strange vehicle

[pbkid]

hmm maybe this is all about a little envy??? envious that you payed WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much for a name???

STI-

Engine-
Power 305 hp @ 6,000 rpm
Torque 290 lb-ft @ 4,000 rpm

Drivetrain-
AWD with limited slip on both ends

Fuel-
Fuel Economy (city/highway) 17/23 mpg

Specs- per Car and Driver
June 2003
0-60 4.6
0-100 12.4
0-130 24.5
1/4 mile 13.2@103mph
5mph-60mph 5.8; top speed 145
braking 70-0 166ft
Noise level (dBA) idle 45, 70mph 74

[nfpgasmask]

hmm maybe this is all about a little envy??? envious that you payed WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much for a name???

Funny how you keep skirting the issue.

Please, Jack, just admit to me that they are nothing special to look at. Just another 4-door sedan with a bunch of stuff under the hood and a spoiler glued on. Then I will quit.

I would rather BE a wolf, than a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Bart

[pbkid]

Funny how you keep skirting the issue.

Please, Jack, just admit to me that they are nothing special to look at. Just another 4-door sedan with a bunch of stuff under the hood and a spoiler glued on. Then I will quit.

I would rather BE a wolf, than a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Bart

i disagree...i think they are well designed... designed exactly what they are made to do...RALLY!

just like the VX

they just arent as flashy as the porsche

[technocoy]

I guess it's all personal opinion, but I'm with PB on this one to an extent. I really don't like a porsche minus the 911s and I prefer the old ones at that. The old 50s/60s ones were pretty cool too.

I think the boxter falls right in with the s2000, miata, etc. It looks like tiny girly car to me. I know they are roadsters and they handle well, but I just don't like the style of it.

While I'm not nuts about the new subarus I did really like the early 2000's with the round headlights.

I've only ever driven a porsche once and it was a friends 911 that I wouldnt' dare get on with him in the car, but my sister&brother-in-law at one point had an STI WRX and it was one of the most bad *** cars viscerally I've ever put to the floor. The interior felt cheap as hell, but maybe that's what added to the feeling. I could feel and hear every sound from the road and engine and it was wicked fast. It's actually the fastest I've ever taken a car on the road.

The funny thing about every STI/WRX owner I have ever know is they were also big off-road fans and many of them who could afford it also had wheelin rigs.

I'll tell you now, I'll take that WRX in the dirt any day over the porsche, which is where the comparison falls apart. They were built for two different drivers, but the thing about it is the WRX can compete well in both ways.

That being said, since it's what you want to hear, yes, I think they are pretty damn ugly cars, but I feel that way about both of the cars in discussion.

I think alot of the newer sports muscle cars are butt ugly. I also hate BMW and Mercedes. and I REALLY wish all the dip****s in detroit would lay down the retro pencil. Why pay 29 grand for a lame *** copy of a 67 fastback when I can buy a nicely restored one for the same and nearly break my knee on the clutch?'

The misconception that it's a burner with a gofast sticker and spoiler is false. I have rarely seen a street racer or tuner running an STI WRX. 1: They are pretty much out of their price rang, and 2: they are made for rally more than street racing.

just my 95 cents (adjusted for inflation) ;-)

[pbkid]

I guess it's all personal opinion, but I'm with PB on this one to an extent. I really don't like a porsche minus the 911s and I prefer the old ones at that. The old 50s/60s ones were pretty cool too.

I think the boxter falls right in with the s2000, miata, etc. It looks like tiny girly car to me. I know they are roadsters and they handle well, but I just don't like the style of it.

While I'm not nuts about the new subarus I did really like the early 2000's with the round headlights.

I've only ever driven a porsche once and it was a friends 911 that I wouldnt' dare get on with him in the car, but my sister&brother-in-law at one point had an STI WRX and it was one of the most bad *** cars viscerally I've ever put to the floor. The interior felt cheap as hell, but maybe that's what added to the feeling. I could feel and hear every sound from the road and engine and it was wicked fast. It's actually the fastest I've ever taken a car on the road.

The funny thing about every STI/WRX owner I have ever know is they were also big off-road fans and many of them who could afford it also had wheelin rigs.

I'll tell you now, I'll take that WRX in the dirt any day over the porsche, which is where the comparison falls apart. They were built for two different drivers, but the thing about it is the WRX can compete well in both ways.

That being said, since it's what you want to hear, yes, I think they are pretty damn ugly cars, but I feel that way about both of the cars in discussion.

I think alot of the newer sports muscle cars are butt ugly. I also hate BMW and Mercedes. and I REALLY wish all the dip****s in detroit would lay down the retro pencil. Why pay 29 grand for a lame *** copy of a 67 fastback when I can buy a nicely restored one for the same and nearly break my knee on the clutch?'

The misconception that it's a burner with a gofast sticker and spoiler is false. I have rarely seen a street racer or tuner running an STI WRX. 1: They are pretty much out of their price rang, and 2: they are made for rally more than street racing.

just my 95 cents (adjusted for inflation) ;-)

very well said...i agree all the way around...

except for them being ugly

[nfpgasmask]

I think the boxter falls right in with the s2000, miata, etc. It looks like tiny girly car to me. I know they are roadsters and they handle well, but I just don't like the style of it.

I agree completely here. Boxters carry the "cheap Porsche" stigma even among the Porsche crowd I think. And yes, they are girly.

While I'm not nuts about the new subarus I did really like the early 2000's with the round headlights.

I admit, they seemed to be trying there at least. But I think when compared, the Mitsubishi Lacer Evo has a cooler (meaner) looking front end.

The funny thing about every STI/WRX owner I have ever know is they were also big off-road fans and many of them who could afford it also had wheelin rigs. I'll tell you now, I'll take that WRX in the dirt any day over the porsche, which is where the comparison falls apart.

Agreed. I am not comparing the WRX and the Porsche as rally vehicles. Obviously, if a person buys a Subi to actually rally it, I can understand. Like you and PB said, that is what they were built for. I guess its just the people who buy a Subi, or a Lancer, or a Honda Accord for that matter, and try to make a race car out of it. I do not understand that. Unless, like Jack said, it is an envy thing, except envy that you can't afford a REAL sports car so you have to make one with a 4-door sedan.

My whole beef is not with the cars themselves. Like I said, I'm sure they are really fast, and super reliable. I even think I read somewhere that Subis were voted the most reliable brand of automobile recently by like Consumer Reports or something. My point is, like I said above, why spend the money tricking out a 4-door sedan when you could, in many cases, but a car that looks like a sports car AND drives like one too?

That being said, since it's what you want to hear, yes, I think they are pretty damn ugly cars, but I feel that way about both of the cars in discussion.

I would never buy a WRX, and if I went out an bought a Porsche right now, it would probably be a pristine black 928 or a Cayenne. Like I said above, the 911 is the wife's, and although it is nice, it ain't my style really.

I think alot of the newer sports muscle cars are butt ugly. I also hate BMW and Mercedes. and I REALLY wish all the dip****s in detroit would lay down the retro pencil. Why pay 29 grand for a lame *** copy of a 67 fastback when I can buy a nicely restored one for the same and nearly break my knee on the clutch?'

I feel the same way I feel about Subis as I do about Mercedes and BMWs. If I had $80k to spend on a car, there ain't NO EFFING way I would buy a BMW. I would be buying a used Ferrari, a Porsche, a DeLorean, a Lotus, something BAD @$s! Not some yuppie luxury sports sedan...

And I agree about the new muscle too. Why spend $35k on a new Mustang
when I could own a CHERRY restored, uber tuned 1972 Mach 1?

Still, a good discussion...

Bart

[Jolly Roger VX'er]

I sort of agree and sort of don't. I don't like the new Camaro as it is HUGE since they basically put a 2-door car on a 4-door Pontiac G8 chassis. Same for the Challenger...looks bloated since they put a 2-door car on a 4-door Dodge Charger chassis. Both are HEAVY.

I never cared for the early mustangs until about '67 to '72 and never cared for the '80's or '90's versions. Went to the Auto Show in 2005 and liked the Mustang GT...but, didn't want to spend 29 grand + for one.

Finally, came home with an '07 GT w/5-speed manual that had 5,200 miles on the clock (stored winters) for $19k.

I'm not a poster child for Ford either...only owned one other...'79 Bronco. Other than snapping a timing chain & toasting a motor plus rusting profusely..it was reliable.

I really didn't want a 'vintage' muscle car again....had one...'69 Roadrunner. Don't feel like messing with carbs or tracking down parts. Agreed that they produce TONS of torque and are classics...but, I just wanted a MODERN car with MODERN fuel injection..no hassles..modern conviences...get in, turn key, starts and goes without bucking down the highway when cold..vapor-locking when hot...etc. plus it will be my daily driver along with my motorcycle during spring/summer/fall...then my VX is the DD in winter.

I basically bought mine because it was AFFORDABLE as opposed to a new one that has the same engine for $32k or a new Camaro SS for $32k+ or a new Challenger R/T for mid-thirties. The latter two won't deal because they are new models where as the Mustang has been out since '05...

I don't get the younger generations fixation on sedans either. My buddy @ work was looking to buy a car for his son and he said he was looking for around an '04-'05 for around $8k-$9K or less and preferred an import for reliability. I found him a "cherry" '05 Toyota Celica GT-S, Silver, for around $8K and his son "insisted" he wanted a 4-door....wound up getting a '05 Toyota Corolla...for $9k....WTF??????

[nfpgasmask]

I never cared for the early mustangs until about '67 to '72 and never cared for the '80's or '90's versions. Went to the Auto Show in 2005 and liked the Mustang GT...but, didn't want to spend 29 grand + for one.

I have to admit, the one thing that I do like about the modern muscle, is AT LEAST there is some semblance of style. I agree, the 80s and 90s stangs had a piss poor design, just pug ugly all around. The new Stang at least looks decent, despite it being a throw back, which was intentional. The new Camaro looks decent too, but there is just something about it that don't like and for the life of me I can't put my finger on it...

I'm not a poster child for Ford either...only owned one other...'79 Bronco. Other than snapping a timing chain & toasting a motor plus rusting profusely..it was reliable.

It's funny, my dad has always been a Chevy nut. I never really took sides. But when I told him I liked the old Mach 1s, he was like, "really?". Like I kicked him in the nuts or something.

But, when it comes right down to it, I will walk over to the Ford line for one reason and one reason only, and that is what I believe to be the nastiest, knarleiest, baddest car EVER in the history of modern automobiles: The Last of the V8 Interceptors...



My life long dream car.

So Ford wins, even though it's Ford Australia.

Bart

[pbkid]

My life long dream car.

So Ford wins, even though it's Ford Australia.

Bart

really bart???? that thing??? its FREAKIN hideious!!!

looks like somebody chopped the crap outta an 80's mustang and tried to do some welding...but was a crappy welder...

plus, whats with the 4 exhaust pipes out the side??