Car and Driver Review- 05 Stang vs. 05 GTO

351CJ said:

Oh contraire, the gas guzzling moniker is quite accurate, especially as it pertains to manual cars.

The 2004 GTO manual is assessed a federal gas guzzer tax.

Since the GTO requires 92 octane premium gas, it nees to get 10% better gas mileage just to have the same fuel cost as the Mustang. And premium gas takes more crude oil to manufacture.

In C&D's test the GTO got 2 MPG WORSE mileage than the Mustang. Factor in the premium gas cost and your gas costs for the GTO will be 25% higher than for a Mustang GT.

Click to expand...

The 2004 GTO Auto was assessed the gas guzzler tax, not the manual!
Just wanted to let you know!

Also, for those that asked, the LS1 recommends premium, not requires it, unless it is tuned!

351CJ said:

I agree. When I started this thread, I had no idea that it would draw so many responses from GTO fans. I have never been to a GTO forum. The only GTO site I have ever been on is official GM / Pontiac web-site, just to check out info & pricing on the GTO. It seems that very few Mustang fans have ever gont to GTO forums, but all the Mustang forums are filled with GTO fans who are trying to hassle us.

What's up with that?

Click to expand...

As a matter of fact we have a lot of Mustang owners our our forum. We don't like the trolls but the true car lovers are always welcome.

Also, for all of you people that would like to read the actual article go to:
http://caranddriver.com/idealbb/vie...=59352&pageNo=1
or go out and buy one for yourself!

one2gamble said:

The GTO gets beat in the slalom and theres a timeslip of a stock 05 a few threads down running a 13.35.....

Click to expand...

There's also a timeslip from a 2004 GTO that ran 13.186 with a 2.0 60' time. With a better launch, that is nearly a 12 second car. And that is the "old" GTO. The "new" GTO gets another 50-hp and 30-tq beyond the 2004s. So do not compare the "best" Mustang GT times with "so-so" GTO times.

Jon Do said:

the Mustang is a SPORTS CAR.

Click to expand...

never was and never has been a Sports Car, its in this class called a pony car. You can even throw it in with muscle cars if you want but its never been a sports car.

Fast GTO said:

Versus the slips of stock 04 GTO's going 13.2x....


Well as we can see most of you enjoy magazine racing.

Click to expand...

and all LS1 camaros run 12's

"Both are no where near close to being vastly compared to a luxury vehicle."

Well, I suggest you put your copy of Car and Driver down and look at all the other magazine sources that look at the GTO as a near luxury coupe with good performance. Those guys like the car. Car and Driver OTOH has never been able to get it through their heads that the GTO is not a Firebird 2. Most other magazines respect the GTO; Car and Driver hates it. Again, this comes back to C&D's problem in defining the _purpose_ of an automobile. They try to look at a car as something its not, and then trash it based on an irrelevant criteria.

Right now I drive a Ford Contour V6. I think it is a good handling, decent performing car... It is great for the money I paid. Originally C&D had the Contour as one of their ten best cars. And then one year they put the 130 HP 4 cylinder Contour up against a bunch of V6 sedans that costed more and then trashed it.

Next year, when they were doing a comparison test, they said something along the lines of 'we didn't add in the contour given the abysmal performance in the last comparison test'. I dont mind C&D's statements because I can put their views into context and realize how ridiculous they are sometimes... A lot of the people on the C&D forum agree and see this GTO vs. Mustang comparison test as a joke.

I am not trying to say that C&D's views are total crap... Just that you need to read in between the lines with them and put their thoughts into proper perspective.

Jon Do said:

"Both are no where near close to being vastly compared to a luxury vehicle."

Well, I suggest you put your copy of Car and Driver down and look at all the other magazine sources that look at the GTO as a near luxury coupe with good performance. Those guys like the car. Car and Driver OTOH has never been able to get it through their heads that the GTO is not a Firebird 2. Most other magazines respect the GTO; Car and Driver hates it. Again, this comes back to C&D's problem in defining the _purpose_ of an automobile. They try to look at a car as something its not, and then trash it based on an irrelevant criteria.

