Last post on May 27, 2009 at 4:34 PM
You are in the Ford Mustang
What is this discussion about?
Ford Mustang, Pontiac GTO, Coupe, Convertible
#1488 of 2056 Final thoughts, nothing else to cover on GTO vs Mustang
Sep 07, 2005 (10:45 am)
After driving both cars I chose the GTO......The inside of the Mustang is just not going to impress anyone who has spent time in a GTO. All the panels are flat, and the plastic they use is hard and cheap looking just like CR said. The car seems to have more bulk than it actually has because the beltline is so high and the hood arcs up so much, giving the car a ponderous feel.
The tach and speedo are buried in two deep bowls, and it's difficult to get a quick sweep of them because they are separated too far apart.
Having to suffer with a V6 and cloth seats is an indignity a GTO owner will never suffer. ALL GTO's are performance cars, no slow V6 Rentastangs from hertz.
The GTO exhaust sounded better/deeper, performed better, was more comfortable, and felt much more solid. At the time both cars were the exact same price with the $3000 "pound you in the rear" dealer markup on the Mustang.
Graphic, I don't need a flashy car like some people here to let people know I am the man. As my uncle said, most people don't know that the appeal of the first muscle cars was to hide awesome power behind a bland family car. Guys would pull up beside you and say "what you got in there, buddy?"GTO really needs to be driven to appreciate what kinda car it is. Can't judge a book or car by it's cover. Well unlike the undeducated consumers that bought Mustangs just on looks. The only thing they could say about the mustang is that it looked cooler and had the obligatory "gotta have it" factor. That said I still don't understand how ANYONE can say the GTO is bland. I have SOO many people who come up to me and ask me about the car, it's ridiculous. Never experienced anything like it. It's a shame heads still turn daily to watch my car go by... wish I had a blander car that no one would notice.
How many customers is Ford losing to GTO because they still can't figure out the whole supply and demand thing by not being able to deliver? Or when they do it's MSRP or higher or a multiple month wait.
Graphic, hate to tell you and once again post the truth but the Monaro/GTO was a RUNAWAY SUCCESS, homerun for GM/Holden this year. They sold 4x the projected amount. Much better then the Mustang which won't even double or 2x increase. In fact they are having another final 1,500 Monaro limited edition run, because too many orders/demand. This platform was a WORLDWIDE SUCCESS. Not the failure that you claim. Monaro is a worldwide car, not a USA car like Rentastang. Monaro was engineered from start to have driver wheel, etc on either side. Ford won't spend $$ to move the wheel to the other side.
As for luxury coupe, Compared to AMG 55 as well for HALF the price. It was favorably compared to the BMW M5 when it came out in 2002, Something the Mustang will never be compared to, not even in the same sentence. it's the best Domestic made car I ever bought, well actually it's foreign that is why. Good luck with your purchase which does share more then just floorplan with LS as previously posted
#1489 of 2056 Re: Supercharged Stang GT barely beats stock GTO, funny [rorr]
Sep 07, 2005 (11:17 am)
I do NOT want to see a retro GTO in 2008. I would like to see a new design, something that Ford couldn't do on the mustang, had to use a 1967 body which has a horrible .35 CD for a sporty car. GTO/Monaro has an acceptable SLICK .29 or .30 CD. Which also helps it's top end and makes it more stable.
#1490 of 2056 Re: Supercharged Stang GT barely beats stock GTO, funny [rorr]
Sep 07, 2005 (11:19 am)
Actually RORR if you checked your facts... at 130mph the GTO is a full SIX seconds faster then Mustang, big dif!!
As typical Ford they have to cheat with a blower, where as GM doesn't on it's Vettes, GTO, F body, etc. Lets S/C the GTO to 575hp and see what it does?
BTW the current STOCK GTO does 175+mph. In fact a Monaro was clocked at 180mph STOCK!! Pretty impressive out of the factory, right?
#1491 of 2056 Re: Supercharged Stang GT barely beats stock GTO, funny [rorr]
Sep 07, 2005 (11:27 am)
The GTO looks nothing like a MID 1990's Grand Prix which would be 1994 to 1996. check your facts RORR.
#1492 of 2056 Re: Supercharged Stang GT barely beats stock GTO, funny [gxpgtodanman]
Sep 07, 2005 (11:40 am)
"I do NOT want to see a retro GTO in 2008."
Okay. Apparantly, amoung long-time GTO aficionados, you would be in the minority.
"I would like to see a new design...."
Why? What is it about the current design that you would like to see changed? It (apparently) already has it all: best seats/interior that GM offers, Corvette powertrain, roomy back seats, and fly-under-the-radar styling. What's not to love?
#1493 of 2056 Re: Supercharged Stang GT barely beats stock GTO, funny [gxpgtodanman]
Sep 07, 2005 (11:48 am)
"...at 130mph the GTO is a full SIX seconds faster then Mustang, big dif!!"
Are we comparing stock-stock or SC vs. stock? I'm getting confused. The Vortech Mustang I saw in Road&Track didn't have 0-130mph times. But it did note that in the standing 1 mile acceleration run, it was pulling harder longitudinal-g (accelerating harder) over the last 100 feet of the run than any other car in the test. Including a 1000hp Hennessey Viper. That's accelerating harder even at nearly 180mph. All of which is immaterial anyway (IMO): I don't often need to accelerate past 130 mph....
"As typical Ford they have to cheat with a blower..."
Whereas GM "cheats" with displacement. So, adding a S/C is "cheating" but running a 6.0l V8 vs. a 4.6l V8 is apples to apples?
"BTW the current STOCK GTO does 175+mph."
Can you link to a road-test of a STOCK goat that will do 175+? I seem to recall a stock (that would be STOCK) GTO was governed to 158mph?
#1494 of 2056 Re: Supercharged Stang GT barely beats stock GTO, funny [gxpgtodanman]
Sep 07, 2005 (11:50 am)
"The GTO looks nothing like a MID 1990's Grand Prix which would be 1994 to 1996. check your facts RORR."
You are 100% correct. I apologize. I was actually thinking of the edition introduced in 1997. My bad......
#1495 of 2056 Re: Mustang Vs. GTO [graphicguy]
Sep 07, 2005 (11:54 am)
As much as you want to give credit to the Mustang's formula for being just right, you have to admit that the 2004 (and previous years) Fox Mustang STILL sold pretty well, despite being a wholly inferior car. That's one point of evidence that prompted me to claim they probably had a LOT more leeway with the 05's formula than you're suggesting. Ford has a lot of best sellers in a given segment. Explorer, F-150, Mustang, and Taurus for a while...they seem to make "popular" vehicles. This comes from a GM guy, in case anyone has forgotten.
BTW, the 04 GTO also has a "vette motor."
#1496 of 2056 Re: Mustang Vs. GTO [kevm14]
Sep 07, 2005 (11:59 am)
Yep, even up through the '04 edition, the Mustang has sold well for the last couple of decades. This could be attributed to decent bang for the buck (GT editions), some halo effect trickling down to the V6 models, and tweaking the exterior styling every 2-3 years to keep the car looking 'fresh'.
Wholly inferior car? Depends on what your criteria is. Obviously for those who bought the 'wholly inferior car', they have a different criteria....
#1497 of 2056 Re: Supercharged Stang GT barely beats stock GTO, funny [gxpgtodanman]
Sep 07, 2005 (12:04 pm)
it can't even break 147mph with NO governor.
That's funny. A TPI 350 Camaro (~90-92) could do an even 150 and a 93+ Camaro was good for 155+. Not that we have an autobahn here, but I just found it mildly amusing considering I'm talking about a 15 year old car here.