Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Ford Mustang (2005) vs. 2005 Pontiac GTO

17810121363

Comments

  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    Dieselone writes.......This debate will be over in year or two anyway when the current imposter GTO is either dropped or replaced by a car worthy of the GTO name. ......

    Since when is the current GTO an impostor or not worthy of the GTO name? LOL!? What do you think the original 1964 GTO was? it was a performance OPTION on the 1964 Pontiac Lemans A body 2 dr coupe with a big V8. LOL! 40yrs later GM borrows a car from it's holden division and does same thing, midsized 2 door coupe with a big 6 liter V8. Same thing. BTW....the 2005 GTO is the FASTEST MOST POWERFULL GTO ever MADE!! No GTO ever offered 400hp from factory. I think highest was 370hp on the 1969 Judge. Remember those ratings are PRE SAE, so you really have to take about 20% away from them.

    If you want to go that route we could argue that the 1974 GTO, the SLOWEST production GTO ever made was a rebadge and not worthy of the GTO name on it's Pontiac Ventura ala Chevy Nova chassis. 9.4 seconds time! It was still a GTO.

    Or we could argue that the NEW Mustang is NOT a real mustang because it was based off the 2000 Lincoln LS chassis, Tbird, Jag S chassis, right? Big upgrade over the old 27 yr old Fox 1978 Chassis. But I consider it to be a real mustang.
  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    Man, you are like a pitbull. You never let go. You twist my words, misquote me, and now you have come up with the most ridiculous conclusions that have absolutely nothing to do with anything I have said. Try to get it right this time. I don't like the new GT500 (although after having read some old reviews, the new one will severly outperform the old one). If you want to defend it, fine, but don't go putting words in my mouth. I am going to try and help you with your problem. So work with me. First, relax. Close your eyes and breathe deeply. Now repeat after me: Let it be, Let it be, Let it be.
  • SylviaSylvia Posts: 1,636
    Alright - agree to disagree and move on. Let's not get into personal blows here.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,220
    I woudln't classify either the Mustang nor the GTO having a ride similar to any Mercedes I've ever driven.

    Probably the best handling/ride trade-off I've ever experienced was in a BMW 3 series I owned (it had all sorts of other issues that would preclude me from buying another, though).

    From an evolution stand point, trying to compare cars from their forefathers, from any generation, is really an excercise in futility. So many things have changed over the decades.

    I have mentioned that my sister has a '65 Mustang with a 289. It's also a manual tranny. Driving mine and driving hers is more akin to hers being similar to driving a bus compared to driving mine. Technology and engineering have changed so much over the last 4 decades.

    Same would be true of driving a '60s era GTO when compared to a current one.

    A '60s era Shelby wouldn't be any picnic to drive either.

    Cars from that era (in comparison to any current car) would have sloppy steering, crude and unrefined suspensions, brakes that could be compared to a Flintstone mobile.

    When I was a tyke, I remember my father allowing me to drive his '70s era Chrysler New Yorker up and down roads on a farm he owned. The thing had a big 440 V8 with a big 4 bbl carb. I remember tromping it. It would squat down when the 2 extra barrels opened up and would blast off. It had NO steering feel. It seemed like every time I hit the brakes, they transitioned from no braking, to locking up.....with nothing in between. Had to turn the steering wheel 3-4 inches before anything would happen. My memory of those experiences tells me I'd have a hard time keeping that monster on the road today.

    How people kept any of those '60s era cars on the road, when the speed limit was 75 MPH on ALL interstates is a mystery to me. Guess it had more to do with what you were used to.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,650
    Wow,

    I got a few feathers ruffled. I re-read my post today and I came across harder than I intended to. The long necks where going down smooth last night and I was getting sick of seeing all of the IRS posts so I lashed out more harshly than I normally would.

    I will stick to my belief that GM should have done something different besides rebadging the Murano, the GTO faithful on this board may disagree, but that is how I feel.

    Yes, no doubt about the current GTO's performance, I never have or will dispute that point. The car is on the heavy side, but it seems to have enough power & suspension to compensate.

    I guess I can't get over the fact that GM basically used the Murano as a fill-in until something home grown could be developed. I've looked at Holden's website and the GTO is so similar in looks it's frightning, inside and out.