Right now I drive a Ford Contour V6. I think it is a good handling, decent performing car... It is great for the money I paid. Originally C&D had the Contour as one of their ten best cars. And then one year they put the 130 HP 4 cylinder Contour up against a bunch of V6 sedans that costed more and then trashed it.

Next year, when they were doing a comparison test, they said something along the lines of 'we didn't add in the contour given the abysmal performance in the last comparison test'. I dont mind C&D's statements because I can put their views into context and realize how ridiculous they are sometimes... A lot of the people on the C&D forum agree and see this GTO vs. Mustang comparison test as a joke.

I am not trying to say that C&D's views are total crap... Just that you need to read in between the lines with them and put their thoughts into proper perspective.

Click to expand...

The GTO is not a luxury car...Do a little research. Below is a list of Luxury coupes, which the GTO doesn't fit into.

http://www.edmunds.com/new/market/l...ml?tid=edmunds.n.marketindex.content.num2.0.*

Double post

So you're telling me that the GTO isn't a NEAR-luxury performance coupe according to Edmunds but the $22K Acura RSX is according to that list? Keep in mind that Edmunds is the same source that when reviewing the GTO, compared it to $50K+ German luxury cars... (Not that Edmunds is the only source that thinks this... There are plenty... Hell, I think there was even a C&D review comparing the 4 door GTO to a BMW M5 when it was known as the "Holden Commodore". Of course C&D being as fickle as they are changed their minds when it was rebadged as a Pontiac...)

The bottom line is that the GTO is a $33K vehicle made to perform well and coddle drivers to a certain extent at the same time. I see that as a near-luxury coupe... If it had to be compared to BMWs, it is probably closest to the BMW 6 series in purpose, if not price. The Mustang OTOH is probably most comparable to the M3.

I also want to say that when the Turbo charged RX-8 or some other new car comes out, and the Mustang no longer becomes fashionable, I think you guys will see my point when C&D bashes the Mustang GT for some retarded criteria. Deep down you all know what C&D reviews are like; you are just letting their temporary infatuation with the Mustang GT blind you.


Here is an excerpt from the EDMUNDS review of the GTO, since you brought them up:

With a list price of around $33 grand, some folks think, "That's a lot of money for a Pontiac." Their mindset tends to be that the new Goat is a replacement for the Trans Am (which in a way, it is) and until they actually see the car, figure that it has mediocre interior materials, some cheesy design elements and a solid rear axle (as opposed to a more sophisticated independent rear end). The reality is that the '04 GTO is well built, boasts excellent fit-and-finish, has a world-class powertrain along with an Indy rear end and comes loaded with the exception of a sunroof and a navigation system. In fact, the only option is the six-speed manual transmission (at $695), though we would like to see Pontiac offer those other two features mentioned above. If you want to shop around for other true four-seaters that can run with this Pontiac, you'll be visiting BMW and Mercedes-Benz showrooms and be looking at $50,000-plus window stickers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Face it; the GTO is a more luxurius vehicle than the Mustang GT. I am not putting down the Mustang by saying that. After all the GTO SHOULD be more luxurius (or provide more of something) considering it costs $8K more than the Mustang.

Jon Do said:

So you're telling me that the GTO isn't a NEAR-luxury performance coupe according to Edmunds but the $22K Acura RSX is according to that list? Keep in mind that Edmunds is the same source that when reviewing the GTO, compared it to $50K+ German luxury cars...

The bottom line is that the GTO is a $33K vehicle made to perform well and coddle drivers to a certain extent at the same time. I see that as a near-luxury coupe... If it had to be compared to BMWs, it is probably closest to the BMW 6 series in purpose, if not price. The Mustang OTOH is probably most comparable to the M3.

I also want to say that when the Turbo charged RX-8 or some other new car comes out, and the Mustang no longer becomes fashionable, I think you guys will see my point when C&D bashes the Mustang GT for some retarded criteria. Deep down you all know what C&D reviews are like; you are just letting their temporary infatuation with the Mustang GT blind you.

Click to expand...

I am not going to argue with you because you don't know what a luxury car is. Your earlier comparison of the GTO vs CTS-V is like saying F-bodies are 90-95% of a GTO. We all know this to be false. The GTO is a performance coupe, same as the Mustang. You don't get nearly all the comforts of a BMW, Cadillac, or Audi but you save a lot of money.

Luxury Car:

"I am not going to argue with you because you don't know what a luxury car is. Your earlier comparison of the GTO vs CTS-V is like saying F-bodies are 90-95% of a GTO."

Don't argue with me. Argue with the source--Emunds--that you brought up.

Again, here is the quote again from Edmunds, in reference to the GTO:

you want to shop around for other true four-seaters that can run with this Pontiac, you'll be visiting BMW and Mercedes-Benz showrooms and be looking at $50,000-plus window stickers.
--------------------------------


Do you get it? There are plenty of people--including the sources that you bring up in the first place--that look at the GTO as a near luxury vehicle.

If you don't think the reviews at Edmunds.com are valid, you shouldn't have brought up the source in the first place!!

And some sources for the record claim that the GTO has a better quality interior than the CTS-V. Of course that is just their personal opinion...

I am not trying to argue that the GTO is the super-luxury vehicle that Topgear, Edmunds, Motor trend an other sources think it is... They probably exaggerate a bit because of the GTO's incredible value... I am just saying that it can be considered a ***NEAR***-luxury performance coupe given its price, performance and content.

Jon Do said:

"I am not going to argue with you because you don't know what a luxury car is. Your earlier comparison of the GTO vs CTS-V is like saying F-bodies are 90-95% of a GTO."

Don't argue with me. Argue with the source--Emunds--that you brought up.

Again, here is the quote again from Edmunds, in reference to the GTO:

you want to shop around for other true four-seaters that can run with this Pontiac, you'll be visiting BMW and Mercedes-Benz showrooms and be looking at $50,000-plus window stickers.
--------------------------------


Do you get it? There are plenty of people--including the sources that you bring up in the first place--that look at the GTO as a near luxury vehicle.

If you don't think the reviews at Edmunds.com are valid, you shouldn't have brought up the source in the first place!!

Click to expand...

I get it, you don't......Key words are "RUN WITH THIS PONTIAC". The comparison is about performance not luxury. Hopefully, both of us would agree that the GTO comes no where near the CLK or 6 series, which Edmunds was refering to.

I agree with you on that but they are OUT AND OUT luxury cars. I never said the GTO was a luxury car. I said it was a NEAR-luxury car. Compare its interior to a G35 or Cadillac CTS instead of an $80K BMWs and lexuses and you will see that it stacks up.

I would argue that the GTO could compare decently to a BMW 6 series SIMPLY BECAUSE there is a great diminishing return on your money after you spend mid thirties for a car. So the GTO is good just because it is a near-luxury car hits that magic value for luxury price point of roughly $35K MSRP (just like, say, a 300C) not because it is really that amazing. One on one, forgetting about price at all, of course the high end BMWs and Mercs are better cars...

And if you read that whole Emunds review, or just the excerpt at top, you will know that they talk about the build quality, comfort and performance of the GTO, not just the performance. They are talking about the total package man. This particular car is often compared to really high end BMWs and Mercedes because of its incredible value. Even C&D compared a Holden to an M5 before the GTO came out and they changed their minds about the vehicle.

The Mustang OTOH is in no way a NEAR-luxury coupe. The Mustang beat the GTO as an out-and-out cheap performance car, big deal. The GTO is more than just a performance vehicle. And you guys will be bitching about C&D too if or when they finally decide to do a retarded comparison stereotyping the Mustang as something it's not... Even the people on C&D's own forums are bitching about how retarded this comparison test is!!

You Mustang guys however need to compare the vehicle to something, and since the GTO is the closest thing that fits the bill, most of you are ready to stereotype it as something it's not. But the truth is, there is no true competitor for the Mustang. If you want a cheap, high torque strict-performance vehicle, the Mustang GT is the only one available.

But still, if you had to compare the Mustang to something, I would argue that the 350Z is the closest direct competitor in price, STYLE, purpose and performance, not the GTO.

Jon Do said:

I agree with you on that but they are OUT AND OUT luxury cars. I never said the GTO was a luxury car. I said it was a NEAR-luxury car. Compare its interior to a G35 or Cadillac CTS instead of an $80K BMWs and lexuses and you will see that it stacks up.

I would argue that the GTO could compare decently to a BMW 6 series SIMPLY BECAUSE there is a great diminishing return on your money after you spend mid thirties for a car. So the GTO is good just because it is a near-luxury car hits that magic value for luxury price point of roughly $35K MSRP, not because it is really that amazing. One on one, forgetting about price at all, of course the high end BMWs and Mercs are better cars...

And if you read that whole Emunds review, or just the excerpt at top, you will know that they talk about the build quality, comfort and performance of the GTO, not just the performance. They are talking about the total package man. This particular car is often compared to really high end BMWs and Mercedes because of its incredible value. Even C&D compared a Holden to an M5 before the GTO came out and they changed their minds about the vehicle.

The Mustang OTOH is in no way a NEAR-luxury coupe. The Mustang beat the GTO as an out-and-out cheap performance car, big deal. The GTO is more than just a performance vehicle. And you guys will be bitching about C&D too if or when they finally decide to do a retarded comparison stereotyping the Mustang as something it's not... Even the people on C&D's own forums are bitching about how retarded this comparison test is!!

You Mustang guys however need to compare the vehicle to something, and since the GTO is the closest thing that fits the bill, most of you are ready to stereotype it as something it's not. But the truth is, there is no true competitor for the Mustang. If you want a cheap, high torque strict-performance vehicle, the Mustang GT is the only one available.

Click to expand...

I will argue that the new GT is more than a cheap performance car. The interior of the new vehicle is great, but no where near a luxury car. The GTO is the same way. Pontiac isn't GM's luxury car division, Cadillac is. If you cleaned up a Hyundai Elantra's interior and put great materials, fit and finish, and overall quality into the vehicle, would you classify this as a near luxury vehicle.....NO way! Magazines compare the Z06 to 996 Turbo, not because of the luxury content, rather performance. The 996 Turbo has a much much more luxurious interior and comes with a large list of features not available on the Z06. The reason why the GTO is compared to the GT and vice versa is because they are both RWD, V8's, Coupes, are American, and have a long history. The price of the 2 cars is also quite similar.

"Magazines compare the Z06 to 996 Turbo, not because of the luxury content, rather performance."

But that is because they are strict performance vehicles!! The GTO is not a strict performance vehicle. If the Mustang was to be compared to a BMW, it would be compared to the BMW M3 because both are strict performance vehicles. However, the GTO is often compared to higher end BMWS (C&D even compared the 4 door Holden version to the higher end M5) because those cars aren't strictly performance cars. They are about performance-luxury like the GTO.

If someone were into straight performance, and wanted a pure performance BMW, they would look at the M3, not the M5. The reason C&D comapared a Holden to the even higher-end M5 is because Holdens are supposed to provide a modicum of comfort too.

And again, I am not saying that the GTO is a luxury car. I am saying that it is a near-luxury car. The reason I am bringing this up is because you keep on saying I refer to it as a luxury car. No, I am saying that it has a modicum of luxury to it (hence the "near luxury" label) and thus, when it is compared to high end BMWs and MBs, it is often compared to the ones that provide comfort too, not just the out-and-out performers like the M3. If anyone was gonna compare the Mustang to a BMW, it would be the M3, not the M5, because of the Mustang's performance oriented purpose.

"The price of the 2 cars is also quite similar."

The MSRP of the GTO is $8K more. The GTO is also made to carry four people IN COMFORT unlike the Mustang.

Sure, you can buy a 2004 GTO with rebates for about the price of a Mustang, but that is just because the Mustang is new. In 2 years, if not by the end of the year, the bottom-end Mustang GT will be a near $20K car. You gotta keep in mind that the Mustang is a very high volume car (150K projected sales per year) so it will have rebates as well. Virtually all Fords and GMs do, and that is why they are far better cars for the money than the Car Mags portray them to be.

Jon Do said:

"Magazines compare the Z06 to 996 Turbo, not because of the luxury content, rather performance."

But that is because they are strict performance vehicles!! The GTO is not a strict performance vehicle. If the Mustang was to be compared to a BMW, it would be compared to the BMW M3 because both are strict performance vehicles. However, the GTO is often compared to higher end BMWS (C&D even compared the 4 door Holden version to the higher end M5) because those cars aren't strictly performance cars. They are about performance-luxury like the GTO.

If someone were into straight performance, and wanted a pure performance BMW, they would look at the M3, not the M5. The reason C&D comapared a Holden to the even higher-end M5 is because Holdens are supposed to provide a modicum of comfort too.

And again, I am not saying that the GTO is a luxury car. I am saying that it is a near-luxury car. The reason I am bringing this up is because you keep on saying I refer to it as a luxury car. No, I am saying that it has a modicum of luxury to it (hence the "near luxury" label) and thus, when it is compared to high end BMWs and MBs, it is often compared to the ones that provide comfort too, not just the out-and-out performers like the M3. If anyone was gonna compare the Mustang to a BMW, it would be the M3, not the M5, because of the Mustang's performance oriented purpose.

"The price of the 2 cars is also quite similar."

The MSRP of the GTO is $8K more. The GTO is also made to carry four people IN COMFORT unlike the Mustang.

Sure, you can buy a 2004 GTO with rebates for about the price of a Mustang, but that is just because the Mustang is new. In 2 years, if not by the end of the year, the bottom-end Mustang GT will be a near $20K car. You gotta keep in mind that the Mustang is a very high volume car (150K projected sales per year) so it will have rebates as well. Virtually all Fords and GMs do, and that is why they are far better cars for the money than the Car Mags portray them to be.

Click to expand...

Urgh...I really think you need to take a trip to a couple of local dealers. A 996 TT isn't about strictly performance; ever sit in this car's interior? It is made as a all out performance car for a discriminating buyer. Check out Porsches US website and build one, you will see what I mean.

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.

The GT can hold 4 people as well, I wouldn't want to sit in the back of either car for a long trip. I honestly don't think Ford will have rebates any time soon because the demand is outnumbering the suppply. If the cars were sitting on lots not selling, rebates would be plentiful.

Jon Do said:

The Mustang OTOH is in no way a NEAR-luxury coupe. And you guys will be bitching about C&D too if or when they finally decide to do a retarded comparison stereotyping the Mustang as something it's not...

Click to expand...

So what ammenity/ies does the GTO have that makes it so much better than the MustangGT?
It's got more hp/tq, it's bigger inside(moreso in the rear and less in the front), and what else? If the GTO is a "near-luxury" car and the MustangGT is "in no way a NEAR-luxury coupe," then tell us where all these upgrades/advantages really are. Luxury consists of interior pieces and driving comfort/road feel. The GTO has IRS and would likely be a bit more comfortable on rough roads, but not by much, as we've learned with model after model over the years.

As for the GTO being compared to higher end BMW's, maybe that'll hold true for the '05 model, but the '04 model is compared to the BMW 3 series, not M3, on Pontiacs website.

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...

I can't wait to see who wins the longest quote/post battle in this thread!