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.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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.
">
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
I'd rather buy the $25k mustang and put the $13k into engine/handling and braking. Just my opinion!
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.
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.
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.
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.
You could even get a 6-speed manual with the V12!
That's what it looks like though....only his is black......very sharp! :shades:
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?
As for power, not even close. The year was 1991, and the engine displaced 5 liters. Try 296hp and 332lb-ft. Edmunds also says it was 41xx lbs. For 95 it was bumped to 322hp and 361lb-ft, now a 5.4L (the 850 designation stopped making sense). Mileage "improved" to 14/20. Edmunds also shows 0-60 in 6.6 (for the more powerful 5.4L version). Your memory of the 850 is not unlike a lot of people's recollections of 60s-era muscle cars
From Consumerguide automotive....Starting in 1994 there was a limited-edition 12-cylinder model, called 850CSi, fitted with a 372-horsepower, 5.6-liter V12. That one came with a 6-speed gearbox, sport suspension, lower ride height, and 17-inch tires and ran 0-60 in 5.4 seconds :P
But that sort of proves what I was saying about the way people remember muscle cars. Someone said 8-series, and you immediately remembered the one, rare, extra high performance model
MODERATOR
Need help getting around? claires@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Tell everyone about your buying experience: Write a Dealer Review
(Looking at notes)
Yes, I have your score right here: "Grammar, punctuation, and picturesque verbiage: 10 points."
MODERATOR
Need help getting around? claires@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Tell everyone about your buying experience: Write a Dealer Review
One of my dream cars was the '67 GTX with a 440. Never got it but did get my hands on a '68 RoadRunner with a 383 Magnum. Now that was one awesome motor. I'll never forget the sales brochure. It pictured a silver GTX with a black stripe over the passenger side of the car. I also remember test driving a silver Barracuda with the Commando 273. So, silver always brings back good memories. And that reminds me. I was talking to the dealer about automatics and he says he has a silver one that he sent out for striping. Is that trippy? I doubt I will be interested but I am going to have to at least check it out.
I know what you mean about all the stop lights. I remember when there were long straightaways. You could really open it up back then. Now, it's just stop light to stop light. And all those cars just burning up fuel. There is a difference with today's high oil prices and yesteryear's. And that difference is China. Back then China was a technology backwater. No cars, no industry, no jobs, no nothing. Now, after selling us cheap and shoddy goods all these years, it is taking jobs away from us and sucking up all the oil it can get its hands on. And everything else for that matter.
"There is a difference with today's high oil prices and yesteryear's."
Not really. A barrel of oil would have to hit $90 to match 1974-1975 inflation adjusted pricing. Today a barrel of oil is $67. So as high as gas-oil sounds, it' still cheaper, "inflation adjusted" then 1974-1975.
That said, I must be turning conservative since none of those colors appeal to me now.
I don't even like the yellow Mustangs and GTOs.
I've seen some pretty good colors on other cars that would grab my attention, though.
My RX8's "winning blue" was bright yet tasteful. The RX8 red (with gold metalflake) is a "looker", too. A brilliant silver color (like the ones I've seen on 350Zs is attrative (although I'm not a silver guy).
I just become weary of the same colors....especially for cars like the Mustang and GTO.
I'd like to see Ford and GM resurrect some of their legendary motors of years past with modern electronics, computer management, fuel injection, etc to see what they could do in the marketplace. If Chrysler can resurrect the Hemi with so much success, there's no reason a CobraJet or 427 can't be resurrected with success.
I wonder what happened to all the tooling for motors like the 440, 383, 351, 427, 454 went?
Hopefully, it's all sitting in warehouses somewhere waiting to be resurrected.
Regarding gas prices, all you have to do is follow the money to see who is behind all of this tremendous rise. While I'll agree that China is driving up demand, the people there can barely afford a car, let alone the gas that goes in it. I view that as another "reason" the BPs of the world use to raise their bid on oil. While OPEC is doing well, I'm certain, even they can see where this is leading. They've said time and time again price per barrel needs to stabilize between $25-$30/bbl. They are pumping as fast as they can to get the price down. Where are all these extra barrels going? MPG of all vehicles is certianly better than it was 20 years ago. Eventually, there will be oversupply and the bidding will fall like a brick in water. Then, the oil companies will be crying the blues.
What's sad is our country is doing nothing to get to the root cause of the rise. Personally, I'd like to know who the oil brokers work for that keep bidding the price/bbl up. I'd also like to see some sort of report on who these people are and what their background is.
The fact that we're letting them drive up the bidding for a barrel of oil based on some very weak reasons (weather, Saudi flu season, speculation on pork belly futures) tells me there's at least some money changing hands with politicians who have been paid to turn a blind eye.
Others say the reason is we haven't built any refineries in 15 years. Why not?
Too many questions with puny or no answers leads me to believe this runup was planned....and that it's been in the planning stages for quite some time.
I was under the impression that the only thing Chrysler resurrected was the NAME 'Hemi'. Kinda like the relationship between an '06 'Charger' and a late '60s Charger. So from that standpoint, I guess there's no reason Ford couldn't have called the latest iteration of the 4.6l in the Mustang a 'CobraJet'.
"I wonder what happened to all the tooling for motors like the 440, 383, 351, 427, 454 went?"
Sitting around waiting for gas to drop back down below $2/gal. Besides, Ford was still using the 351W until the mid 90s if memory serves and it did had some 'modern' touches (at least, as modern as the mid 90s had available). And Chevy used the 454 not so many years ago in the Silverado (I remember the 454SS version that was out for a few years).
You are correct. The only reason dodge got some more sales in the last couple of years is the new fake hemi. the heads on the hemi are not really even hemipherical. close but no real hemi.. but the word hemi sells. doesnt it??t Nice marketing scheme to bring buyers back.
The Chevy 454 SS truck was made from 1990 to 1993 and ONLY made 230hp. 1/4 mile in the mid to high 15's. Nothing special. It only had a 3spd automatic with 3.73 gearing. 10 - 12 mpg was about it. It cost about $20k new, which is equivalent to about $30k today !
“he Monaro has been an absolute winner in Australia - a hands-down winner in the sports car market. It has been the flagship of our performance car range and the standard for others to match,” he said.
Our coupe has worn four GM brands on four continents and sold almost six times as many cars as were first planned.
“But most of all, Monaro ignited something deep within the Australian car culture and made people think about locally built performance cars as capable of competing with anything in the world from the value perspective.
“Managing the life cycle ensures strong ongoing demand for used Monaros, keeping resale values high and protecting its deserved reputation as a classic.”
3.73 gears and only mid-high 15's???? Probably traction problems given the torque that motor was capable of and the unloaded rear-end..... :confuse:
You are right on the SS. The Ford Lightning which came out in 1993 had 4.10 gears, 240hp 5.8 Liter and ran mid 15's as well. Same as SS. Ford had a smaller motor, 5.8 vs GM's 7.4
By today stds it sounds avg to slow, Then again that was decent to good performance in the early 1990's !! Automatic Mustang 1993 ran mid 15's too !!
I hope you are right about the oil. I'm just not as confident as you.
MODERATOR
Need help getting around? claires@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Tell everyone about your buying experience: Write a Dealer Review
I wonder how the Mustang would sell in Australia. Europe, America, Canada, and each country has their own cultural, performance, and aesthetic bias and preferences. It seems that we each have our own automotive ideal of a nice ride. Heck, even within America there are substantial differences between urban/rural, East/West, and North/South.
We've been round and round about the solid rear of the Mustang. Ford did such a good job with it, that they didn't see the need, nor the additional expense by going to an IRS.
To me, one of the advantages of the Mustang GT over the GTO when I was test driving was the handling. The Mustang does ride firmer, but I like that trait. Plus, once you start to cruise in the Mustang, it's quite comfortable.
While I understand those who like the more softly sprung GTO, I'm not one of those.
If you peruse other boards, you will find some who think the Mustang's ride as to firm. I'm not one of them, though.
GTO handles just as well as Mustang, both similar numbers. MPH August mag had a Charger, Stang-GTO comparo. It said GTO handles better and was chosen WINNER of the 3 cars.
The GTO is not softly sprung it has a firm ride too, still feel the road, just not as Firm as Mustang GT. I like that nice suede like material which is actually Alcantara, WIdely used in BMW and Audi interiors !
Dif. strokes for dif folks.
Besides the lackluster looks (and that's putting it nicely), I think the GTO doesn't resonate with the majority of buyers for several reasons:
1. While it may have a nice interior and better performance than the Mustang, the new GTO, unlike its muscular predecessor, has no kinship with any other GM/Pontiac car made, ever. The Mustang undeniably looks like a Mustang. To quote a favorite review, "In other words, the Mustang GT looks great, sounds like sex and goes like stink." The GTO looks like every other Pontiac.
2. Additionally, whereas the Mustang's shifter, steering, and suspension allow you to "feel" the road (with some dampening), the GTO feels more like a sedan made for comfort...spongy, less responsive, subdued. Not what most "muscle-car" buyers want.
3. Time will tell, but there also is a perception since the GTO is on the out and it's made in Australia that aftermarket parts will get more difficult to find.
4. Lastly, Ford's hard work and dedication to its fans (old and now new) have paid off in droves. GM took a great performing sedan and almost as an afterthought rebadged it as a GTO. Ford, recognizing their stewardship of 40 years of automotive history, honored that history in a modern car that is so much more than the sum of its parts. The GTO does perform better, but it's just not as well thought out, costs thousands more, and looks bland.
People can't necessarily tell you what the new GTO and Mustang should've looked like if you asked them to draw it. But once most see both cars in the "flesh", they know the new Mustang is a "Stang" and the new GTO is just a foreign-made sedan that looks way too much like a Grand Prix/Grand Am/Sunfire...pick your Pontiac flavor.
But, you're right....different strokes for different folks. Compared to the Mustang, I found the GTO to be too softly sprung. I attributed it to the weight of the GTO.
Took a rode trip in the Mustang last week for work. Drove about 700 miles both ways to Chicago. Got 26 MPG for the entire trip.....including some "stop & go" in the city. Cruised on the interstates about 80 MPH for most of the trip.....all on regular gas.
Gotta question....since GM extended the employee pricing into Sept, was the GTO added?
On a side note, I'll be heading down to Bowling Green to take a Corvette plant tour in a few weeks. I'm really looking forward to that and the visit to the Corvette museum.
On the engine thing - people talk about Chrysler bringing back the Hemi and Ford's great engines of the past. But did everyone forget? GM's been doing this since 1985 (sans the fun names) with the TPI L98 (230-250hp). Then the LT1 for 92 (300hp), LS1 for 98 (345hp) and LS2 for 05 (400hp). They all got excellent mileage for their performance and period of production and could be hotrodded easily with aftermarket support that is second to none. Ford had, what, the 302 during this time? Chrysler had......::crickets::
I would like to drop one of those in the GTO :P
26mpg is great. The only 2 times we took a highway trip in GTO we got the 21mpg EPA rated #. At a steady 75mph or so.
I don't think it's a weight thing, because SRT8 is not softly sprung and weighs 4100 or 4200?. Sometimes I feel my GTO rides to stiff, aka Mustang. It depends.
GTO was NOT added to GM employee pricing. I guess they are selling ok if GM doesn't have to discount them.
The Mustang is classified as SUBCOMPACT, one level under GTO Go figure? Mustang total interior volume is 85 cu ft + 13 cu ft trunk. Total of 98 cu ft.
You have to have 110 total cu ft to be considered MID-SIZED ! Crazy rating systems.