By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I love this quote from the comparo:
"The surface changes are a step in the right direction, but the GTO's profile still looks too much like a bloated Cavalier."
Once again though (and I do like car and driver) the results were skewed by the silly "gotta-have-it factor." I don't have it in front of me, but I believe they gave the Mustang 7 more points than the GTO in that one category. So, taking all the "real" categories into account, the GTO actually won. Don't get me wrong, I think I'd probably go for the Mustang myself, but when I look at those C&D comparisons, I have gotten into the habit of doing just what I said above and taking out those categories that have nothing to do with a performance car.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
A year from now, when the 'gotta-have-it' has worn off a bit, it seems as though the GTO would win a repeat comparison.
It seemed that the editors had already picked the Mustang as one of their "10 Best", and THEN did the comparo with the GTO. I think they may have felt a bit of pressure to skew the results the Mustang way so they didn't look like total idiots with their 10 Best pick.
All that being said, I would have picked the Mustang myself. I don't think fear of losing some mythical stop-light race with a GTO (can't even remember the last time I even SAW a GTO on the road) would make me think twice about any performance 'lack' of the Mustang. And in this market segment, style probably sells as many vehicles as performance. And the Mustang absolutely kills the GTO (IMO) in style.
I think one of the Edmunds editors put it this way (discussing the last gen Camaro vs. Mustang choice): "if your main concern is 1/4 mile times, then the Camaro is the choice. But if you care about ANYTHING else, then the Mustang is a better option."
While that's hyperbole, he made a good point...even with performance cars, there's always more to them than just performance.
I don't know that the same can be said about the Mustang/GTO. In my interpretation of the review, they really didn't have much BAD to say about the GTO at all (outside of the shifter/clutch). Ergonomics were good, content/$$ was good, comfort/room was good, etc. etc. As has been pointed out, the ONLY area where the Mustang faired substantially better was in the "gotta-have-it" factor, which I think is as much about style as anything. If GM can fix the bloated cavalier image, then I would expect some deep discounts on the Mustangs in the future.
Speaking as someone who is as much concerned about interior (read: rear-seat) comfort and space, I may be taking a hard look at a GTO down the road.
Because of the GTO? Nope. GM only planned on selling 20,000 of them this year whereas the Mustang is targeted to sell somewhere in the mid 100's. I think it was like 160,000.
One is a niche model and the other is for the masses. Their prices reflect this too. The GTO's price is more in line with a BMW and not a Mustang. At $33,200 the GTO is about $4000 more than a fully loaded Mustang GT. The cash back on a GTO right now, here in the North East, is $3,500.
If ford offered a deep discount on the Mustang, Pontiac would never sell another GTO because you would be able to get a Mustang GT, not loaded but well equipped, for somewhere around $24,000 using the same "deep" $3,500 discount from above. That would mean the Mustang would sell for $10,000 less than the GTO.
Would you buy a GTO over the Stang just to be a couple tenths of a second faster to the next red light? I sure wouldn't.
Sure C&D liked the every day aspects of the Mustang better but I'm sure "Bang for the Buck" factored in a lot too.
"Speaking as someone who is as much concerned about interior (read: rear-seat) comfort and space, I may be taking a hard look at a GTO down the road."
For MY purposes, the Mustang is ahead on only 2 counts: price and style. If Pontiac fixed the "style" portion of the equation (ie: no more bloated cavalier), then the ONLY thing going for the Mustang would be price.
In which case you just may see demand for the GTO exceed the 20k per year mark.
BTW - just what is it about the GTO which makes it a 'niche' model? Don't confuse 'slow seller' with 'niche'....
And before you climb all over my case too much, know this: I've got a '66 GT fastback in my garage and I am very impressed with the new Mustang. BUT, my love for the Mustang shape doesn't blind me to the fact that the new GTO is a better car in many ways. Take another look at those C&D rankings by category. Outside of the rankings for transmission, style, and 'gotta-have-it', where was the Mustang better?
Too bad that GM has to use a badge engineered Australian car this time around while we still have the American Mustang though.
After all, GTO is properly a musclecar, whereas the Mustang is a pony car...as people have pointed out, the cars have different missions.
