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

1131416181963

Comments

  • ClairesClaires Chicago areaPosts: 979
    A number of posts were deleted this morning as a few people were shouting and/or attacking each other.

    Stay on topic and stay civil or you will be removed from the Forums.

    MODERATOR
    Need help getting around? claires@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • corsicachevycorsicachevy Posts: 316
    Sensai - When you say "race", what do you mean? I can't imagine a reputable organization actually putting these cars on the same track, like a Willow Springs or Road America, at the same time and actually racing. That would be completely insane without fitting the cars with full roll cages and multipoint harnesses. Most orgainizations don't have the budget to make that sort of investment for a one-off event.

    I doubt it will happen.

    If it did, the 05 GTO would beat an 05 Mustang GT. That really isn't debatable. Even so, I would much prefer to OWN an 05 Mustang - blue with white stripes and Bullit wheels, please.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    Actually, that is debatable. If I recall, the Mustang handles better than the GTO, and having a near 50/50 (51/49) weight distribution has to count for something. Keep in mind that the GT rides on 235/55 flexi-wall 17's whereas the GTO is on low profile(245/45, I think) 18's, and the GTO barely out slaloms the GT. Given a track with enough tight curves, the GTO would lose. Or, even better, put the GT on some 245/45's.
  • sensaisensai Posts: 129
    I believe they race the cars one at a time, but on the same track with the same driver, and compare the results from that. I am not sure though until they post more information about it.

    As far as which handles better, there is still not enough evidence to prove either one. The Mustang does seem to pull better slalom/skidpad numbers, at least against the 17" tire equipped GTO (those tires are hardly performance tires), although those measurements are hardly an indicated of true handling. Interestingly I was reading a R&T over the weekend and the GTO pulled a better number on their figure 8 test, which looked to be a small tightly wound track where I would of though the lighter Mustang would have had the advantage. Of course, the GTO is still way faster, has better breaks, better interior, and is much more solidly built.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    Of course, the GTO is still way faster, has better breaks, better interior, and is much more solidly built.

    Those last to points are highly subjective. The Mustang is very solid and whether or not an interior is better is totally up to individual taste.
  • 442man442man Posts: 210
    The Mustang edged out the GTO in Handling. Mustang and GTO weight distrubution is almost identical! Mustang was 52.5/47.5 and the GTO was 53.8/46.2. GTO has P245/45-17 inch from the factory with 18 inch Optional. All the tests have been with 17" on GTO.

    True you could put the GT on a better tire, but the same could be said for the GTO too, test it with it's optional 18 inchers.

    As for the interiors, Consumer Reports in their latest June review of the Mustang Convertible said the interior feels cheap. Much of the interior is covered in thin, hard plastic that has a cheap feel and look. As per CR magazine. New Mustang is much nicer then previous generations interior. It's all subjective.
  • corsicachevycorsicachevy Posts: 316
    This comparison reminds me of the Ford GT vs 911 GT3 comparison. The GT3 sliced through the twisties faster than the GT, but corner exit acceleration and straight line speed handed the overall advantage to the GT. I see the GTO vs GT comparison in a similar light.

    I have driven an 05 Mustang V6 and have to wonder if Consumer Reports even drove the car. Cheap interior? To me, the interior is solidly above average.
  • 442man442man Posts: 210
    I disagree with CR on the Mustang interior too, I thought it was pretty decent myself. Consumer Reports is almost always biased against American cars, so it was no surprise what they wrote. They always praise the foreign, especially the Japanese cars. Of course they rated the Solara convertible over the Mustang V6 convertible.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,257
    I don't consider CR a credible source for testing cars. It's widely known that they put more emphasis on cup holders than performance. Plus, they've shown time and again, their obvious bias towards Toyota and Honda.

    While I've not spent time in the standard interior of the Mustang, the Iterior Upgrade Package, and all the aluminum is, to me, stunningly good. I just returned from my Mustang's first road trip. The car felt like it was built from a solid piece of steel.

    Performance? I've posted some track numbers here (amatuer ran a 13.6 1/4) as well as the numbers from independent tests from the trade rags. In short, there isn't enough difference in performance between the GTO and the Mustang GT to claim one is substantiall faster than the other. GTO's weight is probably the biggest culprit.
  • 442man442man Posts: 210
    I agree that CR is biased, they love Honda & toyota. I think CR only tested the standard interior of the Mustang?

    As for Performance, the GTO is faster then GT, maybe not by much, but it is. GTO 13.3 1/4 mile vs GT 13.8 1/4 mile in January Car & Driver. Half a second faster.

    I have seen amatuer's run as FAST as 13.1 1/4 miles on Stock GTO's including the stock BF goodrich tires. The avg seems to be 13.1 to 13.4 if you know how to drive.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,257
    I've not seen those numbers. I saw numbers that generally say the GTO is faster 0-60 by about 1/10th sec and 2/10ths in the 1/4. That's nearly identical.

    Fastest amatuer track time I saw was 13.8 secs in the 1/4 for the GTO and 13.6 secs for the Mustang (posted a video of the run between the Mustang and a highly modded 10 sec 'Cuda. GTO and Mustang were bone stock....including tires.

    Those results will vary widely, though given the different experience levels of their respective drivers and track conditions.
  • 442man442man Posts: 210
    Car and driver January 2005 issue has GTO as HALF second faster then Mustang. 13.3 vs 13.8 Thats a noticeable difference! At the closest track to me I have seen Stock GTO run a 13.1, most seem to be closer to 13.3 - 13.4. GM's own advertising/brochure has GTO at 13.0 Automatic and 13.1 manual. Which is possible depening on conditions driver!
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,257
    Guess I'm looking at different numbers. I don't have the issues in front of me, but I looked at the specs from MT (in the back where they post all their test highlights). The last Mustang GT and GTO tests I saw from C&D or R&T, had them about a tenth or two apart.

    When I was shopping, I had the GTO brochure and saw what GM said the car would do. But, I consider them biased (since they make the car) and discounted what they posted. I've yet to see a GTO run a 13.1 stock (also have yet to see a Mustang GT run 13.5 stock...which is what the trade rags were getting). I did see video of the Mustang GT run the 13.6, though.

    In either case, both would be driver dependent they are so close.
  • benderofbowsbenderofbows Posts: 544
    I used to download a whole lot of drag strip and street race videos from Kazaa and Lime Wire; many of them were pretty good.

    We've seen a GT run 13.6;

    Can anybody find a video of the GTO running a half-second better (13.1)?

    Or, perhaps even a couple good videos of GT vs. GTO? It has to have happened by now!
  • 442man442man Posts: 210
    ......The last Mustang GT and GTO tests I saw from C&D or R&T, had them about a tenth or two apart.... ...

    No, both Car&Driver and Motor Trend got the 2005 GTO to run a 13.3 1/4 mile. That was FIVE tenths or HALF second faster then Mustang GT which was rated at 13.8 in car and Driver.
  • 442man442man Posts: 210
    The 4 spd Automatic Tranny GTO is faster 0-60 and 1/4 mile by one tenth of a second over the 6spd manual. Both transmissions share the same 3.46 rear axle gear.

    Where as in the Mustang I believe the 5spd manual is faster, it has 3.55 axle, Automatic is 3.31 axle. Can't get 3.55 axle with automatic.
  • 442man442man Posts: 210
    The Holden Monaro was originally introduced in 1968 and was immediately lauded as the ultimate high-performance coupe. It was the first all-Australian sports coupe of its type.

    Strong public sentiment led Holden officials to bring back the Monaro name for its all-new 2001 coupe.

