I HATE the over 70 warning on the GTO, and the two hour "Rest" chime sucks. Can I turn those off?
Does the GTO need high test vs the Stangs regular?
Yes those both can be turned off.
The GTO will actually run with regular, however it is not recommened and the PCM will retard timing and thus you will lose power. Stick with high octane.
The GTO will run on 87+ octane with no problems. I've called Pontiac over a year ago when I first got my car. They directed me to my owners manual which concurred. The ECM will retard the timing to compensate but performance will be diminished. Someone who has run a tankful of 87 and 92+ and checked may have noticed MPG may go up with the timing curtailed.
From the 2005 Owners Manual, page 5-5:
Fuel Use of the recommended fuel is an important part of the proper maintenance of your vehicle.
Gasoline Octane Use premium unleaded gasoline with a posted octane of 91 or higher for best performance. You may also use middle grade or regular unleaded gasoline rated at 87 octane or higher, but your vehicle’s acceleration may be slightly reduced. If the octane is less than 87, you may get a heavy knocking noise when you drive. If this occurs, use a gasoline rated at 87 octane or higher as soon as possible. Otherwise, you might damage your engine.
I put only premium in my car because one reason I bought it was for it's performance ability. It doesn't make a huge difference in the price of a fill up to go cheap.
think of it this way...with gas over $2 a gallon, premium will be a 10% or less difference versus regular; that is a pretty trivial price compared to keeping the goats computer happy, and getting the full kick of 400 horses ...
Took a look at the GTO, specs, pics, prices, and, ummm, you got to be smokin' some pretty heavy gunja to choose the Pontiac over the Mustang. Why? Performance, handling, looks, exhaust sound, resale value, fun factor ... need any more reasons? Pontiac hasn't made a drivable car in 40 years.
Even the name "GTO" is an insult to that old great classic from the '60's.
Well, let's see what I smoking when I brought my GTO: performance - goes to the GTO handling - the Mustang has quicker steering, but the GTO has been proven to outhandle the Mustang on a track looks - I have a 68 Mustang, didn't need a not as good looking clone of it, plus I like the sleeper look of the GTO exhaust sound - subjective resale value - goes to the Mustang for now, but this will likely change in a couple years fun factor - both are fun cars, but the car that performs the best (which is the GTO) was the most fun for me
So in conclusion, drive the car before you make another ridiculous post like that
I sure would like to see some links to whatever is claiming the GTO out-handles the Mustang GT around a track. How is it that a bigger, heavier car on an older chassis out-handles a smaller, lighter car on a newer, stiffer chassis? Was this mythical track designed for high speed blasts rather than cornering? What track was it?
If you look at the GTO vs. STi video here on Edmunds, you'll notice in the night shot that the GTO looks like it's rolling over on its rocker panels as it's coming around the bend. (Heck, it even looks like that in the daytime shots.) The Mustang GT doesn't roll like that in a corner. Until I actually read some credible reports that the GTO handles better than the Mustang GT on a cornering track, I have to disbelieve the claim that it handles better.
Now, if it's a track with a lot of straights and gentle curves, then yes, I will believe the GTO can beat it around a track like that. There's a lot to be said for 100 extra HP.
Remember the speed channel run? The GTO beat the Mustang/G35/330i, and it was a smaller track. Results are on the web somewhere if you look. The chassis may be older, but the car is known as a world class handler around the world. It was only when it came to the US with a Pontiac badge that magically it could not handle anymore.
interesting points, taylZEROd and goat sensai. pony_pirate please listen to me now and hear me later: ooo argh, it's the gto_pirate's life for me! i'm thinking about drifting my goat around a road course -after it's out of warranty that is... are any of you mustang or goat peoples out there members of a local motorhead road course track/club? a road course might be a nice sort of place to race the clock and demonstrate the vast superiority of the goat on a road course compared to a mustang. supposedly there will be no more new USA Monaro GTOs after 2006. the avatar oracle of goat information known here as hammen2 theorizes that there will be collector-car value for the 04-06 goats. i find that hard to believe and actually hope it is not true, because i like driving the car too much to be tempted to park it so it can accrue value for the collector market in a few years. the latest gen mustangs might have collector car value in a few millennia when there will only be 5.023x10^22 of them remaining and rusting on cinderblocks instead of today's 6.023x10^23 mustangs which are all eating australian goat dust. that's what i'm talkin about. thank you, you've been great, i'll be here all week.
I'm sorry sensai, and I'm not trying to start anything because this has been hashed sooooooo many times, but that SpeedChannel Test Drive was a bunch of you-know-what. I mean seriously, do you really think anything was going to beat the Monaro/GTO and GP GXP?? It was PONTIAC Test Drive, not just test drive. Do you, and tell the truth here, REALLY think the Pontiac cars would have destroyed the competition like that if it wasn't a Pontiac test drive, sponsored by Pontiac, with Pontiac PR people and the like driving all the cars? You do know that right? Do you think they would put non-biased people on there that would have driven all the cars the way they should have been driven and possibly beat the Pontiacs, particularly the GTO cause the GXP IIRC, didn't fair so well. Test Drive is a product promo show period, not a REAL testing program.
Just take the "race" at the end between the Monaro/GTO and the Mustang. Were you really surprised the Mustang lost? I mean, even if it was proven in other tests, reports, magazines, TV programs, whatever that the Mustang beat the car, do you think the Mustang would have won on that show? Again, it was Pontiac Test Drive. And by the way, the Mustang didn't lose by 3 - 4 car lengths like you had stated way back when; it was more like 1/2 - 1 at the most. Also, you must admit that both times were horrible, with both in the mid-6 second range. Again, the fact that they were not being driven by non-Pontiac affiliated guys/gals, but Pontiac mopes should have gave you a little clue of what was going to happen. Put Phil Hill, Andretti or the like on there and run a fair competition and see what happens. Run a competition like the guys from LMC (Legendary Motor Cars) ran on the big-block and small-block muscle/pony cars: heads-up, unbiased, run-em-like-you-brung-em stock configuration, let the best win and then that will end it all.
