Saucony Guide 8 vs. ASICS GT-2000 3 review

Saucony Guide 8 provides tons of stability and a smooth ride in a lightweight package. ASICS GT-2000 3 delivers a very soft ride with good stability to moderate overpronators.

NEW! Saucony Guide 9 vs. ASICS GT-2000 4 and Saucony Guide 10 vs. ASICS GT-2000 4 and ASICS GT-2000 5 vs. Saucony Guide 10

The Saucony Guide 8 and the ASICS GT-2000 3 are stability running shoes that can be worn by runners who moderately overpronate.

ADVERTISEMENTS

The uppers of the Saucony Guide 8 and the ASICS GT-2000 3 are very similar in that they consist of a combination of traditional stitched-on overlays with no-sew overlays.

Both the ASICS GT-2000 3 and the Saucony Guide 8 have most of their stitched-on overlays on the medial side of the shoe wrapping the midfoot where overpronators tend to need the most support.

And both running shoes have no-sew overlays connecting the midfoot to the forefoot to provide structure and a bit of support there.

And then at the back of the shoes there are either sturdy supportive overlays supporting the heel like in the Saucony Guide 8 or a supportive heel counter that locks the heel down on the running platform like in the ASICS GT-2000 3.

While both running shoes should provide you with a secure fit, the forefoot area of the ASICS GT-2000 3 might be a bit roomier and more comfortable than that of the Saucony Guide 8, since it is so "open".

The ASICS GT-2000 3 and the Saucony Guide 8 come with midsoles that provide heel-to-toe cushioning: PowerGrid in the Saucony Guide 8 and FluidRide in the ASICS GT-2000 3.

But while the midsole of the Saucony Guide 8 consists of mainly one main layer of foam, the midsole of the ASICS GT-2000 3 consists of two layers of foam with the one closest to the foot being the softest one and the one closest to the ground the more responsive one.

And in between those two layers, the ASICS GT-2000 3 has GEL cushioning in the heel and in the forefoot for additional shock absorption and cushioning.

And then on the medial side of the shoe, there is a firmer piece of foam that is meant to stop your foot from rolling too far inward during the process of controlling overpronation.

Such a firmer piece of foam is also present on the medial side of the midsole of the Saucony Guide 8, but it runs all the way to the bottom of the foot in contrast to the one in the ASICS GT-2000 3, which runs till the softer layer of foam right under the foot.

So you can expect the degree of pronation control to be just a little bit stronger in the Saucony Guide 8 than in the ASICS GT-2000 3.

In the initial stage of pronation control, the foot is slowed down through a well-segmented and slightly rounded crash pad under the heel of the Saucony Guide 8 that runs till the midfoot on the lateral side of the shoe.

While the ASICS GT-2000 3 does not have such a crash pad, it uses a generous amount of GEL cushioning in the heel together with well-segmented rubber compartments in the rearfoot to absorb shock and provide cushioning at heel-strike.

Because the ASICS GT-2000 3 has that softer layer of foam that is closest to the foot and the GEL cushioning, it should feel much softer than the Saucony Guide 8 at heel-strike, making the ASICS GT-2000 3 an ideal running shoe for heel-strikers.

The Saucony Guide 8 is not that far off in the cushioning department, though, especially for women, where the two running shoes provide almost the same amount of cushioning.

However, the ASICS GT-2000 3 remains the more cushy running shoe of the two, despite the Saucony Guide 8 for men being just a little bit softer than the ASICS GT-2000 3 for men in the forefoot, probably due to the blown rubber in the forefoot of the Sauony Guide 8.

The outsole of the ASICS GT-2000 3 is pretty traditional with a midfoot shank providing structural integrity and midfoot support between the rearfoot and the forefoot.

And while the Saucony Guide 8 also has a small piece of plastic that hooks into the medial post to provide reinforcement, the Saucony Guide 8 gives you more ground contact overall than the ASICS GT-2000 3, so can be seen as a bit more stable than the ASICS GT-2000 3.

More ground contact also generally means smoother transitions from heel-strike to toe-off.

Further differences can be found in the amount of flex grooves in the forefoot. While the Saucony Guide 8 has more flex grooves on the lateral side of the forefoot, the deep flex grooves do not all run all the way to the medial side like in the ASICS GT-2000 3; they are continued as shallow cuts in the rubber.

And despite the blown rubber in the forefoot of the Saucony Guide 8, which is also meant to provide flexibility in addition to cushioning, the Saucony Guide 8 turns out to be less flexible than the ASICS GT-2000 3, especially for men. The difference in flexibility between the two running shoes is not that great for the women's versions of the shoes.

The women's version of the Saucony Guide 8 weighs approximately 8.4 oz (238 grams) and the ASICS GT-2000 3 for women weighs 9.1 oz (258 grams). The men's versions of the running shoes weigh 10.1 oz (286 grams) and 11.1 oz (315 grams), respectively, with the Saucony Guide 8 being the lighter one.

If you are looking for a very cushy running shoe that is suitable for heel-strikers and that provides a lot of support and stability without being too expensive, then the ASICS GT-2000 3 would fit the bill.

And if you are looking for a lightweight running shoe that provides tons of stability and support, a secure fit, a smooth ride, and a good amount of cushioning, then the Saucony Guide 8 might be worth considering.

Note: The weight of a running shoe depends on the size of the running shoe, so any weights mentioned in this review may differ from the weight of the running shoe you choose to wear. Running shoes of the same size were compared for this review.

The two links above will take you to Amazon.com where you can read more about the running shoes.


This review falls under: ASICS | Saucony

Disclaimer: This running shoe review on www.motioncontrolrunningshoe.org is based on personal research and analysis of data that has been made publicly available by running shoe manufacturers and other companies that are dedicated to serving runners, and is not claimed to be accurate, complete, or up to date. While the information presented in this review is intended to help you better understand the differences between running shoes, we shall not be held liable for any purchasing decisions you make based on this information. Please use your own good judgment before making a purchase. The owner of this website receives a small compensation whenever you buy a product after clicking a product link on this website. Read our full disclaimer and privacy policy.