    Monaro became an instant classic when it was released in Australia last October and has become the most high profile, sought-after car on Australian roads today.
  • 442man442man Posts: 210
    13.186 @ 106.34 mph, Cecil county Dragway in Maryland. Stock 2005 GTO. No mods. Stock tires. No weight removed from car.
  • buddhabmanbuddhabman Posts: 252
    It is gonna be great racing once GM gets the GTO program going in the GT TRANS-AM series. Then we will see. If you get a chance to see the Monaro's run V8 Supercars of Australia, the Ford Stang GT people might not be so confident. :P
  • 442man442man Posts: 210
    Someone might have posted this a while back....

    http://www.jdpower.com/awards/industry/winners.asp?StudyID=909

    GTO was named as MOST APPEALING SPORTY CAR by JD power

    2004 Automotive Performance, Execution and Layout (APEAL) Study Summary

    The 2004 APEAL Study is based on responses from 102,951 new-vehicle owners who were surveyed during the first 90 days of ownership. The study, now in its ninth year, is based on eight categories of vehicle performance and design: engine/transmission; ride, handling and braking; comfort/convenience; seats; cockpit/instrument panel; heating, ventilation and cooling; sound system; and styling/exterior.
  • stang22stang22 Posts: 36
    JD powers love imports,and they really need glasses or have laser surgery,because the new gto, amoung forums members all over the net,including myself,is possibly the homliest so-called muscle car I have ever seen!! An IMPORT body with a Cran-am front end!! The '05 Mustang gt blows away the gto in all ways!!! Wait,then comes the new Shelby Mustang---Forget about it!!! Game over!!!
  • 442man442man Posts: 210
    I would have to say the 1974 to 1978 Mustang 2 based on the Pinto chassis was the homliest so-called muscle car. Esp the 1977 and 1978 Cobra. Best engine was only 139 horsepower 302 V8 in those years and that was Cobra
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    But how powerful was the competition?
  • sensaisensai Posts: 129
    Sorry, but looks are subjective, and the Mustang is starting to look uglier every day to me. In every other category - performance, build quality, ride quality, comfort, etc. - the GTO blows away the Mustang. I wish you Mustang guys would admit the GTO cost more because it is a better car. The Shelby may be a better car than the GTO (let's wait until a production car is out to determine that), which is why it will also cost more.
  • 442man442man Posts: 210
    I agree, the GTO is more livable car, more comfortable.luxury like etc. The Shelby should be a faster car, better performer then GTO but as you said will cost $5k to $10k more and is still on the same $19k Mustang V6 chassis and will still inherit the same build quality etc. I would never pay $40k to $50k for a Mustang, but to each their own. I would never pay $40k to $50k for GTO either. Can't wait to see a road test of Shelby/GT500, should be nice.
  • 442man442man Posts: 210
    what about the lights in the grille of the V8 GT Mustang? I have heard there are some problems with legal issues in some states. Some people getting tickets. Same thing happened back in 1967 or 1968 with the Shelby, the lights in the grille were too far together and they had to be spaced out further? I know some states /towns can't have lights in the grille unless they are parking or signal lights.

    Personally I think it looks better on the V6 Stang with NO lights in the grille, but just my opinion. But I would be curious to see the laws on that.
  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    50,000 addditional units year over year is significant. I'd have to call that a success. I'm glad we finally got that straightened out.
  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    The best Ford performance cars from the past, ie. Cobra, GT40, and I don't know about the new GT, were foreign bodies with wonderful Ford engines in them. There were also cars like the Pantera which were actual foreign cars but with wonderful Ford engines. With the '05 Mustang all you got is an old looking Mustang. The new GTO could be the sleekest muscle car of all time. You better hope the Zeta platform is really cancelled.
  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    What? The Mustang beat out the Mini Cooper! Stop the presses.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    To clarify - the lights in the grille of the new Mustang GT are foglights and are just to the inside of the headlight assembly. The lights in the grille of the old '67 Shelby's which had a problem from a legal standpoint were only about a foot apart, and they were very bright driving lights. When they were moved further out close to the headlight (similar to the location on the '05s), they were fine.

    I don't know about any reported incidents involving tickets. Sounds like a web rumor to me. I'm sure it's possible; I'm sure if I search long enough I could find reported incidents of people getting tickets for the factory exhaust being too loud. If I were to receive such ticket, I would assert that such law was specifically regarding driving lights added by on owner, not standard equipment foglights from the manufacturer. I wonder how many Harley's have exhaust systems which violate noise ordinances? If the worry about foglight placement would keep someone out of a GT, they probably have no business being in the car in the first place.
This discussion has been closed.