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
#1543 of 2056 Re: Mustang Vs. GTO [musclecars4me]
Sep 09, 2005 (6:49 am)
"Actually 66% of all Mustangs sold are Automatic."
Yes. But the reason is NOT that the manual shifter in the current Mustang is a bitch to operate. It is that most people prefer automatics. But just because most people prefer automatics is no excuse for a company to offer a crummy manual.
If I recall the 1999 to 2004 Mustang had the shifter in a awkard position.
Which Ford addressed with the '05 Mustang. Which is besides the point. If someone complained about the shifter in an '04 Mustang, the LAST thing I would tell them would be to avoid it by buying an automatic. I'd tell them that if they like manuals, to find a car with a decent manual.
You see, I value DRIVING too much. And I don't give a rip how quick the car is in a straight line with an automatic because, IMO, anybody can plant their rear in a car with an automatic, put their foot on the gas, and go fast. Big honkin' deal.
If the GTO handled like a pig would your advice be to not drive curvy roads? If the GTO braked like a school bus would your advice be to simply drive slower? If the GTO squeeked, rattled, and groaned over every little road imperfection, would your advice be to turn up the stereo?
If the GM has a problem with the shifter, they should fix the shifter. The 'solution' is not to simply avoid the problem.
#1544 of 2056 Re: Mustang Vs. GTO [rorr]
Sep 09, 2005 (6:52 am)
What the heck? Did somebody delete a post I just responded to?
#1545 of 2056 Re: Mustang Vs. GTO [rorr]
Sep 09, 2005 (6:58 am)
That is why I bought Automatic GTO, it's faster, no problem with the shifter and it's a joy to drive in the crappy traffic by me, unlike constantly clutching/shifting which gets old quite fast around me, been there done that. I'm 100% happy. It's the best automatic shifting car I have ever had. On the GTO if you leave it in 2, it starts out in 2 off the line and stays in 2, just like a manual shift. never go into 1. Great for holding gear through the twisties. At 30-60mph
Maybe GM will fix the shifter for 2006, It doesn't effect me with the auto. As Sensai said there is a fix for a couple of hundred $$ you can do yourself.
#1546 of 2056 Re: Mustang Vs. GTO [sensai]
Sep 09, 2005 (6:58 am)
Is it just the shifter in the GTO or is it the clutch linkage too? If the clutch linkage is good (and pedal placement is decent), then swapping out the shifter is a no-brainer.
BTW - agree with you on the 6-speed. Ford could've (should've) dropped in a T56 with a taller overdrive and gone with a slightly shorter rear-end. This would have boosted performance AND helped the highway mpg's.
#1547 of 2056 Re: Mustang Vs. GTO, both good in own ways [musclecars4me]
Sep 09, 2005 (6:59 am)
You have to ask yourself, since when is $32,000 for a 400hp, fits four adults comfortably, 6-speed, beautiful interior/seats (GM's BEST) , REFINED, all options included car that is able to hold its own in the corners while still delivering a relatively comfortable near luxury ride considered bad?
Because it's still heavy and lacking some key luxury options for the segment.
Seems like the GTO consistently scores like 7/10 in most categories. Like it handles competently and with the IRS, the ride is pretty good, but it doesn't have as direct or as sharp a steering response as other cars in this class. Brakes are the same way. Not bad but not great. Same with the interior. It's "nice" and has SOME good features but is still lacking key luxury features that all cars in the low $30k range have, as well as some in the high-$20k range seem to have. Styling is another 7/10 item. It's far from ugly, but didn't really "land" with a lot of people. Not the right styling for a 50k/year car of this nature.
Actually about the only thing it scores higher than a 7/10 on is the horsepower, which is partially out-weighed ( ) by the excessive weight.
None of this makes it "bad", but it ends up being a 70%, which is a C-. What an interesting way to explain it.
#1548 of 2056 Re: Mustang Vs. GTO [rorr]
Sep 09, 2005 (7:01 am)
GM should have dropped a 5spd automatic in to help highway gas mileage. Next year the Vette is getting a 6spd automatic. I think the GTO still makes do with the 4spd auto? Not sure.
Pedal placement is slightly off on GTO for clutch as well. It's more then linkage. Based on my few test drives. Then again I have BIG size 13 feet. Big shoe to use on clutch pedal.
#1549 of 2056 Re: I'm not sure.... [graphicguy]
Sep 09, 2005 (7:03 am)
So, based on those figures, the potential customers feel it's worth high 20s to $30K.
I said this from the beginning, since driving that 04 back in 1/04. For the MSRP, it should have included more luxury features -OR- should have been high $20k. Not low $30k with high $20k worth of features. That was the sore spot for me, more than just about anything else. Brakes were a really close 2nd place.
#1550 of 2056 Re: Mustang Vs. GTO [musclecars4me]
Sep 09, 2005 (7:04 am)
If you like an automatic, that's fine. I'm not ABOUT to try to talk anyone out of an automatic car if that's what you prefer.
My only point (I think I had a point) was that for those of us who prefer manual transmissions, sometimes we can get a bit militant about it. And offering the 'advice' to someone who prefers a nice shifting manual to just 'avoid' it by getting an automatic is.....um....counterproductive.
Quite honestly, if I was in the market for a Mustang and determined that the shifter/clutch linkage in the GT was a piece of junk but the setup in the base V6 model was a jewel, I would prefer the V6. That's how much emphasis I place on good manual trannies vs. hp.
#1551 of 2056 Re: Mustang Vs. GTO, both good in own ways [kevm14]
Sep 09, 2005 (7:05 am)
The GT500 will be the same weight as GTO when it comes out at 3700+. Lets see if the media complains about that. What luxury options are the GTO missing for the segment? It has more then Mustang. Which comes close to GTO's price.
The GTO's hp to weight ratio is much better then Mustangs. 9.4 to 1, Mustangs is 11.7 to 1. Big dif!
The brakes on GTO out stop the Mustang GT by a few feet from 60 and 70mph. 167 ft GT0 Vs 170 ft GT. For the GTO's heavy weight, it handles and brakes quite well, don't you think?
As I said I cross-shopped this car to a BMW, not a mustang.
#1552 of 2056 Re: Mustang Vs. GTO [musclecars4me]
Sep 09, 2005 (7:07 am)
alum is not always the right solution.
Chevy went from a 2mm hydroformed steel frame in the C6 to a 4mm hydroformed aluminum frame in the Z06 and saved 136lbs.