Ford Mustang (2005) vs. 2005 Pontiac GTO



  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    There is a family resemblence between the GP and GTO but thats as far as it goes. I wouldn't say that they look more alike than the new Mustang and an old one. As has been pointed out repeatedly by you guys, the Mustang, any Mustang, is instantly recognizable. It looks like a Mustang to me but no particular one. It looks more like a cross between a first and second generation.
  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    'never seen a stock GTO outrun a stock Mustang'. Well, that's interesting. That's the sort of feedback we've been looking for.
  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    If the GTO had a hood prop I probably would still have gotten it and chalked it up to another weird thing about the GTO. I just don't like them though. My wife's Pathfinder has it and it drives me crazy.
  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    This is what I am talking about. Check out the original GT500. That to me is one of the best looking (and performing) cars in the world of all time. Now look at the new one. Talk about bland styling. All it does is take some features from the original and add them on to a bland modern coupe. I guess the word I'm looking for is character. The new one has no character. Just look at the picture. That's why I'm happy with the GTO. It's not trying to be something it's not. It's got bland modern styling and not weak imitation styling.
  • benderofbowsbenderofbows Member Posts: 542
    Why you would defend a car, the 2005 Mustang, that you told me you don't even OWN is besides me, LOL! Kind of hillarious.

    What fun would this site be if everyone could only talk about the cars they actually had? What about the GT500, I guess we can't talk about that because it's not out yet and no one actually has one. Go tell the entire Future Vehicles board to pack it up, they can't discuss what they don't have.

    Besides, I have enough experience to write about the 2005s. I almost bought one, got a new leftover 2004 instead. Did plenty of research complete with a thorough test drive! My Fiancee had a 2001 that was totaled, and she wanted another one of the same body style.
  • benderofbowsbenderofbows Member Posts: 542
    This is what I am talking about. Check out the original GT500. That to me is one of the best looking (and performing) cars in the world of all time. Now look at the new one. Talk about bland styling. All it does is take some features from the original and add them on to a bland modern coupe. I guess the word I'm looking for is character. The new one has no character. Just look at the picture. That's why I'm happy with the GTO. It's not trying to be something it's not. It's got bland modern styling and not weak imitation styling.

    So a bland modern coupe that takes some features from the original has no character, but a bland modern coupe with no features does have character?
  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    Yeah, Ford is overworking the supercharger. Here again, the original had 427 cubes and two 4bbls. Compared to a supercharged 5.4, well, there is no comparison. The performance is similar I'm sure but the exhaust notes will be different. A rumble compared to a wheez. Don't get me wrong. I love superchargers. But not compared to a 427. And come on. After Ford bought Jaguar, they put a supercharged 4.6 in the flagship model. Would you pay $80K or more for a Jaguar with a Ford motor?

    The next logical step would be to drop the LS7 into the GTO. LS7 = 427. Oh yeah, sounds good to me. But there isn't enough time to get it into the '06 and now there's no '07. Oh well. Now, if Pontiac had only listened to me there would be that rear wheel drive Grand Prix to carry on. I'm sure there will be some other car besides the Corvette to get the LS7. If not then GM has lost the hp war.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    Mustang is nice, and I'm sure the GT500 will rock but is not worth a $40k+ tag in my opinion. Not when someone can buy the base for $19k. or V8 base for $25k

    That's some oddball logic. Why did people buy $33K+ Camaro SS/Trans AM WS6 (or $40K+ Firehawk) when they could buy an $18K V6 version of the same car?

    On that same token, AMG and BMW's M division need to just close up shop. Why by a $50K+ M3 when you can buy a base 3-series for $27K? Why buy a $70K+ M5 when you can buy a base 5-series for $40K? Why on Earth would anyone pay $80K+ for an E55 AMG when they could buy a base E350 for $50K?

    Come on now. Get real, dude.

    And about that interior and the car not being worth $40K; have you even seen pictures of the GT500? Did you noticed the leather covered dash? Did you notice the different guage fonts? Did you notice the different seat pattern?

    Did you notice the new wheels and tires? Did you notice the different ground effects? Did you notice the completely different front end? Did you notice the lowered suspension? Did you notice the different paint scheme? Did you notice the rear spoiler and lower diffuser?

    Did you even see pictures of the car?? :confuse:
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "Here again, the original had 427 cubes and two 4bbls."

    Actually, the original GT500 (from 1967 thru about 68-1/2) had the 428. Rumor has it that a FEW of the original cars had 427's swapped in by some dealers. Later half of 1968, the cars were GT500KR's which had the 428 Cobrajet engines.

    I'm not aware of any GT500's being equipped with the 427 Sideoiler from the factory.

    Also, the LS7 in the upcoming ZO6 actually displaces closer to 428 ci. Chevy refers to it as a '427' for marketing reasons.....and since that 'sounds good' to you, I would say that the GM marketing folks have you pretty much figured out. It's all about the numbers......
  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    I didn't say that. But its true. A bland modern coupe has character. Bland character. Remember, a lot of us bought the '04 GTO because it isn't flashy and doesn't attract attention. Of course it does attract attention but people have to be close enough to see the GTO badge or the 5.7 in the rear and then you get stares and double takes.
  • benderofbowsbenderofbows Member Posts: 542
    You said they are both bland modern coupes. You also said that the Mustang has no character. One bland modern coupe has features from the original. The other has badges. How do badges give more character than features from the original (which you admit had character)?
  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    You are right. The GT500KR came along in 68. The 67 had the 427. I had forgotten that.

    I'm not a gearhead so I don't know why but I read the Sideoiler was superior to another Ford 427 but maybe it was the 428 it was being compared to.

    I heard the LS7 was a 428 but since that sounded too Fordish they are calling it a 427. Using the rule of thumb someone here gave me to convert from liters to cubes, multiply liters by 61. So 7 x 61 = 427. I know that's only an approximation but it's good enough for me. 427/428, it doesn't matter. Either one has that ring to it, unlike uh, 5.4. And like I said, it sounds like a big block...
  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    I said the GTO is bland. Only when someone gets close enough to see the badge, then it becomes a curiosity or a conversation starter. "GTO? I didn't know they made a GTO now or 5.7, gee that's a big motor nowadays", blah, blah blah. But now that you bring it up, the GTO badge compared to what's on the side of a Mustang (which could be any of probably more than a dozen insignias) is much cooler.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    Actually, the 67 GT500's had the 428 also. I'm not aware that any GT500's had the 427 motor from the factory. As stated earlier, I believe some cars had engine swaps performed by some dealers' prior to customer delivery (somewhat like what Yenko was doing with some early Camaros). The 427 was (is) an expensive motor. A large portion of the original 427 Shelby Cobras also had 428's in lieu of 427's.

    AFAIK, there was only one 427 FE from Ford (although it could be had with several different head/intake/carb configurations). There was even a SOHC version (infamous 'Cammer' 427). On second thought, I think there were at least two different 427 blocks; the differences being the way the oil was plumbed through the block (hence the 'standard' 427 and the 'sideoiler' 427. The 'sideoiler' may have come about due to oiling problems with the standard 427's used in Nascar. Not sure about that.)

    The difference between the 428 family and the 427 was the 428 has a smaller bore/longer stroke for more low end torque while the 427 made a lot more top end power due to it's shorter stroke/higher rpm capability. The 427 may have been the 'better' motor (define 'better' for 100 pts.....) but the 428 was probably more streetable and more in character with a comparitively heavy car like the orginal GT500s due to it's better low-end torque. I've also heard that the 428 crank will fit in a 427 block to give a displacement of 454 ci. Hmmmmm, a little to "GM" for my tastes....

    As far as the upcoming LS7: from C&D's preview, it states the motor displaces 7008cc (427.6 ci). And yes, for GM fans, a "427" sounds much better than 428. Of course, Ford was guilty for YEARS of refering to the old 302 as a "5.0 liter" when it was actually closer to a 4.9.

    Okay - back on topic. Everybody can now return to the endless "my car rocks, your car sux" back and forth.....
  • benderofbowsbenderofbows Member Posts: 542
    I said the GTO is bland.

    You called them both bland! Your quote follows:

    Check out the original GT500. That to me is one of the best looking (and performing) cars in the world of all time. Now look at the new one. Talk about bland styling. All it does is take some features from the original and add them on to a bland modern coupe.

    You're not making a cohesive argument. You say the original GT500 was one of the best looking cars in the world of all time. But you call the new GT500 "bland" for being a "bland modern coupe" with features from the original added on? Wasn't the old GT500 just a Mustang GT with added features? Would the new GT500 be recognizable as a Carroll Shelby if it looked completely different?

    So the new GT500 is bland, but you argue that you like the GTO more because it is "bland." Huh?
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    I think you are mis-reading (a bit) what sputterguy was saying. Obviously, when he says "all it does it take some features from the original and add them on to a bland modern coupe", he means that Ford took only the BLAND features from the original GT500 and applied them to the new car, cleverly leaving the interesting styling features behind. Maybe what the Mustang needs is more scoops/vents/louvers. Perhaps if they had some nice, heavy, ribbed body cladding (popular on Pontiacs of mid-90's vintage), then the Mustang and GTO wouldn't be so bland anymore.

    I'm just curious what is his idea of a non-bland modern coupe? So far, we know his opinion regarding the Mustang (bland) and the GTO (bland).
  • atvdraggeratvdragger Member Posts: 26
    That is $3000 and me doing all the work in my machine shop on my wife's '05 GT. By the way it surely is not gutted ,every factory option is still intact. That includes the A/C, cruise , and the automatic tranny. Of course that also means the smog stuff. Thank you very much. All this did kill the warranty of course. OH WELL! If you want to play you have to pay somewhere.
  • hammen2hammen2 Member Posts: 1,284
    Did you say you are in Georgia somewhere? What tracks do you go to? I know of a few Georgia-based GTO owners (including one who is a Catholic priest - very cool guy) who would love to run their GTOs there...
  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    I'm going to have to do some checking. I'm sure the first GT500's had the 427. Everyone I knew at the time thought it had a 427. I was more into it back then and paid more attention. In fact, I bought my first Mustang in '67. I'm amazed to hear that the 427 Cobra actually had some 428's in them.

    Now that you mention it, the SOHC was the other engine I was thinking about.

    That makes sense about the 428 being more streetable since it ended up in lesser Mustangs such as the Mach 1's. Plus, at least what I read was that it only had 390hp, which could easily have been a lie from Ford. These days, some car companies (I'm not talking Ford or Pontiac) overstate their horsepower. Back in those days the car companies lied about the horsepower by claiming less horsepower than there really was. Those were the good old days...
  • brushbanditbrushbandit Member Posts: 33
    At my local tracks I have yet to see a stock 05 Mustang beat a stock 04 or 05 GTO. What does your wifes car do in the 1/4 or 1/8 and what did you do to it?
  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    You're twisting my words. Yes, the GT500 looks to me like a bland modern coupe with stripes and scoops and lots of other cladding. I guess I like the old GT500 because I like the base model better. I've said that before. They have more character or something. No, the new GT500 wouldn't be recognizable if it had a different body style. And no, its not bland, it garish. It looks like a bland base model with lots of cladding. Frankly, it looks like a cheap knockoff. Too bad we can't hear from an owner of an original what they think of the new one.

    Yes, I like the bland styling of the GTO. I bought one because of the engine, not the body style. And I don't want it wrapped in a lot of cladding. And like most owners, I can't stand even the spoiler.

    Got it now?
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    I believe Motor Trend just tested a 2005 Mustang GT with a Vortech supercharger that was making 410 horsepower. Guess what? The 0-60 and 1/4 mile time were not much faster then a stock GTO. Here were the test results from the magazine for the Votech GT

    410hp Vortech Mustang GT from Motor Trend
    0-60mph in 4.6 seconds
    1/4 mile 13 seconds at 108.5 mph

    400hp GTO STOCK!! From Pontiac/GM Brochure
    0-60mph in 4.6 seconds
    1/4 mile 13 seconds at 108mph
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    I read that the new GT500 which will be priced from $40k to $45k will still feature a SOLID rear axle, Ford Cost cutting. Ford said that the better handling that IRS axle would allow was NOT enough to overcome the extra cost associated with it, so they will stick with the solid rear.

    Yes every car mfg does cost cuts on their cars, but no IRS on a $45k car?? Even the $35k or less Cobra had IRS.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    I know we're probably getting more and more off topic, but....

    I did some further checking regarding the 427 in the early Shelby GT500's. In 1967, all GT500's had the 428. Apparantly, in 1968, three (3) early GT500's left the factory with 427 sideoilers; the remainder had the 428. In mid-1968, production switched to the 428CJ (for the GT500KR models). Also, there were apparently NO dealer installed 427's in lieu of the factory 428 (although a number of cars later had the 428's pulled in favor of 427's but this was after delivery to the owner). I don't have access to my copy of the Shelby America Registry anymore so I can't confirm the three cars receiving factory 427's in 1968 or what their vin #'s were.

    Lord, I wonder what THOSE three cars would be worth today if properly documented :surprise:
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    Leftovers are good, usually you get a good deal, did that on a few of my cars. You didn't want to wait for the 2005 stang though? I almost did the same thing with the GTO, I wanted a 2004, but then I heard they were doing the scoupes, extra 50hp, bigger brakes, double exhaust outlets etc for 2005 so I waited. Besides dealers were trying to put outrageous markups on 2004 at first, LOL! Good thing I waited.
  • benderofbowsbenderofbows Member Posts: 542
    Yea I suppose you are right sputter, Carroll Shelby obviously just totally screwed the new one up didn't he. I mean, they shouldn't have even let him near the thing, huh. What was he thinking / what an idiot. Maybe Ford should not have renewed their relationship with him at all, he is obviously blind or crazy to think that his new GT500 is appealing to the eye. They should have made him just go somewhere and wait to die instead of giving him the opportunity with the design process for the new Cobra and GT500. I bet you could do better with a "bland" modern coupe in your backyard. Oh yea I forgot, these modern coupes are supposed to bland, they aren't supposed to have style. The GT500 shouldn't have stripes to remind you of Shelby's fabulous racing history. It shouldn't have scoops to allude to the powerful motor (doesn't the new GTO have scoops?) and certainly no ground effects to help reduce lift. Ford should have just made a 2-door Taurus and put the S/C 5.4 in that and called that the GT500, with only some badges. That would have made Carroll Shelby proud. And, no one would know there were GT500s around again until they got right up on one. Sounds great.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    Now you're comparing test results from a magazine against the quoted times in a brochure? :confuse:

    Wouldn't it be at least somewhat better to compare M/T's results for the Mustang with the Vortech against M/T's results for the '05 GTO?
  • benderofbowsbenderofbows Member Posts: 542
    My fiancee just bought the 2004 this weekend! Only one left within about 200 miles. Plenty of 2005's everywhere. I loved the 2005 and was set to buy one of those, it would not have been that much more expensive. But she was so sentimentally attached to her old one that she wanted another one like it. She did not care about the new chassis and improved engines and transmissions, etc. Just liked the look of hers. Women! Well, at least she likes cars.

    I made myself feel better about her decision by noting that the 2004 Mustangs were ranked higher for reliability than any other American car for in Consumer Reports, and the new ones have had a few of the typical first-model-year Ford quirks. And, when it comes time to trade my Explorer, I can get what I want without listening to her! LOL
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    tayl0rd writes.....And about that interior and the car not being worth $40K; have you even seen pictures of the GT500?......

    Even Better I saw the GT500 upclose in person at the NY autoshow , big crowd around it Red with white stripes even better then pictures. Nice car, but not worth $40k to $45k to me in my opinion. To you or others it might be. Thats cool.

    In Austrailia they make a $45k version of the GTO, extra features, but still that would not be worth it to me either. To much $$
  • benderofbowsbenderofbows Member Posts: 542
    I drove a V6 and really liked it. They now have the tourquey engine from my Explorer. Felt very fast in the Mustang, as fast as some of the older V8 Automatics. I have heard that with a manual, V6s are getting to 60 in about 7 seconds flat. That's not bad for $19k.

    Hey, there was a V6 in the original Mustang. Why can't they offer one now?
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    I don't think Motor Trend tested a 2005 GTO yet, only the 2004 model which had 50 less horse. I betcha the stock GTO is almost as fast as the Vortch GT with 410hp. With 1 or 2 tenths, close.
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    The V6 Stang is quite fast at nearly 6.9 seconds. It almost makes the same horse as the older V8 ones in the 215 to 225 range and has 5 spd auto. But the problem is that it's crude and unrefined and loud when you Stomp on it. My brother had an explorer with that engine, it was ok for power/drivability, but not refined at all. Far from it.
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    Good choice, always beware a first year car, esp. american, LOL! Though the parts in the 2005 stang are proven in a way, chassis, tranny is partially from Lincoln LS. Time will tell. Hopefully it holds together well.

    CR doesn't have any data on GTO for reliability, not enough of them, LOL!
  • oldboboldbob Member Posts: 41
    I think it was am in-line six.
  • atvdraggeratvdragger Member Posts: 26
    No problem. If he's from around here He'll know where i'm talking about.The main one is twiggs county or recently rename Macon dragway, It's one of those out-of-the-way place. Ocationally you'll find homegrown celebs. there, they let there hair down and not be bothered by autogragh seekers. Another is the Silverdollar Raceway in Renolds. If you want to do some betting you can go to Eatonton, or Jackson, both low rent waaaay out in the woods. Tell them to come on down and have some fun.
  • benderofbowsbenderofbows Member Posts: 542
    You're right, it bet it was!
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    It was a 200 cubic inch in-lline 6 cylinder rated at only Pre SAE 1972 120 horse, LOL! By today's standards about 100 horse.
  • graphicguygraphicguy Edmunds Poster EmeritusMember Posts: 13,599
    Although I think this is getting a bit silly since the GTO and the '05 Mustang GT's straight line performance is almost identical, MT did test the '05 GTO and the '05 Mustang GT.

    Their results....

    GTO--0-60 in 5.0 secs, 1/4 in 13.3 secs
    '05 Mustang GT--0-60 in 5.1 secs, 1/4 in 13.5 secs

    '04 GTO was tested by MT as follows....0-60 in 5.5 secs, 1/4 in 13.9 secs

    Once again, regarding the solid rear of the Mustang in Shelby stated before, Ford did such a good job with it in the '05 Mustang, they saw no need to change it to a more expensive and more complicated IRS set-up. Matter of fact, there was no gain in handling by using an IRS. That's just good engineering.

    Carry on the debates if you must......
    2022 Honda Accord Hybrid Touring
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    Graphicguy writes.......
    Once again, regarding the solid rear of the Mustang in Shelby stated before, Ford did such a good job with it in the '05 Mustang, they saw no need to change it to a more expensive and more complicated IRS set-up. Matter of fact, there was no gain in handling by using an IRS. That's just good engineering.......

    No, it was cost cutting on the Mustang to not use an IRS, as per the 38 yr old Hau Thai-Tang, head engineer of the 2005 Mustang program...
    The Mustang almost wasn't foaled over the issue of rear suspension. "We couldn't make a profitable business case" because the complex independent rear suspension cost too much, Thai-Tang says. The team didn't want to return to a so-called solid or live rear axle, but, "It was a hard choice we knew we had to make. (CEO) Bill Ford is a Mustang fan, but he didn't cut us any slack" on profit margins.

    END OF STORY on the Rear. NO more debates. This proves it was cost cutting plain and simple, Like I have been trying to tell you. Here it is. . His team wanted to usre IRS but wasnt' allowed to do to $$ LOL!
  • benderofbowsbenderofbows Member Posts: 542
    An excellent article by Edmunds praising the Mustang, past and present. It also has some good info about some of GM's mistakes and Ford's current relationship with Carroll Shelby. It even pokes a few jabs at the GTO. Needless to say I enjoyed it :)

  • benderofbowsbenderofbows Member Posts: 542
    Well gunit, they don't change out to an IRS to go racing, and it still wins! And they aren't going to put IRS in the Cobra or GT500 because, as graphicguy said, they just don't see the advantage of doing so. Sure, they may have done it to save costs, but they also knew it wouldn't compromise handling.

    If they can save money by using a component that does just as good of a job as a more expensive component, how is that bad?
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    Decent article.... They fail to mention that insurance on Mustangs is high too. Higher then GTO. In my case.

    The 2005 GTO is meeting it's 1,000 car per month sales quotas. My dealer doesn't get anymore until Late May. Sold them all. Not bad for a car that hasn't been really advertised, pretty dumb of GM. They spend millions advertising the G6 and Solstice though. Speaking of which I read the Solstice sold 1,000 preorders in 41 minutes! Due out in early June.

    Mustang will always outsell the GTO because it starts nearly $14k cheaper. $19k vs $33k. It would be interesting to see if GM could have made a cheaper/dumbed down version of the GTO and if they really advertised it, LOL! Many of the Mustangs are cheap V6 models driven by teeny boppers, High School students etc, in my area.
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    Why did the Mustang engineer want to use IRS then if it offers NO benefit at all over solid axle? I have to disagree with you so did the Ford engineer, but he got shot down over cost cutting. IRS is better for all driving condiitions. More comfortable ride etc. Solid rears only advantage over IRS is at 1/4 mile strip. What cars cost $40k+ with a solid rear axle? Ford should have put IRS in GT500 at least.
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    For 2004 roughly two-thirds of Mustang sales were V-6 models; about the same percentage have automatic transmissions.

    GTO is roughly about 53% manual and 47% Automatic tranny for 2004.
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    The GTO-R with 450hp is expected to do quite well too in racing. They began testing it in January.
  • benderofbowsbenderofbows Member Posts: 542
    Well, I like the contrast that the article made between the cancellation of the Camaro and the launch of the GTO. In fact, I remember that some of the first comments on these forums which I read about the GTO, when it was still a future car, were from Camaro owners complaining that the GTO used the same engine but was heavier and cost more because of options they didn't want (I.E, they were viewing it as GM's replacement for their SS and Z28s, but did not consider it suitable).

    Camaros had "dumbed down" versions comparable in pricing to the Mustang and still couldn't keep up with the Mustang in sales.
  • benderofbowsbenderofbows Member Posts: 542
    I just don't think that an IRS is going to make all the difference between a 450hp GTO-R and a 450hp GT500 on the racetrack.
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    Too bad the F Bodies bowed out in 2002. That said....

    The GTO is a far superior riding car with a much better build quality and interior then the Camaro ever had. GTO is way more luxury then Camaro. Not to mention the GTO actually has a usable backseat then can fit full grown adults, LOL! Try that in a Camaro, knees in the seats. This is why the GTO costs more. Too bad GM doesn't have a lower priced version of it. Don't forget the top of the line F Bodies Firehawk etc in 2002 were nearly $35k also!! They didn't have the 400hp or 400 torque of the GTO either. Also high INsurance on Camaros, almost higher then Mustangs. Esp for younger people.

    Lets not forget the 2001 Cobra, where Ford Mis-stated the horsepower either.
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    The more Mustangs that Ford sells might come back to hurth them as well... esp the V8 models..... The Mustang is below the 27.5 mpg CAFEaverage and so each Mustang that is sold hurts the Ford CAFE standard. The more Mustangs that Ford sells is actually bad for Ford as it relates to the CAFE. Ford can either sell more Focus vehicles to boost the average, sell fewer Mustangs, or raise the fuel efficiency of the Mustang.

    just a thought, LOL!
  • graphicguygraphicguy Edmunds Poster EmeritusMember Posts: 13,599
    Thai-Tang also said about their engineering of the solid rear over IRS.....

    "We've got good geometry and good shock-motion ratios, and we're happy with the suspension we have. We won't hesitate to have you do a driving comparison against IRS-suspended competitors".

    I was originally critical of Ford for sticking to the solid rear. I DID compare the IRS of the GTO against the solid rear of the Mustang GT. I came to the conclusion that the Mustang GT handles better than the GTO.....regardless of the differences in the rear suspension.

    Road & Track tester, Matt DeLorenzo stated about the entire chasis/suspension....

    "The design is similar to that used on the legendary BMW M3. As BMW has proven time and again, executing a simple design deftly can work as well or better than more complex and costly bits. It's a lesson the Mustang team has taken to heart. Overall, the rear end feels as planted as independent rear suspensions and yet is less costly, lighter and more robust (than IRS)."

    I concur. insurance bill would cost me more if I had bought a GTO.

    Truth told, regarding CAFE, both GM and Ford could do much more by limiting truck and SUV sales to meet the averages than limiting sales of Mustang GTs or GTOs.
    2022 Honda Accord Hybrid Touring
This discussion has been closed.