The GTO is more luxurius given the fact taht you can carry four people more comfortably in it with a smooth ride that isn't totally tuned for absolute performance.
"The same concept applies to BMW's M division. The M3 has a very luxurious interior, with a ton of available high end features. You can get htd seats, Navi, a Harmon Kardon Premium stereo, etc. The M5 has the same core philospies built into it. Any ///M vehicle is built for performance first, luxury second."
But the point is, if you want the BMW that's MOST tricked out for performance, you would look at the M3. It has a harder ride and
suspension than most BMw, particularly the six series. The six series is supposed to be a good cruiser whereas the M3 is tricked out for performance.
Basically, again, it comes down to PURPOSE. I don't know how many times I can stress this word. I know that BMWs are more luxurius than GM's and Fords but I am looking at cars with similar purposes. Barring exotics, the M3 functions its purpose in BMW's lineup as the ultimate performance vehicle. It goes around the track faster than the M5s, it weighs less and has a firmer ride than the 6 series. When GTOs are compared to high end BMWs, they aren't compared to the M3 with is BMW's performance vehicle. The Mustang is Ford's basic performance vehicle and with the extinction of the Camaro/Firebird the Corvette is GM's.. The GTO is GM's performance Grand Tourer... It is more similar in purpose to the Lincoln Marc VIII than the Mustang. If the Lincoln Mac VIII was compared to BMWs, it would probably be compared to the 6 series because it is a fairly performance oriented grand touring coupe... Likewise, the GTO is also that type of performance oriented grand touring coupe... It represents what the GTO always represented... And that it is not a Camaro. Now a Camaro, or a Mustang, if compared to BMWs, would be compared to the M3 since that is the BMW 4 seater with the hardest performance bent... The Mark VIII and the GTO would be compared to different cars since they aren't geared all the way to the far end of performance... It is just that in the days of 250 HP family Sedans, the GTO's performance seems historically so high for that type of vehicle... Thank progress for that. There are also cars like the Chrysler 300C and 250 HP Honda Accord that show high HP is now just a trend in the industry...
Now when the Mustang Mach 1 comes out with 5.4 liters and 375 HP for about the price of the GTO, you will know what I am talking about. You will have a car that costs the same price as the GTO from Ford that whoops it in performance. The GT by comparison is like Ford's Subaru Imprez WRX. The "low-end" performance car. When Ford releases a performance Mustang in the thirties, you will know what kind of performance that type of money can buy these days... But that won't make the GTO a bad car... Because there is STILL a certain type of driver would rather have a cruiser than an all out performance car. By nature, a cruiser couldn't be a 2 seater...
Do you really think that if GM wanted to release an out-and-out performance car in the mid thirties (like a high end Camaro updated for 2005) the GTO is the best they could do? In fact People constantly complained about the 2004 GTO having worse performance than the much older Camaro... GM can do a lot better today...