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

1111214161794

Comments

  • You have a very good point. For any good street racer (car that is ) an automatic trans is really the way to go. In addition to your other good points you have to consider that an A/T is less likely to spin costing you time, will not miss a shift if working properly, and you don't have a complete power loss through the drive train every time you change gears.
  • If your point about the new GTO being a real GTO is true then we must assume that the past resurrection of the name chevy NOVA is also it's predisesors equal. Right? Would the "JUDGE" see that as justice?
  • hammen2hammen2 Posts: 1,313
    ...a 1970 (Grampa's car, it was pre-dented, had it through most of college - it was just like the one Eddie Murphy drove in "Beverly Hills Cop"). IIRC it was RWD. The '87 my Dad wanted me to buy when the tranny dropped on my '70 was a FWD econobox. Not to mention the size difference in the cars.

    I don't know why people have such a cow about the GTO not being "real". It is true to the GTO name, in being a RWD performance coupe that resembles other vehicles in the Pontiac lineup at the time. Charger fans have more to gripe about, with the resurrected vehicle being a sedan. Of course, the Grand Prix has offered a sedan since 1990, and it's been sedan-only since the 2004 redesign.

    If the car was FWD and/or had maybe 240 hp, I'd agree with you and say it's not a "REAL" GTO. This is just getting silly.
  • To be fair the differince between the new GTO and the blast from the past is not as bad as the Nova. But what people are saying is that there really is a differance. Trust me I'm not saying the new GTO is not real, it's actually a real kick in the pants to drive. ANY!!! car with that much power is a real blast. I'm just glad to see American producers finally waking up and smell the coffee.
    By the way, I also meen no disrespect to the original chevyII Nova. I grew up in the back seat of a '70 4 door Nova w/307. Blue bottom w/white top to be exact. My 2nd car was a '71 Nova with a much fun 427 up front. It also had a predator carb. as well. It handled like a dump truck but man it was fast in the staights.
  • Let me understand this. You're making a comparison of the old vs.new GTO as it relates to the old Nova vs. the mid 80's japanese front wheel drive Nova??? Help me out here.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,100
    I suppose you can make the IRS vs solid rear an issue if you want. I saw the C&D quote when they said they OCCASIONALLY got the Mustangs rear end to step our in rough corners. But, I've never experienced that. The rest of the media have made no mention of any such behavior. They've all lauded the work Ford has done with the solid rear. Like the OHV V8, if it's done well, then there's absolutely wrong with building upon older, yet tried and true technology.

    One of the first things that struck me about the Mustang GT when I drove it was how well it rode....even over bumpy surfaces.

    Taken as a whole (which is what you need to do), the Mustang does handle and ride quite well. It certainly handled better than the GTO. But, that's also a function of the added weight the GTO is carrying around (and another reason that the performance numbers between the GTO vs the Mustang GT are so close to be insignificant).

    IRS added complexity and weight doesn't translate into better handling or ride quality, by any stretch, when comparing these two.

    I won't get into the automatic vs manual trannys. I prefer mine to have manual trannys. That's a personal preference, though. The shifter/clutch in the Mustang are one of the better ones I've ever used (the best being the Mazda RX8). The Mustang's shifter/clutch action is certainly smoother, more positive than what I experienced during my GTO test drives.....yet another reason I chose the Mustang over the GTO.

    I've yet to see any independent tests done on a GTO with an automatic. I can't say that I'd consider the performance figures GM puts out to be unbiased.

    My interest in the video posted was more about that 'cuda running a 10 sec 1/4. That was wicked. But, a bone stock (including stock M&S tires) Mustang GT running a 13.69 sec 1/4 isn't anything to sneeze at, either. Plus, the Mustang owner could drive it home right from the track. I'm sure that the 'cuda would not be a good daily driver (probably trailered to the track).
  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    Oh yeah! Now that's what I call a musclecar. And check out those lines.

    And pretty good times considering the weight it was dragging around.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    http://www.gtoalley.com/74gto.html

    Here is the 1974 GTO, rebadged Pontiac Ventura, based on the Chevy Nova. 250 horsepower 350 V8, 5.7L. 0-60 was was 9.4 seconds, LOL! SLOWEST production GTO ever made.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    I NEVER drove the manual Mustang or GTO so I can't comment, I drove both Automatic Stang and GTO. I prefer Automatic only. Automatic GTO had a better shifting feel then Mustangs automatic to me. Pontiac has the automatic GTO being a hair faster then manual, both 0-60 and 1/4 mile times.

    In my test drives, the GTO road more like a Mercedes, more luxurious then Mustang. Smoother/better. In my opinion. However the new mustang road MUCH NICER Then the 1999 to 2004 generation it replaced based on the old FOx 1978 chassis. Extra wheelbase helps, old one was only 101 inches and new Stang 107?

    That was a WILD video of the Cuda running 10 secondds. I have seen mid 1980's Grand Nationals running similar times. I'm sure that was not a streetable car or fun to drive on regular streets, LOL! Nice anyway.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    dieselone writes.......If the solid axle really helped Ford keep the car under a certain price and hasn't hampered performance by much, which seems to be the case, it's not a problem. It's selling lot hot cakes, so Ford made the right decision, they need to make money. Something GM has forgotten how to do. ......

    Ford isn't doing too much better then GM, they are losing $$ and market share as a whole too. Their stocks are in the flusher too.
  • 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: 7,100
    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: 5,641
    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.
This discussion has been closed.