The GTO has quite a history to live up to. Pontiac always seemed to have an edge on styling and interiors. The late model TA's were obnoxious looking, huge scoops etc. My son's and I would go to a local Pontiac dealer just to look at them. I don't care what anybody thinks I liked them. I thought that was what american muscle cars were about. I remember when I was a kid not thinking too highly of mopars until I got a ride in a 70 rt coronet 440 magnum. It only takes one small step on a gas pedal to change your mind on something. I guess i need a ride in a GTO.
An upgraded motor has started to nudge sales of the Pontiac GTO in the right direction.
Sales of the two-door, V-8 coupe with the classic muscle-car name were up 65 percent in April compared with the same month in 2004. And through the first third of the year, GTO sales are up 78 percent.
Yes they are on pace to sell all 12,000 GTO this year
This 2005 GTO is the most powerfull stock one ever to come from the factory both in 0-60, 1/4 mile, braking/ handling etc. No GTO has ever had 400hp stock from factory. The highest was The Judge with 375, but that was pre SAE, that is closer to 310hp. I think it more then lives up to it's name, Just take a drive.
You got the hp ratings right. They were way over rated back then. Those old cars weren't as good or as fast as people might think. My 96 roadmaster would hang with 80% of the musle cars from the 60's and 70's
dave....something that people often overlook (and car marketers prey on) is the fact that HP or technology don't begin to tell the whole story about how a car performs, handles, feels, drives.
I think I've heard a gazillion times "well the Mustang has a solid rear axle". While that's true, Ford did such a good job with it, that there was no need for the added weight nor the complexity of an IRS. Same way with HP. Although the GTO has 100 more HP over the Mustang GT, their performance numbers are within a 1/10th or two of each other.....in other words insignificant.
All that said, I still don't get the need for some to try and convince those that drive Mustangs that they preferred the GTO. I would say most Mustang owners don't care. Drive what you like.
I can only post the decision process I went through in picking the Mustang GT over the GTO when I was shopping both.
....."Ford did such a good job with it, that there was no need for the added weight nor the complexity of an IRS....."
Graphicguy, as has been reported here before, the head engineer of Ford Mustang wanted the IRS, Ford told him no, due to cost. It wasn't because Ford did a good job with it, the bean counters wouldn't allow it!! Tell the Facts not myth.
Although the GTO has 100 more HP over the Mustang GT, their performance numbers are within a 1/10th or two of each other.....in other words insignificant......"
Actually the GTO is HEAVIER then Mustang by some 300 pounds+ and is still 5/10th's faster then Mustang in the 1/4 mile, pretty signifigant. 13.3 vs 13.8 in Car and driver. ......."
......."All that said, I still don't get the need for some to try and convince those that drive Mustangs that they preferred the GTO. I would say most Mustang owners don't care. Drive what you like......"
I don't get the need for some to try and convince those that drive GTO's that the GTO is inferior because it doesn't sell as well as the Mustang either!! Exactly, drive what you like.
I remember reading somewhere that PRE SAE, Gross Horsepower ratings you have to take away about 20% to get the SAE figure. 375hp 1969 engine is about 300 to 310hp by todays ratings.
Some cars were under-rated like that one rare Corvette in the mid or late 1960's that was really making 500+HP Gross, but Chevy under-rated it.
Of course there is Ford with the 1999 or 2000 Mustang? That was reallying making 10 or 20hp less then what Ford said. They settled it.
For the record, not once have I trashed the GTO or its owners. But you may have been talk about other posters.
Anyway, graphicguy said exactly what I've been wanting to say. Mustang owners don't care that GTO owners bought GTOs. More power (literally) to them. Just enjoy your car and stop trying to convince us that the GTO is a better car. We clearly don't agree, otherwise we'd be driving GTOs, too. However, I thoroughly enjoy driving my '05 GT when I can. It serves as my sunny weekend car. Unfortunately, I only get to drive it about 3 or 4 hours per month. Six months and I haven't even put 3,000 miles on it yet. But summer is upon us! :shades:
GT500 which still doesn't get a IRS and starts at $39k is gaining nearly 200+ pounds in curb weight over a GT V8. Go figure?
19" wheels/tires, full ground effects, new hood and front fascia, a bigger engine, a supercharger, and all it's plumbing, as well as oil coolers will tend to do that to a car.
I remember driving some older vettes with IRS. I personally coundn't tell the difference or notice anything. Do you really have to be maxing the car around a corner to tell? Is it a big deal? Please advise.
"the head engineer of Ford Mustang wanted the IRS, Ford told him no, due to cost. It wasn't because Ford did a good job with it, the bean counters wouldn't allow it!!"
This occured early in the development of the car and the 'bean counters' were making their decision based on the cost of the suspension in the t-bird and the Lincoln LS. However, after the decision was made to stay with a solid rear-end, the engineer's THEN developed a rear suspension which WOULD meet their design requirements DESPITE the fact that it was not IRS. Has it occured to you that one reason the head engineer wanted IRS was because they already HAD the IRS system already essentially designed, and NOT necessarily because it would be 'better'?
You make it sound as though the car's development was all done and then, during pre-production, the bean counters dumped on everyone's parade re: IRS and the engineers just hastily slapped in the same rear-end as the '04 units. Uh, no.
If a particular automotive system (be it rear-end suspension design or valvetrain design) MEETS all of the design requirements, and is cheaper than the more conventional 'sophisticated' design, why not use it? Why should Ford use an IRS if a solid rear end meets the design targets? For that matter, why should GM use an OHC head if pushrods work as well (if not better), for less money and less space?
Bottom line - the bean counters are not ALWAYS wrong. Sometimes, ocassionally, the same results CAN be achieved with a cheaper, simpler design.
......"19" wheels/tires, full ground effects, new hood and front fascia, a bigger engine, a supercharger, and all it's plumbing, as well as oil coolers will tend to do that to a car......"
No, it's engineering and cost. 505hp Z06 is actually lighter then the regular std 400hp vette by 50 or 100 lbs. That is why Z06 is an astronomical $63k or $65k. Still cheaper then a Viper though. 3100 lbs.
EXACTLY...as Thai-tang has said many times, also......the development of the solid rear is something he's very proud of. Matter of fact, he's challenged anyone to drive the Mustang and compare it to an IRS car. That's what I did. That's one of the reasons I made the choice of the Mustang over the GTO.
The Mustang has as good a suspension as I've driven in its market. While it won't match the handling of my dearly departed RX8, it's mighty close.....and certainly more positive than anything I've driven short of a Corvette. I'd go out on a limb and say the Mustang is a more entertaining drive than anything I've driven.
The RX8 was also way entertaining.....just in a different way than the Mustang.
Sorry but the IRS is superior to the solid rear axle, you can argue all you want. Ford's own head engineer requested demanded IRS but was shot down.
Pushrods have a smaller center of gravity less height and lighter motor, less weight then their DOHC counterparts. If you recall, history lesson, PUshrod engine is actually newer technology then DOHC. DOHC was before pushrod. After driving GTO, can't tell dif between Pushrod of DOHC, there is power at any RPM. all the way to 6500rpm redline which is higher then OHC Mustangs redline. Z06 has a redline of 7000rpm on pushrods, pretty impressive. DOHC engines now use variable valve timing to try to come close to pushrod, but still doesn't work. Bottom line is pushrod is more efficient, especially in highway gas mileage.
Pretty impressive that GTO has 100 more hp then Mustang, much bigger displacement and is 300+ lbs heavier and gets same gas mileage, stick shift to stick shift. GTO is 17 and 25. Same as Mustang stick.
The Vette gets 28 highway on a big pushrod 400hp 6 Liter, pretty impressive!!! That is better then some V6 cars that only have 3 or 3.5 liters displacement.
......."Anyway, graphicguy said exactly what I've been wanting to say. Mustang owners don't care that GTO owners bought GTOs. More power (literally) to them. Just enjoy your car and stop trying to convince us that the GTO is a better car......"
Same thing can be said. Enjoy your car and stop trying to convince us that the Mustang is a superior car because it is cheaper and sells much better.
Either way, I enjoy meeting up with you Mustang guys at car shows/swap meets etc. It's fun to own American Muscle!!! I appreciate the Mustang guys let me park near their 2005 Stangs... There isn't many GTO's at all. Everyone has fun and checks out the GTO's and Stangs.
If I had more $$ I would buy a Mustang GT V8 as a second car.
You guys are sharp on your facts. I am impressed. My 68 442 wasn't supposed to win any races because of a small bore I think it was 3.875 and a 4.25 stroke. It was a real sleeper. high torque low rpm 5500 shifts. My point is this. Those engineers do their homework, I am so glad that both these cars are available at reasonable prices. because old tire kicker Dave wants one or the other. I've owned or driven most of the gm muscle cars from the 60's and 70's I've been there and done that. These new cars are awsome. I know one thing for sure, it doesn't matter if you have IRS or not if you have IBS "irritable bowel syndrome" Have a great weekend and smoke tires not braincells.
RX8 was a superb handling machine. It was large fun taking it to the 9K redline to wring out the power. You learn very quickly what gear you need to be in to get the power to the road, regardless of the situation. It became almost "instinctive". That said, the RX8 won't out accelerate either the GTO nor the Mustang GT. It wasn't slow by any stretch of the imagination, though.
But, this is a different topic. It does bring up an interesting point, however. Many people look at specs on paper and say "this is better than that". With cars, that can lead to some poor assumptions. Which brings us to (once again) perceptions about suspensions between the Mustang and GTO.
Believe what you want regarding the IRS and the solid rear axle. Makes no never mind to me.
I found no advantage to the GTO's IRS over the Mustang's solid rear. That's one of the reasons I opted for the Mustang over the GTO when test driving both. Ford and their development team did a great job with the suspension in the Mustang. To me, the GTO felt "heavy" when compared to the handling of the Mustang. Ride in both were about equal, however (that is, good for cars with powerful V8s). "Cut & Thrust" was much better in the Mustang.
It wasn't so very long ago when everyone was lambasting American car manufacturers for not moving to DOHC engine designs. Truth is, looking at Ford's, GM's and Chrysler's V8 offerings and I wonder if those engines would have had constant development work, what kind of power AND efficiency would they be achieving?
As it stands, it's pretty amazing that these V8s are getting 20s MPG and making the power they do (and in the Mustang's case, on regular, not premium, fuel).
I remember working at a muscle car drag race an MN in the 80's and the older muscle car owners made it real clear that they did not want to be in the same class as the turbo buick gran nationals. They did not want to lose to any v-6 engined car. I still remember hearing the slander about the weird exhaust noise coming out of the buick, they tried to ignore the fact that those buicks would have beat 95% of the cars there. Their seemed to be a strange religious like belief that those guys shared, even so, I don't think those guys would be hearbroken if a 05 GTO blew their doors off or a GT mustang sent them packing.
While off topic, those Grand Nationals were beasts. They were hellacious in a straight line. But, that's about it.
Everything else made the Buick a track queen, but little else. I certianly wouldn't want to drive one on the street today. Thier durability was also always in question.
But, if somebody was looking for one as a collectible...something to "sneak up on" the unsuspecting", the Buick would do the trick. The one I'd really like to get behind the wheel of would be the GS 455 Buicks. They brought large money when new, and still seem to do the same today.
If Shifty rolls by here, he'd have a good idea about where they are in the pecking order as far as thier current value today (the "nationals").
Just goes to show, no matter how "bad [non-permissible content removed]" a Turbo V6 in the Buick was, they aren't the end all to beat all with a modern V8 engined car (that's performance tuned).
Don't forget the new Z06 has plenty of carbon fiber and titanium parts; hence the lighter weight and near $20K premium over a standard Vette.
The GT500 will have forged and beefed up internals to handle supercharging, not to mention all the other parts I mentioned previously; hence the heavier weight and near $10K premium over a GT Premium.
I'm kind of late to the discussion but the pushrod LSx motors pull like crazy at higher rpms. I have raced several '99 later SOHC and 3 valve '05 Mustangs and they will hang up to around 50 or maybe 60mph but after that the GT0 walks away from them. OHC is not better in this case. The Mach 1s and Cobras are better at higher rpms, but I will gladly race a '05 Mustang in my underpowered '04 LS1 GTO and depending on the driver I will probably take him.
Also the reason Mustangs do well at lower rpms is because they have a 3.36 gear vs. the GTOs taller 2.97.
The other reason these two cars are so close performance wise is because of other things like the weight differential between the two with the GTO being heavier, shifter, etc.
The best analogy I can come up with is when Intel used to purport that computers using their chips were faster because they had higher clock speeds.
What we now know, is that it takes more than just a powerful engine (or in the case of computers.....a faster chipset) to make a car significantly faster.
Other guy: But wait. Isn't your engine the same basic Chevy small block V8 with pushrod technology that they've been using for 50 years?
Way to CLEARLY have no clue about the LS1/LS6/LS2. What does valve actuation have to do with power, efficiency, NVH, cost, and aftermarket support? It's NOT the same argument as IRS vs solid axle, as the solid axle DOES have noticable performance/refinement flaws. On the other hand, no one drives an LSx car, gets out and says "you know, I could really feel the 50 year old pushrod valvetrain design..."
gguy has driven both the Mustang (solid rear-end) and the GTO (IRS). He can make a direct comparison. He also had at least a year's worth of seat time in an RX-8, one of the best handling RWD coupes currently on the market. If anyone here would be put off by a solid-rear end suspension, it would be gguy.
Have you driven the Mustang? Or are you just relying on the 'conventional wisdom' that says a solid rear-end will 'always' be inferior to IRS? (You know, kinda like the 'conventional wisdom' that says pushrods are inferior to OHC).
Why is it that we can all agree that GM can take supposedly 'old school' technology (pushrods) and make it WORK, yet for some reason, the GTO contingent keeps wanting to harp about the solid-rear end and the fact that it is supposed to be a liability?
Look guys, no one is questioning GM's use of pushrod technology. I keep seeing post after post about how good GM's LSxx powerplants are. No kidding. That wasn't the point. The point is that if one manufacturer (GM) can take 'supposedly' obselete technology (pushrods) and make it work, why is it beyond the bounds of comprehension that just PERHAPS, Ford can take old technology (solid-rear end) and make it work?
Haven't ANY of you read reviews of the Mustang where the reviewer was surprised at how well the suspension was sorted out? Or do you guys instead insist on ferreting out one or two words in a review indicating some slight errant behaviour and blowing it all out of proportion. Hit a bump wrong and go sideways? Hardly. This is not a mid 80's vintage Fox-body with a retro body stuck on it.
I look at it this way: if an engineer can achieve 98% of the handling benefits of an IRS suspension at only 70% of the cost, does it make sense to use IRS? If your answer is "yes, you shouldn't take any hits to achieve good handling", I'd like to know how much of a handling hit does the GTO take by being 300 lbs heavier than the Mustang?
Truth told, I've taken the Mustang on some very nasty roads and have yet had it side-step on me. Matter of fact, I was quite surprised how composed it is over rough turns. In fairness, the GTO acts in a similar manner.
I spent a 1.5 years in an RX8. Great cars. I got one of the good ones. I know others have had less than sterling experiences with them, but a lot of that stems from not knowing much about RXs and their quirks. It was THE BEST handling car I've ever had the pleasure of driving.
Neither the GTO nor the Mustang can match it's handling prowess.
What it does show, however, is that weight is definitely a factor when it comes to handling (and acceleration...given the 100 HP advantage of the GTO over the Mustang, but nearly identical acceleration numbers). The RX8 is the lightest of them all. That makes itself evident on all types of road surfaces. Granted, you wouldn't want to put the RX8 up against the GTO or the Mustang in a "cafe race", but once you get into the twisties, it will outshine both....just like the extra weight hurts the GTO against the Mustang.
I understand it is irritating for you to keep reading about the LSx engines. But, the point I was trying to make is that the two arguments are NOT fully similar (pushrod vs OHC & IRS vs solid). At the very least, I could say that the OHV LS1/2 gives NOTHING up in performance or any other aspect whereas the solid axle gives SOMETHING up (HOWEVER SMALL IT MAY BE). I understand it has a brand new design, and the shock tuning is probably pretty dialed in. But it's still a solid axle which means right and left side tire/wheel motions are NOT independent. No, I haven't driven a mustang. Actually, both of my cars have solid axles. I'm sure it's pretty good...
You cannot compare the difference between OHC and pushrods with the difference between solid rear axles and IRS's. Completely different subjects, and completely different mechanical devices. Look, almost every review of the Mustang has noted that the rear end does still become unsettled and can step out unexpectedly. There is now plenty of posts on Internet forums that back this up. Plus, you are asking me to trust someone who is still rambling on about how the cars have similar acceleration, when in fact one car is much faster than the other. Look, the Mustang is a fine car but it is not the equal of the GTO.
"Completely different subjects, and completely different mechanical devices."
No kidding, that's not the point. The point is that amoung most 'sophisticated' enthusiasts, OHC engines are simply the 'way' it should be done. They don't care a wit how well GM makes pushrod technology work. They'll say that using VVT is next to impossible with a pushrod design; that pushrods will limit you to 2-valve technology, etc. etc. etc. The fact that GM gets very good results with pushrods is (apparently) besides the point. They have some very good reasons for sticking with pushrods: amoung them are packaging efficiency and COST.
And yet amoungst the same enthusiasts who understand that theoretically old-school technology can still be good (pushrods in the GTO), they want to deride Ford for using other old-school technology (solid rear-end). Why so close-minded? I suspect it is simply because this is one of those infamous "vs." threads where all the individual 'sides' do is look for ammunition to attack the opponent.
Is it possible to unsettle the rear-end of the Mustang? Yes. Are you saying that because of the IRS in the GTO that it is IMPOSSIBLE to unsettle the rear-end? Or simply less-likely? Would the IRS be 'better'? Possibly. But how MUCH better? Night and day or simply very incrementally? Personally, I suspect that the difference is very slight and simply not worth all the invective thrown the Mustang's way.
