If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Another magazine comparison - '05 Mustang GT vs Suburu WRX
January 2005 issue of Automobile Magazine has a comparison of "who builds
the most entertaining $25,000 car." The 5-page article was purposefully written from Washington D.C. to give it a political-type slant, kind of weird. Instead of having a bunch of editors vote on the various categories to determine a winner (like Car & Driver did in the GTO-Mustang GT comparo), this article attempts to split the car-buying public into two groups, and then assume to know which car would suit their preferences in each area. As a bit of fun, they talk about results from the "pollsters," and which way they claimed to vote in certain areas. It seems the Mustang GT is portrayed as the "red" or conservative choice, and the Suburu is the "blue," or liberal choice. :-) I think this comparison is more valid than the GTO and Mustang, because the cars cost the same. The Mustang and GTO are more alike physically for sure, with the V-8s, rear drive, and American roots dating back to the 60s, but does a car buyer choose between the two really? On the other hand, WRX and Mustang GT cost the same, and have the same purpose (i.e. performance matters first, everything else second), so these cars are in direct competition on the showroom floors. I actually preferred the Car & Driver comparison, because they declared a winner and a loser. That subjectiveness stirred conversation and was fun to debate. This article sadly doesn't declare a winner and a loser. The closest they come to a conclusion is to say that "more people will cast their lot with the Mustang." Duh. They add that the Mustang is "an American icon and an emotional touchstone for the faithful," while the WRX "will appeal more to the reality-based community." The only areas they go out on a limb and declare a winner are the obvious ones: - Looks. "We're not going to stand here and tell you the WRX looks better than the Mustang..." - Sound. "We're not going to ask you to belive it [the WRX] sounds better, because it doesn't." - Sex appeal. "We'll not claim that the WRX will do a hell of a lot in the way of introducing you to members of the opposite, er, party. Because it won't. Unless they're techno-nerds, die-hard foreign-car fans, or members of some clannish Southern California subculture, most Americans like Mustangs better." :-) I should also point out a couple nitpicks about possible inaccuracies in the article: - they say the EPA Highway figure for the Mustang is 20 mpg, while the Suburu is 27. This is wrong - the Mustang EPA is actually 25. They go on to say that the Mustang's mileage dips "into the twelves and lower in the city." ??? I don't believe that at all. Car & Driver averaged 16 mpg during their test, which was pretty much all extremely hard driving, including track sessions. (I've never seen less than 15 mpg personally in 13 years of driving 5.0 Mustangs.) Meanwhile, the only thing they say about the Suburu's mileage is that it is 27 EPA Highway. I have a friend who's owned a WRX for a couple years now, who doesn't drive the car hard, and tells me that he averages about 18 mpg overall. So the Automobile Magazine article is a bit biased in this area, and they conclude by saying if you opt for the WRX you can "bask in the eternal moral value of lower consumption." - they say the Mustang GT weighs 3600 pounds. Road & Track says 3510. Car & Driver says 3575. Motor Trend says 3520. - they say the wheelbase has been increased 7 inches. Isn't 6 inches the correct figure? Bill J. 95 GT |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Jones opined in :
> January 2005 issue of Automobile Magazine has a comparison of "who > builds the most entertaining $25,000 car." The 5-page article was > purposefully written from Washington D.C. to give it a political-type > slant, kind of weird. Like the guiness commercial.. "Brilliant!" Though that article isnt available on the web site, the review of the 2005 is, and it goes along with most others... thumbs up! http://automobilemag.com/reviews/041...ng/index2.html Also check out the wallpaper they've put up... they act like it's art, and it is... but not suitable as a "That's my Baby!" screensaver or background - TOO artsy! > > - they say the Mustang GT weighs 3600 pounds. Road & Track says 3510. > Car & Driver says 3575. Motor Trend says 3520. > > - they say the wheelbase has been increased 7 inches. Isn't 6 inches > the correct figure? > Rounding in both cases, close enough. -- - Yes, I'm a crusty old geezer curmudgeon.. deal with it! - |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
AZGuy opined in :
> If > you were to believe the car mags, autos are so much better each year > that if you worked backwards a 1968 model car would have to have been > little more then a wooden axle with two stone wheels pulled by a fleet > of gerbils. > -- > Hmmm ... I dont need some magazine to tell me that, I have seen it for myself! -- - Yes, I'm a crusty old geezer curmudgeon.. deal with it! - |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"AZGuy" > wrote in message ... > On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:30:48 GMT, "Bill Jones" > > wrote: > >>I actually preferred the Car & Driver comparison, because they declared a >>winner and a loser. > > You mean you can't read an article and figure out for yourself which > would be YOUR preferred car but have to be told? Why do you ask that question? I simply said I preferred a comparison article to declare a winner and loser. And in the next sentence, which you snipped out, I explained why - because it makes for conversation and debate. Yes, I read the article, and know that I prefer the Mustang. I don't have to be told. I just like the writers to stick their necks out and give their opinions. That's exactly why I read newsgroups and forums like this - to hear other folks' opinions... > "wins" around to keep the ad money flowing in from all the makers. If > you were to believe the car mags, autos are so much better each year > that if you worked backwards a 1968 model car would have to have been > little more then a wooden axle with two stone wheels pulled by a fleet > of gerbils. hehe. good one! Unfortunately, I agree with the magazines that say that modern cars are better in almost every way than their predecessors. I have owned lots of cool cars: 1965 Corvette 396 4-speed convertible, 1971 Oldsmobile 4-4-2 W-30 4-speed, 1974 Z28 4-speed, 1974 Triumph Spitfire, 1981 Z28 4-speed, 1984 Z28 5-speed, 1987 Mustang GT 5-speed, and my current 1995 Mustang GT 5-speed. I recently drove a 2005 GT 5-speed, and without hesitation, I would say it's easily better than any car I previously owned. But then again, I may be different than a lot of Mustang owners in that I really just use the car as a daily driver, and don't mod it much at all. I might swap out the shifter or perhaps experiment with different computer flashes (if I buy a new '05 GT), but I think I'd probably be pretty happy with it the way it comes from the factory. -Bill J. 95 GT > -- > Jim > '88 LX 5.0 (now in car heaven) > '89 LX 5.0 vert > '99 GT 35th Anniversery Edition - Silver > Mods to date - Relocated trunk release to drivers side, > shortened throttle cable, PIAA Driving lights. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mustang Kicks A Goat. News At Eleven. | [email protected] | Ford Mustang | 25 | December 18th 04 01:48 AM |
Mustang Fever All Over Again | Jim S. | Ford Mustang | 12 | December 13th 04 09:11 PM |
NEWSFLASH!! John Coletti, SVT Head, "Retires" | [email protected] | Ford Mustang | 1 | December 13th 04 05:48 PM |
Confused! - 1968 Mustang Conv. lower ball joint?? | Jeffery | Ford Mustang | 3 | December 8th 04 02:56 AM |
Ford Mustang Magnaflow Exhaust | FastAutoSports | Ford Mustang | 20 | December 2nd 04 11:00 PM |