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
#188 of 2056 Re: GTO gives slightly more hp for the buck [graphicguy]
Apr 19, 2005 (12:31 pm)
For the 2004 GTO it was pretty much a 50/50 split on Auto vs manual shift. 53.8% were Manual shift and 46.1% were automatic shift. there was 15,728 total sold for 2004l. 8,466 were 6spd manual and 7,262 were 4spd auto.
I am an enthusiast but opted for the 4spd auto, Pontiacs brochure says the Auto is 1/10th faster then Manual 0-60 and 1/4 mile. City gas mileage is same. Highway mileage is 4 better with stick. I do mostly in town driving in my area near upper NJ near NY City, rather have an automatic. The 3 GTO's that were on the lot of my dealer to chose from were ALL Automatic anyway. They sold all 3 of those the same week I bought mine. They said they won't get anymore until June and that they can NOT order 2005 anymore.
My dealer said the Solstice starsts showing up in June. If it had more pwr I might be interested. Price is nice! Pontiacs Brochure claims 7.2 seconds for manual shift Solstice. Not bad.
#189 of 2056 Re: GTO gives slightly more hp for the buck [graphicguy]
Apr 19, 2005 (12:47 pm)
I try to stay away from first year cars. I have had bad luck with them. Hopefully the 2005 Stang is good. I am afraid of 1st yr cars after my experiences with my first new car, 1995 V8 olds Aurora and 1997 GTP coupe. Both 1st yr cars, lots of problems. Where as my 2002 GTP coupe and 2001 I30t was fine. Thankgod for ext warranties. Paid for just about everything. A/C compressor on 1995 V8 Aurora was $1k with labor, LOL!
GTO is best quality GM car I ever had from interior/exterior fit finish, etc. 10x better interor then my GTP was. Of course, time will tell.
New 2005 Stang is the BEST quality Stang ever made too, from what I have seen and felt on test drive. Interior far better then those late 1980's and early to mid 1990's ones.
#190 of 2056 Re: GTO gives slightly more hp for the buck [gunit]
Apr 19, 2005 (1:59 pm)
Interesting split between Auto vs manual. I never would have expected that.
The Aurora could have been the savior for Olds. They just didn't get it right, out of the box. as you pointed out. It did become a good car towards the end, though (albeit a little too late).
I always thought that the V8 Northstar would be a good engine.
Personally, I've never had many issues with any GM car. I've owned quite a few over the years. I did buy a used Blazer a long while back. It was garbage, but I chalked that up to a poor GM service dept, more than anything else. It still had warranty left when I bought it, but the service dept acted like they'd never seen one before. That's a whole different story, though.
I'm of the mind that there isn't much difference in reliability between any of the major makes.....that includes Hondas and Toyotas. I've owned a "stinker" of a BMW as well as a Honda.
#191 of 2056 Re: GTO gives slightly more hp for the buck [graphicguy]
Apr 19, 2005 (4:26 pm)
The V8 northstar was a good engine, smooth and powerfull Much more refined then my GTP's 3800 SC engine. But traded it after oil blow by problem which happened with earlier Northstars. By 1997 or 1998 they fixed it.
Funny thing was that the Aurora sales DOUBLED in 2001 after they introduced the cheaper V6 entry level model. But Olds itself was already on it's way out!
My friend has had lots of problems with his 2001 Accord which is supposedly the most reliable car, LOL! The 1988 528 BMW I had was used and had over 160k miles and was still going strong when I traded it. Held up very well. But maintenance was expensive.
Apr 20, 2005 (5:11 am)
Speaking of engines.....I've always thought that if American marks continued developing V8s (like the small block in your GTO) that they would be able to achieve good MPG as well as meet EPA regs. Using hindsight, during the '70s and '80s, GM, Ford & Chrysler decided to develop 4 & 6 cyl engines as their "bread & butter".
Just looking at the GTO's 5.7 or 6.0 V8s, it's clear that with continued development they will get in the 20s for MPG and meet all EPA regs.....and that the complexity of DOHC wasn't needed. I think the main reason the Northstar wasn't used in more applications was it's complexity and cost associated with being a DOHC design.
