Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Ford Mustang (2005) vs. 2005 Pontiac GTO



  • sensaisensai Posts: 129
    Two questions remain.

    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:

    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.
  • dat2dat2 Posts: 251
    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.
  • jpiatchekjpiatchek Posts: 177
    By the way, have you driven the new GTO?
  • sensaisensai Posts: 129
    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
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,926
    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.
  • sensaisensai Posts: 129
    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.
  • eliaselias Posts: 2,120
    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.
  • usa2usa2 Posts: 14
    Don't tell that to BMW. They have been getting $$ for superior chassis design and perfomance for decades.

    Both the 2005 GTO and Mustang chassis have decent perfomance in their respective price ranges. :shades:
  • jae5jae5 Posts: 1,206
    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.
  • cobragtcobragt Posts: 95
    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.

    05 Mustang GT Manual
    JBA Shorty Headers, and Axle-back Exhaust
    4:10 Gears
    Vortech Supercharger
    Custom SCT Tune
    465 RWHP
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "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."

  • sensaisensai Posts: 129
    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.
  • sensaisensai Posts: 129
    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...
  • cobragtcobragt Posts: 95
    Did I say ALL GTO's? Nope I don't think I did. There is always someone bigger and better out there, but thanks for the obvious.

    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.
  • cobragtcobragt Posts: 95
    My goodness, I got one letter wrong. Shame on me.

    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.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "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?
  • cobragtcobragt Posts: 95
    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.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    Your best post on this subject yet.

    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 :blush:

    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. ;)
  • b4zb4z Posts: 3,372
    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.
  • cobragtcobragt Posts: 95
    I agree.

    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.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,926
    ... 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.
  • sensaisensai Posts: 129
    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
  • dclark2dclark2 Posts: 91
    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?
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,926
    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.
  • b4zb4z Posts: 3,372
    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.
  • dclark2dclark2 Posts: 91
    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.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,926
    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.
  • The GTO may have more leg room, but looks like a bug. :shades:
This discussion has been closed.