Sensai c'mon, you can't really be using that show to justify how supposedly great this car is and think people are going to believe it, can you?? :P
Again, not trying to start anything with you or anyone here, but I just couldn't sit back and let someone pull that Speed Channel mess back out and try to say that was real proof of the car's greatness. To me it was an embarrassment to Pontiac, and further caused the car to be thought of as something that it's not. It seemed Pontiac was trying to hard to sell the car, but didn't know how or who (market) it was going after. Doggone shame because the Monaro, and most of Holden's lineup for that matter, is damn good.
Just thought I'd add, that I would bury, and I mean BURY a GTO, or Cobra for that matter. Though it would be much more enjoyable, and is much more, to just desimate (spelling?) the GTO.
"and is much more, to just desimate (spelling?) the GTO."
Actually, it's spelled "decimate". At least you got "bury" correct.
Of course, you KNOW what the inevitable response will be: "why compare modified to stock? What are you trying to prove? Slap a supercharger on the GTO with 4.10 gears and THEN let's line up."
LOL. Sound like a case of sour grapes here. The Speed Channel test was certified by an independent organization (the SCCA if I remember right). It just so happens Pontiac knew what the GTO was capable of, and had the balls to pay for the comparison. And it wasn't a Pontiac person driving the cars, you are really grasping at straws here. So the fact that the GTO beat the a Mustang, G35, and 330i is an embarrasement? Funny defition of embarrasement you have there. Anyways, feel free to show proof of bias in that show. Or track numbers that refute the GTO's win. Until you do, you don't have a leg to stand on.
Just thought I'd add, that I would bury, and I mean BURY a GTO, or Cobra for that matter. Though it would be much more enjoyable, and is much more, to just desimate (spelling?) the GTO.
Hate to tell you, but there are guys with superchargers and turbo's on the GTOs putting down more than 465rwhp, so you won't be burying them...
Actually comparing stock is not quite all that fair either. Ive argued this before with friends, and I stand by it. You are taking to cars, one that has 100HP more than the other. Thats like taking a BMW M3 with 333hp. and comparing it with a stock SRT-4 with like 220hp.
Take the 04 GTO with 350hp, and the Mustang spanked it.
"Actually comparing stock is not quite all that fair either."
Who said anything about fair?
My point was, this thread (like virtually every other 'x' vs. 'y' thread here in Edmunds) is predicated on the premise that the cars in the comparison are stock.
It just gets really pointless, really quick, if someone insists on comparing their modified car 'x' against a stock car 'y' in some misguided effort to 'prove' car 'x' is better.
Is that what you are saying? The Mustang, in general, is 'better' than the GTO because a modded Mustang can 'bury' a stock GTO? Uh, ok.
Or are you just saying that YOUR modded Mustang is 'better' than a stock GTO 'cuz you can 'bury' them. Well, that's really special.
Silly question #1: If you knew that whatever you bought, you were going to mod it, why chose the Mustang over the GTO? Wouldn't a blown GTO potentially be more bitchin' than a blown Mustang? In other words, if you knew you were gonna dump a blower in the engine bay regardless, why did you choose the Mustang.
Silly question #2: If you DIDN'T anticipate modding your Mustang, why did you choose it in the first place, and then why decide to mod it?
In other words, WHAT WAS IT ABOUT THE STOCK CARS that made you choose the Mustang over the GTO?
Dude, you and some other people take this way to seriously. But your question at the bottom makes sense. I am not here to argue or say one car is better than the other, because what you are trying to say, by asking those questions (correct me if I am wrong) but people buy the car that they personally like, and thats the bottom line.
Yes, I knew I was going to mod my car. I chose my car, because I like how it drives, looks, and I just have always been a Mustang fan. The GTO just does not appeal to me in any way.
Look, all I was (initially) responding to was what I took to be an attempt on your part to come in here and talk a bunch of trash to the GTO folks for the SOLE reason of getting 'em all riled up.
Just look at the title on your post: "Open a can on a GTO".
Not only was it (IMO) juvenille, but IT'S BEEN DONE countless times and, frankly, it's boring. Okay, you did a bunch of mods to your GT and now you can smoke a GTO. Cool.
I just think the intent of the thread is NOT for various GTO/Mustang owners to come in here and talk trash at each other. If it is, I'm outta here. Instead, I think it's a place where folks can talk about the differences between the two (sometimes, even intelligently), perhaps inform folks who may be trying to decide between the two, and discuss where we think these vehicles are going over the next few years.
You bought you Mustang because you liked how it drove and looked and the GTO didn't appeal. Fine. I can't argue against that.
Just for the record, I like the looks of the Mustang better myself (although the GTO interior looks really nice), and I think that the performance of the Mustang is plenty for the street. I've owned a couple of Mustangs myself: a '93 LX5.0 and my current mustang (a '66 Ivy Green GT Fastback undergoing final restification :shades: ). So I have a soft spot in my head for Mustangs
But I'd certainly NOT begrudge anyone who bought a GTO and I always treat those I see in traffic with a healthy amount of respect. Plus, they've stopped looking so much like Cavaliers to my eye and starting looking MUCH better.
Could be a seasonal thing, but I noticed that Mustangs are now at 111 selling days. 60 days is considered ideal. I have noticed a lot of Mustangs on the dealer's lots here in SC.
And like I said, that post was not meant to mean I begrudge anyone who has one. Like I said, my friend had one, and actually, I was driving down the road one day and saw a guy with a GTO in his driveway, getting ready to leave, so I stopped and just starting talking to him about it.
The inside was nice, but as I said, just not my preference. I guess another thing I don't like is how the GTO guys say how great their car is because it can confortably fit 4 people. I paid for a sports car, thats what I expect, and to me, a true sports car, doesn't fit 4 people comfortably. Sure, I have a backseat... lol, but try getting someone in there taller then like, 4ft, its not too fun.
It really is all a matter of preference. Like you, I have a thing for Mustangs. I would love to see your 66, have any pics? My father use to own a 69 Mach 1. B-E-A-UTIFUL car.
... I guess another thing I don't like is how the GTO guys say how great their car is because it can confortably fit 4 people. ...
Same here. I've been in a GTO and, IMO, there's NO WAY anybody over the age of 12 or more than 5' tall is going to "comfortably fit" in the back seat of it.
Another thing that sticks in my craw is when they talk about interior materials. Again, I've been in a GTO and, IMO, its materials are not one bit better than the Mustang's. Just as much hard plastic and probably more. And the particular one I was in didn't have the marvelous fit-and-finish that some of the GTO folks rave about. It looks much better in pictures.
Same here. I've been in a GTO and, IMO, there's NO WAY anybody over the age of 12 or more than 5' tall is going to "comfortably fit" in the back seat of it.
Another thing that sticks in my craw is when they talk about interior materials. Again, I've been in a GTO and, IMO, its materials are not one bit better than the Mustang's. Just as much hard plastic and probably more. And the particular one I was in didn't have the marvelous fit-and-finish that some of the GTO folks rave about. It looks much better in pictures.
I'm sorry, but you have not been in a GTO. While it is a pain to get into the back seat, once there full size adults easily fit comfortably. And just as much hard plastic? Not even close. Maybe you got confused and sat in a Cavaliar instead :P
Anyone who has actually sat in the back of a GTO can tell you that it is comfortable. As for the interior, the GTO is way, way better quality. For example, the interior is ALL leather. Those seats just don't have leather "seating" surfaces; the whole seat, front, back, headrest, is all leather. Even the console lid that your rest your arm on , is covered with leather! Can the same be said about the mustang interior? The quality extends to areas you can't see. For example, the door panals are secured with screws, not snaps.Guess which car won't have door rattles down the road?
We'll have to agree to disagree. Having the back of the front seat resting on my legs is not what I call comfortable.
In response to dclark2, screws are a nice, secure way to attach door panels, but which door panel do you think will experience cracks in the future, the one held rigidly in place with screws or the one with the tabs that have more stress tolerance? Rattles are easy to fix (once you find them). Cracks can't reasonably be fixed. You'll have to replace the panel or do a nasty looking patch job. Replacement panels for foreign cars cost a lot of money.
GTO also has leather armrests on the doors and leather inserts in the doors + the alcantara. GTO easily has the most backseat legroom of any of the Coupes in it's price range. I don't know what the poster is talking about. It just seems incredible to me that someone would argue a point that can be measured objectively. I almost didn't reply to the comment it was so off base.
I do know that if you put the seat back all the way in the Mustang the space is so small that you can't even get your leg back there much less your feet.
Cracking door panals? What are you talking about? The GTO uses high quality, strong plastic- it isn't going to crack. Also, a lot of screws are used to secure it. I think the bottom edge alone takes 12. All these fasteners make for a solid fit. Yes, of course it calls for more labor and costs more, but that is why the finest cars in the world attach things, and why the cheapest cars (like Ford) will use cheap plastic fasteners that allow the panal to simply be punched on. Down the road, that plastic will loosen up, plus if you ever have to remove the doorpanal, the tabs can be easily broken but hey, why should Ford care? As for rear room, here are the specs: . Mustang GTO Rear Shoulder Room 53.4 in. 51.7 in. Rear Hip Room 46.8 in. 50.2 in. Rear Leg Room 30.3 in. 37.1 in. The difference in leg room is incredible! The GTO has almost 7" more leg room! The GTO has more leg room than a Honda Accord! If you think the Mustang has more room in the the back, then you haven't looked at a GTO.
Not once did I say a Mustang has more legroom in the back than a GTO. I said the GTO doesn't have the magnificent comfort that the GTO folks claim. Keep in mind that not all manufacturers take their measurements the same way. For example, the new Acura RL lists a larger interior than the new Audi A6, but if you got in the back of an RL after the A6, you'd wonder how in the world they came up with their numbers. The RL is ridiculously small in the back. And based on the numbers you gave, the GTO has more rear legroom than the RL. Do you think the GTO has more rear legroom than the RL? As small as the RL is back there, I doubt the GTO has more.
No one ever said that about the rear of the GTO. However, owners (including myself) who have had adults back there don't have complaints. I have sat there before and it was fine. Those ALL leather buckets back there are also very comfortable. I have no idea of what an RL is like in the back and really could care less. I know that mustang rear seat is only suitable for dwarfs and small kids. The lack of an all leather interior, cheap snap fitting door panals and solid rear axle are only a few of the many qualities that make the mustang what it is- a cheap uncomfortable car.If you want to believe that the mustang has a more comfortable rear seat, better ride, better handling, better power, better interior quality, by all means, keep believing. Don't look at the facts and the numbers, just go buy the thing and have fun. In three years it will be like any other mustang- I let you find out for yourself what that means...
... If you want to believe that the mustang has a more comfortable rear seat, better ride, better handling, better power, better interior quality, by all means, keep believing. ...
Umm... I sure do wish you would show me where I ever said any of that.
But anyway, yep, in 3 or 4 years, the Mustang will probably have pretty low resale, but so will the GTO; especially considering that it already has lower resale than the Mustang despite being more "rare." You can find out for yourself as well. I could sell my GT for more than a new GTO, but it won't be that way in a few years.
... The lack of an all leather interior, cheap snap fitting door panals and solid rear axle are only a few of the many qualities that make the mustang what it is- a cheap uncomfortable car. ...
The tone of that statement makes it what it is, a cheap shot. How do you know which method the Mustang's panels are attached? Have you taken one apart? And who are you to decide what's comfortable and what's not? For all I know, you're a midget and the GTO is cavernous for you. I, being 6' tall, would NOT want to be in the back seat of a GTO any more than I'd want to be in the back seat of a Mustang. And where does it say the GTO has all this leather you're talking about?? I see no mention of leather on the console or doors, only the front and rear buckets (and shift knob); and I'd bet money it's just leather "trimmed." But, yeah, the Mustang is cheap. Funny how it works out that you have to pay more to get one than the GTO, though, huh? Folks just need to hold off on the Mustangs until the huge GM-like incentives kick in.
Anyway, though, there's no need for all the cheap shots. Just because I don't think what you guys are saying is true doesn't mean you have to take it so personally. Gee wiz! I don't feel the rear seats are comfortable and there's nothing short of GM adding some space back there that's going to change my mind. That doesn't mean you have to get all huffy and lob attacks at the Mustang, especially when I NEVER said any of that stuff you imply that I did. :confuse:
From taylOrd: "in 3 or 4 years, the Mustang will probably have pretty low resale" Unsupported conjecture. A good product stays in demand. The redesigned '05 Mustang GT (a legal hotrod if there ever was one) made waves, made all sorts of ten-best lists, and continues to be in short supply more than a full year after start of production. Customization of the '05 Mustang is just taking off, a sure sign of a classic. There's nothing else like it out there, not at the same price point, not with same sex appeal, not with anywhere near the same looks or performance. The copycat Dodge Challanger and Chevy Camaro are not only poor imitations and out of Mustang's choice price range, but pitiful ugly ducklings and, uhmmm, not even in production. As I said before, the Pontiac GTO could travel at the speed of light, but it would still look like a bug. :shades:
You need a time out and go to the corner for bad behavoir. Why don't you all go take a long test drive and learn about the merits of both of these great cars. I own an 04 GTO and a 05 Mustang, both with manuals. They both have CAI's and Predators installed. They both happen to be the best muscle car buys in the the USA today. I can give you the real 'good, bad & ugly' on both. Why does everyone think they have to prove their model is the best by dwelling on the perceived ugly of the other. Why don't we talk about the good and excite our friends about them. Maybe they will buy more and the manufacturers will continue to produce more and more vehicles of this type. Just my 2 cents
Hey, pony_pirate. I wasn't trying to slight the Mustang. I OWN an '05 GT (and used to own a '99 GT a few years ago). But Business 101 will tell you that market saturation drives the price of a product down.
I think it's great that the demand is still so high and that it's still not too easy to get one (the GT, anyway). But everybody knows there will be plenty on the market in 3 or 4 years, not to mention a redesign/refreshening by then.
Even after the amount sold, it's still not too common to see a Mustang on the road and GTs are very rarely spotted. There are 3 GTOs at my work. I've only seen my GT at work (when I drive it) and 2 or 3 V6s. Certainly not the "Mustang on every corner" that certain people claim. Let's not forget there's still probably less than 200K on the road spread out over the entire planet. :surprise: That's what I call spreading it thin! How many Monaro's are out in the world now? :shades:
Seriously, people need to stop assuming things, or saying things like the Mustang doors just snap in or clip on. GTO owners: HAVE ANY OF YOU TAKEN APART A MUSTANG DOOR YET? Because if you have, then you are just simply lying. The doors are held on by 4 bolts on the bottom, and 2 bolts on either side. (Hinge, and lock area) Thats 8 bolts. The interior is also leather, all the seats, and the shift knob.
Solid-rear axle...? Cheap? Whats that about? Do a little digging and you will see that many great racecars have been built with solid rear axles. Actually, thats part of a true muscle car. I also own a 2003 SVT Cobra, with an IRS. Ever hear the term wheel-hop? Well, thats what you get with an IRS. Its not all its cracked up to be.
"Seriously, people need to stop assuming things, or saying things like the Mustang doors just snap in or clip on. GTO owners: HAVE ANY OF YOU TAKEN APART A MUSTANG DOOR YET?"
Gee, do you think a dealer would let me take apart a door? Get real!
"Because if you have, then you are just simply lying. The doors are held on by 4 bolts on the bottom, and 2 bolts on either side. (Hinge, and lock area) Thats 8 bolts."
The outer edge of the GTO door panal alone has 11 screws. Then are the ones behind the trim. Sorry, mustang loses.
"The interior is also leather, all the seats, and the shift knob."
Nope, obviously you don't know what the difference is between leather and pleather. The mustang has leather "seating surfaces", the GTO has ALL leather, seats front AND back, shifter, wheel, AND console. If you can't tell that the Mustang lacks that, then Ford did a good job of going cheap there.
Solid-rear axle...? Cheap? Whats that about? Do a little digging and you will see that many great racecars have been built with solid rear axles. Ooh, sorry, but I don't drive on a race track, do you? The roads where I live aren't perfect, like most of the US. When one wheel on a solid axle hits a bump, the camber on the other wheel is affected and there you go a- skittering. If you think that having a solid rear axle makes for better handling, give the folks at Porsche,BMW, Ferrari or Lamborgini a call; let them know that they are all wrong with their suspension design. Actually, thats part of a true muscle car. Muscele car? That term was applied to american made cars that had a high power to weigh ratio with gave good acceleration, and shoddy suspensions which made them straight line cars. Yes, the mustang is a muscle car. It even has a solid rear like all those 60's car. Too bad it doesn't have a irs like a sports car. "I also own a 2003 SVT Cobra, with an IRS. Ever hear the term wheel-hop? Well, thats what you get with an IRS. Its not all its cracked up to be." Ever heard of steering? Ever heard of axle chatter? Ever heard of Ford wanting to put an irs on the next gen of mustang? There are many reasons why no sports car uses a solid rear. If mustang owners don't know, more power to them.
Your comment about irs is entertaining at best. Because the Mustang does not have irs, its automatically bad, is that right? As I mentioned in a previous post, I own both the Mustang GT and the GTO. I'm a Pontiac guy, an officer of our Pontiac club. I've probably owned more GTO's and high performance Pontiacs than you have owned cars. However, I'll take the handling and fun to drive of the Mustang GT over the GTO any day of the week. It's not what you call it, but the total execution. For you to make these comments tells me that you have spent little time in the Mustang GT. I like my GTO, but it's not God's gift to handling. By your reasoning, that would make all irs bad. I'll agree with your comments that the interior of the GTO is all leather and of better quality than the GT. I agree the seats of the Mustang are not all leather either. I get tired of hearing all the cheap shots about the solid rear axle on the Mustang. That's where I take offense. I gues I'm just a Pontiac guy and Mustang owner that "just doesn't know". By the way, to all you guys, who in the hell cares how many screws are in the door panels of either car. Let's quit this negative stuff and start talking about the positives of both cars.
When the fact that the Mustang lacks an irs, mustang owners counter with arguements about launching and how solid axle gives comparable handling. Then, when reminded that solid axle gives inferior handling on less than perfect roads, and that NO sports car has a solid axle, what do they do? Well, rather than come up with some sports cars that do, or explain how the movement of one rear wheel throwing the camber off the other wheel, they always counter with vague statements like: "However, I'll take the handling and fun to drive of the Mustang GT over the GTO any day of the week. It's not what you call it, but the total execution." Hey, that's an opinion! If you think the mustang handles better and has "better execution", that's your opinion, your entitled to it. But the fact is that NO sports car has a solid axle because an independent rear can give better handling. I know this, you know this, even Ford knows this. That's a fact.If you disagree, post some sports cars that do have a solid rear. The upcoming Challenger and Camaro will have an IRS and from I have read, so will future mustangs. For now, the mustang has more in common with a sport truck than a sports car. Black and white statements like "Your comment about irs is entertaining at best. Because the Mustang does not have irs, its automatically bad, is that right?" imply desperation on your part. I have never said that anything makes the Mustang bad. I have said that the Mustang is made cheaper, and that the cheapness shows up in both the interior and the suspension design. As such, I have given examples to support that. I am not saying the Mustang is bad.
"But the fact is that NO sports car has a solid axle because an independent rear can give better handling."
True.
But one can't make the assumption that everything WITH an IRS is, by default, a sportscar. Case in point: the GTO.
The GTO is a lot of things; but a sportscar is NOT one of them.
You also stated (correctly) that an independant rear can give better handling. The operative word being "CAN". An independent rear DOESN'T GUARANTEE better handling; it just has the POTENTIAL to offer better handling.
Again, it all comes down to execution. A solid rear may not have the potential of an IRS, but it is entirely feasible that a well executed solid rear design CAN offer comparable (if not better) handling than a mediocre IRS design.
Hmm...:confuse: Based solely on the link you provided, the GTO only bested the Mustang in STRAIGHT LINE performance and breaking, which those 245/45 tires on the GTO had more to do with it than better brakes. The Mustang had better road holding and out-maneuvered the GTO despite the dinky 235/55 tires. It was nearly 2MPH faster in the lane change, 64.7 vs. 62.9.
Nope. It's that extra 100HP that gets the GTO around a track faster, not "superior" handling abilities.
Well if GM is finally using screws on their interiors thats great! It sure beats the bubble gum and paper clips they used on the Regal GS I used to own (not that much of a stretch), the rear door panels were coming off and there was a sticky substance all over them. All interiors should use screws or something that holds them permanently in place. My 87 5.0 LX was screwed together and never rattled after 120k. The interior of the Bullitt I own now is not put together as well. I personally would rather see a screw head here and there and not have any rattles!
So, let's see, for $8500 more for the Pontiac you get 100 more HP, a bit more rear seat room, and marginally better speed/performance. That's it. There's even less trunk space in the Pontiac, which is already pretty small in the Mustang.
By comparison, if you added 100 HP to a Mustang GT, it would kill the GTO, which, ummmm .... still looks like an insect. :shades:
PS. You can, if you so desire, add 100+ HP to a Mustang GT by supercharging it, for about $7k, e.g., Cal Labs and Rousche.
So how does a 32k GTO cost 8500 more than a comparably equipped Mustang GT that costs around 28k?
Plus you get a lot more rear seat room, and much better speed/performance. Like I have said, the Mustang is a nice car for the money, but you guys really need to stop deluding yourself to thinking it is a performance match for the GTO. And no, slalom numbers (that favor lighter cars) are not indictive of real world handling or track numbers, where the GTO has proven itself to be better.
Just comparing costs supplied in the Car & Driver link/review above: The GTO base price is more than $8500 more than the Mustang GT base price. Add $8500 of performance features to the GT, including a supercharger, thus making the cars comparable in base price, and the GT will eat the GTO for breakfast. :shades:
Well, I posted car and driver's summary and they concluded that the GTO was a better handling car. Forbes was a lot less kind than car and driver about the handling of the gt. No number of independentally conducted tests and reviews will convince you of the superior handling of the GTO. I posted a comparo showing the superior handling of the GTO, why don't you find one showing the contrary?
"Add $8500 of performance features to the GT, including a supercharger" Yup, that's the Ford answer to everything- just bolt on a supercharger. To hell with the warranty or emmsions testing, just throw on a blower! While you are at it, toss on an irs.BTW, you can get a GTO for around $30K so the difference is The blower, installed, will easily cost$5K that and even then, you won't have the better interior, suspension,and that getrag six speed tranny than is shared with the viper/'vette. More importantly, a comparably equipped GT will cost almost $30K! Hey, the two cars are almost the same price!
Comments
I HATE the over 70 warning on the GTO, and the two hour "Rest" chime sucks. Can I turn those off?
Does the GTO need high test vs the Stangs regular?
Yes those both can be turned off.
The GTO will actually run with regular, however it is not recommened and the PCM will retard timing and thus you will lose power. Stick with high octane.
From the 2005 Owners Manual, page 5-5:
Fuel
Use of the recommended fuel is an important part of the
proper maintenance of your vehicle.
Gasoline Octane
Use premium unleaded gasoline with a posted octane of
91 or higher for best performance. You may also use
middle grade or regular unleaded gasoline rated at
87 octane or higher, but your vehicle’s acceleration may
be slightly reduced. If the octane is less than 87, you
may get a heavy knocking noise when you drive. If this
occurs, use a gasoline rated at 87 octane or higher
as soon as possible. Otherwise, you might damage
your engine.
I put only premium in my car because one reason I bought it was for it's performance ability. It doesn't make a huge difference in the price of a fill up to go cheap.
Even the name "GTO" is an insult to that old great classic from the '60's.
performance - goes to the GTO
handling - the Mustang has quicker steering, but the GTO has been proven to outhandle the Mustang on a track
looks - I have a 68 Mustang, didn't need a not as good looking clone of it, plus I like the sleeper look of the GTO
exhaust sound - subjective
resale value - goes to the Mustang for now, but this will likely change in a couple years
fun factor - both are fun cars, but the car that performs the best (which is the GTO) was the most fun for me
So in conclusion, drive the car before you make another ridiculous post like that
If you look at the GTO vs. STi video here on Edmunds, you'll notice in the night shot that the GTO looks like it's rolling over on its rocker panels as it's coming around the bend. (Heck, it even looks like that in the daytime shots.) The Mustang GT doesn't roll like that in a corner. Until I actually read some credible reports that the GTO handles better than the Mustang GT on a cornering track, I have to disbelieve the claim that it handles better.
Now, if it's a track with a lot of straights and gentle curves, then yes, I will believe the GTO can beat it around a track like that. There's a lot to be said for 100 extra HP.
pony_pirate please listen to me now and hear me later:
ooo argh, it's the gto_pirate's life for me!
i'm thinking about drifting my goat around a road course -after it's out of warranty that is... are any of you mustang or goat peoples out there members of a local motorhead road course track/club? a road course might be a nice sort of place to race the clock and demonstrate the vast superiority of the goat on a road course compared to a mustang.
supposedly there will be no more new USA Monaro GTOs after 2006. the avatar oracle of goat information known here as hammen2 theorizes that there will be collector-car value for the 04-06 goats. i find that hard to believe and actually hope it is not true, because i like driving the car too much to be tempted to park it so it can accrue value for the collector market in a few years.
the latest gen mustangs might have collector car value in a few millennia when there will only be 5.023x10^22 of them remaining and rusting on cinderblocks instead of today's 6.023x10^23 mustangs which are all eating australian goat dust. that's what i'm talkin about.
thank you, you've been great, i'll be here all week.
Both the 2005 GTO and Mustang chassis have decent perfomance in their respective price ranges. :shades:
Just take the "race" at the end between the Monaro/GTO and the Mustang. Were you really surprised the Mustang lost? I mean, even if it was proven in other tests, reports, magazines, TV programs, whatever that the Mustang beat the car, do you think the Mustang would have won on that show? Again, it was Pontiac Test Drive. And by the way, the Mustang didn't lose by 3 - 4 car lengths like you had stated way back when; it was more like 1/2 - 1 at the most. Also, you must admit that both times were horrible, with both in the mid-6 second range. Again, the fact that they were not being driven by non-Pontiac affiliated guys/gals, but Pontiac mopes should have gave you a little clue of what was going to happen. Put Phil Hill, Andretti or the like on there and run a fair competition and see what happens. Run a competition like the guys from LMC (Legendary Motor Cars) ran on the big-block and small-block muscle/pony cars: heads-up, unbiased, run-em-like-you-brung-em stock configuration, let the best win and then that will end it all.
Sensai c'mon, you can't really be using that show to justify how supposedly great this car is and think people are going to believe it, can you?? :P
Again, not trying to start anything with you or anyone here, but I just couldn't sit back and let someone pull that Speed Channel mess back out and try to say that was real proof of the car's greatness. To me it was an embarrassment to Pontiac, and further caused the car to be thought of as something that it's not. It seemed Pontiac was trying to hard to sell the car, but didn't know how or who (market) it was going after. Doggone shame because the Monaro, and most of Holden's lineup for that matter, is damn good.
__________________________
05 Mustang GT Manual
JBA Shorty Headers, and Axle-back Exhaust
4:10 Gears
Vortech Supercharger
Custom SCT Tune
465 RWHP
Actually, it's spelled "decimate". At least you got "bury" correct.
Of course, you KNOW what the inevitable response will be: "why compare modified to stock? What are you trying to prove? Slap a supercharger on the GTO with 4.10 gears and THEN let's line up."
yawn.
Hate to tell you, but there are guys with superchargers and turbo's on the GTOs putting down more than 465rwhp, so you won't be burying them...
BTW, soon with the methanol injection kit added, I'll be well over 500 HP at the wheels, so bring on the turbo/supercharged GTO's.
Actually comparing stock is not quite all that fair either. Ive argued this before with friends, and I stand by it. You are taking to cars, one that has 100HP more than the other.
Thats like taking a BMW M3 with 333hp. and comparing it with a stock SRT-4 with like 220hp.
Take the 04 GTO with 350hp, and the Mustang spanked it.
Who said anything about fair?
My point was, this thread (like virtually every other 'x' vs. 'y' thread here in Edmunds) is predicated on the premise that the cars in the comparison are stock.
It just gets really pointless, really quick, if someone insists on comparing their modified car 'x' against a stock car 'y' in some misguided effort to 'prove' car 'x' is better.
Is that what you are saying? The Mustang, in general, is 'better' than the GTO because a modded Mustang can 'bury' a stock GTO? Uh, ok.
Or are you just saying that YOUR modded Mustang is 'better' than a stock GTO 'cuz you can 'bury' them. Well, that's really special.
Silly question #1: If you knew that whatever you bought, you were going to mod it, why chose the Mustang over the GTO? Wouldn't a blown GTO potentially be more bitchin' than a blown Mustang? In other words, if you knew you were gonna dump a blower in the engine bay regardless, why did you choose the Mustang.
Silly question #2: If you DIDN'T anticipate modding your Mustang, why did you choose it in the first place, and then why decide to mod it?
In other words, WHAT WAS IT ABOUT THE STOCK CARS that made you choose the Mustang over the GTO?
Yes, I knew I was going to mod my car. I chose my car, because I like how it drives, looks, and I just have always been a Mustang fan. The GTO just does not appeal to me in any way.
Look, all I was (initially) responding to was what I took to be an attempt on your part to come in here and talk a bunch of trash to the GTO folks for the SOLE reason of getting 'em all riled up.
Just look at the title on your post: "Open a can on a GTO".
Not only was it (IMO) juvenille, but IT'S BEEN DONE countless times and, frankly, it's boring. Okay, you did a bunch of mods to your GT and now you can smoke a GTO. Cool.
I just think the intent of the thread is NOT for various GTO/Mustang owners to come in here and talk trash at each other. If it is, I'm outta here. Instead, I think it's a place where folks can talk about the differences between the two (sometimes, even intelligently), perhaps inform folks who may be trying to decide between the two, and discuss where we think these vehicles are going over the next few years.
You bought you Mustang because you liked how it drove and looked and the GTO didn't appeal. Fine. I can't argue against that.
Just for the record, I like the looks of the Mustang better myself (although the GTO interior looks really nice), and I think that the performance of the Mustang is plenty for the street. I've owned a couple of Mustangs myself: a '93 LX5.0 and my current mustang (a '66 Ivy Green GT Fastback undergoing final restification :shades: ). So I have a soft spot in my head for Mustangs
But I'd certainly NOT begrudge anyone who bought a GTO and I always treat those I see in traffic with a healthy amount of respect. Plus, they've stopped looking so much like Cavaliers to my eye and starting looking MUCH better.
Mustangs are now at 111 selling days.
60 days is considered ideal.
I have noticed a lot of Mustangs on the dealer's lots here in SC.
And like I said, that post was not meant to mean I begrudge anyone who has one. Like I said, my friend had one, and actually, I was driving down the road one day and saw a guy with a GTO in his driveway, getting ready to leave, so I stopped and just starting talking to him about it.
The inside was nice, but as I said, just not my preference.
I guess another thing I don't like is how the GTO guys say how great their car is because it can confortably fit 4 people. I paid for a sports car, thats what I expect, and to me, a true sports car, doesn't fit 4 people comfortably. Sure, I have a backseat... lol, but try getting someone in there taller then like, 4ft, its not too fun.
It really is all a matter of preference. Like you, I have a thing for Mustangs. I would love to see your 66, have any pics? My father use to own a 69 Mach 1. B-E-A-UTIFUL car.
Same here. I've been in a GTO and, IMO, there's NO WAY anybody over the age of 12 or more than 5' tall is going to "comfortably fit" in the back seat of it.
Another thing that sticks in my craw is when they talk about interior materials. Again, I've been in a GTO and, IMO, its materials are not one bit better than the Mustang's. Just as much hard plastic and probably more. And the particular one I was in didn't have the marvelous fit-and-finish that some of the GTO folks rave about. It looks much better in pictures.
Another thing that sticks in my craw is when they talk about interior materials. Again, I've been in a GTO and, IMO, its materials are not one bit better than the Mustang's. Just as much hard plastic and probably more. And the particular one I was in didn't have the marvelous fit-and-finish that some of the GTO folks rave about. It looks much better in pictures.
I'm sorry, but you have not been in a GTO. While it is a pain to get into the back seat, once there full size adults easily fit comfortably. And just as much hard plastic? Not even close. Maybe you got confused and sat in a Cavaliar instead :P
As for the interior, the GTO is way, way better quality. For example, the interior is ALL leather. Those seats just don't have leather "seating" surfaces; the whole seat, front, back, headrest, is all leather. Even the console lid that your rest your arm on , is covered with leather! Can the same be said about the mustang interior?
The quality extends to areas you can't see. For example, the door panals are secured with screws, not snaps.Guess which car won't have door rattles down the road?
In response to dclark2, screws are a nice, secure way to attach door panels, but which door panel do you think will experience cracks in the future, the one held rigidly in place with screws or the one with the tabs that have more stress tolerance? Rattles are easy to fix (once you find them). Cracks can't reasonably be fixed. You'll have to replace the panel or do a nasty looking patch job. Replacement panels for foreign cars cost a lot of money.
GTO easily has the most backseat legroom of any of the Coupes in it's price range.
I don't know what the poster is talking about.
It just seems incredible to me that someone would argue a point that can be measured objectively.
I almost didn't reply to the comment it was so off base.
I do know that if you put the seat back all the way in the Mustang the space is so small that you can't even get your leg back there much less your feet.
As for rear room, here are the specs:
.
Mustang GTO
Rear Shoulder Room 53.4 in. 51.7 in.
Rear Hip Room 46.8 in. 50.2 in.
Rear Leg Room 30.3 in. 37.1 in.
The difference in leg room is incredible! The GTO has almost 7" more leg room! The GTO has more leg room than a Honda Accord! If you think the Mustang has more room in the the back, then you haven't looked at a GTO.
I have no idea of what an RL is like in the back and really could care less. I know that mustang rear seat is only suitable for dwarfs and small kids.
The lack of an all leather interior, cheap snap fitting door panals and solid rear axle are only a few of the many qualities that make the mustang what it is- a cheap uncomfortable car.If you want to believe that the mustang has a more comfortable rear seat, better ride, better handling, better power, better interior quality, by all means, keep believing. Don't look at the facts and the numbers, just go buy the thing and have fun. In three years it will be like any other mustang- I let you find out for yourself what that means...
Umm... I sure do wish you would show me where I ever said any of that.
But anyway, yep, in 3 or 4 years, the Mustang will probably have pretty low resale, but so will the GTO; especially considering that it already has lower resale than the Mustang despite being more "rare." You can find out for yourself as well. I could sell my GT for more than a new GTO, but it won't be that way in a few years.
... The lack of an all leather interior, cheap snap fitting door panals and solid rear axle are only a few of the many qualities that make the mustang what it is- a cheap uncomfortable car. ...
The tone of that statement makes it what it is, a cheap shot. How do you know which method the Mustang's panels are attached? Have you taken one apart? And who are you to decide what's comfortable and what's not? For all I know, you're a midget and the GTO is cavernous for you. I, being 6' tall, would NOT want to be in the back seat of a GTO any more than I'd want to be in the back seat of a Mustang. And where does it say the GTO has all this leather you're talking about?? I see no mention of leather on the console or doors, only the front and rear buckets (and shift knob); and I'd bet money it's just leather "trimmed." But, yeah, the Mustang is cheap. Funny how it works out that you have to pay more to get one than the GTO, though, huh?
Anyway, though, there's no need for all the cheap shots. Just because I don't think what you guys are saying is true doesn't mean you have to take it so personally. Gee wiz! I don't feel the rear seats are comfortable and there's nothing short of GM adding some space back there that's going to change my mind. That doesn't mean you have to get all huffy and lob attacks at the Mustang, especially when I NEVER said any of that stuff you imply that I did. :confuse:
I think it's great that the demand is still so high and that it's still not too easy to get one (the GT, anyway). But everybody knows there will be plenty on the market in 3 or 4 years, not to mention a redesign/refreshening by then.
Even after the amount sold, it's still not too common to see a Mustang on the road and GTs are very rarely spotted. There are 3 GTOs at my work. I've only seen my GT at work (when I drive it) and 2 or 3 V6s. Certainly not the "Mustang on every corner" that certain people claim. Let's not forget there's still probably less than 200K on the road spread out over the entire planet. :surprise: That's what I call spreading it thin!
Solid-rear axle...? Cheap? Whats that about? Do a little digging and you will see that many great racecars have been built with solid rear axles. Actually, thats part of a true muscle car. I also own a 2003 SVT Cobra, with an IRS. Ever hear the term wheel-hop? Well, thats what you get with an IRS. Its not all its cracked up to be.
Gee, do you think a dealer would let me take apart a door? Get real!
"Because if you have, then you are just simply lying. The doors are held on by 4 bolts on the bottom, and 2 bolts on either side. (Hinge, and lock area) Thats 8 bolts."
The outer edge of the GTO door panal alone has 11 screws. Then are the ones behind the trim. Sorry, mustang loses.
"The interior is also leather, all the seats, and the shift knob."
Nope, obviously you don't know what the difference is between leather and pleather. The mustang has leather "seating surfaces", the GTO has ALL leather, seats front AND back, shifter, wheel, AND console. If you can't tell that the Mustang lacks that, then Ford did a good job of going cheap there.
Solid-rear axle...? Cheap? Whats that about? Do a little digging and you will see that many great racecars have been built with solid rear axles.
Ooh, sorry, but I don't drive on a race track, do you? The roads where I live aren't perfect, like most of the US. When one wheel on a solid axle hits a bump, the camber on the other wheel is affected and there you go a- skittering.
If you think that having a solid rear axle makes for better handling, give the folks at Porsche,BMW, Ferrari or Lamborgini a call; let them know that they are all wrong with their suspension design.
Actually, thats part of a true muscle car. Muscele car? That term was applied to american made cars that had a high power to weigh ratio with gave good acceleration, and shoddy suspensions which made them straight line cars. Yes, the mustang is a muscle car. It even has a solid rear like all those 60's car. Too bad it doesn't have a irs like a sports car.
"I also own a 2003 SVT Cobra, with an IRS. Ever hear the term wheel-hop? Well, thats what you get with an IRS. Its not all its cracked up to be."
Ever heard of steering? Ever heard of axle chatter? Ever heard of Ford wanting to put an irs on the next gen of mustang? There are many reasons why no sports car uses a solid rear. If mustang owners don't know, more power to them.
Then, when reminded that solid axle gives inferior handling on less than perfect roads, and that NO sports car has a solid axle, what do they do?
Well, rather than come up with some sports cars that do, or explain how the movement of one rear wheel throwing the camber off the other wheel, they always counter with vague statements like:
"However, I'll take the handling and fun to drive of the Mustang GT over the GTO any day of the week. It's not what you call it, but the total execution."
Hey, that's an opinion! If you think the mustang handles better and has "better execution", that's your opinion, your entitled to it. But the fact is that NO sports car has a solid axle because an independent rear can give better handling. I know this, you know this, even Ford knows this. That's a fact.If you disagree, post some sports cars that do have a solid rear. The upcoming Challenger and Camaro will have an IRS and from I have read, so will future mustangs. For now, the mustang has more in common with a sport truck than a sports car.
Black and white statements like "Your comment about irs is entertaining at best. Because the Mustang does not have irs, its automatically bad, is that right?" imply desperation on your part. I have never said that anything makes the Mustang bad. I have said that the Mustang is made cheaper, and that the cheapness shows up in both the interior and the suspension design. As such, I have given examples to support that. I am not saying the Mustang is bad.
True.
But one can't make the assumption that everything WITH an IRS is, by default, a sportscar. Case in point: the GTO.
The GTO is a lot of things; but a sportscar is NOT one of them.
You also stated (correctly) that an independant rear can give better handling. The operative word being "CAN". An independent rear DOESN'T GUARANTEE better handling; it just has the POTENTIAL to offer better handling.
Again, it all comes down to execution. A solid rear may not have the potential of an IRS, but it is entirely feasible that a well executed solid rear design CAN offer comparable (if not better) handling than a mediocre IRS design.
Here you go:
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article_id=8908&page_numbe- r=4
Nope. It's that extra 100HP that gets the GTO around a track faster, not "superior" handling abilities.
By comparison, if you added 100 HP to a Mustang GT, it would kill the GTO, which, ummmm .... still looks like an insect. :shades:
PS. You can, if you so desire, add 100+ HP to a Mustang GT by supercharging it, for about $7k, e.g., Cal Labs and Rousche.
Plus you get a lot more rear seat room, and much better speed/performance. Like I have said, the Mustang is a nice car for the money, but you guys really need to stop deluding yourself to thinking it is a performance match for the GTO. And no, slalom numbers (that favor lighter cars) are not indictive of real world handling or track numbers, where the GTO has proven itself to be better.
I posted a comparo showing the superior handling of the GTO, why don't you find one showing the contrary?
"Add $8500 of performance features to the GT, including a supercharger"
Yup, that's the Ford answer to everything- just bolt on a supercharger. To hell with the warranty or emmsions testing, just throw on a blower! While you are at it, toss on an irs.BTW, you can get a GTO for around $30K so the difference is The blower, installed, will easily cost$5K that and even then, you won't have the better interior, suspension,and that getrag six speed tranny than is shared with the viper/'vette. More importantly, a comparably equipped GT will cost almost $30K! Hey, the two cars are almost the same price!