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