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

1535456585963

Comments

  • Hey Stang22
    Sorry to hear about your lemon :lemon: ... guess what?! I have one too! :lemon: I have the 05 V6 coupe premium, I've only had this for 1 yr and it's driving me crazy! I hear rattling coming from the a/c vents both left and right, my steering wheel squeaks, the brakes squeak it actually sounds like an old vehicles brakes and my drivers seat had a clicking in it that i literally felt on my back, that was fixed (twisted bracket is what they called it) but now you can still hear the clicking. And there's more to my car but enough of that, what was rattling in your car? I have taken my car in 4 times already, it has been there for more than 30 days but the techs can't seem to find or hear anything...They also claim "No other 05 mustang owners have problems" LIARS! :mad: I honestly think they(service dept)hate me now!
  • I don't recall the GTO requiring premium. Just about all cars run premium in their horsepower tests anyway to get the most power out of them and boost numbers, including Mustang.

    I also know that the GTO has a much more consistant torque band than the Mustang, as it has more than 300 lb/ft torque pretty much from idle to redline.

    Doesn't the GTO rev higher than Mustang anyway? And I thought that pushrods were old, ancient, and couldn't outrev any OHC motor, huh! :)
  • WOW 6500 RPM vs the GT's 6200 RPM redline. That must be it... wow I feel so enlightened. That 300 RPM difference must be why the GTO is faster then the GT. :P
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "Just about all cars run premium in their horsepower tests anyway to get the most power out of them and boost numbers, including Mustang."

    Nope.

    The only reason to run premium in a car is if the compression ratio is high enough that detonation is a concern. Premium fuel DOESN'T have any more energy content than regular, it just resists detonation better. The compression ratio on the Mustang is low enough that detonation is not a concern when running regular.

    Actually, I don't believe that premium is REQUIRED for the GTO. Their website simply lists it as 'recommended'. Cars with high compression motors will typically retard the ignition a bit (thus reducing hp) when regular is used in lieu of premium. So sure, you could run the same fuel as the Mustang, you just wouldn't be getting all 400hp.

    "I also know that the GTO has a much more consistant torque band than the Mustang, as it has more than 300 lb/ft torque pretty much from idle to redline."

    On what do you base this? The Mustang uses variable cam timing in the V8. One of the reasons (actually, the MAIN reason) is to flatten out the torque curve. Based the fact that the Mustang utilizes variable timing and the GTO does not, I would be inclined to believe that the Mustang actually has a more consistent torque band.

    "Doesn't the GTO rev higher than Mustang anyway? And I thought that pushrods were old, ancient, and couldn't outrev any OHC motor, huh!"

    Yes, it revs higher. But 6.5k rpm redline for the GTO is nothing to write home about even for a pushrod motor.

    In all honesty, I think that the redline in the Mustang IS too low. I would think that with a SOHC design and variable cam technology, there's no reason it couldn't be designed for a 7k redline without adversely affecting the lower rpm torque curve.

    Of course, this would simply bump up the hp above the GTO's specific output.......sweeeet!
  • Flash the computer with a custume tune, remove speed and rev limiter, then hold on tight.

    Trust me, I know. :D
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "Flash the computer with a custume tune, remove speed and rev limiter, then hold on tight."

    No no no; now we're back into the realm of hashing out modified cars again. Oh, I'm sure it's a quick and easy (and highly effective) mod, it's just that discussing mods as a means to debate the relative merits of these two vehicles gets pointless pretty quick.....
  • True true, but it seems no one can leave out certain points or issues that should be left out. But, I think thats what makes this debate so fun and interesting. The things people say.
  • b4zb4z Posts: 3,372
    The GTO is just as fast as the Mercedes CLK.
    The Mercedes CLK is almost twice the price.
    Therefore the CLK is JUNK. Pure JUNK I say!

    The logic on some of these GTO vs. Mustang GTO arguments
    escapes me.
  • If the GTO is so great a car, then why have sales been so bad? Why is GM TOTALLY redesigning it? Why did they throw a great engine and interior in an Australian-made Cavalier on steroids and try to pass it off as old school American muscle?

    If the Mustang GT is the lower of the two, than why have most professional reviewers...including CR, R&T, and C&D favored the Mustang GT? Why have sales continued to be through the roof WITHOUT incentives? So it seems that not only professionals, but the car buying public overwhelmingly prefers the Mustang GT over the GTO.

    Things that make you go hmmm..... :P
  • From the Car and Driver review, link above, message #1702: Just the facts, ma'am:

    base price: Mustang $24,995, GTO $33,500
    price as tested: Mustang $28,865, GTO $33,500 (Mustang's options unrelated to performance)

    braking, 70-0, feet: Mustang 170, GTO 167

    0-60 mph: Mustang 5.1, GTO 4.8

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

    top speed, mph: Mustang 147 (drag limited), GTO 158 (governor limited)

    Mustang has a larger trunk and better MPG

    Grand total of 235 points awarded by reviewers: Mustang 211, GTO 210.

    (HP/weight ratio was included, contrary to what I wrote in previous post.)

    Seeing as I don't plan to drive my Mustang anywhere near 140 mph, the differences between the more expensive, more powerful GTO and Mustang are, imo, negligible.

    The Mustang, btw, is a street machine, not intended for European twisty roads or the race track. It handles beautifully in traffic, is quiet and comfortable, not a rough-riding, hard-to-steer pseudo race car. :shades:
  • ClairesClaires Chicago areaPosts: 979
    It's been awhile since this topic got a little... shall we say... heated? Everyone here is entitled to his/her opinions, but those opinions are limited to vehicles. Opinions about owners/participants in the discussion have no place here.

    MODERATOR
    Need help getting around? claires@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • Well said Pony pirate.

    Just for the record so people know, the GT is NOT drag limited to 147MPH.

    My uncle is a State Trooper here in NJ, and him and I went out to some back roads way in the woods, and I had him clock me several times. The highest he clocked me at was 153MPH.

    Remember though, I have no speed limiter or rev limiter. Though I wasn't quite redline anyway. Just thought that would be an interesting bit of info seeming as though the GT's are said to be drag limited at 147MPH.
  • sensaisensai Posts: 129
    Grand total of 235 points awarded by reviewers: Mustang 211, GTO 210.

    Would you care to post the point total without the got to have it factor?
  • sigt1sigt1 Posts: 66
    i got an 05 past 150 as well
  • sigt1sigt1 Posts: 66
    dunno why GTO enthus are saying their car is better; totally diff car; plz

    i can get a mustang GT w/ traction, ABS, power steering, automatic locks and windows, single disc CD, 5spd manual cloth interior

    basically everything i need
    all the power of a fully loaded GT

    for $24,000

    i can't do this w/ a gto no matter how hard I try; the best i can get it for is 28000 and thats with all the haggling

    i goto ford say hey i want invoice and they say here you go

    jeez, GTO enthus act like its even comparable to that; totally not

    for the guy who wants a cloth seat and a fast car in stick the mustang is the only choice

    plz debate when a comparable car is released (possibly camaro)

    thx
  • gto05gto05 Posts: 4
    Hey
    The only reason mustang people dog the GTO is because they can't keep up with it.
  • Driving on the road ain't about keeping up. It ain't a race. I didn't buy a car just so I could "keep up." Man, what an immature concept. Adolescents "keep up."

    I enjoy driving my Mustang GT Premium not in terms of others cars, but in terms of the car itself. I like the way it drives, I like the way it feels, I like the way it shifts, I like the way it springs into action when I need power, I like the way it looks, I like the way it steers, I like the way it takes corners, I like the way it sounds. I don't give a rat's gluteus how it stacks up against anything else. I don't want anything else (even though I can easily afford a more expensive car).

    All my life I've been indifferent to cars. I've looked at muscle-car enthusiasts as dumb greasers, boring jerks, guys without a clue. I couldn't care less about cars; they were just a way to get from point A to B. I bought Hondas because they were reasonably priced and rated well by Consumers Reports. If someone else wanted to take the wheel, I was more than happy sitting in the passenger's seat staring out the window. When I bought a fully loaded Honda EX and someone asked me how I "liked" the car, I didn't understand the queston. I didn't "like" the car (actually I didn't even pick, or care about, the color -- I just took what was available). I didn't have any feelings whatsoever towards it. It was just a thing, just a necessary means of transportation.

    Then I saw that first Mustang ad on TV. A silver GT in field of corn. I looked up everything I could find about it on the internet. I ogled the pictures. I poured over reviews and performance stats, carefully inspected options, studied the differences between the different models, downloaded and printed everything there was out there. I went down to my local dealer asking how I can buy one. I called dealers, haggled prices, ordered one, then found one on the lot and hardballed the dealer into selling it to me at MSRP.

    Now, for the first time, I understand when someone says they "love" their car. Now, for the first time, I have an emotional attachment to a car. Other cars still look like ugly lumps of metal to me, not the Mustang.
  • Real nice post. I'm sure others feel the same way about their cars, whatever the make. I've been car crazy since I was three years old.
  • Well said, well said. Great post, and oh so true.

    I LOVE my 05 GT Premium (Black)!!!
  • jae5jae5 Posts: 1,205
    Sorry for the long delay, have been out of the country for the last two weeks on business.

    Sensai, you are really funny. It is amazing how you can misconstrue something to try to justify yourself. No disrespect, but you're a bit clueless of who actually was doing the testing, and who sponsored the event, as well as the Test Drive program itself. During the testing, they were NOT using professional SCCA test drivers; here's a clue, look at what they were wearing. If they were, they needed their memberships taken. I'm not talking about the host and the drifting champ running the car around the track, nor the host running the machine down the course. I'm talking about the 0-60 & quarter-mile runs. Why do you think BOTH cars had crummy times and trap speeds (remember, BOTH did the quarter in 6+ seconds, horrible).

    But really, you need to re-read my post and understand where I'm coming from. This was a Pontiac test-drive, so again, I ask you: Do you REALLY think, I mean REALLY THINK, the car was going to lose the quarter-mile race at the end? Or say anything that might be viewed as a negative? Lack of options? Small trunk space? Be honest here. It's just not the Pontiac Test Drive, hell all of the Test Drives are biased to the particular make / model they are presenting (been in a few of the vehicles that have been on the show, and for the most part, they over sold them on the program). Feel better big guy?

    Second, don't need to publish/quote times, slips and the like. These are posted every other day here, why re-hash. It's all in the driver, as both cars are damn equal. For example, I can take my GNX and beat a GTO today, tomorrow or next week I may lose. Again, depends on the driver, setup, track, state of tune, temperature whatever. So keep your magazine times. Anybody who knows cars and really races them knows magazines are for entertainment, not law. Also those times published are for that car for that day, not for eternity nor meant to be EVERY car that comes off the line will hit those numbers. This is backed up due to magazines testing cars multiple times, so a vehicle they tested today at one track may not give the same results when tested at another track. Or if they test a different car, same make / model / options, on a different day, heck even the same day, the numbers may be different. Got it?

    But if you need numbers that refute the GTO's win that day, and since you take what magazines publish as sacred and absolute truth, grab ANY magazine that ran an '05 Mustang; in every one it had a faster 0-60 & quarter mile time faster than the Pontiac Test Drive GTO.

    Third, funny how you blew over the fact that I like both cars, have driven BOTH, spending considerable seat and passenger time in both. You always seem to forget that, so I'm talking from fact, not what I heard or read. Sorry, but my preference is for the Mustang; it just has something this car doesn't: a soul, that "it". Ford nailed it on this one, stayed true to the market. This is what the market wanted and Ford provided. Whereas GM, well, I don't know what they were thinking.

    And please don't give your typical answer of "Where else can you get 400hp for $32K" line; you've posted that too many times here and other forums as a rebuttal. Yes, the Monaro is a good car, I just think GM totally misread the market and muffed their presentation of the car. Which is a doggone shame because it's a decent car, just bad market execution. Again, car good, presentation bad. Now do you understand?
  • what's a "GNX"?
  • jae5jae5 Posts: 1,205
    1987 Buick Grand National X, the last of the GN/T-Types and last of the G-bodies (RWD MC, GP, Cutlass/442).
  • Uh hummmm...(cough) AMEN!!
  • eliaselias Posts: 1,937
    those GNXs were awesome and remain so.
    hey, any goat or mustang people here noticing that the new Charger SRT and Challenger appear to open a can of whup-[non-permissible content removed] on both GTO & mustang? is there a "mopar kicks both GTO & mustang butt" thread here yet? too bad those mopar people forgot about manual transmissions.
  • sensaisensai Posts: 129
    Well congratulations for the long post, but I fail to find a point in it. Are you trying to refute that the GTO is a better performance car than the Mustang? If so, where is the proof? Are you trying to claim the GTO won the 1/4 mile at the end because it was a Pontiac test drive? And not because the car is simply more powerful? I just don't see what you are trying to prove. Did I ever say the Mustang is a bad car? The answer is no. But it does not outperform the GTO, period. And yes I have plenty of seat time in the new Mustang too. Again not a bad car, at least not until I hit the curve on I-94 between Wisconsin and Illinois that is full of bumps and potholes, where the solid axle really hampers the car.
  • sigt1sigt1 Posts: 66
    eh

    i drove a lot on that highway system when I had my 05 GT and i would not say "the solid axle really hampers the car" you do experience some shaking at certain speeds/rpms but thats fine; and since youve had so much road time w/ the GT you know how nice the manual transmission feels;

    as for potholes, you really should be avoiding those

    the argument here is that the mustang's 4.6 performace is almost identical to the gto 5.7 and close to the gto 6.0; and this performance can be had at 25K with a pretty nice package that includes traction, 17 inchers, dual window auto up and down, good stock stereo, great 5 speed tranny, abs, pretty big trunk, and all around cool look...

    again ive driven that highway manytimes and do no think in that case "the solid axle really hampers the car"
  • 13.8 second Mustang 1/4 mile is not nearly identical to a 13.3 second GTO 1/4 mile. Been to the track many times. Seen stock ones hit as low as 13.1. Stock GTO's always outrun the stock Mustangs.

    Leftover 2005 GTO's now have a $2,000 or $2,500 rebate and can be had as low as $27,500 out the door, pretty impressive. That includes , programable headlights, locking fuel tank door, hood struts-no prop rod, trip computer, IRS axle, 6spd manual, dual power seats and more. Items you can't get on the Mustang at any price. As for looks, they are subjective. I like both cars looks. The Mustang trunk while definitely bigger then the GTO trunk is still not a big trunk. Dont' forget the optional Shaker takes up a noticeable chunk of the trunk.

    Here in NY-NJ where I live the roads are far from smooth and there is no way that a solid axle will out perform a IRS on the streets. I've driven the Mustang GT and the GTO on the streets here and hit the same bumps, RXR tracks and the GTO is a way better handler & more civil for everyday use PERIOD. It's IRS gives a more controlled, much tighter feeling. The Stang felt like my old 1999 Z28 did, twitchy around corners which were not smooth. Even C&D magazine said that on the same roads the Stang solid rear did step out on imperfect pavement and had slightly disconcerting hop when encountering midcorner bumps. where as the GTO IRS exhibited no such spasms over same roads.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    ... Leftover 2005 GTO's now have a $2,000 or $2,500 rebate and can be had as low as $27,500 out the door, pretty impressive. That includes , programable headlights, locking fuel tank door, hood struts-no prop rod, trip computer, IRS axle, 6spd manual, dual power seats and more. Items you can't get on the Mustang at any price. ...

    Leftover 2005 GTOs??? :surprise: Anybody know of any "leftover" 2005 Mustang GTs? ;) FYI, the GT has a MUCH better trip computer than the GTO. And that impressive "roster" of options :P is certainly not worth the $4K+ MSRP premium over the Mustang GT.

    Programmable headlights? :confuse: The GTO has a feature that not even a Maybach has! What are "programmable headlights?" :confuse: Do you mean automatic headlights? Whoopdy-do! Lord knows it's a wrenching task to have to reach all the way beside the steering wheel and twist that knob two clicks! :sick:
  • I still feel like you guys are splitting hairs. Yes, the solid rear axle is a bit controversial. From an engineering point of view, as far as I understand such stuff, the plus side is that a solid rear axle affords better acceleration, better rear traction on take off; the negative is a bit bumpier ride. So be it.

    Just looking at the Car & Driver stats, never having driven a GTO, it strikes me that for a more expensive car with 100 more horses, that's a full 33% more power than the Mustang, the GTO should be a lot faster, should outperform the Mustang by a wider margin. I interpret the stats to mean the Mustang does more with its power than the GTO, that it's better designed than the GTO. I've read every review I could find of the new Pony GT and the critical concensus seems to confirm the impression that the new Mustang design is a winner, both stylistically and performance-wise.

    Finally, going to the bottom line, I challenge anyone to find a dealer giving any kind of rebate on '06 GT's. There's just no question that the new V8 Mustang is selling better than the GTO. People vote with their dollars.
  • jae5jae5 Posts: 1,205
    Really, hmmmmm. I94 is in my backyard (I'm from Chi-town remember) and seems that the GTO doesn't glide over them potholes either. Nothing does!! So what's your point?

    Did you say the Mustang was a bad car? You're kidding right? Actually you did, when you first started posting. Remember, that was during the period when you had a GTO, an '05 I believe even though they weren't out yet, then you didn't, then you said you had a car & was heavily modified (almost 450 - 500hp IIRC), then you admitted you never drove one, then you left for awhile, then you came back. But I degress...

    My point is simply this, which again you won't get because if you haven't figured it out by now, you never will and becuase you simply don't know. You're implying here, as well as in the past, that just because the GT has a solid rear, it's less of a car. Or becuase it has only 300 instead of 400hp. Because it's not the GTO. Blah, blah, blah. I am here to tell you, as others have as well, that a properly setup solid rear can hold it's own and/or out-perform a car with an IRS. Also a car with a good power/weight ratio but less hp/torque can and will beat a car that is off-balance, front-heavy, or just an overall pig (and no tough guy, not saying these things about the GTO/Monaro. I can hear your shorts riding up). So higher horsepower/torque doesn't mean squat if it can't be planted (that means make it to the ground), or has to haul a huge weight around, or bad driver skill. Got it? I know you don't but had to ask anyway. Good going back and forth but I'm bored. Let's move on shall we?

    But I'll tell you what, next time you're going to be here during the weekend and the weather's nice, bring you GTO to Joliet, Cordova, the test/tune and other events at some of the local tracks in Southern IL. or the "other" places (like off from the Bishop Ford near the Ford plant and industrial park) and we'll run, or you can run anyone else that's there. There's usually a couple of Cobras there too, but one's got a swapped in solid rear (the indie broke twice), so you should automatically beat him too. And you should beat me since you have higher hp, an indie rear, a wing on the decklid, leather all over the seats, etc. etc. etc. :P
This discussion has been closed.