mustang V6 sounds just fine. It sounds like a 300+ horsepower, double overhead cam (quad cam), four valve per cylinder engine exhaling through dual exhaust. Would it sound better to you if it were Japanese?


 ANY V6 sounds extremely marginal to me, so yes, absolutely, $7,000 ain't all that much in the grand scheme of things and easily justifiable to upgrade to the GT (at least for me).


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

SAL9000 said:


> Two recommendations:
> 
> 1.) Auto rags are some of the WORST technical resources extant.
> 
> ...


So you prefer the manufacturer's advertising propaganda as opposed to independant testling? 

I'm here to tell you, that thing ain't putting out any 300 pound-feet of torque at any 1400-1500 rpm. The actual torque peak on that engine is about 2500 rpm, which is more than 50% higher engine speed than the tripe that you are parroting. At 1400-1500 rpm, you're looking at more like 150 pound-feet of torque.


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

SAL9000 said:


> I gotcha more or less overall but you're incorrect on "kissing close." 13.5 vs. 13.7 is to 2-3 car lengths - in drag speak, and easy win.


As I pointed out, human reaction times, abilities, and willingness to risk breaking parts varies a whole hell of a lot more than two tenths of a second. And he's not drag racing on a drag strip anyway.



> Nah, the WRX will best the Mustang V6 every time up to ~100 mph if driven properly, and won't have to dump the clutch at 5,000 rpm either. Add less-than-perfect or wet roads and it's a no contest.


Have you personally ever run a 13.5 second pass in a stone stock base model WRX? I can assure you that they are flogging the living chit out of it to get it to go. I will once again explain something that may not be immediately apparent to the E-racers of the world:

When launching a car like the Mustang V6, you're launching with a fairly linear power delivery of a 3.7 liter engine with a 10.5:1 compression ratio. You simply pick an engine rpm that is enough to use slight tire spin to keep it from bogging and dragging the engine down out of the fat part of the powerband.

When you launch the WRX, you're launching with a tiny 2.5 liter 4 cylinder engine that would have been able to produce a whopping 170 foot pounds of torque at 4400 rpm and a whopping 170 horsepower at 6000 rpm, except that the 170/170 engine has a 10.0:1 compression ratio, and the WRX only has an 8.2:1 compression ratio. With no boost, I'm guessing it's about a 150 horsepower engine (with a 4400 rpm torque "peak"), and you're trying to launch something that weighs as much as a Mustang. It's about like trying to launch the car with all the "thrust" and "squirt ability" of a wet fart.

The reason that I mention "no boost", is because you're not going to have any boost until the engine is under a load. Drag racers launching turbocharged engines use an automatic transmission with a trans brake, and/or launch the vehicle off of a two-step rev limiter, so that they can leave the line with some boost. But you don't have that. So you'll need to store enough energy in the flywheel to carry you until the turbocharger spools up and produces positive manifold pressure. But you've got all wheel drive, which tends to cause the engine to bog, so you're going to need to launch it from a pretty high rpm. I don't know how much the flywheel weighs in a WRX, but on a well-prepared drag strip, I'd be making my first attempt from pretty damned close to red-line.


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

Killertofu said:


> do you guys think that you might be taking things personally and that might actually make you look kinda silly?
> 
> im not butthurt because you think i sport muscle shirts, drink beer, live in trailer courts and beat my girlfriend because it isn't true. something to think about.


Exactly. A vehicle is a tool. It is not your identity. If someone stole your beloved hoopty tonight, would you cease being the person that you were before?

Not me. I am the same man whether I'm riding my 185 mph open-class Supersport, as I am when I'm walking down the street.

If someone gets butt hurt because I said something about their vehicle that they didn't want to hear, that demonstrates a significant weakness of character.

And if someone gets butt hurt because I said something about a vehicle that they don't even own, that demonstrates incredible weakness.


----------



## nsomniac (Dec 1, 2009)

And if someone claims to be an expert, touts inaccurate information to demonstrate their point, and then gets called out by someone proving they are wrong, they should own up to being wrong. Ignoring it demonstrates the ultimate in weakness.


----------



## SAL9000 (Apr 16, 2010)

RIS said:


> So you prefer the manufacturer's advertising propaganda as opposed to independant testling?


Yes, the highly paid engineering team of a multi-dollar corporation like BMW is infinitely smarter in these things than the (usually) non-engineering degreed staff of an auto rag or a local chassis dyno shop.

The only proper way to dyno is with a water brake or eddy current engine dyno, which is precisely how auto makers and professional engine builders dyno engines. They don't muck about with goofy chassis dyons.



> I'm here to tell you, that thing ain't putting out any 300 pound-feet of torque at any 1400-1500 rpm. The actual torque peak on that engine is about 2500 rpm, which is more than 50% higher engine speed than the tripe that you are parroting. At 1400-1500 rpm, you're looking at more like 150 pound-feet of torque.


You're simply wrong. I know precisely how dynos work as I have designed and programmed them, and thus know when the work well and when they don't. A chassis dyno sucks for anything better than 10-15% accuracy under the best of circumstances for all sorts of reasons.

The other aspect you apparently don't realize is that the graph you posted are the torque and horsepower TO THE STREET. You have to upscale by tire/diff/tranny/etc., losses to obtain NET CRANK HP, which is usually in the neighborhood of 12-20%.

