New Stang vs top Ricer Cars

new22003 you have some good points but I said stock for stock. It doesnt take a genious to figure out speed in a line comes a lot cheaper and a lot easier with the Cobra vs the STi or EVO. But these little rally cars are still damn quick and can hang with stock cobras period if the driver knows what hes doin. I was merly pointing out that the Cobras dont just embarass the STi or EVO in a drag and the Cobra would be the one getting embarassed by these two in just about any other performance contest besides a straight line. For the average joe driving an unmoded new Cobra they just might get shown some STi or Evo tailights.

Now for the test in Hot Rod those weren't the best times the stock Cobra could have run especially considering the assumed skills of people drag racing that work at Hot Rod magazine, but I bet they could have knocked the times down a few tenths more with the EVO given more time behind the wheel of it as well. So I would still consider it a pretty close race and having that ungoddly lookin boy ricer sedan run with the Eaton Blown 03-04 Cobra was still pretty damn embarrasing. The funniest part of the article in my mind though was when the Cobra averaged better gas mileage than the STi, but it gets slapped with the EPA gas guzzler tax and the STi doesn't!

new22003 you have some good points but I said stock for stock. It doesnt take a genious to figure out speed in a line comes a lot cheaper and a lot easier with the Cobra vs the STi or EVO. But these little rally cars are still damn quick and can hang with stock cobras period if the driver knows what hes doin. I was merely pointing out that the Cobras dont just embarass the STi or EVO in a drag and the Cobra would be the one getting embarassed by these two in just about any other performance contest besides a straight line. For the average joe driving an unmoded new Cobra they just might get shown some STi or Evo tailights.

Now for the test in Hot Rod those weren't the best times the stock Cobra could have run especially considering the assumed skills of people drag racing that work at Hot Rod magazine, but I bet they could have knocked the times down a few tenths more with the EVO given more time behind the wheel of it as well. So I would still consider it a pretty close race and having that ungoddly lookin boy ricer sedan run with the Eaton Blown 03-04 Cobra was still pretty damn embarrasing. The funniest part of the article in my mind though was when the Cobra averaged better gas mileage than the STi, but it gets slapped with the EPA gas guzzler tax and the STi doesn't!

GT5oh said:

new22003 you have some good points but I said stock for stock. It doesnt take a genious to figure out speed in a line comes a lot cheaper and a lot easier with the Cobra vs the STi or EVO. But these little rally cars are still damn quick and can hang with stock cobras period if the driver knows what hes doin. I was merely pointing out that the Cobras dont just embarass the STi or EVO in a drag and the Cobra would be the one getting embarassed by these two in just about any other performance contest besides a straight line. For the average joe driving an unmoded new Cobra they just might get shown some STi or Evo tailights.

Now for the test in Hot Rod those weren't the best times the stock Cobra could have run especially considering the assumed skills of people drag racing that work at Hot Rod magazine, but I bet they could have knocked the times down a few tenths more with the EVO given more time behind the wheel of it as well. So I would still consider it a pretty close race and having that ungoddly lookin boy ricer sedan run with the Eaton Blown 03-04 Cobra was still pretty damn embarrasing. The funniest part of the article in my mind though was when the Cobra averaged better gas mileage than the STi, but it gets slapped with the EPA gas guzzler tax and the STi doesn't!

Click to expand...

Why address this to me? I wasnt even replying to your post nor did I say anything about a cobra or the hot rod article.

I was talking about the 2005 gt and replying to the original statement by Sxhawnn.

I am probably one of the few people reading this forum that actually cross shopped these very two cars. Last fall I was shopping for a new car, I considered the STI, the EVO, the SRT4, and the Mustang and much to my own surprise and all of my friends dismay, I ended up with the Mustang. There are many reasons for this, but a little of my background is important.
I now call myself a "reformed car snob", I must admit I've been a Stang hater for over 15 years now. This stems back to when I was in high school in the late 80s and Mustang 5.0's were everywhere and everyone who had one thought they were the *****. I considered myself a non-conformist and smarter than the average redneck in the small county high school I went to in NC, so therefor I must have better taste in a cars and developed a respect for the Japanese approach of higher tech performance cars. Over the past 16 years I've owned 20 cars, the vast majority of which were imports. Toyotas, Nissans, Mitsubishis, and Subarus. I just sold my last Toyota last 2 weeks ago ('91 MR2 turbo). And now I just have the Mustang, hard for even me to believe.
Anyway, when I started looking for a car last year, the EVO and STI had just come out. In the past 5 years I've owned 3 DSMs, for those that don't know DSMs are the spiritual predecessor to the EVO, AWD turbo with similar drivetrain to the EVO with a different body and suspension. I also owned a WRX, bought one when they first came out in Mar '01. My roomate has a very well prepped WRX and his girlfriend has the WRX STI. I've been an autocrosser for 7 years so I've driven the wheels off all these cars and have wrung them out thoroughly. I've also drag raced these cars at least a few times. So I think I am qualified to share my opinion.
So how did I end up with a Mustang?? Thats a good question.

Firstly, whilst small high tech powerplants can certainly make gobs of power, compromises must always be made to make that power without displacement. By the way, noone should have any doubt about the 4G63 in the EVO, it is a tried and true powerplant that is incredibly stout and can make alot of horsepower reliably for a long long time. However the big advantage to the Mustang here is power delivery. After years of driving turbo cars, I've just grown tired of them. Off boost they are miserable and if you wanna get any kind of decent gas mileage, you must drive somewhat off boost alot of the time. In the summer heat with the A/C on, the jerky slow response of a turbo engine off boost is just simply a PIA. On the autocross course, turbos are also a PIA, they weren't soo bad with the AWD cars, but with RWD like in the MR2 turbo, it was horrible, combine that with the mid-engined configuration and it made one heck of a handfull to keep the car pointed somewhat straight. Don't get me wrong, when driven properly, the MR2 could run mmmmmuuuuucccch faster through the cones than the Mustang, it was just a hair raising experience. With the Mustang, I'm learning what a joy it is that the throttle pedal can be integrated as part of the handling input on the car. The smooth, even, predictible, power delivery is quite a beautiful thing.

Secondly, it sounds beautiful. The first thing I did after buying the Mustang was put on a Magnaflow catted x and cat back and the sound is awe inspiring. It is a simple pleasure just to start the car everyday and hear that little rev it makes befor settling into idle. I used to scoff Mustang guys for reving their motors all the time, now I'm one of them. You just can help yourself. The next best thing I've owned was the I6 in the Supras, they have a very silky smooth, mellow exhaust note that was also pleasureful, but doesn't really compare. The H4 in the WRX sounded pretty good also, very harleyesque. But I4s just plain sound lame, I'm sorry, but that is my conclusion after many years of driving them. I've always been secretly envious of the sounds coming from Mustangs, but when the modular motor came out in the 90s, I just don't think anything matches that sound.

Thirdly, price. I realized a long time ago, even though I do autocross primarily. Straight line performance is still the most important performance aspect to me because I drive my cars daily also. Exceptional handling is nice, but not something I can safely use on my daily commute whereas power is something that can always be used, at least for 5.4 seconds at a time. So "bang for buck" was important. I also didn't want to mod the heck out of a brand new car. So "stock" performance was most important. Even though the MSRP of the Mustang is nearly the same as a WRX, who pays MSRP for a Mustang? I was able to get it for $5K off MSRP, not something I could do with a WRX making it several thousand cheaper and in most situation quicker. I considered the EVO and STI which are moderatley quicker, but cost at least 45% more realistically. I also thought about a Mach 1 or Cobra, but decided since I hadn't had a Mustang before and I might potentially trade it for an '05+ Mustang, I'd save my $$ and get the GT for now. The SRT4 met the "bang for buck" goals, but I just can't stomach FWD anymore. All other choices in the price range are simply underpowered.

Finally handling, This is were the Mustang basically loses, but I don't think anyone will deny that. It is not nearly as bad as I had imagined however. Its constant steady state grip is not bad at all. Freeway on/off ramps the Mustang holds its own ok. Of course I immeddiatley put better tires, springs, shocks, camber plates on it, and those helped alot. Its heavy transitional stuff where the live axle and poor front suspension design rears its ugly head. It is my argument though that these things don't really matter much on a street driven car. They hurt in the autocross course alot, but don't make the street driving experience much less enjoyable. I don't drive around many slaloms on my daily commute. I just consider these limitations a challenge at the autocross course. I run in a class with WRXs and feel pretty good about running with them if I can manage to keep up, it shows that I'm a better driver. I have considered running up a huge credit card bill at Maximum Motorsporst, but think I'll instead save my pennies and trade the '03 GT in on an '05 or '06 either GT or maybe some higher end special model with IRS.

So in conclusion, after years of chasing (and sometimes beating) Mustangs I have come full circle. I am now a lover. The car provides simple pleasures everyday that just suite me better than all the high-tech crap. Plus I feel better about myself for buying American. All the things that are wrong with the car are much easier to forget about than I thought they would be, all I need to do is floor the acellerator and I forget all about those little things.

Wow!! I'm long winded, I hope someone finds this informative...

mp67 said:

Rice is not a stlye. It's actually a slightly racist term depending on how you look at it. The term riceburner, ricemobiles, ricer, etc.. came about in the 70's to describe any car from asian countries, being that alot of rice was a big part of the Asian diet. Teenagers in American cars were using the terms in the 70's to describe these cars long before big wings, fart pipes, and stickers became popular. I used to call my dads little toyota four door a riceburner all of the time back then. No wings, rims, stickers or anything on it. Back then there were not any evo's or fast asian cars over here. They were all 120hp four bangers that got such good mileage, and were so slow, we said they were burning rice instead of gasoline.

Click to expand...

well it's not the 70s anymore and that is not what rice means. a stock EVO is NOT rice. an American mustang with a ironing board for a wing and a primer colored body kit IS rice.

First, good post lddavis73. Second, 70's, 80's, 00's, whatever, "ricer" is still a somewhat derogatory term aimed at asians and import cars. It falls right in the category with rednecks and wetbacks. No matter how anyone tries to justify it, it does nothing to help the American car scene.

When available, drive the three cars and see which one you like best. Buy the one you like best. If you need a car to get women (doesn't hurt but it's not ultumately necessary), work on your game...

When available, drive the three cars and see which one you like best. Buy the one you like best. If you need a car to get women (doesn't hurt but it's not ultimately necessary), work on your game...

I love all the people in this thread saying how the comparison isn't fair because the EVO has a turbo, or you get to add $5K in mods to the mustang to make up the price difference. Funny how just 2 years ago when the 03 Cobra's came out the LS1 guys were saying the same thing and we were telling them what a ricer thing to say that was.

Run whathcya brung!

Also, people are severly misinformed if they think the EVO is maxed out. The good thing about factory PA cars is that the engines are build with boost in mind. I cliked a link earlier today where an EVO was making over 500rwhp on the stock bottom end. A 500 rwhp Mustang GT wouldn't even last 1 dyno pull on a stock bottom end.

Sorry new22003 thought you were directing some of your post at my post, sorry bout the double post to everyone, computer was havin an internet fart.

About the Hot Rod article,I am aware that the stock Cobra is capable 12's and the guys over at Hot Rod seem to be gettin more retarded by the issue, but the STi might have been capable of hittin a 12.9 with a skilled driver and enough time behind the wheel and maybe a little free engine tweaking. So I would definatly consider these two in the same performance category even though ones a muscle car and the other a Japanese rally replica but the performance is there whether anyone likes it or not. The STi and EVO are above the current GT in performance (although I'd still rather have a GT) and I would guess will still be ahead of the 05 GT at least by a bit (although I hope not), but only time will tell. Now for what SVT has in store for the next Cobra it probably will leave a STi or EVO in the dust.

In the end though I'd take the GT, its style and 300 horse V8 alone wins me over and it will most likely be much cheaper to mod in the future. Not to mention the major cash you'll save with the GT that could go into mods would have the GT easily beating STi's and EVO's. Now as far as looks go I cant believe any girl would chose a fart can sedan with hey look at me wing over the very stylish new stang but whatever floats your boat.

I'm a mustang guy. Been a mustang guy since I was 16. 'Damn they are making some impressive rice these days. These cars are fast, handle like a mad man and are pretty reasonably priced. Sure they're UGLY as hell. And I may have just delt hell a pretty harsh insult. But they are impressive pieces of engineering.

They (ford) says that the new cobra will be as capable a handler as an M3. That's bold talk. I wonder what that says about the new platform. What will the new GT handle like???? Odds are good it will be much improved, but I really doubt it will be at the level of the top RICE.

Get whatever gets you off.

By the way I dated many many incredible asian women, (preference for South East asians) never seemed to care what I was driving. Hell most didn't care that I'm pretty average looking. It's all about GAME Say it with me G A M E!

z28.. how many drivers feel comfortable dropping the clutch at 6000 rpm? Thats what ya gotta do to get those times outta of an STi/Evo.

I agree the new stang should be close from a roll(maybe even a bit faster due to the parasitic loss with awd), but because of the awd the evo will still be quicker in the quarter. As far as handling goes... lddavis was right. You don't need a car thats a superstar in the slalom in daily driving. Mustangs are stable at high speeds and can do the manuevering required in highway races, and are still fun to carve canyons in, even if they aren't quite as good in the turn, their instant power as opposed to turbo lag would make up for it to a big degree by helping them out of turns faster. Outside the rear end and weight, mustangs aren't all that low tech nowadays either... overhead cammed, variable valve timed 24v engines are pretty much what the competition offers... just more of it.

Oh, and I've now seen two drivers get 12 second timeslips out of Mach1s (not Cobras, Mach1s). Might give a slight idea of what to expect with some GTs (if they come underrated like the Machs are).

eric n said:

They (ford) says that the new cobra will be as capable a handler as an M3. That's bold talk. I wonder what that says about the new platform. What will the new GT handle like???? Odds are good it will be much improved, but I really doubt it will be at the level of the top RICE.
!

Click to expand...

Better handling usually means stiffer ride. Since the Mustang GT is more of a mainstream product it will probably have a mix of smoother ride and good handleing. Most people buying the GT are buying because they want a fast good looking car. THey probably wouldn't sell as well if they had a hard ride with Z06 like handling.

(STI & EVO are limited editions of about 3000-4000 vs. 60,000+ Mustang GTs/yr.)

GT5oh said:

Sorry new22003 thought you were directing some of your post at my post, sorry bout the double post to everyone, computer was havin an internet fart.

About the Hot Rod article,I am aware that the stock Cobra is capable 12's and the guys over at Hot Rod seem to be gettin more retarded by the issue, but the STi might have been capable of hittin a 12.9 with a skilled driver and enough time behind the wheel and maybe a little free engine tweaking. So I would definatly consider these two in the same performance category even though ones a muscle car and the other a Japanese rally replica but the performance is there whether anyone likes it or not. The STi and EVO are above the current GT in performance (although I'd still rather have a GT) and I would guess will still be ahead of the 05 GT at least by a bit (although I hope not), but only time will tell. Now for what SVT has in store for the next Cobra it probably will leave a STi or EVO in the dust.

In the end though I'd take the GT, its style and 300 horse V8 alone wins me over and it will most likely be much cheaper to mod in the future. Not to mention the major cash you'll save with the GT that could go into mods would have the GT easily beating STi's and EVO's. Now as far as looks go I cant believe any girl would chose a fart can sedan with hey look at me wing over the very stylish new stang but whatever floats your boat.

Click to expand...

Hot Rod has been getting more retarded by the issue.

They (and Car Craft) have lost massive market share in the past 10 years do to specialty magazines like Muscle Mustangs Fast Fords, 5.0, street rodder, super Chevy, etc, and their own crappy content. Now they feel they have to appeal to everyone including the import crowd to regain readership. In the process they are losing the traditional readers. I’m not saying they skewed the performances tests to get more import readership but it seems like every import board now links to that article. If they had skewed it, then they did get great results from it. Many of those import guys had never even seen a hot rod magazine before.

In reality I think they may have gotten a slow example as not all cars of the same year perform the same. I was able to pull a 12.7 in my cobra 100% stock. The STI’s at my local track are all in the low 13’s. Car and driver has had gts running mid 15's when most guys can get one to reach high 13's. There are just slow examples of certain cars. A Subaru is also fairly idiot proof with the awd, which will give an advantage on the street also. Heck if I could dump my clutch at 5000 rpms and get traction Id probably do it even though it’s a horrific thing to do to a car. I’m not knocking the Subaru anything within .5 in the quarter is a great race and competitive.

I like all cars not just fords too and wish there was a great all around car magazine. I own a Mopar and Toyota along with my 2 Stangs. I now subscribe to specialty magazines like MM&FF, Mopar Action and Street Rodder instead of reading Hot Rod or Car Craft. Hot rod and Car Craft have gotten so general and seem to be written for the guy that knows little about cars. It’s getting worse all the time as they try and broaden their readership. I may be wrong but I think this approach will only hurt them.

I have bought 1 hot rod magazine in the past 5 years and that was the one with the 2005 Stang on the cover, most of that info was an exact repeat of the motor trend coverage. I used to have a subscription to it back in the 80's and 90's. They just don’t print many good articles anymore and its full of crap you don’t want.

SadbutTrue said:

Outside the rear end and weight, mustangs aren't all that low tech nowadays either... overhead cammed, variable valve timed 24v engines are pretty much what the competition offers... just more of it.

Click to expand...

This is somewhat true, the modular 4.6 is not quite the low-tech pushrod engine the 302s are. Of course chevy is still doing some fairly impressive things with a pushrod V8, 28 mpg out of a 400 hp C6?!? However, it is not exactly high tech either, the newer revised version in the '05 will be more impressive, I was more referring to the 4.6 in my '03. I guess I should have used the terms high specific output and low specific output rather than high/low tech. Simply "specific output" (for those that don't allready know) is the hp/liter rating of an engine, simply how much hp the engine makes per liter of displacement. Extreme examples of each: 2003 Mitsubishi Lancer Evo 271hp and 2.0 liters = 135hp/liter, 2001 Honda S2000 240 hp and 2.0 liters = 120hp/liter, and 1976 Chevy Corvette 140 hp 5.7 liters = 25hp/liter. The '03 Mustang GT at 260hp and 4.6 liters fits somewhere reasonably inbetween these extremes at 57hp/liter.

My point was that while high spec output engines are impressive feats of engineering, in the real world acheiving such levels of specific output require alot of compromises. The obvious difference here, which everyone already knows is torque. Torque makes for a nice daily driver, but horsepower wins races these are facts, so I won't get into the discussion of which is better, it all depends on your use and preference.

A coworker of mine has an '01 S2000, nice car, handles like a dream, and once you get the thing above 6000 rpm pulls pretty hard. But driven at normal rpm below 4000, it is like driving a Civic. I'm not saying the S2000 is an inferior car, it is a very impressive, respectable engineering acheivement and I get my ass handed to me by S2000s regularly at autocrosses. Its just not my cup of tea for a comprosmise street/track car. A good example of the difference in torque vs. hp is the S2000 at the drag strip compared to a WRX and a Mustang GT. In stock form the S2000 has the capability of being the fastest of the three cars as its power to weight ratio indicates it should. However, in real execution, it doesn't usually end up that way. Driven ideally, an s2000 is capbable of 13.8, Mustang GT 14.1, and WRX 14.2, these numbers correspond almost exactly to the hp/weight ratio of each of these cars. However, what is required to accomplish this is much different story, S2000 requires a 6000 rpm launch, WRX 4000, and Mustang 2800, this difference is caused by torque. If you botch the launch, the order of finish ends up much differently corresponding much more closely to the torque/weight ratio of the cars. Screw up the launch and bog in an S2000 and you can easily end up with a mid 15 second et. Screw up the launch in the WRX and get a high 14, and the Mustang gets a mid 14.

Dragstrip aside driving on the street, these compromises are apparent also. As I stated before the S2000 with its sky high specific output from and normally aspirated engine requires ridiculous revs. Turbo cars like the WRX, have a different set of compromises, turbos can actually make alot of torque, but it doesn't happen until mid-range 3000-4000 rpm. And they have a very non-linear power curve with its own set of problems as I mentioned in my previous post. I shouldn't have called the Mustang engine low tech, but it is a reasonable low spec output engine compared to these others. This I am beginning to really appreciate though. The engine rarely feels like its working all that hard. Its much faster in low rev, daily driving situations. Some of the technology improvements added the the Mustang V8 have made for an nice engine with few compromises. It doesn't run sky high revs, but pulls all the way through 6000 rpm without much drop-off, yet pulls nicely just off idle too. Gas mileage is quite reasonable as long as you don't drive the crap out of it, which is much easier to do and alot less annoying since it has so much more low end torque. I guess the only real dissadvantage is weight and size which aren't nearly as much of a dissadvantage as import car marketing would have you believe.

Here I've gone and written another long winded post. Somebody please stop me from rambling on so much. I hope that someone finds me informative, if not please let me know. I don't want to come across as a blow hard who thinks he know it all. But I have had alot of experience with a wide range of cars. I am one of the few people you will meet who has tried to keep an unbiased view, and I've always said I respect all performance cars regardless of the continent they were made on and what engineering approach they take. I've been on alot of car forums over the years and one thing that has always bothered me is all the "miss-information" flying around. Most car enthusiast join one camp and stick to it, their particular brand/make become the only one worthy. All other suck. This attitude has always bothered me and I've tried to be an opposing force to it wherever I've been. Ok, I'll shut up now.

lddavis73 said:

This is somewhat true, the modular 4.6 is not quite the low-tech pushrod engine the 302s are.

Click to expand...

Of course, the 4.6L isn't exactly high tech, either . Both are very mechanical, with different ways of opening valves. Until the '05 comes out, I don't see much of a technology change.

My point was that while high spec output engines are impressive feats of engineering, in the real world acheiving such levels of specific output require alot of compromises. The obvious difference here, which everyone already knows is torque.

Click to expand...

That's why we love V8's so much, there's much less of a compromise. My engine makes 66 hp/liter, and still makes over 300 ft-lbs of torque at 2500 RPM . And with 19# of boost like the Evo, maybe I'd make 130 hp/liter as well .

Torque makes for a nice daily driver, but horsepower wins races these are facts, so I won't get into the discussion of which is better, it all depends on your use and preference.

Click to expand...

There are some big block cars making 500 ft-lbs of torque and less than 300 horsepower that would prove this theory wrong. Perhaps at high enough speed the higher horsepower car will come back and win, but it'll be waaaaaay over 100 mph before that happens.

I shouldn't have called the Mustang engine low tech, but it is a reasonable low spec output engine compared to these others. This I am beginning to really appreciate though. The engine rarely feels like its working all that hard. Its much faster in low rev, daily driving situations.

Click to expand...

This phenemenon is not specific to Mustang engines, it is typical of any high displacement motor. Import V8's are no different, because there isn't any more of a need for them to have high specific output than there is for a domestic V8 to.

Most car enthusiast join one camp and stick to it, their particular brand/make become the only one worthy. All other suck. This attitude has always bothered me and I've tried to be an opposing force to it wherever I've been.

Click to expand...

Yes, a bit annoying, but human nature. I personally like a lot of cars, but I'll never tell my import friends that, because they refuse to acknowledge that the Mustang has any desirable characteristics. Goes both ways .

Dave

quote:Most car enthusiast join one camp and stick to it, their particular brand/make become the only one worthy. All other suck. This attitude has always bothered me and I've tried to be an opposing force to it wherever I've been.quote

thats not true i am a hardcore gearhead and im not to one club yes i love my stang but i do also have a \
91 300zxtt almost 500hp 465ftlbs
89 peugeot mi16 AWD turbo rally spec
93 t-bird 5.0 ho
so im into all kinds of cars but im only intrested in the ones that make the most hp output like the peugeot it produces 300hp at all the wheels and thats stock form and it proves itself in every rally it whoops the $hit outta subies & mtisu i had it imported over here to race here in the states and show these people theres more out there then just these cars i want to import a ford cosworth over here also but NO not all of us are just into a certain brand

lddavis73 said:

This is somewhat true, the modular 4.6 is not quite the low-tech pushrod engine the 302s are. Of course chevy is still doing some fairly impressive things with a pushrod V8, 28 mpg out of a 400 hp C6?!? However, it is not exactly high tech either, the newer revised version in the '05 will be more impressive, I was more referring to the 4.6 in my '03. I guess I should have used the terms high specific output and low specific output rather than high/low tech. Simply "specific output" (for those that don't allready know) is the hp/liter rating of an engine, simply how much hp the engine makes per liter of displacement. Extreme examples of each: 2003 Mitsubishi Lancer Evo 271hp and 2.0 liters = 135hp/liter, 2001 Honda S2000 240 hp and 2.0 liters = 120hp/liter, and 1976 Chevy Corvette 140 hp 5.7 liters = 25hp/liter. The '03 Mustang GT at 260hp and 4.6 liters fits somewhere reasonably inbetween these extremes at 57hp/liter.

Click to expand...

Since when does adding Forced induction make an engine "high tech"?

also...
Chevrolet can get 400HP/400tq and 28mpg in a 3200lbs car.
Honda can only get 240HP/167tq and 26mpg in the much lighter 2600lbs. S2000.

here's my take after driven an evo and a gt.

Evo's "rolling" race is about the same as a GT's... but the real advantage is in the take off. It feels like you got slicks when you have a proper launch. 95% of the general population wont know how to launch an AWD properly.... that's why I've seen evo's pull 14's and high 13's at the track.

The take off is just plain wicked. Also the road feel and handling is the best I've ever felt with a stock car. I tested the limit where I did a wide turn at high speed. Usually with a stock car like an acura or toyota, I hit this turn on the 405 at 90-95 mph and then I would back off because I KNEW the car doesnt feel good anymore.... Then I tried the same turn with the Evo.... and DAMN, I hit 130 on that turn.

the handling is rediculously good when you get a chance to push it's limit. I'm considering a LS1 or Cobra right now. I've owned a turbo gsx in the past, and wont go to the evo due to reliability issues... that's about the only thing keeping me from it.

My Ideal car is a cobra that can handle as good as an evo. Even with mods, I'm not sure if the handling will be up to par with the evo.

Iddavis73, not bustin on ya, but in the late 80's if ya wanted to look away from the 5.0 mustang instead of looking at imports you should of looked at the 87-88 thunderbird turbo coupe or the 84-86 mustang svo. They were made for better handling, and better front to rear weight %'s and had all the technology you could handle. Yeah they were 4cyl turbo's and even tho they were not DOHC they made STOCK about 90hp/liter, and that was just a starting point. The turbo coupe, had a switch in the inside to adjust the timing based on fuel type, flick of a switch adjustable suspension firm/soft, power everything, auto lights based on darkness, and auto hi/low beam switching, keyless entry......... Anyway, i am sorta in a similar delema until i talked to my muscle car lovin friends, and i test drove the evo, pretty damn impressive power wise for a stock car. I managed to get it all sideways, althought the AWD is pretty neat, normally the drivetrain power is 80% front and 20% rear, i didnt really like that, to front wheel drive to me, although it kicks in when needed (sensed). To me the car seemed and felt like an econobox, that looked cooler and was fast. Can't describe it, it didnt feel much different then an escort that handled and moved. Also, your supposed to wait 5 min to warm up and cool down, sure you wouldn't need to but if you plan on keepin the car more than 3 years its probably a good idea. Then i saw the 05 mustang at the philly auto show, damn its nice, im waiting for one of those to come out. The car is just more my style, and i believe it will feel better. Dont get me wrong the evo was cool, but it reminds me of that go-cart go out and whoop on it feel, not the car i wanna drive everyday.