Seahag1978 Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Yeah, well evidently Subaru and Mustangs aren't so different after all. http://autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=176962415&dealer_id=55843455&car_year=1999&make=SUB&distance=0&lang=en&max_price=6000&model=FOREST&end_year=1999&min_price=1&certified=&address=42101&search_type=used&advanced=&start_year=1998&isp=y&cardist=519 I think we need to do a showdown between the two and compare apples to oranges on the track and drag strip. The Sube would win against the V6 Stang, but I bet you'd have more fun in the Mustang than you'd like to admit. The torque of the two engines is almost the same, and torgue has more to do with snap your neck oomph than does horsepower. If I were plunking down the bills for a new car, I'd go for the Sube, but I'd still stare at the Mustang at the stoplight. And, NOTHING sounds sweeter than a V8 engine with dual exhaust... That's my philosphy... I drive a Subaru... but I love to look at the Mustangs... so being on the outside of one is really kind of better... you can't see how cool they look going down the road or hear them as well... if you're driving it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Actually Chip I have raced my friends 2002 Mustang and beat him so youre wrong. My 2.5L can pass alot of things and its gettin old. And yes Elanor would be nice to have. Mustangs were Mustangs then. Though I still dont have fantasies about them. We're talking about a 210HP 2005 Mustang vs a 165 HP Subaru,(read the thread). The mustang does the 1/4 in 15.3 sec. The Subaru takes 16.6 seconds...Here's a quote from Motor Trend about the 200 Legacy GT Sedan... " But even paired with a slick-shifting standard five-speed manual gearbox, it needed 9.1 seconds to propel this 3360-pound four-door to 60 mph and 16.6 ticks to reach 82.0 mph in the quarter mile.....". 9 seconds to hit 60mph is slow by todays standards...especially for a car that's got GT written on it. A 1 second difference doesn't sound like much in a 1/4 mile but when you figure you're travelling at around 82 mph, that's a difference of 120 ft between the 2 cars at the finish line,(according to my crappy math calculations). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commuter Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 I've seen peak hp and torque numbers here... But what do the "curves" look like? Does the Mustang have better numbers at lower rpms? In that more "day to day" useage range? I really wish they'd print the graphs in the brochures... or provide them somewhere so that you can get your hands on them. Commuter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderhound Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Exactly on commuter...Nothing beats the low end torque of a flat four...well save a cummings turbo diesel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT95 Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 It'd be nice if auto makers published more nitty gritty details of engines and performance for consumers who want to know. They assume people just know a four cylinder from a 6 and nothing more. Most salespeople are useless for info--I typically know more about a car than they do. As far as great low end torque: the days when giants roamed the earth--big blocks--was a fun time to buy a car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 It'd be nice if auto makers published more nitty gritty details of engines and performance for consumers who want to know. They assume people just know a four cylinder from a 6 and nothing more. Most salespeople are useless for info--I typically know more about a car than they do. As far as great low end torque: the days when giants roamed the earth--big blocks--was a fun time to buy a car. All the torque info is usually available on the Automakers site. Ex: Subaru 2.5L...166ft lbs @ 4000 rpms Mustang V6...240 ft.lbs @ 3500 rpms. The Mustang's got GOBS of torque at a quite low RPM. Everyone talks about the muscle cars of the sixties but in reality, todays cars are more powerful and faster. Today's Mustang GT,(4.6L), is faster than any Mustang from the 60's,(including the 428s and 429's). HP figures in the 60's were BOGUS. the measurement was taken off the crank with no accessories installed,(power steering pump, alternator, mufflers etc..). Today's figures are taken from the back wheels. The 2005 GT Mustang is rated at 300HP. If you were to take the motor out and dyno it as they did in the 60's you'd probably get close to 400HP. Today's cars are faster, more refined and, they get more than 10 MPG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowman Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Well, all I know is that the roads were covered in ice, snow, and all kinds of crap last night, and my 86 Subaru WASTED EVERYTHING! FOUR WHEEL DRIFTS THROUGH CORNERS, YEAH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderhound Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Good to see its finally dumpin in AK again. yeehaw. I remember living in bozeman and watching a mustang get stuck hopelessy spinning its tires on a dead FLAT road. Right on Snowman--4 wheel driftin'! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluheadted Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 My intention for posting this thread was to compare their engines and really just point out how crappy the new Mustang engine is. So the new Boxer turbo engine, 2.5L, 4 cylinders = 255HP. The new Mustang engine, 4.0L, V6 = 210 HP. Mustang's is bigger by alot and produces far less. Comparing flywheel HP makes no sense. The AWD of the Subaru loses much more of that HP then does the 2wd Mustang. Subaru has made very dependable mild HP 2.5 litre motorsm but the newer high HP engines have yet to be proven over the years. Fords V6 and V8 engines make a much more reliable and long lived block. Only time will tell. I have a friend who owns a 600 hp to the rear wheels mustang and a 280 crankshft HP 2.5 rs turbo. The Ford is far more reliable and steady. I must say I am a fan of both cars. His best times in the Mustang around Sears Point are not bested by the Subaru. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slegacy96 Posted February 10, 2005 Author Share Posted February 10, 2005 We're talking about a 210HP 2005 Mustang vs a 165 HP Subaru,(read the thread). The mustang does the 1/4 in 15.3 sec. The Subaru takes 16.6 seconds...Here's a quote from Motor Trend about the 200 Legacy GT Sedan... " But even paired with a slick-shifting standard five-speed manual gearbox, it needed 9.1 seconds to propel this 3360-pound four-door to 60 mph and 16.6 ticks to reach 82.0 mph in the quarter mile.....". 9 seconds to hit 60mph is slow by todays standards...especially for a car that's got GT written on it. Wow, thats wrong. I guess motor trend is printing false information then because the 2.5L engine does 0 to 60 in 7.2 seconds, not 9.1. That would be ridiculoulsy slow. Better check your facts before writing your next post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bratman2 Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 No it's more like wow that's right. My wife had a 98 mustang V6 5 speed that we replaced with a 5 speed 2003 Legacy. The difference in acceleration is by a large margin. But a still apples to oranges if you ask me. I have driven both of these cars wot and know that to out run a newer Mustang V6 you have dropped a turbo on a Subaru so lets keep it real. I do favor the all wheel handling of the Legacy, truely believe it held curves better than the V6 Mustang. Snow, that's a joke in a Mustang, the one we had was generally stuck were it was parked. Torque generally comes from cubic inches not flat fours and there is not a enough bolt ons out there to make up the difference unless you go turbo or S/C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setright Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Chip, the 1960's muscle cars are still talked about because they were so much faster than other normal cars. Especially here in Europe, where many family saloons made do with 50-70 horsepower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Wow, thats wrong. I guess motor trend is printing false information then because the 2.5L engine does 0 to 60 in 7.2 seconds, not 9.1. That would be ridiculoulsy slow. Better check your facts before writing your next post. "because the 2.5L engine does 0 to 60 in 7.2 seconds"......was it strapped to a skateboard ? My facts came from someone who actually tested the car and published the results. Where did your numbers come from ? (Please don't tell me you floored the gas and counted in your head until the car reached 60 mph) !! Here's what Motorweek said about the Baja,(same size car as the O/B..same motor). ..or search for Motorweek and read the article for yourself... "Our 5- speed Baja loafed to 60 in 10 seconds, and through the quarter mile in 17.3 seconds at 79 mph". And that was a 5-speed...imagine an automatic !!! Motor Trend and Motorweek get almost the same results...so did Road and Track and Car and Driver. I don't know where you get your "facts"...you should check 'em before you post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slegacy96 Posted February 11, 2005 Author Share Posted February 11, 2005 Oh Im looking at the Subaru specs sheet right here and I think they would know best being that they made the engine. And now youre saying 10 seconds? So obviously youre looking all over the place and no one has one agreeable time. And believe me I KNOW that mine doesnt take 10 seconds to go from 0 to 60, unless its not warmed up. Thats absurd. Its lighter and more aerodyanmic than the wagon is. I suggest you try one yourself pal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setright Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Okay, time for me to join in the flaming: Maybe, just maybe, the testers quoting ten seconds don't know how to get an AWD car of