Thusly, per "your" graph, using 15% losses:

276 hp @ street = 324 hp @ crank (BMW rating is 300)
300 lb-ft @ street = 353 lb-ft @ crank (BMW rating is 300)

BMW didn't so grossly under-rate the 335i - the far too high numbers should have been a red flag that the test was bogus. 
.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

SAL9000 said:


> I gotcha more or less overall but you're incorrect on "kissing close." 13.5 vs. 13.7 is to 2-3 car lengths - in drag speak, and easy win.
> 
> Nah, the WRX will best the Mustang V6 every time up to ~100 mph if driven properly, and won't have to dump the clutch at 5,000 rpm either. Add less-than-perfect or wet roads and it's a no contest.


its comments like this that make me wonder if you guys have ever driven cars like the sort in question seriously. RIS brings up a good point about the AWD being a problem with launches. the RWD car can just pick up and go. there's less stuff to break and the live axle in the mustang is the best system on the planet for drag launches. AWD cars have to be driven with care if you're doing launches like that because of how much strain it puts on the drivetrain components.

first the clutch goes
if that doesn't then its the half shafts
if that doesn't then its the tranny or center diff

the more traction you have the more you're likely to break things. since you have to choose between high rpm launches or moderate launches its at a disadvantage when you get it home and you're doing the math on new drivetrain components...



> Have Mustang V6 try to keep up with a WRX on city and suburban roads with light to moderate traffic, some stop lights, left lane campers, etc., and you'll see EXACTLY what I mean. The Mustang V6 will simply play second fiddle. Less than perfect roads to upset the live rear axle or if roads are wet the WRX will stomp the Mustang V6.


LOL i was wondering when someone would dig that one up. you're wrong about the live axle being so finicky. it takes a fair bit of uneven pavement to get it to throw a fit. in fact, it requires a crappy enough road to suggest that you're a tard for going fast on it.



> ANY V6 sounds extremely marginal to me, so yes, absolutely, $7,000 ain't all that much in the grand scheme of things and easily justifiable to upgrade to the GT (at least for me).


1. im sorry it costs so much for you to be happy
2. fords new V6 sounds better than every chevy V8 i've ever heard. its actually a lot like the 370Z motor. the duratec family is a great bloodline.



> The only proper way to dyno is with a water brake or eddy current engine dyno, which is precisely how auto makers and professional engine builders dyno engines. They don't muck about with goofy chassis dyons.


1. all dynos read slightly differently
2. there's nothing wrong with a chassis dyno at all
3. engine dynos are great IF you have the engine out of the car AND all the hardware to make the thing run. we aren't talking about chevy 350's anymore. its more than 4 wires to run a car these days... so thats a bit impractical.

but what do i know, i've just dyno'd everything from ferraris to 1400hp TT vipers.


----------



## SAL9000 (Apr 16, 2010)

RIS said:


> As I pointed out, human reaction times, abilities, and willingness to risk breaking parts varies a whole hell of a lot more than two tenths of a second. And he's not drag racing on a drag strip anyway.


True, but nonetheless it was you who had stated 13.5 vs. 13.7 was "kissing close" (and I'm being generous in reminding you that most all tests are showing the V6 to be a ~14.0 sec car, which lags a 13.5 sec car by ~5 car lengths, which is for intents and purposes a shellacking).



> Have you personally ever run a 13.5 second pass in a stone stock base model WRX? I can assure you that they are flogging the living chit out of it to get it to go. I will once again explain something that may not be immediately apparent to the E-racers of the world:
> 
> When launching a car like the Mustang V6, you're launching with a fairly linear power delivery of a 3.7 liter engine with a 10.5:1 compression ratio. You simply pick an engine rpm that is enough to use slight tire spin to keep it from bogging and dragging the engine down out of the fat part of the powerband.
> 
> ...


Yeah, bro, I know all that. No need to try to snow ball me with trivia.

There's a simple problem with your premise and some of your statements are incorrect:

First, the WRX has a lower peak torque RPM (4,000 rpm vs. 4,250 rpm);

Second, the WRX has a lower peak power RPM (6,000 rpm vs. 6,500 rpm);

Third, the WRX is much lighter (3,174 vs. 3,450);

Fourth, the gearing between the two cars is virtually identical (WRX max speed in gears: 1st = 39, 2nd = 66, 3rd = 95, Mustang V6 max speed in gears: 1st = 39, 2nd = 65, 3rd = 98).

Fifth, the WRX has AWD the Mustang V6 is RWD.

Points 1-5 explain why the WRX is plainly and unarguably the quicker vehicle under 100 mph, and is such without having to dump the clutch at redline: same gearing, lighter car, power band down lower in the rev range, and grip of AWD.


----------



## SAL9000 (Apr 16, 2010)

Killertofu said:


> its comments like this that make me wonder if you guys have ever driven cars like the sort in question seriously. RIS brings up a good point about the AWD being a problem with launches. the RWD car can just pick up and go. there's less stuff to break and the live axle in the mustang is the best system on the planet for drag launches. AWD cars have to be driven with care if you're doing launches like that because of how much strain it puts on the drivetrain components.
> 
> first the clutch goes
> if that doesn't then its the half shafts
> ...


All true, and it applies to FWD and RWD cars, too - lots of aggressive launches can fry clutches and break stuff, too.



> LOL i was wondering when someone would dig that one up. you're wrong about the live axle being so finicky. it takes a fair bit of uneven pavement to get it to throw a fit. in fact, it requires a crappy enough road to suggest that you're a tard for going fast on it.


I did not state "so" I implied "more" finicky, which it plainly is.



> 1. im sorry it costs so much for you to be happy
> 2. fords new V6 sounds better than every chevy V8 i've ever heard. its actually a lot like the 370Z motor. the duratec family is a great bloodline.