    Other than convert it to a left hand drive model, stuff the vette motor in it, and slap on a Pontiac front end, what did GM design on this car? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm seriously asking 'cause I don't know.
  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    That white one is really nice looking. I especially like the Pontiac rims. Are those Centerlines on the brown one? I don't think I would put Centerlines on a '74 anything. There was also a '74 RoadRunner that was probably the weakest RoadRunner. But considering this was the year after the first gas shortage, they were not bad car. And it wasn't just that gas doubled in price, you literally couldn't get it at times. So any kind of performance was a good thing. thanks for the post
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    The GTO is the closest American car that I have ever owned that came close to the BMW 528 I had in terms of ride/handling. Esp the same feeling when you put the GTO into Drive and the back end sinks a little, my 528 did same thing! For better traction. My 528 was great, dumped it around 160k miles. Just wanted something newer/less miles. Ran great.

    My 1958 Chevy which has manual steering, manual brakes and a 3spd manual on the column, boy does that have a hard clutch/shift feel to it. Very hard to turn wheel when nearly stopped, good upper arm workout, LOL! The V8 in it more then keeps up with modern traffic. Yes you can turn the wheel 2 inches + before it starts to turn, LOL! Braking from the 4 drums is actually decent. Not as good as modern car. Really have to hit brakes, "Manual" The ride is actually quite nice.. soaks up bumps quite well, and huge trunk-backseat. Handling is horrendous. The best corners that car handles are at a 4 way stop sign, LOL! That cars gives me a good upper and lowe workout after driving.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    If GM didn't use the Monaro from their Holden company, then right now we would have NOTHING rear drive and V8, Except expensive Vette/CTS-V and the same lame Front wheel drive V6 cars. I can't fully complain. GM's NOT advertising the GTO didn't help either, LOL! They sure spent Milliions on Grand Prix/G6 advertising. Yeah the GTO is near identical to the Monaro but that isn't a bad thing to me. It could be worse, they could have made GTO a front drive V6 car, LOL!

    For 2007 GM was supposed to have an all new GTO as well as other midsized rear drive cars based on the rear drive ZETA platform which was just cancelled cited as too costly. Not sure what will be done for 2007 if anything! 2006 might be it for the GTO.

    Look at the Grand Prix, only a 4 door sedan today. Real Grand prixes were always 2 door & rear drive from 1962 to 1988
  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    "what did GM design on the car?" Good question and the answer is: nothing. That's why we like it. The reason the GTO is similar in looks to a Holden is because it is a Holden. Monaro that is. There is nothing wrong with that except that they rushed it to market and probably should have worked out some of the bugs first. The GTO is on the heavy side and personally I like that.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    The Holden Monaro debuted as a NEW 2002 car in late 2001 in Austrailia. Otherwise I 100% agree with you about the car. .Also the interior on the Monaro/GTO is the BEST that GM has put in a car in years. Better then new Vettes. Same or better then Caddies CTS-V as per Consumer Reports. Even they were amazed at the interior. C&D liked INterior as well. My GTP Grand Prix interior and F body interiors was GARBAGE in comparison to GTO. Same with The switchgear control is the best I have ever seen in a GM vehicle as well. The hazzard 4way switch is where is should be, not on top of the steering column. Yes the GTO is nearly 3750 lbs heavy, but I like that too. It rides like more of a luxury car then a Pony car/F body car. Firm ride but good.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    As for the tires being small on the GTO as Consumer Reports and other critics complained? Since when is a P245 width tire small? Look at the stock tire width on the 1964 to 1974 GTO's. much skinnier then that ! If I recall the Mustang GT V8 tires are P235 a tad smaller, but the press says nothing about that, LOL! Just makes me laugh. P245 45 17 is a decent tire size. I am glad I don't have 18 inch. esp with the potholes roads up here in the northeast by NY city.
  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    That sinking feeling is the launch mode as I've heard it called. I got the manual so I don't have it. But I test drove a couple of autos and man, it was so cool. By the way, what the heck is LOL? All I can think of is lots of luck, lots of laughs, lots of love, SOL. I don't think that's what you are saying. Clue me in please...
  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    I keep hearing that crap about small tires. 17 inch P245's aren't small tires. One guy called the 16 inch tires on the Grand Prix relatively small. Well that's better than just small. So relatively speaking, the 16 inch tires on the Grand Prix are relatively large since probably 99% percent of passenger cars have smaller tires. Give me a break.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    My BMW 528i had that same sinking feeling on launch when you put it into Drive and it was an Automatic too. I remember the BMW guys telling me it was for better traction? Who knows.