Just take a look at where such fabled engines as the GM small blocks, Ford's 4.6 and 5.4, Chrysler's fabled Hemi, have come. Just think what they would/could have been if they had continued their R&D on them unabated over the previous 2-3 decades?
To me, GM's 3.8 V6, blown or unblown, is still one of the best V6s that ever hit the market. I think GM should continue to develop it. But, again GM probably feels it costs too much to do so.
It's good that we're still able to get the 5.7, 6.0, 4.6, 5.4, hemi V8s. There's something about OHV designs and their inherent torque characteristics that can't be duplicated with DOHC designs.
I'll probably catch some flack about this, but GM, Ford, Chrysler still makes some of the best V8 engines in the world. Look no further than your GTO to see that. I'll say the same about my Mustang's V8.
I still say long live the GTO, the Mustang GT, the Charger, etc. Hope that comes to pass. But sometimes the American car companies (all of them) can't see the forest for the trees.
#193 of 2056 Re: This is great..... [benderofbows]
Apr 20, 2005 (7:46 am)
Well, finally. One of you has finally admitted that the GTO is faster. That's all I'm asking. Come on, it has a 100 more hp. At least aknowlege that. I won't argue the Mustang is more popular, the numbers speak for themselves, but that's a GTO selling point for us. I won't argue the Mustangs handling abilities, at least until we get some real world experience instead of that car mag crap. So thank you for giving credit to the GTO for its straight line performance at least....
#194 of 2056 Re: difference is.... [graphicguy]
Apr 20, 2005 (8:03 am)
As a former GTP owner you know darn well the Grand Prix looks nothing like the GTO. I agree they did nothing with the Grand Prix from '97 until '04 and then it was pretty much mostly cosmetic changes. Actually, I like the interior of the GTP better. It's more roomy and comfortable to me even if the the GTO has higher quality materials and workmanship. Personally I think they should have put RWD back into the GP, dropped the LS1 into it, beefed up the suspension, and added 18 inch wheels to fill up the wheel wells. Since they didn't do that, the GTO is the next best thing. For me anyway.
#195 of 2056 Re: difference is.... [sputterguy]
Apr 20, 2005 (8:30 am)
I have owned both 1997 and 2002 GTP coupes and now own a 2005 GTO coupe. To me the GTO is the far superior car, comfort, quality, etc. Seats are far better then GTP seats. My opinion.
They were going to put RWD back into the GP for 2007 or 2008 but with the Zeta platform being cancelled, who knows now? At least the general is dropping a 303 hp V8 into GP, but it's still hooked up to the front wheels.
I went with GTO because no more Grand Prix Coupe. It's not a much smaller. GTO is still classified the same MIDSIZE as GTP.
GTP was 99 cu ft
GTO was 95 cu ft as per Car and driver.
Stang was 83 cu ft as per car and driver
Total inside cu ft, minus trunk.
#196 of 2056 Re: This is great..... [sputterguy]
Apr 20, 2005 (8:31 am)
Yes, I'll admit the GTO is faster in a straight line; maybe not so much to 60 but it obviously has a better top end (for now anyways; the Cobra and GT500 should fix that!) And, thank you for giving the Mustang credit for its' popularity and handling capabilities.
It's not so much that we think the GTO looks EXACTLY like a Grand Prix. However, it is my contention that the GTO looks more like a Grand Prix coupe than the 2005 Mustang looks like a 1960's Mustang. Clearly, the Mustangs' styling is fitting with the '60s era, but it also manages to look very modern and unique (a lot of major differences between the older models and the new). The GTO's styling is obviously fitting with the '90s GP. You have to admit, there are an awful lot of similarities in the general styling (except from rear angles).
As I have said before: I'd rather have a brand new car that looks like a true classic, than a brand new car that looks ten years old.
#197 of 2056 benderofblows
Apr 20, 2005 (8:35 am)
"As I have said before: I'd rather have a brand new car that looks like a classic, than a brand new car that looks ten years old."
Yeah, kinda like the difference between parachute pants and a classic pair of Ray-Bans....