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

1424345474863

Comments

  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    Yet even with all those extra features, the Mustang GT outsells the GTO by a huge margin.

    I think the reason he posted that was because someone said they bought a Mustang GT due, in part, to the features it had. gxpgtodanman was pointing out that the GTO had these features.
  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    kind of like saying your girlfriend weighs a lot, but makes up for it by being able to sing well.

    Wow, kudos for the PG version of that analogy.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    ...the Mustang is a cheaper price and advertised well and has been made for 40+ yrs in a row and sold 150,000 last yr and offers cheaper entry level models.

    We [the Mustang camp] are not including V6 sales in how much the Mustang outsells the GTO. I don't think the amount of time the Mustang has been on the market really bears on it. For that amount of time, you'd think the market would be tired of it, but it continues to be the best selling [sports] coupe on the market for decades. The GTO is, arguably, the first muscle car. [Most non-GM followers admit that the Chrysler 300 Letter Cars were the first muscle cars.] That reputation should have been enough to move the amount of cars they originally projected.

    I don't know about other regions of the country, but I RARELY ever see a Mustang commercial. When I do see one, it's a V6. Yes, they advertised it a lot before it hit the market, but now there's hardly any Mustang commercials. And the GTO had its share of advertising before it was released.
  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    I've been thinking about the Mustang's sales success. One thing I'm wondering is if the Mustang instead had Pontiac badges. Something tells me it would have sold like the 04-05 GTO.

    5 years ago, if you asked someone which car they liked better, Mustang or Camaro, I think invariably the answer would be "Mustang" from all but Camaro/GM fans.

    It's almost like the 2005's success could have been predicted and may have worked well even with a different styling, content or pricing formula, whereas GTO's diminutive numbers may have also been set in stone. Here's the thing guys. I don't personally think that the GTO could have sold 60k copies, even if it matched or undercut Mustang GT's MSRP, even if the styling and/or content was altered. Thoughts?
  • Good points, but I don't think the Mustang's success could have been predicted by Ford or anyone else. In fact, Ford drastically underestimated the Mustang's overall success as well as the demand for specific models and options (GT, IUP, Manual Trans, etc). The production car looks significantly different than the show cars that were displayed. Every general automotive and Mustang specific publication I've read has said it's the best Mustang in a long time...if not ever.

    I would have bought the Mustang if it had looked the same and been a Pontiac. I seriously considered the GTO as it is. Personally, I don't harbor any brand loyalty or prejudice.

    I do think we cross the proverbial "streams" in our discussion though. The Mustang V6 is not a fair comparison to the GTO. The real comparison is between the Mustang GT and GTO. Even taking out the V6, the Mustang GT outsells the GTO by a factor of at least 5. Price could be some of that, but configuring similar options on Edmund's for both cars puts the GTO about $3,500 higher....that isn't a huge difference. However, it is enough to explain some difference in sales.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,308
    A lot of different "points" had to be done right in order for the success of the '05 Mustang to be what it is. I believe Ford got the performance right, they certainly got the the styling right (and, if we're being honest with each other, styling is one of the reasons we buy performance cars). Pricing issues have been a mixed bag. If you could get a Mustang GT for that proverbial $25K price point, then I'd say that the lower price helped, too. But, the fact is, few made it out of the factory bone stock (no options).

    I've heard of people paying $35K for a coupe and $40K for a 'Vert (both GTs). Most paid MSRP. While unscientific, I'd say the median price of a GT would be in that $27K-$28K price range.

    Shifting over to the GTO, dealers "overcharged" for the first ones hitting the showrooms. When that wasn't getting it done saleswise, GM started rebating. Then they mildly restyled it for '05 and dropped a 'vette engine in it. That helped a bit, but once the rebates dropped off and the employee pricing went away, sales languished, again. So, it's fair to say that pricing of the GTO vs the Mustang GT is closer than it seems to be. It had to hurt that GM couldn't do more from a pricing perspective since it's so expensive shipping the GTO over to these shores.

    I won't address the styling as we've all got our own opinions. I personally think the Mustang was a homerun from a styling perspective. Apparently, 50,000 plus GT owners feel the same way. It looks like, at least initially, the '06s will be in relatively short supply for the Mustang GTs, too.....even with the price increases and "no discounting" from the dealers.

    I also think that Ford got the suspension, steering and braking right, too. The general feel of the car is more sporting, which again, is what more performance car people are looking for.

    Much has also been made about the interiors. While there's no doubt that the GTO has one of the best GM interiors around, the Mustang's interior is so purposeful, and so well done, that it probably negated what was perceived as a GTO strong suit.

    The '04 GTO was a bit slower than the '05 Mustang GT and the '05 GTO is a bit faster than the Mustang. I think the performance is so close, that it became a non-issue.

    Let's add it all up. GTO certianly had performance credentials. It certainly has a nice interior. Was it "perceived" as better than the Mustang's? Not according to those who opted to buy the Mustang over the GTO. Pricing was close between the two. But, for the price, did the GTO have enough styling "pizazz"? Again, probably not considering what the vast majority of the market segment bought.

    Did GM advertise the GTO enough? When if first came out, they did quite a bit of advertising. Same with the Mustang. When it hit the showrooms this past winter, there were ads all over the place. Then when the 'vert hit, they advertised that model. Since then......nothing.....they didn't have to spend any more advertising dollars.

    Ford started with pretty clean sheet of paper for the '05 Mustang. It would behoove GM to do the same thing....as opposed to offering leftovers from down under for Pontiac's alleged "halo" car.

    None of this is meant to inflame. The question was asked. As a person that drove and considered both cars, this is just the way I see it....and answer.
  • eliaselias Posts: 1,934
    i didn't see any mustang GTs today! in fact, i almost never see one. where are they? do they look so much like the rental V6s that i'm not noticing them? what distinguishes them so i can tell without being close enough to read a tiny GT tag ?

    i did see a NISSAN SKYLINE today though, at least that's what the letters on the back said. N I C E . i didn't know they were in US yet. it looked sort of like a 350Z. from all the griping between the gt folks and gto folks, including some disrespect on the road, me and the two young Asian gents in the car were all about RESPECT. thumbs up, all around! traffic was tight, so not much chance for me us to "air out" the engines. maybe it was really a 350Z with some sort of bogus/aftermarket SKYLINE tag?

    ok, if not a GTO vs skyline thread, how about mustang GT vs skyline!
    or, GTO+GT together, vs skyline.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    ...what distinguishes them so i can tell without being close enough to read a tiny GT tag ? ...

    Although I highly doubt you're being serious, I'll give you a clue. The most obvious is the huge foglights in the grille. Then the GT has different front and rear fascias, subtle ground effects (side skirts), the large GT badges on the fenders and the big GT in the middle of the medallion on the trunk. Another obvious difference is the dual exhaust on the GT with exhaust cutouts in the fascia.

    And why would you want a comparison of the GTO, GT, and Skyline (GT-R)? Wouldn't it be better to do the Corvette Z06, Mustang GT500, and Skyline GT-R (if it ever makes it here)? We all can pretty much guess who'd come out on top of that one.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,308
    As many '05 Mustangs as Ford has made (50,000 GTs....140,000 V6s), I'm surprised I don't see more of them, either.

    On the road, I've seen two 'verts....one V6 and one GT. There's a black GT coupe running around here that I see on occassion. My sister just took delivery of a black GT (took her 6 months to get it once she ordered it, though)....even though her husband works for GM! He wanted her to buy the GTO, but didn't have any luck talking her out of the Mustang once she drove mine. Then there's mine......redfire coupe GT.

    That's about it. I know there has to be more out there.since my dealer (like most other dealers) had their best Mustang sales year, ever.
  • In the old days, 1965 to 1974, the Mustang easily OUTSOLD the GTO as well. GTO was more $$ then a Mustang back then. Same thing 40 yrs later. Dejavu. In fact the final yr both cars sold head to head, 1974.... The 1974 Mustang sold 400,000 to only 10,000 '74 GTO.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,308
    '74 wasn't the pinnacle for either the GTO nor the Mustang. The '74 model year, Pontiac made few of them. Couple of reasons....the most glaring was that, while it came with a 350 CID motor, it was "choked" to only 200HP because of stricter smog regs. It was really little more than a Lemand with a few tape stripes and badging added.

    On the other hand, the Mustang had just been totally re-designed as the "Mustang II". It became an "economy car" based on what was happening at the time (alleged "gas crisis" and smog regs) with a 4cyl standard and a 6cyl as the "upgrade" motor.

    The Mustang II sold well for a while, but really didn't represent what the Mustang really is about. So, it finally gave way to the FOX platform in '79.
  • "the most glaring was that, while it came with a 350 CID motor, it was "choked" to only 200HP because of stricter smog regs. It was really little more than a Lemand with a few tape stripes and badging added. "

    What was the 1974 Mustang then? It was "CHOKED" to make only 110hp Max on it's optional V6, pretty pathetic for a perf. icon, wouldn't you say? 1974 GTO outpeformed it it every way. 1974 GTO had far more potential to easily mod or UNCHOKE that 350 to get 250 to 300hp out of it.

    As you say the gas crisis etc.
  • This is the real story. .Ford did NOT start with a pretty clean sheet for 2005 Stang. They copied the 1967 styling, real original, right? Are they going to retro Stang2 or Fox body for next generation? Then Ford used or heavily borrowed from the 2000 Lincoln LS chassis as their starting point. They took their 15 yr old 4.6L V8 which they changed 60% of it and took the 5spd auto from the Lincoln LS. When they went to take the IRS from the LS, bean counters at Ford said NO, too much $$.. Designer wanted IRS, look it up interview with him on the internet. Funny thing is that the chief designer of the Mustang doesn't even drive or own one, he drives a new V8 Lincoln LS. Says a lot, right?

    BTW, the GTO got a new engine, new brakes & new transmission for 2005. Not bad for a leftover, right? It follows the GTO heritage. They took a leftover Tempest body in 1964 and did the same thing GM did now with the Monaro. All of a sudden it's wrong in 2005? Talking about some people being hypocritical.

    The previous 2004 Mustang was successfull too with nearly 140k or 150k sales. The new one added 50k in sales, 1st yr designs usually sell best, not even a 50% increase, like the Then new Grand Prix did in 1997.

    The GTO is more of a luxury muscle coupe, the dif, is that rides smoother-better more comfortable then Mustang and delivers nearly the same handling and same or slightly better braking IMHO. Before you ask, I drove and considered both cars as well. I don't want the stiffer/harsher ride of Mustang esp with that solid rear on uneven or bumpy pavement, that is where IRS shines!!

    IMHO the GTO interior/seats are better then Mustangs. GTO clearly won that in every head to head test I read. Then on top of it, you have to pay $175 to upgrade Mustang interior. CR really hammered Mustangs interior, calling it cheap hard plastics, where as they praised GTO Quality interior. C&D said the seats were even better then the new 2006 C6 Vettes :P
  • Seems It now takes a full blown "supercharged" 2005 Mustang GT to just edge out a stock GTO. Pretty embarassing. Not to mention that the 400hp supercharged Stang still weighs less then GTO.

    13.2 second 1/4 for 400hp supercharged '05 Stang, 13.3 second 1/4 mile for STOCK GTO
    "
    It's from an bit they did on a blown 2005 mustang GT
    http://www.caranddriver.com/article...9&page_number=1

    What happens when the Goat has a blower too? The Stang' loses again! :P :P :P
    BTW the Supercharged Stang is still SLOWER 0-130mph then stock GTO, LOL!
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    I swear I've seen all this about 6 months ago......

    Yes, there are now tires available to make red smoke. At around $1k a pop. Probably make sizes for the Mustang too......not sure what your point was though. I thought the whole rational behind the GTO was to be "under the radar". Not sure how make tons of red tire smoke qualifies......

    Pontiac's new image within GM is to be the performance-car division? Wow, that's a jaw-dropper.....I'm sure glad R&T is so on the ball.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    I think the point was, for the price of a new GTO, one can have a new Mustang w/ a supercharger and get better performance (and with better styling, unless you're into that whole 'flyin under the radar thing'.

    So your point is that one can spend even more money on a GTO, to go even faster? Stop the presses.....
  • The point is that the modified (to the tune of $4,300+) Supercharged Mustang with the same 400+HP as GTO is not much faster, 4.5 vs GTO 4.8. As typical on the mustang once you reach 100mph it runs out of oomph. Stock GTO is faster by nearly 2+ seconds to 130mph ! . Not to mention you will kill your motor faster with that S/C, probably void your warranty. and not get that supercharger replaced if your car gets stolen. Insurance company won't cover that. and may void your policy.

    I would rather take stock GTO for same $$ anyday and have my warranty/insurance etc all intact, thankyou.
  • "(and with better styling, unless you're into that whole 'flyin under the radar thing'. "

    Oh you mean that un-original 1967 RETRO-styling again? Lets go retro because we can't come up with a fresh design of our own mentality. Real original. I personally find Mustang UGLY. IMHO. There is so much wind drag on that styling .35+ CD? notice Ford won't publish it, that it can't even break 147mph with NO governor.

    3 yrs from now when the resalue value is avg-poor just like last generation mustang, you can pick one up for cheap. Anyone paying list or waiting is crazy. Just wait and you will get a good deal.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    Amazing how a 0.3 second differential is a huge deal when the GTO is faster, but it is 'not much faster' when it is the Mustang with the advantage. Of course, the last issue of Road & Track includes a 575hp Vortech Mustang which did 179mph at the end of a standing start mile. Something tells me it was probably pulling harder at 100mph than a GTO.

    BTW - this particular Vortech Mustang hit the rev limiter in top gear past the mile mark. This equated to a top speed of 192.

    Stock GTO and keep warranty/insurance intact? Okay, sounds nice and sensible...
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    Yes, retro styling.

    The next time there's a car show featuring mid 90's Pontiac Grand Prix's, let me know.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "Oh you mean that un-original 1967 RETRO-styling again? Lets go retro because we can't come up with a fresh design of our own mentality. Real original."

    Does this mean that for 2008, you DON'T want to see a GTO styled like a '67 Goat? Or are you just a massive fan of bar-of-soap styling?
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,308
    Those "red burnout tires" are more like $2K/tire. I saw that same "blurb" in C&D.

    I did mention that the '74 Mustang II came with an economy 4 cyl and, "upgrade" 6 cyl. Neither engine could be considered remotely performance oriented, though.

    Any engine, if "unchoked" will yield more HP.

    rorr, you're right. This conversation has gone round and round. '04 GTO is a tenth or two slower than the '05 Mustang GT. The '05 (or '06) GTO is a tenth or two quicker than the '05 (or '06) Mustang GT. Again, regardless of MY, these two cars are mighty, mighty close performance wise.

    All this gets back to the original question several post ago.....if the GTO was styled or priced differently, would it have sold better? Probably! If it started with a "clean sheet" design, including steering and shifting upgrades and went on a 350# diet, accompanied by the lines of the '08 GTO sketches, I'd say it would have been successful.

    The '05 Mustang did borrow its styling from the most popular Mustangs of the past. The only real part it borrowed mechanically was the floorpan of the Lincoln LS. That's why it's been such a runaway success. Building on the success of the past is a good thing.

    If the GTO was really meant to be a luxury coupe, which I really don't think was Pontiac's intent, then it failed in its mission on that count, too.
  • After driving both cars I chose the GTO......The inside of the Mustang is just not going to impress anyone who has spent time in a GTO. All the panels are flat, and the plastic they use is hard and cheap looking just like CR said. The car seems to have more bulk than it actually has because the beltline is so high and the hood arcs up so much, giving the car a ponderous feel.

    The tach and speedo are buried in two deep bowls, and it's difficult to get a quick sweep of them because they are separated too far apart.

    Having to suffer with a V6 and cloth seats is an indignity a GTO owner will never suffer. ALL GTO's are performance cars, no slow V6 Rentastangs from hertz.

    The GTO exhaust sounded better/deeper, performed better, was more comfortable, and felt much more solid. At the time both cars were the exact same price with the $3000 "pound you in the rear" dealer markup on the Mustang.

    Graphic, I don't need a flashy car like some people here to let people know I am the man. As my uncle said, most people don't know that the appeal of the first muscle cars was to hide awesome power behind a bland family car. Guys would pull up beside you and say "what you got in there, buddy?"GTO really needs to be driven to appreciate what kinda car it is. Can't judge a book or car by it's cover. Well unlike the undeducated consumers that bought Mustangs just on looks. The only thing they could say about the mustang is that it looked cooler and had the obligatory "gotta have it" factor. That said I still don't understand how ANYONE can say the GTO is bland. I have SOO many people who come up to me and ask me about the car, it's ridiculous. Never experienced anything like it. It's a shame heads still turn daily to watch my car go by... wish I had a blander car that no one would notice.

    How many customers is Ford losing to GTO because they still can't figure out the whole supply and demand thing by not being able to deliver? Or when they do it's MSRP or higher or a multiple month wait.

    Graphic, hate to tell you and once again post the truth but the Monaro/GTO was a RUNAWAY SUCCESS, homerun for GM/Holden this year. They sold 4x the projected amount. Much better then the Mustang which won't even double or 2x increase. In fact they are having another final 1,500 Monaro limited edition run, because too many orders/demand. This platform was a WORLDWIDE SUCCESS. Not the failure that you claim. Monaro is a worldwide car, not a USA car like Rentastang. Monaro was engineered from start to have driver wheel, etc on either side. Ford won't spend $$ to move the wheel to the other side.

    As for luxury coupe, Compared to AMG 55 as well for HALF the price. It was favorably compared to the BMW M5 when it came out in 2002, Something the Mustang will never be compared to, not even in the same sentence. it's the best Domestic made car I ever bought, well actually it's foreign that is why. Good luck with your purchase which does share more then just floorplan with LS as previously posted
    :P :P
  • I do NOT want to see a retro GTO in 2008. I would like to see a new design, something that Ford couldn't do on the mustang, had to use a 1967 body which has a horrible .35 CD for a sporty car. GTO/Monaro has an acceptable SLICK .29 or .30 CD. Which also helps it's top end and makes it more stable.
  • Actually RORR if you checked your facts... at 130mph the GTO is a full SIX seconds faster then Mustang, big dif!!

    As typical Ford they have to cheat with a blower, where as GM doesn't on it's Vettes, GTO, F body, etc. Lets S/C the GTO to 575hp and see what it does?

    BTW the current STOCK GTO does 175+mph. In fact a Monaro was clocked at 180mph STOCK!! Pretty impressive out of the factory, right?
  • The GTO looks nothing like a MID 1990's Grand Prix which would be 1994 to 1996. check your facts RORR.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "I do NOT want to see a retro GTO in 2008."

    Okay. Apparantly, amoung long-time GTO aficionados, you would be in the minority.

    "I would like to see a new design...."

    Why? What is it about the current design that you would like to see changed? It (apparently) already has it all: best seats/interior that GM offers, Corvette powertrain, roomy back seats, and fly-under-the-radar styling. What's not to love?
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "...at 130mph the GTO is a full SIX seconds faster then Mustang, big dif!!"

    Are we comparing stock-stock or SC vs. stock? I'm getting confused. The Vortech Mustang I saw in Road&Track didn't have 0-130mph times. But it did note that in the standing 1 mile acceleration run, it was pulling harder longitudinal-g (accelerating harder) over the last 100 feet of the run than any other car in the test. Including a 1000hp Hennessey Viper. That's accelerating harder even at nearly 180mph. All of which is immaterial anyway (IMO): I don't often need to accelerate past 130 mph....

    "As typical Ford they have to cheat with a blower..."

    Whereas GM "cheats" with displacement. So, adding a S/C is "cheating" but running a 6.0l V8 vs. a 4.6l V8 is apples to apples?

    "BTW the current STOCK GTO does 175+mph."

    Can you link to a road-test of a STOCK goat that will do 175+? I seem to recall a stock (that would be STOCK) GTO was governed to 158mph?
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "The GTO looks nothing like a MID 1990's Grand Prix which would be 1994 to 1996. check your facts RORR."

    You are 100% correct. I apologize. I was actually thinking of the edition introduced in 1997. My bad......
  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    As much as you want to give credit to the Mustang's formula for being just right, you have to admit that the 2004 (and previous years) Fox Mustang STILL sold pretty well, despite being a wholly inferior car. That's one point of evidence that prompted me to claim they probably had a LOT more leeway with the 05's formula than you're suggesting. Ford has a lot of best sellers in a given segment. Explorer, F-150, Mustang, and Taurus for a while...they seem to make "popular" vehicles. This comes from a GM guy, in case anyone has forgotten.

    BTW, the 04 GTO also has a "vette motor."
This discussion has been closed.