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

1…2930323435…38

Comments

  • pony_piratepony_pirate Member Posts: 317
    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 Member 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 Member Posts: 1,926
    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 Member Posts: 1,926
    ...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 Member Posts: 1,926
    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?
  • libituplibitup Member Posts: 4
    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.

    Libitup
  • rorrrorr Member 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 Member Posts: 160
    "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 Member 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 Member 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
  • vppreachervppreacher Member Posts: 72
    I have nothing against the GTO, but weighing a stock 2005 GTO against a stock 2005 GT just isn’t an evenhanded comparison. Based on Edmund’s own data, the average sale price for a Goat is approximately $5,000 more than a similarly equipped Pony. We might as well be comparing the Mustang V6 to the Mustang GT for that much price differential or maybe the GTO with the 2006 Shelby GT500….

    For the sake of argument though, let’s see what the various reviews and comparisons show. For the GTO, there is little dispute that it is slightly faster to 60 (~.3 sec) and about ½ second quicker in the quarter mile. Significant, but hardly fair when one compares what that extra 5 grand can do for a stock Mustang GT, whether supercharged or naturally aspirated. In fact, a $1000 Ford Racing Suspension upgrade and $500 CAI/Tune will allow the Mustang GT to “win back” the acceleration crown and move head and shoulders above the GTO for the handling trophy.

    As evidenced by the Mustang GT greatly outselling the GTO, people who buy performance cars don’t put backseat room, independent rear suspensions, and interior décor on the top of their “must have” lists. The Goat handily bests the Mustang GT in all those areas. As mentioned earlier, the Goat does have better acceleration, but its other performance characteristics, braking and handling, are pretty much equal to the Mustang GT’s. However, those wins and ties can’t overcome the lackluster styling and significantly higher price. Furthermore, its transmission/clutch is near universally disparaged. Even with its solid rear axle, the stock Mustang GT continues to win accolades, sales numbers, and most reviews over the GTO.

    But if we are going to judge these two modern muscle cars by modern convenience standards, even more factors tip the scale towards the Mustang GT. The GTO has a significantly lower reliability rating, contains much less trunk space, requires a higher grade of fuel (92 vs. 87 for the Mustang), and gets 15% worse gas mileage. The GTO definitely has the sleeper look though. It also may be worth more in the far distant future due to its low production, but this contention is suspect. A car is a horribly, capricious investment. On the other hand, the aftermarket for the new S197 Mustang is insanely diverse as are the numerous club and forum choices. I prefer greater camaraderie to exclusivity. Additionally, for those buying their midlife crisis cars like myself who want to go fast, but need to protect precious little ones in the back, the Mustang GT gets 5 star crash and rollover ratings whereas the GTO doesn’t offer side airbags and isn’t rated.

    All in all, the Mustang has won every review I’ve read save one (MPH if I remember correctly). Car and Driver even named it to their Top 10 List again this year. I am not a Ford or a Mustang fanboy. I, until purchasing my Mustang GT last year, have exclusively driven Honda Civic Si’s or 4x4 trucks. IMHO, most buyers want personality and performance at the lowest price. The Mustang GT delivers those factors in spades. While I drove and researched the Goat, the Mustang just had a lot more going for it. The GTO has marginally better performance and a mundane personality for a much higher price. I think the GTO is a good car, but expensive. I would pick it over the RX-8, WRX Sti, and Lancer Evo, but it loses to the 350Z and Mustang GT. This quote summed it up for me at least, “The Mustang's superior transmission, friendlier ergonomics, and--let's face it--more characterful styling far outweigh its marginally softer acceleration.”

    More review quotes…

    GTO
    “GM insiders say the new GTO's appearance will be more eye-catching than the somewhat anonymous current model. The next-generation GTO will fulfill the promise of the current car."
    “The Charger remains anonymous to everyone on the road but envious Mercury Marauder owners. The GTO is similarly unmemorable. It's possible that someone thinks it looks interesting, but we have yet to meet that person. The hood scoops add some aggressiveness, or at least some nasalpassage-ness, and, as a bonus, funnel air into the engine bay, which means they're functional, albeit in a very nonfunctional way.”
    “Flawed muscle-car fun with an Aussie accent, wrapped in an unassuming exterior. But a Mustang offers similar thrills and superior ergonomics for $5,000 less.”
    “What turned me off to the GTO was its thick-ankled sense of mass, its uninspired interior styling, and its thoroughly detestable manual transmission setup. The inability to heel-and-toe, in particular, would break the deal for me.”
    “Still, I doubt that many buyers will find the GTO a more compelling choice than the redesigned Ford Mustang. GM fans won't be swayed, but those on the fence will likely side with Ford.”

    Mustang
    “Since its appeal is almost entirely emotional it's hard to talk about the Mustang's value in the usual terms. This is a car that people either fall in love with or they just don't get it. Those who don't get it should check their pulse.”
    “As for fun, though, the Mustang's got plenty. Just a touch on the gas pedal and this thing wants to rip. Its solid rear axle is surprisingly supple. Overall, it offers an authentic muscle car experience that turns any trip to the store into an occasion for grins.”
    “Of these three cars, it's the least expensive and has most personality by miles. In driving fun, it gives up nothing to the more powerful GTO. It's also a far easier car to drive and live with on a daily basis.”
  • jpiatchekjpiatchek Member Posts: 177
    Today I happened to stop by the office of some old acquaintances I haven't seen in a couple of years. They both race Porsche's and BMW's and have won a bunch of trophies. Sometimes she beats him. They are extremely knowledgable about cars and have owned tons of expensive iron. He wasn't in and I talked with his wife for a few minutes. I asked if Kurt still had his 04 Mach 1 Mustang or his 996 Porsche. She said the Mach1 is for sale, they sold the M3 and they hardly ever drive the 996 any more. The reason being is that they bought an 06 Mustang GT a couple of months ago. She said the 06 GT is day and night better than the Mach1 and they didn't drive the Porsche as much now that they had the GT. While the GT was not the same as the 996, they both felt the gap was closing. They felt with the offerings out now, they would probably not purchase any more German cars. They were having an absolute blast driving the GT. I told them my GTO and GT were both modded and we are planning on getting togher in the next few days and wringing out each others cars. Just thought it was an interesting conversation from fairly knowledgable car enthusiasts.
  • sensaisensai Member Posts: 129
    First, stop with old and rehased "Mustang costs x dollars less so I can spend that and go faster than a GTO" already. I can think of at least a dozen cars I can get cheaper than the Mustang and mod to be quicker. And it still doesn't change the solid rear suspension, manual transmission missing an extra gear, the inability to fit people into the back seats, or the less than adequate interior.

    And where are all these wins the Mustang is getting in magazines against the GTO? Oh, do you mean Car and Driver where they had to invent the "got to have it category" in order for the Mustang to win because it was getting beat so bad in everything else?
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    ... Oh, do you mean Car and Driver where they had to invent the "got to have it category" in order for the Mustang to win because it was getting beat so bad in everything else?

    Slow down there, cowboy! Look at the stats from that review again. The Mustang beat the GTO in every other category (objective AND subjective) except straight line acceleration. And it lost that by, what, two tenths of a second. You call that getting beat badly? And not one non-GM sponsored article or comparison selected the GTO over the Mustang GT despite the GTO being quicker in a straight line. Not one.
  • sensaisensai Member Posts: 129
    Slow down there, cowboy! Look at the stats from that review again. The Mustang beat the GTO in every other category (objective AND subjective) except straight line acceleration. And it lost that by, what, two tenths of a second. You call that getting beat badly? And not one non-GM sponsored article or comparison selected the GTO over the Mustang GT despite the GTO being quicker in a straight line. Not one.

    You might want to read that comparison again. There is a reason C&D got flamed by 200 to 1 letters for the GTO after that comparison. And it certainly wasn't because the Mustang "beat" the GTO, which it didn't. Sorry, but skidpad and slalom numbers do not equal a car's total handling. By the way, what are these other non-GM sponsored articles that have the Mustang beating the GTO?
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    Car & Driver
    Road & Track
    Motor Trend
    Automobile
    etc.

    And if you want to throw out the skidpad and slalom numbers, then you need to throw out the straight line acceleration numbers, too. Contrary to wildly popular belief, skidpad and slalom numbers do have merit, otherwise they wouldn't be reported. Skidpad gives an idea of how well a car will be able to hold a curve. The slalom shows the cars ability (or inability) to transition from side-to-side. On the streets, it would be an emergency lane change maneuver. On a track, they call it a "corkscrew" turn.
  • sensaisensai Member Posts: 129
    Hmm, I don't remember direct GTO vs Mustang comparisons in those other magazines. Maybe I missed a few issues. Either way, GTO performance is still > Mustang performance.

    And no, skidpad and slalom numbers do not have merit. Acceleration numbers tell you how powerful the car is, skidpad and slalom do not tell you how the car handles. Unless you always drive your car around cones set at a fixed distance apart, or around a fixed size oval. Hence why the GTO beats the Mustang on the track. And if I remember correctly, the GTO also pulled off a better number than the Mustang in R&T's figure eight test.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "And no, skidpad and slalom numbers do not have merit."

    "And if I remember correctly, the GTO also pulled off a better number than the Mustang in R&T's figure eight test."

    TRANSLATION - Handling tests ONLY have merit when the GTO wins..... :P
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    LOL! :P

    I think you're absolutely right, rorr! :blush:
  • dclark2dclark2 Member Posts: 91
    Magazines don't want to directly compare the Mustang to the GTO because it simply gets trounced. So, you have to compare reviews from different issues.
    For example, here's what Motortrend found, mustang numbers are first:
    1/4 mile: 13.6/13.3
    0-60: 5.1/5.0
    brake: 120/121
    skid pad .84/.85
    skid pad 8: 26.61, .67/ 26.1, .68
    It is also important to note that the GTO tested didn't have the optional 18" wheel option.
    Before some horse lover chimes in and says that GTO isn't faster, look at the 0-90mph number: 11/9.6
    That is almost a second and half difference! The GTO not only starts off faster, but it continues to pick up speed. One useful stat that is missing is 50-70mph- that gives a good idea of what car will do when passing (real world). The GTO would trounce the mustang here as well.
    I guess it's good that Ford doesn't puta motor in the Mustang with more hp than an old Chevy Camaro...we wouldn't want the befuddled mustang owner to get in over his head with that truck-like suspension in the rear. Plus, if they ever want to say they have more hp, they can always simply lie, like they did with the Cobra and make up the numbers!
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    It's never a good idea to compare test results from different issues due to different test conditions (climactic as well as track conditions). Also, different drivers will yield different results.

    Most of your results seem to indicate very small differences between the two (0.3s in the 1/4, a tenth in 0-60, a hundredth in skidpad g-forces). I know that 'trounce' is not a very scientific term, but I don't see 0.1 sec difference in 0-60, 1 foot shorter braking, and 0.01 difference in g-force as a 'trouncing'.

    0-90 number is interesting. I'm curious as to how the two cars can be only 0.3 seconds apart in the 1/4 mile, yet the GTO is substantially quicker to 90? Yes, I'm aware that one is a time to distance and the other is a time to speed, but still.....something seems odd.
  • dclark2dclark2 Member Posts: 91
    "0-90 number is interesting. I'm curious as to how the two cars can be only 0.3 seconds apart in the 1/4 mile, yet the GTO is substantially quicker to 90? Yes, I'm aware that one is a time to distance and the other is a time to speed, but still.....something seems odd."

    Tire quality, launching and gearing come into play here.For this case, look into the gearing of the mustang for your answer. The GTO can pull ahead so much more because of its far great power.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "The GTO can pull ahead so much more because of its far great power."

    I think you missed my point.

    If the GTO is 1-1/2 second quicker to 90mph, why is it ONLY 0.3 second quicker to the 1/4 mile (where the speeds are probably in the 103 to 107mph range)?

    BTW - which issues of Motortrend are you looking at? I can't seem to find their test of the '05 GTO online.
  • facts101facts101 Member Posts: 25
    0-100 mph the GTO was 1.3 seconds fastter. 11.7 seconds vs 13.0 seconds
    0-130mph the GTO was 6.0 seconds faster. 19.6 seconds vs 25.6 seconds for Mustang
    1/4 mile the GTO was 5 tenths faster, 13.3 seconds vs 13.8 for Mustang
    1/4 mile the GTO trapped at 107mph vs 103 mph for the Mustang

    This data is from the January 2005 Car and Driver head to head comparo of the 2.

    As the speeds increase the GTO's extra 100hp and better aereodynamics come into factor. Lower Coefficient drag on GTO and less frontal area. Mustang is drag limited to 147mph, can't go any faster. GTO is electronically governed to 158mph. With the governor off, people have maxxed out at 165 to 170 mph stock from LS1GTO.
  • facts101facts101 Member Posts: 25
    Yes in Motor Trends May 2004 article they compared the then 350hp 2004 GTO to the 2004 Mercedes Benz CLK55 AMG. The Pontiac or I should say Holden held it's own, did very well. "The Pontiac GTO provides perhaps 85 to 90 percent of the goodness of the MBCLKAMG--for less than 50 percent of the cost"
  • facts101facts101 Member Posts: 25
    The Mustang has won more of the comparos in magazines, but the GTO has won some too! MPH magazine had the GTO being chosen over the Mustang and Charger and beating them in almost all peformance areas. Also JD power gave the GTO it's most appealing sporty car award for 2005.

    http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosconsumer/0508/31/F01-298066.htm

    "In battle of brawn, Pontiac GTO gets nod over Ford Mustang" From August.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    From C&D, the GTO is 1.3 sec quicker 0-100. Also, the GTO does 1/4 in 13.3@107 vs. the Mustang 13.8@103.

    So, do you see why I have a problem with the MT 0-90 times?

    Car and Driver has the two cars CLOSER together 0-100 (1.3 seconds apart) and FURTHER APART on the 1/4 (0.5 seconds).

    Motor Trend has the two cars FURTHER APART on 0-90 (1.4 seconds), yet CLOSER TOGETHER in the 1/4 (0.3 seconds).

    That's why I have a problem believing the MT numbers.

    Look guys, I think it's fairly evident that the GTO is quicker. Does it 'trounce' the Mustang? Well, that kinda depends on how you define 'trounce' and how much stock you put in pure acceleration. If all you're after is a shove in the back, one can go much quicker for much less (you just won't get a new car waranty.. ;) )

    Let's put it this way:

    The Mustang GT is probably quicker than 95% of the stuff on the road. And LOOKS better than 95% of the stuff on the road.

    The GTO is probably quicker than 98% of the stuff on the road. And LOOKs better than........well, at least it is quicker than 98% of the stuff on the road.... :P
  • dclark2dclark2 Member Posts: 91
    "From C&D, the GTO is 1.3 sec quicker 0-100. Also, the GTO does 1/4 in 13.3107 vs. the Mustang 13.8103.

    So, do you see why I have a problem with the MT 0-90 times?
    Car and Driver has the two cars CLOSER together 0-100 (1.3 seconds apart) and FURTHER APART on the 1/4 (0.5 seconds).
    Motor Trend has the two cars FURTHER APART on 0-90 (1.4 seconds), yet CLOSER TOGETHER in the 1/4 (0.3 seconds).
    That's why I have a problem believing the MT numbers."

    You are skepticism is unwarranted. You must think that these two cars, in the 1/4 mile, just pop out a steady speed. Nothing could be futher from the truth. Given the power of the GTO, you'd think it should jump way in front of the mustang and stay there.
    However,both vehicles have to be launched properly. The GTO has two things that must be addressed during launching: narrow tires and wheel hop. Once underway, these two are non issues, note the difference in higher speeds. That's another reason why you'll see a large range of number for the GTO. Sure, other cars can have a range of times between testers, but they also don't have 400lbs of tq, 400 hp, irs and 245-45-17 tires. Take 10 people out to test the same automatic equipped Sienna Minivan and I bet the times will be pretty close.Also, as another said, the Mustang is also not very aerodynamic- pushing that air requires hp.
    "The GTO is probably quicker than 98% of the stuff on the road. And LOOKs better than........well, at least it is quicker than 98% of the stuff on the road"
    The GTO has been documented to do a 1/4 in 13 sec flat. That is pretty much up there. The Mustang GT runs upper 13's. That is not even enough to keep up with an eight year old Camaro. Dodge and even Cadillac, make cars that make the Mustang's power look oh so '90's ish. Cars of today are getting faster and faster. At the very least, the Mustang should be made to keep up with them.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    ... Cars of today are getting faster and faster. At the very least, the Mustang should be made to keep up with them.

    Name the cars that are in production today that are faster AND within $10K - $20K of the Mustang GT's price.
  • facts101facts101 Member Posts: 25
    GM advertises the GTO as 0-60mph in 4.6 seconds and the 1/4 mile in 13.0 seconds in their official brochure. Some people have gotten as fast as a 12.9 1/4 stock from a GTO on the LS1GTO website. It comes down to drivers skill, and a lot of practice. The GTO is pretty hard to launch correctly, takes a lot of practice. Way to easy to spin the tires on it.
  • facts101facts101 Member Posts: 25
    WRX STI and GTO are 2 cars that are faster then the Mustang stock vs stock and within $5k of the price. That said, the Mustang is the cheapest 300hp car you can buy and the GTO is the cheapest 400hp car you can buy on the market. Both great values for what you get.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    Jeez....

    Could you, for a second, just FORGET the skinny tires, 100 extra hp, yada yada yada for a second and just LOOK at the numbers?

    Would it help if I gave you a hypothetical example to see what I'm talking about?

    Cars 'X' and 'Y' are tested.

    In test #1, Car 'X' is 2 seconds quicker 0-90 than Car 'Y'. It finishes the 1/4 mile 0.5 second ahead of Car 'Y'.

    In test #2, Car 'X' is 1 second quicker 0-100 than Car 'Y'. It finishes the 1/4 mile 1.0 second ahead of Car 'Y'.

    Would these numbers make sense to you?
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    That's 2. Give us some more.
  • facts101facts101 Member Posts: 25
    Although not new, but far cheaper....any late model 1998 and newer Fbody with the LS1 motor.
  • cobragtcobragt Member Posts: 95
    I still think that an important issue to look at here is the pricing.

    If you look at the link so kindly given to us in post # 1736, the article says that the tested GTO was $6,000 more than the tested Mustang GT.

    Let's be real here people. 1st, for dollar to dollar, you can't beat what the Mustang has to offer. The numbers in the comparisons are so marginal, that for $6,000, its not worth it. I'm sure Ford could have put on an IRS, just like they are in the Shelby GT500 soon to come out, but they chose not too, but instead have been able to tame the solid rear axle enough to give it good handling, for a fraction of the cost of an IRS.
    2nd, for only $1100, and I KNOW this from my OWN car, you can easily make the GT faster then the GTO. Before I did any major mods, just my first few mods, a mere $1100, bumped me up enough to where I consecutively beat the GTO from a dead stop as well as a roll, still for $4,900 cheaper.

    Now I know some people will be like, "Well just do those things to a GTO and it will beat the Mustang GT again." This is true, but then we are back to square one, the performance vs dollars issue.

    If just $1100 can make the GT beat the GTO, imagine what another $4,900 could do. Now you have 2 equal value cars, with numbers that are much, much farther apart.
  • sigt1sigt1 Member Posts: 66
    holy cow for such small increases in performance plus gas guzzler tax is the GTO even worth getting? is this the 400 HP model being tested... if so, that's really not that much better than the stang!
  • sigt1sigt1 Member Posts: 66
    exactly, like cobragt said, if speed is your issue then that 6000 you save by getting the GT can be put into it and it will be 1.5x faster than the 400 HP GTO; but if FIT AND FINISH is your cup of tea definetely get the GTO; its just a better car in that category
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    Although not new, but far cheaper....any late model 1998 and newer Fbody with the LS1 motor.

    Current PRODUCTION cars. There are not current production F-bodies. And don't forget, the Mustang GT already beat the '04 GTO with that same LS1 engine that was in the F-bodies. Haven't you noticed that you hear ZERO mention of the '04 GTO in this discussion? (Other than initially until the GTO camp conceded defeat and quickly swept the '04 under the rug! :P )
  • dclark2dclark2 Member Posts: 91
    "I still think that an important issue to look at here is the pricing.
    If you look at the link so kindly given to us in post # 1736, the article says that the tested GTO was $6,000 more than the tested Mustang GT.
    Let's be real here people."
    Why don't YOU BE REAL????? I have already POINTED out that comparably equipped, the Mustang only costs about one or two thousand less than a GTO!!!!!
    If you want to buy a Mustang with the BASE interior, CLOTH seats,etc go for it. But if you, like many people opt for the extras, WHOA!!!! They add up real quick. And still, the interior and performance won't be equal to the GTO. That warranty blowing blower will run you $5000 installed as well.
  • sigt1sigt1 Member Posts: 66
    yep; 04 GTO was too heavy to go anywhere despite its 350 HP... mustang owners, plz do not diss on the GTO because its a beautiful car on the inside... lol sounds like a self help infomercial but really... its a damn nice interior
  • sigt1sigt1 Member Posts: 66
    is kinda right MSRP for the 6 SPD GTO is 32,600... i think they lowered the price on this car; i thought it was in the 36s

