Off TopicA place for you car junkies to boldly post off topic. Sponsored by American Muscle
Welcome to Mustang Forums!
Welcome to Mustang Forums.
You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
If those are your two choices, I would get the WRX. I don't think it's worth trading up to a slightly newer mustang that's pretty much the same as yours, already, unless you go to a 2010, which I think you could find for close to the WRX price. The WRX is more practical, but it requires premium. Performance turbo cars lose a good bit of power if ran on regular. My '04 SRT4 went from 14psi to barely 8, under full boost when I accidentally put 87 in it. The turbo seal went right after, too. If you're fine with by premium fuel then go for the WRX.
Edit: I see, you meant you're either keeping yours or getting the WRX and not trading to a different mustang, my bad. Didn't read it right.
2015 ruby red Ford Mustang GT premium 6spd manual
Flowmaster Outlaws W/Ford Racing X-pipe
Last edited by Csrt4to5.0gt; 01-12-2014 at 09:05 AM.
No point in trading, like someone else said, you'll have to use premium so it's actually going to be more expensive to drive the wrx.
Depending on if you mostly do stop and go 40mph type driving or highway will depend on what gearing you should switch to for better mpgs. highway stick with stock gears. if you do a lot of stop and go 4.10s gave me an extra 3mpg in town.
15k for a 2011? isn't that about half price in 2 years? I didn't think they would lose value so quickly. Are you sure there isn't something wrong with it?
Subaru doesn't have good quality or reliability, I have no idea how they got that reputation.
I don't trust consumer reports. Ever since I worked in a photolab and people were telling me consumer reports recommended Kodak brand digital cameras as their top pick (I didn't believe them till someone brought in a consumer reports magazine and showed me). Kodak cameras had the worst image quality and colors were awful. Fuji had much better picture quality. Nikon and Canon the best, but you paid an extra $30-$50 in the $200-$300 price range. These were like 3-5 mega pixel cameras back in the day. But why on earth recommend kodak? Even sony had slightly better quality/colors. kodak and HP did have really cheap cameras, that's about all the had going for them is saving yourself a little bit of money, but on a $200ish item that isn't much savings.
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware
corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford
Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor