TomServo92 said:Don't think so scooter. They've only sold 53% of planned sales by 11/1/04. Yes, the incentives have increased sales but not dramatically. If they had increased as much as you seem to think, they wouldn't have 127 days worth of inventory stockpiled.
TRAMS_AM said:As Bob Cosby said in an earlier post, it's relative. I'm not saying that the GTO went from selling 800 cars one month to 40,000 the next. But as soon as the incentives kicked in, sales rose 177%. That's pretty dramatic, don't you think?
Unfortunately, this is too little too late. The supply is pretty big and it probably won't be possible to sell all the '04s before the '05s show up.
BTW, is your name a MST3K reference?
TomServo92 said:At the beginning of November, 9,487 GTOs had been sold with a stockpile of approx. 5,900 (a 127 day supply...yikes!). GM has already reduced 2005 production by 30% from 18,000 units to 12,000. All the GTO owners brag about being able to get a GTO for around $26K but I personally don't think that's anything to brag about when you look at the big picture. A limited edition high-performance vehicle with a $3500 incentive that has only sold 53% of it's expected sales is a sales failure. If this trend continues through next year, the GTO could go the way of the F-bodies.
125 and 139mph with those horrible ETs? YIKES!!!TRAMS_AM said:The fastest Pontiac is BMR Fabrication's car. It's ran 10.98@125. The fastest Holden (to my knowledge) is a CV8 that runs 10.22@139.
13.2's after mods aren't uncommon. But there's only 1 I've heard of that managed it all stock, even after checking on LS1GTO. There's no '04 GTO that ever ran 12's stock, period. That's why you haven't seen the slip. It didn't happen. The common A4 times are about 14.0, but several have run 13.60's. 12's just aren't at all believeable. Particularly when considering ever other ET we've heard, only one having run 13.18 once from all I can find about them, totally stock.TRAMS_AM said:FivepointNO – the 13.2’s are more common than you may think. In one weekend, two members of LS1GTO ran that time, and several others have also run similar times. I think that due to the small number of GTO’s running around out there, and the even smaller number that see the track, there won’t be too many people posting times, let alone really good ones. The lowest time I’ve heard is a 12.9, which is close to the fastest stock LS1 F-body times (although a chicken may have been sacrificed or a soul may have been sold for this time. I also would love to see a slip for that run).
Bob Cosby said:If I were in the market for another new car, and my choices were the 05 Mustang or the 05 GTO, I'd likely pick the Mustang based on my own preferences and biases. However, I would like to comment on one point you made:
The gas guzzling moniker is inaccurate, especially as it pertains to the manual cars. The 05 GT M5 is rated at 17/25 mpg. The 04 GTO M6 is rated at 17/29 mpg. That's even in the city, and significanly better on the highway. Granted, that is the 04 with the 5.7L LS1, but if the Vette is any indication (and it should be, as they shared engine in both 04 and 05), the 05 GTO will get similar, if not the same mileage. It makes sense....the LSX-based GMs always do well on mileage.
FYI...A5 Mustangs are rated at 18/23 mpg and A4 GTOs are rated at 16/21 mpg (and pay a gas guzzler tax because of it).
Just some friendly info.
Stang2k5 said:When I was considering buying a muscle car I considered the 04 Cobra, 04 GTO and the 2005 Mustang GT. The best car in my opinion ... dollar for dollar is the 2005 Mustang GT....
How can you beat a car thats putting out over 300 HP for only 23k. You can get a loaded 05 Stang GT for 25k invoice. What would a fully loaded Cobra or GTO cost ???
Need I say more
Jon Do said:"4.5? Heh... Enter, Corvette. Turn and stop on a dime. Please. It's good, yes. But it's not in that arena yet."
I am using that expression relative to the fact that it is a 3,700 lb near luxury car. For a car of that nature, the performance is sick!! The other cars in its price range are the G35 or CTS. Those cars would get their asses handed to them.
If Car and Driver got 4.8 out of a GTO that isn't broken in, mid 4s should be possible. A Corvette should be able to get aweful close for 4 flat.
"Not "were," are. The reason, GM isn't selling enough and they're offering incentives. The base price is still over 30K."
That is the whole point. Those rebates turn the GTO from a good value to an insane value. Right now the Mustang GT simply can't compete on value. But then again, people who buy cars in their first year right when they come out do so for emotional reasons, not value.
I am simply pointing out that since RIGHT NOW the GTO costs about as much as a Mustang GT, it is a pretty damn good value. You get an exclusive car with good performance and good luxury for the price of a pure performance-oriented car like the Mustang. The only reason people hate the GTO is because of A) cost and B) styling. But the GTO costs 10s of thousands less than comparable vehicles, and the styling is meant to appeal to the more conservative audience who want a 'stealth' car, not a showy type sports car.
I guess what I am saying is that all these reviews for the GTO are practically irrelevant. They all dog it because they evaluate it as something it is not (a camaro). Of course it is going to suck if you want a Camaro or Firebird. But it was never meant to appeal to that type of consumer. It's meant to appeal to the type of guy who wants to go to his accounting job every day and not stand out in the parking lot, but still have a car that is capable of providing a good amount of fun on the track on the weekends. The type of guy that wants to be able to carry four people around in comfort on occassion, and impress them to some degree WITHOUT mashing on the gas pedal.
Evaluate it like that, and no other car within $15K can compete. The next cheapest you are going to get is a CTS-V, but the GTO is about 85-90% of that car for 60% of the price.
jgressley2003 said:Why do people that are huge diehard GM fans come on the Mustang boards to try and cause trouble. Hmm I'm a huge Mustang fan and I've never gone onto any GM website to cause trouble. Well ok maybe I did once only to look for parts for the pos Firebird I'm working on at the moment. But anyways I guess that is why I don't like GM people. They always think their stuff is better than everyone else. Just doesn't make sense to me. If you have no interest in Mustangs how about you stay off of Stangnet.
The GTO is the better consistent performer, IN A STRAIGHT LINE! This used to be the Mustangs biggest drawback, it on;y went straight "well." The GTO handles well, but not AS WELL as the new MustangGT. It doesn't slalom nearly well, nor does it match the skidpad numbers of the GT. Also, the GTO is faster on top end. So in 2 categories, it beats the Mustang outright. In two other performance categories, it falls into second place. Does it truly outperform the MustangGT? No it doesn't, unless we're only looking at the points where the GTO is better, and skipipng others.MichMash said:I don't understand the debates though - the numbers don't lie. The GTO is a better performer and the GT is a better looker. I suppose some are entitled to their opinion that the GTO looks better (since it is an opinion), but I don't think anybody can say the GT is faster. "My car is better than your car" debates are fun, but you guys need to be more honest here. You can't rebut a faster 0-60 or 1/4 time with a price or looks argument.
I agree not to be too exited about something the magazines say. However, the "gotta have it" factor isn't the only one the Mustang was rated higher in. So it earned 7 more points there. The average onlooker says that advantage is more like 60:1, not just a few points. In that regard, the magazine was "going easy" on the GTO, because it's a good performer. Being realistic, the GTO GtH it factor isn't even close, as I said. The sales figures tell that story all too well. That noted, the GT would've won by a bigger margin had they been realistic and said... "Well, most folks like it's performance but won't buy one because they think it's ugly." I don't personally think it's ugly, but compared to the MustangGT(which they did), it's "butt ugly."If I were a Mustang owner, I wouldn't get too excited about C/D picking them over the GTO. Thier reviews are WAY too subjective - nothing more than the opinions of a few. The "winners" of their tests always do so by the most narrow of margins (almost always a single point), and then you see the difference on "got to have it" factor.
one2gamble said:how is it a better performer than the 05? The GTO gets beat in the slalom and theres a timeslip of a stock 05 a few threads down running a 13.35.....
As for the timeslips....the 13.35 was run on a different day at a different track and with a different driver. The GT/GTO shootout was done on the same day at the same place and with the same drivers, thus the results are more relative. When the 05 GTOs hit the track, you will see high 12's out of them with competent drivers in good air.one2gamble said:how is it a better performer than the 05? The GTO gets beat in the slalom and theres a timeslip of a stock 05 a few threads down running a 13.35.....
GTP2GTO said:Funny how the timeslips have errors on them, such as the car number changes on the slips. The time is also .8 better than his other runs not too long ago. What were his 60's then?
Also, look at the trap speed. 100mph? Big whoop. So the car is geared to jump off the line, it obviously has no balls up top. If it even really was his car...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?