    if thats the case for a mustang w/ shaker 500 and leather premium package w/ IUP it would be about 28000 MSRP; with shaker 1000 and red interior probably close to 30000; so dclark is right but my 05 GT was 27500 for Shaker 500 black on black with upgraded wheels... and you can get that even cheaper now bcuz the cars, at least in IL, are not selling

    in fact both cars are not really selling

    i got quoted invoice bcuz i am considering getting a GT again, sold my 05 bcuz i was disappointed w/ problems

    but for the money id say the pontiac will be a higher quality car
  • facts101facts101 Member Posts: 25
    BTW, the 6spd manual 400hp GTO does not have a gas guzzler tax and gets the same EPA rated 25mpg highway gas mileage as the 300hp Mustang.
  • facts101facts101 Member Posts: 25
    What defeat? 2004 GTO is same or faster then the 2004 Mustang GT. 04 GTO had 350hp, 04 GT had 260hp. There are some people that bought their brand new 2004 GTO's end of year for as low as $23k out the door. You do remember the 2004 GTO did very favorably when compared by Motor Trend to the SLKAMG? Notice they never compared a Mustang to it. Wonder why.. lack of quality.
  • facts101facts101 Member Posts: 25
    Too heavy to go anywhere despite it's 350hp? 5.4 seconds or faster 0-60 is plenty fast, at least for me. It was faster then 2004 Mustang GT.
  • facts101facts101 Member Posts: 25
    Where are all these base $25k Mustang GT's? Almost everyone I have seen at dealers or in parking lots are the loaded ones, which are near $28k msrp. Good luck getting a $25k base model, or a base model of any car. Those will have to be ordered. Dealers usually get the loaded ones.
  • facts101facts101 Member Posts: 25
    I paid about the same price for my 2005 GTO as you did for your 2005 GT after my GM credit card points and the GM red tag sale. Red Tag sale price was $29,500 on mine, that was before applying my GM rebate $$. For all the people claiming a Mustang is $7k cheaper, they aint' playing their cards right or they are getting the stripped base GT, which almost knowone buys.
  • facts101facts101 Member Posts: 25
    A 2004 Mustang GT had a performance 4.6L V8 only making 260hp. That is pretty embarassing for a V8. Most performance V6 engines of 2004 made that much power or more. In fact the base 4.6L in the Crown Vic only makes a paltry 224 hp?

    The only way Ford can make any real power out of their V8's is to supercharge them. Before we hear the old comeback of, "Well GM has to use more cubes to make power" I would rather have a non supercharged engine, less to break and is more reliable. I can always add a supercharger to the GM engine if I wanted too.

    GM already has an LS2 that makes 450hp normally aspirated, 50more then normal. It's in the GTO-R race car. Again, no blower.

    Z06 makes 505hp, no blower. Ford GT500 will make 450hp with a blower.
  • sigt1sigt1 Member Posts: 66
    i was quoted 24500 for an 06 GT
  • sigt1sigt1 Member Posts: 66
    i think y'all just like to bicker lol

    theyre both fine cars imo
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    What defeat? 2004 GTO is same or faster then the 2004 Mustang GT. 04 GTO had 350hp, 04 GT had 260hp. There are some people that bought their brand new 2004 GTO's end of year for as low as $23k out the door. You do remember the 2004 GTO did very favorably when compared by Motor Trend to the SLKAMG? Notice they never compared a Mustang to it. Wonder why.. lack of quality.

    Your response is exactly why the '04 GTO was swept under the rug. I'm talking about the '04 GTO vs. the '05 GT. They were both on sale at the same time and the '05 GT defeated the '04 GTO with the prescious LS1 engine.

    Yes, I remember the GTO/CLK review. FYI, Mercedes isn't exactly the epitomy of quality as of late. The Mustang isn't compared to luxury cars because it doesn't pretend to be a low-rent luxury car. It's a classic pony car and that's all Mustang lovers want it to be. If we wanted low-rent luxury, I'm sure plenty of us would have opted for the GTO as one of us actually DID opt for a GTO in addition to a GT.
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles