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

1202123252663

Comments

  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    And all this time I thought that extra 1.4 liters of displacement might have had a hand in that extra 100HP

    Maybe so, but guess what? The LS2 is probably a lot lighter and dimensionally smaller (less wide, and less tall) than the Mustang's 3 valver. So if it can pack 1.4L of displacement and an extra 100hp into a lighter/smaller package, I'd say that's a pretty good design, wouldn't you?

    So take away CAGS and the 6th cog in the transmission of the GTO and watch the fuel economy plummet.

    CAGS actually doesn't seem to effect real world fuel economy. I think it's there for the EPA numbers. And don't act like having the 6th gear is some sort of cheating device. The Borg-Warner/Tremec T56 has been around since like 1992.
  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    The best feature I miss was on my 1986 442 and other G bodies, gas cap was in the rear license plate. That way you can pull up to the gas pump on either side, doesn't matter.

    I have that "feature" in my 93 Caprice. Definitely nice to be able to back in on either side of the pump.
  • 442man442man Posts: 210
    I read somewhere that the new Mustang actually makes 320 horsepower, but they under-rated it at 300 hp. If I had the link I would post it. That could make sense in a way.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,137
    Off topic, but those '65 vettes were nice.

    Local off-topic story, but the former owner of the Cincinnati REDs also owned a Chevrolet dealership. She died last year, but since she had no kids, they are auctioning off her "car collection". Among those being auctioned is one '63 vette and one '66 vette. They had pictures of both of them in the local paper. Both looked to be very nice, but I don't know what their actual condition was. Auction estimate was $41K for BOTH. I don't know values of old 'vettes, but that sounded low. I was half tempted to go to the auction and see if I could bid and buy. If I knew more about collectibles, I might have done it. But, I have no knowledge about them and decided against it.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,137
    I had heard that the 4.6L put out 320 HP, too. I think Ford got "stung" with the Cobra HP fiasco from a few years back in uderstating HP. I do believe they were conservative in their HP ratings for the Mustang GT based on that experience.

    For the Saleen and Rousch versions to actually be equal to or slower than the stock GT, that would be the most logical explanation. It would certainly explain some of the numbers some of the trade rags are getting.

    But, the only way to really tell is for someone to pull the engine out of their GT and put it on a dyno to have any independent confirmation. I don't know that anyone is willing to do that, however. And, Ford isn't talking.

    I know of more than a few people that have "pinged" Ford about this very issue. They're sticking to the 300HP number, which is the corporate line.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    I've seen one blurb on that. I'd love to believe it, but I've seen dyno numbers posted from the 260s to 280s for rear wheel HP. There are lots of variables to affect those results. If you go by 280 rear wheel HP, the engine's making 329HP at the crank (w/ 15% driveline loss figure). If you go by 260 rear wheel HP, the engine's making 305HP at the crank.

    At a high 25% driveline loss figure, that would equate to 373HP at the crank and 346HP at the crank, respectively. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say the Mustang doesn't have a 25% driveline loss. It would have to put down 255HP at the wheels on a 15% driveline loss to equate to exactly 300HP. Anything less and Ford has some 'xplaining to do.

    Somebody search the other Mustang forums across the web and extrapolate an average and get back to us. It would be really cool if it turned out we were underrated on HP. It would seem logical that we're underrated considering that the GT picked up a good bit of weight compared to the outgoing model, yet is a fair amount quicker with rated gain of only 40HP/18TRQ.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,137
    I generally assume 15% driveline loss. One can make all sorts of assumptions about the HP "drain" of the accessories or tranny, but nothing that can be extrapolated with any real authority.

    I've seen those same 260-280 RWHP figures. Give or take this or that HP loss in with the driveline, accessories, etd, the engine probably does put out more than 300 HP. Where that figure is, no one will know unless they yank the engine and test it.

    Looking at the 0-60 numbers of between 4.9-5.1 secs and the 13.5 1/4s most of the trade rags have reported, I'd say it is putting out more than the rated HP. How much more is the real question.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    I'm a little skeptical on the 4.9 0-60 number. I would bet that car was a ringer. I can believe the low 5s 0-60. I'm also iffy on the 13.5s 1/4 mile. 13.7 would be more probable. I've seen the video of the guy that pull a stock 13.69, but his trap speed was only 97MPH. There's something really fishy about that run, and if I remember it, you couldn't really tell what his trap time or speed was because the camera was shaky and out of focus and not even pointed at the board when the race finished. Now that I think about it, the dude probably only ran a 14.69 and forgot to lie about his trap speed along with the time.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,137
    I posted that run somewhere, but can't remember where. I'll assume it was the same one where the Mustang went up against a heavily modded 10 sec 'Cuda.

    I e-mailed the guy about that 97 MPH trap speed because it didn't sound right. He said the track announcer was confused. His trap speed was actually 107 MPH for a 13.6+ 1/4. That sounds more like it.

    13.5 in the 1/4 has been achieved by more than a few professional testers. Given the amatuer runs I've seen, that's entirely possible, if not probable.

    Can't comment about the 4.9 sec 0-60 that R&T got with the exception that they said it was a Mustang that had been broken in as opposed to the ones they tested earlier that had very few miles on them.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    That's the same video I'm talking about. I don't remember hearing an announcer, though. 107MPH sounds better, but I haven't read any articles with anything better than a 13.7@104MPH. Do you have any links to magazine articles posting better times? What has that guy, Evan Smith, of Muscle Mustangs & Fast Fords gotten in it? He seems to be able to post the worlds best times on cars. He was the only one to ever get a 12.9 on a bone stock Camaro SS and got VERY low 12s (12.1, I think. Maybe even 11.9) with an '03 Cobra.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,137
    I don't have any other links except from the usual sources like MT, R&T, C&D, etc. MT actually has a synopsis of every car they test for the year in the back of every issue. I think a couple of those tests got the 13.5 1/4 out of the Mustang.

    I don't think the mags have that info on-line and I don't know if Edmunds would let me do a link to them anyway.

    I haven't seen Evan Smith's numbers on an '05 Mustang.
  • 442man442man Posts: 210
    Car and Driver got a 13.8 out of the Mustang and a 13.3 out of the GTO for 1/4 mile times in the January comparo.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,137
    MT (in the back of the May issue) has a synopsis of the '05 GTO and '05 Mustang GT.

    They tested at the following....

    '05 GTO -- 0-60 in 5.0 secs, 1/4 in 13.3 secs

    '05 Mustang GT (tested twice).....

    --both times tested, 0-60 in 5.1 secs (one automatic tranny and one manual)
    --one 1/4 (automatic tranny) in 13.6 secs
    --one 1/4 (manual tranny) in 13.5 secs

    Again, most tests I've seen have the performance virtually identical between the '05 GTO and '05 Mustang GT. The '04 GTO is a little slower than the '05 GTO or the '05 Mustang GT.

    Point being, in the real world, the GTO weighs more than the Mustang GT and the Mustang GT's engine is probably very conservatively rated.
  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    I wouldn't want an antennae sticking up either. I don't know if it works better but I like it out of sight. Having the gas filler tube behind the license plate is a relic from the past I'm afraid. I like having it on the top of the rear fender now. A lot of the cooler cars of the sixties had that feature or something similar.
  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    "Ridiculously tall 6th gear". You wish you had a sixth gear. Or don't you like better gas mileage. I get better freeway mileage than with a couple of 4 bangers I've had. I call that groovy.
  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    I'm going to have to go with you guys regarding the solid rear axle. You're the ones that have to live with it and if your happy with it that's fine with me. You're not the one bragging about the GT500 but I have to say the the solid rear is going to seriously degrade its performance. We will have to wait until it is eventually in production to see.

    That's an interesting example you used for your old tech vs. new tech analogy. Blade Runner is one of my all time favorites and Darryl is a big part of that. I've always liked Rutger Hauer since then and lets not forget Sean Young.
  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    I get around 29 mpg at around 50mph. I don't do that on the highway but around town on an expressway its perfect. My average right now is at 15.8 for about 2000 miles.
  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    A 5-speed auto would take care of the tax for the GTO How hard could that be to upgrade?
  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    You had a 65 Stingray? I bet you could just kick yourself now. The Stingray was one of my favorettes back then but now I think I like the older ones better. Probably about a '58 to '60.
  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    $41K for both was way low.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    I'm reading my latest Car & Driver issue with the test of the Mustang GT convertible. They got a 5 second flat 0-60 in it! That's pretty impressive right there, I don't care who you are.
  • kenfrankenfran Posts: 1
    You said, "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!"
    Well, yes, I would say that either of my present Corvairs is a better car than a Mustang. The IRS on the Corvair was a redesign by Ira Duntov of the Corvette rear suspension. As for high tire costs if the rear end is out of alignment, a Mustang can eat some front tires if it is out of alignment. I keep my Corvairs aligned, like anyone who takes care of his cars. And my old 1964 Corvair Spyder, with its 164 cubic inch 6 cylinder, used to eat 289 Mustangs for breakfast. Of course I had a factory turbo. Not fair because the Mustangs didn't have a turbo? That's what happens when you are behind the curve on innovation. Corvair was the only car you could get then with factory turbo. There was another car that had a rear-engine air-cooled flat six, though. The Porsche 911. Corvairs are still beating Porsches in SCCA races though.
    And did you happen to know what the first car with variable valve timing was? A 1965 Corvair that was the test bed for the inventor who patented it in 1990. ( see http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/resource/may05/0505inve.html )
    And, by the way, sometime you should read "Unsafe at Any Speed" by Ralph Nader. The complaints he had about the Corvair had already been fixed. Then read the chapter on Mustangs. Ford still hasn't fixed some of that stuff, and at the time of publication, had fixed NONE of it.
    Hell yes, Corvair is a better car than a Mustang.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,137
    Now we're really getting into "ridiculous" territory.
  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    I tried to find this discussion thread but couldn't. I know I posted something about the Corvair some time ago. The Corvair was definitely ahead of its time. It's a treat to see a well maintained one nowadays. Of course it's nice to see any 60's car that's been kept up. Reminds me of that other car by John DeLorean. The Firebird with the 175 horse six cylinder. I know I had no use for it, but a couple of years later with spiraling insurance rates and a gas shortage, anyone that had one was probably feeling pretty smug.

    That article you linked to was a bit strange but interesting. It reminded me of the guy that invented and patented variable speed windshield wipers. He went around to all the car companies but they weren't interested. Funny though, after a couple a years they all had variable speed windshield wipers. Well, he had his day in court and all the car companies had to pay him about $20 million upfront and he is probably still collecting royalties. What's the moral of this story? I don't know, don't trust big corporations?
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,137
    sputter....the 6 cyl Pontiac you're thinking of was one of the first OHC 6 cyl engines I have a memory of. I think they put it in the LeMans, too.

    I also seem to remember that it wasn't very well thought out as it proved troublesome. But, you have to give Pontiac (and John Z) credit for being a bit ahead of the curve in foreseeing the big oil created crisis of the time and bring out a 6 banger in the throws of most cars having a v8.

    Corvairs? 40 year old technology, that may or may not have been ahead of their time. I remember being a youngun and my older sister's boyfriend having one. While I was real young, I remember riding in it and not being that impressed. I remember him ballyhooing the fact that it was either turbo charged or supercharged. Again, still wasn't impressed.

    Of course, this was a time when the cars to be lusted after were SS 396s, Mustangs, Chragers, etc.

    Back on topic, I do think it is a shame that the current iteration GTO isn't gathering much in the way of kudos from the media......for no other reason than it isn't giving GM much impetus to make a new version of it.
  • 442man442man Posts: 210
    ......"Of course, this was a time when the cars to be lusted after were SS 396s, Mustangs, Chragers, etc. ....."

    You forget the GTO's, 442's as well. GM will be making a new version of the Monaro for 2007 with the big V8, we probably won't be getting it, but the Aussies will. At least someone will.
  • 442man442man Posts: 210
    ......." on topic, I do think it is a shame that the current iteration GTO isn't gathering much in the way of kudos from the media".......

    You are right, especially that most of the public doesn't know that the 2005 GTO is the most powerfull, best handling GTO ever made. It has one of GM's best interior qualities etc. Too bad GM didn't advertise it more. Seem to run a million G6 commericials all the time though complete with the fake exhaust sound, G6 doesn't sound that good.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    If you GTO guys are talking about the comparo from several years ago, that was the Commodore, not the Monaro that was compared to the M5. And, yes, I know the Monaro is the 2-door version of the Commodore.

    And has anyone really paid attention to BMW performance numbers (M or not)? They really aren't all that great. BMWs are more about driving feel than real performance. The M cars put a lot of emphasis on straight line performance, though they handle pretty well, too. But they're still not "head and sholders" above a lot of other cars out there.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    I, too, am looking forward to this upcoming GM sponsored performance shootout. I'm sure that'll be really objective. ;)
  • benderofbowsbenderofbows Posts: 544
    That's just it, the M5 numbers are good for any sports car, but very impressive for a four door / sedan , with a lot of luxuries, that is very driveable day-to-day.
This discussion has been closed.