Whats Better Wrx Sti or the 05 Stang
10/13/04, 08:46 PM
#3
Good question to ask on a Mustang forum 
Depends what turns your crank,
The STI is a well-balanced car, I am not a fan of the looks, but if given one for free and I had to drive it, I would.
The '05 has handling that is great, maybe not STI great, but it has the power and pedigree that no other car on the street has.
Another thing, the STI is a 4-door, which I am not a fan of. Love the 2-door style, even if it is a pain for the people in the back.
Depends what turns your crank,
The STI is a well-balanced car, I am not a fan of the looks, but if given one for free and I had to drive it, I would.
The '05 has handling that is great, maybe not STI great, but it has the power and pedigree that no other car on the street has.
Another thing, the STI is a 4-door, which I am not a fan of. Love the 2-door style, even if it is a pain for the people in the back.
12/22/04, 05:45 PM
#9
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: October 22, 2004
Location: Niantic CT
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The more fair comparison is the '05 Mustang GT vs the standard WRX, since they both cost the same, give or take a few hundred bucks. And that's exactly the comparison in the Jan 2005 issue of Automobile Magazine.
They give their opinions on which car wins in various categories, but they don't really declare an overall winner.
One goof-up they had in the article was about fuel economy, where they say the WRX has an EPA Highway figure of 27 mpg, while the Mustang GT's figure is 20.
WRONG! :nono:
They go on to say that "the Mustang's economy quickly drops into the twelves and lower in the city..." Really?! (I suppose it's possible if you just sat there idling for hours, and were always at full throttle when you were moving, but I've never seen less than 15 mpg in my 13 years of driving Mustang GTs.) They conclude the mileage discussion by saying if you buy the WRX instead of the Mustang, you can "bask in the eternal moral value of lower fuel consumption."
Other than that, the article is pretty fun reading.
They give their opinions on which car wins in various categories, but they don't really declare an overall winner.
One goof-up they had in the article was about fuel economy, where they say the WRX has an EPA Highway figure of 27 mpg, while the Mustang GT's figure is 20.
WRONG! :nono:
They go on to say that "the Mustang's economy quickly drops into the twelves and lower in the city..." Really?! (I suppose it's possible if you just sat there idling for hours, and were always at full throttle when you were moving, but I've never seen less than 15 mpg in my 13 years of driving Mustang GTs.) They conclude the mileage discussion by saying if you buy the WRX instead of the Mustang, you can "bask in the eternal moral value of lower fuel consumption."
Other than that, the article is pretty fun reading.
But whatever floats your boat!
12/23/04, 10:57 AM
#11
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: October 15, 2004
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cars run about the same and are both bang for the buck, but both cars take a different approach running the quarter or a race. The WRX is a high-end car and launches hard, and the mustang is a low end car that is strong the whole way through with a good torque curve. Way different approaches becauseof the motors and drivetrain. WRX has a strong start and the Mustang pulls with stump-yanking torque. Boxer 4 and four wheel drive is a lot different than a 3valve V8 rear wheel drive. I like the WRX but I'm a life-long Mustang and Ford fan can't beat American.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post