That's too bad. I would think the pedal going to the floor would be a red flag. I hope you get it resolved to your satisfaction....
My friend has had no issues with his Tacoma although recently someone ran into it. The thing is, it was parked in his driveway when it was hit. Sometimes you just can't win. Anyway, it's back to normal except for the tubular step thing on the side. You might want to take note of this, the step is attached to the body. So it came off rather easily. This time he is going to have it attached to the frame.
Good perspective - I've driven a lot of cars and they can fit you or not... I'd love a GTO, but practicality (+ the wife) won't allow a GTO or a GT. I just ended up with a Grand Prix GXP - and I'm having fun. I think the best way to know is to drive the lot and then see which one fits you best. Personally I thought the execution on the Stang was very good, but as a package the GTO wins out for me: performance, driving,fit, finish and quality of materials. My theory on comparing the two = take a dozen average drivers, who are not GM or Ford loyal fans. Give them some drive time with each car. Take them to a course; one test lap in each car. Then they drive each car twice, alternating the cars each run. Total all the runs of all the drivers (24 course times for each car) and the lowest total time should indicate the better performing car. Heck pros can drive anything - but your average soccer mom, band dad, troop leader, store manager, administrator, fork lift driver... is going to make the best time in the car that's easiest for them to handle and drive. And that would indicate to me the best execution and performance.
To me the Mustang is a kid's car and I'm sure the majority of those 200,000 Mustangs are going to kids. So look out. However, I'm sure there are plenty of geezers driving the new Mustang along with middle aged folk and I'm sure they drive just as sanely (or insanely) as we do.
Thanks, sputter.....I'm just in a quandary over the Tacoma. This is highly unusual for a Toyota.
I bought what I thought was going to be a vehicle that was going to give me a ton of trouble free miles, and right out of the shoot, it's got a major problem.
I know the dealership doesn't want to "eat" any of the cost on this truck. On the other hand, I've lost faith that it's a safe vehicle. I would imagine, if they take it back, they'd have to disclose that the previous owner (me) had brake problems. I think that's why they want to wear blinders and say everything is normal (it most definitely isn't, though). I doubt Toyota region wants to take it back for the same reason.
Met with the GM of the dealership yesterday. He said he wanted to drive it. Already, I've driven it and reported the brake failure, the tech drove it with me and noted the brake pedal going all the way to the floor. I thought that would be enough, but now the GM wants to drive it, too.....before getting the Toyota Region involved.
To me, this is pretty simple. Something in the whole braking system is wrong. Getting someone with authority to admit to it is becoming very difficult as, so far, no one wants to be responsible for taking it back. The tech already said he couldn't fix it because he didn't know what was wrong.
That is why the insurance rate is SO HIGH on a Mustang and former F body Camaros, etc all those young kids crashing them up, traffic tickets etc.
In NJ we have high insurance anyway, the Mustang GT was nearly $200 more a year then GTO to insure. Many have stated they are pleasantly suprised at how cheap the GTO insurance was. In fact it's only $95 more a year then my Maxima. Go figure? Maxima is a few years old.
In fact, insurance on a Corvette is cheaper then Mustang GT for me. LOL!
When all is said and done it's just another Mustang-Pony Car for $39k. Sorry, but NO mustang is worth $39k to me.
No GTO is worth $39k either. Some have gotten 2004 leftover GTO for $25k or less, NICE!
A vette is still a vette, Stang is a dime a dozen. The new 7 Liter 505hp Vette will take out the GT500. But then again it costs a lot more $$ too. Remember, Z06 is only 3200 lbs or less. GT500 is heavy like GTO at nearly 3800 lbs.
Remember the only way Ford could get 450hp out of GT500 was to slap a supercharger on it. Couldn't even do it normally aspirated.
If I spent $4k on a supercharger kit installed with warranty for my GTO I would be making 550hp easy and still only have paid a grand total of $35k in change or less. Sounds like a deal to me.
I laugh at the people that think Toyota-Honda are the greatest-best vehicles on the road. They break down and have problems just like everything else. Except their problems are a lot more $$ to fix.
Ask my dad about his 2003 Honda Odyssey, tranny failure and power door failure already. Covered under warranty. Only 22k miles on it. The day he picked it up, rubber seal fell off.
Or my Acura 3.2 which went through 2 tranny's in only 45k miles. My GM cars didn't have a problem with tranny or anything else in 45k miles.
Or my neighbors 2004 Camry which just got towed, alternator crapped out.
Toyota-Honda are NOT as good as people make them out to be.
The old argument that Domestic cars will have more problems because there are more of them on the road then Toyota-Honda.
Also at the car shows I attend, many are 25yrs and older vehicles only 1980 or older, don't see any Toyota-Honda's, wonder why? I see many Domestic 1970's cars in great shape.
Sounds like you are getting a runaround. It's one thing to have a problem, it's another for them not to fix it. There are only so many things it could be. I'm surprised Toyota is pulling that with you. I know GM does that but not with safety issues. Hang in there....
The GT500 is going to be an awsome deal! It will sell for as much as the Corvette, and have better performance. It's going to have close to 500 hp and can be modified easily to have way more.
I have an 04 Cobra SVT and i am glad to say i am kicking out 564 hp and 540 lb.ft of torque. Got rid of the irs out back and i have a ten second car. This 442 guy who do u think u r. "The only way ford could get 450 Hp out of the gt500 was to slap a supercharger on it". By the way the gt500 is going to have around 475 hp and be much less then the new corvette. Back to my point. 442 guy knows nothing. Ford could of made a NA motor that could reach 450hp but we all know mustangs are a cheap mans performance car. There for slapping a supercharger on it saves alot of money and is easier to gain that extra hp in the future. Please know what ur talking about before u talk. Thank You
Hey 04Cobra...i love Muscle cars and i had a 5.0 fox and now i have a 05 GTO. I just want to tell you to keep it down...Ford could not build a muscle NA motor, THAT is why they went with a supercharger...Yes it is easy to make power out of you 04 Cobra, but is very easy to blow that ship up right about where you stand with your HP. From 550-650HP you are sitting in a very bad bad bad position. YOU already toped out your power and YOU NEED to do some motor work before you put some more boost in that 4.6L NOW--- LS2 motor (that is in the 05 GTO) could take 100 HP right out of a NOS bottle, could also pus somewhere from 6-8 boos on a supercharger and is the same money as your cobra or your GT500..am i right. Don't say not cause you will look like you don't know about motor then. NOW--- 1. GT500 will make 450 hp and not 475 2. GT500 is too expensive for the name MUSTANG, too much, too much 3. GT500 is not dynamic at all...it has a FLAT FACE, its wider than GTO but it's FLAT on the front. 4.GT500 makes 450hp at the crank which means you will still make less than 400 HP at the wheel after paying over $40000 for a mustang.
If you have any questions let me know.... Everything i said is not out of disrespect...i respect everyone's opinion, but if i think someone is a bit wrong and i know i could say something right i say it...I still cary the love for the mustangs. There is nothing like a mustang in gas response and handling.. Too bad my got stolen.
"Pressed on this issue, O'Connell said "between 450 and 500 horsepower—how's that?" Our tech staff warmed up the calculators and figured a forecast of 475 horsepower at 6000 rpm. We may be low."
Ford has been saying all along the GT500 would make at least 450 hp. And lately, they've been somewhat conservative with their engine ratings considering past debacles (as evidenced by the fact that many feel the current Mustang GT is making closer to 320 at the crank rather than the published figure of 300).
"Ford could not build a muscle NA motor..." catunderhood.
What!?!?!
Please folks, its 2005 - keep that in mind. Ford, a multi-billion dollar company, could easily make a normally aspirated high performance motor. Imagine, if you will, a 5.4V8 with a similar architecture to the current 4.6 found in the Mustang, only with more aggressive variable valve timing. As most of us know, the current 4.6 makes about 320hp at the crank. A simple extrapolation reveals that a 5.4V8 based on those specs would produce about 375hp. A little investment in a more aggressive variable valve timing system (and possibly some tinkering with the fuel delivery and compression ratio) would produce an honest 400hp.
400hp
I think that qualifies as a real muscle motor. Ford could easily pull that off. Don't ask why they don't do it. I can't answer that.
I think the point is the GTO is already at 400 HP straight from the dealer. Throw a supercharger on a GTO and you're gonna get a lot more than you will out a ponycar. And remember - the discussion is Pony vs. Goat.
And as for 442Man - try reading up on his posts before making such a statement.
I know I am way late into this,but all I wanted to say, is that the 05 GTO with 400HP and the Mustang GT "rated" 300HP, in I believe it was motortrend magazine, I read the article and also a mechanic buddy of mine, showed me the video, the GT took the GTO in all 3 races performed. Offline and 1/4 mile.
Ok and as said before, Car and driver had the GTO beating the Stang 0-60, 1/4 mile, 0-100, top speed etc... list goes on and on. Even braking the GTO stopped 3 feet shorter, basically a tie.
GT500 owners will be paying noticeably more insurance then Z06 owners. Thats what happens when any kid can buy a Mustang and crashes it. Since it starts at only $19k. I aske my insurane company, and the Mustang GT is rated much higher risk, higher rates then GTO, go figure.
BTW... GM already makes the 6 Liter engine with 450hp Normally Aspirated. Just a few tweaks. Same 400hp in the race cars, with minor tweaks that bring it to 450hp, all motor.
......." folks, its 2005 - keep that in mind. Ford, a multi-billion dollar company, could easily make a normally aspirated high performance motor........"
Then why don't they???? The fact still remains that Ford does NOT make a muscle N/A motor. Anything with more then 300hp is supercharged by them. Where as GM has all new 400 and 505hp N/A motors.
Ford still using same 4.6 from the 1990 Town car with many modifications over the years.
GM 6 liter is dif/new from old 5.7 it replaces. Actually Pushrod technology is actually newer then OHC or DOHC technology. As most people don't realize. Only buy a few yrs...
Or the best is the nearly $150k people are forking over for the 5.4L Modular V8 in the Ford GT, makes me laugh. Nice car, but not worth that $$ esp. for a Ford with a 5.4. The best is that they couldn't even normally aspirated the motor in there either, had to go with supercharging to make the 550hp.
Sorry but it better say Ferrari, Bentley or Lamborghini on it for that price, not FORD
Believe the 4.6 was used in the Grand Marquis first, in like 91 - 92 time frame, may have been available in the TC, but I don't think so. May be mistaken but the TC was using the 5.0L in 1990.
But you are right, the only recent OHC engines I can think of from FOMOCO that were either close to or over 400hp and n.a. were the 385-horse 5.4 in the last gen Cobra R and the new 5.0 Cammer. Are there any others? But that cammer is WAY expensive, like $14-$15K IIRC. But I do agree with you, and have stated before myself many times, my main drawback to the OHC Henry is that unless you put an S/C or a N.O.S. kit on it, you're in the 300-range. Plus, IMO there really isn't a huge aftermarket out there for the engine, despite it being out for 13 - 14 years, whereas the LS-x has a decent aftermarket.
Now that the niceties are over, time to play devil's advocate. Who said in order for an engine to be considered a "muscle" engine it has to make 400hp? When did that rule come into being? Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot where I was. Since this GTO-Monaro has 400, then it's muscle and unless other engines have 400hp they aren't considered a "muscle" engine. Excuse my manners for forgetting that the Monaro is king and every other vehicle on the planet is inferior. :P
To the guy sho said "keep in mind its a 6 liter" ...
The Bigger the engine the better, I don't want my engine block the size of a coke bottle. Its awsome that GM is making huge 6 liter engines with totally modern technology and 400 pure HP.
Ford has it good with its new 4.6L at 300hp, but if I get the Mustang it will be for the looks, not the motor. You cannot beat 400 pure hp. Supercharging is nice but to me its BS, a real 400 hp engine will probably last longer and give you a better engine note (no wine).
BTW, Ford needs to put that 300 hp engine its Everything they have, have a modified version for fwd use if you have to. It needs to go into (as an option) the Fusion, the five hundred (especially the new 400+ supercharged version), and ESPECIALLY PUT IT INTO A DAM TOWN CAR.
Yeah and that 5.7L (LS1/LS6) had NO relation to the past small blocks. It was a Gen-III engine, and was 346 cubic inches, not 350. Different bore, stroke, firing order, better heads, different block, different EVERYTHING. The LS1 was NEW technology, not 1950s technology. Pushrod actuated valve/rocker arms is only as 1950s as overhead cam actuated valves are 1950s (they were both used then, so who cares).
Believe the 4.6 was used in the Grand Marquis first, in like 91 - 92 time frame, may have been available in the TC, but I don't think so. May be mistaken but the TC was using the 5.0L in 1990.
Yup. New Town Car came out in 1990, but used the old 302 at a whopping 150hp. It got the new 4.6 in 1991, with 190hp I believe. The new Panthers came out in 1992.
the only recent OHC engines I can think of from FOMOCO that were either close to or over 400hp and n.a. were the 385-horse 5.4 in the last gen Cobra R
And the Z06 met it in performance categories and put it to shame in price and refinement/comfort.
whereas the LS-x has a decent aftermarket.
The Gen-III engines have REALLY good heads, especially the new LS2. There are plenty of LS1s running around in F-bodies in the low 11s or better with just a cam and NO headwork at all. "Decent aftermarket" is a hugely vast understatement.
The Bigger the engine the better, I don't want my engine block the size of a coke bottle. Its awsome that GM is making huge 6 liter engines with totally modern technology and 400 pure HP.
I'll put money down that says the LS2 is smaller, lighter and cheaper to build/replace than the new 3-valve 4.6. That sounds like good engineering to me. And the LS2 is just WAITING for someone to drop a cam in it and be knocking on 500hp. And that would be 500hp with decent drivability and near-stock fuel economy and even emissions that would easily pass a sniffer test.
....."I'll put money down that says the LS2 is smaller, lighter and cheaper to build/replace than the new 3-valve 4.6. That sounds like good engineering to me......."
Yes the GM 6 Liter pushrod motor is Lighter and cheaper to build then Ford's 4.6. The only problem is that since it's so new there isn't a huge aftermarket for it yet.
The best part is that GM's 6 liter gets nearly the same gas milage as 4.6 and has 100 more hp in a heavier car.
....."You cannot beat 400 pure hp. Supercharging is nice but to me its BS, a real 400 hp engine will probably last longer and give you a better engine note (no wine)......"
True. A supercharged motor usually has more reliability issues then a Normally aspirated motor. Look at GM's 3800, the N/A version is more reliable then supercharged version acccording to CR. The advantage is that you can still supercharge 6 liter if you wanted too. But I wouldn't bother.
...."Who said in order for an engine to be considered a "muscle" engine it has to make 400hp? When did that rule come into being?....."
True. I agree to an extent. Also remember there are many 300hp or close to 300hp cars on the road, NOT many cars with 400+hp. To get a 400hp stock car for 31K or $32k, impressive. Many family sedans are pushing the 240 to 300hp range.
I wish it were as easy as to just put a big motor in a car to make it good. Unfortunately, it's a little more complex than that. As we've debated over and over again, weight, steering shifting, etc all come into play in defining a worthwhile performance car.
Mustang GT has an underated engine and weighs less. GTO weighs more and has, while good, a still sloppy shifter. That's why their numbers are nearly identical.
Graphicguy says......"I wish it were as easy as to just put a big motor in a car to make it good. Unfortunately, it's a little more complex than that".....
You are right, you also need a comfortable ride and high quality interior/seats, to go along with the big engine. Something the Mustang GT doesn't have. The GTO interior is BY FAR SUPERIOR to the Mustang in my opinion, what I dislike the most about the Mustang is the retro/cheap looking interior. Both CR and Forbes Said GT had low rent, cheap interior. At least it's an improvement over 2004 Stang interior.
My GTO is an Automatic, so NO sloppy shifter for me. Automatic GTO is actually same or faster then 6spd GTO in 1/4, 0-60
graphicguy says......"Mustang GT has an underated engine and weighs less. GTO weighs more and has, while good, a still sloppy shifter. That's why their numbers are nearly identical......"
Their numbers ARE NOT nearly identical. C&D has the GTO 1/2 a second faster in 1/4, big dif at track. On Speed Channel last weekend, the GTO KILLED the Mustang in every catagory except the slalom course but still beat it in the road course. Prett impressive for a car that weighs 300+ lbs more.
You are right, you also need a comfortable ride and high quality interior/seats, to go along with the big engine. Something the Mustang GT doesn't have.
What?? I disagree with you here 100%, and half again. The Mustang GT has one of the best rides out there in pretty much any class of vehicle outside of the super-slushy luxury rides. And the interior materials are just fine for the car that it is. You keep forgetting the Mustang isn't pretending to be a luxury cruiser like the GTO is. It's roots are deeply planted. It's not out to redefine itself or find where it's supposed to be in the market. The Mustang has been a Mustang for over 40 years, not a trim package and badge that has adorned several different cars only to be discontinued for 30 years and come back to a tepid homecoming.
The shifter in the Mustang GT isn't too great either, Quote from UK based Top Gear
"The Tremec manual gearbox in our GT gave cause for concern, though. Lumpy and rather agricultural feeling, it graunched and churned away like a slot machine paying out all the way to Vegas. Maybe they're all like that or maybe we had a dud. Either way, it's bad. In the twenty-first century, a new Ford really should not be making noises like that.."
You're actually quoting a EUROPEAN automotive medium on an American car?? Most everybody knows the Euros hate American cars, no matter how good they are. I'd hate to see what they'd have to say about the GTO with it being a simple rebadged Monaro. And considering that every magazine says the GT's shifter is better than the GTO's...
The GTO is a luxury cruiser, drive both for extended distances... GTO is the more comfortable car to ride in. Especially on rough pavement the solid rear shows why you need an IRS. Ford is just as guility as rebadging as GM is....
At least GM killed the GTO instead of making an economy car wimpy V6 version like Ford did 1974 to 1978. 1974 Stang only had a 110hp V6 on Pinto chassis. Funny thing is that the 1974 model sold nearly 400,000, goes to show you that people will buy junk.
At least the worst GTO, Nova based 1974 had a 250hp V8.
In England all the Monaro VXR's (Their version of the GTO) are sold out and they are paying close to $50k US!!! I'm almost glad people here dont know how good the GTO really is, it just means more GTO's for those of us "in the know"
You can look at it this way......With the GTO you are getting a Corvette drivetrain for $15k to $20k less and a backseat. I would have bought the Vette, but I needed a backseat.
Where as the Mustang you are getting a 4.6L Crown Victoria Taxi-cab drivetrain that is just boosted up to 3 valves per cylinder and 60 extra hp.
The GT500 is a supercharged Triton 5.4L F series Truck engine for $40k.
You know darn Well if GM didn't badge this car as a Pontiac or GTO it would be selling like hot-cakes. They should have brought the HOLDEN division here too. Nice cars. Best cars GM makes other Caddies/vette.
My takes son GTO vs Mustang.....INTERIOR: The GTO is so far above and beyond the new mustang in quality look and feel. The GT had somewhat comfy seats, retro looking but there was NO support, no bolsters no nothing like GTO. It was a basic seat, and only the drivers side was power.
Looking out over the long high hood I felt like I was sitting in a hole trying to look outside. The GTO has better visibility over the hood and down the road.
The GT had ZERO rear seat room where as the GTO can fit actual people back there.
Lots of cheap feeling black plastic, no texture, didnt get a good feeling.
Switchgear was cheap and wobbly. our HVAC knobs are the cheapest/worst feature about the gto interior but the ENTIRE Mustang interior felt like that. Again VISUALLY appealing but in the real world, not up to par with the GTO.
The doors and hood on the Mustang felt very thin and "cheap". when I slam the door of my GTO its like a bank vault, the car is solid, and very very well built. the Mustang had a cheap thin door with a floppy window. It was like the difference between closing the door on a 330 BMW and a Toyota corolla. No wonder our cars weigh so much, they are built like panzers. Additionally every corner on the gto inside and out is tucked or rolled or covered. On the mustang its all sharp unfinished edges, thin tin metal and cheap plastic.
Comments
My friend has had no issues with his Tacoma although recently someone ran into it. The thing is, it was parked in his driveway when it was hit. Sometimes you just can't win. Anyway, it's back to normal except for the tubular step thing on the side. You might want to take note of this, the step is attached to the body. So it came off rather easily. This time he is going to have it attached to the frame.
I think the best way to know is to drive the lot and then see which one fits you best. Personally I thought the execution on the Stang was very good, but as a package the GTO wins out for me: performance, driving,fit, finish and quality of materials.
My theory on comparing the two = take a dozen average drivers, who are not GM or Ford loyal fans. Give them some drive time with each car. Take them to a course; one test lap in each car. Then they drive each car twice, alternating the cars each run. Total all the runs of all the drivers (24 course times for each car) and the lowest total time should indicate the better performing car. Heck pros can drive anything - but your average soccer mom, band dad, troop leader, store manager, administrator, fork lift driver... is going to make the best time in the car that's easiest for them to handle and drive. And that would indicate to me the best execution and performance.
The GT500 will compete with the 'vette. 475-500HP...0-60 in 4 flat....1/4 in 13 or better. Priced at 39K.
Sounds like a deal to me.
Thanks, sputter.....I'm just in a quandary over the Tacoma. This is highly unusual for a Toyota.
I bought what I thought was going to be a vehicle that was going to give me a ton of trouble free miles, and right out of the shoot, it's got a major problem.
I know the dealership doesn't want to "eat" any of the cost on this truck. On the other hand, I've lost faith that it's a safe vehicle. I would imagine, if they take it back, they'd have to disclose that the previous owner (me) had brake problems. I think that's why they want to wear blinders and say everything is normal (it most definitely isn't, though). I doubt Toyota region wants to take it back for the same reason.
Met with the GM of the dealership yesterday. He said he wanted to drive it. Already, I've driven it and reported the brake failure, the tech drove it with me and noted the brake pedal going all the way to the floor. I thought that would be enough, but now the GM wants to drive it, too.....before getting the Toyota Region involved.
To me, this is pretty simple. Something in the whole braking system is wrong. Getting someone with authority to admit to it is becoming very difficult as, so far, no one wants to be responsible for taking it back. The tech already said he couldn't fix it because he didn't know what was wrong.
Ahhhhhhh!!!!!!!! :sick:
In NJ we have high insurance anyway, the Mustang GT was nearly $200 more a year then GTO to insure. Many have stated they are pleasantly suprised at how cheap the GTO insurance was. In fact it's only $95 more a year then my Maxima. Go figure? Maxima is a few years old.
In fact, insurance on a Corvette is cheaper then Mustang GT for me. LOL!
No GTO is worth $39k either. Some have gotten 2004 leftover GTO for $25k or less, NICE!
A vette is still a vette, Stang is a dime a dozen. The new 7 Liter 505hp Vette will take out the GT500. But then again it costs a lot more $$ too. Remember, Z06 is only 3200 lbs or less. GT500 is heavy like GTO at nearly 3800 lbs.
If I spent $4k on a supercharger kit installed with warranty for my GTO I would be making 550hp easy and still only have paid a grand total of $35k in change or less. Sounds like a deal to me.
I leave it pretty much stock though.
I laugh at the people that think Toyota-Honda are the greatest-best vehicles on the road. They break down and have problems just like everything else. Except their problems are a lot more $$ to fix.
Ask my dad about his 2003 Honda Odyssey, tranny failure and power door failure already. Covered under warranty. Only 22k miles on it. The day he picked it up, rubber seal fell off.
Or my Acura 3.2 which went through 2 tranny's in only 45k miles. My GM cars didn't have a problem with tranny or anything else in 45k miles.
Or my neighbors 2004 Camry which just got towed, alternator crapped out.
Toyota-Honda are NOT as good as people make them out to be.
The old argument that Domestic cars will have more problems because there are more of them on the road then Toyota-Honda.
Also at the car shows I attend, many are 25yrs and older vehicles only 1980 or older, don't see any Toyota-Honda's, wonder why? I see many Domestic 1970's cars in great shape.
I just want to tell you to keep it down...Ford could not build a muscle NA motor, THAT is why they went with a supercharger...Yes it is easy to make power out of you 04 Cobra, but is very easy to blow that ship up right about where you stand with your HP. From 550-650HP you are sitting in a very bad bad bad position. YOU already toped out your power and YOU NEED to do some motor work before you put some more boost in that 4.6L
NOW--- LS2 motor (that is in the 05 GTO) could take 100 HP right out of a NOS bottle, could also pus somewhere from 6-8 boos on a supercharger and is the same money as your cobra or your GT500..am i right. Don't say not cause you will look like you don't know about motor then.
NOW---
1. GT500 will make 450 hp and not 475
2. GT500 is too expensive for the name MUSTANG, too much, too much
3. GT500 is not dynamic at all...it has a FLAT FACE, its wider than GTO but it's FLAT on the front.
4.GT500 makes 450hp at the crank which means you will still make less than 400 HP at the wheel after paying over $40000 for a mustang.
If you have any questions let me know....
Everything i said is not out of disrespect...i respect everyone's opinion, but if i think someone is a bit wrong and i know i could say something right i say it...I still cary the love for the mustangs. There is nothing like a mustang in gas response and handling..
Too bad my got stolen.
From the latest Car and Driver:
"Pressed on this issue, O'Connell said "between 450 and 500 horsepower—how's that?" Our tech staff warmed up the calculators and figured a forecast of 475 horsepower at 6000 rpm. We may be low."
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=19&article_id=9638&page_number=2
Ford has been saying all along the GT500 would make at least 450 hp. And lately, they've been somewhat conservative with their engine ratings considering past debacles (as evidenced by the fact that many feel the current Mustang GT is making closer to 320 at the crank rather than the published figure of 300).
What!?!?!
Please folks, its 2005 - keep that in mind. Ford, a multi-billion dollar company, could easily make a normally aspirated high performance motor. Imagine, if you will, a 5.4V8 with a similar architecture to the current 4.6 found in the Mustang, only with more aggressive variable valve timing. As most of us know, the current 4.6 makes about 320hp at the crank. A simple extrapolation reveals that a 5.4V8 based on those specs would produce about 375hp. A little investment in a more aggressive variable valve timing system (and possibly some tinkering with the fuel delivery and compression ratio) would produce an honest 400hp.
400hp
I think that qualifies as a real muscle motor. Ford could easily pull that off. Don't ask why they don't do it. I can't answer that.
Throw a supercharger on a GTO and you're gonna get a lot more than you will out a ponycar.
And remember - the discussion is Pony vs. Goat.
And as for 442Man - try reading up on his posts before making such a statement.
True, but as they say, there is NO Substitute for cubic inches and NO replacement for displacement. Unless you cheat and turbo/supercharge or NOS it.
Then why don't they???? The fact still remains that Ford does NOT make a muscle N/A motor. Anything with more then 300hp is supercharged by them. Where as GM has all new 400 and 505hp N/A motors.
Ford still using same 4.6 from the 1990 Town car with many modifications over the years.
GM 6 liter is dif/new from old 5.7 it replaces. Actually Pushrod technology is actually newer then OHC or DOHC technology. As most people don't realize. Only buy a few yrs...
Sorry but it better say Ferrari, Bentley or Lamborghini on it for that price, not FORD
And besides, think about it. You get 7 liter HP at 5.4L gas mileage.
But you are right, the only recent OHC engines I can think of from FOMOCO that were either close to or over 400hp and n.a. were the 385-horse 5.4 in the last gen Cobra R and the new 5.0 Cammer. Are there any others? But that cammer is WAY expensive, like $14-$15K IIRC. But I do agree with you, and have stated before myself many times, my main drawback to the OHC Henry is that unless you put an S/C or a N.O.S. kit on it, you're in the 300-range. Plus, IMO there really isn't a huge aftermarket out there for the engine, despite it being out for 13 - 14 years, whereas the LS-x has a decent aftermarket.
Now that the niceties are over, time to play devil's advocate. Who said in order for an engine to be considered a "muscle" engine it has to make 400hp? When did that rule come into being? Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot where I was. Since this GTO-Monaro has 400, then it's muscle and unless other engines have 400hp they aren't considered a "muscle" engine. Excuse my manners for forgetting that the Monaro is king and every other vehicle on the planet is inferior. :P
The Bigger the engine the better, I don't want my engine block the size of a coke bottle. Its awsome that GM is making huge 6 liter engines with totally modern technology and 400 pure HP.
Ford has it good with its new 4.6L at 300hp, but if I get the Mustang it will be for the looks, not the motor.
You cannot beat 400 pure hp. Supercharging is nice but to me its BS, a real 400 hp engine will probably last longer and give you a better engine note (no wine).
BTW, Ford needs to put that 300 hp engine its Everything they have, have a modified version for fwd use if you have to. It needs to go into (as an option) the Fusion, the five hundred (especially the new 400+ supercharged version), and ESPECIALLY PUT IT INTO A DAM TOWN CAR.
Yeah and that 5.7L (LS1/LS6) had NO relation to the past small blocks. It was a Gen-III engine, and was 346 cubic inches, not 350. Different bore, stroke, firing order, better heads, different block, different EVERYTHING. The LS1 was NEW technology, not 1950s technology. Pushrod actuated valve/rocker arms is only as 1950s as overhead cam actuated valves are 1950s (they were both used then, so who cares).
Yup. New Town Car came out in 1990, but used the old 302 at a whopping 150hp. It got the new 4.6 in 1991, with 190hp I believe. The new Panthers came out in 1992.
the only recent OHC engines I can think of from FOMOCO that were either close to or over 400hp and n.a. were the 385-horse 5.4 in the last gen Cobra R
And the Z06 met it in performance categories and put it to shame in price and refinement/comfort.
whereas the LS-x has a decent aftermarket.
The Gen-III engines have REALLY good heads, especially the new LS2. There are plenty of LS1s running around in F-bodies in the low 11s or better with just a cam and NO headwork at all. "Decent aftermarket" is a hugely vast understatement.
I'll put money down that says the LS2 is smaller, lighter and cheaper to build/replace than the new 3-valve 4.6. That sounds like good engineering to me. And the LS2 is just WAITING for someone to drop a cam in it and be knocking on 500hp. And that would be 500hp with decent drivability and near-stock fuel economy and even emissions that would easily pass a sniffer test.
Coupes & Convertibles | Vans & Minivans
MODERATOR
Need help getting around? claires@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Tell everyone about your buying experience: Write a Dealer Review
Yes the GM 6 Liter pushrod motor is Lighter and cheaper to build then Ford's 4.6. The only problem is that since it's so new there isn't a huge aftermarket for it yet.
The best part is that GM's 6 liter gets nearly the same gas milage as 4.6 and has 100 more hp in a heavier car.
True. A supercharged motor usually has more reliability issues then a Normally aspirated motor. Look at GM's 3800, the N/A version is more reliable then supercharged version acccording to CR. The advantage is that you can still supercharge 6 liter if you wanted too. But I wouldn't bother.
True. I agree to an extent. Also remember there are many 300hp or close to 300hp cars on the road, NOT many cars with 400+hp. To get a 400hp stock car for 31K or $32k, impressive. Many family sedans are pushing the 240 to 300hp range.
Mustang GT has an underated engine and weighs less. GTO weighs more and has, while good, a still sloppy shifter. That's why their numbers are nearly identical.
You are right, you also need a comfortable ride and high quality interior/seats, to go along with the big engine. Something the Mustang GT doesn't have. The GTO interior is BY FAR SUPERIOR to the Mustang in my opinion, what I dislike the most about the Mustang is the retro/cheap looking interior. Both CR and Forbes Said GT had low rent, cheap interior. At least it's an improvement over 2004 Stang interior.
My GTO is an Automatic, so NO sloppy shifter for me. Automatic GTO is actually same or faster then 6spd GTO in 1/4, 0-60
Their numbers ARE NOT nearly identical. C&D has the GTO 1/2 a second faster in 1/4, big dif at track. On Speed Channel last weekend, the GTO KILLED the Mustang in every catagory except the slalom course but still beat it in the road course. Prett impressive for a car that weighs 300+ lbs more.
BTW... GT500 will weigh the same as GTO
What?? I disagree with you here 100%, and half again. The Mustang GT has one of the best rides out there in pretty much any class of vehicle outside of the super-slushy luxury rides. And the interior materials are just fine for the car that it is. You keep forgetting the Mustang isn't pretending to be a luxury cruiser like the GTO is. It's roots are deeply planted. It's not out to redefine itself or find where it's supposed to be in the market. The Mustang has been a Mustang for over 40 years, not a trim package and badge that has adorned several different cars only to be discontinued for 30 years and come back to a tepid homecoming.
"The Tremec manual gearbox in our GT gave cause for concern, though. Lumpy and rather agricultural feeling, it graunched and churned away like a slot machine paying out all the way to Vegas. Maybe they're all like that or maybe we had a dud. Either way, it's bad. In the twenty-first century, a new Ford really should not be making noises like that.."
Ford is just as guility as rebadging as GM is....
At least GM killed the GTO instead of making an economy car wimpy V6 version like Ford did 1974 to 1978. 1974 Stang only had a 110hp V6 on Pinto chassis. Funny thing is that the 1974 model sold nearly 400,000, goes to show you that people will buy junk.
At least the worst GTO, Nova based 1974 had a 250hp V8.
Where as the Mustang you are getting a 4.6L Crown Victoria Taxi-cab drivetrain that is just boosted up to 3 valves per cylinder and 60 extra hp.
The GT500 is a supercharged Triton 5.4L F series Truck engine for $40k.
You know darn Well if GM didn't badge this car as a Pontiac or GTO it would be selling like hot-cakes. They should have brought the HOLDEN division here too. Nice cars. Best cars GM makes other Caddies/vette.
Based on your logic, I guess every American V8 out there has had some link to more mundane duty.
GM could have badged the GTO nothing but a Pontiac. That would have made no difference, though.
I will agree that the GTO is more of a cruiser. That's not what I wanted, though.
TOP GEAR? They also blasted the 'vette. My guess is they'd absolutely slam the GTO given the opportunity if they didn't like the 'vette.
Looking out over the long high hood I felt like I was sitting in a hole trying to look outside. The GTO has better visibility over the hood and down the road.
The GT had ZERO rear seat room where as the GTO can fit actual people back there.
Lots of cheap feeling black plastic, no texture, didnt get a good feeling.
Switchgear was cheap and wobbly. our HVAC knobs are the cheapest/worst feature about the gto interior but the ENTIRE Mustang interior felt like that. Again VISUALLY appealing but in the real world, not up to par with the GTO.