Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Saturday April 18, 2015
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC Archives > NASIOC Archives > General Forum Archive

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-29-2000, 11:19 AM   #1
Spoon
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 1793
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Southern California
Post OT:sorry its about mustang and honda

brucelee..what do you have to say about this? http://members.home.net/crush
ehem...!
the author is right. but i still wouldn't buy a mustang
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Spoon is offline  
Old 07-29-2000, 11:39 AM   #2
goten
Visiting NASIOC Timeout
 
Member#: 421
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Vancouver BC, Canada
Vehicle:
2003 V35 Skyline
2004 WRX STi

Post

this is bull****!! they are compareing a 160HP civic to a 260HP Rustang!!!

no one in japan compares a Impreza WRX to a integra in japan...

if those rustang are so good, why dont they compare a WRX or a Lancer E6??? are they afraid they wont have any "winning points" over those 2 cars??? so they have to use a small civic to compare???

goten is offline  
Old 07-29-2000, 11:42 AM   #3
AlphaDog
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 1759
Join Date: Jun 2000
Vehicle:
2001 Mazda B4000
Black

Post

Well, the author has missed several points. For one, and most glaring, the whole article he compares a 99 Stang with a 99 Si. But on the reliability issue, he conveniently posts numbers from a 91 model year. This doesn't help his point.

Next, he says that the Stang handles comparably, even better, than a stock Si. This is the biggest lie since the Democrats said the Republicans wanted to starve school children. Anyone who can drive knows the difference between the two.

Third, he has the prices wrong. The Si does not cost 18K. Try 17K. And the Stang? $21, 205 MSRP. With 4K, you can tack on easily another 100 HP to the Si, without really increasing weight. That machine would slaughter a Stang. (maybe even the Cobra because of the weight difference).

And lastly, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME KIND OF CAR! You can't go to the Ford dealership and buy a 4 dr version of a Stang. There aren't 5 or 6 different trim levels for a Stang. The Stang drinks gas like it is water, it weighs a 1/3 ton more, and it's engine is over twice the size!!! These cars are similar?

Whatever domestic boy, keep beating your chest justifying your purchase. I'm sorry your car won't be worth doggy doo in 5 years.
AlphaDog is offline  
Old 07-29-2000, 02:08 PM   #4
ASNG
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 681
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Square One
Thumbs down

Another thing that is irrelevant in his analysis is the Weight/Torque ratio.
It is a completely useless number if its based on flywheel torque alone!!
What about the gear ratios, the final drive ratio and the overall tire diamater??!!
Thats why they use Weight/Hp!!

And the most MISLEADING number is PEAK Hp and Torque!

Yes, the Mustang does make more peak power, but it does it over a pathetic 1000 rpm range from 4000-5000 rpm...talk about performance drivability! I've driven them and thats really where "all" the power is. Actually the "older" Mustangs with the 302's were much more fun to drive.
At least the civic has a nice fat and available power band over a 3000 rpm range in V-Tec mode.

Oh, and the guy is WAY off on his canadian pricing...try about almost 29000 for the Mustang, compared to the similarly equiped 23000 dollar Si!

The only Mustang I would even remotely consider is the Cobra, but at 36000 canadian??!!...I don't think so!

ASNG
ASNG is offline  
Old 07-29-2000, 02:37 PM   #5
Overtime
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 1346
Join Date: Apr 2000
Post

A stupid comparison.

The Civic isn't a performance car, but it can be.

The reliability factor is pointless. Reliability is something you never find out until it's too late.

The prices are wrong, but not off incredibly.

The main thing to remind yourself is that everyone is biased. Personally, I KNOW the V6 Mustang is more a performance car than the Civic. But I'm biased. An Si owner will insist that "Rustangs can't take a turn" or some other BS. The two are actually comparable.

Gas mileage is VERY comparable between the two.

There is no 4 door Si.

I don't think I'd buy either car...but to each his own, and that's why comparisons are so pointless. Reviews on the other hand...
Overtime is offline  
Old 07-29-2000, 03:19 PM   #6
NickSTi
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 626
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Miami FL
Vehicle:
2001 Impreza 2.5 RS
Black Diamond Pearl

Post

Well he did give u honda guys one thing...
I have never heard of a stock Si doing zero to 60 in 7.2s. Maybe u guys will say otherwise but that sounds too low.
NickSTi is offline  
Old 07-29-2000, 04:34 PM   #7
wolve80
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 1339
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: St. Louis, MO, USA
Angry

WHOA!!! Wait a second!! This was to be expected. Too many Civic owners compare their car's to mustangs saying a mustang is a POS, which it is NOT. They are not in the same class, at all. The Civic is an Economy car. The Mustang is a Muscle car, AKA, Affordable Sports Coupe. The Civic is a better handler because of it's lighter weight, but most Civic drivers don't street race them, they DRAG RACE them. The Mustang was, is, and always will be a drag racer. STOP KNOCKING THE DAMN CAR!!!! Stop making useless comparisons, and don't jump on a Mustang owner for creating that. Take one look at ClubSi, and you'll see the Import guys go way overboard with it.

Finnally... funny thing. The Mustang is designed, and built in the USA. The 00 has untested reliability, but Mustangs do run for a long time. There's plenty of evidence driving around.

The Civic is Designed in Japan, but Built in the USA. The ENGINE is completley built in the USA, yet the Tranny is imported pre-assembled. Their engines are known for their reliability, but they're tranny's have had their problems. And we all know, a Japanese auto isn't going to last.

Funny how all the Import guys knock the Domestics reliability considering the circumstances.

wolve80 is offline  
Old 07-29-2000, 04:38 PM   #8
wolve80
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 1339
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: St. Louis, MO, USA
Post

oh ya, MSRP with destination charge = 17,985. Source= http://www.kbb.com/kb/ki.dll/kw.kc.n...20Civic&A01115

I know they can be had for cheaper, but he was correct.
wolve80 is offline  
Old 07-29-2000, 04:53 PM   #9
wolve80
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 1339
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: St. Louis, MO, USA
Post

my last post, I swear

AEM CAI,DC4-1 Header,R-Spec Vtec Controller,GC Coilovers,Tokico HP Shocks,DC Short Shifter,Supercharger 6 psi,energy suspension motor mounts

best ET 13.87 corrected for altitude.

Hmm... that's alot to run high 13s. Please, STOP the hype. The Si is a nice car, but a God it is not.
wolve80 is offline  
Old 07-29-2000, 05:25 PM   #10
N/A
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 133
Join Date: Aug 1999
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Burlington, WA
Vehicle:
TBA TBA
TBA

Post

I used to have a coworker who would make fun of import owners and them spending alot of money on their cars to make them fast. He'd say how he bought his 1970 something Camaro for less then $5K and put $3K into the car and was running in the 12's. How I was wasting my time with imports cause they cost too much and you will never make them fast. He finally shut up when another coworker pointed out that he never drove his Camaro because it got like 10mpg and sucked for normal driving cause it would stall. He always drove his wife's Honda Accord to work instead. Infact for the whole 2yrs we worked together we only saw that car 2 times. So I guess his car wasn't that great after all if he had to buy a second car to drive for the other 99% of the time.
I would agree that the Honda's are nice but they aren't the greatest thing on earth.
Mustangs were nice but personally I would never own one. Seems like Ford relies too much on the cars name rather then what your actually getting.
Hey kind of like SOA naming the new turbo the WRX even though it really isn't.
N/A is offline  
Old 07-29-2000, 09:23 PM   #11
ASNG
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 681
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Square One
Lightbulb

And what about their latest "creation", the Mustang Cobra R??!!
Yeah, it has all the goodies, but for $55000 US??
What a joke! And it only ran 13.2 @ 110 for that kind of money!

Can you imagine had badly a $55000 Impreza would waste that thing?? And thats only at the dragstrip, we haven't even talked about what it would to with it at the track!

ASNG
ASNG is offline  
Old 07-29-2000, 10:05 PM   #12
Patrick Olsen
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 120
Join Date: Jul 1999
Chapter/Region: AKIC
Location: Where the Navy sends me...
Vehicle:
1997 Legacy 2.5GT
QuickSilver Metallic

Post

I didn't even bother to read the source article, as there is plenty of ammunition in the posts here to work with. Edit: OK, I just went and read it. Some reasonable info presented, but I'd say he MIGHT have already decided on an answer before he even started asking the question. And his contention that the Si can't beat the Mustang in ANY race is just silly. Anyway, comparing a Mustang to a Civic Si is definitely an apples-and-oranges kinda thing. However, as wolve80 pointed out, many import drivers (not just Honda owners - look at our own i-Club with all the "I smoked a Z28/Mustang/Cadillac/whatever" posts) insist on comparing their cars to muscle cars, so I guess the guy was somewhat justified.

As for the above replies, first, let's try not to compare the reliability of a 1970-something Camaro to a modern car. Hell, let's not compare the reliability of ANY 1970-something car to a modern car, because they all SUCKED. Yeah, yeah, your uncle has a Datsun 510 with 10 million miles on it and he's never changed the oil and he drives it 600 miles to work everyday without a problem, blah blah.

Next, ASNG, ummmm, explain to me again how using weight to HP ratio is any different than weight to torque? Since HP and TQ are DIRECTLY MATHEMATICALLY related, using either number has the exact same effect. Actually, using TQ probably makes more sense, since torque is what really gets the car moving. Either way, they're proportional, so it doesn't matter. HP doesn't measure gear ratios, drive ratios, or tire diameter, HP is strictly how much the engine puts out. Oh, while we're on the subject of weight/HP ratios, I don't know where the guy got 3200# for a SN95 Mustang GT - they're closer to 3500#, even as high as 3700# for a loaded automatic.

I also have to question the statement that the Mustang is a peaky motor, only making good power from 4000-5000rpm. You must have driven a broken Mustang, that's the only explanation I can come up with. The Mustang, whether it be V6, GT, or Cobra, will pull over a pretty broad RPM range - atleast as big as the Si. I've never driven an Si, but from what I've read here the VTEC comes in around 6000rpm, so with an 8200rpm redline you're looking at a 2200rpm powerband. The Mustang will easily pull from 2500rpm up to about 5000rpm or maybe a little more, so it's a pretty comparably-sized powerband. And the great thing is the Mustang doesn't need RPMs to develop power, because it has torque, and torque is what gets it done on the track and in the real world.

Which car is a better handler? Well, that depends on what you choose to look at. I'll bet good money that a stock Mustang GT will post better slalom and skidpad figures than a stock Si. And on a good twisty backroad I'm sure I could push the Mustang harder and faster. As that twisty backroad begins to tighten up, however, or if you start throwing some mid-corner bumps that the Mustang's live rear axle doesn't like, the Si will be able to walk away. It's all situational, so the numbers the magazines post aren't always the best guideline. Another aspect of handling that wasn't discussed - braking. I just happened to notice that the Road Test Summary in the back of Road & Track has the Civic Si highlighted with the WORST 60-0 distance of any car listed. The Mustang GT doesn't have the greatest brakes in the world, but 167' from 60-0 is pretty sad, and I'd be willing to bet the GT could easily beat that mark.

Anyway, that's the input of a Mustang driver. I love both my cars, but I'm still a big believer in the theory that TORQUE IS KING. For that reason alone I don't think that my Subaru will ever replace my Mustang as the #1 car in my heart.

I'll apologize ahead of time for coming off too pissy. I just hate it when people perpetuate BS comments about muscle cars being slow, heavy, gas-guzzling, non-handling pigs. Wake up and smell the 21st century, muscle cars aren't what they used to be.

Edit again: When Honda/Acura decides to produce a $55,000 RACE car, we'll see what happens I guess. Until then, we'll let the $55,000 Cobra R eat $85,000 Acura NSX's for lunch. The Cobra R out acclerates, out brakes, out skidpads, and out slaloms the NSX. Need I say more?

Pat Olsen
'99 Legacy 2.5GT 5speed sedan, blown and intercooled '89 Mustang GT convertible

[This message has been edited by Patrick Olsen (edited July 29, 2000).]
Patrick Olsen is offline  
Old 07-30-2000, 12:29 AM   #13
XT6Wagon
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 524
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: WA
Vehicle:
04 STi
White

Post

I belive him, as In my comparisions the Si is a step behind many cars. My SHO out handles, out accelerates the Si, while having a better ride, and a higher top speed. I don't play with 99 Stang GT's as they have more power than my SHO, and the handling is good enought to not make a difference on the street.

In fact if Ford could put in a 150HP motor, the ZX2 tranny, and the Eruo rear brakes in a Focus the Si would be compleatly outclassed.

The Si is not a great handler, its very easy to drive, but its limites are fairly low. The Focus on those POS all seasons and soft as a pillow suspention simply cruised through corners where the SI and its Truck like ride pushed badly and needed constant correction to mantain any pace.

The motor pulls good, but I doubt the 7.1 sec 0-60 every one claims as my "7.5" sec ride pulls a Si from word go and doesn't look back. Oh and thats with a Tranny that slips like no other above 4K rpm. Also at least on Si I drove was never happy with being at ANY rpm. It bitched and moaned at low RPM (4K??) like it was lugging, and then when it finaly got into the Vtec rtange it would thrash almost as bad as my Old Topaz did. But At least the Topaz seemed happy about being run redline unlike the Si. The others I have driven were not as bad, but still seemed like a Civic EX with an extra 1000RPM redline at the expense of any power below 5K rpm.

In Short I think the Mustang is a better car as far as performance, and the Focus is a better family car, but the Civic is due for a replacement in 2001 so it shouldn't be that big of a suprise that this is so.
XT6Wagon is offline  
Old 07-30-2000, 05:55 AM   #14
SubaRS
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 1850
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: CA, USA
Question

I dunno much about Stangs, but I am really doubt about the fact the author wrote: "Example: The V8 1999 Mustang GT with an *automatic* transmission achieves a 1/4 mile time of 14.6 sec. The exotic $90,000 Acura NSX achieves a 1/4 mile time of 13.5 seconds"
Is this true?? only 1 sec behind?
SubaRS is offline  
Old 07-30-2000, 07:04 AM   #15
Patrick Olsen
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 120
Join Date: Jul 1999
Chapter/Region: AKIC
Location: Where the Navy sends me...
Vehicle:
1997 Legacy 2.5GT
QuickSilver Metallic

Post

A "good" stock Mustang GT (you know, one they built on Wednesday so all the workers were happy) with a 5 speed can crack into the 13.9s in the 1/4 mile with a very good driver. Low 14s are easily attainable, so I'm not surprised an automatic would run mid 14s.

The Road & Track I have says the NSX runs the quarter in 13.3sec. So if you look at 5 speed vs 5 speed, the Stang is less than 1sec behind in the 1/4. Seven or eight tenths of a second in the 1/4mile is a pretty hefty gap, though, so that's not as small a gap as it sounds.

Pat Olsen
'99 Legacy 2.5GT 5speed sedan
Patrick Olsen is offline  
Old 07-30-2000, 07:08 AM   #16
matt7184
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 1797
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Miramar/Gainesville, FL
Vehicle:
2003 MazdaSpeed
Protege

Post

Yes it is, id take the mustang gt, because most he said was true. Mustangs are pretty quick. The current stock GT runs low 14s stick. Cobras can run high 13's.
matt7184 is offline  
Old 07-30-2000, 07:29 AM   #17
MikeYOX
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 1754
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: West Boemfugk, Egypt
Vehicle:
2002 S4
Nogaro Blue

Thumbs down

Yep. The NSX is extremely slow due to low horsepower and big drivetrain losses. It only makes 170 hp at the wheels with the VTEC on. To add more to the discussion, the Mustang's times are acheived by launching the car at 2500 rpm as is the standard for most rear drive cars. However, the Civic Si, like most 4-cylinder imports with VTEC, needs a clutch drop at over 7000 rpm to acheive its times. When launched at 5500 rpm, going to WOT between shifts, it's not unusual for the Si's times to fall to 0-60 in 12 seconds or more. Even the S2000 could only make 11 seconds without a 7500 rpm clutch drop. On the street, the Mustang reigns over the Si, as well as the strip because of this. The Mustang has incredible low end and torque that kicks Honda ass all over the place. BTW, I don't know how a 55K soob would perform, but I did read about a test of a $40,000 Subaru. It didn't move at all. It's MAF went to hell in the cold. It only made 190 hp. See R&T's test of the HKS Impreza 2.5RS.Also see this month's issue of Grassroots Motorsports. It contains an article about a $1500 challenge car, a Fox body Mustang, and at the end it tells about how this car beat a turbo and intercooled MY99 Impreza with an experienced driver.......at an autocross track.
MikeYOX is offline  
Old 07-30-2000, 07:53 AM   #18
IsraelGT
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 1468
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Tel aviv, Israel
Vehicle:
1999 Impreza GT
Silver

Talking

I would take the NSX over any Mustang, it's just a better car.
you guys talk drag racing but cars are more than 0-60.
and reliabilty, are you kiddin' me, a Honda lasts forever and without giving you any trouble while the Mustang falls apart.
IsraelGT is offline  
Old 07-30-2000, 08:25 AM   #19
wolve80
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 1339
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: St. Louis, MO, USA
Post

read my first post. Hondas sold in the USA have their engine completley manufactured in the USA, like the Mustang. No problems. The trannys are imported from Japan, and they have had problems.
wolve80 is offline  
Old 07-30-2000, 08:51 AM   #20
ASNG
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 681
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Square One
Talking

Oh boy, I had a feeling this might happen!
Anyways, lets take it one by one...

Weight/Hp vs. Weight/Torque?
Take two cars, both 3000 lbs and both having engines that make lets say 150 lbs-ft of PEAK torque. They both carry 20(lbs)/1(lbs-ft) of engine torque, right?
Oh, but I forgot to mention that while one car makes 150 lbs-ft @ 4000 rpm the other car is a V-TEC and makes the 150 lbs-ft @ 6000 rpm!!
Lets say also, that they are geared such that they will redline "nearly" at the same speed...ex. 2nd gear takes both to about 50 mph, which is not unreasonable. OK, so they are coasting along and decide to "go for it". They both drop the hammer, but since "V-TEC boy" had a 50% advantage in terms of gearing and is thus able to have 50% more torque to accelerate him at the wheels, he will end up dusting the other car.

Hey, but they both had the same Weight/TORQUE...so WTF??!!
Yes, but Weight/TORQUE does not include the effects of what rpm the torque was made at! Weight/Hp does!!

Thats why Hp is actually a much better number than torque. Because it measures POWER. And power is the rate at which energy is transferred. So if you put gearing, torque and all other numbers aside, the bottom line is that the engine that can produce more energy per unit time...the one with more Hp...will allways be faster in a given car!!

To go one step further, an engine with a lower PEAK HP can still be a better performer if its torque curve is flater.
See one engine may have a higher peak Hp, which means it can produce more power, but that is ONLY at one particular rpm! That would be good if you ran at constant rpm, like some sort of industrial machine.
But what about other rpm's??
Well, thats why the engine that has the greatest area under the curve in the TORQUE vs. RPM graph, will produce the most power over the total rpm range which will make it faster in a given car.

See, ultimately your car will end up having a certain amount of kinetic Energy at a given speed. So the engine that can produce that energy in the shortest amount of time, throughout its COMPLETE rpm range, will get your car to that given speed faster!
Torque is part of it, but it all comes down to power!

OK, I drove both 99', V6 and GT Mustangs!
The V6 is, overall, a nicer engine...it has a nice flat torque curve and it shows in its powerband. The GT is obviously more powerfull, but more "spiky" than the V6.
They are both still a POS though! And their depresciation is almost criminal!

As to the $55000 Cobra R! I didn't think of the $75000 NSX at the time. Yes it is slower for a lot more money, but it is far more refined! But refinement may not be much of a consolation if you just got your ass hand it to you by a car that is 20000 less!
So than what about a Viper R for $80000, that is almost an insult! Ok, you will get a low 12s car, but it's handling characteristics are almost dangerous, and talk about unsophistication!!

I say 01' Corvette Z06!!

And you are right, there will allways be stories about "yeah my uncle's 72 Datsun or Mustang is still on the road", which has nothing to do with the overall reliability of the brand.

Now one thing I have to make clear though, I am not advocating either, I'm no Mustang fan and the Civic was not on my short list either. I just thought I might add some fuel to the fire to see if anything interesting comes out... He-He...

ASNG


[This message has been edited by ASNG (edited July 30, 2000).]
ASNG is offline  
Old 07-30-2000, 09:42 AM   #21
Hucker
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 1272
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Post

Doesn't someone saying "My Mustang just fell apart", really say "I have no idea how to maintain/take care of my car?"

hrm....

I've never had a car that just "Fell apart"
Hucker is offline  
Old 07-30-2000, 02:04 PM   #22
MrSube2pt5
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 985
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington Grove, MD/Boise, Idaho
Post

One thing : NSXs are receive way too much credit. The Cobra R is almost half the price and it's faster and handles better and in my opinon, looks better. The NSX achieved like a .88 on the skidpad while the Cobra R ripped a .95. That's damn impressive for a muscle car.
I've never heard of 4.6 GT Mustangs getting in low 14's. 14.7 was the fastes time i've seen and that was with an excellent driver. V6 Mustangs are a complete joke. They have one of the worst engines ford could create. Civics, however, cant't compare anyway. Some people are under some pretense that civics are drag racing cars - they aren't. A fwd econobox is not ideal in any aspect. Civics also have very sloppy steering and a ****ty powerband to top it off.
To sum it all up..mustang over civic.
justin
MrSube2pt5 is offline  
Old 07-30-2000, 02:53 PM   #23
AlphaDog
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 1759
Join Date: Jun 2000
Vehicle:
2001 Mazda B4000
Black

Post

I knew this would happen. I make a post saying that it is a stupid comparison, and point out the article's flaws, WHILE NOT KNOCKING MUSTANGS IN THE PROCESS (just stating slightly harsh numbers), and what happens?....

HONDA BASHING! YeeHaw! Jesus I wish you guys would get over yourselves. Leave it to SOME of you subie guys to turn everything back around on "Honda Sucks!".

Can't teach an old dog new tricks...
AlphaDog is offline  
Old 07-30-2000, 02:54 PM   #24
JaiMak
Top Scoob 004
 
Member#: 697
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: TSC headquarters
Vehicle:
1999 Top Scoob #4
Satin White Pearl

Post

This whole discussion is pointless. The mustang is so NOT in the same category as the SI.

Sure, pricewise, a mustang v6 isn't too much more than an SI, but when I looked at buying a mustang (almost did), the price was great, but my INSURANCE was like twice as much.

Insurance is as much a purchasing factor for many as the price. The fact of the matter is, is if I got a mustang, it would have been close to $1800 more a year to insure.

Also, Ford dealers tend to sell the GTs for quite a bit above invoice. They invoice for around the 26-27 canadian, but most dealers are selling them for $31-32 range. That's a good $8000 more than a civic, and on a lease about $180 more per month, as well as $120-150 more insurance per month.

It's not even the same category, so why bother. That's like us comparing our RS to a UK Turbo! Different league altogether!

I wouldn't have minded a mustang GT, in fact, I still have a great deal of admiration for domestic muscle, and it was an object of my affection for some time. But the shear fact is, most people in the SI/RS price range simply cannot afford to buy a 'stang, or is just out of their pricerange.

However, I do agree with the domestic boys to an extent, some H & A guys spend tons of cash on their rides, many would say buy a better car for that money. If you want cheap speed, american muscle is tough to beat.

However, it's nice to say that WE in particular are exempt. Because when someone says, "why spend money on that rice burner when you can get something faster for a little more?"

We can turn around and say, "Does it have All Wheel Drive?"

'nuff said.
JaiMak is offline  
Old 07-30-2000, 05:23 PM   #25
Memnoch
Guest
 
Member#:
Post

XT6Wagon I think you're on crack. My sister has a brand new Focus. With all the body roll that that car has I'll cut my d!ck off if it handles better than my best friend's Si. Sure the steering is much more responsive than the Si, but it's more responsive than the RS's anyway!
Truck-like suspension? God.

And I'm sorry, but the B16a2 engine just BEGS to be revved and it screams beautifully. There is nothing more exhilarating than high-revving engines. My best friend and I constantly race each other just fooling around with our cars and the Si is a nice car. I don't understand why somebody would compare cars who aren't even in the same category.

All this Honda bashing has to stop, people forget it's the people behind the car who suck, not the cars themselves.
 
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
this game is called cloud and its about clouds and flying Captain TinklePee Off-Topic 1 01-29-2007 03:12 AM
Just wondering about mustang dyno's TurboImpreza04 Newbies & FAQs 4 05-07-2006 10:32 PM
Its my birthday and Im lying about my age! chrismindless Off-Topic 4 05-03-2006 12:22 AM
Its almost over and I didnt even know about it!!! wrx2.0 555 South East Region Forum 9 07-31-2003 06:49 PM
Its all about Bud and his Bling Bling!!! Danny5 South West Impreza Club Forum -- SWIC 7 01-06-2003 11:38 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2015 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.