Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
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
At 60-65mph in 4th it's doing about 2000 rpm, that is 21 mpg
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.
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.......
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I have that "feature" in my 93 Caprice. Definitely nice to be able to back in on either side of the pump.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
MODERATOR
Need help getting around? claires@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Tell everyone about your buying experience: Write a Dealer Review
Yeah except that 107 is WAAAAY too fast for a stock GT. 107 is C5 6-speed territory, as well as 05 GTO.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?