But when the Charger comes out, will the debut of the modern version of a musclecar of perhaps eqaul mythology bring the GTO back in the limelight? Esp. if it's the redesigned GTO and not the stopgap Monaro-rebadge we have now? Could we be seeing the second coming of the musclecar era?
That's the "gotta have it" factor in action!
Don't forget the upcomming Mach-1, Boss, Cobra and Shelby will all be performance upgrades to blow away the GTO (and Vette) for similar price.
The new Mustang is just getting started :-)
Pro's
1) Serious torque - This V8 kicks you back in your seat!
2) Short-throw shifter - finally, a short-throw good-action shifter in a V8
3) Size - I like that it feels roomy inside, for a coupe that is. While the back seat is no place for an adult, I can still use it for my small children in a pinch.
4) Trunk - decent room for a coupe and even better that the rear seats fold down.
5) Stereo - not bad for a manufacturer product
Con's
1) Interior - typical Ford cheap a%$ interior! I don't car what the magazines say, cheap plastics are everywhere. Someone from Ford Interior Design should sit in a Honda once to see what an interior should look and feel like.
2) Lousy ergonomics - Not a lot of thought went into placements of things like a) trunk button, b) seat adjustments, etc. I never could get the seat to work right to try and test the backseat room.
3) Poor wheel designs - Purely subjective, but these 'retro' wheel designs are hideous! First thing I would do would be replace the rims.
4) Wheel gap - Why do manufactures insist on these huge wheel gaps in these sports cars! They look like off-roaders. Look at Mercedes or BMW for how to create a 'tight' look.
5) High clutch travel - the clutch takes a little too long to engage, but I can adapt to it.
6) GOUGING by dealer - I can't believe the audacity of Ford dealers tacking on a 'market adjustment'. This is a Ford, not a Ferreri! Anybody who pays these markup charges is going to get killed by the heavy depreciation.
I am considering this vehicle only because I can get X-Plan pricing since I can get this car for around $23,000 (no options). But, I will probably lease it because the depreciation will be steep. It's a good deal at $23,000, but anybody who pays near $30,000 should have their head examined. $30,000 brings in a whole new range of good vehicles like Dodge Magnum, used BMW 3-series, Infiniti G35, etc.
Later...
It's a RWD coupe that only comes with one engine, one body style, and a small back seat. It is costly to insure right out of the box and production is limited.
It was never meant to be mass marketed and really only appeals to one demographic. The future may be different though.
I also have to revise my production figure above. GM cut production of the GTO to 12,000 units a year about a month or two ago.
Yes I did read your last sentence and I understand you are a Mustang supporter. I was pointing out how one of your other statements might be flawed that's all. Regardless of which car you prefer and which one you own you still typed that statement and I ran with it. No offense intended.
Outside of the rankings for transmission, style, and 'gotta-have-it', where was the Mustang better?
It's not a better performer and I never said it was. But it is pretty close to the GTO in all performance categories. Even the '05. That's where "Bang for the Buck" comes in and the $4000 price difference (that's if you get a fully loaded Mustang with the ATX too) makes the Mustang even more appealing.
Truth is the Mustang GT shouldn't even be compared to the GTO because a) as mentioned above they serve two different purposes as either a Pony or muscle car, and b) the price difference it too wide.
When the higher priced, and higher performing, SEs and SVTs come out then a real comparision can be made. But for now it's pretty impressive that a, if you will, lower class car like the Mustang can and does beat the GTO in professional comparos.
Read Edmunds review of the Mustang. One of the editors drove an '05 Vette the same day as the Mustang test and actually preferred the Mustang over the new Vette. Said it was more fun to drive. Go figure.
1)Get the IUP and the interior will magically transform in front of your eyes.
2)There is no trunk release button as far as I know so that might have been your problem. Don't know about the seats. Were they power?
A trunk button may be available for MY06 is the rumor on other Mustang boards. Previous years did have one.
3) and 4)18" "fan-blades" will solve those problems for MY06
You're on your own for 5) and 6).
I really wanted an '05 myself but ultimately decided to wait a year or two for various reasons. My Mazda6 lease is up in March of 2007 which is when I plan to buy a left-over '06 or a new '07 GT convertible. I'm glad I waited because it seems a few things I really wanted, like the wheels and trunk button, are going to appear later.
Since pickin's are slim on the lots right now it seems to me you might benefit from a wait too. X-Plan pins are good for a full year from the day you generated it so you should have some time.
First, there is no X plan commission on a GT from Ford to the Dealer. As such, my dealership is not give x plan on GTs until there is one. I assume most dealers are the same.
Second, I have to disagree with you about bad ergonomics. Especially the trunk release button...since there isn't one.
Only way to open the trunk at this point is with the key or the remote
Mark
A few people who have posted on the RX-8 board have had terrible luck with their 8's, have there been any quality or reliability problems experienced with the new Mustang?
Inital reports are that the quality is very good for an American car though...
From a pure performance/$$ standpoint, I have to lean towards the Mustang. From a style standpoint, I have to lean towards the Mustang. But....
I've got two kids which I'll need to schlep around on occasion. Yes, they will fit in the back of the Ford, but there IS more room in the back of the RX-8, and ACCESS is substantially better. Ignoring the rear-seat room issue, the RX-8 has much better handling and (for me anyway) seems to 'fit' me better. We were at a car show over the weekend and I was able to get a fair amount of seat time in both vehicles. Kids wanted OUT of the back of the Mustang after about 10-seconds.
Dammit, I really, REALLY want to like the Mustang more....
You really have to wind up the RX-8 to get it moving. It only has something like 150 lb/ft. That can get tiresome after awhile.
My current car is a Celica GTS. So I think I understand the differences in feel between a torquey V8 and a relatively low-torque, high rpm small diplacement I4 or rotary.
That being said, both types can be fun to drive. Just stay away from automatics with low-torqe motors. Now THAT combination is no fun....
Just want to be sure you understand what you're getting.
From the posters in the RX-8 forum, the oil consumption is actually LESS in the RX-8 compared to earlier generation rotaries. That being said, yes, a rotary does consume more oil, by design, than a conventional piston engine.
http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=101317
But even more shocking to me was the fuel economy...it's on par with my rather thirsty Mustang GT. Do they take premium? If so, ouch.
I hope the long-term reliability is improved though, otherwise it seems the RX-8 may go the way of its bigger-brother predecessor.
Plus, the handling of the RX8 is in a word, outstanding, as is its braking prowess.
True, it's not the torque monster like the V8 Mustang, the RX8 gets to its power band so quickly and it's just so much fun to zing to 9K RPM, the torque isn't much of an issue.
I've had my RX8 for almost a year and a half, and I never tire of the sound it makes, nor reving it to wring out the power. It actually begs you to redline it in every gear (which isn't a good idea if you want to keep your license).
It will use some oil by design, but I can say I use maybe 3/4 of a quart between oil changes at every 5K miles.
The RX8's back seat is very useable, even for adults.
These are really two differnt cars. If your "thing" is toquey V8s, then the Mustang GT is your car. If you appreciate top notch build and materials coupled with enjoying the entire driving experience (not just stop light to stop light), then you owe it to yourself to test drive an RX8.
Rotaries have always been known for their longevity. You should have no problem whastsoever getting at least 150K out of one if you take care of it properly. The engine only has 9 moving parts in it.
The long-term reliability of the rotary is outstanding, assuming they receive proper care. The problem area on the previous generation RX-7 was the turbos, not the rotary itself. The new RX-8 has no forced induction. Beyond periodic checking of the oil level, no other 'odd' upkeep is required.
But hey, we're all gearheads here, right? I mean, you DO check the oil periodically in your Mustang...
But that makes sense, as turbos of those days were still a little hinky...and I can imagine that in their heyday, a lot of buyers would buy the cars and then run them into the ground. I've not known anyone who owned one new...they all bought them used.
Check my oil?! I thought you didn't have to do that on American cars... ;-)
The engine is so amazing, and at such a low price you get so much car. I mean the only reason i see someone not getting a mustang is either they have a big family, or they are upset at the lack of a nav system and xenon headlamps which i don't think the RX has, well at least not the NAV.
The Mustang is a good car and kciks eveything except the new GTO which whith its incentives is not a car, its car killer. Try to dance with 400hp at 30K (with incentives)
Now if it were just made in America...
Oh guys sorry for the rant, go Mustang, ford really needs you. I dont think anyone ever thought a sports car could be one of the cars that saves a company.
The RX does have NAV.
The RX also has rear doors. I think that's a big reason someone might pick it over the GT.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
FWIW, the RX-8 does have both. NAV is a $2000 option and the xenons come with packages.
Ain't that the truth. In complete honesty, it would be tough for me if I had an RX-8 myself. I think I've check the oil on my car maybe.....twice?....in the last 6 years. (Of course, I do change it every 3k miles...).
Exactly.
I don't think anyone here is dissing (at least I'm not) the performance of the Mustang.
But reality sets in when one has 2 kids in a two car family. There WILL be occasions when I'll have at least one, if not both, of the kids with me. Buckling kids in is MUCH, MUCH easier when you don't have to screw with a flipped forward seat and a massive B-pillar. And they'll be much more comfortable in the back on an RX-8.
Of course, my new car purchase is probably still a couple of years down the road. Who knows what will hit the market in the meantime.
But in reality, I don't drive her that much (I take public transportation to work), and of course I always think of some dumb reason why I don't have time, or there's no paper towels at the gas station, etc.
Re the RX8 and the rear seats, I met a guy at an auto-x who had bought his RX8 for exactly the same reason...he had two kids he needed to cart around on a semi-regular basis, so the RX8 was a great compromise. And he'd been open-tracking it and said he'd been having a great time...sounded like a pretty good compromise to me; not a lot of cars like that.
do the 6 cylinders have the exact same manual transmission as the gt's?
were the 0-60 times shown here done with manual or auto tranny?
i'm having a tough time deciding whether i want auto or manual transmission. been driving a 90 325i with manual for the last 6 years that is impossible to shift quickly.
GT gets the Tremec T3650 while the V6 model gets the older, T-5 tranny.
The GT has the all new Tremic TR3650.
The V6 carries over the Tremic T5. there are also some suspension differences.
here is the link to the spec comparison:
http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/mustang/features/specs/#per
One thing about the RX-8 using oil.
you have to appreciate that the only way to lubricate the apex seals on the rotor is to emit oil through the tips of the apex where the triangular rotor is actually touching the wall of "cylinder" housing. This oil is basically burned off in combustion.
The renesis engine uses computer control to release oil at the micro liter level a big advance over the 13B of the RX-7.
If anyone is familiar with Rotary engines, ONE OF THE GREAT BENEFITS is reliability.
With a piston engine you have huge opposing forces at work that the rotory doesn't have.
Mark
While the jury is still out on the new Mustang's resale, if the previous genertion is any indicator, it won't be good. That said, dealers are now getting MSRP and above for non "S,X" plan buyers. So, resale may hold it's own on the Mustang for the next 3-4 months. Of course, winter time is not ideal for any sports car sales.
Make no mistake, I think the new Mustang is a heck of a car. To say that the interior of the Mustang is better than the RX8....well....that's stretching the believeability factor just a wee bit. Yes, it's a throwback to earlier Mustangs, which is kind of "cool", but I don't think any amount of nostalgic interior design is going to make it better.
Funny anecdote, when the first 350Zs came out, a couple of years ago, someone in another forum called the Nissan the best Mustang ever built. Guess they can't say that now.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
There is a glut of 2004 (and prior) mustangs on dealer and rental lots because they have poor build quality, lack refinement, Fox-platform, and Ford had to fill the (fixed) plant to make money so they built too many of a car most people didn't want to buy (retail).
Enter the 2005 Mustang, all new platform, refined fit-n-finish, 300-HP engine, value priced and built in a flexible plant. You will get far better residual value because you wont see a glut of these on rental lots. (Note: Ford Five Hundred has 50% residual value in 3-years, just like Toyota & Honda because of flexible mfg - build to demand)
By the way, Mustangs are flying off dealer lots in less than 1-days turn-around time, the fastest in the auto industry!
I wonder how all those Thuderbird buyers who paid $10K over MSRP are feeling about right now?