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

1679111263

Comments

  • Well gunit, they don't change out to an IRS to go racing, and it still wins! And they aren't going to put IRS in the Cobra or GT500 because, as graphicguy said, they just don't see the advantage of doing so. Sure, they may have done it to save costs, but they also knew it wouldn't compromise handling.

    If they can save money by using a component that does just as good of a job as a more expensive component, how is that bad?
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    Decent article.... They fail to mention that insurance on Mustangs is high too. Higher then GTO. In my case.

    The 2005 GTO is meeting it's 1,000 car per month sales quotas. My dealer doesn't get anymore until Late May. Sold them all. Not bad for a car that hasn't been really advertised, pretty dumb of GM. They spend millions advertising the G6 and Solstice though. Speaking of which I read the Solstice sold 1,000 preorders in 41 minutes! Due out in early June.

    Mustang will always outsell the GTO because it starts nearly $14k cheaper. $19k vs $33k. It would be interesting to see if GM could have made a cheaper/dumbed down version of the GTO and if they really advertised it, LOL! Many of the Mustangs are cheap V6 models driven by teeny boppers, High School students etc, in my area.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    Why did the Mustang engineer want to use IRS then if it offers NO benefit at all over solid axle? I have to disagree with you so did the Ford engineer, but he got shot down over cost cutting. IRS is better for all driving condiitions. More comfortable ride etc. Solid rears only advantage over IRS is at 1/4 mile strip. What cars cost $40k+ with a solid rear axle? Ford should have put IRS in GT500 at least.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    For 2004 roughly two-thirds of Mustang sales were V-6 models; about the same percentage have automatic transmissions.

    GTO is roughly about 53% manual and 47% Automatic tranny for 2004.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    The GTO-R with 450hp is expected to do quite well too in racing. They began testing it in January.
  • Well, I like the contrast that the article made between the cancellation of the Camaro and the launch of the GTO. In fact, I remember that some of the first comments on these forums which I read about the GTO, when it was still a future car, were from Camaro owners complaining that the GTO used the same engine but was heavier and cost more because of options they didn't want (I.E, they were viewing it as GM's replacement for their SS and Z28s, but did not consider it suitable).

    Camaros had "dumbed down" versions comparable in pricing to the Mustang and still couldn't keep up with the Mustang in sales.
  • I just don't think that an IRS is going to make all the difference between a 450hp GTO-R and a 450hp GT500 on the racetrack.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    Too bad the F Bodies bowed out in 2002. That said....

    The GTO is a far superior riding car with a much better build quality and interior then the Camaro ever had. GTO is way more luxury then Camaro. Not to mention the GTO actually has a usable backseat then can fit full grown adults, LOL! Try that in a Camaro, knees in the seats. This is why the GTO costs more. Too bad GM doesn't have a lower priced version of it. Don't forget the top of the line F Bodies Firehawk etc in 2002 were nearly $35k also!! They didn't have the 400hp or 400 torque of the GTO either. Also high INsurance on Camaros, almost higher then Mustangs. Esp for younger people.

    Lets not forget the 2001 Cobra, where Ford Mis-stated the horsepower either.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    The more Mustangs that Ford sells might come back to hurth them as well... esp the V8 models..... The Mustang is below the 27.5 mpg CAFEaverage and so each Mustang that is sold hurts the Ford CAFE standard. The more Mustangs that Ford sells is actually bad for Ford as it relates to the CAFE. Ford can either sell more Focus vehicles to boost the average, sell fewer Mustangs, or raise the fuel efficiency of the Mustang.

    just a thought, LOL!
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,535
    Thai-Tang also said about their engineering of the solid rear over IRS.....

    "We've got good geometry and good shock-motion ratios, and we're happy with the suspension we have. We won't hesitate to have you do a driving comparison against IRS-suspended competitors".

    I was originally critical of Ford for sticking to the solid rear. I DID compare the IRS of the GTO against the solid rear of the Mustang GT. I came to the conclusion that the Mustang GT handles better than the GTO.....regardless of the differences in the rear suspension.

    Road & Track tester, Matt DeLorenzo stated about the entire chasis/suspension....

    "The design is similar to that used on the legendary BMW M3. As BMW has proven time and again, executing a simple design deftly can work as well or better than more complex and costly bits. It's a lesson the Mustang team has taken to heart. Overall, the rear end feels as planted as independent rear suspensions and yet is less costly, lighter and more robust (than IRS)."

    I concur.

    BTW...my insurance bill would cost me more if I had bought a GTO.

    Truth told, regarding CAFE, both GM and Ford could do much more by limiting truck and SUV sales to meet the averages than limiting sales of Mustang GTs or GTOs.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,535
    I just returned from a business trip to Detroit. Got a rental from Hertz. Surprisingly, it was a GMC Yukon. It's a tank, but had surprisingly comfy seats. Another surprise, it handled well considering its size. What was more amazing were the number of GM, Hyundai and Kia cars in the rental lot. Usually, it's always Fords.

    BTW....didn't see one Mustang on the rental lot. There were a few Tauri and many Foci, but many more Impalas & Cobalts.

    On the road, I saw my very first Charger with manufacturer tags on I 94. Much better looking than the pics I had seen, but still not something I'd pay money for.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,535
    See post below.....(this isn't mine, BTW).....just a message from the owner in the video.

    By the way...bone stock mustang GT.

    Here's some video...

    These were just time trials... But I ran a 13.69 @ 97 mph

    Here's medium size for broad band:
    http://www.maglocks.com/_personal/Barracuda_trials_med.wmv

    Here's small size for dial up:

    http://www.maglocks.com/_personal/Barracuda_trials.wmv

    Hope you all enjoy it!
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,653
    13.69 nothing wrong with that. Not to many cars for $25K can pull that off.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    Graphicguy writes.......
    Road & Track tester, Matt DeLorenzo stated about the entire chasis/suspension....
    "The design is similar to that used on the legendary BMW M3. As BMW has proven time and again, executing a simple design deftly can work as well or better than more complex and costly bits. It's a lesson the Mustang team has taken to heart......

    NO, the last time I checked the BMW M3 has an IRS just like the GTO does, LOL! GTO has been compared to the M3, not the Mustang.

    Everyones insurance is different, for me GTO was $100 CHEAPER then Stang to insure. I have perfect record, Here near NY City everyone pays alot , LOL!
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    The IRS is just not about handling, it's also ride quality. In my opinion/test ride the GTO rides smoother, more comfortable seats, more luxury like then Stang, esp on rougher pavement. You will feel more bumps etc in rear, watch for midcorner bumps while under acceleration. I remember from my 1986 Olds 442 and that only had 170hp / 250 torque but that was ok for it's time. Certain road were annoying from solid rear. Same roads in GTO nothing.

    Car and Driver said it BEST....The Mustang's rear end did occasionally step out on imperfect pavement. Despite Ford's best efforts, the convulsions from under the back seat haven't been completely cured, and there's a slightly disconcerting hop when you encounter a midcorner bump. It's not likely to send you spinning off into someone's geraniums, but the GTO's independent rear end exhibited no such spasms over the same roads. EXACTLY... those symptoms above are TYPICAL of a solid rear axle car like Stang. With an IRS those problems would be fixed!

    This was funny..... Although the Mustang is not something you'd choose to travel in after having those pesky hemorrhoids removed
  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    I guess we read the same magazines. Your's is a little more specific than mine. Here's a quote "Without a doubt, Shelby-American fiddled with a few 427-powered 1967 GT-500s'. You're right that most of them are customer installed. Do you know what the 428 was that was in the GT500 before 428CJ. It was a 428 Police interceptor rated at 355hp. And I was way off about the 428CJ. It was only rated 335 from Ford. The NHRA immediately revised it upward to 360 which was more realistic. I guess that was just an urban legend about the 427 except for the first few. Man, what a drop in performance that was. So how about some staticstics for the GT500 with the 428CJ. Here are a couple of stats: 0-60 in 6.9, 1/4 mile in 14.5. Ouch! Credit for those numbers was given to the Shelby America Guide. So they should be realistic. Another article I have is about a GT500 doing the 1/4 mile. In five passes it started out in the high 14's, the next one was in the mid 14's. The next two were in the mid 13's and the final pass he really hooked up for a 13.06. I only bring that up because we've been going over how the weather and track conditions, driver, etc. affect the times. With even the same car, the same driver, and the same track conditions you can get wildly differing times. That was nearly a two second difference with all things being equal.
    I guess old Shelby was capable of some hyperbole himself. King of the Road? I don't think so. In '68 it was possible to get a GT with a factory installed 427. It doesn't say which one but it was downtuned to 390hp. Quite potent even at that rating. I'd personally go with that over the GT500.

    And finally, all 427 Cobra's had the 427 in them. The nameplate on the side says it all. " 427 COBRA "
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    Car and driver tested the 2005 GTO manual 6 at 4.8 seconds 0-60. Pontiac claims 4.7 for the M6, pretty close!

    Don't forget that the Automatic 4 on the GTO is actually faster 0-60 by 1/10th. All the magazines have only tested M6 GTo's.

    another reason I bought automatic faster and no shifting. Esp in the traffic around here.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/classic/112_0310_67gto/index.html

    Motor-Trend tested a 1967 automatic tranny GTO to run in 13.36 at the 1/4 mile, pretty good.

    manual ran in as fast as 13.10 or 13.20
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,653
    The mustang costs quite a bit less than the GTO. If the GTO & Mustang GT had the same MSRP, then you could argue the IRS/Solid rear axle all day long. The FACT is it doesn't FREAKIN matter.

    The Mustang has always been an affordable car built to a certain price point. Nothing wrong with that, every car is built to a price point. I'm not going to debate which is better, no question I'd rather have an IRS.

    If the solid axle really helped Ford keep the car under a certain price and hasn't hampered performance by much, which seems to be the case, it's not a problem. It's selling lot hot cakes, so Ford made the right decision, they need to make money. Something GM has forgotten how to do.

    Unless your a complete moron, you can't deny the Mustang is a bargain for what you get. I guess you can say the same for the GTO since the fire sales are still going on strong here.

    This debate will be over in year or two anyway when the current imposter GTO is either dropped or replaced by a car worthy of the GTO name.

    I think the Monaro is a great car, but simply rebadging it and shipping it over here doesn't make it a GTO.
  • hammen2hammen2 Posts: 1,313
    I dislike the haters who say "it's not a REAL GTO" so much, I'm getting the license plates on my '04 changed to "REAL GTO".

    It's RWD, it's a coupe (sorry Charger fans), and it wears the Pontiac badge. It looks like other Pontiacs in the family. Has a huge motor and great performance. Seems like just the formula for a "REAL GTO" to me.

    Respectfully suggest you put your butt in one and take a test drive. Your attitude may change.

    No fire sales going on for the '05's - there is a genuine shortage of them in many areas - that's constraining sales right now more than anything. Holden will be building them into July to try to meet demand (as posted by a Pontiac insider "LFP" on another forum)...

    --Robert
  • You have a very good point. For any good street racer (car that is ) an automatic trans is really the way to go. In addition to your other good points you have to consider that an A/T is less likely to spin costing you time, will not miss a shift if working properly, and you don't have a complete power loss through the drive train every time you change gears.
  • If your point about the new GTO being a real GTO is true then we must assume that the past resurrection of the name chevy NOVA is also it's predisesors equal. Right? Would the "JUDGE" see that as justice?
  • hammen2hammen2 Posts: 1,313
    ...a 1970 (Grampa's car, it was pre-dented, had it through most of college - it was just like the one Eddie Murphy drove in "Beverly Hills Cop"). IIRC it was RWD. The '87 my Dad wanted me to buy when the tranny dropped on my '70 was a FWD econobox. Not to mention the size difference in the cars.

    I don't know why people have such a cow about the GTO not being "real". It is true to the GTO name, in being a RWD performance coupe that resembles other vehicles in the Pontiac lineup at the time. Charger fans have more to gripe about, with the resurrected vehicle being a sedan. Of course, the Grand Prix has offered a sedan since 1990, and it's been sedan-only since the 2004 redesign.

    If the car was FWD and/or had maybe 240 hp, I'd agree with you and say it's not a "REAL" GTO. This is just getting silly.
  • To be fair the differince between the new GTO and the blast from the past is not as bad as the Nova. But what people are saying is that there really is a differance. Trust me I'm not saying the new GTO is not real, it's actually a real kick in the pants to drive. ANY!!! car with that much power is a real blast. I'm just glad to see American producers finally waking up and smell the coffee.
    By the way, I also meen no disrespect to the original chevyII Nova. I grew up in the back seat of a '70 4 door Nova w/307. Blue bottom w/white top to be exact. My 2nd car was a '71 Nova with a much fun 427 up front. It also had a predator carb. as well. It handled like a dump truck but man it was fast in the staights.
  • Let me understand this. You're making a comparison of the old vs.new GTO as it relates to the old Nova vs. the mid 80's japanese front wheel drive Nova??? Help me out here.
  • graphicguygraphicguy SW OhioPosts: 7,535
    I suppose you can make the IRS vs solid rear an issue if you want. I saw the C&D quote when they said they OCCASIONALLY got the Mustangs rear end to step our in rough corners. But, I've never experienced that. The rest of the media have made no mention of any such behavior. They've all lauded the work Ford has done with the solid rear. Like the OHV V8, if it's done well, then there's absolutely wrong with building upon older, yet tried and true technology.

    One of the first things that struck me about the Mustang GT when I drove it was how well it rode....even over bumpy surfaces.

    Taken as a whole (which is what you need to do), the Mustang does handle and ride quite well. It certainly handled better than the GTO. But, that's also a function of the added weight the GTO is carrying around (and another reason that the performance numbers between the GTO vs the Mustang GT are so close to be insignificant).

    IRS added complexity and weight doesn't translate into better handling or ride quality, by any stretch, when comparing these two.

    I won't get into the automatic vs manual trannys. I prefer mine to have manual trannys. That's a personal preference, though. The shifter/clutch in the Mustang are one of the better ones I've ever used (the best being the Mazda RX8). The Mustang's shifter/clutch action is certainly smoother, more positive than what I experienced during my GTO test drives.....yet another reason I chose the Mustang over the GTO.

    I've yet to see any independent tests done on a GTO with an automatic. I can't say that I'd consider the performance figures GM puts out to be unbiased.

    My interest in the video posted was more about that 'cuda running a 10 sec 1/4. That was wicked. But, a bone stock (including stock M&S tires) Mustang GT running a 13.69 sec 1/4 isn't anything to sneeze at, either. Plus, the Mustang owner could drive it home right from the track. I'm sure that the 'cuda would not be a good daily driver (probably trailered to the track).
  • sputterguysputterguy Posts: 383
    Oh yeah! Now that's what I call a musclecar. And check out those lines.

    And pretty good times considering the weight it was dragging around.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    http://www.gtoalley.com/74gto.html

    Here is the 1974 GTO, rebadged Pontiac Ventura, based on the Chevy Nova. 250 horsepower 350 V8, 5.7L. 0-60 was was 9.4 seconds, LOL! SLOWEST production GTO ever made.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    I NEVER drove the manual Mustang or GTO so I can't comment, I drove both Automatic Stang and GTO. I prefer Automatic only. Automatic GTO had a better shifting feel then Mustangs automatic to me. Pontiac has the automatic GTO being a hair faster then manual, both 0-60 and 1/4 mile times.

    In my test drives, the GTO road more like a Mercedes, more luxurious then Mustang. Smoother/better. In my opinion. However the new mustang road MUCH NICER Then the 1999 to 2004 generation it replaced based on the old FOx 1978 chassis. Extra wheelbase helps, old one was only 101 inches and new Stang 107?

    That was a WILD video of the Cuda running 10 secondds. I have seen mid 1980's Grand Nationals running similar times. I'm sure that was not a streetable car or fun to drive on regular streets, LOL! Nice anyway.
  • gunitgunit Posts: 469
    dieselone writes.......If the solid axle really helped Ford keep the car under a certain price and hasn't hampered performance by much, which seems to be the case, it's not a problem. It's selling lot hot cakes, so Ford made the right decision, they need to make money. Something GM has forgotten how to do. ......

    Ford isn't doing too much better then GM, they are losing $$ and market share as a whole too. Their stocks are in the flusher too.
This discussion has been closed.