"Look, the Mustang is a fine car but it is not the equal of the GTO."
Of course they're not equal, they're different cars. And while some of the differences can be measured objectively (straight line acceleration), other differences are subjective (handling, style, quality). As far as the whole IRS vs. solid-rear debate, the various reviewers seem to somewhat split about which car 'handles' better. Perhaps if the GTO wasn't so much heavier than the Mustang, the IRS would enable the GTO to be a clear winner in that regard as well.
You haven't even driven the Mustang and have the nerve to complain about its solid rear axle?? :surprise: Amazing. :confuse: You CLEARLY have no clue of how the new Mustang drives/handles, other than your apparent selective reading of some tiny blurb in a magazine review.
And based on the Mustang's Grand AM wins, its solid axle is apparently not giving up much of anything to the IRS cars.
And what all is there to "know" about the LSx engines? Old technology is old technology. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I just can't believe how you guys are just reaching for any straw you can find. The simple fact of the matter is that the Mustang has remained true to its roots and the GTO has not. The Mustang went from ponycar to great ponycar. The GTO went from musclecar to powerful cruiser, which seems to be the main focal point for you guys when you're on the losing end of reason. I mean, come on. Anybody who buys a 2-door coupe to perform family hauling duty really needs to re-evaluate their priorities, no matter what car it is. :confuse:
......."And what all is there to "know" about the LSx engines? Old technology is old technology....."
LS2 engine is new for 2005, newer then Mustangs 4.6 and revs to 6500 rpm, higher then Mustang engine. DOHC and OHC is older technology then Pushrod. Fact. Go check it out. LS2 shares nothing in common with the original 1955 Chevy Small block, Fact!
......"The simple fact of the matter is that the Mustang has remained true to its roots and the GTO has not...."
You aren't serious? The GTO is still a muscle car. Large powerfull V8 in a midsized coupe body. Just like the orig 1964, which was a rebadged Tempest. 400 horespower, most powerfull GTO ever made. Pretty impressive. Where as the 2005 Stang is NOT the most powerfull ever made.
....." mean, come on. Anybody who buys a 2-door coupe to perform family hauling duty really needs to re-evaluate their priorities, no matter what car it is....."
Speak for yourself. I haul my family and we all enjoy it, not like the SUV or minivan crowds. My gas mileage is better then van/suv guys too.
......"Until you hit the wrong bump and go sideways when you least expect it......"
Exactly. Been there done that. Did you read Tai-Tangs interview, I loved how he side-stepped all the IRS questions. He claimed how they wanted to be like BMW, how do you without an IRS or 50/50 weight?? He ignored the question and gave another answer. Or the fact that then new SVT 4 door truck will have IRS and the SHelby doesn't. Again he side-stepped that question too.
You haven't even driven the Mustang and have the nerve to complain about its solid rear axle??
Well, I don't have to drive it to at least know that it doesn't handle bumps BETTER than the GTO, right? I think even gguy conceded that there was some percentage (albeit small) that the solid axle gives up in terms of handling refinement. This was my point. I am not asking if it matters or not. I already know where the Mustang folks stand on that.
Old technology is old technology.
What a funny thing for you to say. I found this on an old archived edmunds forum, that I participated in:
I wonder why people call pushrods old technology. I've read in many places that DOHC engine technology was invented in 1911, but pushrod technology was not invented until 1916. So technically pushrod engines are more "modern." But realistically, they are both equally old.
I am not sure about the exact dates, but it was my knowledge before I found this quote that overhead cam actuated valves have been around before the pushrod valvetrain. At some point, like in the 60s and later, pushrods were widely used in american cars, while the pricey european and exotic cars used OHC valvetrains. I think this is largely the reason pushrods are considered "inferior." If OHC came on the more expensive (and imported) car, then it must be superior, because more expensive means better, right? Does the pushrod LS2 work "better" than the mustang's 3 valve OHC engine? I dunno, it has 100 more hp and gets about the same mileage in a heavier car. You make that call. Does the GTO's rear suspension work better than the mustang's solid axle? You say "not enough to matter." I say "that's your opinion, it has to give up something." If I said that I couldn't tell the Mustang had a solid axle in, say, 90% driving situations, wouldn't that mean that in 10%, I could tell? This is, and has been, my point.
......."I certianly wouldn't want to drive one on the street today. Thier durability was also always in question. ......"
Drives nicer-better ride then your mustang. Bigger trunk and bigger backseat too. G bodies were great. Had many. As for durability, out-lasted the Fox bodies of the samer era.
......"Just goes to show, no matter how "bad [non-permissible content removed]" a Turbo V6 in the Buick was, they aren't the end all to beat all with a modern V8 engined car (that's performance tuned)....."
They were among the fastest cars of their time, spanking the V8 Mustangs... Some of them modified still beat the latest V8 Mustangs.
BTW they hold their value much better then a Fox Body Mustang of same era!
Yes, Pushrods are NEWER technology then DOHC, most people don't read up on their history. That is why I used to laugh when the car magazines insulted american, esp GM cars for using old pushrods, when it's actually newer technology then DOHC, LOL!
Also DOHC engines have a higher center of gravity and height restrictions and I believe weigh more then a pushrod design. etc. They aren't as perfect as auto magazines make them out to be.
Most DOHC motors need VTEC or variable valve timing to make up for their lack of torque response off the line. Even then they still don't match LSX engine
The funny thing is that the GTO which has BIGGER engine, 100 more hp and 300 pounds more curb weight gets the SAME 17 city and 25 highway EPA gas mileage as the Ford Mustang, go figure...
Fords's lack of a 6 spd transmission, and high .35 Coeffcient drag most likely. GTO is a slick .30 to .31.
Yes, the GTO can be driven on regular 87 octane pump gas. 91+ is recommended for max hp and performance, but avg driver isn't going to see a loss with 87
Does the pushrod LS2 work "better" than the mustang's 3 valve OHC engine? I dunno, it has 100 more hp and gets about the same mileage in a heavier car. You make that call.
Interesting point. And all this time I thought that extra 1.4 liters of displacement might have had a hand in that extra 100HP. Guess I was mistaken. Pushrods RULE!!
As far as the equal or better gas mileage, the Mustang isn't saddled with skipshift and it's also not blessed with a (ridiculously tall) 6th gear. So take away CAGS and the 6th cog in the transmission of the GTO and watch the fuel economy plummet. What does that high tech 4-speed automatic get for mileage in comparison to the Mustang's old school 5-speed automatic? I'd be curious to know what the real world city mileage is on the GTO.
Personally, I didn't experience ANY of the so called deficiencies of the Mustang's solid rear vs the GTO's IRS when test driving both. That's what surprised me so. I was expecting, at least, a "hint" that there would be some untoward behavior with the solid rear. I do agree with your point that there is the perception that more expensive/more complex equates to being better. That's simply not the case in this instance, though.
I don't see a point in getting into the pushrod vs OHC debate. I think both engines are great in the GTO and the Mustang GT. So, it's technical designation doesn't matter to me. GTO's bigger displacement and more HP is eaten up by it's heavier weight and some other (thinking shifter, here) related pieces that make it neck and neck with the Mustang GT's performance. That is to say, both are very good.
Kind of unrelated....when the movie Splash and Blade Runner came out, I had a huge young boy's crush on Darryl Hannah. I saw her in another movie of more recent vintage (can't remember the name but she was a hooker/stripper) and she still looks great. No surgical "enhancements". I guess that means I'm just as happy with old technology as I am with new technology.
......" I'd be curious to know what the real world city mileage is on the GTO......"
My 2005 Automatic tranny GTO gets about 14 in the city. It's rated at 16 EPA. Not bad. I have never gotten the city EPA ratings in any car I have ever owned.
Highway I do get the 21 epa rated on my GTO at a steady 65-70mph.
Mustang GT auto was tested at 5.1 secs, 0-60 by MT a few months back. The reports from independent sources (like MT, R&T, C&D) have ranged anywhere from 4.9 secs to 5.1 secs, 0-60 for the manual tranny of the Mustang. So, they are close. 1/4s have been consistently in the 13.5 sec range.
I've not seen any independent sources of the automatic version of the GTO. Regardless of what GM tells us (which I'd consider biased, at best), the manual tranny version has been clocked at 4.8 secs 0-60, 13.3 secs in the 1/4 consistently tested, by many independent sources.
I can only report what MPG I'm getting with my manual trans Mustang GT. That is, about 18 MPG all city and 24 MPG all highway. Mixed driving (depending on the mix) yields between 19 MPG-22 MPG.....all on regular gas.
kevm14, My post from the 23rd regarding theMustang/GTO gear ratios neglected to mention that I was referring to the 1st gear ratios not the rear gear. Mustang has 3.36 1st gear and GTO has a taller 2.97 1st gear plus Mustang's rear gear is slightly shorter also. GTO does have some advantage in that it's ratios are closer together. For instance I am amazed at how hard this thing pulls when shifting into 5th.
tayl0rd, GTO's 6th gear is not quite as tall as you think. GTO uses M12 6spd(Z06 & CTS-V) with .57 6th gear, not the .50 that was so prevalent. For comparison purposes my '87 IROC has a .63 5th gear, so 6th in the GTO is not that much deeper.
90% of my driving is city/ town, 16 Auto or 17 Stick on GTO. 17 Mustang Stick. All about the same. My Comp G supercharged 2004 company car only got 1 mpg better then GTO city. 17.
The GTO has a locking gas cap door, something I don't think the Mustang has. Many American cars don't. Had a bad experience with that once, someone pouring something in my tank. I only buy cars with locking gas caps. Or add them.
I don't believe the auto mags have run an automatic GTO yet, only 6spd manuals.
Comments
Sales of the two-door, V-8 coupe with the classic muscle-car name were up 65 percent in April compared with the same month in 2004. And through the first third of the year, GTO sales are up 78 percent.
Yes they are on pace to sell all 12,000 GTO this year
I think I've heard a gazillion times "well the Mustang has a solid rear axle". While that's true, Ford did such a good job with it, that there was no need for the added weight nor the complexity of an IRS. Same way with HP. Although the GTO has 100 more HP over the Mustang GT, their performance numbers are within a 1/10th or two of each other.....in other words insignificant.
All that said, I still don't get the need for some to try and convince those that drive Mustangs that they preferred the GTO. I would say most Mustang owners don't care. Drive what you like.
I can only post the decision process I went through in picking the Mustang GT over the GTO when I was shopping both.
Graphicguy, as has been reported here before, the head engineer of Ford Mustang wanted the IRS, Ford told him no, due to cost. It wasn't because Ford did a good job with it, the bean counters wouldn't allow it!! Tell the Facts not myth.
Although the GTO has 100 more HP over the Mustang GT, their performance numbers are within a 1/10th or two of each other.....in other words insignificant......"
Actually the GTO is HEAVIER then Mustang by some 300 pounds+ and is still 5/10th's faster then Mustang in the 1/4 mile, pretty signifigant. 13.3 vs 13.8 in Car and driver. ......."
......."All that said, I still don't get the need for some to try and convince those that drive Mustangs that they preferred the GTO. I would say most Mustang owners don't care. Drive what you like......"
I don't get the need for some to try and convince those that drive GTO's that the GTO is inferior because it doesn't sell as well as the Mustang either!! Exactly, drive what you like.
Some cars were under-rated like that one rare Corvette in the mid or late 1960's that was really making 500+HP Gross, but Chevy under-rated it.
Of course there is Ford with the 1999 or 2000 Mustang? That was reallying making 10 or 20hp less then what Ford said. They settled it.
Anyway, graphicguy said exactly what I've been wanting to say. Mustang owners don't care that GTO owners bought GTOs. More power (literally) to them. Just enjoy your car and stop trying to convince us that the GTO is a better car. We clearly don't agree, otherwise we'd be driving GTOs, too. However, I thoroughly enjoy driving my '05 GT when I can. It serves as my sunny weekend car. Unfortunately, I only get to drive it about 3 or 4 hours per month. Six months and I haven't even put 3,000 miles on it yet.
19" wheels/tires, full ground effects, new hood and front fascia, a bigger engine, a supercharger, and all it's plumbing, as well as oil coolers will tend to do that to a car.
This occured early in the development of the car and the 'bean counters' were making their decision based on the cost of the suspension in the t-bird and the Lincoln LS. However, after the decision was made to stay with a solid rear-end, the engineer's THEN developed a rear suspension which WOULD meet their design requirements DESPITE the fact that it was not IRS. Has it occured to you that one reason the head engineer wanted IRS was because they already HAD the IRS system already essentially designed, and NOT necessarily because it would be 'better'?
You make it sound as though the car's development was all done and then, during pre-production, the bean counters dumped on everyone's parade re: IRS and the engineers just hastily slapped in the same rear-end as the '04 units. Uh, no.
If a particular automotive system (be it rear-end suspension design or valvetrain design) MEETS all of the design requirements, and is cheaper than the more conventional 'sophisticated' design, why not use it? Why should Ford use an IRS if a solid rear end meets the design targets? For that matter, why should GM use an OHC head if pushrods work as well (if not better), for less money and less space?
Bottom line - the bean counters are not ALWAYS wrong. Sometimes, ocassionally, the same results CAN be achieved with a cheaper, simpler design.
No, it's engineering and cost. 505hp Z06 is actually lighter then the regular std 400hp vette by 50 or 100 lbs. That is why Z06 is an astronomical $63k or $65k. Still cheaper then a Viper though. 3100 lbs.
The Mustang has as good a suspension as I've driven in its market. While it won't match the handling of my dearly departed RX8, it's mighty close.....and certainly more positive than anything I've driven short of a Corvette. I'd go out on a limb and say the Mustang is a more entertaining drive than anything I've driven.
The RX8 was also way entertaining.....just in a different way than the Mustang.
Pushrods have a smaller center of gravity less height and lighter motor, less weight then their DOHC counterparts. If you recall, history lesson, PUshrod engine is actually newer technology then DOHC. DOHC was before pushrod. After driving GTO, can't tell dif between Pushrod of DOHC, there is power at any RPM. all the way to 6500rpm redline which is higher then OHC Mustangs redline. Z06 has a redline of 7000rpm on pushrods, pretty impressive. DOHC engines now use variable valve timing to try to come close to pushrod, but still doesn't work. Bottom line is pushrod is more efficient, especially in highway gas mileage.
Pretty impressive that GTO has 100 more hp then Mustang, much bigger displacement and is 300+ lbs heavier and gets same gas mileage, stick shift to stick shift. GTO is 17 and 25. Same as Mustang stick.
The Vette gets 28 highway on a big pushrod 400hp 6 Liter, pretty impressive!!! That is better then some V6 cars that only have 3 or 3.5 liters displacement.
Same thing can be said. Enjoy your car and stop trying to convince us that the Mustang is a superior car because it is cheaper and sells much better.
Either way, I enjoy meeting up with you Mustang guys at car shows/swap meets etc. It's fun to own American Muscle!!! I appreciate the Mustang guys let me park near their 2005 Stangs... There isn't many GTO's at all. Everyone has fun and checks out the GTO's and Stangs.
If I had more $$ I would buy a Mustang GT V8 as a second car.
Have a great weekend and smoke tires not braincells.
But, this is a different topic. It does bring up an interesting point, however. Many people look at specs on paper and say "this is better than that". With cars, that can lead to some poor assumptions. Which brings us to (once again) perceptions about suspensions between the Mustang and GTO.
Believe what you want regarding the IRS and the solid rear axle. Makes no never mind to me.
I found no advantage to the GTO's IRS over the Mustang's solid rear. That's one of the reasons I opted for the Mustang over the GTO when test driving both. Ford and their development team did a great job with the suspension in the Mustang. To me, the GTO felt "heavy" when compared to the handling of the Mustang. Ride in both were about equal, however (that is, good for cars with powerful V8s). "Cut & Thrust" was much better in the Mustang.
It wasn't so very long ago when everyone was lambasting American car manufacturers for not moving to DOHC engine designs. Truth is, looking at Ford's, GM's and Chrysler's V8 offerings and I wonder if those engines would have had constant development work, what kind of power AND efficiency would they be achieving?
As it stands, it's pretty amazing that these V8s are getting 20s MPG and making the power they do (and in the Mustang's case, on regular, not premium, fuel).
Everything else made the Buick a track queen, but little else. I certianly wouldn't want to drive one on the street today. Thier durability was also always in question.
But, if somebody was looking for one as a collectible...something to "sneak up on" the unsuspecting", the Buick would do the trick. The one I'd really like to get behind the wheel of would be the GS 455 Buicks. They brought large money when new, and still seem to do the same today.
If Shifty rolls by here, he'd have a good idea about where they are in the pecking order as far as thier current value today (the "nationals").
Just goes to show, no matter how "bad [non-permissible content removed]" a Turbo V6 in the Buick was, they aren't the end all to beat all with a modern V8 engined car (that's performance tuned).
The GT500 will have forged and beefed up internals to handle supercharging, not to mention all the other parts I mentioned previously; hence the heavier weight and near $10K premium over a GT Premium.
I have raced several '99 later SOHC and 3 valve '05 Mustangs and they will hang up to around 50 or maybe 60mph but after that the GT0 walks away from them.
OHC is not better in this case.
The Mach 1s and Cobras are better at higher rpms, but I will gladly race a '05 Mustang in my underpowered '04 LS1 GTO and depending on the driver I will probably take him.
Also the reason Mustangs do well at lower rpms is because they have a 3.36 gear vs. the GTOs taller 2.97.
The best analogy I can come up with is when Intel used to purport that computers using their chips were faster because they had higher clock speeds.
What we now know, is that it takes more than just a powerful engine (or in the case of computers.....a faster chipset) to make a car significantly faster.
Way to CLEARLY have no clue about the LS1/LS6/LS2. What does valve actuation have to do with power, efficiency, NVH, cost, and aftermarket support?
It's NOT the same argument as IRS vs solid axle, as the solid axle DOES have noticable performance/refinement flaws. On the other hand, no one drives an LSx car, gets out and says "you know, I could really feel the 50 year old pushrod valvetrain design..."
All GTOs have a 3.46 rear, not a 2.97.
Have you driven the Mustang? Or are you just relying on the 'conventional wisdom' that says a solid rear-end will 'always' be inferior to IRS? (You know, kinda like the 'conventional wisdom' that says pushrods are inferior to OHC).
Why is it that we can all agree that GM can take supposedly 'old school' technology (pushrods) and make it WORK, yet for some reason, the GTO contingent keeps wanting to harp about the solid-rear end and the fact that it is supposed to be a liability?
Look guys, no one is questioning GM's use of pushrod technology. I keep seeing post after post about how good GM's LSxx powerplants are. No kidding. That wasn't the point. The point is that if one manufacturer (GM) can take 'supposedly' obselete technology (pushrods) and make it work, why is it beyond the bounds of comprehension that just PERHAPS, Ford can take old technology (solid-rear end) and make it work?
Haven't ANY of you read reviews of the Mustang where the reviewer was surprised at how well the suspension was sorted out? Or do you guys instead insist on ferreting out one or two words in a review indicating some slight errant behaviour and blowing it all out of proportion. Hit a bump wrong and go sideways? Hardly. This is not a mid 80's vintage Fox-body with a retro body stuck on it.
I look at it this way: if an engineer can achieve 98% of the handling benefits of an IRS suspension at only 70% of the cost, does it make sense to use IRS? If your answer is "yes, you shouldn't take any hits to achieve good handling", I'd like to know how much of a handling hit does the GTO take by being 300 lbs heavier than the Mustang?
Truth told, I've taken the Mustang on some very nasty roads and have yet had it side-step on me. Matter of fact, I was quite surprised how composed it is over rough turns. In fairness, the GTO acts in a similar manner.
I spent a 1.5 years in an RX8. Great cars. I got one of the good ones. I know others have had less than sterling experiences with them, but a lot of that stems from not knowing much about RXs and their quirks. It was THE BEST handling car I've ever had the pleasure of driving.
Neither the GTO nor the Mustang can match it's handling prowess.
What it does show, however, is that weight is definitely a factor when it comes to handling (and acceleration...given the 100 HP advantage of the GTO over the Mustang, but nearly identical acceleration numbers). The RX8 is the lightest of them all. That makes itself evident on all types of road surfaces. Granted, you wouldn't want to put the RX8 up against the GTO or the Mustang in a "cafe race", but once you get into the twisties, it will outshine both....just like the extra weight hurts the GTO against the Mustang.
No kidding, that's not the point. The point is that amoung most 'sophisticated' enthusiasts, OHC engines are simply the 'way' it should be done. They don't care a wit how well GM makes pushrod technology work. They'll say that using VVT is next to impossible with a pushrod design; that pushrods will limit you to 2-valve technology, etc. etc. etc. The fact that GM gets very good results with pushrods is (apparently) besides the point. They have some very good reasons for sticking with pushrods: amoung them are packaging efficiency and COST.
And yet amoungst the same enthusiasts who understand that theoretically old-school technology can still be good (pushrods in the GTO), they want to deride Ford for using other old-school technology (solid rear-end). Why so close-minded? I suspect it is simply because this is one of those infamous "vs." threads where all the individual 'sides' do is look for ammunition to attack the opponent.
Is it possible to unsettle the rear-end of the Mustang? Yes. Are you saying that because of the IRS in the GTO that it is IMPOSSIBLE to unsettle the rear-end? Or simply less-likely? Would the IRS be 'better'? Possibly. But how MUCH better? Night and day or simply very incrementally? Personally, I suspect that the difference is very slight and simply not worth all the invective thrown the Mustang's way.
"Look, the Mustang is a fine car but it is not the equal of the GTO."
Of course they're not equal, they're different cars. And while some of the differences can be measured objectively (straight line acceleration), other differences are subjective (handling, style, quality). As far as the whole IRS vs. solid-rear debate, the various reviewers seem to somewhat split about which car 'handles' better. Perhaps if the GTO wasn't so much heavier than the Mustang, the IRS would enable the GTO to be a clear winner in that regard as well.
And based on the Mustang's Grand AM wins, its solid axle is apparently not giving up much of anything to the IRS cars.
And what all is there to "know" about the LSx engines? Old technology is old technology. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I just can't believe how you guys are just reaching for any straw you can find. The simple fact of the matter is that the Mustang has remained true to its roots and the GTO has not. The Mustang went from ponycar to great ponycar. The GTO went from musclecar to powerful cruiser, which seems to be the main focal point for you guys when you're on the losing end of reason. I mean, come on. Anybody who buys a 2-door coupe to perform family hauling duty really needs to re-evaluate their priorities, no matter what car it is. :confuse:
GTO....powerful cruiser
Mustang......great muscle car
LS2 engine is new for 2005, newer then Mustangs 4.6 and revs to 6500 rpm, higher then Mustang engine. DOHC and OHC is older technology then Pushrod. Fact. Go check it out. LS2 shares nothing in common with the original 1955 Chevy Small block, Fact!
......"The simple fact of the matter is that the Mustang has remained true to its roots and the GTO has not...."
You aren't serious? The GTO is still a muscle car. Large powerfull V8 in a midsized coupe body. Just like the orig 1964, which was a rebadged Tempest. 400 horespower, most powerfull GTO ever made. Pretty impressive. Where as the 2005 Stang is NOT the most powerfull ever made.
....." mean, come on. Anybody who buys a 2-door coupe to perform family hauling duty really needs to re-evaluate their priorities, no matter what car it is....."
Speak for yourself. I haul my family and we all enjoy it, not like the SUV or minivan crowds. My gas mileage is better then van/suv guys too.
Exactly. Been there done that. Did you read Tai-Tangs interview, I loved how he side-stepped all the IRS questions. He claimed how they wanted to be like BMW, how do you without an IRS or 50/50 weight?? He ignored the question and gave another answer. Or the fact that then new SVT 4 door truck will have IRS and the SHelby doesn't. Again he side-stepped that question too.
Well, I don't have to drive it to at least know that it doesn't handle bumps BETTER than the GTO, right? I think even gguy conceded that there was some percentage (albeit small) that the solid axle gives up in terms of handling refinement. This was my point. I am not asking if it matters or not. I already know where the Mustang folks stand on that.
Old technology is old technology.
What a funny thing for you to say. I found this on an old archived edmunds forum, that I participated in:
I wonder why people call pushrods old technology. I've read in many places that DOHC engine technology was invented in 1911, but pushrod technology was not invented until 1916. So technically pushrod engines are more "modern." But realistically, they are both equally old.
I am not sure about the exact dates, but it was my knowledge before I found this quote that overhead cam actuated valves have been around before the pushrod valvetrain. At some point, like in the 60s and later, pushrods were widely used in american cars, while the pricey european and exotic cars used OHC valvetrains. I think this is largely the reason pushrods are considered "inferior." If OHC came on the more expensive (and imported) car, then it must be superior, because more expensive means better, right?
Does the pushrod LS2 work "better" than the mustang's 3 valve OHC engine? I dunno, it has 100 more hp and gets about the same mileage in a heavier car. You make that call.
Does the GTO's rear suspension work better than the mustang's solid axle? You say "not enough to matter." I say "that's your opinion, it has to give up something." If I said that I couldn't tell the Mustang had a solid axle in, say, 90% driving situations, wouldn't that mean that in 10%, I could tell? This is, and has been, my point.
Drives nicer-better ride then your mustang. Bigger trunk and bigger backseat too. G bodies were great. Had many. As for durability, out-lasted the Fox bodies of the samer era.
......"Just goes to show, no matter how "bad [non-permissible content removed]" a Turbo V6 in the Buick was, they aren't the end all to beat all with a modern V8 engined car (that's performance tuned)....."
They were among the fastest cars of their time, spanking the V8 Mustangs... Some of them modified still beat the latest V8 Mustangs.
BTW they hold their value much better then a Fox Body Mustang of same era!
Also DOHC engines have a higher center of gravity and height restrictions and I believe weigh more then a pushrod design. etc. They aren't as perfect as auto magazines make them out to be.
Most DOHC motors need VTEC or variable valve timing to make up for their lack of torque response off the line. Even then they still don't match LSX engine
Fords's lack of a 6 spd transmission, and high .35 Coeffcient drag most likely. GTO is a slick .30 to .31.
Yes, the GTO can be driven on regular 87 octane pump gas. 91+ is recommended for max hp and performance, but avg driver isn't going to see a loss with 87
Interesting point. And all this time I thought that extra 1.4 liters of displacement might have had a hand in that extra 100HP. Guess I was mistaken. Pushrods RULE!!
As far as the equal or better gas mileage, the Mustang isn't saddled with skipshift and it's also not blessed with a (ridiculously tall) 6th gear. So take away CAGS and the 6th cog in the transmission of the GTO and watch the fuel economy plummet. What does that high tech 4-speed automatic get for mileage in comparison to the Mustang's old school 5-speed automatic? I'd be curious to know what the real world city mileage is on the GTO.
Personally, I didn't experience ANY of the so called deficiencies of the Mustang's solid rear vs the GTO's IRS when test driving both. That's what surprised me so. I was expecting, at least, a "hint" that there would be some untoward behavior with the solid rear. I do agree with your point that there is the perception that more expensive/more complex equates to being better. That's simply not the case in this instance, though.
I don't see a point in getting into the pushrod vs OHC debate. I think both engines are great in the GTO and the Mustang GT. So, it's technical designation doesn't matter to me. GTO's bigger displacement and more HP is eaten up by it's heavier weight and some other (thinking shifter, here) related pieces that make it neck and neck with the Mustang GT's performance. That is to say, both are very good.
Kind of unrelated....when the movie Splash and Blade Runner came out, I had a huge young boy's crush on Darryl Hannah. I saw her in another movie of more recent vintage (can't remember the name but she was a hooker/stripper) and she still looks great. No surgical "enhancements". I guess that means I'm just as happy with old technology as I am with new technology.
Mustang 5 speed automatic is 18 city and 23 highway using a 3.31 ? final drive ratio.
Mustang is getting 2 mpg better.
BTW.. skipshift on Vette and GTO etc can be easily defeated by a $20 fix.
Where as the Mustang Automatic is slower then it's manual shift version. Manual gets better final drive, 3.55? vs automatics 3.31?
My 2005 Automatic tranny GTO gets about 14 in the city. It's rated at 16 EPA. Not bad. I have never gotten the city EPA ratings in any car I have ever owned.
Highway I do get the 21 epa rated on my GTO at a steady 65-70mph.
I've not seen any independent sources of the automatic version of the GTO. Regardless of what GM tells us (which I'd consider biased, at best), the manual tranny version has been clocked at 4.8 secs 0-60, 13.3 secs in the 1/4 consistently tested, by many independent sources.
I can only report what MPG I'm getting with my manual trans Mustang GT. That is, about 18 MPG all city and 24 MPG all highway. Mixed driving (depending on the mix) yields between 19 MPG-22 MPG.....all on regular gas.
kevm14,
My post from the 23rd regarding theMustang/GTO gear ratios neglected to mention that I was referring to the 1st gear ratios not the rear gear.
Mustang has 3.36 1st gear and GTO has a taller 2.97 1st gear plus Mustang's rear gear is slightly shorter also.
GTO does have some advantage in that it's ratios are closer together. For instance I am amazed at how hard this thing pulls when shifting into 5th.
tayl0rd,
GTO's 6th gear is not quite as tall as you think. GTO uses M12 6spd(Z06 & CTS-V) with .57 6th gear, not the .50 that was so prevalent.
For comparison purposes my '87 IROC has a .63 5th gear, so 6th in the GTO is not that much deeper.
The GTO has a locking gas cap door, something I don't think the Mustang has. Many American cars don't. Had a bad experience with that once, someone pouring something in my tank. I only buy cars with locking gas caps. Or add them.
I don't believe the auto mags have run an automatic GTO yet, only 6spd manuals.