Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Ford Mustang (2005) vs. 2005 Pontiac GTO

1…3031333536…38

Comments

  • sigt1sigt1 Member Posts: 66
    haha exactly both serve diff purposes; exact reason why camaro and challenger are coming out, to "challenge" the mustang; same thing happened 40 years ago; why don't we compare a 330ci to a mustang my buddy got one for 30k ect ect... it just aint the same race... sorry
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    ... Most performance V6 engines of 2004 made that much power or more. ...

    Name 'em.

    ... Z06 makes 505hp, no blower. Ford GT500 will make 450hp with a blower.

    And that same engine in the Ford GT makes 600HP. Ninety-five more than the Z06 with 1.6L less displacement. ;)
  • cobragtcobragt Member Posts: 95
    If you read my post correctly, I said before doing my major mods (i.e. the blower). I'm talking a simple $1100 in mods, makes the GT faster. And NO a blower doesnt cost well over $5000 to buy and install. Vortech's blower $3200-$3600 (depending on where) and its install is about $1000 flat. Less the 5 big ones.

    And do me a favor... Define a "comparably equipped Mustang".

    Last time I checked, we are talking about PERFORMANCE vs. DOLLARS. Not my interior is better than yours so thats why my car is better.

    Here is your problem...you keep saying a comparable GT to a GTO. Hows this for you...

    Base GT

    Base GTO

    Now lets compare that...a bone stock, BASE GTO, vs a bone stock BASE GT. No added goodies in either.

    Ford MSRP Base Model $25835
    GTO MSRP Base Model $31,990
    Even the GT PREMIUM is $27,010 MSRP.

    So, base model to base model, there is a big dollar difference, both still have 300hp and 400 hp, and you can still add to the GT, make it faster, for less then the GTO.
  • b4zb4z Member Posts: 3,372
    I think both cars are pretty great for what they cost.
    Mustang is available as a V6 so it had to be built to a lower price point than the GTO.
    I don't see the GTO as handling or conering as well as the Mustang. GTO is softer and has a longer wheelbase so it wouldn't be as quick autoXing.
    My GTO does not grip as well as my IROC, which corners as flat as a board. The GTo may have good high speed handling capabilities but I have not tried to slam it into a corner from 80-100mph.
    I would have to give the handling crown to the Mustang but the extra torque, ride and comfort go to the GTO.
    I also think that the GTo appeals to an older demographic.
    I am guessing that the GTO has what more 40-50 year olds want in a Coupe.

    By the way the Mustang's inventory is now at 111 days.
    They are hardly flying off the lots anymore.
    GTO's is 135 days.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "By the way the Mustang's inventory is now at 111 days."

    Anyway to break that down by V6 vs. GT?
  • dclark2dclark2 Member Posts: 91
    "And do me a favor... Define a "comparably equipped Mustang".

    How about a mustang with 1000w stereo,larger tire option, upgraded interior andleather (really is leather/pleather)for starters?
    Sorry, but you can't get a GTO without that wonderful all leather interior. Plus, they are now giving them 18" wheels at no extra cost. I doubt most mustang buyers will even consider a GT w/o any options. The base mustang gt is likely a lossleader that is hard, if not nonexistent, to find.
    Cars in the Mustang price range that are faster? How about the lancer, it'll do a 13.2 1/4. How many do you need, what's the point? All of this only proves that the mustange is not a leader in any category- that's hardly a selling point.
    High powered v6's from '04 that could do 260hp or more...
    GM might have some blown v6 that could do it. I do know that the Honda sourced V6 that they put in the VUE is rated at 250 hp. Not bad for a ride that currently now costs $23K
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    The Mustang has always been the top selling sports coupe in America. That's leading a category, isn't it? How about best bang for the buck (MSRP)?

    I didn't know they were giving away options on the GTO to make 'em sell. It's too bad that the Mustang doesn't have a "wonderful all leather interior." But Mustang drivers tend to enjoy fondling the steering wheel and shifter over fondling the seats and dashboard. (Some people like to drive, while others like to brag about interiors.)

    The Lancer is a 4-cylinder and that's not a performance V6 in the view. What's the torque figure on that, BTW? 212?
  • cobragtcobragt Member Posts: 95
    They don't want to do MSRP, because if they do, then they clearly loose, because you can't argue with that Ford or Pontiac's website says.

    And I hope, dclark, you were talking about the Evo. And if so, lets not forget that now you are talking all-wheel drive vs rear wheel drive. Also, the new Evo's also beat the GTO, so if you are going to bring up other "fast" cars, let's not leave out the fact of how the GTO compares to it also.
    Also, lets see, can I use the argument that makers of such cars like the Evo cannot get that kind of power through NA engines? I mean, everyone complains that Ford has to supercharge their cars, and thats suppose to be a problem, so why is it ok now to bring a turbocharged car into the picture...(oh wait, to prove a point that isn't there?)
  • dclark2dclark2 Member Posts: 91
    "Also, lets see, can I use the argument that makers of such cars like the Evo cannot get that kind of power through NA engines? I mean, everyone complains that Ford has to supercharge their cars, and thats suppose to be a problem, so why is it ok now to bring a turbocharged car into the picture...(oh wait, to prove a point that isn't there?)"
    Gee, did you know that the Evo comes from the factory with a turbo, designed just for it? Did you? Incredible, isn't it?
    You keep talking about how wonderful the mustang is if you throw money at it in the form of bolt ons. That really is your way of saying that the mustang IS slow! Otherwise, why would you have to start fixing up a ford as soon as it is driven off the lot (oops, I forgot- it's a ford!).
    Even when Roush sc the 'stang, it could only MATCH the GTO in hp (300hp) all for a cost of $69K!!! Gee, how much power could I have out of my 6 liter v8 if I took it to a tuner and spent $30K???
    Evo, Wrx are both examples of just how much more performance you can get for comparable money. It is incredible that Ford can't even put out a motor that can match the performance of an 8 year old GM ls1. The current ls2 has 25% more power, and they will be getting close to 500 hp in a few years w/o a blower.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    ... Gee, did you know that the Evo comes from the factory with a turbo, designed just for it? ...

    '03/'04 Cobra and upcoming GT500, anyone?

    ... It is incredible that Ford can't even put out a motor that can match the performance of an 8 year old GM ls1. ...

    So what you're saying is that the blower on the 5.4L in the Ford GT is putting in excess of 250HP with just, what, 14psi of boost? :surprise: Don't think so! :shades:
  • dclark2dclark2 Member Posts: 91
    ".

    "'03/'04 Cobra and upcoming GT500, anyone?"

    Did the '03/04 Cobra cost under $30K? Will the Gt500 cost under $30K? If not, mentioning them is irrelvent as The sube and mits are two cars that offer mustang beating performance for around the same price. Wasn't the arguement that the mustang offers the best performance for the buck? WRX, Evo, GTO offer more. Mentioning things that are out of production is irrelvent (even though it is amusing that an old camaro will blow away a 'stang) and that GT500 will be way more expensive.


    So what you're saying is that the blower on the 5.4L in the Ford GT is putting in excess of 250HP with just, what, 14psi of boost? Don't think so!

    I really have no idea of what you are saying here. I will continue to say that it is a shame that the only way Ford can make competitive power with a v8 is by slapping a blower on a motor- I guess that shortcut is cheaper than quality engineering. I 'll take better engineering over clever marketing anyday...
  • mikesrightmikesright Member Posts: 9
    You guys are talking about two very different cars. Mustang is built for cruising. It wasn't designed to be a GTO beater. It has decent looks apparently (not my taste) :P , that satisfy its customer base and a middle-of-the-road but certainly not bad engine.

    GTO is in a different class, kinda like the old Chevelle-Malibu. GM designed it to be roomy and luxurious, as well as being a car that can run down just about anything.

    The price difference between them is not much. A GTO comes basically loaded from the factory, with leather seating, irs, etc, while the Ford will become much pricer with any options. Sure, you can get a mustang for 25k, but 97% will get options, and a lot of them. This is not accounting for the price markups and discounts right now.

    If you like a cloth interior and like showing off, take the mustang. If you like sleepers, luxury, and enough torque to rip your head off, go with GTO.

    Me: I am glad we are finally having muscle cars to debate on, and even though I am a huge GM fan, I am truely grateful for the Mustang keeping musclecars alive. Viva la Camaro 2009! :shades:
  • mikesrightmikesright Member Posts: 9
    Who cares that ford supercharges its cars to get horsepower?

    GM uses more cubes, tunes it's NA cars. Personally, I like GM's main approach, when I bolt on a supercharger or a turbo, b/c I have that tuning, the forced induction will give me more horses. And it's a lot easier to do a bolt-on than Ford's approach.

    Thats why you see more people running Chevy small-blocks in everything from street vehicles to motor-racing. My Ford-boy roommate even admits this! :surprise: HE RACES THEM. AND HE LOVES THE MUSTANG.

    Of course you can rip apart a Ford engine and start boring out cylinders, reinforcing stuff, etc. :sick: I guess you should get the point by now, but shortcutting by supercharging or turbocharging isn't the way to go, at least with V8s and V6s....
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    What I was saying was a rebuttal to your misguided statement that Ford can't make power from an NA engine. You said that they can't even make an NA engine as powerful as the old LS1 engine that had 350HP. The 5.4L V8 in the Ford GT is pushing 600+HP. 600 (Ford GT HP) - 350 (old LS1 HP) = 250 (minimum HP the blower has to be adding). Sooo, since you're saying that Ford CAN'T produce an NA engine that makes at least 350HP (the old LS1 output), that would mean the blower has to be pushing AT LEAST 251HP (since you say they can't make as much NA HP, it would have to be 349HP or less for the engine alone)with just 14psi (if that much psi). Don't think so!
  • dclark2dclark2 Member Posts: 91
    "What I was saying was a rebuttal to your misguided statement that Ford can't make power from an NA engine. "You said that they can't even make an NA engine as powerful as the old LS1 engine that had 350HP."

    Yup, that's exactly what I said.

    "The 5.4L V8 in the Ford GT is pushing 600+HP. 600 (Ford GT HP) - 350 (old LS1 HP) = 250 (minimum HP the blower has to be adding)."

    That motor is BLOWN! That truck motor IS available in a truck without a blower. It is rated at 300hp!

    "Sooo, since you're saying that Ford CAN'T produce an NA engine that makes at least 350HP (the old LS1 output), that would mean the blower has to be pushing AT LEAST 251HP (since you say they can't make as much NA HP, it would have to be 349HP or less for the engine alone)with just 14psi (if that much psi). Don't think so!"

    It really doesn't matter what you think that modded up blown motor in the GT would w/o the blower. Here are the facts (something that Ford lovers hate).
    Ford can't make a v8 that'll pump out over 300hp w/o either using a blower or simply lying about the power! You have failed to give an example of one Ford V8 that can produce 350 hp w/o a blower. BTW, it has been reported in C/D that the upcoming gt500 will have an IRON BLOCK! Just another reminder of how low tech Ford motors are.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    Wow! Talk about reaching for straws! :surprise:

    Ever heard of the 2000 Mustang Cobra R? Boss 429? GT500KR? GT350? The original Mach 1? The Ford 389cid V8? Gimme a break.

    And an iron block is no more low tech than PUSHRODS! :sick:
  • cobragtcobragt Member Posts: 95
    Thats what I was just about to say.

    The 2000 Cobra R was a 5.4L that made 385-390HP. NA. That right there proves they can do it, but CHOOSE not to.

    And also, yeah, the EVO and the STI come with a factory turbo, made for the car...so does the Cobra, and the new GT500, so whats the difference?

    And actually, the STI is more along the lines of the GTO pricewise. Its MSRP is , $32,995.

    STI MSRP

    And no, Mustang owners are not admitting to being slow, rather, simply stating that for the amount of money the GTO owners pay more, they should be MUCH faster, not those small, barely faster numbers that C&D has posted. It cracks me up that you think you are soooooo fast, yet only so small an amount away from the GT, and for more money. We buy our car, put into it the same amount of money as your stock GTO, and then we blow your doors off.
  • facts101facts101 Member Posts: 25
    Just to name a few Performance V6 engines of 2004 that made the same 260hp or more then the V8 Mustang GT.....

    G35 with 260 - 280hp on 3.5L V6
    350Z 280hp on 3.5L V6
    Maxima 265hp on 3.5L V6
    Grand Prix GTP 260hp on 3.8L V6

    BTW Ford GT is twice the price of the Z06, I should hope it makes 95 more hp for $70k more :P
  • dclark2dclark2 Member Posts: 91
    "Ever heard of the 2000 Mustang Cobra R? Boss 429? GT500KR? GT350? The original Mach 1? The Ford 389cid V8? Gimme a break.
    And an iron block is no more low tech than PUSHRODS!"

    I hate to burst your bubble but iron is low tech. See, iron is a metal, a very, very heavy metal. Now, it is bad to have too much weight in any car, especially the front- bad, bad, bad!
    Now, aluminum is a much lighter metal. Lighter is good! Good, good,good! An aluminum motor can weigh over 150lbs less than an iron equivalent.Less weight up front means a better weight balance and better handling.
    However, Ford doesn't really care about handling (remember that truck like rear suspension in the mustang?), so they could care less if the car has a 60/40 weight balance. Heck, that might be a bit too much math for the typical Ford buyer to understand!
    Very few motors are made out of iron because it is too heavy. Aluminum is the way. Even GM knew this when they made an all aluminum big block for the camaros (and two 'vettes) back in '69. Aluminum is tricky stuff- it isn't as strong as iron, nor can it take heat as well as iron, so it requires some good engineering.
    Now, do you you remember what I said about Ford's poor engineering? Do you? Well, unlike the rest of the world's great car makers, the idea of making a high output v8 aluminum motor is out of their grasp. They simply don't know how to make one! They tried with their regular block, but said that they had "durability issues". Gee, I thought that was a ford standard feature!Now, they are going to put a bot anchor of a motor in the gt500.
    So, that is why iron blocks are old tech. And no, you won't find them on a Pontiac, Porsche or any other performance car, for that reason. If you think that iron blocks aren't old tech, then you might also consider a writing campaign to bring back points and condensers,drum brakes and carbuerators.

    "And no, Mustang owners are not admitting to being slow, rather, simply stating that for the amount of money the GTO owners pay more, they should be MUCH faster, not those small, barely faster numbers that C&D has posted. It cracks me up that you think you are soooooo fast, yet only so small an amount away from the GT, and for more money. We buy our car, put into it the same amount of money as your stock GTO, and then we blow your doors off."

    That's pretty funny. I have already shown how a comparably equipped mustang (upgraded interior, larger wheels, 1000w stereo,leather) cost only a little over a $1,000 less. You are claiming that you can get an extra 100 hp and a irs for under $2K. It is that mindset that helps Ford sell these mustangs. BTW, don't forget to wave bye bye to your warranty as you vainly cobble krap onto the mustang indesperation to have a car that can keep up with the GTO remember, the GTO has a 1.3 liter 100hp head start.
    BTW, the GTO is MUCH faster. It starts off the line faster and just continues on out of sight. That's why the 0-90 time was almost a second and half faster than the Mustang.
  • facts101facts101 Member Posts: 25
    Yes Ford did a Normally aspirated 385hp 5.4L V8 in the 2000 Cobra R. It was also expensive ($55,000) and at 71.3 horsepower a liter, isn't much more then the GTO's 66.7 hp a liter. BTW, Ford still lost $$ on all 300 they sold that year. http://www.mustang50magazine.com/roadtests/13379/

    The Cobra R also had no backseat, no air-conditioning and no sound system. No creature comforts. It used the rear fascia of the V6 Mustang.

    If I wanted to only go fast for the least amount of cash, I would have bought the Mustang, but as you said the $$ that GTO owners supposedly pay more, they are arguably getting a more refined car with a better interior and better ride, usable backseat. To some people like me performance isn't everything in a car. Thats why I never bought an F body either. Fast cars, but what good is it with their cheap interiors and no refinement!
  • facts101facts101 Member Posts: 25
    The 2004 GTO beat out the 2004 Cobra SVT in Road and Track July 2004 issue. GTO 1st, Cobra 2nd. The Cobra was the faster car though. http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=1368
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    dclark2, you're all over the place! It's like trying to connect the same pole of magnets! Just when you've got them touching, they FLIP AROUND on you. Why are you harping on the iron block of the GT500? Especially with that forest of pushrods rooted deep in the GTO's block. Have you already conveniently forgotten that the Mustang GT's engine is OHC and ALUMINUM?? :confuse: There are '05 GTs out there already with more than 500HP at the wheels with a blower.

    And what makes you think a high stressed NA engine is more reliable to build up than a factory forced induction engine?? Ever heard of FORGED INTERNALS? Much more reliable. ;)
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    Wouldn't dash stoking appeal be in the same boat as the "gotta have it factor?" Don't be hypocritical.
  • dclark2dclark2 Member Posts: 91
    "dclark2, you're all over the place! It's like trying to connect the same pole of magnets! Just when you've got them touching, they FLIP AROUND on you. Why are you harping on the iron block of the GT500?"
    You need to read a bit slower and gain some comprehension in the process.
    I have said that repeatedly that the engine in the mustang is low tech.Unlike you, I, and others have given examples to back that assertion. You haven't!
    One thing I have said is that Ford can't produce a v8 motor that can put out 350hp w/o a blower. Look at their line up- see any v8 motors with 350hp? Nope. I have also said that their motors can't match the performance of an 8 year old ls1. Again, no one can dispute that. I have said that their engineering is subpar, that they can't make a competitive motor w/o a blower. The GT500 iron block supports my argument that Ford lacks the engineering to produce a modern 350hp v8.
    Did I mutter, was I unclear? The 4.6 lump in the mustang IS aluminum. So what? It only puts out 300hp! I repeat, it only puts out 300 hp!! Go ahead and throw a blower on it, watch it turn into a recycled beer can.
    As you don't care that an iron block will add 150+ lbs to the front of car, you obviously could care less about handling. Me, I'd rather have a fast car with a nice interior and good handling than a nose heavy coupe with a truck axle and the aerodynamics of a parachute. That's why I like the GTO.
    I have also said that the only way they can get 350 hp

    "Especially with that forest of pushrods rooted deep in the GTO's block. Have you already conveniently forgotten that the Mustang GT's engine is OHC and ALUMINUM?? "

    Your point? You can get a Kia compact with an ohc and aluminum motor. Power and light weight are everything. Too bad the mustang is still trying to put out enough power to beat cars made in the '90's.

    "There are '05 GTs out there already with more than 500HP at the wheels with a blower."

    Really? Have their trannies self destroyed as well?There are also GTO's with blowers out there and putting out 600hp. I guess it helps to start with a bigger, better motor.
  • cobragtcobragt Member Posts: 95
    "That's pretty funny. I have already shown how a comparably equipped mustang (upgraded interior, larger wheels, 1000w stereo,leather) cost only a little over a $1,000 less. You are claiming that you can get an extra 100 hp and a irs for under $2K. It is that mindset that helps Ford sell these mustangs."

    WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THOSE OPTIONS...WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BASE PERFORMANCE...
    As said before, BASE MSRP to BASE MSRP, your comparable mustang is only comparable in YOUR OPINION. We are talking PERFORMANCE, so the interior is irrelevant at this point.

    And do please, show me where I said that for under $2k I could get 100HP and an IRS. I never said that. I did say that for $1100 you could make the GT faster, I didn't say more HP. More HP doesn't always mean the car is faster.
    Get it straight.

    #2-Once again, I state that Ford made an engine over 350HP NA. Forget the car it was in, they made one..PERIOD.
  • cobragtcobragt Member Posts: 95
    200 Watt

    Oh and I like the fact that you keep throwing in how to make it comparable, the GT has to have the 1000 Watt system. WHY?

    The GTO is only 200 WATTS!!!! The link above shows you.

    So its NOT comparable even by your terms, for the GT to have the Shaker 1000 system.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    ... You can get a Kia compact with an ohc and aluminum motor. Power and light weight are everything. ...

    You're absolutely correct! :) So WHY do you keep talking as though aluminum is so "high tech?" :confuse: Who cares if the GT500 has an iron block? The GM folks since they won't have anything else to talk about as they're TRAILING the GT500 around a track all day, everyday. ;) How much do you want to wager that the low tech, iron block, truck suspension, parachute aerodynamics havin' GT500 is going to SMOKE the GTO in every fashion? And I believe the leather covered dash of the concept will be optional. It'll give the dash strokin' GTO lovers more incentive to come over! :P You keep talking about the power of the LS1 and the current 4.6. Have you forgotten that the LS1 was 5.7 liters??? :surprise: The new 4.6 in the Mustang GT actually makes 320HP, BTW; just 30HP shy of that mammoth sized 5.7.

    ... There are also GTO's with blowers out there and putting out 600hp. ...

    Really? Have their blocks exploded or trannies self destr[ucted] or that IRS snapped as well?

    ... I guess it helps to start with a bigger, better motor.

    It sure does! So I wish you'd stop acting as though the Mustang GT has the same sized engine! :sick:
  • facts101facts101 Member Posts: 25
    Hypocritical? Because I wanted a car with a nice interior, comfort, seats and good performance all at the same time? What does that have to do with Gotta have it factor? Yeah ok.
  • facts101facts101 Member Posts: 25
    The Mustang 4.6 does NOT make 320hp, it makes 300hp.

    The GTO engine despite it' bigger size, still makes more horsepower per liter or per cubic inch then ford 4.6.
  • facts101facts101 Member Posts: 25
    Actually the new 450 to 475hp $45k GT500 isn't much faster then the $32k GTO. It's numbers aren't much better then a GTO. Road and Track's January article link.... http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=6&article_id=3086

    GT500 is 4.5 seconds 0-60, GTO is 4.6 by GM
    GT500 is 12.9 in the 1/4 mile, GTO is 13.0 by GM
    GT500 top spd is 155 mph, GTO is 158mph

    GT500 is 3900 lbs as a coupe and 4050 lbs as a convertible, pretty heavy.

    For $45k MSRP you can get a base Corvette that will beat the GT500.
  • facts101facts101 Member Posts: 25
    The shaker had problems in the 2005 Mustang with skipping and not playing CD's correctly. Ford had to replace it with a B version or revision. It didn't effect everyone, just early build dates. That said, the Mustang GT optional Shaker 1000 is BETTER sounding then the GTO's Blaupunkt. But the Shaker 1000 is a $1,770 option and takes up part of the trunk with it's 2 subwoofers.

    The std radio in the Mustang GT is only 160 watts -4 speaker only single Disc
  • cobragtcobragt Member Posts: 95
    And the standard radio is much closer then to a "COMPARABLE" GTO radio of 200 Watts.
    Lets not forget that there is also the Shaker 500, which is 500 Watts, and doesn't hinder the trunk space.

    That link you provided, those numbers are estimates, or claims, if you read the article, they weren't even sure of the actual HP yet. You can't go by those numbers.

    The 2003/04 SVT Cobra's stock proven 1/4 mile time was 12.9. Trust me, the GT500 will spank the old Cobras. I'm sure the 1/4 mile time will be better.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    The hypocritical statement was because of that article you posted. The GTO won because it had more dash stroking appeal. How is that different from the "gotta have it factor?" You guys are QUICK to cry foul when the Mustang wins a comparo just because it looks better! Why can't we cry foul when a GTO wins a comparo just because it has the dash stroker appeal?? :confuse:

    The Mustang 4.6 does NOT make 320hp, it makes 300hp. ...

    There are plenty of dynographs on the 'net that prove otherwise.

    The GTO engine despite it' bigger size, still makes more horsepower per liter or per cubic inch then ford 4.6.

    This isn't a Honda discussion! You should be embarrassed for saying that. :sick:

    GT500 is 4.5 seconds 0-60, GTO is 4.6 by GM
    GT500 is 12.9 in the 1/4 mile, GTO is 13.0 by GM
    GT500 top spd is 155 mph, GTO is 158mph

    Let me know when you find an independent test that shows the GTO making those numbers; otherwise, I think the rest of us will dismiss the GM propaganda numbers. Not ONE independent, non-GM affiliated/biased test has gotten those numbers. ;) Whereas the GT500 numbers have actually been achieved by an independent source.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    ... the Shaker 1000 is a $1,770 option and takes up part of the trunk with it's 2 subwoofers.

    Did they increase the price for '06? It was a $1,235 option on my '05. And even with the two subs in the trunk, there's still more space leftover than the GTO has at all.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "Just to name a few Performance V6 engines of 2004 that made the same 260hp or more then the V8 Mustang GT.....

    G35 with 260 - 280hp on 3.5L V6
    350Z 280hp on 3.5L V6
    Maxima 265hp on 3.5L V6
    Grand Prix GTP 260hp on 3.8L V6 "

    You realize, of course, that the first 3 engines you listed we ALL THE SAME NISSAN VQ MOTOR! I'm surprised you didn't list all the other applications where Nissan uses that same motor.

    Oh yeah, and you do realize that 260hp for the Grand Prix GTP is for a BLOWN motor. So, apparently, GM can't produce anywhere NEAR the output of those wily Japanese (despite starting with a BIGGER motor) without resorting to forced induction..... :P
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "See, iron is a metal, a very, very heavy metal. Now, it is bad to have too much weight in any car, especially the front- bad, bad, bad!"

    Yepper, too much weight in any car is bad; particularly for a performance car. Bad, bad, bad!

    So, why is the GTO such a pig?
  • dclark2dclark2 Member Posts: 91
    "Who cares if the GT500 has an iron block?"
    Anyone who wants a good handling car cars. Not everyone drives in a straight line. I guess you don't understand the importance of weight distribution. Just because you don't know doesn't mean that it isn't important.

    The GM folks since they won't have anything else to talk about as they're TRAILING the GT500 around a track all day, everyday. How much do you want to wager that the low tech, iron block, truck suspension, parachute aerodynamics havin' GT500 is going to SMOKE the GTO in every fashion? "
    I don't know what you mean by "every fashion", but the GT is already a poorer handler. Can you explain how adding an extra 150+ lbs to the front of the car to throw off the balance will make this car a better handler ('cause it won't!).

    "And I believe the leather covered dash of the concept will be optional. It'll give the dash strokin' GTO lovers more incentive to come over! You keep talking about the power of the LS1 and the current 4.6. Have you forgotten that the LS1 was 5.7 liters??? The new 4.6 in the Mustang GT actually makes 320HP, BTW; just 30HP shy of that mammoth sized 5.7. "

    That's great, keep recognizing how inferior the mustang is. Yes, the mustang has a motor that still can't keep up with an old camaro, much less a new GTO. Yes, Ford is incapable of producing a high output n/a V8. Yes, the new GT500 with the boat anchor motor in conjuction with the soldi rear, will make it an awful handling car. Yes, Mustang owners don't do their homework.
  • facts101facts101 Member Posts: 25
    Why doesn't Ford change the rating on their 4.6 to 320hp if this is true? The 2005 Rousch stage 1 Mustang which only adds a better free flowing exhaust doesn't even rate at 320hp, and costs $38k+.

    I wasn't discussing Honda's, not sure what you are talking about? :confuse: If you shrunk the GM 2 valve pushrod 6.0 liter motor down to 4.6 it would still be making slightly more hp then the Ford 3 valve ohc motor. Fact.

    I have seen stock GTO's run as fast as 12.9 in the 1/4 at the track, the same as the GT500 will run as reported in that January article. If you don't believe that, check the LS1GTO forums. The fastest stock guys have broken the 13 mark. On the other hand some GTO guys are as high as mid to upper 13's. Depends on driver, track conditions, temp etc.

    GTO was tested at 4.8 seconds by C&D, very close to GT500's 4.5. As for GM's times of 4.6 seconds, and 13.0 seconds 1/4 mile on the 2005 and 2006 GTO, it's in all of their adds BTW. Wouldn't that be false advertising if they were wrong? We all know how Ford mis-stated the hp rating in the late 1990's on the stang.
  • facts101facts101 Member Posts: 25
    The GT500 will be much worse of a pig then the GTO.

    GTO is 3750 lbs, GT500 will be 3900 lbs coupe and 4050 lbs convertible and still doesn't have an IRS which is heavier then a solid rear axle :P
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    ... I wasn't discussing Honda's, not sure what you are talking about? If you shrunk the GM 2 valve pushrod 6.0 liter motor down to 4.6 it would still be making slightly more hp then the Ford 3 valve ohc motor.

    I'm talking about the infamous "HP / liter" comment you made. Apparently you're new to the automotive world (or at least American muscle) if you don't see what I was getting at. I imagine you're the only one who DIDN'T get it.

    GM did/does have a "shrunken" 6L. It's the 4.3L V6 that never made more than 200HP NA. Then there's also the notorious 305cid V8 that couldn't even make, what, 200HP to 250HP.

    dclark2, you're without reason or rationale. Even with the Mustang GT's horrible (in your opinion only) 53/47 weight distribution, it still outhandles the GTO. Isn't the GTO 54/46 or worse? :confuse: How will the GT500 be better? Try bigger wheels/tires, more beefy suspension, better aero, and bigger brakes.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    ... That's great, keep recognizing how inferior the mustang is. Yes, the mustang has a [smaller] motor that still can't keep up with an old camaro [wrong], much less a new GTO. ...

    But that pig isn't much faster, though, despite 100HP surplus. ;)
  • facts101facts101 Member Posts: 25
    The Ford website shows $1,770 for the shaker. The Mustang trunk is bigger because of the gas tank relocation on the GTO for US safety stds. Previous Mustang, 2004 the gas tank is right at the bumper. The GTO is the larger roomier car overall then the Mustang. Compact vs Subcompact by EPA ratings. GTO 95 cu ft interior, Mustang 83 cu ft interior.
  • facts101facts101 Member Posts: 25
    It's a full 6 seconds+ faster to 130mph and 1/2 a second faster in the 1/4 mile.. pretty big dif to me. All the magazines have only tested the manual shift GTO. The Automatic GTO is slightly faster 0-60 and 1/4 mile with 2 less gears, pretty impressive. Waiting for an automatic test, but probably will never happen. I have the stick, so it doesnt' matter to me.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    ... The GTO is the larger roomier car overall then the Mustang. Compact vs Subcompact by EPA ratings. GTO 95 cu ft interior, Mustang 83 cu ft interior.

    Yes, that's because Mustang buyers aren't looking for a family car, which it seems the GTO buyers are.
  • facts101facts101 Member Posts: 25
    Not all GTO owners are looking for family cars. But the advantage is that the room is there if I need it and I can actually carry 4 adults comfortably, unlike the Mustang. With any coupe it's hard to get in and out of the back, but once there the GTO has the same or more room then many midsized 4 door sedans I have been in. It's rear leg room is a full 6 inches more then Mustang and is same or more then the 4 door Grand Prix sedan. To each their own.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    ... To each their own.

    Amen!
  • facts101facts101 Member Posts: 25
    Actually I'm far from new to the automotive world. Hat to break it to you, but the Mustang is NOT a muscle car, it's a pony car. the GTO is a muscle car, many refer to it as the ORIGINAL muscle car.

    The 4.3L V6 is NOT a shrunken 6 Liter V8, It's a V6 motor, not a V8 motor. As stated before, Ford still has the weakest V8 engines around the 4.6L V8 in the Crown Vic with only 224hp. IN the town car it struggles to make 239hp or 240hp.

    MPH magazine had the GTO outhandling the Mustang. In Car and driver it was very close. I can put bigger wheels, brakes, tires and upgradaed suspension on my GTO too for much less $$ then the GT500 will cost IN the end, the GT500 is still a Mustang, it's a $50k mustang. way too much $$ for one. I wouldn't never spend that much for a speciality version of the GTO either, not worth it.

    Ever hear of the Holden Monaro HSV? It competes with the M3 BMW in terms of handling. Often called the poor mans M3, too bad we can't get that HSV edition here in the states.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    Yep, you're new. :blush: The 4.3L V6 is, literally, a GM smallblock with the back two cylinders chopped off. I know plenty about that motor as I had two versions of it in two different S10s.

    And you're not breaking anything to me. I don't think a single Mustang guy here has called the Mustang a muscle car. We all know it's a pony car. The ORIGINAL pony car! You know, the one that prompted such cars as the Camaro, Firebird, Challenger, 'Cuda, AMX, etc. ;)

    And the GTO is arguably the original muscle car. The actual original muscle car was the 1954 (or was it 57) Chrysler C300 (yes, C300; not 300C). You know, of the famous Chrysler 300 Letter Cars.
  • mikesrightmikesright Member Posts: 9
    In road and track recently, they track-tested a GTO at 4.7 seconds.

    While the 4.3L motor is a small-block with cylinders cut off of it, it is based off of a previous version of the small block (Gen I or II, I forget though).
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    I'm trying to figure out why the better hp/diplacement for the GTO guys is such a big deal? (400hp/6.0l = 66.7hp/l vs. 300hp/4.6l = 65.2hp/l) Big whop. 1.5hp/l more specific output.

    Why not consider torque? As in ft-lbs/l?

    GTO has 400ft-lbs/6.0l = 66.7ft-lbs/l
    GT has 320ft-lbs/4.6l = 69.6ft-lbs/l

    Amazing that the pushrod motor (which is supposedly better for grunt than an OHC design) is actually DOWN on specific torque output compared to the 'low-tech'(?) Ford motor? Despite the fact that the GTO runs a higher compression ratio (10.9:1 requiring premium vs. 9.8:1 requiring regular), the GTO is still DOWN to the Mustang on specific torque output?

    And one last thing: yes, the GTO makes more specific hp than the Mustang. Of course, the hp peak occurs at 6k rpm vs. only 5750rpm for the Mustang. I'd be willing to bet that the Mustang would have a hp specific output advantage over the GTO measured at the same rpm.

    So, how do you suppose that the 'low-tech' Ford motor makes more specific torque and (probably) more specific hp at the same rpm as the GTO, despite the fact that the GTO is running a higher compression motor requiring premium? Hmmmm?
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles