Ask the Car People.SM


Ford Mustang (2005) vs. 2005 Pontiac GTO

2056 messages,  Last post on May 27, 2009 at 5:34 PM

You are in the Ford Mustang Forum.

What is this discussion about? Ford Mustang, Pontiac GTO, Coupe, Convertible

Messages Page 28 of 206

#266 of 2056 Re: Edmunds article on the Mustang [benderofbows] by gunit

Apr 22, 2005 (1:54 pm)

Replying to: benderofbows (Apr 22, 2005 12:58 pm)
Too bad the F Bodies bowed out in 2002. That said....
 
The GTO is a far superior riding car with a much better build quality and interior then the Camaro ever had. GTO is way more luxury then Camaro. Not to mention the GTO actually has a usable backseat then can fit full grown adults, LOL! Try that in a Camaro, knees in the seats. This is why the GTO costs more. Too bad GM doesn't have a lower priced version of it. Don't forget the top of the line F Bodies Firehawk etc in 2002 were nearly $35k also!! They didn't have the 400hp or 400 torque of the GTO either. Also high INsurance on Camaros, almost higher then Mustangs. Esp for younger people.
 
Lets not forget the 2001 Cobra, where Ford Mis-stated the horsepower either.

#267 of 2056 More Mustangs could Hurt Ford CAFE by gunit

Apr 22, 2005 (2:05 pm)

The more Mustangs that Ford sells might come back to hurth them as well... esp the V8 models..... The Mustang is below the 27.5 mpg CAFEaverage and so each Mustang that is sold hurts the Ford CAFE standard. The more Mustangs that Ford sells is actually bad for Ford as it relates to the CAFE. Ford can either sell more Focus vehicles to boost the average, sell fewer Mustangs, or raise the fuel efficiency of the Mustang.
 
just a thought, LOL!

#268 of 2056 As long as we're quoting..... by graphicguy

Apr 22, 2005 (2:22 pm)

Thai-Tang also said about their engineering of the solid rear over IRS.....
 
"We've got good geometry and good shock-motion ratios, and we're happy with the suspension we have. We won't hesitate to have you do a driving comparison against IRS-suspended competitors".
 
I was originally critical of Ford for sticking to the solid rear. I DID compare the IRS of the GTO against the solid rear of the Mustang GT. I came to the conclusion that the Mustang GT handles better than the GTO.....regardless of the differences in the rear suspension.
 
Road & Track tester, Matt DeLorenzo stated about the entire chasis/suspension....
 
"The design is similar to that used on the legendary BMW M3. As BMW has proven time and again, executing a simple design deftly can work as well or better than more complex and costly bits. It's a lesson the Mustang team has taken to heart. Overall, the rear end feels as planted as independent rear suspensions and yet is less costly, lighter and more robust (than IRS)."
 
I concur.
 
BTW...my insurance bill would cost me more if I had bought a GTO.
 
Truth told, regarding CAFE, both GM and Ford could do much more by limiting truck and SUV sales to meet the averages than limiting sales of Mustang GTs or GTOs.

#269 of 2056 a bit off topic.... by graphicguy

Apr 22, 2005 (2:36 pm)

I just returned from a business trip to Detroit. Got a rental from Hertz. Surprisingly, it was a GMC Yukon. It's a tank, but had surprisingly comfy seats. Another surprise, it handled well considering its size. What was more amazing were the number of GM, Hyundai and Kia cars in the rental lot. Usually, it's always Fords.
 
BTW....didn't see one Mustang on the rental lot. There were a few Tauri and many Foci, but many more Impalas & Cobalts.
 
On the road, I saw my very first Charger with manufacturer tags on I 94. Much better looking than the pics I had seen, but still not something I'd pay money for.

#270 of 2056 Mustang gets smoked video by graphicguy

Apr 22, 2005 (2:53 pm)

See post below.....(this isn't mine, BTW).....just a message from the owner in the video.
 
    By the way...bone stock mustang GT.
 
Here's some video...
 
These were just time trials... But I ran a 13.69 97 mph
 
Here's medium size for broad band:
http://www.maglocks.com/_personal/Barracuda_trials_med.wmv
 
Here's small size for dial up:
 
http://www.maglocks.com/_personal/Barracuda_trials.wmv
 
Hope you all enjoy it!

#271 of 2056 Re: Mustang gets smoked video [graphicguy] by dieselone

Apr 22, 2005 (4:13 pm)

Replying to: graphicguy (Apr 22, 2005 2:53 pm)
13.69 nothing wrong with that. Not to many cars for $25K can pull that off.

#272 of 2056 Re: last time, Eng wanted IRS, Ford said no $$ [graphicguy] by gunit

Apr 22, 2005 (6:08 pm)

Replying to: graphicguy (Apr 22, 2005 2:22 pm)
Graphicguy writes.......
Road & Track tester, Matt DeLorenzo stated about the entire chasis/suspension....
 "The design is similar to that used on the legendary BMW M3. As BMW has proven time and again, executing a simple design deftly can work as well or better than more complex and costly bits. It's a lesson the Mustang team has taken to heart......
 
NO, the last time I checked the BMW M3 has an IRS just like the GTO does, LOL! GTO has been compared to the M3, not the Mustang.
 
Everyones insurance is different, for me GTO was $100 CHEAPER then Stang to insure. I have perfect record, Here near NY City everyone pays alot , LOL!

#273 of 2056 IRS not all handling, it's ride quality as well [graphicguy] by gunit

Apr 22, 2005 (6:17 pm)

Replying to: graphicguy (Apr 22, 2005 2:22 pm)
The IRS is just not about handling, it's also ride quality. In my opinion/test ride the GTO rides smoother, more comfortable seats, more luxury like then Stang, esp on rougher pavement. You will feel more bumps etc in rear, watch for midcorner bumps while under acceleration. I remember from my 1986 Olds 442 and that only had 170hp / 250 torque but that was ok for it's time. Certain road were annoying from solid rear. Same roads in GTO nothing.
 
Car and Driver said it BEST....The Mustang's rear end did occasionally step out on imperfect pavement. Despite Ford's best efforts, the convulsions from under the back seat haven't been completely cured, and there's a slightly disconcerting hop when you encounter a midcorner bump. It's not likely to send you spinning off into someone's geraniums, but the GTO's independent rear end exhibited no such spasms over the same roads. EXACTLY... those symptoms above are TYPICAL of a solid rear axle car like Stang. With an IRS those problems would be fixed!
 
This was funny..... Although the Mustang is not something you'd choose to travel in after having those pesky hemorrhoids removed

#274 of 2056 Re: sputterguy [rorr] by sputterguy

Apr 22, 2005 (6:36 pm)

Replying to: rorr (Apr 22, 2005 6:11 am)
I guess we read the same magazines. Your's is a little more specific than mine. Here's a quote "Without a doubt, Shelby-American fiddled with a few 427-powered 1967 GT-500s'. You're right that most of them are customer installed. Do you know what the 428 was that was in the GT500 before 428CJ. It was a 428 Police interceptor rated at 355hp. And I was way off about the 428CJ. It was only rated 335 from Ford. The NHRA immediately revised it upward to 360 which was more realistic. I guess that was just an urban legend about the 427 except for the first few. Man, what a drop in performance that was. So how about some staticstics for the GT500 with the 428CJ. Here are a couple of stats: 0-60 in 6.9, 1/4 mile in 14.5. Ouch! Credit for those numbers was given to the Shelby America Guide. So they should be realistic. Another article I have is about a GT500 doing the 1/4 mile. In five passes it started out in the high 14's, the next one was in the mid 14's. The next two were in the mid 13's and the final pass he really hooked up for a 13.06. I only bring that up because we've been going over how the weather and track conditions, driver, etc. affect the times. With even the same car, the same driver, and the same track conditions you can get wildly differing times. That was nearly a two second difference with all things being equal.
                                                                                                                       I guess old Shelby was capable of some hyperbole himself. King of the Road? I don't think so. In '68 it was possible to get a GT with a factory installed 427. It doesn't say which one but it was downtuned to 390hp. Quite potent even at that rating. I'd personally go with that over the GT500.
 
And finally, all 427 Cobra's had the 427 in them. The nameplate on the side says it all. " 427 COBRA "

#275 of 2056 People forget automatic is faster then stick by gunit

Apr 22, 2005 (6:41 pm)

Replying to: graphicguy (Apr 22, 2005 2:53 pm)
Car and driver tested the 2005 GTO manual 6 at 4.8 seconds 0-60. Pontiac claims 4.7 for the M6, pretty close!
 
Don't forget that the Automatic 4 on the GTO is actually faster 0-60 by 1/10th. All the magazines have only tested M6 GTo's.
 
another reason I bought automatic faster and no shifting. Esp in the traffic around here.

Messages Page 28 of 206

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement