Ford Mustang (2005) vs. 2005 Pontiac GTO

graphicguy · June 2005

Couldn't agree more.

The Mustang is ferociously fast, handles very well, is comfortable and it's built well.

That's a pretty strong combination.

GTO has high top speed. RX8 is the best handling car I've ever driven.

But the combination of all the traits the Mustang offers is very appealing.

sensai · June 2005

Hate to break it to you guys, but the GTO beat the Mustang on a road course in that televised speed channel test (sanctioned by the SCCA, so don't start with bias claims). The Mustang barely outslalomed the GTO, which is believeable since it is the lighter car. However, most driving does not involve swerving back and forth around cones spaced at a set distance. In real world driving, the GTO now has proven it can outhandle the Mustang. So greater acceleration + greater speed + greater overall handling + greater build quality/interior = GTO is the better car.

jontyrees · June 2005

I guess we're just down to the "gotta-have-it-factor";^)

tayl0rd · June 2005

Uh-huh. Are you talking about the Pontiac Testdrive on SPEED Channel Sunday? I'm sure that wasn't biased. I've got it recorded on the DVR and will watch it tonight.

magnumforc · June 2005

I'[m just playing Devils Advocate here. The best car is what YOU choose and that fits your individuality and desires. I've had just about every muscle car ever made and some foreign cars too, and none of them was perfect at everything. Some were super fast on the drag strip, some were pretty good road racers, some were great rally cars, and some weren't worth a darn for much but sucking gas. Some had great seats and some had seats that felt like metal grates!

The Mustang is a good car. I sold an '03 Mach 1 in February and drove a number of '05 GT's before making a buying decision. The GT is certainly decent handling and I rather like the retro exterior styling. The interior is another thing though, and I just couldn't bring myself to look at it for a year until the next toy urge hit. Plus, the overhead cam engine just does not have the "seat of the pants" wallop the pushrod engine has when the hammer goes down. Not when compared to the GTO. We're talking out of the box vehicles here, no aftermarket add-ons.

The GTO has a bigger pushrod engine and the suspension seems more solid and refined. No wheel hop all over the road on bumps or under heavy acceleration on choppy pavement. The interior is very comfortable and has just about every amenity standard. No sunroof available, though.

Finally, the Southern CA Ford dealers are adding 3 to 4K to the pricing of the GT's and have since they became available. A 5 speed GT with leather interior fetches about 28K in the local market right now. Only now are they starting to loosen up a bit, and alas. many of them are finding their way back to the lots with striping and wheels that increase the price even further. And, many are now Roush laden with hundreds of pounds of extra urethane parts and stripes and seats that brings the price to over 40K, with no added power, just looks.

I opted for the GTO because it brought back memories of the 91 Z28 with the G92 competition package that I had race prepped. Same feeling when the pedal goes down. No, it's not the prettiest car on the streets, but when it will do 160 with the limiter on (and who says it's on?) and can sit at a light without the local cops giving it the evil eye...it works for me.

Be safe out there.

graphicguy · June 2005

It does make you wonder....Pontiac sponsored race, plastered all over the trade rags as advertisements.

GM sponsored a racing event and says it's sanctioned by some 3rd party? Naw.....couldn't be biased now, could it?

rorr · June 2005

Even if the event was totally on the up and up, I'm don't see how it 'proves' the GTO was a better handler.

Consider: the GTO enjoys a power/weight advantage (I know, it is constantly pointed out by the goat fans). Why should a faster lap time be considered 'proof' of better handling? Couldn't the faster lap time simply be due to the hp advantage? If the two cars had IDENTICAL power/weight ratios and IDENTICAL braking performance, then I would agree that a faster lap time would be due to better handling. But that isn't the case.

All that said, I haven't seen the event in question. Could someone indicate just what the lap times were? Was the GTO like 1-2 seconds a lap quicker or simply a few tenths a lap quicker? Is the track a fast track with high speed corners/long straights or was it a tight track which emphasizes handling over power?

tayl0rd · June 2005

I watched it last night. If I recall, the GTO was less than a second quicker around the track. The track was pretty balanced with a slight nudge toward power over handling/braking. Also, the performance of all the cars was flat bad. They hustled the GTO to 60 in 6 seconds flat, the GT in 6.18 seconds. The GTO did the cones less than 1MPH faster than the GT. What was more astonishing is that the SEDANS did the slalom faster than the coupes! The G35 sedan and BMW 330i tied at 62.22MPH.

For the quarter mile, the GTO clocked 13.9 and the GT 14.3#. They didn't list the trap speeds. The GT actually pulled on the GTO at the start and had a slight lead until half track where they were basically fender-to-fender up to 2/3 the way down the track then the GTO started to slowly pull away. There was about a 1.5 car length difference at the end. Clearly not the slaughter the GTO camp tries to make it out to be.

Nobody can contest that all the times were awful for both cars. I mean, come on. They had the Grand Prix GTP(X?) hitting 60 sooner than the GT and GTO, if I recall. I'll have to watch it again tonight. Basically it has been a whole lot of hype by GM for very little substance in the program. Typical GM; promise the world, but deliver a couple of bricks.

benderofbows · June 2005

Well, last night I actually had the opportunity to take a couple of hot laps around a race track in each car, and I confirmed what was said above: that the Mustang GT is the better handling car, but due to the power advantages of the GTO it can go a couple of seconds quicker around a race track. The cars were both stock (totally un-modified) and warmed up, and I had driven the track before in other cars.

The track was a 2.47 mile hilly course with various types of turns from sharps through esses and chicanes and even a near-U. The weather was perfect. I took my first lap around in the GTO and pulled a 1:55.9 (I was still trying to remember the nuances of the track).Then I took the GT out and posted a 1:54.2. I could tell the Mustang handled better through every turn, but couldn't come out of a turn as quickly no matter how it took it.

Most mid and low-speed turns were taken in my typical driving style; follow the line, brake before the turn and let the rear swing wide to kind of drift through the apex, then lay the power down as soon as you can while bringing the rear back in line. Both cars were equally suited to this tactic but the Mustang was easier to control and noticeably sharper through the higher-speed turns.

I was getting the hang of it but I only had time for one more lap in each car. I smoked through one in the GTO at 1:50.8, but the best I could do with the GT was 1:52.3. The GTO was also hitting higher speeds between the turns. Though it was clear that horsepower was the winner on this track, I was impressed by how close of a race it was. I know if I just had more time...

Oh, and before I forget to mention, all of this occurred in the driving simulator Gran Turismo 4

.

benderofbows · June 2005

I'd bet both the GTO and the GT are faster than a Mazda RX-8 around a given road course, but that doesn't make them better handlers or "better" cars overall. It doesn't change the "sliding scale" example I mentioned earlier; or, the fact that the Mustang is a good mix of both, wheras the Pontiac and the Mazda show an emphasis towards one or the other.

Given that the GTO has at least one second over the Mustang in the quarter mile, I'd say the fact that the Mustang only loses one second around a road course shows that it is the better handling car.

sensai · June 2005

The times were awful for all of the tested cars. What was important was that is was consistent. This took place in Arizona, so it is possible that it was just really hot that day resulting in the slow performance for all cars involved.

I am not sure what 1/4 mile race you were looking at, but the GTO was easily a few cars ahead at the end. That with, as you pointed out, the Mustang getting the jump. So yes, the Mustang got owned, like it or not.

As far as handling goes, on a real world road course the Mustang lost plain and simple. You Mustang guys need to choose here. Did the it lose because it could not handle as well? Or did it lose due to the large power advantage that the GTO has but you guys keep denying by saying the acceleration difference is "insignificant"? I would say it lost because simply the GTO is the better balanced car in handling and power, but I am sure someone is still going to try to dispute that.

benderofbows · June 2005

You Mustang guys need to choose here. Did the it lose because it could not handle as well? Or did it lose due to the large power advantage that the GTO has but you guys keep denying by saying the acceleration difference is "insignificant"? I would say it lost because simply the GTO is the better balanced car in handling and power

I've always admitted the GTO is the faster car. The Mustang lost because of that power advantage.

As for handling; You state that the GTO was easily a few cars ahead at the end of the quarter-mile. So then for the Mustang to finish only a second or so behind on the road course, it must have made up some ground in the turns or it would have lost a lot more time overall.

rorr · June 2005

"I would say it lost because simply the GTO is the better balanced car in handling and power, but I am sure someone is still going to try to dispute that."

Well, I don't want to disappoint you so, here goes: I dispute that.

In the 1/4, the GTO was about 1/2 second quicker in their test. And apparently, this advantage shows up at higher speeds in the last 1/8 mile, not right off the line. So, for ANY kind of straight in a road course, the GTO has a distinct advantage. Yet over the entire length of the road course (at least 2-3 miles? with several straights?), the GTO was less than 1 second faster? It should have had this much advantage in just one straight. If the two cars handled IDENTICALLY, the power advantage should have put the GTO further ahead. But it wasn't. If the GTO handled 'better' than the GT, it should have been pulling the GT in the straights AND the corners. But from the times indicated, it wasn't.

So, again, why do you think the GTO handled better than the GT?

benderofbows · June 2005

Well put rorr, that is the point I was trying to make.

sensai · June 2005

I am going to have to look at the video again, but I only remember 1 straight of any significant length. The times recorded for that course were around the 43 second mark. If it took them 14 seconds to run the quarter mile, and there were plenty of sharp corners on the road course, I would say the course was easily less than a mile. Given that short of a road course, I do not see where the GTO would have had the opportunity to pull a second ahead through brute acceleration, so it would have had to at least match the Mustang's handling. By the way, part of handling does involves the acceleration of a car, as in being able to pull out of a corner faster.

rorr · June 2005

43 seconds for a lap on a road course? Was this an actual race track or an auto-x thing set up in a parking lot with a bunch of cones? Did they each do one lap or were several laps involved with the quickest lap recorded? Damn, I may actually have to watch the silly thing now.....

BTW - handling (as I've always defined it) is just that; how a car handles. It has absolutey ZERO to do with power. It is a complicated mix of lateral acceleration (g-loads) capability, chassis balance, steering response, transient response, and brake feel. Yes, a good handling car will allow you to put the power down more effectively or sooner coming out of a corner, but this is not a function of power in any fashion (with the possible exception of good crisp throttle response and easy throttle modulation).

I'm sure that one could easily find a road course where a GTO would have a better time than an RX-8; or a better time than a Miata. But I think it would be a stretch to jump to the conclusion that this means the GTO handles better.

graphicguy · June 2005

Haven't seen the show, but depending on how the course was set-up, whatever teh RX8 lost in the straightaways, it could easily make up in the turns. It won't be nearly as fast going straight, but will indeed, outhandle either the Mustang GT or the GTO.

gottabgto · June 2005

'but when it will do 160 with the limiter on (and who says it's on?) and can sit at a light without the local cops giving it the evil eye...it works for me'.

How true.
This past weekend I was going down the highway doing about 80-85 and there was a crotch-rocket in front of me. He changed lanes, moving over to the right and I glanced in the rear view just as a CHP came up behind me with his red lights flashing. Said to myself - oh man - here's your first GTO ticket and started merging over, racking my brain for a good story.
He passed me and went after the bike.
Had I been in an eye-catching car such as a Corvette (or maybe even a Mustang), I'm sure he would have nailed me.
Whew, that was close.

gottabgto · June 2005

After being on the lookout for 4 months for GTO's on the road, I finally saw one yesterday heading into San Francisco.

Bet you Mustang guy's can't say that

rorr · June 2005

"After being on the lookout for 4 months for GTO's on the road, I finally saw one yesterday heading into San Francisco.

Bet you Mustang guy's can't say that"

You got me there. It's been YEARS since I've been in San Francisco...

gottabgto · June 2005

~ hehehehe

good one!

tayl0rd · June 2005

It wasn't 43 seconds. It was a minute and something. This was on an actual road course, not a parking lot derby. I think sensai needs to watch the show again. There was NOT "several car lengths" between the GTO and GT at the end of the quarter mile run. At the most it was two car lengths.

And considering that the GT was beating the GTO up to half way down the track, I'd say a GT would take a GTO in a stoplight derby and would probably win at least 80+% of the time on an 1/8th mile track.

jontyrees · June 2005

I haven't seen the show at all, but if one car is faster in both the 1/4 mile and on a road course, (and we know it has a higher top end), it is unarguably a higher performance car. The combination of power and handling allows it to go around a racetrack and down a drap strip faster. Now whether that floats your boat or not is another thing - but as far as performance goes - the fat lady sang!

sensai · June 2005

The numbers are posted on speedtv's web site. It was 43 seconds.

The general consensus on other forums was there was at least 3 car lengths at the end of that quarter mile. If the GTO had the better launch, there would have easily been twice that. Your smoking something good if you think the GT is going to win 80% of the time, just because it got a better launch at this particular race.

rorr · June 2005

"...but if one car is faster in both the 1/4 mile and on a road course, (and we know it has a higher top end), it is unarguably a higher performance car."

Not so fast.

Faster in 1/4 mile and higher top end is a result of mucho hp. No one here is denying the GTO in that regard. What we ARE discussing (I think) is handling. The theory has been advanced that JUST because it has a quicker lap time on a road course, that this is 'proof' that it handles better.

That is simplistic at best. It has been pointed out that one could find a road course which would favor power/speed over handling where a GTO would have a better lap time than a RX-8. But this doesn't mean that a GTO handles better than a RX-8.

"...as far as performance goes - the fat lady sang!"

Well, the GTO can certainly sing. But are you saying that it is fat, too?

graphicguy · June 2005

"Well, the GTO can certainly sing. But are you saying that it is fat, too?"

LOL!!!!!

rorr...you're killing me, here. :shades:

tayl0rd · June 2005

Your smoking something good if you think the GT is going to win 80% of the time, just because it got a better launch at this particular race.

My statement is based on the fact that both cars performed poorly throughout that test, but as someone else stated, it was still consistent with optimum performance. So I reason that if both cars were launched optimally, the outcome would've been the same; the GT would win most of the time in a stoplight derby or on an 1/8th mile track.

rorr · June 2005

Well, I figure that a slight injection of irreverent humor in here couldn't hurt. Sometimes we take ourselves WAAAAAY too serious....

kevm14 · June 2005

I agree with this synopsis. Well said.

kevm14 · June 2005

Why should a faster lap time be considered 'proof' of better handling? Couldn't the faster lap time simply be due to the hp advantage?

If the GTO with the softer suspension can out-lap a Mustang GT on a road course, I'd say it's doing pretty well. That would make it the more capable car. Now, on the other hand, if "feel" is higher on one's priority list, then maybe the Mustang GT would be the better purchase (as per gguy).

b4z · June 2005

Got my Ronal R41s on Thursday and the it is a big improvement over the stockers.
Tires are BFG KDW2. 245/40-18.
Treadwear is 300 vs. 400 for the stockers.
Cornering is much improved as is acceleration off the line. They grip.
The Ronals look incredibly nice on this car.
They can be seen at www.ronalusa.com.

http://www.ronalusa.com/wheels/r41.html

magnumforc · June 2005

I drive a Crown Vic on duty and a GTO off. Now, if you figure, I have to remember which hour to keep a lookout in the rearview. Honestly, I'd much rather drive the goat. I caught myself driving the Vic across Hwy 52 here in Southern CA way over a hundred one day and realized I was doing it way too often and for the wrong reasons. Now, when I do it, it's for the right reason.....because I've got a goat!

graphicguy · June 2005

magnum....I'll assume you mean you are a member of the local constables. If so, it's good to hear that you like to drive like we do (given safe parameters).

sputterguy · June 2005

I think kev beat me to it, but well said benderofbows....

sputterguy · June 2005

"I opted for the GTO because it brought back memories of the 91 Z28..." Interesting. After driving my '04 for awhile, the car it most reminded me of was the '68 Camarro SS 350.

sputterguy · June 2005

Yeah, what did you get?

danf1 · June 2005

Read the smart shopper topics. He bought a Tacoma with some brake issues.

sputterguy · June 2005

I've seen such wildly fluctuating times (try saying that a few times) for 0-60 and the quarter that to me it's become almost meaningless. Absolutely too many variables. The corporate figures are just something to shoot for.

I'm surprised the GTO out slalomed the GT but I've always said the GTO wasn't as bad as it was being made out to be. It doesn't matter to me about the other two cars as one is eurotrash and the other is a wanabe. If I was a GT owner though I would be concerned.

The Mustang's performance is impressive to say the least. Even if it has in reality '320hp' it is performing above and beyond that level. Especially with that 'solid axle'.

It's interesting that the Grand Prix beat the GTO and the GT. I've always said that is a fast car. But it must be the GXP. The best time I've seen for the GTP is 6.6 seconds.

sputterguy · June 2005

I have to admit you had me going there.

sputterguy · June 2005

That was me dude. Just kidding. But I was test driving a cyclone grey 6-speed from Stevens Creek GMC. Nice car but it had 400 miles on it. It wasn't there the last time I was there so it came from somewhere else. I wonder where? The GM employee pricing is great. They didn't want to give me enough for my '04 though.

I just saw a cyclone grey out in front of Capitol GMC on the way in to work today, so I guess I will check it out this weekend. Don't know if it's a stick or auto....

sputterguy · June 2005

Oh no! The brakes I mean....

gottabgto · June 2005

Ha!
I actually considered that possibility.
You have an 04, right - but what color is it?
This was almost a teal color.
I was in my Civic at the time and had to wind the rubberband pretty tight to try and catch up to get a better look - guy must have thought I was crazy.

sputterguy · June 2005

Teal would be the Barbados Blue. Mine is a quicksilver '04. The last time I went to SF was in a '05 Quicksilver and the time before that was in a cyclone grey '05.

Those rubberbands get good mileage don't they?

jontyrees · June 2005

Actually I was discussing "performance" - combination of power, handling, etc - as tested in a straight line and on a short road course.

BTW - I'll be the first to admit that the GTO is not supermodel skinny - 3800lbs puts it solidly in the cruiserwight class - can't be considered light-heavy in the era of 5800lb VW SUVs. I've read that a lot of the weight is a result of the crappy roads the car was designed to survive in Australia - heavy suspension parts, a big steel skid-plate under the front, etc. I'm ok with that, in fact I like the solid feel - no shakes, shivers or rattles even on our Texas roads.

As for the look of the GTOs rear end, well I've always been a big J-Lo fan!

gottabgto · June 2005

30 MPG and they run just fine on low grade octane.
Course, they don't purr like a goat and they'll never blow off anyone's doors.

Those cyclone grey's are nice.
What I'm finding with black is - well, I'm gonna go wash my car again...

sputterguy · June 2005

Wash your car or play with zaino? That's why I have the quicksilver. The dirt just blends in. I hate dirty windows though. I clean them at least every time I gas up.

graphicguy · June 2005

OFf topic, but since you asked......

To answer the question about which truck I got.....well, I indeed bought a Tacoma last Wednesday. It was flat bedded to the dealership on Monday with a total brake failure (good thing I was only going 10 MPH at the time). Of course, the dealership can't reproduce the problem even though the brake pedal goes all the way to the floor.

The truck has 100 miles on it and the dealership and I are at a stalemate. I told them I want another Tacoma because I have no faith in the one I bought (particularly since they say they couldn't find an issue, even though they test drove it with me and noted the brake pedal going all the way to the floor). So far, everyone has been nice at the dealership, but no action has been taken by them to resolve this. They gave me a loaner car, which I don't need since I have the Mustang. But, I'm holding onto the loaner car and I'm leaving the Tacoma at the dealership until we come up with a satisfactory resolution.

Already logged a call with Toyota corporate customer service and the NHTSA.

This has been a bad year for vehicles for me. First, my RX8 gets rear ended by a RAM and totaled....and now the Tacoma foibles.

The only bright spot has been my flawless Mustang. Who'd of thunk...........!!!!!! :sick:

442man · June 2005

Just read current Car and Driver. The new GT500 is the same weight or HEAVIER then the GTO. It adds 150+ pounds of weight in the front. It's close to 3800 pounds also!! I believe it's 200 to 250 total pounds heavier then V8 GT. But it also adds much fatter tires though. P275 or fatter in rear.

Expensive at $39k to $40k range. To me personally too much for a Mustang. I would never Pay $39k to $40k for a version of GTO either.

442man · June 2005

The other interesting thing I have seen are these Highschool and college students with the V6 Mustang Convertible, $24k or $25k trying to modify them and make them look more like GT V8. Gives me a chuckle. They have gone so far to put the similar dual exhaust from the rear as the V8 GT and same 17" wheels etc, funny. They think they have a performance machine. Rather buy a base model V8 at $25k then a loaded V6 for $25k. To each their own.

It's foolish when the one kid revved his 215hp V6 at me while in GTO and asked to go. I only gave my GTO enough gas to beat him which was very easy. At next light he keeps telling me how he kept up with my 400hp GTO. I didn't try. Not worth wasting gas on a V6 stang or possibly getting a traffic ticket. At the light he chirped the tires and went I just laughed to my self and went normally.

442man · June 2005

Also I have noticed most of the Mustang drivers to very immature and making dangerous lane changes. GTO owners like myself seem to be older and drive more reasonable. Most of these Stang owners have WEAK 215hp V6 too.

Ford Mustang (2005) vs. 2005 Pontiac GTO

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles