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
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
What fun would this site be if everyone could only talk about the cars they actually had? What about the GT500, I guess we can't talk about that because it's not out yet and no one actually has one. Go tell the entire Future Vehicles board to pack it up, they can't discuss what they don't have.
Besides, I have enough experience to write about the 2005s. I almost bought one, got a new leftover 2004 instead. Did plenty of research complete with a thorough test drive! My Fiancee had a 2001 that was totaled, and she wanted another one of the same body style.
So a bland modern coupe that takes some features from the original has no character, but a bland modern coupe with no features does have character?
The next logical step would be to drop the LS7 into the GTO. LS7 = 427. Oh yeah, sounds good to me. But there isn't enough time to get it into the '06 and now there's no '07. Oh well. Now, if Pontiac had only listened to me there would be that rear wheel drive Grand Prix to carry on. I'm sure there will be some other car besides the Corvette to get the LS7. If not then GM has lost the hp war.
That's some oddball logic. Why did people buy $33K+ Camaro SS/Trans AM WS6 (or $40K+ Firehawk) when they could buy an $18K V6 version of the same car?
On that same token, AMG and BMW's M division need to just close up shop. Why by a $50K+ M3 when you can buy a base 3-series for $27K? Why buy a $70K+ M5 when you can buy a base 5-series for $40K? Why on Earth would anyone pay $80K+ for an E55 AMG when they could buy a base E350 for $50K?
Come on now. Get real, dude.
And about that interior and the car not being worth $40K; have you even seen pictures of the GT500? Did you noticed the leather covered dash? Did you notice the different guage fonts? Did you notice the different seat pattern?
Did you notice the new wheels and tires? Did you notice the different ground effects? Did you notice the completely different front end? Did you notice the lowered suspension? Did you notice the different paint scheme? Did you notice the rear spoiler and lower diffuser?
Did you even see pictures of the car?? :confuse:
Actually, the original GT500 (from 1967 thru about 68-1/2) had the 428. Rumor has it that a FEW of the original cars had 427's swapped in by some dealers. Later half of 1968, the cars were GT500KR's which had the 428 Cobrajet engines.
I'm not aware of any GT500's being equipped with the 427 Sideoiler from the factory.
Also, the LS7 in the upcoming ZO6 actually displaces closer to 428 ci. Chevy refers to it as a '427' for marketing reasons.....and since that 'sounds good' to you, I would say that the GM marketing folks have you pretty much figured out. It's all about the numbers......
I'm not a gearhead so I don't know why but I read the Sideoiler was superior to another Ford 427 but maybe it was the 428 it was being compared to.
I heard the LS7 was a 428 but since that sounded too Fordish they are calling it a 427. Using the rule of thumb someone here gave me to convert from liters to cubes, multiply liters by 61. So 7 x 61 = 427. I know that's only an approximation but it's good enough for me. 427/428, it doesn't matter. Either one has that ring to it, unlike uh, 5.4. And like I said, it sounds like a big block...
AFAIK, there was only one 427 FE from Ford (although it could be had with several different head/intake/carb configurations). There was even a SOHC version (infamous 'Cammer' 427). On second thought, I think there were at least two different 427 blocks; the differences being the way the oil was plumbed through the block (hence the 'standard' 427 and the 'sideoiler' 427. The 'sideoiler' may have come about due to oiling problems with the standard 427's used in Nascar. Not sure about that.)
The difference between the 428 family and the 427 was the 428 has a smaller bore/longer stroke for more low end torque while the 427 made a lot more top end power due to it's shorter stroke/higher rpm capability. The 427 may have been the 'better' motor (define 'better' for 100 pts.....) but the 428 was probably more streetable and more in character with a comparitively heavy car like the orginal GT500s due to it's better low-end torque. I've also heard that the 428 crank will fit in a 427 block to give a displacement of 454 ci. Hmmmmm, a little to "GM" for my tastes....
