Car and Driver Review- 05 Stang vs. 05 GTO

[max2000jp]

A first year Body style with a $10,000 discount or
A last year model with a $3500 discount.

HMMMM

Doesn't take a rocket scientist or are all GTO fanboys that dumb? The whole arguement is retarded, it traces back to simple supply and demand. There is a very low demand for GTO's, hence the rebates.

 

[tmac4468]

That is true. Hard to believe they could market a car this good that badly! Even with the average looks, it is still a very good car that offers a combination of power and size that not much else does right now. At the prices they are offering now esp.

 

[tmac4468]

So go somewhere else and talk about your ugly friggen GTO!

If this was a response to me, I don't have a GTO and I think the topic of the GTO was brought up by a mustang owner.

 

[tmac4468]

it traces back to simple supply and demand. There is a very low demand for GTO's, hence the rebates.

That was the point I was getting at originally. When I was looking at the Mach I was told they weren't moving because of speculation on the 05, hence the rebates. GTO's don't move, put rebates on them until they do...

 

[Zedoc]

All GM had to do with their GTO was to have made it look like a 1969 GTO. Or 1970 Chevelle. It would have been gangbusters. But nooooooo it has to look like a Celica.

 

[TomServo92]

All GM had to do with their GTO was to have made it look like a 1969 GTO. Or 1970 Chevelle. It would have been gangbusters. But nooooooo it has to look like a Celica.

I'm not sure I agree with that. The retro worked for the Mustang because it's such an iconic American design. The GTO isn't as well known outside of muscle-car afficionados so I think they just needed a more striking design to catch peoples attention.

 

[new22003]

All GM had to do with their GTO was to have made it look like a 1969 GTO. Or 1970 Chevelle. It would have been gangbusters. But nooooooo it has to look like a Celica.

You have to remember GM is the company that turned this once great name

Into this

Hey, at least they kept the color.

 

[Frank99TA]

I would like to add my opinion in the pile. The key to reviewing a car is to be impartial.. I own a GTO and a Trans Am, and I went to test drive a 05 mustang. I've owned over a dozen camaro and firebirds through the years even a 2004 Z06. I've looked and test drove the mustangs through the years but it was the little things I didn't like. I didn't like the way the shifter was just out of reach or the way the driver's seat positioned the driver. When I went to buy the GTO I test drove the Cobra to see if maybe it would be better than the GT and I didn't like the heavy clutch or the suede seats. All I can say about the new mustang is that they've fixed all the problems I didn't like about the old mustang. It's a badass car but not perfect. No car is perfect.. I loved the look of the mustang as well as the muscle car feel. However, the ride and luxury of the GTO is hard to give up. The interior on the mustang is very nice but not as high a quality as what's in the GTO. You have to go and look to really see. Speed wise, they were comparatively close and I think would depend on the driver.. I don't race the car so a tenth here or there doesn't really make a difference. The GTO is GM but its not.. It's made in Aus. and the interior is nothing like anything I've ever had in a GM car, not even close. The look of the GTO shows something to be desired or somewhat of an acquired taste but not ugly. Do people prefer the look of the mustang.. I would also say yes.. and rightfully so, it definitely looks badass..So, if I was going to buy car today, which one would I buy?? It would depend on how I felt that day.. They both have qualities I really like.. If you could put an ls6 with a six speed in the body of a mustang with the interior out of the gto.. Then, you would have the perfect car. What gets people upset and starts a flame war is when some person makes a unintelligent comment about something they don't know anything about.. When you have actually driven both, actually spent some time looking at it and studying it, then you can bring an objective opinion. To say something is trash just irritates people not because of the comment but because the lack of intelligence behind it.. Most people here enjoy talking about cars and thankfully there is a lot to talk about.. Be open minded.

 

[Frank99TA]

One more thought.... If Pontiac called the now GTO something like the Grand Prix GTO or the G8 instead.. Would it have been met with more open arms.. Then it would be compared with cars like the infiniti G35, lexus IS, or even the mighty BMW? Maybe its not the car, its the way Pontiac and GM presented the car..

 

[stang-no-mus(t)]

Funny, mine doesnt require it...

GTO doesn't either.....only recommended

 

[stang-no-mus(t)]

The Car and Driver review was baised toward the mustang. Ford put so much time into that mustang there is no way there going to let C&D bash it. The article says nothing about the extreme power advantage of the gto, and instead of doing so they devot a whole paragraph on how the mustang's 1000watt shaker system is better than the 200watt gto stereo. Whenever they did put the gto ahead in a remark it took 2 or 3 times of reading to realize that they were regarding the gto as better. They didn't even mention how much more luxurious the interior is in the gto and the fact that the gto's back seat highly accomodates 2 decent sized adults(very unlike the mustang's). The only thing that the had the right to complain was the styling and the shifter feel....which i do believe the mustang has the edge over the gto on these. There was very little talk about the performance .....look at these numbers posted:

Mustang GTO
0-60: 5.1 4.8
0-100: 13.0 11.7
0-130: 25.6 19.6
1/4mile: 13.8@103 13.3@107
top gear:
30-50 9.8(5th gear) 9.6(6th gear)
50-70 9.6(5th gear) 9.2(6th gear)

Now to me those are numbers that belong to almost two different categories ....as the speed increases the gto just flat out smokes it. The gto beats it in top gear even though the mustang's top gear is 5th and the gto is 6th. Put the gto in 5th and watch those times shrink quick.
Look at the "Subjective/Objective RESULTS" of the test. The part that decides the winner.

The Mustang and the GTO "tied" in the "vehicle" section (77 to 77)
Putting ridiculous ratings like rear back seat comfort 4 to 5 and rear space 3 to 5. It should be more like 4 to 8 and 3 to 8, since the goat has far more room. Change those numbers and erase the "gotta- have - it - factor"(25 to 18) which is more like "How i think it looks factor," and the goat wins in total points 186 to 198.....a landslide. And just for arguments sake ...keep the "gotta-have-it-factor" and the goat should still win 211 to 216.(includes the powertrain, chassis, gotta-have-it-factor and fun-to-drive)

The GTO beat the mustang in chassis and powertrain (43 to 46) and (44 to 46), and fun to drive (22 to 23).


Clearly the GTO should have been the winner!!!
211 to 216 (at least)

 

[duner]

Go away

 

[Rootus]

Why the hell are you reading Car and Driver in the first place?

 

[stang-no-mus(t)]

forgot to mention that the mustang's engine was also fully broken in (as stated in the article). GTO was fresh of the lot with prob about 10miles on it. we all know engines perform much better and accleration times start shrinking when engines pass thier break-in period.

 

[JonJon]

what a worthless post
if we cared about C&D I'd buy that trash.

 

[Tex81]

This topic has really been done to death. Why do you goat boys have a massive inferiority complex that requires rushing to the Mustang forum to justify your car choice?

I don't care if the GTO's performance numbers are better at stock. The Mustang will perform better in all areas when I'm done with it AND still look better than your Grand Prix on steroids. I also don't give a crap about a backseat I wouldn't even use anyway.

We come here because we like the Mustang. If we liked the GTO we'd be in a GTO forum.

 

[alan519]

you clearly are missing the point

The Car and Driver review was baised toward the mustang. Ford put so much time into that mustang there is no way there going to let C&D bash it. The article says nothing about the extreme power advantage of the gto, and instead of doing so they devot a whole paragraph on how the mustang's 1000watt shaker system is better than the 200watt gto stereo. Whenever they did put the gto ahead in a remark it took 2 or 3 times of reading to realize that they were regarding the gto as better. They didn't even mention how much more luxurious the interior is in the gto and the fact that the gto's back seat highly accomodates 2 decent sized adults(very unlike the mustang's). The only thing that the had the right to complain was the styling and the shifter feel....which i do believe the mustang has the edge over the gto on these. There was very little talk about the performance .....look at these numbers posted:

Mustang GTO
0-60: 5.1 4.8
0-100: 13.0 11.7
0-130: 25.6 19.6
1/4mile: 13.8@103 13.3@107
top gear:
30-50 9.8(5th gear) 9.6(6th gear)
50-70 9.6(5th gear) 9.2(6th gear)

Now to me those are numbers that belong to almost two different categories ....as the speed increases the gto just flat out smokes it. The gto beats it in top gear even though the mustang's top gear is 5th and the gto is 6th. Put the gto in 5th and watch those times shrink quick.
Look at the "Subjective/Objective RESULTS" of the test. The part that decides the winner.

The Mustang and the GTO "tied" in the "vehicle" section (77 to 77)
Putting ridiculous ratings like rear back seat comfort 4 to 5 and rear space 3 to 5. It should be more like 4 to 8 and 3 to 8, since the goat has far more room. Change those numbers and erase the "gotta- have - it - factor"(25 to 18) which is more like "How i think it looks factor," and the goat wins in total points 186 to 198.....a landslide. And just for arguments sake ...keep the "gotta-have-it-factor" and the goat should still win 211 to 216.(includes the powertrain, chassis, gotta-have-it-factor and fun-to-drive)

The GTO beat the mustang in chassis and powertrain (43 to 46) and (44 to 46), and fun to drive (22 to 23).


Clearly the GTO should have been the winner!!!
211 to 216 (at least)

i think the whole thing went over your head. there are tons of cars that beat the mustang. there are tons of cars that are more luxurious than the mustang. what ford has done so well, is bring back the cache, which i dont think you understand at all.... im part of the baby boomer generation. When i got into the mustang in the showroom with the upgraded interior and in red, i just smiled. They have done a superb job of taking the older generation back, while still advancing the the car in a big way. i sat in the gto, which i also owned in the sixties, and.... just nothing. Yes a nice interior, but the car looks like all the other pontiacs. It does nothing to stir you into wanting it.Sales are horrendous for the new gto, and they are looking to change it shortly. It is going to have a short run in its present body style.They are adding scoops and such to try to improve the situation. As clearly it was a big mistake to take that holden body from australia. When most people see the mustang, its a delight. sales are way up for it. every magazine loves it. It was featured on the today show as one of the ten best. Its not because its so fast, its because it is so well done, as a tribute to the past and to the present. Further adaptations will only be faster and cooler. Cobra, bullitt, shelby. therefore, mustang -1 gto -0

 

[JonJon]

how much demand is there for GTO's
and how much demand is there for the new Mustang

GTO loses.
[/end GTO]

 

[new22003]

Welcome to last month.

 

[TomServo92]

The Car and Driver review was baised toward the mustang. Ford put so much time into that mustang there is no way there going to let C&D bash it. The article says nothing about the extreme power advantage of the gto, and instead of doing so they devot a whole paragraph on how the mustang's 1000watt shaker system is better than the 200watt gto stereo. Whenever they did put the gto ahead in a remark it took 2 or 3 times of reading to realize that they were regarding the gto as better. They didn't even mention how much more luxurious the interior is in the gto and the fact that the gto's back seat highly accomodates 2 decent sized adults(very unlike the mustang's). The only thing that the had the right to complain was the styling and the shifter feel....which i do believe the mustang has the edge over the gto on these. There was very little talk about the performance .....look at these numbers posted:

Mustang GTO
0-60: 5.1 4.8
0-100: 13.0 11.7
0-130: 25.6 19.6
1/4mile: 13.8@103 13.3@107
top gear:
30-50 9.8(5th gear) 9.6(6th gear)
50-70 9.6(5th gear) 9.2(6th gear)

Now to me those are numbers that belong to almost two different categories ....as the speed increases the gto just flat out smokes it. The gto beats it in top gear even though the mustang's top gear is 5th and the gto is 6th. Put the gto in 5th and watch those times shrink quick.
Look at the "Subjective/Objective RESULTS" of the test. The part that decides the winner.

The Mustang and the GTO "tied" in the "vehicle" section (77 to 77)
Putting ridiculous ratings like rear back seat comfort 4 to 5 and rear space 3 to 5. It should be more like 4 to 8 and 3 to 8, since the goat has far more room. Change those numbers and erase the "gotta- have - it - factor"(25 to 18) which is more like "How i think it looks factor," and the goat wins in total points 186 to 198.....a landslide. And just for arguments sake ...keep the "gotta-have-it-factor" and the goat should still win 211 to 216.(includes the powertrain, chassis, gotta-have-it-factor and fun-to-drive)

The GTO beat the mustang in chassis and powertrain (43 to 46) and (44 to 46), and fun to drive (22 to 23).


Clearly the GTO should have been the winner!!!
211 to 216 (at least)

Did you ever stop to think that what makes a car more desirable than another isn't just performance numbers? No...I suppose your brain doesn't work at that level now does it?