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

1434446484963

Comments

  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    Yep, even up through the '04 edition, the Mustang has sold well for the last couple of decades. This could be attributed to decent bang for the buck (GT editions), some halo effect trickling down to the V6 models, and tweaking the exterior styling every 2-3 years to keep the car looking 'fresh'.

    Wholly inferior car? Depends on what your criteria is. Obviously for those who bought the 'wholly inferior car', they have a different criteria....
  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    it can't even break 147mph with NO governor.

    That's funny. A TPI 350 Camaro (~90-92) could do an even 150 and a 93+ Camaro was good for 155+. Not that we have an autobahn here, but I just found it mildly amusing considering I'm talking about a 15 year old car here.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "Not that we have an autobahn here, but I just found it mildly amusing considering I'm talking about a 15 year old car here."

    Well, as gxpgtodanman likes to point out, the Mustang has a pretty high CD of 0.35. No matter how you slice it, that's breaking a lot of wind.... :surprise:
  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    Wholly inferior car? Depends on what your criteria is

    I meant 04 Mustang compared with the 05.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "I meant 04 Mustang compared with the 05."

    Thanks. That clears it up for me (a bit).

    Wait, something doesn't follow: you say sales of the previous generation '04 were strong despite it being a wholly inferior car to the '05? Well, granted the '04 was 'inferior' to the '05 models but I don't know that there were many '04 sales when the '05 was available. It's not like they were competing side by side.

    That's like saying sales of the C5 Corvette were strong despite it being 'wholly inferior' to the C6 Corvette.
  • eliaselias Posts: 1,931
    taylord, thanks for the info. i was being serious. sometimes i am behind the mustang in traffic so i like to know the cues/clues from the back also. i think the reason i am not familiar with the badges is that i rarely see a stang GT !
    my idea about whatever vs. skyline was along the lines of gto & gt being more similar than different. but anyway, probably it was a lame idea! i didn't realize there was a tweeked version of the skyline, the GT-R. and maybe i'm blind since i have trouble distinguishing stang from stang GT, and i couldn't find the pricing/specs info on skyline here on edmunds either. time for me to get glasses (seriously). ttfn!
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,275
    So we disagree. No surprise there.

    rorr....watch out.....breaking wind....how dare you!!!!! LOL!

    In order for Pontiac to have a "hit" on their hands, the North American market is where they have to succeed. That's the target. I'm glad that the Manaro has done well in Aussieland. That's not going to help the GTO "HERE" though, where the market segment is much, much bigger.

    If you're behind a Mustang, the BIG GT badge should be a dead give away. Same way with looking at it from the sides. From the front, those BIG fog lamps in the grill will be the tell-tale sign.

    The '05 Mustang actually spurred resale values for the previous
    models. So, yes...the legacy for the Mustang became stronger with the release of the '05.model.

    Anyone can make any car faster with aftermarket exhausts, superchargers, gearring, hotter cams, etc. This is true whether you've got a Mustang, a GTO or a Cavalier.

    With the current GTO resembling the "LATE '90s" Pontiacs, they didn't do themselves any favors. Now, if they were to mimic the '67-'70 models, they would have had a better chance and a more distinctive look to separate it from Pontiac's other models.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    Had to inject a little levity back into the thread. I could feel the blood pressures beginning to rise on both sides of the aisle.....

    Hard to define what constitutes a "hit". IMO, it depends on what the manufacturers expectations are and how well sales met those expectations.

    Re: making the car faster: True. If it was ONLY about going fast, for the money spent on a GTO, an individual could slap a S/C (or nitrous for that matter) on a Mustang and be quicker. Of course, they could buy an '80's model Camaro or Mustang for next to nothing and drop $25k into a SERIOUS motor and suck the headlights out of either car. So what? As gxpgtodanman pointed out (correctly), the factory waranty may take a beating with these kind of aftermarket mods. All I was trying to point out (in my roundabout way) was that speed/acceleration is NOT all there is to the equation for determining which vehicle is 'better' for any one individual because if power was ALL that mattered, neither one of these is the 'best' choice.
  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    What I am saying is, since the 04 is generally considered inferior to the 05 (as opposed to a freshening where there are only subtle differences), yet the 04 still sold pretty well, then maybe the success of the 05 wasn't as magical as others seem to suggest. In other words, if they did well with that Fox platform, the ancient interior, etc, then it doesn't seem like it would have taken much to improve it and sell more.
  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    sometimes i am behind the mustang in traffic so i like to know the cues/clues from the back also

    I have had the same trouble. I agree that it's tough if you haven't spent any time looking over brochures. Plus, even if I see a "flashier" Mustang, I might think to myself "well, maybe that's just a V6 with the poseur package." Kinda like a Camaro RS. I have no idea if Ford has an appearance package but I wouldn't put it past them. Let the real confusion begin!
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    Wow. I'm guessing the sight of dual exhausts is lost on you guys. :confuse:
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    Okay, I finally see where you're coming from. Sorry it took so long.

    I think one of the measures of success though was the fact that Ford was able to go back to their roots and (finally) build a car that appealed to the old-time classic Mustang fans while still being modern enough to not alienate all the gen-xers (or is it gen-yers?) with the redesign.

    Yes, the sales numbers for the last generation were impressive. But I think there's more to the sales numbers for both generations than JUST the fact that they have a horse in the grille.

    Would this car have sold as well with "Pontiac" and "GTO" emblems? Hell, no. One look would have told the most casual observer that Pontiac had just built a Mustang clone. They don't want that. For the same reason the public wouldn't buy a Mustang styled to look like a '67 GTO or Camaro. That's just wrong.
  • Yes a stock GTO auto or manual is governed to 158mph. With that governor disabled it's possible to do 170 to 180mph range. with the 6 speed manual. Check post # 126 in this forum, there is a picture of a Goat doing 180mph. Unless it's a good photoshop rendition. Thats a 2004 cluster.

    'Wheels' magazine does a 'Performance Car of the Year' each year. Last year the stock '04 Monaro did 167 mph with 333hp. The HSV GTS Monaro with 400hp did 175mph. If I found a link I would post it.
  • Yes there is the aftermarket ROUSH appearance package that came out in Dec. 2004 for the new 2005 Mustang which costs $8,760, ouch! It is just that, appearance only, except the the exhaust sound is slightly louder, freer flowing which adds 10hp, 310hp?. The kit adds weight to the car, so the performance might be actually a tad slower. All said and done you are looking at nearly $36k+. I saw one at a car show last night, pretty sharp boy-racer looking. I liked it.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,275
    Ford sold 140K '04 Mustangs. Of those 140K, 40K were of the V8 iterations. For '05, Ford sold 190K Mustangs. But they could have sold over 200K if Ford hadn't told the dealers they couldn't build any orders in June....most of those were GTs.

    GM wanted to sell 18K '04 GTOs. They sold only 14K. For '05 GM wants to sell 12K GTOs. It looked like they would until they pulled the rebates and GMS pricing on them. While I'm sure that GM will sell 12K GTOs for MY '05...eventually, but they've languished since GM stopped doing price support.

    So either GM misjudged the market for GTOs, or they didn't have the right formula. What got me to test drive both the '04 and '05 GTO was the motor. But, as we saw with the SSR and the GTO, just flopping a big motor in any vehicle won't translate into making it a success. It's the total package that causes people to pul dollars out of their wallets.

    In the GTO's case, it could have been the styling, or it could have been the associated running gear that caused the tepid response. But even in the SSR's case, whereas the styling was really "cool", they couldn't generate any success. So, maybe it was the associated platform and switchgear? Maybe it was the pricing? Maybe the vast majority of shoppers in the segment feltl that the asking price was too high for what you got.

    GM should have learned something. If the GTO sold well at around $29K (which is what I could have bought one for), that's what the market is for the car. Just like $27-$28K is the market for the Mustang GT Coupe (still, many people paid closer to $30K for the coupe GT). So, maybe Ford priced the Mustang too low.

    My hope is that GM brings out a "homerun" for the GTO in '08. It doesn't have to have retro styling. It just has to be a solid, well engineered and modern platform with "real" GTO styling.

    The Solstice looks to be on fire saleswise right now. Lutz should take the hint. Style gets people in the showroom. The drive should part the customer with their hard earned dollars.

    I think the '08 GTO sketches are a step in the right direction. Give it the underpinnings that are worthy of the GTO nameplate. If the market is just under $30K for the car, that's where you price it. That should be the easy part since it's supposed to be built in North America (thus removing the huge transport cost that the current car has). Doing that and Pontiac has another winner.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    Some points:

    "Stock" IMO, means the governor is not disabled. A semantic quibble since the drivetrain is untouched.

    Second - I don't believe pictures posted to the internet by vehicle owners 1 iota. Photoshopped? Possibly. Was the vehicle modified in any way? You are talking the individual's word for it that it wasn't. You WILL need more than 350 hp to push something the size of a GTO to 180. Besides, how accurate are GTO speedometers? 180mph indicated isn't necessarily 180mph. For all you know, the car was up on jackstands.

    Third, if a Monaro with 333hp did 167, and a HSV GTS with 400hp did 175 (any aero aids on the HSV GTS? I've no idea), I find it difficult to believe a "stock" '04 GTO did 180mph. I guess I'm just a natural cynic.

    Fourth, what the hell's the point? Stock Mustang vs. stock GTO and the GTO definitely wins on the top end. I don't think any rational individual in here has denied that in the last 6 months. And if I regularly had a need to drive in excess of 130mph, that might be a concern. I was simply responding to a poster who had made a comparison of the GTO to a S/C'd Mustang. My point was that IF an individual started down the path of adding a S/C to a Mustang, there's certainly no need to stop at GTO performance territory.
  • "Stock" The 2005 Mustang V8 has no governor, drag limited to almost 150mph, very good! More then I will ever need/use.

    I never thought about the car on jackstands, good point. GTO as well as Mustang speedos are quite accurate today.

    Correction on my part....Monaro HSV GTS with 400hp has a closer ratio Tremec gearbox, steering/suspension/brake upgrades. Holden's HSV is the equivalent of Ford's SVT or Mercedes AMG, etc. It's a superior performance car to the GTO we get here! Faster and handling wise. It runs in the 12's for 1/4 mile stock. Z06 territory. Reason? Better gearing. I believe 3.91 instead of 3.46 axle shifter too. It does 175 to 180mph top end. It may have aero upgrades. It also has dual digital zone climate control, sunroof, extra pod mounted gauges, Navigation and other features we don't get here. It costs a lot more too. Aussies and England get better GTO we don't here.

    Can't wait to see that GT500 with nearly 450hp for 2006.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    Now that I think about it, I'm not sure about the jackstands angle. Even with traction contol "off", sometimes the controls aren't fully 'off' and the system may not like reading the rear wheels going 180mph and the front wheels going 0 mph. I've never actually tried this with a TC equipped vehicle so can't say for sure how well this works.

    The shorter gearing (3.91 vs. 3.46) in the HSV may actually help it to attain a higher top speed also. If the (ungoverned) GTO runs into an aero wall short of the peak hp in 6th gear, a shorter rear gear may put it the peak hp closer to the top speed. You can see this phenomenon in cars where the top speed is not attained in the top gear.

    'Better' GTO? In my opinion, a 'better' GTO would be one WITHOUT alot of those extraneous doodads, a decent cloth interior, manual seats......and maybe $2k cheaper/100 lbs. lighter......
  • A cheaper version would have increased sales. Usually cars that come almost fully loaded don't always sell that well, example, 1995-1999 Aurora. It only sold 50% of what GM predicted. When they redid it for 2001 with cheaper priced ($5k less) base V6 and optional V8, it DOUBLED it's sales! Too little too late for Olds.

    Holden sells a cheaper version of the Monaro with a V6, not just here. It was the 3800 V6. Maybe if they could have offered that std, but then you would have people up in arms complaining that it's also not a real GTO, because real GTO have V8 only! Can't please everyone.

    I agree maybe if they could have done a cloth GTO, manual seats, make Blaupunkt an option etc and other features optional, that would drop the price $2k or $3k. Keeping same drivetrain.
  • For the total package of $30k I paid I am impressed. Esp when I got the drivetrain of a Corvette for $15k less. Didn't have to wait months for it. Very solid, good riding, comfortable car. Price difference was only about $2k for me. Primary difference is GTO is more of a heavy, but refined sport, luxury beast w/ European flair and roadmanners (think poor mans bmw 6 series). Mustang is lighter but cruder american muscle car.

    They both offer great bang for the buck, Mustang is cheapest 300hp V8 car you can buy, the GTO is the cheapest 400hp V8 car.

    This GTO is a modern and well engineered platform, 75% new structure for it's 2002 debut! It was based on the 1997 Holden Commodore structure only from the front to the A pillar. Everything from A pillar and rearward the Monaro body structure was new/unique for 2002. It is 50% stiffer then the 1997 Commodore chassis. 84 new structure pieces for 2002 alone !! They didn't just take a commodore and make it into a 2 door, all new! Don't forget the Stang is 3 yrs newer, 2005 vs 2002 monaro. If you want to compare apples-apples compare '04 GTO, 2yr old chassis to "04 Mustang's 24yr old Fox chassis. Regardless they did a GREAT job with the stang!

    Interesting tidbit is that the Destination charge to the customer on the GTO via Aussie land is only $700. The American built Mustang has a $625 destination charge, go figure. Lutz claims GM is still profitting on the American GTO. 2005 sales are right on target with no incentives or employee pricing!

    If I could I would buy the other 2 cars, the V8 Charger and V8 Stang to go with my GTO!
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,275
    Can't argue that both cars offer the bang for the buck.

    My guess is, that GM is "hiding" some of the shipping costs in the MSRP. It's hard for me to fathom that it's not a lot more expensive to ship a car from Australia than it would to ship one anywhere from/to the U.S. or Canada.

    Charger I could probably do without. No doubt there will be takers to those who want a muscle sedan. I've only seen a couple on the road. Offering only an automatic tranny and what I consider bland interiors kill the deal for me on the Charger. SRT version would be interesting, but if I'm going to spend that kind of money, I'm looking at a Corvette.

    I try to go to the Detroit International Auto Show every year. Don't always make it since it's frigid there in January. But, that's where I first saw the current Mustang and GTO.

    I hope the '07 auto show has the '08 GTO to gander at. That might peak my curiousity. Also would like to see what Chryco will put on the stand for the (hopefully) upcoming Challenger. However, by that time, the GT500 will be out.
  • Also the Nissan 350Z has a cheaper destination charge from Japan then the Mustang here. $560 vs Mustang $625. Unless Nissan is hiding it in the MSRP too? It's got to cost more from Japan then USA as well!

    I always go to the NY (Manhattan) Auto Show every year in April about 1hr south of me. The problem with the challenger is that the LX chassis, 300C etc is heavy, 4000+ lbs, as high as 4200lbs. they need to trim weight/size to compete with Mustang. Challenger will show up at same time as new GTO, late 2008. Thats a long time, esp. with gas prices going up and up.

    You wonder how well these powerfull V8 cars are going to keep selling in leu of the ever increasing gasa prices, esp a GTO wihch only offers a V8. Charger and Mustang at least offer cheaper more fuel efficient V6 engines as std equip.
  • Not sure if you noticed this, but to me the Charger seems to have a WEAK exhaust note for a 340hp 5.7L V8. Some guy was revving it hard in a parking lot trying to draw attention to himself. I have heard V8 SUV with better stock exhaust!

    The 300C is very quiet, aimed more at luxury end. My brother in laws barely has any hint of V8 sound in his 300C.At idle doesn't even sound like anything.

    Mustang/GTO is much better/louder/deeper.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,275
    I think Japanese makers amortize their shipping costs from those models that ship to the U.S. over 100s of thousands of vehicles. Whereas, GM has higher shipping costs because, to my knowledge, the GTO is the only model they're shipping from Australia. And, it's shipping just a very small fraction of vehicles compared to those that come from Japan. Same goes for those that ship from Europe. They also ship 100s of thousands of vehicles that they can amortize the cost over a much higher volume of cars.

    I've yet to notice any exhasut notes coming from any 300Cs that I've seen on the road. But, that's a different car with a different purpose. You are correct. The Hemis (with the exception of those in the Dodge Ram) don't have the beautiful exhaust notes that either the Mustang GT or the GTO bring to the table.
  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    The dual exhaust is so small that it doesn't scream GT to me. There are umpteen cars on the road today with a V6 and dual exhaust. Doesn't stand out.
  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    But even if Pontiac did the EXACT same thing Ford did, the GTO wouldn't have sold anywhere near like how the Mustang did. And that's because they were (and ARE) DIFFERENT cars. One was a pony car (the original) and the other was a muscle car (arguably the original....at least the original intermediate). My point is, the public had a much higher opinion of "Mustang" than Camaro, or GTO. I mean, GTO was last produced in the mid 70s. The F-body wasn't selling well. IMO there isn't much GM could have done to sell 50-60k GTOs. Like I said a year ago, it should have been the G8 or even Grand Prix V8 or something.
  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    I doubt the HSV GTS has a closer ratio T56, since the GTO already gets the ratios from the Z06.

    On the speedo thing - I'm not sure the tires would make it at 180mph on jackstands. 180 definitely requires more than 350hp on flat road, but down the right hill with the right tail wind and a couple bolt ons, and it might see 180. On flat road with no winds and 350hp, I think the GTO is good for somewhere in the 160-165 range.
  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    Usually cars that come almost fully loaded don't always sell that well

    Happened to the Pacifica.

    Can't please everyone.

    Another reason I don't think they should have gone with "GTO." It's a perfectly great car on its own. Maybe a little expensive, but a great car nonetheless.
  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    It is 50% stiffer then the 1997 Commodore chassis.

    That may be true, but there is like zero use of exotic (or even lightweight) materials. They probably should have made extensive use of aluminum and other materials. The sad part is, it was as expensive as it was, in a range where other cars offer a lot more features and are a lot lighter, but slower admittedly.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    I'll certainly agree that the car shouldn't have been called a "GTO" since the heritage associated with that moniker is very strong (just as, IMO, DC has screwed up by calling their new car a "Charger").

    But that's all water under the bridge now.

    Regarding the Mustang - if GM had reintroduced the Camaro/Firebird, and it was styled to evoke the '67 models like the Mustang (and I've seen some artists renderings which looked VERY good), and offered the car in both V6 and V8 models, I think GM would have sold the heck out of them. 50-60k a year easy. And not with the monster LS2 Corvette drivetrain, maybe with the 305hp 5.3l V8 that GM is sticking in the Impala and GTP (or is it GXP; I can't keep'em straight).

    There's no reason why clean, retro-styling in an affordable RWD coupe with good (not necessarily blistering) performance must ONLY be a Ford specialty. Keep the costs down (hey, maybe even with a solid rear-end :) ), the performance at everyday usable levels (no, you DON'T need sub-5 second 0-60 times to sell a ton of cars), and the style up and there's absolutely no reason why GM shouldn't be buried by orders.
This discussion has been closed.