Why - my money my rules. I'd never buy a V6 Camaro, a 5.3L Silverado, a 4-cyl Accord or the base Impreza. It simply isn't in my DNA.



> 1. all dynos read slightly differently
> 2. there's nothing wrong with a chassis dyno at all
> 3. engine dynos are great IF you have the engine out of the car AND all the hardware to make the thing run. we aren't talking about chevy 350's anymore. its more than 4 wires to run a car these days... so thats a bit impractical.
> 
> but what do i know, i've just dyno'd everything from ferraris to 1400hp TT vipers.


Yes, all dynos read slightly differently because all chassis dynos suck for absolute measurements.

There's plenty wrong - they are not very accurate .

It's impractical for people who can't afford/don't know to engine dyno.

Chassis dynos are really only good for relative measurements - change something on the same car and see the effect - but then again that too can be abused as I don't know how many times I've LOL'd at the assertion that when a lighter drive shaft shows an "increase" in hp that it's legit. OF COURSE a lighter drive shaft doesn't increase hp, further high-lighting the suckiness of a chassis dyno.


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

SAL9000 said:


> Yes, the highly *paid* engineering team of a multi-dollar corporation like BMW is infinitely smarter in these things than the (usually) non-engineering degreed staff of an auto rag or a local chassis dyno shop.


Emphasis on the word "paid". Paid by who? Paid for what? Where does the money come from? Wake up, dude. They're SELLING something. You think they might have some vested interest in the reported outcome? The local chassis dyno shop has no dog in this fight. They are under no duress to exaggerate.



> The only proper way to dyno is with a water brake or eddy current engine dyno, which is precisely how auto makers and professional engine builders dyno engines. They don't muck about with goofy chassis dyons.
> 
> You're simply wrong. I know precisely how dynos work as I have designed and programmed them, and thus know when the work well and when they don't. A chassis dyno sucks for anything better than 10-15% accuracy under the best of circumstances for all sorts of reasons.
> 
> ...


Your clearly much smarter than I, but here goes anyway:

1) I've never raced a crankshaft or a dyno. I've only raced vehicles. Quoting crank horsepower is hype, done for advertising purposes. I don't need to add 15%, or subtract 12% to account for tire/diff/tranny/alternator/Onstar losses, or use my pocket calculator to calculate what would happen if bullfrogs had wings.

2) Eddy current, water brake, inertia drum, whatever. As long as you're not comparing the results of one type of dyno with the results from another type of dyno, any of them is a valid tool.

And what you're still missing, is that the tachometer pickup works the same on all of them, and the shape of the torque curve does not materially vary. The 335i does not put out any 300 pound-feet of torque at any 1400-1500 rpm. The actual torque peak is at about a 50%+ higher engine speed, at about 2500 rpm.


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

SAL9000 said:


> Why - my money my rules. I'd never buy a V6 Camaro, a 5.3L Silverado, a 4-cyl Accord or the base Impreza. It simply isn't in my DNA.


What's not in your DNA? Humility? Emotional maturity? It's a frickin' car. You use it to get you from one place to another. Do you really make decisions about the second most expensive thing in your life because you're afraid of what complete strangers might think when they see you in it? 



> It's impractical for people who can't afford/don't know to engine dyno.


Yes, we get it. You're smarter than us.

My chassis dyno is kinda big (1386 feet long), but it's extremely accurate.


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

SAL9000 said:


> There's a simple problem with your premise and some of your statements are incorrect:
> 
> First, the WRX has a lower peak torque RPM (4,000 rpm vs. 4,250 rpm);


Come on, quit playing dumb. Remember, you're the super-smart dyno inventor. The "peak torque" of the WRX occurs UNDER A LOAD. There is no load until you launch, and then it takes a short period of time before the turbo spools up. It's like starting a gun fight with an empty gun, and starting to load your weapon after the other guy starts shooting at you.

And like that 250 rpm difference in the torque peak (if it actually exists at all) tells us anything.  Are you planning on racing while maintaining your engine speed at a steady 4000 rpm? Let's lay the two curves over each other and see how they compare.


----------



## SAL9000 (Apr 16, 2010)

Yeah RIS, I think at this point you'd do better to learn rather than continue to try to rgue/troll/apologize the Mustang V6 into the quicker car.

But I'm biased of course.


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

SAL9000 said:


> Yeah RIS, I think at this point you'd do better to learn rather than continue to try to rgue/troll/apologize the Mustang V6 into the quicker car.
> 
> But I'm biased of course.





RIS said:


> WRX STI advertised horsepower to weight ratio: 3395 pounds / 305 horsepower = 11.1 pounds per horsepower
> 2011 Mustang V6 advertised horsepower to weight ratio: 3453 pounds / 305 horsepower = 11.3 pounds per horsepower
> 
> WRX STI acceleration: 0-60 mph 4.8 seconds, 1/4 mile 13.5 @ 100.6 mph (Motor Trend)
> ...





RIS said:


> In terms of acceleration, they are virtually indistinguishable.





RIS said:


> ...both had very similar acceleration capabilities...





RIS said:


> I posted two actual Motor Trend tests. The results were 13.5 @ 100.6 for the WRX, and 13.7 @ 102 for the Mustang V6.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

SAL9000 said:


> All true, and it applies to FWD and RWD cars, too - lots of aggressive launches *can fry clutches and break stuff, too*.


only if you're running slicks. its traction VS inertia, dude.