As far as the upcoming LS7: from C&D's preview, it states the motor displaces 7008cc (427.6 ci). And yes, for GM fans, a "427" sounds much better than 428. Of course, Ford was guilty for YEARS of refering to the old 302 as a "5.0 liter" when it was actually closer to a 4.9.
Okay - back on topic. Everybody can now return to the endless "my car rocks, your car sux" back and forth.....
You called them both bland! Your quote follows:
Check out the original GT500. That to me is one of the best looking (and performing) cars in the world of all time. Now look at the new one. Talk about bland styling. All it does is take some features from the original and add them on to a bland modern coupe.
You're not making a cohesive argument. You say the original GT500 was one of the best looking cars in the world of all time. But you call the new GT500 "bland" for being a "bland modern coupe" with features from the original added on? Wasn't the old GT500 just a Mustang GT with added features? Would the new GT500 be recognizable as a Carroll Shelby if it looked completely different?
So the new GT500 is bland, but you argue that you like the GTO more because it is "bland." Huh?
I'm just curious what is his idea of a non-bland modern coupe? So far, we know his opinion regarding the Mustang (bland) and the GTO (bland).
Now that you mention it, the SOHC was the other engine I was thinking about.
That makes sense about the 428 being more streetable since it ended up in lesser Mustangs such as the Mach 1's. Plus, at least what I read was that it only had 390hp, which could easily have been a lie from Ford. These days, some car companies (I'm not talking Ford or Pontiac) overstate their horsepower. Back in those days the car companies lied about the horsepower by claiming less horsepower than there really was. Those were the good old days...
Yes, I like the bland styling of the GTO. I bought one because of the engine, not the body style. And I don't want it wrapped in a lot of cladding. And like most owners, I can't stand even the spoiler.
Got it now?
410hp Vortech Mustang GT from Motor Trend
0-60mph in 4.6 seconds
1/4 mile 13 seconds at 108.5 mph
400hp GTO STOCK!! From Pontiac/GM Brochure
0-60mph in 4.6 seconds
1/4 mile 13 seconds at 108mph
Yes every car mfg does cost cuts on their cars, but no IRS on a $45k car?? Even the $35k or less Cobra had IRS.
I did some further checking regarding the 427 in the early Shelby GT500's. In 1967, all GT500's had the 428. Apparantly, in 1968, three (3) early GT500's left the factory with 427 sideoilers; the remainder had the 428. In mid-1968, production switched to the 428CJ (for the GT500KR models). Also, there were apparently NO dealer installed 427's in lieu of the factory 428 (although a number of cars later had the 428's pulled in favor of 427's but this was after delivery to the owner). I don't have access to my copy of the Shelby America Registry anymore so I can't confirm the three cars receiving factory 427's in 1968 or what their vin #'s were.
Lord, I wonder what THOSE three cars would be worth today if properly documented :surprise:
Wouldn't it be at least somewhat better to compare M/T's results for the Mustang with the Vortech against M/T's results for the '05 GTO?
I made myself feel better about her decision by noting that the 2004 Mustangs were ranked higher for reliability than any other American car for in Consumer Reports, and the new ones have had a few of the typical first-model-year Ford quirks. And, when it comes time to trade my Explorer, I can get what I want without listening to her! LOL
Even Better I saw the GT500 upclose in person at the NY autoshow , big crowd around it Red with white stripes even better then pictures. Nice car, but not worth $40k to $45k to me in my opinion. To you or others it might be. Thats cool.
In Austrailia they make a $45k version of the GTO, extra features, but still that would not be worth it to me either. To much $$
Hey, there was a V6 in the original Mustang. Why can't they offer one now?
CR doesn't have any data on GTO for reliability, not enough of them, LOL!
Their results....
