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

191012141594

Comments

  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    You're twisting my words. Yes, the GT500 looks to me like a bland modern coupe with stripes and scoops and lots of other cladding. I guess I like the old GT500 because I like the base model better. I've said that before. They have more character or something. No, the new GT500 wouldn't be recognizable if it had a different body style. And no, its not bland, it garish. It looks like a bland base model with lots of cladding. Frankly, it looks like a cheap knockoff. Too bad we can't hear from an owner of an original what they think of the new one.

    Yes, I like the bland styling of the GTO. I bought one because of the engine, not the body style. And I don't want it wrapped in a lot of cladding. And like most owners, I can't stand even the spoiler.

    Got it now?
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    I believe Motor Trend just tested a 2005 Mustang GT with a Vortech supercharger that was making 410 horsepower. Guess what? The 0-60 and 1/4 mile time were not much faster then a stock GTO. Here were the test results from the magazine for the Votech GT

    410hp Vortech Mustang GT from Motor Trend
    0-60mph in 4.6 seconds
    1/4 mile 13 seconds at 108.5 mph

    400hp GTO STOCK!! From Pontiac/GM Brochure
    0-60mph in 4.6 seconds
    1/4 mile 13 seconds at 108mph
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    I read that the new GT500 which will be priced from $40k to $45k will still feature a SOLID rear axle, Ford Cost cutting. Ford said that the better handling that IRS axle would allow was NOT enough to overcome the extra cost associated with it, so they will stick with the solid rear.

    Yes every car mfg does cost cuts on their cars, but no IRS on a $45k car?? Even the $35k or less Cobra had IRS.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    I know we're probably getting more and more off topic, but....

    I did some further checking regarding the 427 in the early Shelby GT500's. In 1967, all GT500's had the 428. Apparantly, in 1968, three (3) early GT500's left the factory with 427 sideoilers; the remainder had the 428. In mid-1968, production switched to the 428CJ (for the GT500KR models). Also, there were apparently NO dealer installed 427's in lieu of the factory 428 (although a number of cars later had the 428's pulled in favor of 427's but this was after delivery to the owner). I don't have access to my copy of the Shelby America Registry anymore so I can't confirm the three cars receiving factory 427's in 1968 or what their vin #'s were.

    Lord, I wonder what THOSE three cars would be worth today if properly documented :surprise:
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    Leftovers are good, usually you get a good deal, did that on a few of my cars. You didn't want to wait for the 2005 stang though? I almost did the same thing with the GTO, I wanted a 2004, but then I heard they were doing the scoupes, extra 50hp, bigger brakes, double exhaust outlets etc for 2005 so I waited. Besides dealers were trying to put outrageous markups on 2004 at first, LOL! Good thing I waited.
  • Yea I suppose you are right sputter, Carroll Shelby obviously just totally screwed the new one up didn't he. I mean, they shouldn't have even let him near the thing, huh. What was he thinking / what an idiot. Maybe Ford should not have renewed their relationship with him at all, he is obviously blind or crazy to think that his new GT500 is appealing to the eye. They should have made him just go somewhere and wait to die instead of giving him the opportunity with the design process for the new Cobra and GT500. I bet you could do better with a "bland" modern coupe in your backyard. Oh yea I forgot, these modern coupes are supposed to bland, they aren't supposed to have style. The GT500 shouldn't have stripes to remind you of Shelby's fabulous racing history. It shouldn't have scoops to allude to the powerful motor (doesn't the new GTO have scoops?) and certainly no ground effects to help reduce lift. Ford should have just made a 2-door Taurus and put the S/C 5.4 in that and called that the GT500, with only some badges. That would have made Carroll Shelby proud. And, no one would know there were GT500s around again until they got right up on one. Sounds great.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    Now you're comparing test results from a magazine against the quoted times in a brochure? :confuse:

    Wouldn't it be at least somewhat better to compare M/T's results for the Mustang with the Vortech against M/T's results for the '05 GTO?
  • My fiancee just bought the 2004 this weekend! Only one left within about 200 miles. Plenty of 2005's everywhere. I loved the 2005 and was set to buy one of those, it would not have been that much more expensive. But she was so sentimentally attached to her old one that she wanted another one like it. She did not care about the new chassis and improved engines and transmissions, etc. Just liked the look of hers. Women! Well, at least she likes cars.

    I made myself feel better about her decision by noting that the 2004 Mustangs were ranked higher for reliability than any other American car for in Consumer Reports, and the new ones have had a few of the typical first-model-year Ford quirks. And, when it comes time to trade my Explorer, I can get what I want without listening to her! LOL
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    tayl0rd writes.....And about that interior and the car not being worth $40K; have you even seen pictures of the GT500?......

    Even Better I saw the GT500 upclose in person at the NY autoshow , big crowd around it Red with white stripes even better then pictures. Nice car, but not worth $40k to $45k to me in my opinion. To you or others it might be. Thats cool.

    In Austrailia they make a $45k version of the GTO, extra features, but still that would not be worth it to me either. To much $$
  • I drove a V6 and really liked it. They now have the tourquey engine from my Explorer. Felt very fast in the Mustang, as fast as some of the older V8 Automatics. I have heard that with a manual, V6s are getting to 60 in about 7 seconds flat. That's not bad for $19k.

    Hey, there was a V6 in the original Mustang. Why can't they offer one now?
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    I don't think Motor Trend tested a 2005 GTO yet, only the 2004 model which had 50 less horse. I betcha the stock GTO is almost as fast as the Vortch GT with 410hp. With 1 or 2 tenths, close.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    The V6 Stang is quite fast at nearly 6.9 seconds. It almost makes the same horse as the older V8 ones in the 215 to 225 range and has 5 spd auto. But the problem is that it's crude and unrefined and loud when you Stomp on it. My brother had an explorer with that engine, it was ok for power/drivability, but not refined at all. Far from it.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    Good choice, always beware a first year car, esp. american, LOL! Though the parts in the 2005 stang are proven in a way, chassis, tranny is partially from Lincoln LS. Time will tell. Hopefully it holds together well.

    CR doesn't have any data on GTO for reliability, not enough of them, LOL!
  • oldboboldbob Posts: 41
    I think it was am in-line six.
  • No problem. If he's from around here He'll know where i'm talking about.The main one is twiggs county or recently rename Macon dragway, It's one of those out-of-the-way place. Ocationally you'll find homegrown celebs. there, they let there hair down and not be bothered by autogragh seekers. Another is the Silverdollar Raceway in Renolds. If you want to do some betting you can go to Eatonton, or Jackson, both low rent waaaay out in the woods. Tell them to come on down and have some fun.
  • You're right, it bet it was!
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    It was a 200 cubic inch in-lline 6 cylinder rated at only Pre SAE 1972 120 horse, LOL! By today's standards about 100 horse.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 6,894
    Although I think this is getting a bit silly since the GTO and the '05 Mustang GT's straight line performance is almost identical, MT did test the '05 GTO and the '05 Mustang GT.

    Their results....

    GTO--0-60 in 5.0 secs, 1/4 in 13.3 secs
    '05 Mustang GT--0-60 in 5.1 secs, 1/4 in 13.5 secs

    '04 GTO was tested by MT as follows....0-60 in 5.5 secs, 1/4 in 13.9 secs

    Once again, regarding the solid rear of the Mustang in Shelby GT500....as stated before, Ford did such a good job with it in the '05 Mustang, they saw no need to change it to a more expensive and more complicated IRS set-up. Matter of fact, there was no gain in handling by using an IRS. That's just good engineering.

    Carry on the debates if you must......
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    Graphicguy writes.......
    Once again, regarding the solid rear of the Mustang in Shelby GT500....as stated before, Ford did such a good job with it in the '05 Mustang, they saw no need to change it to a more expensive and more complicated IRS set-up. Matter of fact, there was no gain in handling by using an IRS. That's just good engineering.......

    No, it was cost cutting on the Mustang to not use an IRS, as per the 38 yr old Hau Thai-Tang, head engineer of the 2005 Mustang program...
    The Mustang almost wasn't foaled over the issue of rear suspension. "We couldn't make a profitable business case" because the complex independent rear suspension cost too much, Thai-Tang says. The team didn't want to return to a so-called solid or live rear axle, but, "It was a hard choice we knew we had to make. (CEO) Bill Ford is a Mustang fan, but he didn't cut us any slack" on profit margins.

    END OF STORY on the Rear. NO more debates. This proves it was cost cutting plain and simple, Like I have been trying to tell you. Here it is. . His team wanted to usre IRS but wasnt' allowed to do to $$ LOL!
  • An excellent article by Edmunds praising the Mustang, past and present. It also has some good info about some of GM's mistakes and Ford's current relationship with Carroll Shelby. It even pokes a few jabs at the GTO. Needless to say I enjoyed it :)

    article
Sign In or Register to comment.