I've only seen low-mid .8's for the GTO. And that's alot of money for a loaded GT.

 

Found it!

Car and Driver 12/03 Issue tested it at 0.88 g's. However most test show low to mid 8's, but as I did with 1/4 miles times, I like to compare the best to the best.

And to the Mustang poster on here, check this out:

http://www.ls1.com.au/forum/showthre...8&page=3&pp=15

2005 Monaro that meets US safety regulations (including the gas tank) and has all the changes the American public desired.

Make em' say UHHHHH!!!

 

I recall the MM&FF review of teh overloaded SS 35th anni vs the 03 Cobra at Etowns new race track, and the 35th was behind by only a small amount, even with a lack of 75hp and IRS.

I wish GM just put the LS6 in the last of the SS's just give one everlasting quick jab to the Mustangs jaw. Damn you GM.

 

So they could sell a hell of a lot more of them. That's the short answer. Ford knows they didn't NEED to out perform the Camaro. They were in it for the sales and made it so that enthusiasts could modify their cars the way they wanted them to be.

That's what the magazines think the price will be. It will most likely be less. Ford has already said that base prices will be within $500 of the 2004 model. And when I mention prices, I'm talking about sticker prices. Just because a few dealers have GTO's at MSRP or just below doesn't mean much. You can get Cobra's for the same...and GT's for a hell of a lot less right now. We have no idea right now what kind of deals we'll be able to get on 2005 Mustangs. So the difference could very well remain $6000.

As far as GTO being faster, I hope so. The 2005 Mustang GT should be comparable to the 2004 GTO at the strip. It has about the same weight and power of the 2004 Mach1 which currently beats the 2004 GTO. With 400 HP, the 2005 GTO should beat it. I would hope so since the Mustang GT is the low end V8 of the Mustang line up. I don't think anyone here was implying that the GT would be competing with the 2005 GTO in performance or anything else really. That will be reserved for higher models (even though the cars are in two different categories IMO and others).

Yes, but both those cars are within reach of the same buyer (typically). Most people considering a Mustang aren't looking at the GTO. Mustang sales actually went up this year while GTO doesn't even look like it's going to make even the revised numbers that Pontiac put out.

 

http://web.camaross.com/forums/showthread.php?t=286193 Answered here. That's not a typical order at all. Not even close. Heck, there's crap in there I've never even heard of.

Since neither car is out yet, it's hard to determine ownage, but then again, I'm waiting to compare a higher model Mustang to the 2005 GTO...

 

Nothing is answered in that thread. With the changes known for the new GTO and the stats on the current can you not predict its cpability. Is it really that hard to predict the capability of a car with 300hp, live axle, that weighs 3450lbs. I dont think so. It will skid pad in the mid 0.8's and run the quarter in 13.7-8. Just my best guess, but an educated one.

I was waiting for this, thank you Paper Target. To quote Big Als Z in another thread anticipating these statements:

I am waiting for those comparisons as well, seeing as they will be closer on horsepower and will be dead on if not more than the GTO in pricing. Will only make the GTO look more appealing.

 

Anecdotal evidence does not equal fact. Just because you and your friends "think" its true does not make it true. I have owned BOTH CARS and I can tell you it is not true. Are top of the line 3rd gens good handling cars? Yes. Are top of the line 4th gen cars better handlers? Yes. That's fact.

Go to www.frrax.com, this is the F-Body Road Race & Autocross forum. There are racers and engineers in there that will flat out tell you the 4th gen's front suspension design is superior and the 4th gen is the better handling car.

I dismiss out of hand all of your "evidence" as unfounded. What your percieve and what facts bear out and experts in a given field determine are completely different things.

 

I wouldn't say the current Mach1 beats it. High performance pontiac tested both on the same day and the GTO ran about a 1.25 mph difference and the Mach1 only ran .05 quicker (which the difference between the 2 60's easily made up). Here's the article: http://www.highperformancepontiac.co...est/index.html

Chris

 

Ok, so if it's faster, it doesn't beat it? I'm unfamiliar with this logic

 

You're not really giving us anything either except guesses But again, you're comparing the base V8 Mustang to a future GTO that we know little about at this point. Which brings up a question, what is your specific purpose in comparing the base GT to the GTO?

I wouldn't know. Several of us put Big Als Z on the ignore list because he constantly misinterprets what people say, among other reasons. However, do you see anything wrong with comparing top models? I know I don't.

You hope it makes it look more appealing. We know that sales for Mustang will be greater. More people want it. We don't know yet how GTO will do with its new engine and looks. We do know the current GTO is for the most part a failure and that even with 350 HP isn't selling much. Another 50 HP won't help much. Let's hope the exterior upgrades do (which are an option from what I understand).

 

Read it again, the answer is there...clear as day. Ford put more emphasis on differentiating the GT and Cobra than Chevy did the z28 and SS (which were nearly identical, hence the near identical performance). Due to the obvious mechanical differences, the GT got the short end of the stick. If Ford had given the GT the same powertrain and goodies as the Cobra (like z28 did SS), the gap wouldn’t have been so big.

Just the problems one deals with when offering two v8 engines and two of everything.

Another thing, companies care about sales and profits the most. Two reasons why the Ford beancounters ignored the z28’s dominance over the GT
1) Cost and complexity of 32v 4.6. Remember this is more expensive than even GM’s 405hp pushrod Ls-6 (I still wish Ford had kept the 351 pushrod). Offering it on the GT would have meant a higher price. This engine is also hand-built, etc…. In the end, the Sohc version did a decent job and was more economically feasible.
2) Even with performance lagging (in comparison to z28), the GT sold in droves. Not much motivation to pony up the horses to match the competition in the eyes of the bean-counters.

 

Very good post. I just look at the days when Z28 and GT were neck and neck and wonder why that stopped. I know the Z28 and SS were very close, but even the Cobra of those days had less horsepower than they did. It is just odd to me that Ford chose not to make the GT equal to the Z28 and the Cobra to the SS. However, I do understand the beancounter argument and yes, Mustang sales were always and continue to be great. Even with less power and worse handling evryone bought the car, I contribute this to Fords marketing, low price (probably why power was not equal) and their diehard fans.

 

No, the Mach1 is NOT faster. GTO ran a higher mph (~1.25). ET means little if the driver doesn't know how to drive. Heck, the difference in the 60's (.09 better for the Mach1) is GREATER then the difference in the ET(.05 greater for the Mach1) between the two cars. It's all in the article....

Chris

 

Ok, now that you've put your spin on it let's be more specific. Did the Mach1 have a FASTER time? If so, it's faster. You can quote all you want and explain it with all the tech talk, but at the end of the day, the Mach1 wins. That's my point...now, if you want to keep saying the GTO is faster, power to you.

 

I didn't put a spin on and I never said that the GTO was faster. I posted facts about the difference. The Mach1 ran a QUICKER ET (by a little), the GTO ran a FASTER MPH (by a little). Most people would come to the conclusion that they're about equal. I don't see how that's so hard to understand .

Chris