    LOL is Laughing Out Loud
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    Exactly! The Grand Prix tires are WIDER then the tires on the Accord and Camry. I believe the Accord 240hp V6 sedan are only P205 width.
  • One of the main reasons I bought the GTO over the Mustang was Fords failed prior attempt at retro styling, the new Thunderbird. When the Thunderbird came out it was alot like the "got to have" of the new Mustang. Everyone loved it, Katie Couric bought 6 of them, hype, hype, etc, etc. The "got to have" turned into "no one cares" with the Thunderbird. Rehashing old designs doesn't always hold up, people get bored with them quickly and they become blase quickly. It will be much worse with the Mustang because there will be a zillion of them on the road.
  • You right about the GTO's ride quality' it is a good bit better than the Mustang's. But you must understand that Ford never ment for Mustang to be a luxury car. The Pontiac line has always been about luxury. The fallout of such features is a lot of extra weight. The mustang was just ment to be a fun ride, which it is. To give you an example about the weight issue, let me tell you about my '73 olds 442. It rides like a cadillac, forget feeling bumps or getting any feedback from the road at all for that matter. It's long ,solid black w/white striping real sharp with that famous 455 rocket under the hood. Sadly the car REALLY needs that 455, it weights over 4,000lbs. It can't hold it's owen agains a stock 5.0.
  • Interesting....I don't recall ever seeing one of these before. Thanks for the pic's.
  • No, not really. Just helping a fellow member understand someone else's view.The comparison's aren't exactly fair. I personal like the old Nova's and GTO's. I'm helping my brother-in-law do a frame off resto of a '68 GTO as a matter of fact....and I'm a Ford guy.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    I remember the retro Tbird, got to have, cool when it first came out, dealers were adding $5k and $10k to the price then it faded out. It's being cancelled this year due to lack of sales. It was better to wait for the 2nd yr because they added 40+ horsepower. Today you can buy a nice used 2003 for $25k or less. About 40% depreciation in only 2 yrs, LOL!

    I never buy a car anymore when it's first, wait for prices to drop and 2nd yr to fix bugs or add features/power.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    J.D. Power listed the GTO as the BEST sporty car a few months back in their Best New car appeal. Owners are surveyed 90 days after purchasing their vehicles.

    J.D. Power APEAL Top Cars

    Segment Top car
    Compact car MINI Cooper
    Entry midsize car Chevrolet Malibu
    Premium midsize car Volvo S40
    Entry luxury car Chrysler 300
    Mid-level luxury car BMW 5-series
    Premium luxury car BMW 7-series
    Sporty car Pontiac GTO
    Premium sports car Porsche Boxster
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,220
    I can see some people who wanted "big car" ride/drive experience liking the GTO with a big V8. To me, the Chrysler 300c had that one covered, though....plus, the 300 looks better (IMHO), to boot.

    Looking for an all out American performance car, one is either looking at a Corvette or a Mustang GT. That's quite a bit different than slapping a big V8 in a coupe (GTO) or sedan (Chrysler 300C).

    I wanted something that handled well, good speed, good build, very nice inside and a great body. The Mustang filled the bill on all counts (whereas neither the GTO nor the 300C did not).

    As a side advantage, the Mustang was less expensive than either the GTO or the 300C by thousands of dollars. But, even if the 300C (hemi) or the GTO were priced the same as the Mustang GT, I still would have chosen the Mustang solely on looks.

    Big problem with the T-Bird was not the styling (although the headroom in that car was a joke), but the way it drove. It was creaky and sloppy in its handling. You spend $40K on a car and it better excell in looks, performance and/or handling. The T-Bird had the "looks" part down, but little else.

    For ~$26K, the Mustang GT has the looks, the perfomance and the handling. That's why it is such a hit.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,220
    I guess JD POWER missed the boat on the appealing aspect of the GTO. If it was so appealing, GM wouldn't have had such a hard time selling them. And, instead of ending it's life, they would be preparing a new iteration to bring out (which they aren't).
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    graphicguy writes.......I wanted something that handled well, good speed, good build, very nice inside and a great body. The Mustang filled the bill on all counts (whereas neither the GTO nor the 300C did not)........

