Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Ford Mustang (2005) vs. 2005 Pontiac GTO
This discussion has been closed.
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Talk about two extremely different perspectives of the GP and the GTO?
I think the only way to readily tell the two apart is to look closely at the grill and the tailights of the GP vs the GTO........
That picture of the older Grand Prix was most likely taken recently, as I found it in a used car ad. After 5+ years it's not unusual for paint and painted trim pieces to look bad. Also, the wheel gaps look huge because of the relatively small wheels.
I just wanted to show how much the two look alike overall. They look very similiar, alot more so than an A6 and a 500. At a glance it's almost hard to tell the two apart without seeing the headlights or tail lights.
I agree....the GTP does look awfully similar to the GP. Unfortunately, that GP is a design that's 8 years old.......
The only way to tell them apart is to look "closely" at the grill and taillights??? If that's the case gg you need to make an appointment with an eyedoctor ASAP. You should park the Mustang until you see him, you're not safe to be on the road with that eyesight!
If age is a bad thing, then what does it say about a 2005 Mustang that looks like one that's 38 years old?
I don't care for the wheel gaps either. I even considered getting 70 series tires to help fill it up but went stock when I had to replace them.
The GTO is "aerodynamic"? Are you saying the Grand Prix isn't. Come on, the Grand Prix has better ground effects. It's styled after their Nascar racer.
And finally, yes the GTO is of higher quality all around but the Grand Prix has the highest quality of any other American car I've owned.
And the Monaro is 10 years old.
So what are we trying to prove? A car that is released in the US that looks like an 8 year old US design, but in reality is a design that is 10 years old.
So is the GTO actually an outdated design? Or was the design good enough to withstand 10 years of sales and still be viable. One advantage to this is that the car has been out there and has enough history to work out the major bugs.
The 05 Mustang is based off of a, what, 67-68 model year car? Silly comparison, I know because of technological advances, but the design IS taken from a 38(?) year old design. But instead of being called outdated, it is called retro.
Another factor that seems to be ignored is that the Mustang has been an ongoing model since it started. That means that the name has been visible and the fan following stays fresh with the new generations.
Unfortunately that didn't happen with the GTO. It was not manufactured for 30 years. This has caused a lot of variation in what the GTO should look like. Everybody seems to be in this retro fad. Should they make it to resemble a 64 GTO, a 68 GTO or a 70 GTO? There was no trail leading to the current model to justify the style. What really surprises me is that Pontiac didn't take advantage of the similarities in body shape to the 70 GTO. They could easily have retro'ed the front facia to be similar to the 70 GTO and put similar hoodscoops and a spoiler and facia in the back to mimic the 70 model GTO. I think that might have helped the market appeal a bit as well as that silly 'Gotta Have I'. factor that seems so subjective. :-)
Bob
On the other hand, both my '04 and '05 turn the heads -- all the time. I was even in my town's Memorial Day Parade last year with my '04: "Hey, there's the new goat -- rev it, rev it!" Isn't that part of what this whole ego/car thing is about? To each his own. What a country!
As I mentioned before, if Pontiac had produced the "sketch" shown in MTs recent issue, I think the car would have been a hit. Instead, Pontiac has clearly struggled to sell it....even in reduced numbers and limited production.
This isn't just an indictment of the GTO, but all of Pontiac. It's almost like they stopped designing anything after 1997....just reworking the same thing from '97 on (and that design isn't one I'd want to emulate as a classic, by any stretch).
The Mustang, on the other hand, took design cues of the most popular Mustang years and incorporated them into the current design. The result was the sales hit they have currently. Personally, I hope to see a Mustang on every corner. That means that Ford will continue to develop it and bring out more models (like the Boss, Mach and Bullitt). All the current Mustang popularity tells me is that a lot more people agree with me in that the Mustang is a very good looking car.....and is very identifiable as nothing but a Mustang.
If parade participation is the basis for what looks good, then I'd have to say that old or new, Mustangs are always participants in the ones I've seen around here.
It's interesting to watch people as you pass them in the '05 Mustang. Whether they are in their cars or walking along the side of the road, the experience is always the same. They see the Mustang and stare, then you watch their heads snap back to stare even more as I pass.
I usually have to add an extra 10 minutes to any grocery shopping or trip to the gas station in order to let bystanders gawk and talk about the car. It always brings a smile to others wherever I go (I know it can't be my good looks they are staring at).
Bottom line, the Mustang has been a hit, regardless of what parameters are used as the measuring stick.
You know, I have the same problem with my GTO. I briskly accelerated away from a light last night (didn't chirp the tires, didn't exceed the 45 mph speed limit). Got in the left turn lane at the next red light. Car caught up to me in the left lane, and the driver was staring at my GTO so intently that he let his lit cigarette fall out of his mouth!
I stopped to pick up pizza last Sunday night and just about the whole staff at the pizza place had to come out and look at my car. I've come out from the grocery store to find people standing there looking at it (can kinda creep you out), waiting to ask me questions. As long as the police don't give me a second look when I'm speeding (try THAT in a Mustang), I am very happy.
As I have tried to say before, YOU may not like the looks of the car. Doesn't mean that others don't, or aren't attracted to it. It's all subjective. Glad you like your Mustang. I love my GTO. I don't care what I paid for it (I can afford it is all that matters). I don't care if it's a sales success (the '05 is selling at or above Pontiac's expectations - less than a 60 day supply, on track to sell out before the '06's arrive in December, your comments notwithstanding). I'm happy there aren't GTOs on every corner. To each their own.
--Robert
I have a lot of respect for the GTO. I do bemoan the fact that GM hasn't got their head in the game, though.
My choice was the Mustang when comparing the two. I may have gone another route had GM put more creative effort into the GTO.
But, we like our respective car purchases. That's all that really matters since we're the ones writing the checks (and I just wrote another big one to Uncle Sam, yesterday).
About this post though. I'm surprised since you are a knowledgeable guy and not prone to making rash statements like I am.
R&T claims 4.9 seconds for 0-60? Not a chance. Didn't MT claim 5.1 seconds in their evil comparison test. Edmunds only managed high 5's and felt after break in that it might make it to the mid 5's. That is probably reasonable for a loaded Mustang with leather interior (possibly with a Shaker in the trunk. That's gotta slow you down). 4.9 seconds is M3 territory (and that's slow for the 05 GTO). I'm sure if any M3 owners saw your post they would be laughing their heads off. But you're also right that a few tenths of a second are meaningless. They are both hellafast.
I know you've driven the GTO's and I haven't driven the 05 Mustang so I will defer to you regarding the steering, shifting and clutch. But, "the Mustang felt much lighter on its feet"? Hello! That's because it is lighter. What, 400lbs more or less lighter. And that's one of our points. The GTO is solid, well built, loaded, and a bit heavy. Pretty nimble for its weight though isn't it?
Interior? "Considering where the General is coming from in their interior design, the bar was set low to begin with". Say what? It's exactly the opposite. It should be "the interior of the new Mustang (if you get the leather) is impressive considering the old fox body interiors are the cheesiest in its class. You won't get anyone to back you up with that claim.
The seats in the GTO are killer aren't they? I sat in the back seat once and it was very comfortable but I'll never go back there again and we all know why that is. What's up with that 'mouse fur' as you call it? I don't care for it but it beats hard plastic. Saying the HVAC controls look like they're from a Sunfire is giving them way too much credit. The trunk is indefenseable. I can't see how putting the gas tank in the passenger compartment can be safer than underneath the car. We'll have to wait and see what happens when someone gets rearended.
Build quality? I'll take your word for it that build quality in your car is high. It's certainly an improvement from the fox body. Speaking of orange peel, just recently I was at a local dealer and on one of the 05's side view mirrors there was severe orange peel. I pointed it out to the salesman and he had nothing to say about it. That's not poor quality, that's poor quality control. Overall I'd give the GTO the edge in quality though. Gotta go with those Australian union guys over American union guys.
Price and resale I don't really care about. After reading this part of your post I think I'm getting dizzy. Airbags, rebates, GMAC financing, MSRP, discounts, Ford x plan, model allotments, I think I'm lost. Once again though I think that after a few years the GTO will be worth more. Remember, there's 180,000 '05 Mustangs out there. I'll give it three years. That's when a lot of people dump their cars for something new. And then it will be a function of supply and demand. And I think there will be excess supply. I think it would be interesting to see what proportion of the 180,000 are GT's. Wouldn't it be cool if there were 12,000 GT's sold. Then it truly would be a draw. Personally I would like that.
I sure hope you are right about the need for additional rebates for the GTO. I need that if I am to upgrade to an 05.
Other than that your post was pretty cool and interesting.
Anyway, "the bumpers and trim look plasticky". Hello? They are plastic! You probably weren't around in the 70's when Pontiac pioneered the use of plastic for fenders and bumpers. The reason for that was so that when you bumped into something at 3mph you didn't crumple up your front end or rearend and ending up with thousands of dollars of damage. The insurance companies loved that and began giving discounts for cars with such features. Other car companies followed suit so pretty much all passenger cars have at the least, forgiving bumpers. So in this instance, Pontiac was the innovator and the rest of the industry followed suit. They deserve cudos for that.
Now to you bender. "The wheel gaps look huge because of the relatively small wheels." What I want to know is what kind of car do you drive that you think 16 inch wheels are small.
And "I just wanted to show how much the two look alike overall." What you showed is that you need glasses too.
I've seen as low as 4.8 0-60 and 13.3 in the 1/4 for the '05 GTO from C&D. All the tests I've seen for the '04 GTO had worse numbers than the '05 version (understandably).
R&T got 4.9 0-60 secs and 13.5 in the 1/4 for the Mustang GT.
All those numbers were the best I've read about.
For example, MT did 5.1 secs and 13.5 in the 1/4 in their test of the Mustang GT. They also got 5.0 secs 0-60 and 13.3 secs for the '05 GTO.
Point is, the performance differences between the two are too close to be significant in my estimation.
I did mention that I did like the seats in the GTO for their side bolstering. I like the Mustang GT's seats for their lumbar support. I like both, but for different reasons.
I like the build quality on both. I will say that the GTO is one of GM's best efforts I've seen in quite a while. I hadn't been in many Ford or GM products for awhile. I can't consider my RX8 ownership experience to be indicative of Ford's build quality since it was built in Hiroshima. I'm not going to get into the debate of UAW vs Aussie workers and their ability to build cars. That will turn into a political discussion. At all costs, I'd rather stay away from any sort of political debate.
I've been nothing but pleased with the build and function of my Mustang GT. It's very solid. I've heard of a few issues here and there regarding some issues a few people have had regarding how slow the gas tank takes fuel and some of the Shakers "skipping", but I've experienced none of those issues with mine.
Since I just turned 1,000 miles on my odo this weekend, I opened it up a little yesterday. It pulls hellaciously strong through the entire rev range....right on up to red line. Trac control allows for some wheel slip, but put the rear end "back in line" if it gets too sideways. The trac control is pretty unobtrusive and is very comparable to what I experienced with the RX8's stability control. With trac control off, you can burn'em as far down the road as you want. A little feathering of the clutch and I got some nice "hook-up" off the line....without trac control. If I were going to track it (which I'm not), I think I could get a good launch when the light went green with little effort.
A NOTE TO ALL....THIS WAS DONE ON A CLOSED SERVICE ROAD WITH NO OTHER CARS AROUND......
I agree. There are way too many pricing permutations and variables to get into any meaningful correlation. I can only state what I could have bought either car for. If I were to try to buy a Mustang GT today (if I could find one), I doubt very seriously if any dealer would have honored my X plan pricing. They are just way too scarce in my neck of the woods and the prospect of getting an '05 GT is diminishing by the day since Spring hit. When I ordered mine, we were in the depths of one of the worst winters in recent memory. Dealers weren't quite sure yet whether they had a "hit" or a "miss" on their hands with the '05 Mustang at the time. With snow piled high, temps in the teens and a lone customer in their showroom, they didn't hesitate to make my X plan deal on the Mustang GT. In hindsight, knowing what they know now, I doubt they would have made that deal. Matter of fact, when my Mustang GT came in almost a month ago, I was fearful that they'd retract their X plan deal since it was clear the deal they made 2 months previous was, indeed, well below what the market had turned into for the GTs.
Looking back to February, I was without a car since my RX8 was totalled. If it would have taken 3,4 even 5 months to get my Mustang GT, as it has been for the majority of people who ordered theirs, I was thoroughly planning on getting my 2nd choice, the GTO, as they've been plentiful around here.....for both the '04 and '05 models (although I would have opted for the '05 GTO....even with the big price disparity between the '04 and '05).
Fact is, both cars offer a unique and exciting driving experience....one that can't be duplicated today in Europe or Japan.
I've seen as low as 4.8 0-60 and 13.3 in the 1/4 for the '05 GTO from C&D. All the tests I've seen for the '04 GTO had worse numbers than the '05 version (understandably).
R&T got 4.9 0-60 secs and 13.5 in the 1/4 for the Mustang GT.
All those numbers were the best I've read about.
For example, MT did 5.1 secs and 13.5 in the 1/4 in their test of the Mustang GT. They also got 5.0 secs 0-60 and 13.3 secs for the '05 GTO.
Point is, the performance differences between the two are too close to be significant in my estimation.
Ugh, I swear this guy is going to drive me crazy. Once again, graphicguy, you left out the huge trap speed difference. Your comparing times from different magazines, which is useless since that means the cars were tested in different conditions (not to mention the stupidty of magazine racing). Did you say you were in Columbus, OH? Going there next week on company business. I won't, but I should drive instead of fly so I can show you why the 05 GTO will smoke the 05 Mustang at any speed. I am not trying to sound that the only thing to cars is their performance, but your refusal to admit the Mustang is soundly outperformed by the GTO, because you happened to find a few magazine numbers that were close, is mind boggling to say the least.
No personal attacks. Agree to disagree, be civil and move on.
Thanks!
Not that this is necessarily going to be the case, but often times a car which can't match a competitors' speed in a straight line sprint from a dead stop can match pace or even pull ahead on a difficult road course.
I'll agree to disagree with you.
OK, so let's look at times from the same magazine. We can use the oft-cited Car and Driver comparison test, "21st Century Muscle Cars." A 2005 GTO and a 2005 Mustang were tested at the same times, in the same places, under the same conditions, by the same drivers.
Straight-line times: Mustang / GTO
0-60: 5.1 / 4.8
1/4-mile @ mph: 13.8 @ 103 / 13.3 @ 107
So the Goat has an advantage of 3 tenths of one second to sixty and half a second in the quarter at just 4 miles an hour faster. I wouldn't call that a "huge trap speed difference." I can now agree with graphicguy that this difference in the numbers (straight-line) is pretty insignificant, especially considering the GTO has an extra gear in the tranny and of course, the frequently touted hundred extra horses.
The rag also states that the Mustang is lighter and has better weight distribution, a slightly better skidpad rating, and a few good miles an hour advantage in the lane change test. This is good evidence that on a challenging road course, the GTO's faster straight-line times would be negated by the Mustang's handling advantages. Of course, we'll have to wait for some actual lap times. Should at least be a good race!
"Big surprise, right? The Goat finishes second; it's a goat after all, and that's what goats do." - C&D
"Big surprise, right? The Goat finishes second; it's a goat after all, and that's what goats do." - C&D.......
The Goat fought hard and kicked even harder, and there were moments when we thought the GTO would prevail and we'd be left to explain how our 10Best muscle car Mustang came in second to the only other valid competitor.C&D....
With 6.0 liters of power, it won most of the performance tests as well as the fun-to-drive category. C&D
Lets add 212 lbs of extra weight to Stang or test Convertible which is 175 lbs heavier. You will really see dif.
This isn't just an indictment of the GTO, but all of Pontiac. It's almost like they stopped designing anything after 1997....just reworking the same thing from '97 on (and that design isn't one I'd want to emulate as a classic, by any stretch). .......
As they say, to each their own... But at least Pontiac didn't take a 37 yr old design and pass it as new with the RETRO moniker. Ford couldn't come up with anything better/more original then a redo of their 1967 Stang? LOL! Doesn't say too much. I never though the 1967-1968 looked good to begin with back then, but to each their own.
BTW.. went to a car show last week, there was about 15 new 2005 Stangs there and only my GTO, more people came up to my GTO and were more interested in seeing it then the Mustangs... LOL!
You are joking right? LOL! That is why I never bought Camry/Mustang/Accord/Taurus, etc. That is why I loved my 2 door GTP coupe, most people bought 4 door renta car ones. coupe was only 25% of GP sales.
BTW.....Whats up with the CHEAP prop rod to put/hold up the hood on a 2005 Stang? More Ford cost cutting. Thats pretty cheap. GTO has 2 strong arms that go right up with hood.
However, the Mustang has superior handling characteristics (C&D comparo). So we have a few miles an hour in the quarter mile versus a few miles an hour in a lane change maneuver.
I'd bet that on a real race track (not a straight line or a big oval- a road course with some challenging curves such as you would find on the street) the Mustang will at least keep pace with the GTO, but again we don't have any data yet.
It's the old battle of handling versus horsepower. Is the extra agility and grip of the Mustang enough to combat the extra punch of the GTO? It would be a good one.
By that logic, let's add 1.4 liters of extra displacement to the Mustang and look at the difference...
THe GTO has a higher chance of collector car status yrs from now, based on 12k vs 180k. That can't hurt.
Yes a V6 Stang looks similar to a V8 stang from a distance. I can tell the dif, but the avg person, not a car fan will not. Cheap $19k version will undermine the $28k+ ones. For every GTO you are going to see almost 15 Stangs, LOL! based on the sales numbers.
As for MSRP now etc.. tell me how much money you get for your 2005 Stang 3 to 5 yrs from now! It will be 50% or less! No new car is an investment. As soon as you drive off the lot, they drop. Bring your stang back to the dealer and ask them to give you what you paid for it, Betcha they don't! LOL!
Finish that quote out, it's a good one! Pretty much describes why the Mustang won:
"but what the GTO lacked last year it lacks this year: Watch one go by on the street, and the design still won't trigger an arrhythmia like a 400-hp coupe should. If only it looked as stunning as the new Mustang, we might have forgiven the mislaid pedals, the stubborn shifter, and even the roughly $5000 difference in price. Unfortunately for Pontiac, our comparo jury wasn't blind."
Don't most people stare and gawk at something that sticks out like a sore thumb?
BTW.....Whats up with the CHEAP prop rod to put/hold up the hood on a 2005 Stang? More Ford cost cutting. Thats pretty cheap. GTO has 2 strong arms that go right up with hood.
What's up with the cheap pushrods and rocker arms that activate the valves in the LS2 engine? More GM cost cutting. That's pretty cheap. The Mustang has two strong cams that activate the valves directly.
Lets add 212 lbs of extra weight to Stang or test Convertible which is 175 lbs heavier. You will really see dif.
Let's add 1.4L of displacement and 100 extra HP to the Mustang. You will really see a difference.
Ford doesn't make a 6 liter V8, LOL! , but they do make a version of the stang that is 175 lbs heavier and closer compared to GTO weight as previously mentioned.
interesting that the Mustangs 4.6 liter Hi-tech SOHC 3 valve per cylinder makes LESS horsepower per liter then GM's supposedly Low-tech pushrod engine, LOL!
And the GM pushrod engine revs higher, 6500 rpm vs 6000 on stang. So much for newer/better technology right?
Sorry but the LS2 is a superior engine to the Mustangs. You can argue all you want. That is why LS2 is used in a car that costs $50k. But I get it in a car for $30k
Actually DOHC is just as old of a technology as pushrod....
Overhead cams really aren't 'new' technology. Dual overhead cams (DOHC) were first used back in 1912 by Peugeot in a Grand Prix race engine. The first production DOHC engine was a 1500 cc straight six built by Alfa Romeo in 1928.
To compare a 300HP car to a 400HP car is pretty much pointless as far as acceleration is concerned; even though the GTO's advantage in a street race would be minimal at best.
Ford doesn't make a 6 liter V8, LOL! , but they do make a version of the stang that is 175 lbs heavier and closer compared to GTO weight as previously mentioned.
I know Ford doesn't make a 6 liter V8. Pontiac also does not make a 3500-lb GTO (or even a convertible for that matter). It's overweight.
Adding weight to the Mustang wouldn't be a fair comparison.
As a side note....Ford put that 300hp 4.6 in the Maurauder and it still couldn't beat a 260hp Impala SS, LOL! So much for newer technology. I believe Impala SS got same or better gas mileage too, LOL!
That 5.4Liter 450hp Stang should be nice, but again, that hp is made with a blower. Unless I'm wrong.
I could put a blower on my LS2 too.
Again, stop magazine racing and go to a track. That "insignificant difference" is actually many car lengths at that speed, and the trap speed proves the GTO is accelerating at a much quicker pace. And again, real world numbers point to a even greater difference between the cars.
I'd bet that on a real race track (not a straight line or a big oval- a road course with some challenging curves such as you would find on the street) the Mustang will at least keep pace with the GTO, but again we don't have any data yet.
Now this is something I would like to see, and not claims of which handles better due once again to some magazine numbers (sorry but skidpad and slalom were never a measure of a cars true handling capabilities). I would like to add my own wager though that unless you are racing on a very small figure eight track, the GTO is again going to own the Mustang due to its power advantage.
Would I rather have a brand new car that looks like a '60s icon, or a brand new car car that looks like it belongs in the '90s?
Easy decision.
That just goes to show that there's much more than just stating HP numbers to make any reliable statement regarding any car's true performance. No surprise there.
The new GT500 will use a supercharged version of this 5.4 MOD V8 tuned to produce over 450 hp and tq, and have the same architechure as the FR500C race car which recently won the Grand Am Cup at Daytona (with a 5.0 Cammer V8).
With Carroll Shelby's name on it, you know it will be more than a match for the upcoming GTO-R.
Ford did so many things right with the new Mustang....from styling, to build quality, to the suspension, to performance, to the driving experience, etc when compared to its competition.
This is one of the few times where the marketplace has agreed with the press in what constitutes a "hit" car.
Mattrer of fact, one of the Edmunds test team went so far as to say......
"I drove the new 2005 Corvette the same day I drove the Mustang and I like the Mustang much better. The interior is nearly perfect — the adjustable gauge colors are a nice touch."
Mighty high praise. I can just imagine what they'll say about the GT500 when it goes up against the Z06 Corvette.
Cool pics, too! Thanks!
I've heard alot of editors state that the Mustang is the most fun to drive, even more so than the Corvette.
NO, NOT ALL 1960's cars are cool, Corvair, etc. You certainly don't want to have a accident in one, minimal safety equipment, no seat belts std until 1967, brakes that don't even come close to stopping like a modern car. Massive brake fade from 4 drums. Not to mention the skinnier tires and crappier handling. On avg they were not EVEN CLOSE to being as nice to drive as modern cars.
I love classic and antique cars and own some including '58 Chevy, but they aren't as cool as you think. Esp when having to do work, parts etc.