Ford Mustang (2005) vs. 2005 Pontiac GTO

13468938

Comments

  • graphicguygraphicguy Edmunds Poster EmeritusMember Posts: 13,599
    I just returned from a business trip to Detroit. Got a rental from Hertz. Surprisingly, it was a GMC Yukon. It's a tank, but had surprisingly comfy seats. Another surprise, it handled well considering its size. What was more amazing were the number of GM, Hyundai and Kia cars in the rental lot. Usually, it's always Fords.

    BTW....didn't see one Mustang on the rental lot. There were a few Tauri and many Foci, but many more Impalas & Cobalts.

    On the road, I saw my very first Charger with manufacturer tags on I 94. Much better looking than the pics I had seen, but still not something I'd pay money for.
    2022 Honda Accord Hybrid Touring
  • graphicguygraphicguy Edmunds Poster EmeritusMember Posts: 13,599
    See post below.....(this isn't mine, BTW).....just a message from the owner in the video.

    By the way...bone stock mustang GT.

    Here's some video...

    These were just time trials... But I ran a 13.69 @ 97 mph

    Here's medium size for broad band:
    http://www.maglocks.com/_personal/Barracuda_trials_med.wmv

    Here's small size for dial up:

    http://www.maglocks.com/_personal/Barracuda_trials.wmv

    Hope you all enjoy it!
    2022 Honda Accord Hybrid Touring
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    13.69 nothing wrong with that. Not to many cars for $25K can pull that off.
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    Graphicguy writes.......
    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......

    NO, the last time I checked the BMW M3 has an IRS just like the GTO does, LOL! GTO has been compared to the M3, not the Mustang.

    Everyones insurance is different, for me GTO was $100 CHEAPER then Stang to insure. I have perfect record, Here near NY City everyone pays alot , LOL!
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    The IRS is just not about handling, it's also ride quality. In my opinion/test ride the GTO rides smoother, more comfortable seats, more luxury like then Stang, esp on rougher pavement. You will feel more bumps etc in rear, watch for midcorner bumps while under acceleration. I remember from my 1986 Olds 442 and that only had 170hp / 250 torque but that was ok for it's time. Certain road were annoying from solid rear. Same roads in GTO nothing.

    Car and Driver said it BEST....The Mustang's rear end did occasionally step out on imperfect pavement. Despite Ford's best efforts, the convulsions from under the back seat haven't been completely cured, and there's a slightly disconcerting hop when you encounter a midcorner bump. It's not likely to send you spinning off into someone's geraniums, but the GTO's independent rear end exhibited no such spasms over the same roads. EXACTLY... those symptoms above are TYPICAL of a solid rear axle car like Stang. With an IRS those problems would be fixed!

    This was funny..... Although the Mustang is not something you'd choose to travel in after having those pesky hemorrhoids removed
  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    I guess we read the same magazines. Your's is a little more specific than mine. Here's a quote "Without a doubt, Shelby-American fiddled with a few 427-powered 1967 GT-500s'. You're right that most of them are customer installed. Do you know what the 428 was that was in the GT500 before 428CJ. It was a 428 Police interceptor rated at 355hp. And I was way off about the 428CJ. It was only rated 335 from Ford. The NHRA immediately revised it upward to 360 which was more realistic. I guess that was just an urban legend about the 427 except for the first few. Man, what a drop in performance that was. So how about some staticstics for the GT500 with the 428CJ. Here are a couple of stats: 0-60 in 6.9, 1/4 mile in 14.5. Ouch! Credit for those numbers was given to the Shelby America Guide. So they should be realistic. Another article I have is about a GT500 doing the 1/4 mile. In five passes it started out in the high 14's, the next one was in the mid 14's. The next two were in the mid 13's and the final pass he really hooked up for a 13.06. I only bring that up because we've been going over how the weather and track conditions, driver, etc. affect the times. With even the same car, the same driver, and the same track conditions you can get wildly differing times. That was nearly a two second difference with all things being equal.
    I guess old Shelby was capable of some hyperbole himself. King of the Road? I don't think so. In '68 it was possible to get a GT with a factory installed 427. It doesn't say which one but it was downtuned to 390hp. Quite potent even at that rating. I'd personally go with that over the GT500.