> I did not state "so" I implied "more" finicky, which it plainly is.


its almost like you have no idea what you're talking about. hmm.



> Why - my money my rules. I'd never buy a V6 Camaro, a 5.3L Silverado, a 4-cyl Accord or the base Impreza. It simply isn't in my DNA.


well me either but none of that is based on exhaust note LOL



> Yes, all dynos read slightly differently because all chassis dynos suck for absolute measurements.


FALSE. plus, it doesn't matter how much power you make. it matters how fast your car goes which means it only matters how much of that power gets to the ground.



> There's plenty wrong - they are not very accurate .


FALSE



> It's impractical for people who can't afford/don't know to engine dyno.
> 
> Chassis dynos are really only good for relative measurements - change something on the same car and see the effect - but then again that too can be abused as I don't know how many times I've LOL'd at the assertion that when a lighter drive shaft shows an "increase" in hp that it's legit. OF COURSE a lighter drive shaft doesn't increase hp, further high-lighting the suckiness of a chassis dyno.


okay, well, you have fun with changing the performance industry standard for measuring power.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

karlmalone1 said:


> *The v6 that pulls .96g on the skidpad has the track pack which has 255/40ZR19 Pirelli Pzeros, which are an extremely grippy tire, and shorter sidewalls.* A mustang v6 with the tires you mentioned would pull substantially less g's on the skidpad, probably in the mid .80s.





Killertofu said:


> *the tires i posted were for reference of the cars i drove. you're right bout the pzeros, they're killer.*


Wow, looks like Mr. Toe "Car guy" Foo is on his bike, cuz there is some serious back pedaling going on here Lol. Careful not to drop your chain, bro!

Either you're a Liar, or you really don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Like I said from the start, unless the cars have the exact same tires and skid-pan then comparing is useless.

Nice job on deceiving us with your substitute tires which don't hit .96g's.

Pfffft... Here's what you said....



Killertofu said:


> *dude, they're street tires. that argument doesn't float.*
> 
> 225/45 R17 summer-performance - WRX <--- shorter sidewall = crisper handling
> *225/60 R17 BFGoodrich Radial T/As - mustang <---taller sidewall = crappier handling (those goodrich tires suck BTW)*





Killertofu said:


> *there's nothing special about the two sets of tires in question. in fact, the mustang is at the disadvantage due to the higher sidewall.*


----------



## nsomniac (Dec 1, 2009)

There goes RIS again, quoting himself incorrectly comparing the mustang to a 2010 WRX STI. It's ok bro, let it go. Motor Trend's measuring tools are inaccurate according to you anyways. 

Still ignoring the truth rather than admitting you are wrong?


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

Killertofu said:


> its comments like this that make me wonder if you guys have ever driven cars like the sort in question seriously. RIS brings up a good point about the AWD being a problem with launches. the RWD car can just pick up and go. there's less stuff to break and the live axle in the mustang is the best system on the planet for drag launches. AWD cars have to be driven with care if you're doing launches like that because of how much strain it puts on the drivetrain components.
> 
> first the clutch goes
> if that doesn't then its the half shafts
> ...


Yup.

I used to own a 600 horsepower PAS Typhoon, and even with an automatic transmission and DOT tires, it was blowing up drivetrain parts (badly). It was usually the transmission. I lost track of how many times I had to build up a new one for it, and I was using the best parts money can buy. And then it would explode yet another brand new planetery gear set upon catching traction on a full-boost full-throttle 1-2 upshift at the drag strip.


----------



## 245044 (Jun 8, 2004)

What the H E L L do any of us know anyway, we're all bicycle people.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

Steve71 said:


> Wow, looks like Mr. Toe "Car guy" Foo is on his bike, cuz there is some serious back pedaling going on here Lol. Careful not to drop your chain, bro!
> 
> Either you're a Liar, or you really don't know what the hell you're talking about.
> 
> ...


MY PERSONAL REVIEW was not with the PERFORMANCE PACKAGE EQUIPPED mustang because they aren't at the dealers yet as i stated in the very quote you just posted.

trying to push the idea that i'm being deceitful despite full disclosure is just intellectually dishonest OR you just can't read properly/objectively.

of the 2 cars that i drove (base WRX and base mustang) the mustang handled much better. the WRX felt like it had more power than suspension to handle it. the stang was totally planted sliding around corners at WOT and everything


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

nsomniac said:


> There goes RIS again, quoting himself incorrectly comparing the mustang to a 2010 WRX STI. It's ok bro, let it go. Motor Trend's measuring tools are inaccurate according to you anyways.
> 
> Still ignoring the truth rather than admitting you are wrong?


the WRX and WRX STI have virtually identical power to weight ratio. the WRX has less power and the STI has more weight. it pretty much balances out.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Killertofu said:


> MY PERSONAL REVIEW was not with the PERFORMANCE PACKAGE EQUIPPED mustang because they aren't at the dealers yet as i stated in the very quote you just posted.
> 
> trying to push the idea that i'm being deceitful despite full disclosure is just intellectually dishonest OR you just can't read properly/objectively.


The discussion was about the skidpan numbers, not your personal subjective driving impressions. How could I possibly argue about your personal driving impressions?

You defended IRS's claim that the mustang had better handling based on the skidpan numbers.

I said the numbers mean nothing unless the cars had the same tires. You said the tires were basically the same, then admitted you knew the tires were drastically different after you got called out on it.

What exactly did I miss?


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

Steve71 said:


> The discussion *was* about the skidpan numbers, not your personal subjective driving impressions.


context is key. i've been talking about both. numbers + real world experience. you've been talking about numbers.