the line fast. Maybe they can't even drive a manual tranny properly. Simple instructions: Lots of revs, clutch engage quickly but not suddenly and mash the throttle into the carpet at the same time. You know you get it right when the revs fall back and stick at ca. 3500rpm and the car jolts forward. In a second or two the car "catches up" to the engine and the revs fly toward the redline. Shift JUST before the limiter kicks in. The shift from second to third should be done ca. 500rpm before the limiter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spazz698 Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Didnt ford decide to cut back a bit on perfromance on the base model due to the fact they were having a hard time selling a car that didnt get good gas mileage? Not the greatest in looks and not the best they could have done on power (thank you gas prices) but remember 3 gens ago when we were having the same problem with the gas, ford did the same thing by cutting the hp to conserve on gas. Only now, thanks to FI and modern technology, their V6s are getting more than 18mpg and the cars dont weigh close to tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slegacy96 Posted February 11, 2005 Author Share Posted February 11, 2005 Okay, time for me to join in the flaming: Maybe, just maybe, the testers quoting ten seconds don't know how to get an AWD car of the line fast. Maybe they can't even drive a manual tranny properly. See, Im not crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 You titled this thread " Let's compare the Legacy to the Mustang" That's what I've been doing.......From the start I've been talking "Legacy". All the road test quotes are for the Legacy,(or the Baja which is nothing but an O/B with an open box). I've still yet to see a road test where the Legacy hits 60 in less than 9 seconds. If you're talking about an Impreza then yes, it's quite possible that an Impreza is a few seconds quicker than the Legacy, (I should hope so....most the cars on the road are quicker than the Legacy). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjwirth Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 I never drove a leg GT 5spd, but have driven the auto and I gotta say I thought the auto was slow and 0-60 times around 9-10 sec seem reasonable according to my butt dyno. The leg GT has a lot going for it, but drag racer is not one of them. It definately felt slower than a bmw 323 auto which has a 0-60 time of around 8 sec. Again I am talking autos- but I find it hard to beleive that the difference between transmissions would be more than 1 second. The 2005 legacy gt's.... well now I can definately feel a 7 sec 0-60. Now back to the original post... I looked at the mustang and thought it would be cool for cheap thrills. you'd be hard pressed to find that much HP/$ with that much style (style is subjective). I would not buy one b/c because it doesn't fit my needs right now. maybe when the kids grow up and I'm facing my mid life crisis, that will be another issue. But I would like to hope I would be shopping at the porsche dealer instead of the ford dealer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorganM Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Here I'll make it real easy for yall Ford = sucks Subaru = owns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowman Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Here I'll make it real easy for yall Ford = sucks Subaru = owns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slegacy96 Posted February 11, 2005 Author Share Posted February 11, 2005 Well, the Impreza is faster than the Legacy but I still stick by my Legacy in that it doesnt take 10 seconds to go from 0 to 60. And actually most cars on the road arent quicker. I dont know where you get your information from but I seriously consider a new source. Oh and the 2005 Legacy GT goes from 0 to 60 in 5.9 seconds. Its on the Subaru website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lothar34 Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Are y'all talking about the 2005 Legacy GT when you say "Legacy GT"? I'm confused. I can understand a Legacy 2.5i taking 9 seconds to get to 60, or a previous MY Legacy GT with the NA 2.5 engine, but not the turbo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorganM Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Are y'all talking about the 2005 Legacy GT when you say "Legacy GT"? Yeah its a pretty vague term. Legacy GT has been around for a LONG time... which one is in comparison here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BulletRide Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 dont compare aturbo car to a non turbo car, you think youd be having this discussion of the mustang had a turbo on it and mustangs are junk, for american car's go camaro's, 327rwhp/350fptq ls1 camaros do faster 1/4 mie times then an impreza WRX STi, with an all motor old pushrod engine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now