http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...hotopanel..1.*

Not too flattering but what can you except from them?

 

edmunds or Shelby autos?

 

Their comments and assessments seem pretty accurate and fair. The test numbers speak for themselves, unless you're implying Edmunds fudged the results, and the on road assessments, while certainly more subjective, do seem fair, for better or worse.

While the Shelby, and any V8 Mustang, does possess some pretty compelling MoJo credentials -- great looks, V8 melody and low end punch, RWD, parking lot pirouettes -- and thus in some ways may be the more subjectively enjoyable ride, objectively, the STi is simply a far more competent overall performance car. Granted it has a face only a mother would love and an exhaust note that won't win it a spot on American Idol, but for getting from point A to point be in the least time, it's definitely the one to grab the keys for.

It seems that for your extra $10K, the Shelby offers a whole lotta extra attitude but no real additional aptitude.

 

Ohh, I was refering to Edmunds. They just put the NEW WRX up to something didn't even compete in the same class, just so that the WRX (which is the HOT thing right now), looks even better. By the way this is all just in my opinion.

 

Guess the WRX is in a different class than the V8 sport coupes built by Ford class. Where Edmunds gets off comparing two performance cars of the same price is beyond me, must have been to much egg nog at the Edmund's company holiday party or something.

Edmunds really should take a more delicate, thoughtful approach to the Shelby GT, what with comparing it to superior, errr, "different" cars. How mean of Edmunds comparing the Shelby GT to a car that beat it in just about every measured performance category. They should have shown a modicum of forethought and made sure only to compare the Shelby GT against cars it can beat. And they obviously didn't properly appreciate the intimidation effect of fake scoops, tape stripes and especially, the quasi functional hood pins

The injustice of it all.

I'm sure the WRX drivers will respect that class distinction should they find themselves whizzing past a Shelby GT and respectfully slow down lest they too imply they are trying to unfairly compete against a car of a different class.

 

Well, the WRX might be the HOT thing now, especially to the 20-something crowd, but I wouldn't notice it on the road if it were painted pink and was covered with Christmas lights. Regardless of its performance capabilities, it looks like a rice-up econo-box. If it generates emotion in some people, good for them, but there is a huge baby-boomer generation out there that will be drawn to the Shelby, depsite its interior and the "not-a-hoodscoop". Both cars might be performance oriented, but cruise slowly through a car show in each and see which one get attention. "Funner" is subjective. I'll take the Shelby, please.

 

The looks and "fun" aspect certainly aren't to be dismissed, but at its heart, the Stang is/should be a performance car first and formost, at least the Shelby GT version.

That the bottom line that the SGT IS going to get waxed by a pimply 20-something in a riced-up econobox can't be diminished nor would it generate many positive emotions. Has the near $40K Shelby's main attribute come down to cruising slowly to get the attention of gawkers with its stylistic frillery in the safe refuge of parking lots? $10K extra over a Stang GT for a show boat? No, the SGT isn't painted pink and covered in X-mas lights, rather, its covered in cheap tape stripes, ill-fitting and completely unconvincing phoney scoops, and Shelby's name in chrome on about every third body panel -- hardly much of a different or better approach. So it's come down to the SGT being superior only in cruising around stip mall lots or adding to the Tire Rack's sales and fortunes?

Yeah, it is "funner" in some aspects, mainly hooning around in smoky circles going nowhere fast, but that can be done just as readily by a standard Mustang GT, saving you a whole lotta beer money -- or even an old pickup with skinny long-life tires on the back for some real fun of that type. The harsh reality is that the SGT gets trounced by the STI in all but one or two objective performance measures and is a manifestly superior road car to actually drive in anger rather than parade around in.

I'll be the first to admit the STI is pug-ugly, but when the preening stops and its time to head out for some serious back roads performance driving, that Subby is going to feel real pretty all of a sudden.

It's sad that basically the Shelby GT is a pretty face and mellifluous voice with but sorely lacking performance substance even when compared to a pumped up 5 door ricer for the same money.

 

Based on your posts, it's obvious the Shelby GT really gets under your skin.

 

Rhumb, I applaud your eloquence, but are you sure you're in the right forum? This is a website for Mustangs, not Subarus, and we members are biased, plain and simple. It doesn't matter if the Subaru can beat a Mustang (according to some) at anything, it's still not a Mustang, and "pug-ugly" is the nicest thing you could say about it's appearance. How much time do any of us spend road-racing with ricers anyway? Without this supposedly objective side-by-side comparison, can anyone really tell the difference, performance-wise? The only comparison most will ever see is visual, and IMO, the Shelby just blows the Subie away. The Subaru is certainly a fine car, and its capabilities are impressive, but they have their own support forum, one would assume. I agree with your comments on Edmunds. What would possess them to compare these two cars? Similar price and horsepower notwithstanding, they cater to two very different audiences. You are just more open-minded than most of us here who would find little in the WRX to generate a second glance.

 

I have always loved Mustangs and hated imports, and I bleed Ford Blue. I have loved Shelby's since I was old enough to walk and have always had respect for the Man himself....until lately. He has apearently turned into a greedy old man. A Mustang with a $10,000 dollar premium should wax a Scubbie-do.

I'll bet I could take a 08 Mustang GT and $10,000 dollars and end up with a Scubbie killer. Truth be told it would be a GT500 killer too!!

 

Well I'm sure there are plenty of cars that can out perform the SGT, or any of the s197 mustangs. I'm not sure Ford has ever said that Mustang is the ulitmate performance machine.
The truth is almost none of us is going to drive their car to limits that the cars are pushed in these tests.

What we ARE going to do is drive our cars around town and occasionally to a quick take off from the lights, or drop it into 2nd and let it snap us back into our seat.
And doing this will never fail to bring a huge smile to our faces!
I'll take the great looking mustang, SGT, or Bullitt over any ugly looking car that might offer a little bit better performance.

 

Well, perhaps I am more open minded than the typical Stang forum member, but I'll take that as a compliment. The problem with most/all car forums is that they do tend to degenerate into preaching to the choir, loosing an objective and critical viewpoint of their respective cars. Perhaps, rather, forum members should hold their cars to a higher, more stringent standard, not a slack, excusing one. Believe me, I see this too on my M3 forum.

Of course, the Stang in its various guises has many fine attributes and overall is an excellent car. But it, like any other car, is by no means perfect and I see it a duty of Stang enthusiast to call Ford and the Mustang on those weaknesses, to demand an ever better car. A hear-no-evil, see-no-evil approach will only lead to complacency and lassitude, especially on Ford's part.

While many will look and evaluate the Stang in a very narrow realm, typical a stoplight racing muscle car idiom, it nevertheless exists in a far broader world of performance cars and thus, I find comparisons such as Edmunds more revealing than unfair.

Sure, some want and are interested in only a Mustang regardless of anything and only want to hear praise gushed upon it. But such a cribbed automotive worldview is, I think, an unhealthy one to take, dismissing genuine competition, even if somewhat different, and frank but honest criticism alike.

Far better and healthier for the Stang in the long run, I think, to look far and wide, compare and evaluate the Stang against all comers in an honest and reasonably clear-eyed manner, and lobby on how the Stang might thus become better yet.

Sure, the STIs and EVOs may exist more towards the periphery of the Stang's market demographic, though they are indeed viable challengers of a different sort, but very soon the Camaro and Challerger are going to dive right into the middle of the Stang's small pond. Then what excuses will we have should the Stang and its fans have proven complacent and not up to such direct challenges? Should the Stang retreat into being some narrowly focused boutique car, sheltered, insulated and oblivious to the wider competition? Or should it welcome and met all challengers from all quarters and strive to be the best affordable performance car, objectively AND subjectively, period?

Perhaps, ironically, I hold a higher aspiration for the Stang, seeing it as being capable of being such a take on all comers car, and that lofty view is thus reflected in my criticisms when I see it falling short. But better to strive towards high aspirations than simply to settle for modest ones.

 

Good response I respect your point of view, and was just messing with you Rhumb.

After conversing with you for years, I know how you feel about cosmetics that do nothing for the performance. It may have a useless tacked on hood and side scoops, but at least they got rid of the equally useless rear spoiler.

Obviously I'm biased in my opinion of the SGT as mine puts a ****-eating grin on my face.

 

Forums like this keep our critical thinking skills honed and challenge our views, all good things if you ask me. Hopefully I've changed some minds as mine has often been changed by reading these forums.

And Ford does apparently read these forums. How seriously they take them might be up for debate, but at least we can serve notice and cry foul when we feel Ford's fallen short. Perhaps that will impel them to try a bit harder, whether out of sheer pride or simple customer pressure and bad press, to try harder on, say, the 2009. If we need to wag an STI kicking a Stang's butt in their face, well, I'm all for that if it results in a better Stang down the line to meet that challenge.

Better that than simply to say I'll buy any Stang pretty much regardless, as long as looks purty and makes good noises off leaving the Dairy Queen.

As for the scoops, SGT and otherwise, if they would at least make them nominally functional like, say, the '05+ GTOs, then I might not harp on them quite so much. At least with the GTO's scoops, there is the plausibility of them actually making your car run better even if in reality, they probably netted about .37 additional HP max. But to not even try I find, frankly, insulting as that implies a presumption of some level of buyer ignorance, gullibility or shallowness. Heck, just Sawzall a hole in the **** hood and say it cools the intake manifold for added HP, at least that claim would be plausible as opposed to the bold faced lie that the blocked off fake scoops are.

 

All the same I know, lilke you, there are many people that are anti anything that's non-functional but you are TOTALLY discounting esthetic design and teh value of "it just looks cool!" There as tons of thnsg on all cars that are "just for looks" and why not? Like a man's tie, many things, serve no real purpose other than to improve the visual or reinforce a desired image. Apple has used this to a great advantage.

As for this specific discussion, I think the STIs and EVOs are truly UGLY and scream cheap with their outragous spoilers etc. You can only go so fast down Main St. and at some point your reckless on the average highway so what are you left with...how good you look!

IMHOm and **** I look good!

 

Very valid points, rhumb. I look forward to the competition from Dodge and Chevy. It can only make the Mustang better. Many of us, though, don't love the Mustang because it is better than other cars in any way. We are just devoted to them because of the nostalgic past they remind us of, their classic looks, and the comaraderie of like-minded stangophiles. A Corvette outperforms a Mustang in every way, but I have no passion for them, and feel nothing when I see one. I always notice a Mustang, however. It's pure irrational emotion, and every automotive marque has those who are devoted to it. For most of us here, we don't care if another car scores higher than a Mustang on some reviewer's spreadsheet, but if your criticism of our beloved 'stang is intended as a helpful motivation for Ford, then I support your efforts.

 

here they are and we are comparing a sport car to a muscle car. Come on man how many times do I have to say that a Muscle car is made for a purpose and a sports car is made for a different purpose.

 

We must be using different definitions. Sports cars have two seats, like a Corvette or a Ferrari. A Mustang could be a muscle car, or a pony car (the term was invented for it). The WRX is a sedan, or at most a "sports sedan". IMO, bodystyle takes precedence over performance capabilities in classifying a car. I've checked all 5 of your posts, and you've never elaborated on the purpose of a muscle car, but welcome to the forums anyway.

 

That excuse doesn't hold water in this day and age. As soon as you up the brakes and put anything other than a drag racing suspension on the car you are entering into Sports car territory and the simple and plain truth is what we've known all along..the SGT is all show and moderate go.

If you like your shelby hey great glad you feel you got your moneys worth but don't come crying to us when one of those Subbies hands you your rear end.

 

So why are you singling out the Shelby GT? The same result will occur with the Bullitt, GT/CS, Mustang GT. Answer, because you hate all things Shelby.