> How could I possibly argue about your personal driving impressions?


thats kinda what i was wondering.



> You defended IRS's claim that the mustang had better handling based on the skidpan numbers.


thats actually false. my claim is that the stand handles better. the mags seem to indicate that the track pack just makes it handle insaaaaaaaanely better. base vs base the stang wins. WRX vs track pack = no contest.

technically the argument was about the semantics of grip VS handling which is a pretty lame argument to begin with.



> I said the numbers mean nothing unless the cars had the same tires. You said the tires were basically the same, then admitted you knew the tires were drastically different after you got called out on it.


okay, so i wasn't clear about base model VS base model. fair enough.

there's a tiny problem with that: the better comparable STI... pulls .95 g's on the skidpaD... and the stang does better :-/

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests...preza_wrx_sti_special_edition_test/index.html

maybe thats why RIS kept posting the better equipped STI?



> What exactly did I miss?


a comprehensive foundation of experience regarding performance vehicles?

the most hilarious part of this all is that i still really like both cars a lot LOL


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Killertofu said:


> a comprehensive foundation of experience regarding performance vehicles?


Once again, if I've said something incorrect please call me on it. Otherwise, comments like this just hold no water.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

Steve71 said:


> Once again, if I've said something incorrect please call me on it. Otherwise, comments like this just hold no water.


scroll up


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Killertofu said:


> scroll up


Huh? All I see is your interpretation of how this discussion went down.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

Steve71 said:


> Huh? All I see is your interpretation of how this discussion went down.


AKA me calling you on it lol


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Killertofu said:


> AKA me calling you on it lol


Sorry I have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

Steve71 said:


> Sorry I have no idea what you're talking about.


Exactly :thumbsup:


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Killertofu said:


> Exactly :thumbsup:


So you've got nothing... like I said call me out, quote my glaring error in car knowledge.


----------



## nsomniac (Dec 1, 2009)

Killertofu said:


> the WRX and WRX STI have virtually identical power to weight ratio. the WRX has less power and the STI has more weight. it pretty much balances out.


Except the whole "5spd vs 6spd" tranny issue, which makes a drastic difference in 0-60 times. That's why I posted a direct comparison of the information tested by C&D on both the 2011 camaro V6 and 2009 WRX (only changes were +33 lbs, wider wheelbase, and better chassis design). But the data didn't support RIS opinion, so he claimed it was inaccurate based on their testing procedures. Then he quoted Motor Trend as being more accurate, and used a 2010 STI test that in no way relates to the '11 WRX.

That's when I pointed out that Motor Trend gets their information using the exact same methods as C&D, and RIS has ignored it instead of being a man and admitting he is wrong.

You can make all the claims you want, but when it came down to the tests, the only relevant ones posted in this thread are from C&D, and they support the claims that the WRX is superior in acceleration. They also support that the camaro has a much better skid pad number, though I also agree *somewhat* that skid pad would be even more relevant if they were taken on the same day using the same tires.

I own and track/auto-x an evo. I could care less about either of these cars, or which one you pick. What I don't like is when a troll comes in to proclaim his superior knowledge, ignores it when his lies are pointed out, and bags on a group of car owners because he's biased against the type of car they drive. Christ, look at his WRX owners comments. It doesn't take much to see the type of mentality he has. Of course he ignores the fact that the camaro actually has it's own type of mullet named after it. There's stigmas about both cars, but it's juvenile to assume they are in any way relevant to the discussion at hand.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

nsomniac said:


> Except the whole "5spd vs 6spd" tranny issue, which makes a drastic difference in 0-60 times. That's why I posted a direct comparison of the information tested by C&D on both the 2011 camaro V6 and 2009 WRX (only changes were +33 lbs, wider wheelbase, and better chassis design). But the data didn't support RIS opinion, so he claimed it was inaccurate based on their testing procedures. Then he quoted Motor Trend as being more accurate, and used a 2010 STI test that in no way relates to the '11 WRX.


1. 0-60 is a marketing tool and is almost completely irrelevant in the real world
2. in this case the tranny hurts 0-60 times only if the gear ratios add shifts to the 0-60. if you think thats the case feel free to do the math.

WRX

First Gear Ratio 1) 3.17
Second Gear Ratio 1) 1.89
Third Gear Ratio 1) 1.30
Fourth Gear Rato 1) 0.97
Fifth Gear Ratio 1) 0.74
Reverse Ratio 1) 3.33
Final Drive Axle Ratio 1) 3.90

STI

First Gear Ratio 1) 3.64
Second Gear Ratio 1) 2.23
Third Gear Ratio 1) 1.52
Fourth Gear Rato 1) 1.14
Fifth Gear Ratio 1) 0.97
Sixth Gear Ratio 1) 0.76
Reverse Ratio 1) 3.54
Final Drive Axle Ratio 1) 3.90

the chassis didn't change to 2011, they just made it wider and maybe tweaked it a bit (but im not sure if they have). now, if i drive the 2011 and it handles like a mofo then rock on but for now im going on what the 2009-10 is since the 2011 is basically a 09-10 with a widebody kit.

That's when I pointed out that Motor Trend gets their information using the exact same methods as C&D, and RIS has ignored it instead of being a man and admitting he is wrong.



> You can make all the claims you want, but when it came down to the tests, the only relevant ones posted in this thread are from C&D, and they support the claims that the WRX is superior in acceleration. They also support that the camaro has a much better skid pad number, though I also agree *somewhat* that skid pad would be even more relevant if they were taken on the same day using the same tires.


right. marginally and if you launch it without giving a crap about the drivetrain.



> I own and track/auto-x an evo. I could care less about either of these cars, or which one you pick. What I don't like is when a troll comes in to proclaim his superior knowledge, ignores it when his lies are pointed out, and bags on a group of car owners because he's biased against the type of car they drive. Christ, look at his WRX owners comments. It doesn't take much to see the type of mentality he has. Of course he ignores the fact that the camaro actually has it's own type of mullet named after it. There's stigmas about both cars, but it's juvenile to assume they are in any way relevant to the discussion at hand.


okay... but its funny


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

nsomniac said:


> I posted a direct comparison of the information tested by C&D on both the 2011 *camaro* V6...





> ...the fact that the *camaro* actually has it's own type of mullet named after it.


The parking lot "racer" has spoken.


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

Killertofu said:


> okay... but its funny


Maybe I'll work on some Mitsubishi Lancer Emo humor later.


----------



## S_Trek (May 3, 2010)

To purchase a Tang with a V6(with whatever package) and talk about performance is just dumb!!! Its just another selling gimmick to sell cars to someone who cant afford the SVT. Only a select few get to have those and its not a every day mom and pop car. Look at the type of guys driving the SVT. GT or STI ok. 

btw: I work at a Ford dealership.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

Steve71 said:


> So you've got nothing... like I said call me out, quote my glaring error in car knowledge.


so far you've just made a lot of arguments regarding semantics with no regard for reality.

you think tires are the end all be all of handling and you seem to think that tires have to literally be identical for it to even be remotely relevant at all ever.

your argument is completely detached from reality.

here's some real world stuff:

Mustang:

pros:
handles slightly better (base)
handles MUCH better (w/$1700 track pack)
much better mileage
extremely robust drivetrain
looks prettier
easier to work on
lower maintenance cost
made in america

cons:
slightly slower
not as much storage space

WRX:

pros:
slightly quicker
lots of storage space
more visibility

cons:
more fragile drivetrain (under hard driving)
more maintenance (boxer engine makes this more expensive/harder)
isn't as pretty
doesn't handle as well


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Killertofu said:


> so far you've just made a lot of arguments regarding semantics with no regard for reality.
> 
> you think tires are the end all be all of handling and you seem to think that tires have to literally be identical for it to even be remotely relevant at all ever.
> 
> your argument is completely detached from reality.


You call it (grip vs handling) semantics, but both the wiki and top gear made a big point of distinguishing the two. RIS mixed the two up, and you defended his position.

I never said tires are the be all end all. However I did say you need to have the same tires on both cars if you want to compare steady state grip on a skid pan. This is common sense 101.

However my argument according to you is completely detached from reality. I'm sill waiting for the quote that demonstrates this.

The funny thing is that I've never said either car handles better, I've simply been correcting the (some) of the BS that running rampid in this thread.


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

S_Trek said:


> To purchase a Tang with a V6(with whatever package) and talk about performance is just dumb!!! Its just another selling gimmick to sell cars to someone who cant afford the SVT. Only a select few get to have those and its not a every day mom and pop car. Look at the type of guys driving the SVT. GT or STI ok.


So do you personally own a 2011 Mustang GT500 SVT?

Because I'm considering the following:

The $22,000 Mustang V6 is capable of 13.7 second quarter miles at about 102 mph.
The $29,000 Mustang GT is capable of 12.8 second quarger miles at about 111 mph.
The $55,000 Mustang GT500 SVT is capable of 12.4 second quarter miles at about 117 mph.
The $13,800 BMW S1000RR is capable of 9.5 second quarter miles at about 156 mph.

You can buy a Mustang V6 AND a Mustang GT for less than a Mustang GT500 SVT costs, and the Mustang GT500 SVT is less than half a second quicker than the Mustang GT.

Do you really want to make $1,000 a month house payments on a frickin' car, knowing full well that any sporting middleweight you encounter will spank you so bad that it would be hard to tell whether you were driving a Mustang GT500 SVT or just a base model Mustang V6?



> btw: I work at a Ford dealership.


As a liner?


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

Steve71 said:


> You call it (grip vs handling) semantics, but both the wiki and top gear made a big point of distinguishing the two. RIS mixed the two up, and you defended his position.
> 
> I never said tires are the be all end all. However I did say you need to have the same tires on both cars if you want to compare steady state grip on a skid pan. This is common sense 101.
> 
> ...


all the while completely ignoring the fact that in certain contexts grip and handling can be used INTERCHANGABLY. grip is how well the car grabs the road. handling is how well the car handles the car grabbing the road which also has woven into it the car actually grabbing the road.

you're playing word games but since you have no idea what you're talking about you don't realize that for the purposes of discussing a certain handling characteristics grip can be used interchangably sometimes.

the operative word there is *sometimes*.

this is at least the second time i've pointed this out to you hence my claim that your argument is completely detached from reality.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Killertofu said:


> all the while completely ignoring the fact that in certain contexts grip and handling can be used INTERCHANGABLY. grip is how well the car grabs the road. handling is how well the car handles the car grabbing the road which also has woven into it the car actually grabbing the road.
> 
> you're playing word games but since you have no idea what you're talking about you don't realize that for the purposes of discussing a certain handling characteristics grip can be used interchangably sometimes.
> 
> ...


Unless you do nothing but drive around in a circle all day, grip and handling can't be used interchangeably. Please provide evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

Steve71 said:


> Unless you do nothing but drive around in a circle all day, grip and handling can't be used interchangeably. Please provide evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears.


perhaps you should wikipedia "sometimes" and "context".


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Killertofu said:


> perhaps you should wikipedia "sometimes" and "context".


I'm all ears, explain to me how sometimes grip and handling are interchangeable.

They are two totally different concepts.


----------



## nsomniac (Dec 1, 2009)

RIS said:


> The parking lot "racer" has spoken.


When you can't attack the argument, attack the person. You still keep avoiding the fact that I called you out on your ******** argument about Motor Trend being more accurate because of testing methods when you had no idea what you were talking about. Instead, you focus on my mistake in typing the camaro (I happen to have a friend looking at one and we've spoken about it the last couple days) instead of mustang. Go back and look at the reviews I posted, they're for the WRX and Mustang.

You're just a little man who can't admit when he's wrong, most of the people here see through you, but you just keep living in your little fantasy world where you're right even when you've been proven wrong.

Have fun in your fantasy "race" world too. Your internet credentials don't match up with your lack of knowledge, so I'm assuming they're as false as the posts you make.


----------



## S_Trek (May 3, 2010)

RIS said:


> So do you personally own a 2011 Mustang GT500 SVT?
> 
> Because I'm considering the following:
> 
> ...


Not any more. I'm a Sports car guy now. I look fast parked standing still! Nothing to prove.
Add .5-.7seconds to your times for real world times.
Not a liner.
You are a reflection of what you drive!(or ride)


----------



## SAL9000 (Apr 16, 2010)

Just because people have a passion for cars and/or that they can build them and/or drive them fast does not automatically equate into being able to explain and/or understand the HOW or the WHY of how all that happens- the enthusiast culture is RIFE with this substitute knowledge mentality. No offense to anyone but some of this thread is a classic example of this, with a little bit of classic Internet 101 thrown in (ad hominem attacks = implicit subconscious admission of defeat).


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

Steve71 said:


> I'm all ears, explain to me how sometimes grip and handling are interchangeable.
> 
> They are two totally different concepts.


"this car grips the road like a cat"
"this car handles with the agility of a cat"

HANDLING is a more comprehensive term with subcategories such as grip and braking.

AGAIN with the SEMANTICS further emphasizing that you don't know what crap about the subject at hand.

all elephants are grey all grey things are not elephants. it ain't rocket science dude.

SAL9000 - experience means a lot. i have loads. generally the more experience you have with something the more understanding you have of it. how many turbo kits, fuel systems, or complete cars have you built?


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Killertofu said:


> "this car grips the road like a cat"
> "this car handles with the agility of a cat"
> 
> HANDLING is a more comprehensive term with subcategories such as grip and braking.
> ...


Sorry, but handling and grip are *technical* terms that are not interchangeable. Just because the average joe on the street mixes up the terms, does not change anything.

Both the wiki and TG video start out by clarifying that they are different terms, but because you and your friends mix up the words, I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about. You're too much. 

Here is the original quote from RIS, obviously basing the mustang's superior handling on the merit of it's .96g of grip. It makes NO sense whatsoever to make a call on a cars handling based on it's skidpan grip. And to say the terms are interchangeable, especially in this context, is absurd. Furthmore, to say that I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about... well let just say I want some of what you're smoking.



RIS said:


> But the biggest difference is in the handling. As I pointed out above, the Mustang V6 is capable of .96g of lateral acceleration. The base model WRX is only capable of about .85g of lateral acceleration. That's a pretty huge difference. Like the difference between a Porsche and a Park Avenue. If you drove them back-to-back, the WRX would feel like a sinking oil tanker.


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

Killertofu said:


> SAL9000 - experience means a lot. i have loads. generally the more experience you have with something the more understanding you have of it. how many turbo kits, fuel systems, or complete cars have you built?


Careful. He's really smart and knows big words. You don't want him to go all stoichiometric on you and kick your BSFC.


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

S_Trek said:


> Not any more.


"Not any more.". Not a liner anymore, or don't own a 2011 GT500 SVT Mustang anymore?



> I'm a Sports car guy now.


Okay, now I feel guilty for busting your chops. The nearest road course is about 3000 miles away from you. That's gotta be tough.



> You are a reflection of what you drive!(or ride)


I'm gonna disagree with you on that. I am not a reflection of what I drive, and what I drive is also not a reflection of me. A vehicle is a tool, nothing more.


----------



## 245044 (Jun 8, 2004)

Well, what a pissing contest this has turned out to be.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

mopartodd said:


> Well, what a pissing contest this has turned out to be.


aint it great?! :thumbsup:

folks get so emotional over cars. its weird.


----------



## Killertofu (Jul 2, 2010)

Steve71 said:


> Sorry, but handling and grip are *technical* terms that are not interchangeable. Just because the average joe on the street mixes up the terms, does not change anything.


ya know, i'm gonna just have to stop ya right there and remind you that guys like me and RIS ARE the average "car guy" joes running around "mixing up terms" and stuff.

thats like someone talking about running lots of camber and me going "hey you need to be specific and refer to negative camber, nobody runs positive camber as so implied by your use of the word camber".

ya know why? cause i know what the guy means.

there's a difference between someone saying something like that and a guy going "that guy is dumb, a high stall is NOT a torque converter" (my best friend told me that once, it was sad). see, there its a very specific mutually exclusive claim where my friend didn't know what the hell he was talking about and him trying to sound technical just made him look kind of dumb. mostly because he is kind of dumb which is probably why it was so easy for him to pull it off.

but i digress...



