Simple Question

The GTO. 350 HP...that is getting rougly 320 of that to the ground in a manual. That doesn't suit you, the auto takes more of a loss, and will cut the best time of 13.30 down to a 13.40. It may lose power but it puts it down where it counts. Yet to see where the 05 really lies, but a 310 hp car that wieghs 3400 lbs and puts 280 rwhp is going to be hard pressed to beat a 3400 lb car that puts 320 to the wheels.

The mustang would definitly beat the gto in 0-60. the mustang does 5.1 seconds 0-60 (automatic) That is what motor trend got. And the manual GT mustang got 5.6 seconds 0-60 (Automobile magazine) The GTO's best time was 5.3 seconds but the GTO would start to pull away in the quarter. All u gotta do is throw some headers on there and a K&N and the mustang then it would beat the GTO in the quarter mile.

The reason why I don't care for GM, The pontiac GTO has the LS1 but it gets raped by the F-body camaros and they cost less. Why didn't they just put in the LS6? Trust me GET THE MUSTANG THERE IS A 7K DIFFERENCE IN PRICE SO THEN JUST PUT SOME MODS ON THE MUSTANG AND IT WILL DRIVE LIKE A BAT OUT OF HELL.

Nikolai

I want somethin said:

The GTO. 350 HP...that is getting rougly 320 of that to the ground in a manual. That doesn't suit you, the auto takes more of a loss, and will cut the best time of 13.30 down to a 13.40. It may lose power but it puts it down where it counts. Yet to see where the 05 really lies, but a 310 hp car that wieghs 3400 lbs and puts 280 rwhp is going to be hard pressed to beat a 3400 lb car that puts 320 to the wheels.

Click to expand...

the GTO Acually weighs 3,725 LBS (pontiac Website) The new stang weighs 3,520 LBS (Motor Trend) The Mustang Does 13.6 in the Quarter Mile at 99.9 MPH with an automatic (motortrend) The GTO does 14 seconds Flat at 102 MPH with a 6 speed manual (car And driver) 7 grand more for less performance? I wouldn't buy the GTO

Nikolai

The automatic stang is faster then manual?? I always thought it was the other way around? Is it true...?

Please, stop the magazine racing, you're comparing apples to peanuts. Automobile Magazine doesn't even PERFORM instrumented performance measuring tests, they just post "manufacturer's projected" performance figures. And the factories always publish conservatively, using the "promise less deliver more" rule. If you want to magazine race, at least wait for a magazine that actually hooks up equipment and runs the 1/4 mile to test a 5-speed manual GT. Motor Trend, C&D and R&T all will suffice. But Automobile magazine just B.S.'s about cars and gives you their subjective opinion. The statistics they print are just regurgitations they get from the manufacturers, that's why I don't waste my time reading road tests in that rag. Anybody who actually goes to the track on Saturday nights and watches the cars run knows that a good driver in a new '04 6-speed GTO is pretty much hitting the wall at 13.30-13.40 @ 105, with some axle-tramp to deal with. I'm guessing, based on the test that was done with the '05 GT AUTOMATIC, that the 5-speed will perform almost identically to the numbers I just typed for the GTO. In short, it's a toss-up, but the GTO costs more and has no trunk and debatable style.

the GTO is a POS. Everyone knows this.

You're in a stang forum, what do you expect.

would probably be pretty close, within the margin of driver error, to paraphrase all the political polling these days. Might give a very slight edge to the Stang, drivers being equal, but wouldn't put my paycheck on it.

Of course, the Goat will have a 6 liter, 400 hp motor for '05 to go up against the '05 Stang, sooooo.....????

Don't forget about the torque. The GTO has much more. Also, what rear does the '05 have? The GTO has a 3.42 I believe. There was an article on some magazine I read that did a test between the GTO and the Mach 1. They ran almost identical 1/4 mile times. So my question is, "Which is faster, the Mach 1 or the '05 GT"?

Also remember that the GTO gets the 400 hp LS-2 this year. They are making roughly 360 to the wheels.

I am not going off of what any magazine says. All I will ever comment on is what I have seen with my own two eyes. Much past weights, I refuse to listen to what times a magazine says a car will run.

Remember guys Motortrend said the Cobra was only capable of 13.3, and so did C&D we all know they are full of crap. I have seen bone stock GTO's run 13.2-12.9 depending on who is driving. So ultimately I will have to say that the car that makes more power and torque will pull teh win light. We will just have to see though, and you guys luky enough to have bought a GT, will have to get out there and start making vids.

RICKS said:

Please, stop the magazine racing, you're comparing apples to peanuts. Automobile Magazine doesn't even PERFORM instrumented performance measuring tests, they just post "manufacturer's projected" performance figures. And the factories always publish conservatively, using the "promise less deliver more" rule. If you want to magazine race, at least wait for a magazine that actually hooks up equipment and runs the 1/4 mile to test a 5-speed manual GT. Motor Trend, C&D and R&T all will suffice. But Automobile magazine just B.S.'s about cars and gives you their subjective opinion. The statistics they print are just regurgitations they get from the manufacturers, that's why I don't waste my time reading road tests in that rag. Anybody who actually goes to the track on Saturday nights and watches the cars run knows that a good driver in a new '04 6-speed GTO is pretty much hitting the wall at 13.30-13.40 @ 105, with some axle-tramp to deal with. I'm guessing, based on the test that was done with the '05 GT AUTOMATIC, that the 5-speed will perform almost identically to the numbers I just typed for the GTO. In short, it's a toss-up, but the GTO costs more and has no trunk and debatable style.

Click to expand...

Those tests are all more or less accurate it also depends on driver and the weather conditions. To say that a GTO is better over A Mustang GT is comnpletely retarded. The GTO is 7K more than the stang and the mustang is still faster out of the factory than the GTO. Even when they put in the LS2 you can still just throw on some headers and a supergharger for 4K and rape the crap out of that pansy GTO while still having a better handling car that costs less.
The reason the Automatic GT Could achive a better time than the manual GT is because
A. manuals arent as consistant as automatics
B. It takes more time to shift than on an automatic
C. there is more chance for driver error
D. The Automatic gearbox on the stang has 5 speeds so the first 3 are closer together making it accelerate faster and the last 2 give it more speed.

You shold take into consideration that these people are probably much better drivers than u or I (people at car and Driver, etc.) they now how to test cars. Their cars are bone stock, the GTOs you were seeing that were running faster probably had headers or something or they were excellent at shifting or had better tires so they could rev it up to 4K and dump the clutch then they would get those times.

Nikolai

P.S. GTOs Are Gay

Stang_33 said:

I really don't care about looks, it all comes down to power. Big decision to make here.

Click to expand...

If it all comes down to power, the GTO wins everytime.

Now 1/4 mile, I dunno...I haven't seen enough times from the '05 GT yet.

JMO but I wouldn't even consider an '04 GTO, I'd wait for the '05. LS2 > LS1

2005stangman05 said:

The GTO's best time was 5.3 seconds but the GTO would start to pull away in the quarter.

Click to expand...

2005stangman05 said:

and the mustang is still faster out of the factory than the GTO.

Click to expand...

So which is it?

02LS1 said:

If it all comes down to power, the GTO wins everytime.

Now 1/4 mile, I dunno...I haven't seen enough times from the '05 GT yet.

JMO but I wouldn't even consider an '04 GTO, I'd wait for the '05. LS2 > LS1







So which is it?

Click to expand...

Srry my bad I screwed up on the first post
I got the info mixed up I thought the GTO would be faster in the quarter but it isn't after all 350 has to push 3,725 lbs rather than 300 pushing 3,520

Nikolai

The 05 GTO will get an LS2, and will be faster. It costs quite a bit more. The Stang should still be faster with the manual, but only by a tenth or two (but with a lot more trap speed).

Jeez, where to start.....

Even when they put in the LS2 you can still just throw on some headers and a supergharger for 4K and rape the crap out of that pansy GTO

Click to expand...

The lamest argument in the world is the old and tired "you could do this and that for that and then you'd have that" crap. By that argument, I ought to just buy an SRT Neon and install an adjustable wastegate on it, run high twelves, and trash-talk that Mustangs are slow and that I've only got $23K in my faster Neon...

The reason the Automatic GT Could achive a better time than the manual GT is because
A. manuals arent as consistant as automatics
B. It takes more time to shift than on an automatic
C. there is more chance for driver error
D. The Automatic gearbox on the stang has 5 speeds so the first 3 are closer together making it accelerate faster and the last 2 give it more speed.

Click to expand...

Lordy lordy lordy....

A. Consistancy has nothing to do with a better time. If a manual car has nine botched 14-second runs, and then has a clean run of 13.40, and an automatic runs ten 13.60's in a row, the manual is faster. Period. It can run a 13.40, the auto can only manage a 13.60 (this is a purely hypothetical scenario of course). Just because the driver of any given manual-tranny car is a hamfisted uncoordinated imbicile/bozo, doesn't mean that the car ITSELF is slower. It just means that the driver blows chunks. Don't tell me that a new Dodge Viper is "slower" than an auto Mustang GT if some prep-school panty-waste dork grannyshifts and mis-shifts the Viper down the track to a low-16 second 1/4 mile run. The Viper still would mutilate the Mustang, it just needs a driver transplant.

B. Takes more time to shift than an auto?? LOL!!!!! Only if you SUCK at shifting!!! The difference in time-out-of-power between a properly speed-shifted manual and an automatic doesn't even BEGIN to narrow the gap of horsepower and time LOST due to the parasitic drag and increased weight of an automatic transmission.

C. See A and B.... I rarely miss shifts, 2005Mustang05. If you mess up all the time, blame yourself, not the car. Driver error doesn't mean a car is slower.

D. The automatic has 5 speeds, the manual has 5-speeds. While I don't have the specific ratios of each handy, I'm failing to see any glaring advantage here.

It's common knowledge, with the emphasis on COMMON, that automatics sap more horsepower from the driveline (meaning less power to the rear wheels) just by their operation and fluid-dynamics. Some autos are more efficient than others, but on the whole, manuals provide less driveline resistance, and are lighter. I am not aware of a SINGLE production car ever that has actually been measurably faster in the 1/4 mile in automatic trim as opposed to manual. Consistancy doesn't mean a thing, faster is faster. I used to race sportsman class in my '93 6-speed Corvette when it was new at our local dragstrip, practically every weekend. There was a really nice guy (Don) who had a brand new '93 Corvette automatic, and he actually competed and won the southeastern NHRA sportsman points race that year. Both our cars were bone stock, but Don was obviously far more serious about racing. He was deadly consistant, he kept all of his runs logged into his laptop, recorded temperatures and humidity and barometric pressures and adjusted and tweaked his dial-in and tire pressures accordingly. He was always running right on his dial. HOWEVER, his car was .4-.5 tenths SLOWER than my manual. My car was a consistant 13.30-13.40 @ 105-107 mph, his was a a consistant 13.70-13.80 @ 102-103 mph. He was CONSISTENT, and always nailed his dial-in, and had sharp reaction times, which meant he usually whipped me to the traps (because he got a head start due to his slower dial-in). But from a head's up, who's car is FASTER standpoint, my car would spank him silly in a heads-up race. Don would beat me and eliminate me, and then he would come see me by my car in the pits and say "man, you were reeling me in like a fish, I thought you were going to catch me for sure. That thing is FAST"....

So, that's the difference between consistent and fast. I could give a damn about consistent, give me the machinery that has the POTENTIAL to run the fastest, and I'll horsewhip it to a faster timeslip every time. I can't think of a single car ever produced, where the automatic version was faster than the manual. Ever. Whether it's "easier" to get a fast time out of an automatic is irrelevent. It's easier to pick up a fat ugly girl at a bar and take her home. Yeah, she may get lucky more consistently 'cause she's easy prey, but I'll keep trying for the hot chicks, it's worth it when you get it right and you hit all your gears!!

I am not aware of a SINGLE production car ever that has actually been measurably faster in the 1/4 mile in automatic trim as opposed to manual. Consistancy doesn't mean a thing

Click to expand...

This is because the factory always gears the manual down. Bottom line, it's all about the gearing. No trans puts out more power than another. Power has nothing to do with your transmission. The gearing in the transmission and the rear end will apply the power that your motor makes to the pavement but aside from what RICKS said about the auto having a little more driveline drag than the stick, your motor puts out the same power no matter what trans you have bolted to the back of it. And a stock 5.0 form Ford has always been faster than the automatic because of the gearing. Not only does the trans have a lower first gear (because it has 5 of them) but the manuals always came with a bigger rear gear. The 05's will be an interesting test when they test a manual 05 because the automatic has a similar first gear.

Let me just say this, the 05 GTO will kill the 05 Stang in the 1/4 mile and I still wouldn't touch one with a ten foot pole. To me it's nothing but an overgrown Cavalier.

2005stangman05 said:

The mustang would definitly beat the gto in 0-60. the mustang does 5.1 seconds 0-60 (automatic) That is what motor trend got. And the manual GT mustang got 5.6 seconds 0-60 (Automobile magazine)

Nikolai

Click to expand...

Automobile magazine? My grandmother could drive the 5-speed 05 GT faster than they did. They don't seem to have a competent crew of drivers (if they even use test equipment at all). Look further into some other posts and you will find a so far best of 0-60 in 5.0 sec. flat with a manual tranny (and lets not forget that the drivers with Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords or 5.0 Mustang are even more competent than the ones at Car and Driver or Motor Trend). Sorry Ricks, I know you already tore Automobile mag a new one, but I wanted to get my 2 cents in also. Also, to answer the question to the post, wait and find out. There hasn't been a track test in MT, C&D or R&T for a 5-speed GT yet. We will have to wait and see. Also, the GTO is ugly as @#%$! Looks like a grand prix/Cavalier. Looks and performance, that's what it's about!

This is because the factory always gears the manual down. Bottom line, it's all about the gearing. No trans puts out more power than another. Power has nothing to do with your transmission. The gearing in the transmission and the rear end will apply the power that your motor makes to the pavement but aside from what RICKS said about the auto having a little more driveline drag than the stick, your motor puts out the same power no matter what trans you have bolted to the back of it. And a stock 5.0 form Ford has always been faster than the automatic because of the gearing. Not only does the trans have a lower first gear (because it has 5 of them) but the manuals always came with a bigger rear gear. The 05's will be an interesting test when they test a manual 05 because the automatic has a similar first gear.

Click to expand...

You obviously know nothing about what you're talking about. The transmission transfers power from the engine's crankshaft to the driveshaft. The drivershaft powers the differential, the differential spins the axles. Horsepower is being expended the entire way back in the effort of spinning gears, pumping fluid, spinning the mass of the driveshaft, etc.etc... That's why on a chassis dyno, that measures horsepower from the REAR WHEELS, you always get a horsepower figure that is significantly lower than the factory horsepower rating that is taken off the crankshaft. It is also common knowledge that auto trannies have more moving parts, PLUS, you've got the parasitic drag of the pressurizing the fluid and moving it through all its circuits and the torque converter. If you chassis dyno'd an automatic 2004 GT, and a 5-speed 2004 GT, the auto would make less horsepower AT THE REAR WHEELS which is where it counts. So you're dead and embarrassingly wrong. Power has EVERYTHING to do with the transmission. The power travels through it, and more power goes in than comes out the other side. The power that is lost in the conversion is the power it takes to actually run the transmission. Just grab the input shaft of a T-5 with your hand and try to twist it. Trannies don't spin like your kid's pinwheel. They take power to work. Man, don't they teach physics in high school anymore??

And I said it previously, Automobile Magazine DOES NOT do performance testing at all. They just reprint the factory's numbers. They don't hide that fact, they are right up front about it.