Slegacy96 Posted February 11, 2005 Author 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. Originally we were talking about the regular 2.5L Legacy GT. I only mentioned the 2005 Legacy GT because it was brought up in an earlier post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spazz698 Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 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 Camaros are not in production anymore and I hate the bodystyle of the last gen camaros but I cannot get the one previous due to the fact I dont look okay with a mullet Gimmie a 69 rs/ss and you're on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skip Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 on the subject please because if Ford sux then Chevys BLOW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BulletRide Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 fords are a joke. they have made terrible cars/trucks since the early 70's ford mustangs and camaros have been rivals since 67 since the all through the 90's camaros have been faster at everything and better handling. the 03 cobra was the first ford to take a camaro on the 1/4 mile in like 20+ years, and its supercharged, and is still slower then a camaro SS and i know this, my dads 95 camaro can take turns as fast as my legacy, but not accelerate out of them the same but my dad has 2 grand worth of tires on his camaro, i have about 1k on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnuman Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 fords are a joke. they have made terrible cars/trucks since the early 70's '68, actually. That was when they started shoving all that crap into the engine compartment, and sucked all the "oomph" out of the engines. . . They have been a mess ever since. . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subie94 Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 on the subject please because if Ford sux then Chevys BLOW does that mean dodge swallows Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 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. Nope...we're talking about the 165HP 2.5L. There's definitely nothing GT about it as far as performance goes. It's one of those examples of a car company putting a "GT" badge on a car that's only different because of the wheels and a few add-ons. Any article you read about the 96-2004 Legacy 2.5L is usually the same. They love the car but usually talk about the performance as being "adequate" or "lackluster". Now the 2005 is a different story !!! The GT has gone from painfully slow to wickedly fast...(it's about time). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 '68, actually. That was when they started shoving all that crap into the engine compartment, and sucked all the "oomph" out of the engines. . . They have been a mess ever since. . . I'm not a huge Ford fan but you have to admit that the present Mustang is as fast as almost anything they've ever made. As far as the Camaro is concerned....where is it today ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bajavwnsoobnut Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 for this I don't care about #'s and all that and not a big fan of Ford except for the GT (NOT the Mustang GT) which is cool and a underdog too but that is the point I have a friend which I will be posting pics of his 02 Leg L with 3 inches lift later on today but he also has a 67 Mustang GT Fastback with the 390 and it puts out just over 400hp at the crank! and it is cool looking and also just found out recently that it was also a Ford factory race car to boot! but he loves his leg better for the handling and being lower on the pucker meter for control too due in part that the HP/Weight ratio is way up there in that stang and that it is hard to control at normal speeds when it is wet out and as far as the new stang I like the looks and it does look like the 67 fastback but it prolly is more comfy and also easier to control than the originals by a long shot and comparing just motors the V-# engines are not as efficient of a design compared to the H-# engines and that is why the differences between HP ratings oh and another thing is the reason why the V-6 is in the lower stangs is due in part to the CAFE laws and all that bull that the automakers have to go through to get away with making monster guzzlers and not have to pay gas guzzler taxes I am suprised that people posting on this thread havn't noticed that before heck that is why ford has the focus :puke and such with better gas mileage to counteract the guzzlers like the Excursion :puke: but with all that said I don't mean to flame anyone I am just bringing what I think to the table for everyone to take into perspective Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crighton Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 First post on the board, had originally stopped by for some info on head gasket replacements, phase 1 2.5L an expensive repair even with a discount. Being part of a Subaru dealers family we've had a decent number of subaru's over the years. I saw the new 05 mustangs and well it was one of those have to have it deals. Only complaints about the GT compared to an STi would be the crazy wheel hop they have, voided warranty due to SC I've added, and the STi handles better in the wet/snow. Really an Apples VS Oranges debate. Twin turbo'd the GT's are pushing over 500 rwhp and are roughly the same cost as the STi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BulletRide Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 camaros took 5 years off the GTO is here, and the camaro comes back in 07 with the 400hp LS2 engine, and about 500lbs lighter the cars supposed to be around 3200lbs and who knows, they might do a special camaro with vette engines like they did in the 60's cause in 07 the corvette c6-z (z-06 replacement) is gonna have a 427 engine with over 600bhp and over 550 rwhp... the corvette c6 already destroyed the porsche 9-11 on the track and strip for 30% cheaper...i'd hate to see what this c6z is gonna do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.