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

1585961636494

Comments

  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 6,911
    I had a Toyota dealer offer me $2.5K more than I paid for my Mustang GT. I thought about it but came to the conclusion that it would take me another 3 months to get another one (at least). So, I didn't pull the trigger.

    I saw a V6 Pony Package yesterday. IMHO, that makes a world of difference with the V6 models and should bode well for '06 V6 sales. That said, there aren't any GTs to be found....at least in OH.
  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    For you guys that can't tell the difference. You don't have to look close to see the difference. The front end is the most similar and I admit the GTO has the generic Pontiac front end. But thats where it ends. The only car the GTO looks like is the Holden Monaro. Any other similarities is probably due to aerodynamics which is something the Mustang wouldn't know about.
    Image hosted by Photobucket.com">

    Image hosted by Photobucket.com

    Image hosted by Photobucket.com
  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    Now this is my favorite Mustang. Check out the phony hood scoop. And the phony side vents. I guess even into my 30s I still went for that stuff. If the new Mustang had been based on this model I might have been interested. Oh well.
    Image hosted by Photobucket.com
  • I must be one of the 95% of humanity that thinks those two cars look very much alike. There is no doubt the GTO is nicer, but there is way more in common than apart.
  • I can easily see the dif between the GTO and Grand Prix as well. Esp the 2005 GTO which has hood scoops and new rear dual exhaust fascia. Interior wise GTO has GM's best interior
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 6,911
    I thought we beat the styling to death, already.....

    Early 70s Mustangs always looked good to me. Unfortunately, that's when the power for all cars began to drop for no other reason than the tighter emmissions and the strive for more MPG. Plus, insurance companies were getting rich off of those who drove American muscle.

    On the other hand, I liked the looks of the late '60s GTOs. You actually knew what it was with just a quick glance.

    For the record, I see more similarities in the GTO vs the GP or Grand AM than I do differences. Pontiac would do well to get their new design off the drawing boards and on the street....the sooner the better if GM wants to jump back into the muscle segment with the Mustang, Charger and the Challenger.
  • "Early 70s Mustangs always looked good to me. Unfortunately, that's when the power for all cars began to drop for no other reason than the tighter emmissions and the strive for more MPG. Plus, insurance companies were getting rich off of those who drove American muscle"

    Very true, early '70's mustangs were not too bad, however the Pinto derived new for 1974 Mustang with optional 105hp V6 was pretty nasty. 0-60 in 14 seconds and 100mph top spd. Some People don't care for the 1974 GTO, but it was a pretty Fast performer...for it's time! .It had a 200hp 350 V8 with 4 spd manual and 3.08 axle in a car that weighed under 3400 lbs. About 8.5 seconds 0-60. Very good performance for a 1974 car. It was very easy to modify that engine to 250-300hp mark.
  • We wonder how long or well the Muscle segment will continue to do, especially with gas near $3 a gallon and possibly still climbing. The sales decline has already hit the larger SUV/truck market with their big V6 and V8 engines! Gm is claiming to bring back an all new designed GTO for 2008, we shall see.

    I have heard/read somewhere that the new 4 door Charger is NOT selling that well, plus I have seen many still sitting on dealers lots by me. I personally think it's one ugly car, my opinion.
  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    I see such a method as a HUGE headache for the manufacturer's

    In some ways, I see your point. Because currently, we can dismiss any deviation from expected wheel horsepower by saying "well, it must be the tranny."
  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    I think silver is one of the worst colors for the GTO...makes it look so bland. I think black is my favorite. Silver works on cars with style, like the 300C.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 6,911
    It's hard to predict what will become of the "muscle segment" with gas prices going the way they are. Really, there's no reasonable reason to see why oil prices are where they are. It seems like oil companies will use any small reason to bid up the price....whether relevant or not. I see the overproduction of OPEC catching up to the likes of BP and Dutch Petroleum in the future, which will in turn, cause prices to drop. Once the presidential primaries start again, I'm sure that at least one candidate will come along and make oil prices a center piece of debate. But, that's a different topic.

    I've only seen a couple of Chargers on the road. Both of them were during my travels to Detroit. I kind of expected them to be on the road there.

    I've seen none around my OH home.

    So, I don't know if they're selling or not. The best way I could see to market the Charger would be as a lower cost alternative to the Chrysler 300C. Aside from that, with 4 doors and only an automatic transmission, I don't see it playing in the Mustang/GTO segment.

    Regardless of oil prices, I've always been, and will continue to be a fan of the American Muscle Car.....regardless of brand. I just don't think people like us will care all that much about oil prices if we can get the performance we're looking for.

    If any of us were looking for economy, we'd all be driving a Prius.

    Having had the good fortune to travel quite a bit for my job, it's funny to see how different parts of the country are handling artificially inflated oil prices. In CA, you can't get your hands on a hybrid. Yet, from all reports, CA is the one area GTOs are selling well.

    Around the midwest, getting your hands on a Honda or Toyota hybrid is a piece of cake. Muscle cars and trucks still rule the day around me.

    Usually, I fly wherever I need to be. Later this week, I'm actually driving from southern OH to Chicago for work. I'll spend the weekend there since I love the city so much. It will be interesting to see what cars/trucks are actually on the road.

    On the one hand, I'm tempted to take the Mustang. On the other hand, I've also got a 4Runner and I might take it for no other reason than I have to load some equipment and could use the room. Neither one is going to net me 30 MPG for the trip. But, surprisingly, I can hit mid 20s MPG on either for all highway driving.

    kev....silver colors seem more annonymous. If you want to fly under the radar, to me, silver is the color to be in....particularly with a Mustang or GTO. Wanna attract attention......go for yellow on either car.
  • "Regardless of oil prices, I've always been, and will continue to be a fan of the American Muscle Car.....regardless of brand. I just don't think people like us will care all that much about oil prices if we can get the performance we're looking for"

    I 100% agree. My GTO is barely used for commuting. It will see about 8k to 12k miles per year, pleasure, errands, car shows, etc. So I didn't care about the 16 city and 21 highway rating! Which is better then most of the SUV's/trucks out there! My brothers Jeep Liberty rated same as MY GTO, only has a 6 cyl.

    The real funny thing as I think I mentioned before is that I have had numerous people comment to me, "Why did you buy such a gas guzzler with gas prices nearing $3 a gallon?" Meanwhile these same people are driving V6 and V8 SUV's that get WORSE mileage then GTO, Very ironic.
  • Rousch Mustang is a $13k package by Rousch that brings the price of the car to $38k. it only adds 10hp via less restrictive exhaust , 310hp and does NOTHING to enhance the brakes or handling. It's an interior/exterior appearance kit only. What a waste.

    I'd rather buy the $25k mustang and put the $13k into engine/handling and braking. Just my opinion!
  • The best tonight was that at the cruise night some guy with a black CHARGER said some not so nice comments about my GTO, no big deal. How the Charger is faster, etc. Which is inccorect. I went up to his car to check it out, it was the single exhaust V6 Charger model, LOL! A V6 Stang might beat it. Gave me a chuckle.
  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    Hey gguy. I was going to do this months ago but it took this long to find a buddy with a scanner. Then I had to take the pictures, and get them developed, and figure out how to post them. It looks like we didn't get them sized right. I still wasn't sure whether to bother or not but recently I saw a reference to the Cavalier again so that settled it. I bet if they weren't both silver the diferences would be even more pronounced. And personally I think the GTO looks more like a BMW than a Grand Prix. And silver is the sleeper color of all time. And hides dirt...

    As for the Mustang, that's a 69 Mach with a 351W. The '69 and '70 models had the same body style except for some cosmetic changes. I prefered the '69. The '71-'73 was quite an exotic looking Mustang. I don't know if you could get them with big blocks but I know they did come with the 351C. And at 330hp was really something, post 1970.
  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    silver colors seem more annonymous. If you want to fly under the radar, to me, silver is the color to be in

    Well I usually like silver cars. My Caprice is silver, and I think it looks great. I also like the 300C in silver. But the GTO in silver just looks awful to me. I think black its most complementary color, at least on the 04. Maybe the 05 can hack a more bland color because it is a little more interesting to look at.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 6,911
    sputter....can't disagree that silver hides dirt. I think my ambivalence about that color comes more from my father always buying silver (and white) cars. I kind of got sick of the color.

    Although, I was just a tyke, my sister had a boyfriend at the time that had, what I think was a '70 Mustang fastback. While I was way too young to really know if it was a big block, it seemed fast to me whenever he gave me a ride.

    Perception is reality, depending on the person who is doing the perceiving. I don't see the BMW reference, but if you do, and that's what you like, that's all that matters. There's a guy that lives a couple of streets over from me that has a mid-late '80s BMW 8 Series. It's probably one of the most beautiful car designs I've come across. He said he bought it new (he's well into his 60s and retired).

    That Ford 351 Cleveland engine was one of their best for the time period. If you asked me to pick my all time favorite V8s, I'd have to list that as one of them and their 302 as well as the CobraJets, along with GM's 389, 396 and 427....Chrylser's Hemis, 383 (used in everything from their '60s sedans to the RoadRunner) and 440 would rank up there, too.

    Off topic, but since it relates to those of us who drive performance cars, MPG be damned, I've always thought the best (and easiest) way to cut down on fuel useage in the country would be to put out a Federal mandate stating that 10% of all redlights and stop signs should be eliminated. To me, the biggest waste of fuel is idling at, what seems to me, almost every street corner with either a stop sign or redlight. It's almost an epidemic. Every little 'burg seems to put up a traffic light or stop sign for every teeny cross street. My contention is, no one would miss them and in turn, MPG would go up on ALL cars because they aren't sitting idling. Also would help with emmissions.
  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    There's a guy that lives a couple of streets over from me that has a mid-late '80s BMW 8 Series. It's probably one of the most beautiful car designs I've come across.

    This is of course off-topic, but the 8-series was first available in 1991 (in the US anyway). The V12 was the only engine available that year (850).

    I agree they are nice looking cars.

    image

    You could even get a 6-speed manual with the V12!
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 6,911
    hmmmmm....I thought my neighbor said it was from the '80s. Obviously, I need to clean my ears out or misunderstood what he said. :confuse:

    That's what it looks like though....only his is black......very sharp! :shades:
  • 850 was only made from 1991 to 1997. Last 2 yrs '96 & '97 there was an 840 version with the V8 instead of the V12.

    850 with V12 did 0-60 in about 5.4 seconds, weighed a lot at 4300 lbs and 12 city / 18 highway I believe it had about 371 hp?
Sign In or Register to comment.