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

1235763

Comments

  • SylviaSylvia Posts: 1,636
    OK - sounds like we are getting too personal here.

    No personal attacks. Agree to disagree, be civil and move on.

    Thanks!
  • Anyone seen any lap times from both cars off of a road course? These are better numbers to look at as indicators of overall performance since they include handling, braking, efficiency, etc.

    Not that this is necessarily going to be the case, but often times a car which can't match a competitors' speed in a straight line sprint from a dead stop can match pace or even pull ahead on a difficult road course.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,136
    The trade rag numbers are the most consistent and reliable independent numbers we've got, on either the GTO or the Mustang GT. The numbers are consistent from more than one trade rag to be within a tenth or two between the two cars. That's insignificant. Since they are all relatively close, I'd say they've got a pretty good bead on what each car can/can't do.

    I'll agree to disagree with you.
  • Ugh, I swear this guy is going to drive me crazy. Once again, graphicguy, you left out the huge trap speed difference. Your comparing times from different magazines, which is useless since that means the cars were tested in different conditions...

    OK, so let's look at times from the same magazine. We can use the oft-cited Car and Driver comparison test, "21st Century Muscle Cars." A 2005 GTO and a 2005 Mustang were tested at the same times, in the same places, under the same conditions, by the same drivers.

    Straight-line times: Mustang / GTO

    0-60: 5.1 / 4.8

    1/4-mile @ mph: 13.8 @ 103 / 13.3 @ 107

    So the Goat has an advantage of 3 tenths of one second to sixty and half a second in the quarter at just 4 miles an hour faster. I wouldn't call that a "huge trap speed difference." I can now agree with graphicguy that this difference in the numbers (straight-line) is pretty insignificant, especially considering the GTO has an extra gear in the tranny and of course, the frequently touted hundred extra horses.

    The rag also states that the Mustang is lighter and has better weight distribution, a slightly better skidpad rating, and a few good miles an hour advantage in the lane change test. This is good evidence that on a challenging road course, the GTO's faster straight-line times would be negated by the Mustang's handling advantages. Of course, we'll have to wait for some actual lap times. Should at least be a good race!

    "Big surprise, right? The Goat finishes second; it's a goat after all, and that's what goats do." - C&D
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    Check out Post 126 with the photo, GTO does 181 mph stock with the governor removed. I stand corrected! End of story!
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    benderofbows writes....
    "Big surprise, right? The Goat finishes second; it's a goat after all, and that's what goats do." - C&D.......

    The Goat fought hard and kicked even harder, and there were moments when we thought the GTO would prevail and we'd be left to explain how our 10Best muscle car Mustang came in second to the only other valid competitor.C&D....

    With 6.0 liters of power, it won most of the performance tests as well as the fun-to-drive category. C&D

    Lets add 212 lbs of extra weight to Stang or test Convertible which is 175 lbs heavier. You will really see dif.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    Graphicguy wrote......
    This isn't just an indictment of the GTO, but all of Pontiac. It's almost like they stopped designing anything after 1997....just reworking the same thing from '97 on (and that design isn't one I'd want to emulate as a classic, by any stretch). .......

    As they say, to each their own... But at least Pontiac didn't take a 37 yr old design and pass it as new with the RETRO moniker. Ford couldn't come up with anything better/more original then a redo of their 1967 Stang? LOL! Doesn't say too much. I never though the 1967-1968 looked good to begin with back then, but to each their own.

    BTW.. went to a car show last week, there was about 15 new 2005 Stangs there and only my GTO, more people came up to my GTO and were more interested in seeing it then the Mustangs... LOL!
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    Graphicguy wrote....Personally, I hope to see a Mustang on every corner.....

    You are joking right? LOL! That is why I never bought Camry/Mustang/Accord/Taurus, etc. That is why I loved my 2 door GTP coupe, most people bought 4 door renta car ones. coupe was only 25% of GP sales.

    BTW.....Whats up with the CHEAP prop rod to put/hold up the hood on a 2005 Stang? More Ford cost cutting. Thats pretty cheap. GTO has 2 strong arms that go right up with hood.
  • Yes, everyone is in agreement with the simple fact that the GTO is faster in a straight line.

    However, the Mustang has superior handling characteristics (C&D comparo). So we have a few miles an hour in the quarter mile versus a few miles an hour in a lane change maneuver.

    I'd bet that on a real race track (not a straight line or a big oval- a road course with some challenging curves such as you would find on the street) the Mustang will at least keep pace with the GTO, but again we don't have any data yet.

    It's the old battle of handling versus horsepower. Is the extra agility and grip of the Mustang enough to combat the extra punch of the GTO? It would be a good one.
  • Lets add 212 lbs of extra weight to Stang or test Convertible which is 175 lbs heavier. You will really see dif.

    By that logic, let's add 1.4 liters of extra displacement to the Mustang and look at the difference...
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    How many of the 2005 Stangs are Fleet/rental cars too? That drives down pricing as well. I can rent a 2005 Stang Tomorrow. Can't say the same about GTO. There are NO GTO's sold to rental/fleets. In 3 yrs, how many of those 180k 2005 Mustangs are going to be turned back in from leases or sold etc as used from owners or rental car fleets? The values will drop big time. You will have 50k stangs re-entering the market in 3 yrs. Mustangs have never held their value that well. Either have Domestic cars in general. I don't see that changing anytime soon. Of course some of the older 1960's classics are worth some $$. So are the older GTO's etc. Older GTO's hold their value better then Stangs, I'm in the old car hobby, from my perspective. I don't own either. I own a 1958 Chevy.

    THe GTO has a higher chance of collector car status yrs from now, based on 12k vs 180k. That can't hurt.

    Yes a V6 Stang looks similar to a V8 stang from a distance. I can tell the dif, but the avg person, not a car fan will not. Cheap $19k version will undermine the $28k+ ones. For every GTO you are going to see almost 15 Stangs, LOL! based on the sales numbers.

    As for MSRP now etc.. tell me how much money you get for your 2005 Stang 3 to 5 yrs from now! It will be 50% or less! No new car is an investment. As soon as you drive off the lot, they drop. Bring your stang back to the dealer and ask them to give you what you paid for it, Betcha they don't! LOL!
  • With 6.0 liters of power, it won most of the performance tests as well as the fun-to-drive category. C&D

    Finish that quote out, it's a good one! Pretty much describes why the Mustang won:

    "but what the GTO lacked last year it lacks this year: Watch one go by on the street, and the design still won't trigger an arrhythmia like a 400-hp coupe should. If only it looked as stunning as the new Mustang, we might have forgiven the mislaid pedals, the stubborn shifter, and even the roughly $5000 difference in price. Unfortunately for Pontiac, our comparo jury wasn't blind."
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    BTW.. went to a car show last week, there was about 15 new 2005 Stangs there and only my GTO, more people came up to my GTO and were more interested in seeing it then the Mustangs... LOL!

    Don't most people stare and gawk at something that sticks out like a sore thumb?

    BTW.....Whats up with the CHEAP prop rod to put/hold up the hood on a 2005 Stang? More Ford cost cutting. Thats pretty cheap. GTO has 2 strong arms that go right up with hood.

    What's up with the cheap pushrods and rocker arms that activate the valves in the LS2 engine? More GM cost cutting. That's pretty cheap. The Mustang has two strong cams that activate the valves directly.

    Lets add 212 lbs of extra weight to Stang or test Convertible which is 175 lbs heavier. You will really see dif.

    Let's add 1.4L of displacement and 100 extra HP to the Mustang. You will really see a difference.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    benderofbows writes......By that logic, let's add 1.4 liters of extra displacement to the Mustang and look at the difference......

    Ford doesn't make a 6 liter V8, LOL! , but they do make a version of the stang that is 175 lbs heavier and closer compared to GTO weight as previously mentioned.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    Tayl0rd writes.........What's up with the cheap pushrods and rocker arms that activate the valves in the LS2 engine? More GM cost cutting. That's pretty cheap. The Mustang has two strong cams that activate the valves directly. ........

    interesting that the Mustangs 4.6 liter Hi-tech SOHC 3 valve per cylinder makes LESS horsepower per liter then GM's supposedly Low-tech pushrod engine, LOL!

    And the GM pushrod engine revs higher, 6500 rpm vs 6000 on stang. So much for newer/better technology right?

    Sorry but the LS2 is a superior engine to the Mustangs. You can argue all you want. That is why LS2 is used in a car that costs $50k. But I get it in a car for $30k

    Actually DOHC is just as old of a technology as pushrod....

    Overhead cams really aren't 'new' technology. Dual overhead cams (DOHC) were first used back in 1912 by Peugeot in a Grand Prix race engine. The first production DOHC engine was a 1500 cc straight six built by Alfa Romeo in 1928.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    Yes, but there is no convertible GTO. What kind of comparison would that be? I imagine, though, that the convertible Mustang would still equal or better the GTO in handling, despite having no roof.

    To compare a 300HP car to a 400HP car is pretty much pointless as far as acceleration is concerned; even though the GTO's advantage in a street race would be minimal at best.
  • "So what was the Mustang's appeal? Well, we're suckers for a great body, and the Mustang looks a lot better than the GTO. Disparage the Mustang's '60s styling if you must, but get ready to face the reality that the GTO's banality is pure '90s. Furthermore, the Mustang wins because when you take it in, as a total package, the Ford makes better sense. Pick apart the Mustang's laundry list of simple components, and it will seem to be less of a car than the GTO, but drive the Mustang, and it feels like far more than the sum of its parts. That is the draw of the Mustang: It makes the most of what it has, doesn't suffer for what it doesn't have, charges you less than you'd expect, and beckons from the showroom until you come and take it home."
  • benderofbows writes......By that logic, let's add 1.4 liters of extra displacement to the Mustang and look at the difference......

    Ford doesn't make a 6 liter V8, LOL! , but they do make a version of the stang that is 175 lbs heavier and closer compared to GTO weight as previously mentioned.


    I know Ford doesn't make a 6 liter V8. Pontiac also does not make a 3500-lb GTO (or even a convertible for that matter). It's overweight.

    Adding weight to the Mustang wouldn't be a fair comparison.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    We are talking about that 38 yr old design Ford tries to pass off as new again, sorry Retro, LOL! We all know it did wonder for the Tbird, NOT, cancelled for lack of sales. We all know that the GTO won the C&D comparison contest. Only reason Stang one by 1 point was because of the GOT TO HAVE it BS Factor. Whats got to have about a $28k car with a solid rear axle and sheetmetal that was copied from a 1967 stang, LOL! Still using that weak 4.6 Liter engine. To each their own.

    As a side note....Ford put that 300hp 4.6 in the Maurauder and it still couldn't beat a 260hp Impala SS, LOL! So much for newer technology. I believe Impala SS got same or better gas mileage too, LOL!

    That 5.4Liter 450hp Stang should be nice, but again, that hp is made with a blower. Unless I'm wrong.

    I could put a blower on my LS2 too.
  • If you want to talk about American V8's you need to include torque. And the Mustang 4.6 makes more torque per liter than the GM 6.0
  • sensaisensai Posts: 129
    So the Goat has an advantage of 3 tenths of one second to sixty and half a second in the quarter at just 4 miles an hour faster. I wouldn't call that a "huge trap speed difference." I can now agree with graphicguy that this difference in the numbers (straight-line) is pretty insignificant, especially considering the GTO has an extra gear in the tranny and of course, the frequently touted hundred extra horses.
    Again, stop magazine racing and go to a track. That "insignificant difference" is actually many car lengths at that speed, and the trap speed proves the GTO is accelerating at a much quicker pace. And again, real world numbers point to a even greater difference between the cars.

    I'd bet that on a real race track (not a straight line or a big oval- a road course with some challenging curves such as you would find on the street) the Mustang will at least keep pace with the GTO, but again we don't have any data yet.
    Now this is something I would like to see, and not claims of which handles better due once again to some magazine numbers (sorry but skidpad and slalom were never a measure of a cars true handling capabilities). I would like to add my own wager though that unless you are racing on a very small figure eight track, the GTO is again going to own the Mustang due to its power advantage.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    Lets talk about torque, FACT GTO makes 400 ft lbs, Mustang makes 320 ft lbs. GTO is faster car in all perf. categories. FACT GTO makes more torque and horsepower per curb weight as well, LOL! Give it a rest already. There is no replacement for cubic inches. I can still easily modify LS2, but with 400hp, its enough for me. No more from me, nuff said!
  • Basically, sports cars (and cars in general) from the 1960s were (and are today) a lot cooler than cars from the 1990s.

    Would I rather have a brand new car that looks like a '60s icon, or a brand new car car that looks like it belongs in the '90s?

    Easy decision.
  • I'd like to see both of them in a real road race too. I can't wait to see the upcoming GTO-R versus the Shelby GT500. Maybe they'll meet in an American cup series.

    image

    image
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,136
    I guess you can try to twist the numbers any way you want. But, what we do know is that those that have provided the most consistent reliable numbers are C&D, R&T and MT. I could throw Edmunds in here too, but I don't think they are too interested in the '05 GTO based on the editor's feelings about the car. The trade rags all put the performance between the GTO and the Mustang GT to almost identical (a tenth of a sec difference in the 0-60 and two tenths of a difference in the 1/4).

    That just goes to show that there's much more than just stating HP numbers to make any reliable statement regarding any car's true performance. No surprise there.
  • And there is alot more to the true performance of any car than acceleration.
  • The Ford 5.4 Liter Modular V-8 in the 2000 Ford SVT Mustang Cobra R made 385 hp and tq, propelling the vehicle to 60 in 4.5 seconds, to 100 in 10.5 seconds, and through the quarter mile in 12.9 sec @ 113 mph, on the way to a top speed of 175 mph. And, the car pulled 1.01g on the skidpad.

    image

    The new GT500 will use a supercharged version of this 5.4 MOD V8 tuned to produce over 450 hp and tq, and have the same architechure as the FR500C race car which recently won the Grand Am Cup at Daytona (with a 5.0 Cammer V8).

    image

    With Carroll Shelby's name on it, you know it will be more than a match for the upcoming GTO-R.

    image
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,136
    bend....couldn't agree more. That's why I believe there's been so praise written about the Mustang. As a performance car package, it has been a watershed car in, at least, the '05 iteration of the Mustang.

    Ford did so many things right with the new Mustang....from styling, to build quality, to the suspension, to performance, to the driving experience, etc when compared to its competition.

    This is one of the few times where the marketplace has agreed with the press in what constitutes a "hit" car.

    Mattrer of fact, one of the Edmunds test team went so far as to say......

    "I drove the new 2005 Corvette the same day I drove the Mustang and I like the Mustang much better. The interior is nearly perfect — the adjustable gauge colors are a nice touch."

    Mighty high praise. I can just imagine what they'll say about the GT500 when it goes up against the Z06 Corvette.

    Cool pics, too! Thanks!
  • Yea, that's exactly what C&D was getting at in their article; even though the GTO won some of the acceleration tests, they felt the Mustang was "the total package" and "more than just the sum of its' parts."

    I've heard alot of editors state that the Mustang is the most fun to drive, even more so than the Corvette.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    Looks are subjective. It's in the eye of the beholder, I like the GTO you don't. Thats cool.

    NO, NOT ALL 1960's cars are cool, Corvair, etc. You certainly don't want to have a accident in one, minimal safety equipment, no seat belts std until 1967, brakes that don't even come close to stopping like a modern car. Massive brake fade from 4 drums. Not to mention the skinnier tires and crappier handling. On avg they were not EVEN CLOSE to being as nice to drive as modern cars.

    I love classic and antique cars and own some including '58 Chevy, but they aren't as cool as you think. Esp when having to do work, parts etc.
This discussion has been closed.