    And finally, all 427 Cobra's had the 427 in them. The nameplate on the side says it all. " 427 COBRA "
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    Car and driver tested the 2005 GTO manual 6 at 4.8 seconds 0-60. Pontiac claims 4.7 for the M6, pretty close!

    Don't forget that the Automatic 4 on the GTO is actually faster 0-60 by 1/10th. All the magazines have only tested M6 GTo's.

    another reason I bought automatic faster and no shifting. Esp in the traffic around here.
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/classic/112_0310_67gto/index.html

    Motor-Trend tested a 1967 automatic tranny GTO to run in 13.36 at the 1/4 mile, pretty good.

    manual ran in as fast as 13.10 or 13.20
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    The mustang costs quite a bit less than the GTO. If the GTO & Mustang GT had the same MSRP, then you could argue the IRS/Solid rear axle all day long. The FACT is it doesn't FREAKIN matter.

    The Mustang has always been an affordable car built to a certain price point. Nothing wrong with that, every car is built to a price point. I'm not going to debate which is better, no question I'd rather have an IRS.

    If the solid axle really helped Ford keep the car under a certain price and hasn't hampered performance by much, which seems to be the case, it's not a problem. It's selling lot hot cakes, so Ford made the right decision, they need to make money. Something GM has forgotten how to do.

    Unless your a complete moron, you can't deny the Mustang is a bargain for what you get. I guess you can say the same for the GTO since the fire sales are still going on strong here.

    This debate will be over in year or two anyway when the current imposter GTO is either dropped or replaced by a car worthy of the GTO name.

    I think the Monaro is a great car, but simply rebadging it and shipping it over here doesn't make it a GTO.
  • hammen2hammen2 Member Posts: 1,284
    I dislike the haters who say "it's not a REAL GTO" so much, I'm getting the license plates on my '04 changed to "REAL GTO".

    It's RWD, it's a coupe (sorry Charger fans), and it wears the Pontiac badge. It looks like other Pontiacs in the family. Has a huge motor and great performance. Seems like just the formula for a "REAL GTO" to me.

    Respectfully suggest you put your butt in one and take a test drive. Your attitude may change.

    No fire sales going on for the '05's - there is a genuine shortage of them in many areas - that's constraining sales right now more than anything. Holden will be building them into July to try to meet demand (as posted by a Pontiac insider "LFP" on another forum)...

    --Robert
  • atvdraggeratvdragger Member Posts: 26
    You have a very good point. For any good street racer (car that is ) an automatic trans is really the way to go. In addition to your other good points you have to consider that an A/T is less likely to spin costing you time, will not miss a shift if working properly, and you don't have a complete power loss through the drive train every time you change gears.
  • atvdraggeratvdragger Member Posts: 26
    If your point about the new GTO being a real GTO is true then we must assume that the past resurrection of the name chevy NOVA is also it's predisesors equal. Right? Would the "JUDGE" see that as justice?
  • hammen2hammen2 Member Posts: 1,284
    ...a 1970 (Grampa's car, it was pre-dented, had it through most of college - it was just like the one Eddie Murphy drove in "Beverly Hills Cop"). IIRC it was RWD. The '87 my Dad wanted me to buy when the tranny dropped on my '70 was a FWD econobox. Not to mention the size difference in the cars.

    I don't know why people have such a cow about the GTO not being "real". It is true to the GTO name, in being a RWD performance coupe that resembles other vehicles in the Pontiac lineup at the time. Charger fans have more to gripe about, with the resurrected vehicle being a sedan. Of course, the Grand Prix has offered a sedan since 1990, and it's been sedan-only since the 2004 redesign.

    If the car was FWD and/or had maybe 240 hp, I'd agree with you and say it's not a "REAL" GTO. This is just getting silly.
  • atvdraggeratvdragger Member Posts: 26
    To be fair the differince between the new GTO and the blast from the past is not as bad as the Nova. But what people are saying is that there really is a differance. Trust me I'm not saying the new GTO is not real, it's actually a real kick in the pants to drive. ANY!!! car with that much power is a real blast. I'm just glad to see American producers finally waking up and smell the coffee.
    By the way, I also meen no disrespect to the original chevyII Nova. I grew up in the back seat of a '70 4 door Nova w/307. Blue bottom w/white top to be exact. My 2nd car was a '71 Nova with a much fun 427 up front. It also had a predator carb. as well. It handled like a dump truck but man it was fast in the staights.
  • brushbanditbrushbandit Member Posts: 33
    Let me understand this. You're making a comparison of the old vs.new GTO as it relates to the old Nova vs. the mid 80's japanese front wheel drive Nova??? Help me out here.
  • graphicguygraphicguy Edmunds Poster EmeritusMember Posts: 13,599
    I suppose you can make the IRS vs solid rear an issue if you want. I saw the C&D quote when they said they OCCASIONALLY got the Mustangs rear end to step our in rough corners. But, I've never experienced that. The rest of the media have made no mention of any such behavior. They've all lauded the work Ford has done with the solid rear. Like the OHV V8, if it's done well, then there's absolutely wrong with building upon older, yet tried and true technology.

    One of the first things that struck me about the Mustang GT when I drove it was how well it rode....even over bumpy surfaces.

    Taken as a whole (which is what you need to do), the Mustang does handle and ride quite well. It certainly handled better than the GTO. But, that's also a function of the added weight the GTO is carrying around (and another reason that the performance numbers between the GTO vs the Mustang GT are so close to be insignificant).

    IRS added complexity and weight doesn't translate into better handling or ride quality, by any stretch, when comparing these two.

    I won't get into the automatic vs manual trannys. I prefer mine to have manual trannys. That's a personal preference, though. The shifter/clutch in the Mustang are one of the better ones I've ever used (the best being the Mazda RX8). The Mustang's shifter/clutch action is certainly smoother, more positive than what I experienced during my GTO test drives.....yet another reason I chose the Mustang over the GTO.

    I've yet to see any independent tests done on a GTO with an automatic. I can't say that I'd consider the performance figures GM puts out to be unbiased.

    My interest in the video posted was more about that 'cuda running a 10 sec 1/4. That was wicked. But, a bone stock (including stock M&S tires) Mustang GT running a 13.69 sec 1/4 isn't anything to sneeze at, either. Plus, the Mustang owner could drive it home right from the track. I'm sure that the 'cuda would not be a good daily driver (probably trailered to the track).
    2022 Honda Accord Hybrid Touring
  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    Oh yeah! Now that's what I call a musclecar. And check out those lines.

    And pretty good times considering the weight it was dragging around.
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    http://www.gtoalley.com/74gto.html

    Here is the 1974 GTO, rebadged Pontiac Ventura, based on the Chevy Nova. 250 horsepower 350 V8, 5.7L. 0-60 was was 9.4 seconds, LOL! SLOWEST production GTO ever made.
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    I NEVER drove the manual Mustang or GTO so I can't comment, I drove both Automatic Stang and GTO. I prefer Automatic only. Automatic GTO had a better shifting feel then Mustangs automatic to me. Pontiac has the automatic GTO being a hair faster then manual, both 0-60 and 1/4 mile times.

    In my test drives, the GTO road more like a Mercedes, more luxurious then Mustang. Smoother/better. In my opinion. However the new mustang road MUCH NICER Then the 1999 to 2004 generation it replaced based on the old FOx 1978 chassis. Extra wheelbase helps, old one was only 101 inches and new Stang 107?

    That was a WILD video of the Cuda running 10 secondds. I have seen mid 1980's Grand Nationals running similar times. I'm sure that was not a streetable car or fun to drive on regular streets, LOL! Nice anyway.
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    dieselone writes.......If the solid axle really helped Ford keep the car under a certain price and hasn't hampered performance by much, which seems to be the case, it's not a problem. It's selling lot hot cakes, so Ford made the right decision, they need to make money. Something GM has forgotten how to do. ......

    Ford isn't doing too much better then GM, they are losing $$ and market share as a whole too. Their stocks are in the flusher too.
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    Dieselone writes.......This debate will be over in year or two anyway when the current imposter GTO is either dropped or replaced by a car worthy of the GTO name. ......

    Since when is the current GTO an impostor or not worthy of the GTO name? LOL!? What do you think the original 1964 GTO was? it was a performance OPTION on the 1964 Pontiac Lemans A body 2 dr coupe with a big V8. LOL! 40yrs later GM borrows a car from it's holden division and does same thing, midsized 2 door coupe with a big 6 liter V8. Same thing. BTW....the 2005 GTO is the FASTEST MOST POWERFULL GTO ever MADE!! No GTO ever offered 400hp from factory. I think highest was 370hp on the 1969 Judge. Remember those ratings are PRE SAE, so you really have to take about 20% away from them.

    If you want to go that route we could argue that the 1974 GTO, the SLOWEST production GTO ever made was a rebadge and not worthy of the GTO name on it's Pontiac Ventura ala Chevy Nova chassis. 9.4 seconds time! It was still a GTO.

    Or we could argue that the NEW Mustang is NOT a real mustang because it was based off the 2000 Lincoln LS chassis, Tbird, Jag S chassis, right? Big upgrade over the old 27 yr old Fox 1978 Chassis. But I consider it to be a real mustang.
  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    Man, you are like a pitbull. You never let go. You twist my words, misquote me, and now you have come up with the most ridiculous conclusions that have absolutely nothing to do with anything I have said. Try to get it right this time. I don't like the new GT500 (although after having read some old reviews, the new one will severly outperform the old one). If you want to defend it, fine, but don't go putting words in my mouth. I am going to try and help you with your problem. So work with me. First, relax. Close your eyes and breathe deeply. Now repeat after me: Let it be, Let it be, Let it be.
  • SylviaSylvia Member Posts: 1,636
    Alright - agree to disagree and move on. Let's not get into personal blows here.
  • graphicguygraphicguy Edmunds Poster EmeritusMember Posts: 13,599
    I woudln't classify either the Mustang nor the GTO having a ride similar to any Mercedes I've ever driven.

    Probably the best handling/ride trade-off I've ever experienced was in a BMW 3 series I owned (it had all sorts of other issues that would preclude me from buying another, though).

    From an evolution stand point, trying to compare cars from their forefathers, from any generation, is really an excercise in futility. So many things have changed over the decades.

    I have mentioned that my sister has a '65 Mustang with a 289. It's also a manual tranny. Driving mine and driving hers is more akin to hers being similar to driving a bus compared to driving mine. Technology and engineering have changed so much over the last 4 decades.

    Same would be true of driving a '60s era GTO when compared to a current one.

    A '60s era Shelby wouldn't be any picnic to drive either.

    Cars from that era (in comparison to any current car) would have sloppy steering, crude and unrefined suspensions, brakes that could be compared to a Flintstone mobile.

    When I was a tyke, I remember my father allowing me to drive his '70s era Chrysler New Yorker up and down roads on a farm he owned. The thing had a big 440 V8 with a big 4 bbl carb. I remember tromping it. It would squat down when the 2 extra barrels opened up and would blast off. It had NO steering feel. It seemed like every time I hit the brakes, they transitioned from no braking, to locking up.....with nothing in between. Had to turn the steering wheel 3-4 inches before anything would happen. My memory of those experiences tells me I'd have a hard time keeping that monster on the road today.

    How people kept any of those '60s era cars on the road, when the speed limit was 75 MPH on ALL interstates is a mystery to me. Guess it had more to do with what you were used to.
    2022 Honda Accord Hybrid Touring
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    Wow,

    I got a few feathers ruffled. I re-read my post today and I came across harder than I intended to. The long necks where going down smooth last night and I was getting sick of seeing all of the IRS posts so I lashed out more harshly than I normally would.

    I will stick to my belief that GM should have done something different besides rebadging the Murano, the GTO faithful on this board may disagree, but that is how I feel.

    Yes, no doubt about the current GTO's performance, I never have or will dispute that point. The car is on the heavy side, but it seems to have enough power & suspension to compensate.

    I guess I can't get over the fact that GM basically used the Murano as a fill-in until something home grown could be developed. I've looked at Holden's website and the GTO is so similar in looks it's frightning, inside and out.

    Other than convert it to a left hand drive model, stuff the vette motor in it, and slap on a Pontiac front end, what did GM design on this car? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm seriously asking 'cause I don't know.
  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    That white one is really nice looking. I especially like the Pontiac rims. Are those Centerlines on the brown one? I don't think I would put Centerlines on a '74 anything. There was also a '74 RoadRunner that was probably the weakest RoadRunner. But considering this was the year after the first gas shortage, they were not bad car. And it wasn't just that gas doubled in price, you literally couldn't get it at times. So any kind of performance was a good thing. thanks for the post
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    The GTO is the closest American car that I have ever owned that came close to the BMW 528 I had in terms of ride/handling. Esp the same feeling when you put the GTO into Drive and the back end sinks a little, my 528 did same thing! For better traction. My 528 was great, dumped it around 160k miles. Just wanted something newer/less miles. Ran great.

    My 1958 Chevy which has manual steering, manual brakes and a 3spd manual on the column, boy does that have a hard clutch/shift feel to it. Very hard to turn wheel when nearly stopped, good upper arm workout, LOL! The V8 in it more then keeps up with modern traffic. Yes you can turn the wheel 2 inches + before it starts to turn, LOL! Braking from the 4 drums is actually decent. Not as good as modern car. Really have to hit brakes, "Manual" The ride is actually quite nice.. soaks up bumps quite well, and huge trunk-backseat. Handling is horrendous. The best corners that car handles are at a 4 way stop sign, LOL! That cars gives me a good upper and lowe workout after driving.
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    If GM didn't use the Monaro from their Holden company, then right now we would have NOTHING rear drive and V8, Except expensive Vette/CTS-V and the same lame Front wheel drive V6 cars. I can't fully complain. GM's NOT advertising the GTO didn't help either, LOL! They sure spent Milliions on Grand Prix/G6 advertising. Yeah the GTO is near identical to the Monaro but that isn't a bad thing to me. It could be worse, they could have made GTO a front drive V6 car, LOL!

    For 2007 GM was supposed to have an all new GTO as well as other midsized rear drive cars based on the rear drive ZETA platform which was just cancelled cited as too costly. Not sure what will be done for 2007 if anything! 2006 might be it for the GTO.

    Look at the Grand Prix, only a 4 door sedan today. Real Grand prixes were always 2 door & rear drive from 1962 to 1988
  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    "what did GM design on the car?" Good question and the answer is: nothing. That's why we like it. The reason the GTO is similar in looks to a Holden is because it is a Holden. Monaro that is. There is nothing wrong with that except that they rushed it to market and probably should have worked out some of the bugs first. The GTO is on the heavy side and personally I like that.
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    The Holden Monaro debuted as a NEW 2002 car in late 2001 in Austrailia. Otherwise I 100% agree with you about the car. .Also the interior on the Monaro/GTO is the BEST that GM has put in a car in years. Better then new Vettes. Same or better then Caddies CTS-V as per Consumer Reports. Even they were amazed at the interior. C&D liked INterior as well. My GTP Grand Prix interior and F body interiors was GARBAGE in comparison to GTO. Same with The switchgear control is the best I have ever seen in a GM vehicle as well. The hazzard 4way switch is where is should be, not on top of the steering column. Yes the GTO is nearly 3750 lbs heavy, but I like that too. It rides like more of a luxury car then a Pony car/F body car. Firm ride but good.
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    As for the tires being small on the GTO as Consumer Reports and other critics complained? Since when is a P245 width tire small? Look at the stock tire width on the 1964 to 1974 GTO's. much skinnier then that ! If I recall the Mustang GT V8 tires are P235 a tad smaller, but the press says nothing about that, LOL! Just makes me laugh. P245 45 17 is a decent tire size. I am glad I don't have 18 inch. esp with the potholes roads up here in the northeast by NY city.
  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    That sinking feeling is the launch mode as I've heard it called. I got the manual so I don't have it. But I test drove a couple of autos and man, it was so cool. By the way, what the heck is LOL? All I can think of is lots of luck, lots of laughs, lots of love, SOL. I don't think that's what you are saying. Clue me in please...
  • sputterguysputterguy Member Posts: 383
    I keep hearing that crap about small tires. 17 inch P245's aren't small tires. One guy called the 16 inch tires on the Grand Prix relatively small. Well that's better than just small. So relatively speaking, the 16 inch tires on the Grand Prix are relatively large since probably 99% percent of passenger cars have smaller tires. Give me a break.
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    My BMW 528i had that same sinking feeling on launch when you put it into Drive and it was an Automatic too. I remember the BMW guys telling me it was for better traction? Who knows.

    LOL is Laughing Out Loud
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    Exactly! The Grand Prix tires are WIDER then the tires on the Accord and Camry. I believe the Accord 240hp V6 sedan are only P205 width.
  • brushbanditbrushbandit Member Posts: 33
    One of the main reasons I bought the GTO over the Mustang was Fords failed prior attempt at retro styling, the new Thunderbird. When the Thunderbird came out it was alot like the "got to have" of the new Mustang. Everyone loved it, Katie Couric bought 6 of them, hype, hype, etc, etc. The "got to have" turned into "no one cares" with the Thunderbird. Rehashing old designs doesn't always hold up, people get bored with them quickly and they become blase quickly. It will be much worse with the Mustang because there will be a zillion of them on the road.
  • atvdraggeratvdragger Member Posts: 26
    You right about the GTO's ride quality' it is a good bit better than the Mustang's. But you must understand that Ford never ment for Mustang to be a luxury car. The Pontiac line has always been about luxury. The fallout of such features is a lot of extra weight. The mustang was just ment to be a fun ride, which it is. To give you an example about the weight issue, let me tell you about my '73 olds 442. It rides like a cadillac, forget feeling bumps or getting any feedback from the road at all for that matter. It's long ,solid black w/white striping real sharp with that famous 455 rocket under the hood. Sadly the car REALLY needs that 455, it weights over 4,000lbs. It can't hold it's owen agains a stock 5.0.
  • atvdraggeratvdragger Member Posts: 26
    Interesting....I don't recall ever seeing one of these before. Thanks for the pic's.
  • atvdraggeratvdragger Member Posts: 26
    No, not really. Just helping a fellow member understand someone else's view.The comparison's aren't exactly fair. I personal like the old Nova's and GTO's. I'm helping my brother-in-law do a frame off resto of a '68 GTO as a matter of fact....and I'm a Ford guy.
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    I remember the retro Tbird, got to have, cool when it first came out, dealers were adding $5k and $10k to the price then it faded out. It's being cancelled this year due to lack of sales. It was better to wait for the 2nd yr because they added 40+ horsepower. Today you can buy a nice used 2003 for $25k or less. About 40% depreciation in only 2 yrs, LOL!

    I never buy a car anymore when it's first, wait for prices to drop and 2nd yr to fix bugs or add features/power.
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    J.D. Power listed the GTO as the BEST sporty car a few months back in their Best New car appeal. Owners are surveyed 90 days after purchasing their vehicles.

    J.D. Power APEAL Top Cars

    Segment Top car
    Compact car MINI Cooper
    Entry midsize car Chevrolet Malibu
    Premium midsize car Volvo S40
    Entry luxury car Chrysler 300
    Mid-level luxury car BMW 5-series
    Premium luxury car BMW 7-series
    Sporty car Pontiac GTO
    Premium sports car Porsche Boxster
  • graphicguygraphicguy Edmunds Poster EmeritusMember Posts: 13,599
    I can see some people who wanted "big car" ride/drive experience liking the GTO with a big V8. To me, the Chrysler 300c had that one covered, though....plus, the 300 looks better (IMHO), to boot.

    Looking for an all out American performance car, one is either looking at a Corvette or a Mustang GT. That's quite a bit different than slapping a big V8 in a coupe (GTO) or sedan (Chrysler 300C).

    I wanted something that handled well, good speed, good build, very nice inside and a great body. The Mustang filled the bill on all counts (whereas neither the GTO nor the 300C did not).

    As a side advantage, the Mustang was less expensive than either the GTO or the 300C by thousands of dollars. But, even if the 300C (hemi) or the GTO were priced the same as the Mustang GT, I still would have chosen the Mustang solely on looks.

    Big problem with the T-Bird was not the styling (although the headroom in that car was a joke), but the way it drove. It was creaky and sloppy in its handling. You spend $40K on a car and it better excell in looks, performance and/or handling. The T-Bird had the "looks" part down, but little else.

    For ~$26K, the Mustang GT has the looks, the perfomance and the handling. That's why it is such a hit.
    2022 Honda Accord Hybrid Touring
  • graphicguygraphicguy Edmunds Poster EmeritusMember Posts: 13,599
    I guess JD POWER missed the boat on the appealing aspect of the GTO. If it was so appealing, GM wouldn't have had such a hard time selling them. And, instead of ending it's life, they would be preparing a new iteration to bring out (which they aren't).
    2022 Honda Accord Hybrid Touring
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    graphicguy writes.......I wanted something that handled well, good speed, good build, very nice inside and a great body. The Mustang filled the bill on all counts (whereas neither the GTO nor the 300C did not)........

    Me too, that is why I bought the GTO. I would have considered the Stang, except I didn't want to look like the other 200,000+ that will be on the road, more exclusitivity and the backseat was near useless on stang. Very hard to secure a rear facing child seat, I actually brought the car seat to the dealer. After you installed it, basically hugging the steering wheel. Where as GTO I had much more room in driver seat with rear facing car seat behind me. Bigger backseat on GTO. Notice Consumer Reports said same thing on Stang, Very difficult to install a rear facing child seat! For me that matters, but for some it doesn't.
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    For the 10th time GM stated this GTO was ONLY going to be a 3 yr car, 2004 to 2006 and that it was going to be LOW Production, 18,000 or LESS per yr, regardless of sales and they are selling the 2005 GTO on target, they are hiiting there 1,000 per month with minimal incentives. Only the $1k rebate that just started. Dealers by me don't have any. The 2007 NEW GTO would have been on the Zeta Rear drive platform but got cancelled. Dumb GM. There is still hope I guess, we'll see what happens.

    BTW....The JD Power survey is done 90 days after the owner buys the car. Both GTO and Mustang and other sporty car owners were questioned. The GTO was more appealing then the other sporty cars to their owners under their report guidelines.
  • graphicguygraphicguy Edmunds Poster EmeritusMember Posts: 13,599
    If the GTO was only going to be a 3 year car, why did GM make plans for an '07 and then cancel?

    Believe me, if the GTO hit it's sales numbers in '04 and '05, GM would have extended its life in one form or another. When car manufacturer's say that a particular model only had a "limited production run" that usually means that they didn't sell well to begin with.

    While, I hope GM has cleared out most of the leftover '04s, if you subtract out what the '04 sales from total sales this year, the '05s aren't selling all that well either. Last I checked, Pontiac had sold substantially fewer than 3,000 '05 GTOs through March.

    Just looking at the inventory of the 4 Pontiac dealers I pass every week in my 'burg, none of them have sold any of the 15 GTOs they have sitting in their new car lots in the last month (they still have the same original stock I looked at a month ago before I took delivery of my Mustang). Doing a quick search via GM BUYPOWER (which says it updates every 24 hours) none of the 50 or so GTOs within a 50 mile radius of me in OH have sold......even with the $1,000 rebate.

    My preferred Pontiac dealer has the same 3 '05s that they had two months ago (silver, red, blue). They still have a leftover '04 (silver) that has been there for at least 3, probably 4 months ago.

    Don't get me wrong. I wanted the GTO to be a success for GM so they would come out with an updated one, but that's not to be.

    Mustang GT's are sold out for the '05 model year at every Ford dealer near me. They already have a substantial line for the '06 models when they begin taking orders next month. My Ford dealer will be totally sold out of the first 3 months of GT allotment they get (probably closer to 4 months allotment now since he told me this a month ago when I took delivery of mine). They have deposits on their '06 GTs, even though they don't have final pricing on them, yet.
    2022 Honda Accord Hybrid Touring
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    Also Consumer Guide Automotive ranked GTO better then the New Mustang as well.

    GTO rated as a BEST BUY, value in class 9
    Mustang was Recommended Buy, value in class 7

    GTO 57 points, Mustang 50 points High for class was 58, GTo just missed that.
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    graphicguy writes....If the GTO was only going to be a 3 year car, why did GM make plans for an '07 and then cancel? ....

    2007 GTO was going to be an ALL NEW CAR on the Zeta midsized rear drive chassis that other GM cars would have been based off of like Grand Prix, etc. GM cancelled Zeta for now. Time will tell. Hopefully they come out with another GTO, otherwise it's just the vette in GM's lineup or the CTS-V, both $44k+

    BTW.. my preffered Pontiac dealer has been sold out of his GTO allottment until late May.
  • graphicguygraphicguy Edmunds Poster EmeritusMember Posts: 13,599
    Just took a look at the site. Not much of substance there regarding their ratings or how they reached them.

    Personally, I'm not aware of most people using Consumer's Guide as a source to look to for rating cars.
    2022 Honda Accord Hybrid Touring
  • gunitgunit Member Posts: 469
    graphicguy writes......Big problem with the T-Bird was not the styling (although the headroom in that car was a joke), but the way it drove. It was creaky and sloppy in its handling......

    You do realize the new Mustang is loosely based on the same architecture/fLincoln LS frame as the Tbird? Yes there were modifications/improvements but still same starting point. At least the LS chassis is a big improvement over that FOX 1978 chassis they used up until last year, LOL!
This discussion has been closed.