Ford Mustang (2005) vs. 2005 Pontiac GTO

442man · May 2005

The GTO automatic will shift into 4th (top) gear as low as 30mph or less ! As low as 28mph. At 30mph it's only pullling 1000 rpm. Idling along. If you could maintain 30, you would get 30 mpg. Funny.

At 60-65mph in 4th it's doing about 2000 rpm, that is 21 mpg

442man · May 2005

Forbes just listed it's top convertibles and the 2005 Mustang GT was in there. Did ok. Only knock on the Mustang was that Forbes said it had a "HO-HUM" interior. Just avg. Otherwise good small write-up

b4z · May 2005

6speed GTO does 78 mph @2000rpms.

I have not taken a long trip but according to the display they only wAy to get 29mpg in the 6speed is to keep speeds at around 50mph, which is the EPA testing speed.

GTO is just too heavy to pull the kind of numbers that Corvette drivers get with their .50 overdirves.

graphicguy · May 2005

Also, Strategic Vision just awarded the Mustang the "Total Quality" award for specialty coupes in the $25K category. Corvette won the award for the specialty coupe in the over $25K award.

The Mustang does not have a locking gas cap. I understand the desire for this feature.....especially if you've had issues with people trying to "siphon" gas from your tank or others that want to "sabotage" your car.

I've never had such issues, but I'm sure if it ever does happen to me, I'd be plenty upset.

Now, you're making me wonder if I should go to NAPA and buy one.......

442man · May 2005

One other put off, to me was the mast radio antennae on the Mustang. Not sure if the GT has it? I know the base V6 model does. Another thing to sabotage. Most cars usually have it built into the rear window today. One less thing to worry about.

I had someone sabotage one of my cars about 18 yrs ago. Ever since then 1 feature I look for is the locking gas cap door, which most of the foreign cars, Honda-Toyota-Infiniti etc seem to have and if not you can pick up a locking one at NAPA. Thats what I have done. It's just more of a pain to open with the key. But better then sabotage or siphoning.

The best feature I miss was on my 1986 442 and other G bodies, gas cap was in the rear license plate. That way you can pull up to the gas pump on either side, doesn't matter.

442man · May 2005

The Zoomie automotive awards...... not that means much....

Best affordable rocket: Pontiac's new GTO may not take your breath away to look at it, but the GTO is as exciting as a Corvette from an acceleration standpoint. Oh, and it's priced where Corvettes were about 10 years ago.

JD Power called GTO the best appealing sporty car for 2005

442man · May 2005

The only 2 American cars subject to the gas guzzler tax are the Dodge Viper and the Pontiac GTO. The last GM car that was subject to it was the Caddy Allante back in 1993 or 1994. Oh well.

tayl0rd · May 2005

And the 300C SRT8.

graphicguy · May 2005

When I was in college, siphoning gas happened with regularity to several people I knew, but never to me. Must have been because they figured no one in their right mind would keep much gas in the rust bucket rattle traps I drove in college.

I remember my Father had one of those cars (I think it was an Olds 98) that had the filler tube behind the rear licnese plate. While I was just a tyke, I remember him cussing it because the springs on the license bracket would always be too strong and catch his hand. That said, it did give a smoother appearance to the car as opposed to having a fuel door on the side of the car.

Once of my favorites was the gas cap on the '60s Chargers. A local guy has a '60s vintage Charger with a big chrome gas cap on top of the rear 1/4 panel on his car.

442man · May 2005

Not only that, your license plate would sometimes get slightly bent as well on the gas cap in the license plate.

The 1963 to 1967 Vette had a nice decorative gas cap hole right in the middle back top where there was no trunk. Spare tires on those cars were under the rear. Had a 1965, was a pain to change tire. Should have kept that car, oh well.

kevm14 · May 2005

And all this time I thought that extra 1.4 liters of displacement might have had a hand in that extra 100HP

Maybe so, but guess what? The LS2 is probably a lot lighter and dimensionally smaller (less wide, and less tall) than the Mustang's 3 valver. So if it can pack 1.4L of displacement and an extra 100hp into a lighter/smaller package, I'd say that's a pretty good design, wouldn't you?

So take away CAGS and the 6th cog in the transmission of the GTO and watch the fuel economy plummet.

CAGS actually doesn't seem to effect real world fuel economy. I think it's there for the EPA numbers. And don't act like having the 6th gear is some sort of cheating device. The Borg-Warner/Tremec T56 has been around since like 1992.

kevm14 · May 2005

The best feature I miss was on my 1986 442 and other G bodies, gas cap was in the rear license plate. That way you can pull up to the gas pump on either side, doesn't matter.

I have that "feature" in my 93 Caprice. Definitely nice to be able to back in on either side of the pump.

442man · May 2005

I read somewhere that the new Mustang actually makes 320 horsepower, but they under-rated it at 300 hp. If I had the link I would post it. That could make sense in a way.

graphicguy · May 2005

Off topic, but those '65 vettes were nice.

Local off-topic story, but the former owner of the Cincinnati REDs also owned a Chevrolet dealership. She died last year, but since she had no kids, they are auctioning off her "car collection". Among those being auctioned is one '63 vette and one '66 vette. They had pictures of both of them in the local paper. Both looked to be very nice, but I don't know what their actual condition was. Auction estimate was $41K for BOTH. I don't know values of old 'vettes, but that sounded low. I was half tempted to go to the auction and see if I could bid and buy. If I knew more about collectibles, I might have done it. But, I have no knowledge about them and decided against it.

graphicguy · May 2005

I had heard that the 4.6L put out 320 HP, too. I think Ford got "stung" with the Cobra HP fiasco from a few years back in uderstating HP. I do believe they were conservative in their HP ratings for the Mustang GT based on that experience.

For the Saleen and Rousch versions to actually be equal to or slower than the stock GT, that would be the most logical explanation. It would certainly explain some of the numbers some of the trade rags are getting.

But, the only way to really tell is for someone to pull the engine out of their GT and put it on a dyno to have any independent confirmation. I don't know that anyone is willing to do that, however. And, Ford isn't talking.

I know of more than a few people that have "pinged" Ford about this very issue. They're sticking to the 300HP number, which is the corporate line.

tayl0rd · May 2005

I've seen one blurb on that. I'd love to believe it, but I've seen dyno numbers posted from the 260s to 280s for rear wheel HP. There are lots of variables to affect those results. If you go by 280 rear wheel HP, the engine's making 329HP at the crank (w/ 15% driveline loss figure). If you go by 260 rear wheel HP, the engine's making 305HP at the crank.

At a high 25% driveline loss figure, that would equate to 373HP at the crank and 346HP at the crank, respectively. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say the Mustang doesn't have a 25% driveline loss. It would have to put down 255HP at the wheels on a 15% driveline loss to equate to exactly 300HP. Anything less and Ford has some 'xplaining to do.

Somebody search the other Mustang forums across the web and extrapolate an average and get back to us. It would be really cool if it turned out we were underrated on HP. It would seem logical that we're underrated considering that the GT picked up a good bit of weight compared to the outgoing model, yet is a fair amount quicker with rated gain of only 40HP/18TRQ.

graphicguy · May 2005

I generally assume 15% driveline loss. One can make all sorts of assumptions about the HP "drain" of the accessories or tranny, but nothing that can be extrapolated with any real authority.

I've seen those same 260-280 RWHP figures. Give or take this or that HP loss in with the driveline, accessories, etd, the engine probably does put out more than 300 HP. Where that figure is, no one will know unless they yank the engine and test it.

Looking at the 0-60 numbers of between 4.9-5.1 secs and the 13.5 1/4s most of the trade rags have reported, I'd say it is putting out more than the rated HP. How much more is the real question.

tayl0rd · May 2005

I'm a little skeptical on the 4.9 0-60 number. I would bet that car was a ringer. I can believe the low 5s 0-60. I'm also iffy on the 13.5s 1/4 mile. 13.7 would be more probable. I've seen the video of the guy that pull a stock 13.69, but his trap speed was only 97MPH. There's something really fishy about that run, and if I remember it, you couldn't really tell what his trap time or speed was because the camera was shaky and out of focus and not even pointed at the board when the race finished. Now that I think about it, the dude probably only ran a 14.69 and forgot to lie about his trap speed along with the time.

graphicguy · May 2005

I posted that run somewhere, but can't remember where. I'll assume it was the same one where the Mustang went up against a heavily modded 10 sec 'Cuda.

I e-mailed the guy about that 97 MPH trap speed because it didn't sound right. He said the track announcer was confused. His trap speed was actually 107 MPH for a 13.6+ 1/4. That sounds more like it.

13.5 in the 1/4 has been achieved by more than a few professional testers. Given the amatuer runs I've seen, that's entirely possible, if not probable.

Can't comment about the 4.9 sec 0-60 that R&T got with the exception that they said it was a Mustang that had been broken in as opposed to the ones they tested earlier that had very few miles on them.

tayl0rd · May 2005

That's the same video I'm talking about. I don't remember hearing an announcer, though. 107MPH sounds better, but I haven't read any articles with anything better than a 13.7@104MPH. Do you have any links to magazine articles posting better times? What has that guy, Evan Smith, of Muscle Mustangs & Fast Fords gotten in it? He seems to be able to post the worlds best times on cars. He was the only one to ever get a 12.9 on a bone stock Camaro SS and got VERY low 12s (12.1, I think. Maybe even 11.9) with an '03 Cobra.

graphicguy · May 2005

I don't have any other links except from the usual sources like MT, R&T, C&D, etc. MT actually has a synopsis of every car they test for the year in the back of every issue. I think a couple of those tests got the 13.5 1/4 out of the Mustang.

I don't think the mags have that info on-line and I don't know if Edmunds would let me do a link to them anyway.

I haven't seen Evan Smith's numbers on an '05 Mustang.

442man · May 2005

Car and Driver got a 13.8 out of the Mustang and a 13.3 out of the GTO for 1/4 mile times in the January comparo.

graphicguy · May 2005

MT (in the back of the May issue) has a synopsis of the '05 GTO and '05 Mustang GT.

They tested at the following....

'05 GTO -- 0-60 in 5.0 secs, 1/4 in 13.3 secs

'05 Mustang GT (tested twice).....

--both times tested, 0-60 in 5.1 secs (one automatic tranny and one manual)
--one 1/4 (automatic tranny) in 13.6 secs
--one 1/4 (manual tranny) in 13.5 secs

Again, most tests I've seen have the performance virtually identical between the '05 GTO and '05 Mustang GT. The '04 GTO is a little slower than the '05 GTO or the '05 Mustang GT.

Point being, in the real world, the GTO weighs more than the Mustang GT and the Mustang GT's engine is probably very conservatively rated.

sputterguy · May 2005

I wouldn't want an antennae sticking up either. I don't know if it works better but I like it out of sight. Having the gas filler tube behind the license plate is a relic from the past I'm afraid. I like having it on the top of the rear fender now. A lot of the cooler cars of the sixties had that feature or something similar.

sputterguy · May 2005

"Ridiculously tall 6th gear". You wish you had a sixth gear. Or don't you like better gas mileage. I get better freeway mileage than with a couple of 4 bangers I've had. I call that groovy.

sputterguy · May 2005

I'm going to have to go with you guys regarding the solid rear axle. You're the ones that have to live with it and if your happy with it that's fine with me. You're not the one bragging about the GT500 but I have to say the the solid rear is going to seriously degrade its performance. We will have to wait until it is eventually in production to see.

That's an interesting example you used for your old tech vs. new tech analogy. Blade Runner is one of my all time favorites and Darryl is a big part of that. I've always liked Rutger Hauer since then and lets not forget Sean Young.

sputterguy · May 2005

I get around 29 mpg at around 50mph. I don't do that on the highway but around town on an expressway its perfect. My average right now is at 15.8 for about 2000 miles.

sputterguy · May 2005

A 5-speed auto would take care of the tax for the GTO How hard could that be to upgrade?

sputterguy · May 2005

You had a 65 Stingray? I bet you could just kick yourself now. The Stingray was one of my favorettes back then but now I think I like the older ones better. Probably about a '58 to '60.

sputterguy · May 2005

$41K for both was way low.

tayl0rd · May 2005

I'm reading my latest Car & Driver issue with the test of the Mustang GT convertible. They got a 5 second flat 0-60 in it! That's pretty impressive right there, I don't care who you are.

kenfran · May 2005

You said, "Hell, the old VW Beetle had irs, so did the Corvair. Are you saying just because those, and this current GTO, have irs it automatically makes them better to a solid-rear axle car? Id like to see your tire bill if the caster/camber are off on the rear, nasty!"
Well, yes, I would say that either of my present Corvairs is a better car than a Mustang. The IRS on the Corvair was a redesign by Ira Duntov of the Corvette rear suspension. As for high tire costs if the rear end is out of alignment, a Mustang can eat some front tires if it is out of alignment. I keep my Corvairs aligned, like anyone who takes care of his cars. And my old 1964 Corvair Spyder, with its 164 cubic inch 6 cylinder, used to eat 289 Mustangs for breakfast. Of course I had a factory turbo. Not fair because the Mustangs didn't have a turbo? That's what happens when you are behind the curve on innovation. Corvair was the only car you could get then with factory turbo. There was another car that had a rear-engine air-cooled flat six, though. The Porsche 911. Corvairs are still beating Porsches in SCCA races though.
And did you happen to know what the first car with variable valve timing was? A 1965 Corvair that was the test bed for the inventor who patented it in 1990. ( see http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/resource/may05/0505inve.html )
And, by the way, sometime you should read "Unsafe at Any Speed" by Ralph Nader. The complaints he had about the Corvair had already been fixed. Then read the chapter on Mustangs. Ford still hasn't fixed some of that stuff, and at the time of publication, had fixed NONE of it.
Hell yes, Corvair is a better car than a Mustang.

graphicguy · May 2005

Now we're really getting into "ridiculous" territory.

sputterguy · May 2005

I tried to find this discussion thread but couldn't. I know I posted something about the Corvair some time ago. The Corvair was definitely ahead of its time. It's a treat to see a well maintained one nowadays. Of course it's nice to see any 60's car that's been kept up. Reminds me of that other car by John DeLorean. The Firebird with the 175 horse six cylinder. I know I had no use for it, but a couple of years later with spiraling insurance rates and a gas shortage, anyone that had one was probably feeling pretty smug.

That article you linked to was a bit strange but interesting. It reminded me of the guy that invented and patented variable speed windshield wipers. He went around to all the car companies but they weren't interested. Funny though, after a couple a years they all had variable speed windshield wipers. Well, he had his day in court and all the car companies had to pay him about $20 million upfront and he is probably still collecting royalties. What's the moral of this story? I don't know, don't trust big corporations?

graphicguy · May 2005

sputter....the 6 cyl Pontiac you're thinking of was one of the first OHC 6 cyl engines I have a memory of. I think they put it in the LeMans, too.

I also seem to remember that it wasn't very well thought out as it proved troublesome. But, you have to give Pontiac (and John Z) credit for being a bit ahead of the curve in foreseeing the big oil created crisis of the time and bring out a 6 banger in the throws of most cars having a v8.

Corvairs? 40 year old technology, that may or may not have been ahead of their time. I remember being a youngun and my older sister's boyfriend having one. While I was real young, I remember riding in it and not being that impressed. I remember him ballyhooing the fact that it was either turbo charged or supercharged. Again, still wasn't impressed.

Of course, this was a time when the cars to be lusted after were SS 396s, Mustangs, Chragers, etc.

Back on topic, I do think it is a shame that the current iteration GTO isn't gathering much in the way of kudos from the media......for no other reason than it isn't giving GM much impetus to make a new version of it.

442man · May 2005

......"Of course, this was a time when the cars to be lusted after were SS 396s, Mustangs, Chragers, etc. ....."

You forget the GTO's, 442's as well. GM will be making a new version of the Monaro for 2007 with the big V8, we probably won't be getting it, but the Aussies will. At least someone will.

442man · May 2005

......." on topic, I do think it is a shame that the current iteration GTO isn't gathering much in the way of kudos from the media".......

You are right, especially that most of the public doesn't know that the 2005 GTO is the most powerfull, best handling GTO ever made. It has one of GM's best interior qualities etc. Too bad GM didn't advertise it more. Seem to run a million G6 commericials all the time though complete with the fake exhaust sound, G6 doesn't sound that good.

tayl0rd · May 2005

If you GTO guys are talking about the comparo from several years ago, that was the Commodore, not the Monaro that was compared to the M5. And, yes, I know the Monaro is the 2-door version of the Commodore.

And has anyone really paid attention to BMW performance numbers (M or not)? They really aren't all that great. BMWs are more about driving feel than real performance. The M cars put a lot of emphasis on straight line performance, though they handle pretty well, too. But they're still not "head and sholders" above a lot of other cars out there.

tayl0rd · May 2005

I, too, am looking forward to this upcoming GM sponsored performance shootout. I'm sure that'll be really objective.

benderofbows · May 2005

That's just it, the M5 numbers are good for any sports car, but very impressive for a four door / sedan , with a lot of luxuries, that is very driveable day-to-day.

442man · May 2005

......" has anyone really paid attention to BMW performance numbers (M or not)? They really aren't all that great. BMWs are more about driving feel than real performance"......

M3 does 0-60mph in 4.8 seconds. I would consider that very good. Not sure what the M5 with it's 507hp V10 ran in late 2004. However, that said I would take a V8 Mustang or GTO over an M anyday and save alot of $$ in doing so.

BMW stands for Break My Wallet after the warranty runs out, been there done that. My 5 series Bimmer had lots of expenses starting right after 50k warranty ran out. In the most recent JD Power and Consumer Reports surveys, even GM's quality was higher then BMW, LOL! Buick was far ahead of BMW, go figure.

rorr · May 2005

Okay - the old IRS/solid rear rehash......again.

I think you are confusing the POTENTIAL performance of a perfectly designed IRS compared to the POTENTIAL performance of a perfectly designed solid-rear end. Yes, POTENTIALLY, the IRS can offer better performance and a smoother ride than what a solid-rear end can POTENTIALLY offer. Yet how well one suspension compares to another is in the actual execution of the design, not necessarily which one is POTENTIALLY better.

Just because the GTO has the IRS doesn't mean that it offers the best that an IRS can potentially offer. Again, it is all in the details. Is it conceivable that Ford did a better job of reaching the performance/handling limits of a solid-rear end design than GM did with their IRS design? This is (again) akin to the old rehash of OHC heads vs. pushrods. On paper, in theory, an OHC design can POTENTIALLY offer better breathing, over a wider rpm range (due to VVT technology) than pushrods. And yet, as we are all VERY well aware, GM has done an excellent job with their pushrod designs. Should GM abandon pushrods just because OHC designs are potentially, theoretically better? No? Then why should Ford abandon rear-end designs just because IRS is potentially better?

BTW - you listed 3 reasons to go with solid rears in the Mustang: lighter weight, cheaper cost, and straight line line acceleration. I'll offer a 4th reason; the Mustang faithful (customer base) DEMANDS solid-rear ends. The lions-share of Mustang owner's who race their cars do so in the 1/4. For these individuals, an IRS is more of a liability than an asset.

Claires · May 2005

... for getting back on topic. Just for the record, the last couple of pages comparing the GTO to various other cars are off-topic and derail the discussion of GTO vs. Mustang, but they're welcome in the regular Pontiac GTO discussion.

ClaireS

kevm14 · June 2005

His trap speed was actually 107 MPH for a 13.6+ 1/4. That sounds more like it.

Yeah except that 107 is WAAAAY too fast for a stock GT. 107 is C5 6-speed territory, as well as 05 GTO.

442man · June 2005

You have to admit, that on rough roads, the IRS is superior. I agree with what you said. OHC will only work better with VVT. Remember the old 3.4 DOHC GM engine? Great once it hit higher RPMS'. I. Have an Infiniti with OHC, VVT, my GTO with Pushrods will blow it's doors off at any RPM, much cheaper cost too! Go figure?

graphicguy · June 2005

Hmmmmm.....IRS of the GTO being superior over Mustang's suspension over rough roads?

I've not found that to be the case. If anything, I've found the Mustang's suspension to be more firmly planted....even over broken pavement.

sputterguy · June 2005

Exactly gguy. The corvair had some interesting technology though. It reminds me of vw and porsche technology, except for the turbo part. That guy was probably right about it giving the porsches fits. And it certainly wasn't as bad a car as Nader made it out to be.

Yeah, the GTO should get more credit. Whether someone likes it or not, the performance is there. And GM needs another platform besides the Corvette for the LS7. I hope it is the GTO.

rorr · June 2005

"You have to admit, that on rough roads, the IRS is superior."

In theory, yes. But, we don't drive a sheet of paper with a bunch of specs. What counts is the actual execution.

GTO has IRS. So does an Indy car. Do the two handle the same? Of course not.

Mustang has solid rear-end. A Kia Spectra has IRS. Would you expect the Kia to outhandle a Mustang GT? Uh, no (no offense meant to any Kia lurkers in here).

Point being, you CAN'T just point to the type of suspension design and automatically assume that one type of suspension design will ALWAYS be better than the other. There are so many other variables to consider.

"Have an Infiniti with OHC, VVT, my GTO with Pushrods will blow it's doors off at any RPM, much cheaper cost too!"

No kidding. I don't suppose the extra 2.5liters of displacement has anything to do with it?

rorr · June 2005

"Had a 442, Grand National, etc, with solid rear end. sick and tired of the bumps throwing it off course."

I'll bet those cars had fairly thirsty pushrod motors which ran out of breath at hight rpm also. Would it have been fair to swear off pushrod motors based on the assumption that all pushrod motors are thirsty and run out breath at high rpm?

rorr · June 2005

I think what we're seeing in this thread is a LARGE number of folks who have a set of preconceived notions about one car or the other and seek out little snippets of info from other forums, car reviews, anecdotal evidence, etc. to back whichever car is their favorite. From what I can tell, very few of us (myself included) have driven BOTH of these cars for any rear extended amount of time.

It seems as though most of the participants here who actually own either of these cars bought based on previous brand affiliation, style, or specs. I'm as guilty of this as anyone here. From past history, I'm a Ford guy, so I favor the Mustang. But, being a family guy, I need more rear-seat room and so I can't see actually having one. You'd think I was a prime candidate for the GTO, but I actually prefer smaller cars with a 'light' feel and high rpm motors. That and (for me personally) the style of the GTO just doesn't do anything for me. Purely subjective, I know.

All that being said, I think graphicguy is one of the few here who DIDN'T buy based on brand affiliation (used to have an RX-8, has owned GM in the past, briefly considered a Corvette), and had multiple test drives in both the GTO and the Mustang. We all have different preferences in what constitutes 'performance' and 'handling' but at least gguy tested both and based on his preferences, chose the Mustang. How many others in here can say that?

Ford Mustang (2005) vs. 2005 Pontiac GTO

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles