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



  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    You have to ask yourself, since when is $32,000 for a 400hp, fits four adults comfortably, 6-speed, beautiful interior/seats (GM's BEST) , REFINED, all options included car that is able to hold its own in the corners while still delivering a relatively comfortable near luxury ride considered bad?

    Because it's still heavy and lacking some key luxury options for the segment.

    Seems like the GTO consistently scores like 7/10 in most categories. Like it handles competently and with the IRS, the ride is pretty good, but it doesn't have as direct or as sharp a steering response as other cars in this class. Brakes are the same way. Not bad but not great. Same with the interior. It's "nice" and has SOME good features but is still lacking key luxury features that all cars in the low $30k range have, as well as some in the high-$20k range seem to have. Styling is another 7/10 item. It's far from ugly, but didn't really "land" with a lot of people. Not the right styling for a 50k/year car of this nature.
    Actually about the only thing it scores higher than a 7/10 on is the horsepower, which is partially out-weighed ( :P ) by the excessive weight.

    None of this makes it "bad", but it ends up being a 70%, which is a C-. What an interesting way to explain it.
  • GM should have dropped a 5spd automatic in to help highway gas mileage. Next year the Vette is getting a 6spd automatic. I think the GTO still makes do with the 4spd auto? Not sure.

    Pedal placement is slightly off on GTO for clutch as well. It's more then linkage. Based on my few test drives. Then again I have BIG size 13 feet. Big shoe to use on clutch pedal.
  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    So, based on those figures, the potential customers feel it's worth high 20s to $30K.

    I said this from the beginning, since driving that 04 back in 1/04. For the MSRP, it should have included more luxury features -OR- should have been high $20k. Not low $30k with high $20k worth of features. That was the sore spot for me, more than just about anything else. Brakes were a really close 2nd place.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    If you like an automatic, that's fine. I'm not ABOUT to try to talk anyone out of an automatic car if that's what you prefer.

    My only point (I think I had a point) was that for those of us who prefer manual transmissions, sometimes we can get a bit militant about it. And offering the 'advice' to someone who prefers a nice shifting manual to just 'avoid' it by getting an automatic

    Quite honestly, if I was in the market for a Mustang and determined that the shifter/clutch linkage in the GT was a piece of junk but the setup in the base V6 model was a jewel, I would prefer the V6. That's how much emphasis I place on good manual trannies vs. hp.
  • The GT500 will be the same weight as GTO when it comes out at 3700+. Lets see if the media complains about that. What luxury options are the GTO missing for the segment? It has more then Mustang. Which comes close to GTO's price.

    The GTO's hp to weight ratio is much better then Mustangs. 9.4 to 1, Mustangs is 11.7 to 1. Big dif!

    The brakes on GTO out stop the Mustang GT by a few feet from 60 and 70mph. 167 ft GT0 Vs 170 ft GT. For the GTO's heavy weight, it handles and brakes quite well, don't you think?

    As I said I cross-shopped this car to a BMW, not a mustang.
  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    alum is not always the right solution.

    Chevy went from a 2mm hydroformed steel frame in the C6 to a 4mm hydroformed aluminum frame in the Z06 and saved 136lbs.
  • I understand where you are coming from.

    You can shift the Auto yourself on the GTO, it is quite responsive when you manually shift it, goes into the next gear almost immediately. When you shift GTO auto you self from 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 with some foot into throttle you chirp the gear as soon as you shift.
  • I read that the Z06 lost 100+ lbs weight do to more use of carbon fiber in the bodyI Over the C6. Not the frame. I could be wrong. When the Audi A8 went to all aluminum it gained weight, go figure.
  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    Why should I pay $700 option on GTO to get manual trans to lose performance?

    Not this again! I guarantee the manual is faster in most situations, other than launch. For instance, 1/4 mile trap speed will be noticably faster in the manual. This equates to faster passing times, which I actually use more often than 0-60 or 0- anything.
  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    The T56 has never been and will never be a fluid shifting transmission. It will never have a BMW, Porsche or Honda feel to it. That said, I prefer the T56 in my Camaro and its clunky, heavy, mechanical/solid feel to the wimpy am-I-breaking-it feel of FWD transmissions. Still, they could do better. Like have ZF build one. Of course, watch the MSRP inflate.
  • Exactly, Not this again....GM/Pontiac testing and engineers disagrees with you, they stated in their advertising/brochures the Auto was faster, 0-60 and 1/4 mile. It's more consistent too. Yes there is more to then just driving straight. Auto GTO drives just as nice in curves as the stick. Believe what you wish.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "I like performance cars for their performance, and as stated here previously the automatic GTO is faster then manual GTO or manual Mustang."

    It really all depends on how one defines "performance".

    Is "performance" PURELY about how fast one goes 0-60 or covers the 1/4?

    Or should one take into account HOW the vehicle goes about doing it? Personally, I break it down into "easy performance" and "earned performance".

    "Easy performance" is a big motor, massive torque, and an automatic. No need to think or plan ahead. The only finesse involved is trying to keep your tires from going up in smoke. Go fast? Easy, mash the gas. Woo hoo! Ain't no substitute for cubic inches, baby!

    "Earned performance" is a smaller motor, lower torque, high rpm power and a manual transmission. You CAN go fast in these types of cars, sometimes faster than the 'easy performance' types; sometimes slower. But (IMO) I think you ultimately have more fun because you've had to work harder. And if I'm having more fun, I really don't care if the guy next to me is a few 1/10's quicker to the next stoplight. I'm secure enough with myself to not let that bother me.
  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    What luxury options are the GTO missing for the segment?

    Things that you (and others) will claim you don't need and add no value to the car, thus defeating my argument. But here I go anyway-

    Moonroof optional
    Heated seats/mirrors (does it have heated mirrors?) optional
    Automatic climate control (should be STANDARD)
    Navigation optional
    Better stereo optional

    I will say one of the things that most impressed me about the 04 I looked at was the seats. Possibly the best I have ever used.

    I was really excited about the car. But it ended up being too heavy, too soft, too expensive, too under-featured. The styling was fine for me, but you could add that for others. I can at least recognize that.
  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    What I said about the Z06's frame is factual. Yes, it lost additional weight with the use of carbon fiber fenders and I think more fiberglass. But this offset the beefing up the car experienced, including the rear end and of course the engine has some heavier accessories.
  • kevm14kevm14 Posts: 423
    0-60 and 1/4 mile ET are largely dependent on launch traction/ability, yes. This is where the automatic gets its advantage. 1/4 mile trap speed and 0-high speeds, as well as passing times, will be SUPERIOR in the manual trans. You need to be a little more analytical in looking at performace/acceleration measurements.
  • sensaisensai Posts: 129
    Moonroof optional - you can get the OEM moonroof from Websto (don't think I spelled that right) installed for $1200

    Heated seats/mirrors (does it have heated mirrors?) optional - heated seats would be nice although more people won't be driving the car in the winter (and it can be added aftermarket for about $100 a seat), I don't know of many cars that have heated mirrors

    Automatic climate control (should be STANDARD) - they could not get the Monaro one recalibrated in time, but is it really that hard to twist a knob once in a while?

    Navigation optional - this is the most overrated piece of equipment ever invented

    Better stereo optional - than what? the 10 speaker stereo with a little tuning is more than adequate for most people

    I just don't get this line of thinking. Add all those options to a G35 or 330i and your paying what, mid to high 30s? And neither of those offer anywhere near the power of the GTO.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,100
    Hey sputter......the question is....will either you or I wear bell bottoms again?????

    LOL :shades:
  • BTW, The Monaro CV8Z has all those features you mentioned and more. It even has rear backup assist with the sensors on the bumper like on luxury cars, optional. To me that option is a waste, IMO.

    I like the ride, luxury like, yet still firm enough. Some may say too soft, I like it. Not the feel every crack in the road and rattle your teeth ride of say a WRX-STI. Stereo is good for me, at least it doesn't take up trunk space like Shaker Mustang. Instead we have our gas tank taking up part of the trunk.

    A dealer by me had the OEM Websto sunroof installed, but they were asking $2k for it. Ripoff.

    BTW the top of the line F body's were going for $30k to $35k range in 2002, clearly an inferior/unrefined car to the GTO, yet knowone complains about that. The interiors were pretty poor, no room, hard to see from driver seat. The harsh-punishing ride as well. GTO really isn't overpriced in comparison
  • I don't get this line of thinking either. But as they say, different strokes for different folks.

    I priced out and cross shopped the 330i coupe which starts at $34k MSRP and is nearly $40k MSRP fully loaded. 3 liter 6 with 235 or 255hp. Also the G35 was $5k+ more then my GTO. I went with GTO.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,100
    F- bodies had the looks and handling to go with the performance. That's why no one really complained. The F-Body's biggest downfall was it's creaks and rattles, although the last SS Camaro I drove had calmed down the rattles quite a bit. Handled well, too. It had a firm, but not a soft ride, which is what I like in a performance car.

    If you like automatic trannys and softer suspensions, you should take a test drive of the Charger. Rode in one two days ago. Not my cup of tea, but not bad at all. Plus, it stickered right at $30K.....$29,500 with a rebate. Stylish on the outside (although I still think it should be a coupe). The interior is straight out of the 300C....very nicely done.

    That gets us back to styling being one of the issues with the GTO, as well as the price of its competition (Mustang GT and now, the Charger with a hemi).

    Shaker 500 doesn't take up any space in the trunk of the Mustang....only when you add the subwoofer of the Shaker 1000 (not needed) will you get trunk intrusion.
This discussion has been closed.