> Both the wiki and TG video start out by clarifying that they are different terms, but because you and your friends mix up the words, I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about. You're too much.
> 
> Here is the original quote from RIS, obviously basing the mustang's superior handling on the merit of it's .96g of grip. It makes NO sense whatsoever to make a call on a cars handling based on it's skidpan grip. And to say the terms are interchangeable, especially in this context, is absurd. Furthmore, to say that I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about... well let just say I want some of what you're smoking.


you can look at that 2 ways:

1. he used the top WRX model VS the top mustang V6 model (since there is no track pack fro the WRX) which is comperable in price

or

2. we dont have data for the base model because nobody cares about it

or

3. we could look at the STI version of the WRX for a more comperable assessment (power, weight, and handling) to find that its about the same as the track pack equipped V6 version mustang)

multiple choice, which do you choose?

so its apples to oranges in handling since the track pack equipped mustang clearly outshines the WRX model in price and handling for cheaper.

2 yes or no questions (in an effort to keep this orderly)

doesn't that just mean that for cheaper the mustang clearly outshines the WRX in handling?

is it ford's fault for giving us a track pack option or is it subaru's fault for NOT including a similar option?


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

Killertofu said:


> folks get so emotional over cars. its weird.


Yup.

No part of my identity has ever been tied to any vehicle that I drive.

The closest that I have come to an emotional attachment to a vehicle are:

1) My first car, a '64 Nova SS V8 hardtop (not a post). The only feelings that I had for that car was after I sold it. I felt a little nostalgic, because it was my first car, and I felt a sense of loss because it was a little more special than the average car. I paid $1000 for it back in '79 on my 16th birthday, and it would probably cost me north of $25,000 to own one like it again, which I absolutely cannot justify.

2) My most successful race car, a '72 Mazda Rx2 4-speed 2-door coupe, with a normally aspirated bridgeported 12A rotary engine and a Holley 4-barrel double-pumper carb. I ported and built the engine in the dining room, on a kitchen chair with a hole cut in the seat for the eccentric shaft snout. I campaigned it in NHRA Pro ET for about ten years (from about 1980 until 1990), long before this whole "ricer" thing. My car was the only car in my class that was not an American V8. I was almost always in the money with that thing (apparently I was a gun when I was younger). I even won a double-points race with a broken ladder bar that prevented me from launching it under power (I made my opponent red-light, then left the line under my own power to collect my round money). At the high point, I supported myself for two years on my winnings. I lost it to a clutch explosion at the big end in 1990. It vaporized everything from the rear main seal to the front bearing in the transmission. It blasted the brake master cylinder off, tore the firewall open, and blew the hood off, nearly cutting the car in half. Fortunately, it missed my legs and the fuel line, which I had protected with thick steel armor where it passed the clutch housing. That car scared the crap out of everyone, but it sure made me smile. I also drove for another rotary racer, but I always liked my car better.


----------



## nsomniac (Dec 1, 2009)

RIS said:


> Yup.
> 
> No part of my identity has ever been tied to any vehicle that I drive.
> 
> ...


----------



## RIS (Nov 4, 2009)

Killertofu said:


> ya know, i'm gonna just have to stop ya right there and remind you that guys like me and RIS ARE the average "car guy" joes running around "mixing up terms" and stuff.


Actually, I'm not really much of a "car guy". But I am average.


----------



## S_Trek (May 3, 2010)

RIS said:


> Yup.
> 
> No part of my identity has ever been tied to any vehicle that I drive.
> 
> ...


Yup you got no problem with your identity! It's all about you. You said "I" 18 times!:thumbsup:


----------



## AWDfreak (Jan 28, 2007)

RIS said:


> Actually, I'm not really much of a "car guy". But I am average.


You're a gearhead. But I'm not understanding the 4-wheel hatred (I don't remember if it was you or someone else)...


----------



## chiplikestoridehisbike (Aug 8, 2007)

RIS:

I did misread your posted graph. Your understanding that torque and horsepower intersect at 5252rpm is nothing special. Your ability to generally insult other view points and cherry pick facts is outstanding.

Killertofu:

The mustang is cool car and I hope you get it. It definitely sounds like the car you want. Your list of reasons above sounds very uncar guy like though. Just get what you want. Also really look into the real world gas mileage of the car if that is a big criteria for you. The few tests I have read of the car have not reported 30mpg.


----------



## norcalgrenadier (Jul 30, 2006)

It's probably too late. I didn't bother reading the rest of the thread.

I hope you bought/buy the WRX...
Stage 2+ with roof racks.


----------



## pointerDixie214 (Feb 10, 2009)

One of the best non-conclusive internet pissing contests ever... 

RIS: I am surprised you said this: "I am not a reflection of what I drive, and what I drive is also not a reflection of me. A vehicle is a tool, nothing more." But I am even more surprised someone else didn't draw the glaringly obvious personal insult hidden in here to detract from their "argument. (This is not an attack on you, I don't think you're a tool. I just found the statement, and lack of attack on it ironic given the direction of this thread). 

For what it's worth, I really like the Subaru and the Mustang. Just would depend on what I wanted it for. Drag racing, driving fast on the highway: Mustang all day long. Fast driving around town, rallyx racing, fun in the mountains: STi all day long. 

Fortunately for me I don't have the money for either so I am not stressed by these horrible decisions.


----------



## Broccoli (Jun 11, 2008)

Holy thread resurrection, Batman.


----------



## RobMoore (Feb 18, 2011)

Do the rear seats in the Mustang fold down? If so, you could get by with only pulling the front wheel off the bike.


----------