GTO--0-60 in 5.0 secs, 1/4 in 13.3 secs
'05 Mustang GT--0-60 in 5.1 secs, 1/4 in 13.5 secs
'04 GTO was tested by MT as follows....0-60 in 5.5 secs, 1/4 in 13.9 secs
Once again, regarding the solid rear of the Mustang in Shelby GT500....as stated before, Ford did such a good job with it in the '05 Mustang, they saw no need to change it to a more expensive and more complicated IRS set-up. Matter of fact, there was no gain in handling by using an IRS. That's just good engineering.
Carry on the debates if you must......
Once again, regarding the solid rear of the Mustang in Shelby GT500....as stated before, Ford did such a good job with it in the '05 Mustang, they saw no need to change it to a more expensive and more complicated IRS set-up. Matter of fact, there was no gain in handling by using an IRS. That's just good engineering.......
No, it was cost cutting on the Mustang to not use an IRS, as per the 38 yr old Hau Thai-Tang, head engineer of the 2005 Mustang program...
The Mustang almost wasn't foaled over the issue of rear suspension. "We couldn't make a profitable business case" because the complex independent rear suspension cost too much, Thai-Tang says. The team didn't want to return to a so-called solid or live rear axle, but, "It was a hard choice we knew we had to make. (CEO) Bill Ford is a Mustang fan, but he didn't cut us any slack" on profit margins.
END OF STORY on the Rear. NO more debates. This proves it was cost cutting plain and simple, Like I have been trying to tell you. Here it is. . His team wanted to usre IRS but wasnt' allowed to do to $$ LOL!
article
If they can save money by using a component that does just as good of a job as a more expensive component, how is that bad?
The 2005 GTO is meeting it's 1,000 car per month sales quotas. My dealer doesn't get anymore until Late May. Sold them all. Not bad for a car that hasn't been really advertised, pretty dumb of GM. They spend millions advertising the G6 and Solstice though. Speaking of which I read the Solstice sold 1,000 preorders in 41 minutes! Due out in early June.
Mustang will always outsell the GTO because it starts nearly $14k cheaper. $19k vs $33k. It would be interesting to see if GM could have made a cheaper/dumbed down version of the GTO and if they really advertised it, LOL! Many of the Mustangs are cheap V6 models driven by teeny boppers, High School students etc, in my area.
GTO is roughly about 53% manual and 47% Automatic tranny for 2004.
Camaros had "dumbed down" versions comparable in pricing to the Mustang and still couldn't keep up with the Mustang in sales.
The GTO is a far superior riding car with a much better build quality and interior then the Camaro ever had. GTO is way more luxury then Camaro. Not to mention the GTO actually has a usable backseat then can fit full grown adults, LOL! Try that in a Camaro, knees in the seats. This is why the GTO costs more. Too bad GM doesn't have a lower priced version of it. Don't forget the top of the line F Bodies Firehawk etc in 2002 were nearly $35k also!! They didn't have the 400hp or 400 torque of the GTO either. Also high INsurance on Camaros, almost higher then Mustangs. Esp for younger people.
Lets not forget the 2001 Cobra, where Ford Mis-stated the horsepower either.
just a thought, LOL!
"We've got good geometry and good shock-motion ratios, and we're happy with the suspension we have. We won't hesitate to have you do a driving comparison against IRS-suspended competitors".
I was originally critical of Ford for sticking to the solid rear. I DID compare the IRS of the GTO against the solid rear of the Mustang GT. I came to the conclusion that the Mustang GT handles better than the GTO.....regardless of the differences in the rear suspension.
Road & Track tester, Matt DeLorenzo stated about the entire chasis/suspension....
"The design is similar to that used on the legendary BMW M3. As BMW has proven time and again, executing a simple design deftly can work as well or better than more complex and costly bits. It's a lesson the Mustang team has taken to heart. Overall, the rear end feels as planted as independent rear suspensions and yet is less costly, lighter and more robust (than IRS)."
I concur.
BTW...my insurance bill would cost me more if I had bought a GTO.
Truth told, regarding CAFE, both GM and Ford could do much more by limiting truck and SUV sales to meet the averages than limiting sales of Mustang GTs or GTOs.