Car and Driver Review- 05 Stang vs. 05 GTO
- Thread starter 351CJ
- Start date
"Why not compare it to the Mustang, both are 2dr, rwd, 300+hp V8 sporty cars?"
Because the GTO is a sporty car that can also function as a big stable highway cruiser and the Mustang is a SPORTS CAR.
I know deep down in my heart that you guys are smarter than the jokers who write Car and Driver. They may know how to drive, but they can't understand the PURPOSE of a car when reviewing. Like I said before, if they were reviewing trucks and SUVS, they would be more concerned with BMW like handling feel than utility. Likewise, by pinning the GTO as a Camaro/Firebird/Mustang type of car, they forgot its purpose.
If the Mustang was compared as a stable highway cruiser type car, it would lose to the GTO. (Though the GTO, with its small trunk certainly has problems for its purpose--I am not trying to say it is the perfect car for what it is. I'm just simply saying that it is not the Firebird 2.)
So the Mustang beat a highway cruiser in a cheap sports car comparison test. It BETTER. It would be pretty embarassing if it lost...
If the new Pontiac Firebird came out tomorrow, would anybody be comparing the Mustang to the GTO? I rest my case.
Because the GTO is a sporty car that can also function as a big stable highway cruiser and the Mustang is a SPORTS CAR.
I know deep down in my heart that you guys are smarter than the jokers who write Car and Driver. They may know how to drive, but they can't understand the PURPOSE of a car when reviewing. Like I said before, if they were reviewing trucks and SUVS, they would be more concerned with BMW like handling feel than utility. Likewise, by pinning the GTO as a Camaro/Firebird/Mustang type of car, they forgot its purpose.
If the Mustang was compared as a stable highway cruiser type car, it would lose to the GTO. (Though the GTO, with its small trunk certainly has problems for its purpose--I am not trying to say it is the perfect car for what it is. I'm just simply saying that it is not the Firebird 2.)
So the Mustang beat a highway cruiser in a cheap sports car comparison test. It BETTER. It would be pretty embarassing if it lost...
If the new Pontiac Firebird came out tomorrow, would anybody be comparing the Mustang to the GTO? I rest my case.
But if grandpa died, would you look at grandpma to replace him?
The Firebird died. So people are looking at the GTO as a perfect, 1 to 1 replacement. It is not!! The GTO is a totally different member of the pointiac family meant to satisfy a different need. It is more akin to a 2 door version of the high performance large cars Chrysler is coming out with or the Mercury Marauder than a Mustang (save for the fact that the GTO is available with manny). If the GTO was a replacement for the Firebird, Pontiac wouldn't be bringing the Firebird back!! But they are... What does that tell you?
Someone mentioned earlier that GM owners coming from the Camaro and Firebird are disappointed with the GTO. Ask '94 to '96 Impala SS owners what they think of the GTO and they will probably tell you a different story all together. The only crippling flaw of the GTO, when looked at this way, is the small trunk... However, for what it is the performance is sizzling.
"I just went to the Pontiac site and even they compare it to a Mustang (Mach 1 that is)"
They also probably compare it to the G35 and other cars. The truth is, cars like the Mustang and GTO don't have many direct competitors so comparisons become pretty "loose" in a sense. If the Camaro was out, Car and Driver wouldn't bother stretching the article to encompass a GTO. My problem with that article is that it is a comparison between two cheap performance cars, and obviously, evaluated on those terms, the Mustang has an advantage. That doesn't mean the Mustang is a better car than the GTO. It just means that the Mustang is better when compared and evaluated in a manner that suits its PURPOSE better.
The Firebird died. So people are looking at the GTO as a perfect, 1 to 1 replacement. It is not!! The GTO is a totally different member of the pointiac family meant to satisfy a different need. It is more akin to a 2 door version of the high performance large cars Chrysler is coming out with or the Mercury Marauder than a Mustang (save for the fact that the GTO is available with manny). If the GTO was a replacement for the Firebird, Pontiac wouldn't be bringing the Firebird back!! But they are... What does that tell you?
Someone mentioned earlier that GM owners coming from the Camaro and Firebird are disappointed with the GTO. Ask '94 to '96 Impala SS owners what they think of the GTO and they will probably tell you a different story all together. The only crippling flaw of the GTO, when looked at this way, is the small trunk... However, for what it is the performance is sizzling.
"I just went to the Pontiac site and even they compare it to a Mustang (Mach 1 that is)"
They also probably compare it to the G35 and other cars. The truth is, cars like the Mustang and GTO don't have many direct competitors so comparisons become pretty "loose" in a sense. If the Camaro was out, Car and Driver wouldn't bother stretching the article to encompass a GTO. My problem with that article is that it is a comparison between two cheap performance cars, and obviously, evaluated on those terms, the Mustang has an advantage. That doesn't mean the Mustang is a better car than the GTO. It just means that the Mustang is better when compared and evaluated in a manner that suits its PURPOSE better.
"BMW's have terrible handling limits, PLEASE."
Go look at the back of your sacred car and driver books to BMW's skidpad and slolom numbers. They are not that high... I guess that means that the Mustang handles better than compact BMWs, right?
Again, if you guys are going to treat that Car and Driver article as god, I don't see how you can ignore that the GTO scored higher subjective handling ratings. According to that article, the GTO "feels" like the better handler.
Go look at the back of your sacred car and driver books to BMW's skidpad and slolom numbers. They are not that high... I guess that means that the Mustang handles better than compact BMWs, right?
Again, if you guys are going to treat that Car and Driver article as god, I don't see how you can ignore that the GTO scored higher subjective handling ratings. According to that article, the GTO "feels" like the better handler.
Jon Do said:
I really don't think you have a firm grasp of how to compare automobiles. The Marauder and 300C are sedans. The GTO a coupe. The GTO and GT are both coupes; they have similar performance characteristics and dimensions. They both are in the lower rung of sports coupes, thus the comparison. Both are no where near close to being vastly compared to a luxury vehicle.
Jon Do said:
I just went to the Pontiac site and even they compare it to a Mustang a 2dr BMW 330 CI as well
Bringing the Firebird back, where is it? If they do bring the F bods back I'm willing to bet byebye to GTO, what does that tell you?
Jon Do said:
I have road raced BMW's and can attest that they have better than average handling charachteristics. Again, this can be attributed to you lack of understanding of how cars are pitted against one another. Compare BMW's M3 to the GTO and GT; it is CLEARLY a better handling car. The M3 is BMW's Mustang.
I agree that a compact BMW 3 series is probably a much better handler than the Mustang or GTO... I guess I am not making myself clear... I understand that!! All I am saying is that if you looked soley at skidpad and slolom numbers, it would post worse numbers DESPITE its better handling. Car and Driver, for example, would go on and on and on about how great the 3 series handling is EVEN IF other cars in a comparison test posted higher or similar skid pads and sloloms...
I am trying to point out that handling is a hard thing to quantify by just numbers. If you guys have so much faith in the Car and Driver article, you have to admit that the GTO was also subjectively rated higher in handling despite its skidpad and slolom scores... That is all I am saying.
I am trying to point out that handling is a hard thing to quantify by just numbers. If you guys have so much faith in the Car and Driver article, you have to admit that the GTO was also subjectively rated higher in handling despite its skidpad and slolom scores... That is all I am saying.
"Bringing the Firebird back, where is it? If they do bring the F bods back I'm willing to bet byebye to GTO, what does that tell you?"
But see this is wrong. From things that have been mentioned in this thread, GM plans to redesign the GTO and bring back the Camaro in 2007/2008.
The GTO, now and in the past, was never a direct competitor to the Firebird and Mustang! For its discounted price of $27K, there are reasons to buy the car without even considering performance as a factor. It is the type of car that in automatic trim an old guy could buy and be happy with... except for the small trunk.
But see this is wrong. From things that have been mentioned in this thread, GM plans to redesign the GTO and bring back the Camaro in 2007/2008.
The GTO, now and in the past, was never a direct competitor to the Firebird and Mustang! For its discounted price of $27K, there are reasons to buy the car without even considering performance as a factor. It is the type of car that in automatic trim an old guy could buy and be happy with... except for the small trunk.
Jon Do said:
I am going by Slalom numbers; the best indicator IMO of comparing 2 vehicles handling dynamics. I don't have the article in front of me, so I cannot comment further. The cars were compares under the same conditions, temp, etc. This makes the comparison very valid. Comparing a 330i tested on the other side of the country isn't. If a BMW 330ci, GT, and GTO were tested all on the same day, same track, same temp it would be valid. Editors love BMW's because they have a great feel to them. The driver feels like he or she is one with the chassis. The steering wheel gives great feedback to the driver letting them know what the car is doing. They are easy cars to drive fast because of this. This type of rating is subjective on the driver. Some drivers might not like this.
I'd be interested to see the redesign of the GTO, I heard what you said before about the Camaro too but they are all rumors right now as far as I've seen. And just a little while ago, it was noted that GM has slashed production of the GTO already cause they previously admitted overestimating public interest. Oh well I guess there's always the Cobalt. I just wish GM would offer something more affordable I guess and performance oriented not just a car with SS badges slapped on it or an abysmal retro themed pickup truck like the SSR. You are right in that aspect as they are geared more towards old guys, cause I know I don't want one. Maybe the 2nd time around they'll get the Camaro and GTO/Firebird right. 
Comparatively, I have seen GTO reviews--particularly a British video review from "Top Gear"--that praises the GTO's handling at the limits not because those limits are so high but because it is so easy to take the car up right to the limits. Sometimes BMWs don't have the highest slolom ratings in their comparison tests, but Car and Driver still goes on and on about how great their handling is. That is because of, like you mentioned, this hard to quantify feel.
Again, according to the Car and Driver article, the GTO is the better subjective handler. I'm sure most of you guys don't give a flip but you shouldn't put that much weight into Car and Driver's opinion in the first place. (Yeah, it should be considered, and it is fun to discuss, but we should only take it so seriously...)
Again, according to the Car and Driver article, the GTO is the better subjective handler. I'm sure most of you guys don't give a flip but you shouldn't put that much weight into Car and Driver's opinion in the first place. (Yeah, it should be considered, and it is fun to discuss, but we should only take it so seriously...)
"You are right in that aspect as they are geared more towards old guys, cause I know I don't want one."
I like it but then again, my first car was an old guy car...
The problem with the GTO is that it fills a wierd niche... On the one hand the basic design is made for old guys but on the other hand it is tricked out for impressive performance... So on the one hand you have the comfort and sure-footedness of the highway cruisers that old guys like and on the other hand you have the performance that gets the young kids.
The problem with this is that most old guys don't want the performance, and most young guys don't care about the "old guy" aspect. So young guys end up comparing the GTO to out and out performance cars like the Mustang (which it simply can't compete with in value or style) and old guys look at cheaper cars with bigger trunks like the Crown Vic.
Like I said earlier, the GTO appeals to a very small and specific niche. It is not a bad car... It's just that most people aren't in the market for what it represents...
I like it but then again, my first car was an old guy car...
The problem with the GTO is that it fills a wierd niche... On the one hand the basic design is made for old guys but on the other hand it is tricked out for impressive performance... So on the one hand you have the comfort and sure-footedness of the highway cruisers that old guys like and on the other hand you have the performance that gets the young kids.
The problem with this is that most old guys don't want the performance, and most young guys don't care about the "old guy" aspect. So young guys end up comparing the GTO to out and out performance cars like the Mustang (which it simply can't compete with in value or style) and old guys look at cheaper cars with bigger trunks like the Crown Vic.
Like I said earlier, the GTO appeals to a very small and specific niche. It is not a bad car... It's just that most people aren't in the market for what it represents...
FivepointNO
FivepointNo - With all do respect I think you need to get the article before you make such statements. I have the magazine in front of me and the GTO wins in the following "performance" type categories: 0-60, 0-100, 0-130, 1/4, rolling 5-60, top gear 30-50 & 50-70, top speed and braking (see page 49). The GT wins in 300-ft skid pad (.89 to .88), and lane change MPH (see page 50). These are the objective tests - there are bold red "best in test" all over the GTO side. If you count up the "best in test" numbers it is 15 to 3 in favor of the GTO with 2 of the 3 GT "bests" in fuel economy and third was sound level at 70-mph cruise, which tied the GTO. Again, these are OBJECTIVE performance related numbers.
Subjectively, C/D gave the GTO a win in engine output, powertrain performance, throttle response, steering feel, and handling. GT won on transmission and chassis performance. If you or anyone else can't take the above and admit the GTO "performs" better, then they are not worth my response on this board. I don't know where you get 2 to 2.
As for the time slips, I have heard of numerous '04 GTOs in the lower mid 13s. Bob Cosby is right on (he seems to be the most realistic/objective person on this board) that the 05s GTOs will have even better times.
Lastly fivepointNO, you proved my point by rebutting my objective numbers with going back to the "looks" of the car. By all means, looks are important (if not the most important thing for most daily drivers), but quit rebutting performance numbers with it.
I think GT owners are envious of the bigger engine of the GTO and the GTO owners are envious of the better looks of the GT. It's unfortunate so many will refuse to admit it. I just hope when I test drive I won't like the Z or G35 better - that would suck
FivepointNo - With all do respect I think you need to get the article before you make such statements. I have the magazine in front of me and the GTO wins in the following "performance" type categories: 0-60, 0-100, 0-130, 1/4, rolling 5-60, top gear 30-50 & 50-70, top speed and braking (see page 49). The GT wins in 300-ft skid pad (.89 to .88), and lane change MPH (see page 50). These are the objective tests - there are bold red "best in test" all over the GTO side. If you count up the "best in test" numbers it is 15 to 3 in favor of the GTO with 2 of the 3 GT "bests" in fuel economy and third was sound level at 70-mph cruise, which tied the GTO. Again, these are OBJECTIVE performance related numbers.
Subjectively, C/D gave the GTO a win in engine output, powertrain performance, throttle response, steering feel, and handling. GT won on transmission and chassis performance. If you or anyone else can't take the above and admit the GTO "performs" better, then they are not worth my response on this board. I don't know where you get 2 to 2.
As for the time slips, I have heard of numerous '04 GTOs in the lower mid 13s. Bob Cosby is right on (he seems to be the most realistic/objective person on this board) that the 05s GTOs will have even better times.
Lastly fivepointNO, you proved my point by rebutting my objective numbers with going back to the "looks" of the car. By all means, looks are important (if not the most important thing for most daily drivers), but quit rebutting performance numbers with it.
I think GT owners are envious of the bigger engine of the GTO and the GTO owners are envious of the better looks of the GT. It's unfortunate so many will refuse to admit it. I just hope when I test drive I won't like the Z or G35 better - that would suck
Similar threads
