Ford Mustang (2005) vs. 2005 Pontiac GTO

gunit · April 2005

Benderofbows said.........I've heard alot of editors state that the Mustang is the most fun to drive, even more so than the Corvette.........

Not Car and Driver, which said......With 6.0 liters of power, it won most of the performance tests as well as the fun-to-drive category,

C&D said the GTO was more fun to drive then Mustang, Nuff said.

graphicguy · April 2005

My sister has a 65 Mustang....that's turned into a maintenance nightmare for her. Biggest problem is that although they are very simple by today's standards, no one wants to touch it to do work on it. You'd think parts would be cheap for such a simple car, but they've ended up being very expensive because some parts have to be custom built.

gunit · April 2005

At least she does not have a 1965 Studebaker, it would be much harder. I can still find and get parts for my 1958 Chevy. It is harder then a newer or 10 yr old car. Some company's make newer parts which don't always fit well or work well either. I try to find NOS, new old stock, I have a lot of parts for the 1958, but still I had to have the speedometer rebuilt on it last summer, crapped out, not the cable, it was the speedo, that was a small fortune to fix, but it works great.

graphicguy · April 2005

I've been tempted to buy the '65 Mustang from my sister several times. But, as soon as I get ready to pull the trigger, she informs me of something simple the car needs (last thing was a new passenger seat track, which had to be custom fabricated) that ends up costing an arm and a leg.

I would imagine the '58 Chevy, since it is so desireable, would have plenty of places to get parts for.

I thought that would be true for the '65 Mustang, too. But, my sister must not be plugged into the right places.

graphicguy · April 2005

Many of these are not my "cup of tea", but these pics were taken of some modified Mustangs.......

http://www.mustangworld.com/ourpics/News/knotts05/knotts05page1.htm

gunit · April 2005

As for sales of GTO, my dealer had 3 when I bought mine, all 3 sold the same week I bought mine which was about 3 weeks ago. The dealer said they will NOT get anymore GTO's in until June. Not bad for a car that supposedly doesn't sell, LOL! Right now they are trying to locate 2 for 2 dif customers that want to buy, but they don't have any. This is a pretty big Pontiac dealer in North NJ/NYC area too.

Also they say you can NOT order 2005 GTO anymore, whatever comes in, comes in. They will be taking orders for the 2006 GTO in the next few months.

They said they got a bunch of preorders for the Solstice already.

gunit · April 2005

The 1965 Mustang is desireable too, she could check Hemmings Auto news and some places.

benderofbows · April 2005

I like the GTO you don't. Thats cool.

Hey, I like the GTO as well, and think it deserves alot of respect. If I was to win one, I wouldn't necessarily drive straight to the Ford dealer to trade it. I mainly jumped into this discussion to defend the Mustang rather than beat up on the GTO, sorry if it sounds that way. It's just that if I was spending my money, I'd buy the Mustang. I almost had one, but unfortunately my Fiancee likes her older (1999-2004) body style better than the new one, so no deal

.

gunit · April 2005

One thing I can't get is why the Mustang V8 or F body V8 insurance is so high? Must be the kids or younger people wrecking them or extra claims or something. For me being married with a multicar discount etc, no accidents or tickets in past 5yrs... the Mustang V8 was about $100 higher for the year then the GTO,which isn't much, close but how can a 300hp car be $100 more then 400hp car? Insurance company's are strange.

here is the KICKER....My 2001 I30t luxury sedan is MORE per year to insure then the 2005 GTO, I30t is only 227 horse!, LOL! Only $10 a year, but still funny.

I just assume there are more claims on Mustangs/camaros.

gunit · April 2005

Cool. Mustang is nice, I just prefer the GTO better, much less of them on the road, I have only seen about 2 in my area. Then not drawing too much attention can be a good thing sometimes... With my old Vette constantly getting too much attention, sometimes the wrong kind, everybody wanting to race you etc. Men in blue noticing you, etc.

graphicguy · April 2005

Solstice looks interesting. I saw it at the local auto show this past winter. The General, did indeed, keep it under $20K. Personally, I think the Saturn version looks better, but that by no means says that the Solstice won't be a hit for Pontiac. Will have to wait to get behind the wheel to make a judgement, though. That might prove a tough proposition since the first ones out will probably sell out quickly since it's an all new car for Pontiac and a big departure from what people have seen from Pontiac in recent years.

It could be a "turn around" car for Pontiac or it could be another Fiero. Too early to tell. My "gut" tells me it will be a hit, if for no other reason than Lutz needs it to be. You can make a bet that the first ones off the line will be perfect. Lutz doesn't want any huge "faux pax" happening to slow down early momentum.

gunit · April 2005

I couldn't imagine Saturn making a car like Solstice, not something I would expect from them, but that being said, I agree the Saturn front end looks better. Time will tell on it. At least the General is advertising it UNLIKE the GTO. There are all these G6 and Solstice commericials and even Grand Prix, but no GTO commericials? Mercury did the same thing with the Marauder. Wrong way to run a business. I have heard they are selling their 2005 GTO's on target for the 12k they are allotted. My dealer can't get any more until late June, LOL! In my area knowone has 2004's left. That being said I would not have bought a 2004 leftover even for a cheap price, #1 its a 1st yr car here and 2nd the 2005 has many more improvements. They also announced that the 2005 would have more while selling 2004, LOL! Good thing I waited.

That being said, any improvements for the 2006 Mustang GT V8 yet?

graphicguy · April 2005

Pontiac couldn't possibly have had less advertising than they had for the '05 GTO. I see G6 ads all the time, though. You think they could have reserved 1/10th of the G6 ad budget for the GTO.

Nothing regarding changes aside from a few color renaming schemes and I think 18" wheels being available to the '06 Mustang GT.

brushbandit · April 2005

Also racing at the track was an 05 Mustang GT that a local performance company had purchased in Illinois, the dragstrip and performance company are in NJ. It was an automatic and they were racing the car to get baseline times before they installed thier new sleeper turbo set up on the car. The car had autocross tires on the rear, not as good as drag radials but better than street tires. They also dropped the mufflers. Also the track we ran at is not known for good traction. The best time I saw the Mustang run was a 14.40. My 04 GTO stock except for LT headers ran a best of 13.80 on street tires. I was left unimpressed by the Mustang. I see these 13.4 ET's for the mustang talked about but I have yet to see it. Maybe the auto in the Mustang really slows it down?

graphicguy · April 2005

Yeah....that's the problem with trying to assess performance from "track" stories. Driver abilities are different. Equipment levels are different (automatic vs manual). Levels of tune/mods are different.

That's why I stick to the trade rags to get consistent and reliable perfromance numbers on cars straight out of the factory.

When I was still racing, I can't tell you the amount of times I saw drivers state they were running bone stock....only to find out on closer inspection that they had different tires from stock, different exhaust's from stock, etc. To me, that's not stock. To some, if they aren't running any sort of forced induction, they consider themselves stock. I say, if you've done anything to a car that wasn't stock, it's not bone stock.

3 weeks ago, I was at the local track. I saw a highly modded Mustang run in the 9s. I've seen '04 GTOs, modded running in the mid 12s. Conversely, I've seen Mustangs run in the 14s as well as GTOs (admittedly, none of them had very good hookups coming off the lights).

rolson1 · April 2005

The only ones you can trust are those that do the testing for R&D for exhaust, transmission upfits, axle changes, blowers, etc. The actual Factory numbers, HP to the GROUND, have to be accurate, as well. However those can be deceiving if you can't use them correctly. You MUST read...re-read...test if you have the ability. If you can't PROVE IT...it's not so...except for YOU.

And just like your Momma said, "Consider the source"

If you are using "The enthusiasts mags" to make an informed decision, you might be in a bit of trouble. When the "mags" were given a chance to drive what would have been the 1983 Corvette, they said, when it hits the street it will be the greatest American performance car of all time....check it out....the 1983 Vette never made it to the street...too many problems in production. Ya know...I never read a retraction of any of that pap that passes for "journalism"

nuff said

alahiri · April 2005

Looks like again we're back to horses per dollar comparison. Bye the way, it would be unfair to not include BMW 3-series coupe, Mazda RX 7 and Nissan Z/ Infinity G35 Couple in this comparison.

graphicguy · April 2005

I do feel that you can put the Mazda, BMW, Nissan/Infinity offerings in the group. The RX7 might be out of place since it's no longer in production.

Regarding the '83 corvette? I dunno, but I don't know that any mistake made by the trade rags 22 years ago means a whole lot. As it stands, the trade rags (and places like Edmunds) offer the only credible sources for performance figures. They take factory stock cars, test them and then publish the results.

You never know what you're getting when any individual reports their track numbers. Are they being truthful about the track times? Are they really running stock? Drivers are all over the map as far as experience levels. Automatics vs Manual trannys. Different track conditions will have an impact on the results too.

That's what makes the trade rags and trusted media sources what I most use to evaluate performance (plus, my personal experiences).

Aside from that, streeting a car is much different than tracking a car.

kernick · April 2005

My order of preference and I'm sure MY real-world performance numbers would be Cobra, GTO, then GT.

The exterior styling I would have given to the GT last year, but the new hoodscope makes the GTO my favorite this year. On interior styling I like the Red and Blue of the GTO, and believe the seats are quite nice. All retro is not great - the GT is OK.

Then we get to mod. potential. You can always do more with 6.0 than 4.6.

I also agree I'd rather drive a more exclusive car. Both are missing sunroofs or T-Tops though. Stereo advantage to the GT.

If the stock-market goes up 10% for the next 2 years maybe I'll trade in my Firebird and get the Cobra.

gunit · April 2005

In horses per dollar, the Mustang GT and GTO are pretty close, However once you load the GT up to match the GTO's normal features, leather, 10 spkr stereo, automatic tranny, the GTO gives you more HP for the buck.

$28k GT with 300hp, $93 per HP
$33k GTO with 400hp $83 per HP, $33k is after the $1k mfg rebate

This is before any leftover or employee discounts etc.

graphicguy · April 2005

gunit...that's a comparison I never thought about.

The only missing part is the resale. It's probably too early to tell what either car will bring as used cars at this early juncture. I don't think the resale of an '04 GTO will be indicative of what an '05 GTO will sell for on the used market. IF GM refrains for putting huge rebates on the '05 like they did on the '04, then it may do well in holding its value.

The Mustang GT, in used or new form, seems to be holding MSRP. '05 GTs are totally sold out since the factory will no longer accept '05 GT orders (either individual orders or dealer stock orders). You may be able to find a few here and there on dealer's lots, but they'll be scarce from this point forward. 13,000 ordered '05 Mustangs won't even get built The earliest anyone can order an '06 is mid-May. The plant will go on shutdown for a couple of weeks in July before they start-up '06 Mustang GT builds. The '06s will start hitting dealer showrooms sometime in August or Sept, depending on dealer allotment.

Don't know what that will mean for resale, but considering dealer's are still hard pressed to get Mustang GTs, I'd HOPE (and that's what it is....a hope) that they hold their value well.

What I don't know is what percentage of either model (Mustang in GT form or GTO) is out there with an automatic.

Just a guess, but I'd be willing the say that most owners opt for the manual trans versions as the typical buyer will be an enthusiast.

I would think that if the Solstice is a hit for Pontiac, that would get enthusiasts into the Pontiac showrooms to at least look at the GTOs (just like Corvettes get enthusiasts into Chevy showrooms....whether they buy or not).

gunit · April 2005

http://www.havican.com/GTO/

2004 GTOproductionfigures

For the 2004 GTO it was pretty much a 50/50 split on Auto vs manual shift. 53.8% were Manual shift and 46.1% were automatic shift. there was 15,728 total sold for 2004l. 8,466 were 6spd manual and 7,262 were 4spd auto.

I am an enthusiast but opted for the 4spd auto, Pontiacs brochure says the Auto is 1/10th faster then Manual 0-60 and 1/4 mile. City gas mileage is same. Highway mileage is 4 better with stick. I do mostly in town driving in my area near upper NJ near NY City, rather have an automatic. The 3 GTO's that were on the lot of my dealer to chose from were ALL Automatic anyway. They sold all 3 of those the same week I bought mine. They said they won't get anymore until June and that they can NOT order 2005 anymore.

My dealer said the Solstice starsts showing up in June. If it had more pwr I might be interested. Price is nice! Pontiacs Brochure claims 7.2 seconds for manual shift Solstice. Not bad.

gunit · April 2005

I try to stay away from first year cars. I have had bad luck with them. Hopefully the 2005 Stang is good. I am afraid of 1st yr cars after my experiences with my first new car, 1995 V8 olds Aurora and 1997 GTP coupe. Both 1st yr cars, lots of problems. Where as my 2002 GTP coupe and 2001 I30t was fine. Thankgod for ext warranties. Paid for just about everything. A/C compressor on 1995 V8 Aurora was $1k with labor, LOL!

GTO is best quality GM car I ever had from interior/exterior fit finish, etc. 10x better interor then my GTP was. Of course, time will tell.

New 2005 Stang is the BEST quality Stang ever made too, from what I have seen and felt on test drive. Interior far better then those late 1980's and early to mid 1990's ones.

graphicguy · April 2005

Interesting split between Auto vs manual. I never would have expected that.

The Aurora could have been the savior for Olds. They just didn't get it right, out of the box. as you pointed out. It did become a good car towards the end, though (albeit a little too late).

I always thought that the V8 Northstar would be a good engine.

Personally, I've never had many issues with any GM car. I've owned quite a few over the years. I did buy a used Blazer a long while back. It was garbage, but I chalked that up to a poor GM service dept, more than anything else. It still had warranty left when I bought it, but the service dept acted like they'd never seen one before. That's a whole different story, though.

I'm of the mind that there isn't much difference in reliability between any of the major makes.....that includes Hondas and Toyotas. I've owned a "stinker" of a BMW as well as a Honda.

gunit · April 2005

The V8 northstar was a good engine, smooth and powerfull Much more refined then my GTP's 3800 SC engine. But traded it after oil blow by problem which happened with earlier Northstars. By 1997 or 1998 they fixed it.

Funny thing was that the Aurora sales DOUBLED in 2001 after they introduced the cheaper V6 entry level model. But Olds itself was already on it's way out!

My friend has had lots of problems with his 2001 Accord which is supposedly the most reliable car, LOL! The 1988 528 BMW I had was used and had over 160k miles and was still going strong when I traded it. Held up very well. But maintenance was expensive.

graphicguy · April 2005

Speaking of engines.....I've always thought that if American marks continued developing V8s (like the small block in your GTO) that they would be able to achieve good MPG as well as meet EPA regs. Using hindsight, during the '70s and '80s, GM, Ford & Chrysler decided to develop 4 & 6 cyl engines as their "bread & butter".

Just looking at the GTO's 5.7 or 6.0 V8s, it's clear that with continued development they will get in the 20s for MPG and meet all EPA regs.....and that the complexity of DOHC wasn't needed. I think the main reason the Northstar wasn't used in more applications was it's complexity and cost associated with being a DOHC design.

Just take a look at where such fabled engines as the GM small blocks, Ford's 4.6 and 5.4, Chrysler's fabled Hemi, have come. Just think what they would/could have been if they had continued their R&D on them unabated over the previous 2-3 decades?

To me, GM's 3.8 V6, blown or unblown, is still one of the best V6s that ever hit the market. I think GM should continue to develop it. But, again GM probably feels it costs too much to do so.

It's good that we're still able to get the 5.7, 6.0, 4.6, 5.4, hemi V8s. There's something about OHV designs and their inherent torque characteristics that can't be duplicated with DOHC designs.

I'll probably catch some flack about this, but GM, Ford, Chrysler still makes some of the best V8 engines in the world. Look no further than your GTO to see that. I'll say the same about my Mustang's V8.

I still say long live the GTO, the Mustang GT, the Charger, etc. Hope that comes to pass. But sometimes the American car companies (all of them) can't see the forest for the trees.

sputterguy · April 2005

Well, finally. One of you has finally admitted that the GTO is faster. That's all I'm asking. Come on, it has a 100 more hp. At least aknowlege that. I won't argue the Mustang is more popular, the numbers speak for themselves, but that's a GTO selling point for us. I won't argue the Mustangs handling abilities, at least until we get some real world experience instead of that car mag crap. So thank you for giving credit to the GTO for its straight line performance at least....

sputterguy · April 2005

As a former GTP owner you know darn well the Grand Prix looks nothing like the GTO. I agree they did nothing with the Grand Prix from '97 until '04 and then it was pretty much mostly cosmetic changes. Actually, I like the interior of the GTP better. It's more roomy and comfortable to me even if the the GTO has higher quality materials and workmanship. Personally I think they should have put RWD back into the GP, dropped the LS1 into it, beefed up the suspension, and added 18 inch wheels to fill up the wheel wells. Since they didn't do that, the GTO is the next best thing. For me anyway.

gunit · April 2005

I have owned both 1997 and 2002 GTP coupes and now own a 2005 GTO coupe. To me the GTO is the far superior car, comfort, quality, etc. Seats are far better then GTP seats. My opinion.

They were going to put RWD back into the GP for 2007 or 2008 but with the Zeta platform being cancelled, who knows now? At least the general is dropping a 303 hp V8 into GP, but it's still hooked up to the front wheels.

I went with GTO because no more Grand Prix Coupe. It's not a much smaller. GTO is still classified the same MIDSIZE as GTP.

GTP was 99 cu ft
GTO was 95 cu ft as per Car and driver.
Stang was 83 cu ft as per car and driver

Total inside cu ft, minus trunk.

benderofbows · April 2005

Yes, I'll admit the GTO is faster in a straight line; maybe not so much to 60 but it obviously has a better top end (for now anyways; the Cobra and GT500 should fix that!) And, thank you for giving the Mustang credit for its' popularity and handling capabilities.

It's not so much that we think the GTO looks EXACTLY like a Grand Prix. However, it is my contention that the GTO looks more like a Grand Prix coupe than the 2005 Mustang looks like a 1960's Mustang. Clearly, the Mustangs' styling is fitting with the '60s era, but it also manages to look very modern and unique (a lot of major differences between the older models and the new). The GTO's styling is obviously fitting with the '90s GP. You have to admit, there are an awful lot of similarities in the general styling (except from rear angles).

As I have said before: I'd rather have a brand new car that looks like a true classic, than a brand new car that looks ten years old.

rorr · April 2005

"As I have said before: I'd rather have a brand new car that looks like a classic, than a brand new car that looks ten years old."

Yeah, kinda like the difference between parachute pants and a classic pair of Ray-Bans....

gunit · April 2005

How much is the GT500 going to cost? I have heard rumors of it STARTING at $40k or very high 30'sk. That is $6k more then a GTO. It should be faster for that price. LOL! For me that is too much $$ for a Mustang.

benderofbows · April 2005

How much is the GT500 going to cost? I have heard rumors of it STARTING at $40k or very high 30'sk. That is $6k more then a GTO. It should be faster for that price.

Well, everyone here is beating up on the Mustang because it is "slower" than the GTO. But the GTO costs roughly $5,000 more than a GT. I could quote the same (it should be faster for that price) back to you.

atvdragger · April 2005

I know I'm new here, but in middle Ga. when someone says that one car is slower than another itsd because it has been proven at one of the local tracks,NOT because it was read about in a mag.Around here even corvette guys are scared of a good running mustang( buy the way there are alot of them around here, good running mustangs that is.)When you can spend around $3,000 and NOT install nitros,a turbo or a supercharger and pull mid 6's in an 1/8 mile on a stock bottom end you certainly will not waste your time even thinking about a GTO.Unless your laughing at the poor GM guys that is.

kernick · April 2005

Any variation of a Mustang that costs $40K or more, is competing with the Corvette, not a GTO.

gunit · April 2005

benderofbows writes.......Any variation of a Mustang that costs $40K or more, is competing with the Corvette, not a GTO.......

A Mustang does NOT compete with a Corvette. Never really has! 2 dif cars. Vette competes more with a Viper. 2 seats, no backseats. Mustang is nice, and I'm sure the GT500 will rock but is not worth a $40k+ tag in my opinion. Not when someone can buy the base for $19k. or V8 base for $25k

gunit · April 2005

Benderofbows writes.......Well, everyone here is beating up on the Mustang because it is "slower" than the GTO. But the GTO costs roughly $5,000 more than a GT. I could quote the same (it should be faster for that price) back to you..........

The Fact is that the GTO is faster then the Stang, won all the perf. contests in Car and Driver over stang, offers 100 more hp, independent rear axle, better interior etc and that is why it's $5k more! nuff said.

as previously posted here the GTO actually offers more bang for the buck then Stang. 400hp for $34k is cheaper then 300hp for $28k!!! Do the math! GTO is $85 per HP, Stang is $93 per hp. I am not beating up on the Stang, just stating the facts. Stang is a good car too.

I could have bought a Stang, bought GTO, that is what I liked and wanted. BTW, I did NOT pay $34k for my GTO. With rebates and employee discount only paid about $2k more then a Stang. Didn't have a Ford discount.

atvdragger · April 2005

Guys ,to be fare ,I must admit that I own a local machine shop and have 32 years in on modifying racing engines. The past 18 years I have specialized on the EFI mustang. In other words ,if I spend $3,000 on an engine an average individual would have to spend around $9,000 to $10,000 to get the same work done. With all due respect ,the new GTO is a nice car.
With that said ,at our local tracks on test and tune nights I have never seen a stock GTO outrun a stock v8 mustang.

sputterguy · April 2005

Omigaw! You have to prop up the hood! That is truly reprehensible. It's just another way to shave costs and lower the overall weight, there by making it more competive. That one feature would keep me from buying a Mustang.

graphicguy · April 2005

sputter....we'll have to agree to disagree on the GP styling vs the GTO's.

To me, the GTO is nearly a GP clone from a styling perspective.

That's not the reason I bought the Mustang GT over the GTO, however. I've stipulated, more than once, my thought process that brought me to my "buy" decision. NO need to go through the same excersise again.

graphicguy · April 2005

Having a hood prop is the one feature that would keep you from buying a Mustang? It's reprehensible?

You're being facetious (I hope)!!!!!!???????

benderofbows · April 2005

The Fact is that the GTO is faster then the Stang, won all the perf. contests in Car and Driver over stang, offers 100 more hp, independent rear axle, better interior etc and that is why it's $5k more! nuff said.

Yes... and the GT500 will be faster than the GTO, will win all the performance contests, will offer at least 50 more hp and torque and at lower RPMs, will handle better... and that is why it will be $5k more than the GTO.

I'm sure the GT500 will rock but is not worth a $40k+ tag in my opinion. Not when someone can buy the base for $19k. or V8 base for $25k

Well, if (as you say) the average person can tell a GTO from a Grand Prix, they will be able to easily differentiate between the various levels of the Mustang (V6/GT/Cobra/GT500), especially the SVT Cobra and Shelby GT500 variants. And if those variants offer that much more than a GTO, it will be worth the extra price.

sensai · April 2005

LOL - Corvette guys are scared of good running Mustangs? If you are talking mid 6's in a 1/8 of a mile (which equates to solid 10s in the 1/4) for $3000, the only Stangs that would do that are the Terminator Cobra and gutted Fox body Mustangs. While both of those are certainly straight line fast, they are not comparable to a Vette in any other way. By the way, you can throw $3000 into a LSx engine (heads/cam package), and run into the 11s, which is plenty fast for most people. And you still drive home in a very liveable car.

gunit · April 2005

There is the GTO-R with 450hp from the STOCK LS2 V8, right now only for racing use..,GM didn't have to use a "blower" supercharger like the GT500. 450hp is normally aspirated. But I doubt that will see regular production, just racing!

gunit · April 2005

benderofbows writes.......Yes... and the GT500 will be faster than the GTO, will win all the performance contests, will offer at least 50 more hp and torque and at lower RPMs, will handle better... and that is why it will be $5k more than the GTO......

The GT500 also uses a supercharger to make that power, the GTO is normally aspirated! That said I could put a blower on my GTO and match or exceed the GT500 and wait, My car would still cost less then GT500 including the supercharger! For me the 400hp stock is good enough.

If Pontiac made a $40k+ GTO I wouldnt' buy it either. Same with a $40k+ Mustang, not worth it to me.

While the Mustang interior is ok to good for a $19k to $28k car, it is NOT good in a $40k+ car. I hope they are improving it for GT500.

It would be cool if POntiac put the new 7 Liter Z06 500hp motor in a version of the GTO, but then I'm sure they would charge way too much, LOL!

Kirstie_H · April 2005

Don't forget tonight's member-to-member chat - it's open mic night, so come and discuss whatever's on your mind.

6-7pm PT/9-10pm ET. Drop by for live chat with other members. Hope you can join us!

kirstie_h

gunit · April 2005

Bendereofbows said.......Well, if (as you say) the average person can tell a GTO from a Grand Prix, they will be able to easily differentiate between the various levels of the Mustang (V6/GT/Cobra/GT500), especially the SVT Cobra and Shelby GT500 variants. And if those variants offer that much more than a GTO, it will be worth the extra price..........

At least the GTO won't be confused for a cheaper dumbed down version of itself, ala $19k V6 stang vs a $40k GT500 by your avg non car enthusaist.

18,000 GTO's vs 180,000 Mustangs. Big difference and more exclustivity with GTO. At least you can't rent a GTO, You can rent 2005 Stangs all over the place. Just saw 3 on the rental car lot near here. As I said, Mustang, Camry, Accord, Taurus, F150, all the same a dime a dozen. One on every block and 20 in every parking lot, LOL! That is why I would never buy a car like that. I want something somebody else doesn't have, but that is just me.

sputterguy · April 2005

Suckers is right. Yes, I will disparage the Mustang's 60's styling. It only looks good to you because you weren't around then. It's time for me to come out of the closet. Yes, it's true. Oh, the shame of it. I'm a Mustange lover. That is, Mustangs up to '73. I owned two '60's era' Mustangs. But 30 years of Mustang II's and Fox bodies has left a bad taste in my mouth. Frankly though, coming out the year after the first gas shortages, the Mustang II wasn't a bad car. I probably wouldn't mind the fox bodies so much if it wasn't for that guy down at the local Speedway running the 1/4 with his mufflers disconnected. I hope he didn't waste his money on headers. So there he is, noisily, sputtering down the track, and everyone looking at each other and shaking theirs heads. 175hp, now that's some excitement. The point of this longwinded and yes I know, boring account is that when I look at the '05 I don't feel anything. And normally, anytime I see any 60's car I feel a twinge. The 05 does not look like any Mustang I know. It has some features in common, but that is all. It is only an imitation. The performance is there but not the, oh I can't even think of a word for it. I'll leave it at that for now.

gunit · April 2005

Benderofbows writes.........Well, everyone here is beating up on the Mustang because it is "slower" than the GTO.....

Not everyone is beating up on the Mustang, there are others beating up on the GTO also. It's 50/50. Why you would defend a car, the 2005 Mustang, that you told me you don't even OWN is besides me, LOL! Kind of hillarious.

I would be like me defending the 2005 Vette, even though I don't own one, LOL! I would never do, unless I owned it. To each their own. Funny though! Final comments on this thread, it's getting old. Sick and tired of repeating myself.

sputterguy · April 2005

Well, yes it is fair not to include those other cars. Look at the name of the forum. Mustang vs GTO. But feel free to contribute. Those names pop up in here every once in awhile anyway.

Ford Mustang (2005) vs. 2005 Pontiac GTO

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles