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

2456763

Comments

  • sensaisensai Posts: 129
    Well I own an 04 GTO. Just sold a 99 Cobra two weeks ago. Have ordered a 06 GT500.
    I drive and love muscle cars. An 05 Mustang GT is NOT a muscle car....you cannot compare a GTO to a Mustang. A GTO rides like a Volvo....and just kills a 05 Mustang GT in performance in all categories......not even fair to the Mustang to compare the two cars.The 04 Goat and the GenIII LS1 loves the bolt ons and they are plentiful......I have mine over SAE 500HP right now....putting 400+ to the rear wheels....and yet it rides so beautiful and comfortable...but with a real mean side to it:) Yes...I have been in a few 05 Mustangs....cheaply built I must say...get in the GTO....leather and quality......plus you cannot swing a dead cat without hitting a Mustang......like VW's in Mexico City.....my GTO...turns heads and lots of thumbs up......I have to clean the nose prints off of the glass after a day at the store......
    SgtGeek
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    I'm gonna have to call BS. If I recall correctly, there won't be an '06 GT500. That car isn't slated to arrive until the '07 model year. And I don't know where you've been for the last 40 years, but bolt-ons aren't exactly scarce for Mustangs, either.

    I'm also quite certain that most folks will agree that it is not too common to spot an '05 Mustang yet, and the same will probably hold true a few months from now. So the only dead cats getting slung is the ones dealers are slinging into the magic potion to try to get people to buy GTOs. :P And the GTO doesn't kill the Mustang GT in all performance categories. The Mustang has a higher lateral G and C&D tested it to run almost 2MPH faster than the GTO in the lane change maneuver.

    And if you feel so negative toward the Mustang, why would you order an "06 GT500?"
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    Wow! Contradicting yourself in the same post!
    QUOTE:

    Every single thread I have seen about an 04 GTO going against and 05 GT has the 04 GTO winning.

    then:

    Only real comparison is the 04 GTO to the 05 GT and in most cases the GTO wins.

    Went from every single time winning to "most cases" winning.
  • sensaisensai Posts: 129
    Sad, but the Mustang was introduced as a sporty Falcon in 64, and is still way behind in refinement today,,,,,,but I understand the Brainwashed Ford People,,,,its tough ,,,,,,,,, :P
  • jae5jae5 Posts: 1,205
    As a reply to this post #19 and the 180mph. Got to call the B.S. police for this one. C'mon gunit, 180? Just because it has the LS2 doesn't mean it'll hit 180mph.

    I think it's funny how many are pulling that Motor Trend GTO versus Mercedes article out. It just reminids me of the same article 2 - 3 years ago when they ran the "Two Mercs - MERCury Marauder vs. MERCedes Benz S-Class" Basically the same conclusion: you can two Marauders for one S-Class and get the same room, comfort, style (4-dr, black, V8) but the Marauder sounded better. So in using similar attributes and reasoning to the GTO - Mercedes, the Maurader was at least comparable if not better than the Mercedes? Or what about the original Pontiac GTO vs Ferrari GTO. Basically the same thing, they where compared on performance, fit/form/function and price attributes. So are you saying for that article, since the Pontiac was cheaper in $$, their GTO was BETTER than the Ferrari? Get real. :P

    IMO this GTO comes no where close to a Mercedes, except that hatchback thing. Also, I really don't think those in the market for a Mercedes are cross-shopping a Pontiac.
  • sensaisensai Posts: 129
    you need to go racing some more then.

    A GTO has a much better hp/lb ratio in the 05 model year than the mustang. The 04 is closer and will probobly be a drivers race. I own niether but I have seen them BOTH (and driven them) at the track and the fact is the GTO will kill the stang unless the driver is an idiot.

    The GTO is lightyears ahead of the stang in refinement and fit and finish. The price difference isn't that great either. Comparing MRSP off of web pages a "premium"mustang GT goes for roughly 29k and the GTO 33k simularly equipped.

    The only savior for the interior of the stang is the upgrade package wich is only slightly less ugly than the plain one. Looks are subjective. I don't think the GTO is ugly it's just plain. The stang is UGLY. Way to be original ford copy a years old design.

    All of that said Ford did one thing and did it well. They made a car that would appeal to the masses. So if performance is what GM wanted out of the GTO they beat the mustang. If massive profits were the case then they screwed up.

    I seriously doubt GM expected to turn record profits on GTO's. They said up front that the car was limited to 3 years and only a few would be exported.
  • jae5jae5 Posts: 1,205
    Graphic,

    In terms of the gas, there's a problem with some Mustangs where owners have tons of trouble putting gas in the tank. Something that has to do with the fuel shut-off - keeps causing the pump to shut off. Many have to keep clicking the pump handle during fill-up, it's an intermittent problem. I think there's a TSB for it; check the Mustang problems board or blueovalnews.
  • jae5jae5 Posts: 1,205
    Sensai,

    Hate to be a nag but what's going on here? Are you actually reading your posts are are you just spouting stuff?.

    From post 32 you stated:
    Well I own an 04 GTO. Just sold a 99 Cobra two weeks ago. Have ordered a 06 GT500...The 04 Goat and the GenIII LS1 loves the bolt ons and they are plentiful......I have mine over SAE 500HP right now....putting 400+ to

    Now you state:

    ...I own niether but I have seen them BOTH (and driven them) at the track...

    Am I wrong or are you contradicting yourself agree?! :confuse: Do you or do you not have a vehicle? Am I missing something here? Also, again, any chance of posting that dyno sheet or putting a link on for those HP numbers and mods performed?

    Yes, GM was only going to export 18K per year for three years, but this years' production was reduced to 12K. What was that for, increased exclusivity? Guess GM didn't want to take away sales of the CLK AMGs and the regular 6-series and M6, LOL!

    Oh man, you guys are cracking me up :P
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    This sensai guy is just here to give us a hard time. He can't possibly be serious in what he is saying. Just take it all in as good fun. :)
  • You have to excuse Graphic Guy. He's lost in Mustang heaven. He has obviously lost touch with reality, and the facts. He loves his car and thats a good thing.
  • The first time I took my stock 04 GTO to the track was Dec 10. I ran a best of 14.1 with a terrible time trying to figure out how to launch the car without spinning 2/3 of the way thru first gear.

    Went again on Dec 23. There were 3 05 Mustang GT's there. I ran a new best of 13.9@102, still having traction problems in 1st and 2nd. The 05 GT's were running mid to high 14's. Towards the end of the night I did see one of them run a 14.1. The track was not busy and we were all getting at least 6 runs in, even with cool downs.

    I did get one run against an 05 GT and he ran a 14.9 to my 14.0. We both were in the 2.2 60' category, me a 2.288 and the 05 GT a 2.274. By the 1000ft mark, I was in the lead by 3/10ths. The times show that basically I slowly pulled on the Mustang. He was in the faster lane where I managed my 13.9 later that night.

    Now with my BFG Drag Radials in 275/35, I'm hoping to get low to mid 13's. Waiting to get rid of a bit of fender rubbing before heading out.

    Just a bit of real world experience for those that asked.

    Bob
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,147
    Has this gotten heated.

    Stand by my posts. On the street, GTO vs Mustang GT, it's a driver's race. On the track, GTO will pull on the Mustang GT above about 125-130 MPH. Tires, skill levels, etc. will all be in the mix.

    Bob....thanks for your personal experience. As you say, hooking up is where the 1/4 is won or lost between these two cars. They will be separated by a few tenths given good launches on both sides of the tree. Only exception, I've seen Mustangs run mid 13s around here 13.5-13.7. I've seen GTOs run within a tenth or two...the two I saw ran a 13.4 ('05) and another run a 13.6 ('04). To me, that difference is insignificant and certainly couldn't/shouldn't be duplicated on the street. Little to no experience will probably produce 14s in either the GTO or the Mustang. Keep at it. Those times will drop.

    jae...didn't know that about the gas tank. I've never had that issue.

    As far as sensai, I don't take him seriously. Clearly, he's not really sure what he owns, drives or has driven.

    That's why I'm sad to see the GTO going away......these types of debates will cease.

    Will be away for a day or so.

    Carry on and play nice with each other.
  • sensaisensai Posts: 129
    Oops, didn't realize direct links on Edmunds embed user names, so most of those posts are not mine.

    But I see one thing has not changed, and that is graphicguy is still going with his claim the GTO will not pull a Mustang until 125mph. Again, if one car traps 108 (standard 05 GTO), and one car traps 103 (standard 05 Mustang), what does that tell you? It means the GTO is running away from the Mustang well before 100mph. Keep believing your Mustang will keep up, cause it won't.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    jae5, Read the link below..... Yes the GTO will do nearly 180mph

    http://www.whatcar.co.uk/News_Article.asp?NA_ID=212649

    The Vauxhall Monaro VXR with the same 400hp 6 liter engine as our GTO does 180mph top speed. I suppose you will call BS on that too? Right? LOL! Owned!

    After reading that Motor Trend article the $35k GTO did VERY WELL against the $70k AMG Benz. Benz was better, but for twice the price it should be! 1 of friends with a BMW traded it in on his 2005 GTO. There you go! Why it may not be common, it does occur!
  • Wait until the supercharged Saleens and the Shelbys start showing up at the strip.
  • hammen2hammen2 Posts: 1,313
    ...the supercharged GTO's are ALREADY at the strip.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    With no powertrain warranty.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    The trunk is bigger on the Mustang however how much does the Optional Shaker stereo intrude into it? How much space do you lose? You do lose some from what C&D said. The one I drove did NOT have the shaker. In my case the backseat was more important for the car seat, adults etc. The Holden in Austrailia has a bigger trunk, gas tank is in a different location. Oh well.
  • hammen2hammen2 Posts: 1,313
    ...most Cobras, Saleen, and Roush Mustangs I have seen are not "stock" either and would probably face the same warranty issues with aftermarket products.

    http://www.magnacharger.com/magnusonmoss.htm

    I believe Magnuson will also sell you a powertrain warranty... if you can afford the supercharger, you can afford the warranty. If you want to play the game, you had better be prepared to pay the price. Have y'all seen the video of the Z06 with the incorrectly-installed nitrous system? Started on fire at the dragstrip... toast.

    --Robert
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    The AMG is nice no doubt! In my opinion/experience after driving bot the Stang and my GTO, the GTO feels more like a luxury car, more comfortable to drive for longer distances from what I experienced. It slightly feels like poor mans' BMW/mercedes, LOL! I can see why Motor Trend compared it to AMG. I had a 528 and this GTO comes close to it and for much less $$ then a 530 would get today. Not to mention that the GTO would blow the doors off the 528 or 530. I know but I don't have the SNOB appeal of the BMW, LOL! I don't need that. For me the GTO gets the job done.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    Cobras, Saleens, and Roush Mustangs all have a full factory warranty w/ their supercharged engines. The point the other poster was making was that when the STOCK supercharged Mustangs start hitting the tracks, it'll be a much different story compared to STOCK GTOs.

    When you get into modding, it all comes down to who wants to spend the most money. Anything that can be done to a GTO, could also be done to a Mustang.

    I'm standing by for Whipple's new supercharger kit for the '05 Mustang GT. Yeah, I could get a less expensive setup, but I want power from idle to redline. The centrifugal units don't provide as much low end power as the Roots/screw type superchargers.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    tayl0rd writes........When you get into modding, it all comes down to who wants to spend the most money. Anything that can be done to a GTO, could also be done to a Mustang. .....

    True, you are 100% right but remember the GTO already has the advantage of being the faster car stock, 13.3 vs 13.8 in C&D 1/4 mile times. You are going to have to mod the Mustang just to beat a Stock GTO. I'd rather have the faster stock car and mod that. More potential.

    Although isn't Ford coming out with a 450hp version of Mustang GT500 next year? That will be nice! But close to $40k.
  • tm2flitm2fli Posts: 2
    You 05 GT lovers are on crack if the acceleration between the two cars is minimal. We own a 05 GTO and could have bought a 05 GT. I'm sorry the interior alone in the GT was enough to turn me off not to mention being a MUCH slower car. I did like the looks of the 05 GT but it's starting to grow ugly on me now that the retro look isn't so new to me anymore. We have ran our GTO at the track and ran 12.83 at 108mph stock. With a couple mods 12.60 at 110mph. If you call a high 13 sec car and a high 12 second car minimal in difference, then your smoking crack. The 05 GTO's you see running mid 13's are not driving the car to it's full potential, it's a tricky car to launch but can get off the line hard with the right launch technique.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    Why do you guys keep talking about modding? You're on crack if you don't think a Mustang can be modded to run just as fast and faster than a modded GTO. It all depends on the mods. Some things a Mustang will respond better to, and some things a GTO will respond better to. I think it's pretty much known that a Mustang without internal mods responds better to forced induction due to it having a lower compression ratio than LS* engines.

    Stock to stock, of course the '05 GTO is a bit faster. But, as has already been proven to GM, HP doesn't always sell cars. The GTO will soon take its place alongside the F-body and the Dodo bird. ;)
  • Owning either one of these cars is (at least to most people) very enjoyable for many more reasons than the pursuit of low quarter-mile times in a straight line at the drag strip. A GTO may be faster there, but modified GT's built by Ford Racing placed 1-2 at the Grand American Cup Road Race at Daytona beating out stiff, established competition such as similarly race-prepped Grand Sport class Porsche 996s, 350Zs, Caddy CTS-Vs, a Firebird, and BMW M3s. That's an impressive feat, requiring much more than a fast quarter-mile time.

    However, the vast majority of GTOs or Mustangs sold won't see much modification or get closer to a race track than the parking lot. When driving a car on the street, one second out of thirteen or even ten miles per hour faster than a hundred just don't seem to matter as much as the sheer enjoyment of the experience. How the car drives overall, and the package you get for the amount of money you have spent. Here is where the Mustang shines; this is why more magazine editors and, most importantly, eager buyers have chosen the Ford.
  • jae5jae5 Posts: 1,205
    Um, yes, still say the GTO hitting 180 is BS, which is what you stated. The Vauxhall Monaro VXR is not a stock GTO, it's not even a stock Monaro! Does mention this the the HIGH-PERF version of the Vauxhall. Yup, it uses the LS2 but it also has other things added, like body mods, tranny, suspension, gearing, rear wing and the like. But again, and my point is made, just because it uses the LS2 doesn't mean the GTO is going to hit 180mph. And using your rationale, I should be able to put th Ford GTs 5.4SC in a Mustang and hit 200 right? Until I see a time slip of one hitting 180, I'm going to keep saying a GTO, as is now, hitting 180 is BS.

    Keep LOL, point is still made. Oh, and this is something I pulled from the site that talked about the stock VXR:

    Road Test Quick Verdict:
    For

    Monaro backs up those muscular looks with a thunderous 5.7-litre V8 powerplant. Handling is reasonable and there’s plenty of standard equipment. Space is decent for four.

    Against
    You’ll be on first-name terms with local petrol station workers. Not as fast as it could be. Poor trim quality.

    On the road Ownership In the cabin
    Performance
    Long gearing blunts outright pace

    Buying & owning
    Reasonable price but costly to run

    Behind the wheel
    Plenty of space and adjustment, but gloomy

    Ride & handling
    Slow steering; decent body control

    Quality & reliability
    Quality not befitting a £28k car

    Space & practicality
    Plenty for four, plus luggage

    Refinement
    Great engine note is main noise

    Safety & security
    Well sorted on both counts

    Equipment
    Fans of buttons will love it

    IF you're going to tell it, tell the whole story please ;) Again, not my words, straight from the article. This is great!!
  • jae5jae5 Posts: 1,205
    There’s been a lot of back and forth between these two vehicles, which is good. There hasn't been anything like this since the Ford Mustang-Chevy Camaro debates. What is bad, however, is that it seems the majority of GTO owners are more subjective than objective, have selective memory (the forget-me-nots) and many times contradictory. The following are some points made by many of you and my thoughts – I created two posts because they’re long. Before reading, as always, not trying to offend anyone, it's all good, but it's just things I've been seeing and reading:

    1. 400hp and IRS vs only 300hp, old-tech, cheap solid rear axle: True the GTO has 400 on premium to the Mustangs’ 300 on regular, but in everyday driving, as many of you state you do, what’s the difference? Yes, it great to have that power when you need it, but do you need it ALL THE TIME!! If you’re like me, yes because I’m greedy and more hp is never enough hp, but in all truth, it’s a crap shoot. And with fuel the way it is, give me 300 on regular any day of the week!! In terms of the solid rear axle, Ford did a pretty good job on it, moving the third link to the top of the center instead of off to on side as is the usual case (like on the non-posi GMs back when), put in a panhard bar and they got rid of that quadra-shock mess. The very slight side-side may be attributed to the movement / bushings in the third link, not making excuses just a thought. And yes it is more cost effective and cheaper $$-wise to do a solid vs. irs. But to say a solid axle is cheap in terms of build quality, and giving it an air of inferiority is not accurate. Hell, the old VW Beetle had irs, so did the Corvair. Are you saying just because those, and this current GTO, have irs it automatically makes them better to a solid-rear axle car? I’d like to see your tire bill if the caster/camber are off on the rear, nasty!

    2. Engines: In terms of the old-tech statements, can’t the claim be made that the Mustang’s drivetrain is “newer” than the GTOs? Meaning, the Mustang uses OHC and a 5spd auto while GTO uses an “old” 4spd and yester-tech pushrod engine. Though the LS2 is new, it still uses pushrod technology while the Mustang uses supposedly newer OHC configuration, three-valve heads, and IIRC, variable valve timing. (I state supposedly newer because many think that OHC technology is new, it’s not – it’s actually older than the modern OHV design.) And wasn’t one of GM statements about the GEN III engine family in using pushrods was that they could get the performance, reliability, size and manufacturability criteria from the layout while being cost-effective? So in short, they met their targets while being cheaper $$-wise (same can be said of 3800 series 3, and series 2 for that matter – loved it in the GTP Coupe). Now, using the subjective reasoning, comparison and thoughts from above referring to rear ends, this must mean that the LS1, 6, & 2 are cheap in not only $$ but build quality as well, correct? How is GM’s statement different in meaning than Ford’s? Same goes for the tranny: since Ford uses a 5spd and GM is still using the 4spd, the Ford automatically has Holden/Pontiac beat right? Five’s automatically better quality than four right, unless it’s Ford with the 5 and GM with the 4?

    3. Transmission: There was mention that the GM tranny has been in production for a long time but the Ford 5spd is new, and thus there may be problems with it. This again shows subjective thoughts of the majority of the posters. What, just because the 5spd is in a new application means it’s somehow inferior to GM’s hydramatic? Or is it because it’s in the Mustang it’ll have problems? This isn’t the first Ford 5spd. Also, if the GTO’s “true” competitors are the Mercedes, BMW and the like, the competition are at 5- and moving up to 6- and 7-spd autos. This is a strike against the GTO. And what about the GM-Ford partnership to build a 6-spd auto? What, if the tranny fails, it’ll be the Ford designed parts? And skip-shift on the manual to avoid gas-guzzler, a good feature agreed. But can something similar be figured out to avoid this on the automatic cars? I feel people shouldn’t be penalized because they want/need an automatic. And when I think of gas-guzzler, I’m thinking Gallardo, Murcielago, F430, V12 BMW & Mercedes, not a V8 Pontiac!!

    4. Platforms: There was mention in a negative manner that the Mustang came from the Falcon platform. This is correct. It also came from the Pinto (Mustang II), Fairmont (Fox, SN-95/Fox+4). And the problem? Um, isn’t the current and wasn’t the original GTO a re-badge of something else? Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the original a re-badged Tempest with a hot 389 and Hurst shifter? Next, and I didn’t want to mention this, wasn’t the 73 – 74 GTO a package for the Ventura? Finally, isn’t the current model a re-badged Monaro? So, the point of stating the original Mustang was built off the Falcon was…? Why is creating Mustang from another platform negative but not for the GTO? Each time the Mustang was a total re-body and in most instances used a different interior treatment, offerings/options and the like. Yes, the 64 – 66 used the same dash layouts as the Falcon, but there was enough changes made to differentiate the two (this was also true of the first-gen cougar when it debuted in 1967, it was a Mustang underneath). And this stayed true throughout the car’s life. Though it may have come from another platform, there was enough of a difference that many didn’t know (except for maybe the Mustang II). And the current car started out as a modified LS platform, but as stated elsewhere, the only remaining pieces are floorpan stampings (graphic, can you verify?) so it’s really it’s own platform. And wasn’t the A-body also the Chevelle/Malibu, GTO/Tempest, Cutlass/442, Buick GS? What really differentiates the GTO & Monaro is decontenting/option reducing the US version of the car. Oh, can’t forget about that gas tank in the trunk, right behind the back seat. Just doesn’t seem safe to me. I wouldn’t want to seat in the backseat, let alone put my kid back there.

    5. GTO Competition/Market :confuse: : This one is funny and confusing because this topic has been going back and forth since the intro of the ’04. First, the car was looked at as a competitor to, naturally, the Mustang Cobra by car people, mags, and message boards. Then there was mention by GM, particularly Lutz, that the vehicle was higher on the ladder than the Mustang’s market, but didn’t come out and say what the intended market was. So, again, people gravitated the car to the Mustang. “Foul, foul, foul” was cried out. Then the competition was named: BMW 3-series, Mercedes, Infiniti G35/Nissan 350Z, even with a couple of Audis and Lex IS300 thrown in. Some agreed, some called foul, asking…”who said these were the competitors?…this isn’t the competition!!…” Ok, a couple of commercials aire
  • jae5jae5 Posts: 1,205
    the continutation of my thoughts/points:

    6. Mustang is not a muscle car. Agree 100%, IMO Mustang never was, never will be, it’s actually a pet-peeve of mine when people car Mustangs muscle cars. Though there were some that could be considered close, like the Boss 9s, 428CJs, GT500 (&KR), but they’re pony cars – created the market remember. So why stray away from your market, the market you created? And I believe this GTO is not a muscle car either. The last muscle car was the Regal GN/GNX/T-Type models because it stayed true to the 4 main attributes of the term from the sixties: hot drivetrain in an intermediate body; ability to haul the guy/girl to work during the week; haul the friends cruising or the significant other/kids to grandmas, vacation, grocery store, wherever; and haul [non-permissible content removed] at the track on the weekends, then repeat. The GTO can’t do all of these: trunk is non-existent; back seat, what back seat? But it can haul [non-permissible content removed], I’ll give you that. Again, say what you want, Ford knows the Mustangs’ market and made the car to suit. It’s a winner.

    7. Pricing/Market: Again, a strange and contradicting topic. Many of you state that the price of the GTO is comparable to the Mustangs, how so? The GTO stickers for thousands more than the Mustang. The GTO is in the $31K - $33K range w/o the markup. Mustang GT’s like $26 - $28K. Second, many of you bought less than that, which is good, but you bought due to heavy incentives, which you bragged about getting, even telling each other about the offers and how to work it. My question and tell the truth please, without these incentives, how many of you would have bought the car? I, and others, made statements before about the price being too high and that this car wasn’t worth the MSRP and many got upset. But then GM and buyers inadvertently proved my point in that the sales didn’t pick up until there were huge incentives put on the car, and many still didn’t buy it. So, if the car was “worth” the asking price, why did it need incentives to move. If it was worth it, damn the incentives, go buy the car!! This just shows again that GM did not know the market and that the price was, and still is too high. Mustangs are moving at sticker, and will probably continue to do so.

    8. Numbers Built/Sold: Yes, the Mustang is going to be a 100,000s unit vehicle. It’s built for the mass-market. The GTO was going to be limited, but not for the sake of exclusivity, but due to production capacity. Yes, the current GTO was going to be an 18K/yr. vehicle, but after that the number was to go higher due to being built here? But they couldn’t sell the 18K, so it was reduced to 12K and I’m not sure that number will be reached. And here’s where the selective memory comes into play: you guys are stating this number and that for the number sold for ’05, but many fail to mention the number includes ‘04s. Also, there was mention that GM didn’t intended to make much profit with the car; that’s Lutz B.S. There isn’t a company on the planet that’s not into making as much profit as possible. In this case, it’s a nice tagline to use when a vehicle flops. Yes the last Impala SS was a 3-year car too, but only due to typical GM, pulling the plug on b-body to build more trucks. Plus, those cars were reasonably price, the market was known, and every last one sold. There were no crazy markups, the car had the “look”, nice stance and drive-train to boot and they improved upon it each year by listening to the customer wants. And as you will note, many are still getting at or near original selling price. Can’t say the same of this car.

    9. Gotta-Have-It: Another funny one. Many of you complain/state the reason Mustang is selling so well is due to the “gotta have it” or “first one on the block” factors. But didn’t the same thing happen when this GTO came out? If not, then how can you explain all those people paying the idiotic prices when the ’04 was intro’d? Dealing with the obnoxious salespeople, putting up with the crap to get the car. Or willing to drive/fly and buy a car many states away? If this isn’t gotta have it, then what is it. You guys have to be honest, Mustang has a pretty cool look. This body will wear well and won’t look dated anytime soon.

    10. Fit/finish/ergonomics. This again is subjective from the majority of GTO owners. The thought is the Pontiac interior is the best on the planet, the Mustang is from better homes and garbage. Yes, the GM interior is good, has nice fit and finish, but that’s GM Australia-Holden, not GMNA. Put a GMNA interior against the Ford and how would the results be. The Ford’s has improved vastly as well. More importantly in the Ford, the shifter reach has been greatly improved. Also the reach for switch-gear, gauge readout is improved. Back seats, again, subjective comments. Let’s be real, both cars don’t exactly offer Maybach room back there, and getting in/out is not like getting in/out of a sedan. You’re going to have to twist and be in relative good shape to get in BOTH. But negative comments were placed on this feat for the Ford, but somehow the Holden/Pontiac was good. To me, the Ford has more rear seat room than the Holden, not like my 2nd and 3rd Cutlasses, but more. And then there’s that gas tank deal.

    In the end, both cars are very good, but the Mustang’s more defined in terms of price, market, options, looks, heritage (nothing to do with the looks). It just has that ‘ummph”, that “yeah, that’s hot”. The Pontiac, though pretty decent, just doesn’t have “it”. It just rings of hurried, quick to market, re-badge city; not really the fault of the car, more so GM again thinking just because they take a great name from the past and stick it on something, people will buy it. Did it need the “right” hood scoop, functional or not? Yeah. Did it need a “true” rear dual-exhaust, not a dual system that fed into a dual-tipped, single muffler? Yeah. Did it and GM miss the mark? Yeah. And this is not just coming from me, but from original GTO owners, buying public, those thinking of buying, mags, forums, etc.

    As I’ve said many, many times in the past, the Monaro, and pretty much the whole Holden line, would make great Chevys. This is not a knock and not trying to start anything, but to me Holden falls more in line with Chevrolet. Guess it's from way back, before the Monaro, to the Commadorre (Impala) and the Ute (Elky) and their other offerings :) .
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    Um no, the 5.7 Liter Monaro hits 170mph and the 6.0 liter LS2 Monaro hits 180mph top end and they have the SAME gearing as our GTO here. The GTO here SHOULD do the same with the governor removed. I stand corrected! 170 to 180 range. Anyone out there tried it? LOL! Coefficient drag on GTO/Monaro is .31, It's .34 to .35 on Mustang. Impala SS of '94 to '96 was .34. Retro look adds a lot of drag to the car. Same with the retro Tbird at a whopping .38 and VW beetle is .35+

    Mustang is 147mph TOP with no governor

    Extra 100hp and lower CD and similar gearing give the GTO the extra 30+ mph
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    jae5 wrote........Back seats, again, subjective comments. Let’s be real, both cars don’t exactly offer Maybach room back there, and getting in/out is not like getting in/out of a sedan. You’re going to have to twist and be in relative good shape to get in BOTH. But negative comments were placed on this feat for the Ford, but somehow the Holden/Pontiac was good. To me, the Ford has more rear seat room than the Holden, not like my 2nd and 3rd Cutlasses, but more. And then there’s that gas tank deal. .......
     
    No sorry your WRONG on the backeats.... Once in the the backseat, a chore, the GTO has more backseat room then the Mustang.. here are the facts..... the GTO has 37.1 inches of REAR legroom and the Mustang ONLY has 30.3 inches of REAR legroom, BIG DIF!

    GTO has 41 cu ft of room in backseat, Mustang only 30 cu ft, According to Car and Driver!

    Rear facing infant car seats may prove very difficult to install on Mustang backseat, Consumer Reports! No such warning on GTO, because there is more room to properly install.

    For me the GTO made more sense for my 2 yr old son, more room back there! GTO can REALLY seat 4 adults... unlike the mustang where the backseat is only good for teenager kids.

    The backseat is much more comfortable on GTO then on my 2002 GTP coupe.
This discussion has been closed.