    Me too, that is why I bought the GTO. I would have considered the Stang, except I didn't want to look like the other 200,000+ that will be on the road, more exclusitivity and the backseat was near useless on stang. Very hard to secure a rear facing child seat, I actually brought the car seat to the dealer. After you installed it, basically hugging the steering wheel. Where as GTO I had much more room in driver seat with rear facing car seat behind me. Bigger backseat on GTO. Notice Consumer Reports said same thing on Stang, Very difficult to install a rear facing child seat! For me that matters, but for some it doesn't.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    For the 10th time GM stated this GTO was ONLY going to be a 3 yr car, 2004 to 2006 and that it was going to be LOW Production, 18,000 or LESS per yr, regardless of sales and they are selling the 2005 GTO on target, they are hiiting there 1,000 per month with minimal incentives. Only the $1k rebate that just started. Dealers by me don't have any. The 2007 NEW GTO would have been on the Zeta Rear drive platform but got cancelled. Dumb GM. There is still hope I guess, we'll see what happens.

    BTW....The JD Power survey is done 90 days after the owner buys the car. Both GTO and Mustang and other sporty car owners were questioned. The GTO was more appealing then the other sporty cars to their owners under their report guidelines.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,220
    If the GTO was only going to be a 3 year car, why did GM make plans for an '07 and then cancel?

    Believe me, if the GTO hit it's sales numbers in '04 and '05, GM would have extended its life in one form or another. When car manufacturer's say that a particular model only had a "limited production run" that usually means that they didn't sell well to begin with.

    While, I hope GM has cleared out most of the leftover '04s, if you subtract out what the '04 sales from total sales this year, the '05s aren't selling all that well either. Last I checked, Pontiac had sold substantially fewer than 3,000 '05 GTOs through March.

    Just looking at the inventory of the 4 Pontiac dealers I pass every week in my 'burg, none of them have sold any of the 15 GTOs they have sitting in their new car lots in the last month (they still have the same original stock I looked at a month ago before I took delivery of my Mustang). Doing a quick search via GM BUYPOWER (which says it updates every 24 hours) none of the 50 or so GTOs within a 50 mile radius of me in OH have sold......even with the $1,000 rebate.

    My preferred Pontiac dealer has the same 3 '05s that they had two months ago (silver, red, blue). They still have a leftover '04 (silver) that has been there for at least 3, probably 4 months ago.

    Don't get me wrong. I wanted the GTO to be a success for GM so they would come out with an updated one, but that's not to be.

    Mustang GT's are sold out for the '05 model year at every Ford dealer near me. They already have a substantial line for the '06 models when they begin taking orders next month. My Ford dealer will be totally sold out of the first 3 months of GT allotment they get (probably closer to 4 months allotment now since he told me this a month ago when I took delivery of mine). They have deposits on their '06 GTs, even though they don't have final pricing on them, yet.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    Also Consumer Guide Automotive ranked GTO better then the New Mustang as well.

    GTO rated as a BEST BUY, value in class 9
    Mustang was Recommended Buy, value in class 7

    GTO 57 points, Mustang 50 points High for class was 58, GTo just missed that.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    graphicguy writes....If the GTO was only going to be a 3 year car, why did GM make plans for an '07 and then cancel? ....

    2007 GTO was going to be an ALL NEW CAR on the Zeta midsized rear drive chassis that other GM cars would have been based off of like Grand Prix, etc. GM cancelled Zeta for now. Time will tell. Hopefully they come out with another GTO, otherwise it's just the vette in GM's lineup or the CTS-V, both $44k+

    BTW.. my preffered Pontiac dealer has been sold out of his GTO allottment until late May.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,220
    Just took a look at the site. Not much of substance there regarding their ratings or how they reached them.

    Personally, I'm not aware of most people using Consumer's Guide as a source to look to for rating cars.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    graphicguy writes......Big problem with the T-Bird was not the styling (although the headroom in that car was a joke), but the way it drove. It was creaky and sloppy in its handling......

    You do realize the new Mustang is loosely based on the same architecture/fLincoln LS frame as the Tbird? Yes there were modifications/improvements but still same starting point. At least the LS chassis is a big improvement over that FOX 1978 chassis they used up until last year, LOL!
This discussion has been closed.