"Change those numbers and erase the "gotta- have - it - factor"(25 to 18) which is more like "How i think it looks factor,""
Actually, there is a styling section, so who knows what "gotta have it" actually measures? It doesn't mean fun to drive either because the GTO won on that one too. (Which, btw, suprised me--I figured with the shifter and heel-and-toeing issues that C&D originally complained about, maybe the Mustang won because it is more fun to drive... But that isn't the case...)
The only real problem with that comparison is the "gotta have it" factor.
Reading through it, I know that I would prefer the GTO, since I like understated styling and want a comfortable backseat. They were fair about the performance advantage, and didn't bash the GTO like they did last year... They painted it as a good car, just a little plain for their tastes...
They were fair to the Mustang too.
The only problem was that stupid "gotta have it" factor. That factor counts 50% more than "fun to drive" and we don't even know what it means. They should get rid of the factor and just rate both cars without it.
Then, they should pick a winner based on their subjective preferences, ignoring the total.
If they don't want to get rid of the "gotta have it" factor, they should explain what it means. The Mustang basically got killed on their comparison sheet except for "gotta have it". If they just think the Mustang is the better car regardless of points added, they shouldn't pick a winner based on points.
Adding "gotta have it" because of some inherent flaw in the point system doesn't make sense! If the point system is flawed, don't use it... Adding "gotta have it" to patch up a funamental flaw is retarded.
And if the Mustang really did win on styling, they should have just made the styling section worth more points, and added to there, instead of "gotta have it".
Basically, if you read the article content, it isn't that bad.. It mentions fairly balanced points (like the GTO's luxury vs. the Mustang's looks) but the grading criteria just doesn't make any sense...
I am glad to see stangnet members saying they don't take C&D seriously... Because that is the main point. You guys over here know what you want--you want the Mustang because it has better styling (for you guys) and it's a better performance value for the money... The GTO guys want an understated car with a back seat... It really comes down to preferences.
BTW, even the guys at C&D's own forums are complaining about "gotta have it". It just seems like a ridiculous factor to add tot he comparison, and add so many points to, without explaining...
----------------------------------------
1) Is bashed in the press for it's styling
2) Is not seen as a threat to Mustang sales
3) Is ignored by the public in general
-----------------------------------------
I respectfully disagree... If they wanted a high volume car with flashy styling, they would have bought a Mustang, not a GTO. Part of the appeal of the GTo is its exclusivity (low sales) and "stealth car" factor. These two points are really minuses against the car, because it is about preferences. (Now more objective things, like the poor shifter and the heel-and-toe problems mentioned in C&D, those are more objective.)
I think there are a lot of GTO owners here simply because the Mustang is an important new car to the American market, and therefore they are curius about it like many other people. Some got pissed of at the C&D article, but most people on C&D's own forums that don't even own a GTO don't like the comparison! Even many Mustang owners here don't like it.