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

1575860626394

Comments

  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    I guess I didn't make my point clear; s'okay. I'm used to it.

    Yes, hp rating are important in that it gives me an idea of what kind of performance to expect and (together with vehicle weight) I can use it to narrow down possible purchase candidates.

    But I don't BUY the car based on it's hp rating. What that rating is may get me to test a car, but I buy based on how the car feels when I'm driving it.

    And re-rating a car from 400 down to 380 (or up to 450) wouldn't change how the car drove one iota. So, from that standpoint, why should I care? If I was happy with the performance at 400, why should I suddenly feel 'gyped' if the rating was 380? What possible good would it be if it were re-rated at 450hp? The only good I see is for bragging rights, pure and simple.
  • I wouldn't care from a performance standpoint, but I would from a consumer's view. If the vehicle got rated up, I could care less.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,098
    On my beloved RX8, I went through the whole HP "restatement" thing. It was supposed to have 247 HP. Mazda had to do some last minute "retuning" of the ECM since there was some question whether the cat converters would last at the 247 HP level. Mazda actually offered to buy the car back. This was for the first 5K units they shipped over here from Hiroshima.

    At first, I was livid and thoroughly planned to sell it back to Mazda. But, as most of you say, it didn't really affect the performance of the car. Plus, it's true, you can't drive a number on paper. I liked it when I test drove it and didn't know it had 9 less HP. So, I kept it. I think only 150 people actually sold their RX8s back to Mazda. The rest of us took Mazda's offer of $500 and free maintenance for the life of the 4 year warranty (which was worth another $500).

    I know that Ford went through a similar PR nightmare when the Cobra's HP was overstated a few years back.

    Fact is, if you test drove a car and liked it, does it really make any difference if the HP was over/under stated? In my case, no.

    vp....it sounds like you're "uber-Mustang" is going to be nice. I used to do some bracket racing in the past. I've never been much into doing purely cosmetic mods, but have seen some beautiful '05 Mustangs that did very nice jobs "customizing" their 'Stangs. On the other hand, I've seen some hideous ones, too. When I was racing, I always prided myself in the fact that the mods I did still allowed me to take the same car off the track and street it (with nothing more than a tire change). The cars usually looked like hell, but were fast as greased lightening.

    That was before I had a wife (now ex) and a kid (now grown). I still hang with some of the friends I'd met when racing. I still go to Mid-Ohio every May for those events. Every once in a great while, I want to mechanically "mod" the 'Stang. But, I have a golfing buddy, who's a General Manager at a Pontiac, GMC, Buick dealership once tell me that every mod anyone does to any car always detracts from its value when it's time to sell. So, I just don't do it anymore.
  • Imo, the issue would be that they misrepresented the vehicle - and I personally would have a problem with that.
    It basically amounts to false advertising.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "It basically amounts to false advertising."

    In regards revised hp ratings due to new SAE standards, why?

    What if the SAE revised the rules so that all hp ratings were based on hp at the drive wheel (measured from a chassis dyno under strict testing methodology rather than an engine dyno) so that drivetrain losses where accounted for? Some manufacturer's probably have more efficient tranny's and diffs than other so they would see less of a drop in hp as measured at the wheel.

    Would this mean the other manufacturer's had 'misrepresented' the engine output?

    Has ANYONE (with any reputation) insinuated that manufacturers were NOT following the old regulations and/or falsifying the test results? I haven't read this. What I have read is that there were sections of the old SAE testing methodology which were open to interpretation. Some manufacturers interpreted the method one way, others a different way. In an efford to eliminate the gray areas, the SAE rewrote the testing methodology.

    Put it this way: when the SAE went from the old "gross hp" rules in the 60's to the "net hp" rules in the early 70's, do you think the revised hp numbers would have been grounds for 'false advertising'?
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,098
    gottab....I think manufacturer's always give themselves an "out" by stating they reserve the right to change specs, options, etc.

    To me, I still loved the car I bought (RX8). Did I feel like I was "misled" about the RX8's HP? Yeah, initially! But, the car I bought didn't change, just the ratings. I can see both sides to this. In Mazda's case, I felt they went beyond what I expected in offering to buy the car back for a total refund, or what I chose, $500 and free maintenance.

    That said, there's a reason Mazda is the only company with a rotary engine. I think it makes a great racing motor. It's real simple (my rotary had only 9 moving parts). Both GM and Chrysler looked at the rotary decades ago and decided against using it as a production engine. I think GM actually built a prototype car using a rotary.

    Ford went through the HP debacle a while back with the Cobra. I do think they offered their owners either an engine rebuild (to hit the advertised HP).

    Overall, I do believe different cars with the same engine, will have minute differences in HP just for the mere fact that, although tollerances are much tighter today, there will still be some variances.

    When I was test driving both GTOs and Mustangs, my seat of the pants told me that some were "strong" runners, and some felt like they were down on power from what I expected. That tells me there were some variances just from those experiences. They weren't significant differences, but differences, nonetheless.

    I bet you could dyno two different GTOs or Mustangs and not be able to hit the same HP figure identically. So, it's probably a moot point.

    If the rating rules change, then it's reasonable to expect that the ratings themselves would change.
  • mparis1mparis1 Posts: 107
    Muscle Car Review magazine August 2005 gets 0-60 in 4.8 sec quarter mile at 13.3 106 mph........wow...this cannot be true. Has anybody seen this article ? :surprise:

    Shelby cobra? are dealers taking orders? are they out yet? is literature out yet?

    are automaticcs available?
    anybody seen this magazine??
  • "What if the SAE revised the rules so that all hp ratings were based on hp at the drive wheel (measured from a chassis dyno under strict testing methodology rather than an engine dyno) so that drivetrain losses where accounted for"

    I think they should revise the HP ratings so they are HP at the drive wheels with all installed accesories operating. That is the only TRUE hp rating. Front wheel drive cars will have a slight advantage because they lose less through drivetrain. It also depends on the tranny too etc.
  • "Muscle Car Review magazine August 2005 gets 0-60 in 4.8 sec quarter mile at 13.3 106 mph........wow...this cannot be true. Has anybody seen this article ?"

    Haven't seen it yet, but If that is true, those are the same 0-60 and 1/4 mile numbers Car and Driver got on the 2005 GTO in it's February issue. 4.8 and 13.3
  • graphicguy,
    I don't plan to do any serious racing, but I will be periodically "dyno"ing and running the car at a local track. I'm a newb to both of these performance pastimes...all I know is what I've read over the past 6 months, so I'm anxious to try it. Most of my mods this year will be interior stuff (MGW's line is fantastic methinks!) and some bolt ons. Next year will be the painted stripes and S/C...patience is a fiscal virtue. Overall though, my mustang will be a daily driver, so I'm waiting to see what the stock engine can handle.

    I agree that mods most likely will reduce the car's value, but I plan on running this car until it gives up the ghost. All of the body kits look horrid to me. How someone could like nonfunctional, taped hood, side, and rear window scoops is beyond me......guess I'm getting old.

    For those interested in the 2005, for 10$ I just picked up a hardbound edition of "Mustang 2005: A New Breed Of Pony Car" by Matt Lorenzo. Interesting and surprising read...
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,098
    vp....my dealer gave me that book by Lorenzo when I ordered my 'Stang this past winter. Apparently, he bought a whole case of them and gave them out to the folks who ordered from his first allotment of cars.

    Neat book. Really in-depth on the engineering and design process with good interviews about both from Tang and Colleti.

    Good luck on your mods. The one thing the Mustang lends itself well to is "modding".
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "I think they should revise the HP ratings so they are HP at the drive wheels with all installed accesories operating. That is the only TRUE hp rating."

    Amen to that.

    It would also be interesting to see the difference between the hp at the wheel for manual tranny equipped cars vs. their automatic counterparts. But I don't expect to see this in my lifetime.

    I see such a method as a HUGE headache for the manufacturer's. Consider if the GTO had a driven wheel hp rating of 350hp. Then EVERY (or nearly every) GTO owner would be running down to their local speedshop and paying for a dyno pull to see if they were actually getting the advertised hp.

    Can you imagine the fits everyone would be thowing when their muscle car wasn't giving the 'promised' results?

    If we were to get some sort of driven wheel hp ratings, I imagine they would be like EPA mileage ratings: "Projected hp is 350. Your hp may vary".
  • Speaking of sales. The 1989 Fox Body Mustang sold nearly 200k cars too. Same as this 2005. However by 1991, Mustang sales DECLINDED to 85k.

    Ford almost replaced the Mustang with a new Front Drive Car. A study team, led by Coletti, was formed in 1989 to develop a business plan to see if a new Mustang could be developed in less than four years for $700 million. An all-new car was out of the question, Coletti says.

    1974 Mustang sold almost 400k copies !!
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    Yep. The original Ford Probe was actually slated to be the new 'Mustang'.

    Fortunately, the powers-that-be in Dearborn didn't like the image of their bodies hanging from lampposts (ala a certain Italian dictator ca. 1945) so they canceled the idea of whacking the old rwd Mustang a favor of a 'Mustang Lite'.

    1974 Mustang II sold in huge numbers because it was "all new and improved with European style and handling" and offered better gas mileage than the old models.

    Dark days indeed for all the domestics.....
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    Can you imagine the fits everyone would be thowing when their muscle car wasn't giving the 'promised' results?

    No need to imagine. Does everyone remember the '99 Mustang Cobra? It was such a mess that there was only, maybe, two '00 Cobras produced since they had to spend so much time and money making the '99s right. I don't even think those two '00 Cobras made it to the public. If someone does have one, he/she would be stupid not to put it in a giant plastic bag inside an air-conditioned, dehumidified garage for the next 20-30 years!
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
  • Very interesting and thanks for clarifying - guess I'd mostly have to agree with you.
    As for this:
    'When I was test driving both GTOs and Mustangs, my seat of the pants told me that some were "strong" runners, and some felt like they were down on power from what I expected.'
    I think this is absolutely true and can be seen in some of the recent discussions on the GTO forum.
  • A Chevy dealer by me has a USED 2005 Mustang 5spd manual V8 convertible with only 859 miles for $35,500. Wonder what Chevy the guy traded that in for? Or what he got for the car.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,098
    From the talk on other Mustang boards, more than a few people bought the Mustang and then turned around and sold it for more than they paid to make a quick buck. Even some dealers took their new Mustangs to the big auctions and got more than they paid by selling to other dealers.

    With only 859 miles on it, I'd bet that Mustang was an "auction" piece. Or, someone with more dollars than sense, decided what they really wanted wasn't a Mustang but a 'vette.
  • "From the talk on other Mustang boards, more than a few people bought the Mustang and then turned around and sold it for more than they paid to make a quick buck"

    I thought of doing that, but didn't feel like taking the chance, oh well. I missed out. The dealers by me only seem to have V6 Mustangs in stock on their lots.
This discussion has been closed.