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



  • dclark2dclark2 Posts: 91
    When the fact that the Mustang lacks an irs, mustang owners counter with arguements about launching and how solid axle gives comparable handling.
    Then, when reminded that solid axle gives inferior handling on less than perfect roads, and that NO sports car has a solid axle, what do they do?
    Well, rather than come up with some sports cars that do, or explain how the movement of one rear wheel throwing the camber off the other wheel, they always counter with vague statements like:
    "However, I'll take the handling and fun to drive of the Mustang GT over the GTO any day of the week. It's not what you call it, but the total execution."
    Hey, that's an opinion! If you think the mustang handles better and has "better execution", that's your opinion, your entitled to it. But the fact is that NO sports car has a solid axle because an independent rear can give better handling. I know this, you know this, even Ford knows this. That's a fact.If you disagree, post some sports cars that do have a solid rear. The upcoming Challenger and Camaro will have an IRS and from I have read, so will future mustangs. For now, the mustang has more in common with a sport truck than a sports car.
    Black and white statements like "Your comment about irs is entertaining at best. Because the Mustang does not have irs, its automatically bad, is that right?" imply desperation on your part. I have never said that anything makes the Mustang bad. I have said that the Mustang is made cheaper, and that the cheapness shows up in both the interior and the suspension design. As such, I have given examples to support that. I am not saying the Mustang is bad.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    Can you supply some definitive evidence that the GTO handles better than the Mustang, please?
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "But the fact is that NO sports car has a solid axle because an independent rear can give better handling."


    But one can't make the assumption that everything WITH an IRS is, by default, a sportscar. Case in point: the GTO.

    The GTO is a lot of things; but a sportscar is NOT one of them.

    You also stated (correctly) that an independant rear can give better handling. The operative word being "CAN". An independent rear DOESN'T GUARANTEE better handling; it just has the POTENTIAL to offer better handling.

    Again, it all comes down to execution. A solid rear may not have the potential of an IRS, but it is entirely feasible that a well executed solid rear design CAN offer comparable (if not better) handling than a mediocre IRS design.
  • dclark2dclark2 Posts: 91
    Here is a summary of a review that was biased towards the GT. Despite the GTO getting beter marks, at theend, they added a nebulous "gotta have it" number to make the mustang look better.
    Here you go: r=4
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    Hmm...:confuse: Based solely on the link you provided, the GTO only bested the Mustang in STRAIGHT LINE performance and breaking, which those 245/45 tires on the GTO had more to do with it than better brakes. The Mustang had better road holding and out-maneuvered the GTO despite the dinky 235/55 tires. It was nearly 2MPH faster in the lane change, 64.7 vs. 62.9.

    Nope. It's that extra 100HP that gets the GTO around a track faster, not "superior" handling abilities.
  • dan1dan1 Posts: 76
    Well if GM is finally using screws on their interiors thats great! It sure beats the bubble gum and paper clips they used on the Regal GS I used to own (not that much of a stretch), the rear door panels were coming off and there was a sticky substance all over them. All interiors should use screws or something that holds them permanently in place. My 87 5.0 LX was screwed together and never rattled after 120k. The interior of the Bullitt I own now is not put together as well. I personally would rather see a screw head here and there and not have any rattles!
  • So, let's see, for $8500 more for the Pontiac you get 100 more HP, a bit more rear seat room, and marginally better speed/performance. That's it. There's even less trunk space in the Pontiac, which is already pretty small in the Mustang.

    By comparison, if you added 100 HP to a Mustang GT, it would kill the GTO, which, ummmm .... still looks like an insect. :shades:

    PS. You can, if you so desire, add 100+ HP to a Mustang GT by supercharging it, for about $7k, e.g., Cal Labs and Rousche.
  • sensaisensai Posts: 129
    So how does a 32k GTO cost 8500 more than a comparably equipped Mustang GT that costs around 28k?

    Plus you get a lot more rear seat room, and much better speed/performance. Like I have said, the Mustang is a nice car for the money, but you guys really need to stop deluding yourself to thinking it is a performance match for the GTO. And no, slalom numbers (that favor lighter cars) are not indictive of real world handling or track numbers, where the GTO has proven itself to be better.
  • Just comparing costs supplied in the Car & Driver link/review above: The GTO base price is more than $8500 more than the Mustang GT base price. Add $8500 of performance features to the GT, including a supercharger, thus making the cars comparable in base price, and the GT will eat the GTO for breakfast. :shades:
  • dclark2dclark2 Posts: 91
    Well, I posted car and driver's summary and they concluded that the GTO was a better handling car. Forbes was a lot less kind than car and driver about the handling of the gt. No number of independentally conducted tests and reviews will convince you of the superior handling of the GTO.
    I posted a comparo showing the superior handling of the GTO, why don't you find one showing the contrary?

    "Add $8500 of performance features to the GT, including a supercharger"
    Yup, that's the Ford answer to everything- just bolt on a supercharger. To hell with the warranty or emmsions testing, just throw on a blower! While you are at it, toss on an irs.BTW, you can get a GTO for around $30K so the difference is The blower, installed, will easily cost$5K that and even then, you won't have the better interior, suspension,and that getrag six speed tranny than is shared with the viper/'vette. More importantly, a comparably equipped GT will cost almost $30K! Hey, the two cars are almost the same price!
  • The stats in Car& Driver show the GTO only marginally better than the Mustang, e.g., 0-60, 60-0, quarter mile, and overall ratings, even with a base price of over $8500 more and even with 100 HP more than the Mustang. (Btw, a glaring omission from the C & D stats is the HP/weight ratio.) And that's merely based on objective numbers, ignoring entirely the subjective element of style, which is so important and which the Mustang has in spades and the GTO pitifully little (poor little bug!).

    Glass half full vs. half empty. You can see all this as proof of the GTO's superiority. I see it as how much more the Mustang does with what it has, with what it is, that it can compete with a more powerful, more expensive car and come up nearly equal in all departments, and even better in some.

    Further, Taylord, because you're so hung up on defending the GTO, because you can't see the Mustang objectively for what it is, you don't really understand the Mustang's limitations, where corners were cut to reach its sweet price point, and how ingeniously it was designed to compensate for these limitations. :shades:
  • dclark2dclark2 Posts: 91
    You keep talking about this "base price of over $8500".Add up the options for upgraded leather, stereo, 18" wheels, etc, so that it is COMPARABLY equiped to a GTO and you are at aroound $29K.
    For an extra $1000 or so, the GTO gives measurably superior performance and a way nicer interior. It'll also blow the doors off a mustang- it really does have 400hp.I haven't seen any stock mustangs run the 1/4 in 13.0.
    Styling? The mustang is so unaerodynamic, that the wind stops it before 150mph. I guess "retro" also means "retro aerodynamic".
    In Europe, the Holdens compete in the market place against BMW's. Of course, the mustang can't compete against those cars, thus Ford doesn't export them. Again, the mustang is hobbled by the solid axle. Even Ford knows this is an issue, read this snippet:
    "There's also word that Ford is already working to tweak mainstream Mustangs for improved ride comfort and less noise, vibration and harshness. Timing is unclear here too, but a leading industry trade paper has quoted Ford officials as all but promising some chassis "upgrades" fairly soon--including a possible independent rear suspension as standard. As noted, the newest base and GT Mustangs use a solid rear axle, but are designed to accept the bolt-on independent setup developed for the Cobra. Stay tuned."
    Comparably equipped, is only about a grand less than a GTO. It is slower, poorer handling, has inferior build, sorry, but that mustang just doesn't look like a bargain.At the very least, it'll cost more than a $1000 to throw enough bolt ons to equal a GTO just in the straight line.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    So, basically, what you're doing is simply going off someone else's OPINION on handling and not the objective numbers. How does someone's OPINION prove the GTO to be a better handler? :confuse: If that's all it takes then I must opine that the GTO is not a better handler, so it isn't. I've read the C/D article before. I'm not looking for "opinions" that the GTO handles better, I'm looking for some actual numbers that prove it. Can you give us that?
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    ...Further, Taylord, because you're so hung up on defending the GTO, because you can't see the Mustang objectively for what it is, you don't really understand the Mustang's limitations, where corners were cut to reach its sweet price point, and how ingeniously it was designed to compensate for these limitations.

    Uhh... Excuse me!? :confuse: You need to check my posts again. I OWN a Mustang GT! I'm DEFENDING THE MUSTANG! What the heck are you talking about? :confuse: :confuse:
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    That's a fairly OLD snippet you used. Sounds like they're talking about the LAST generation Mustang, considering that no IRS has been developed for THIS generation Cobra. Nice try, though. ;)

    Does the GTO compete with BMW in the States? I know there are plenty of guys who claim to have traded their 3-series coupes, G35 coupes, 350Zs, etc. just to get a Mustang GT. What about the GTO? Any conquest sales there, other than people settling for it because they couldn't get a GT soon enough?
  • Where's the Beach Boys when we need 'em. Are they every going to get back together? Let's all sing it together "Little GTO, really lookin' fine, with a four speed and a 389....... OH, well, each to their own.

  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    Don't think the Beach Boys will be getting together to sing 'Little GTO' anytime soon.

    Of course, since Wilson Pickett died last week, we won't get to hear 'Mustang Sally' done the right way anymore either... :cry:
  • jontyreesjontyrees Posts: 159
    "Nope. It's that extra 100HP that gets the GTO around a track faster, not "superior" handling abilities."

    ..the engine is part of the car though, right? Call me crazy, but better straight line times, better track times, a nicer interior, more comfortable ride, and (arguably) more solid construction all add up to a more desirable car. I plan on keeping mine for a good few years, and it'll be interesting to see if there's such an advantage attached to the Mustang styling once they're both old news.

    Whatever - they're both nice rides. My wife likes Mustangs a lot - I mean they are targeted at women, aren't they? ;)
  • jpiatchekjpiatchek Posts: 177
    Your comment that I am desperate in defending lack of irs in the GT is funny. I have nothing to be desperate about.I own the same car(GTO) that you do. Just because the GTO has irs and the GT doesn't is no reason to condemn the GT. As rorr comments in post 1717, a solid rear axle may not have the potential for all out handling that irs has, but a good execution solid axle design can actually equal or out perform a mediocre irs design. Such is the case with the GTO and the Mustang. I have logged thousands of miles in both cars. Just because a bunch a sports cars don't have solid axle doesn't make the GT bad or handle bad. You speak from the text book and not from actual driving time behind the wheel. Until you log substantial time behind the wheel of both cars, you deal only in theory. Come to see me and we will run the snot of both cars for a couple of hours. Then I will give credibility to your theory. Don't get me wrong, I love my GTO, too. Both makes have taken different paths to produce a couple of great muscle cars. I drove the GTO all week and took it on a several hundred mile road trip rather than drive the GT. Passing on the two lanes was fantastic! I think it is smother and quieter on the road than the GT and that's why I took it. However, when I got in the GT today, it felt good and it was fun ripping around town in it all day. It's noisier and rougher and feels more like the old muscle cars. Does all right for a solid rear.
  • jpiatchekjpiatchek Posts: 177
    dclark2--I cant' believe I am about to agree with you. Pirates' comment about the GTO being $8500 more is misleading. Comparing a base GT to a GTO is like comparing apples and oranges. Besides, in reality, most GT's sold for MSRP or more and most GTO's were heavily discounted. I bought my 05 GT for $100 over invoice(a pretty good deal)and that was still more than I paid for my 04 GTO. Many 04 GTO's went out the door for $24-25k or less. Many owners paid less than $30k for their 05 GTO's. In many cases, the actual street price was about the same for GTO and GT. According to pony_pirate's logic, even though I only got 350hp on the 04 GTO, I almost saved enough money on the GTO to add bunch more hp. Now if only the GTO would come with a solid rear axle to improve it's handling! LOL
This discussion has been closed.