Say what you want, but the Mustang GT convertible is still going to be around $3k cheaper than the GTO coupe.

But isn't it funny that the performance gap between the Mustang GT and the GTO is a whole lot smaller than the rated horsepower numbers would make you believe?


Could it be that the 2005 Mustang is actually desirable? Could it be that guionM's cherished GTO is widely perceived as a "Dog?"

I think that the most telling fact about the GTO is that guionM hasn't bought one. After all of the hype, the stories of travel to the Austrailian continent, claims about the superiority of Austrailian workmanship, the miraculous efficiency of Austrailan engineers, etc.....

After all the blather, guionM still didn't buy a GTO.

 

1. Outside our hemisphere, the only real car markets you can buy a car as large as Australia's and ours without paying a hefty tax or duty is the middle east, new zealand, and South Africa. Guess what? Holden & Ford of Australia sell there.

2. Holden took over for Chevrolet for foreign large car sales because they have a reputation of being extremely durable in extreme conditions.

3. By your descriptions of the GTO, it's obvious that you HAVEN'T driven one, or checked it out, or talked to owners who have one, or taken any time to check it our yourself. Terrible ergonomics? "All" that shiny black plastic? Pleeez!

You don't even know why the fuel tank is in the trunk (GM-North America's mandate not Holden's). Monaro's fuel tank is under the trunk just like the last Mustang's, and Monaro actually had about 16.5 cu-ft of cargo space.



It's been long recognized that you have no credibility regarding anything to do with Australia and everything from there. I gave up trying to figure out why you love bashing that country so much, and yet want to learn nothing about it.

Who knows, maybe after quoting Finley Peter Dunne on CZ28 one night, you went out to do some binge drinking & ended up as a party favor for a visiting pack of Foster swilling Koalas bears on a tourist visa.

That's the only logical, remotely possible thing I can come up with.

 

Hard shiney plastic??? I think Mustang has that in spades over GTO. Have you honestly looked at any of the cars you praise and bash? My goodness!

GTO: http://www.wnygto.com/pics/2004_gto/interior1.jpg

Mustang: http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-20...h-1280x960.jpg

 

The GTO is a fine car with good performance for 400hp.If there was no new mustang I would have been all over one in a heartbeat(an 05 that is).The mustang GT is a very good looking car that lights a fire under some of us with its very heritage inspired looks.I fell in love with it at first sight and after a test drive,just loved the ride and handling(coming from a guy who has had a 94&95 Z28 and 2 2001 mustang GT's and a 03 mach 1).

and don't forget that we get to see the next cobra proto in about 2 weeks.My wife has already told the dealer she's got dibs on the first avail cobra next year.

 

Base Mustang convertible vs fully loaded GTO. Nice comparison.

1. Mustang's engine is underrated, and...
2. IRS isn't as efficient at transfering hard acceleration as a live solid axle.

(The solid axle Mustang Mach 1 comes within .5 seconds of the IRS blown Cobra, despite substantially less horsepower & torque, nearly 100 each.)

Once again, redzed , you show a distaste for actually looking into something and giving 1/3 of the story. We've run the reason for GTO's initial sales failures into the ground, and even GM admits that "some" dealers harmed the product with their policies.

Once again, you failed to actually look up GTO's sales figures, and once again I have to say you're talking from parts of the body that aren't supposed to talk.

I also didn't buy a Mustang GT, I didn't buy a SRT-4, I haven't bought a Chrysler 300C, I haven't ordered a Charger Daytona, I haven't bought a C5 Corvette, I haven't bought a previous edition BMW M3, I haven't bought a Lincoln LS V8, I haven't bought a Ford Lightning, a Mustang Mach 1 or Cobra either. All vehicles I also like immensely.

However, I HAVE been to Austraila approximately 8 times, including once when I stayed there for nearly a year, I have been to both Melborne & Sydney, I have driven a Holden Monaro CV6, I have ridden in a Monaro CV8, I had use of a Holden Commodore SS LS1 6 speed for about a week and a half during 1 visit, I have driven a Ford Falcon Tickford, I have had no fewer than 3 other rentals on my visits there from both Ford & Holden, I know a few people working in the industry down there (as well as here in the US) who I'd consider friends, let alone the other people I have simply known for years down under.

So, compared with all the volumes of "experience" and "knowledge" YOU have had with Australia, the people that live there, the atmosphere and mindset of the country, and not the least, the cars they produce, the point you are trying to make here is exactly what, now???

 

You can't see that cheap, shiny black plastic on the center console of the GTO? You can't see the Traction Control ("T/C") kill switch that's disguised as a power window switch - and the power window switches that are carefully misplaced somewhere amid all the cheap-shiny-black-plastic on the center console?


The gas tank was presumably moved to prevent GTO drivers from being "burnt alive." I'm sure safety isn't as big a deal in Australia.

I could care less about the 16.5 cubic feet of trunk space in a Monaro, because the GTO only has 7 cubic feet - or 9 cu.ft. according to some? The rest of the trunk is devoted to the gas tank. Isn't amazing that just about every other car in the world has a gas tank safely mounted in some place other than the trunk.

 

Again, speaking without the facts, huh?

The US government has new rear impact standards coming into effect that eliminates the practice of sticking the fuel tank behind the rear axle. The Ford Mustang also had it's fuel tank back there, so Ford had to scrap the fox body.

As for the burnt alive comment, it's funny that we haven't seen any news on that, huh?

Every other car in the world was either engineered with the US rear collision standards in mind, will soon be re-engineered for this, or just happened to be in complience (ie: the Lincoln LS).

You brought up the trunk space as if it was Holden's incompetence that produced it's small size & fuel tank location, yet when that term seemed to fall back on you (you gotta learnb to check things like that) when pointed out that the mandate came from here in the US, you back pedal and say you could care less.

You seem to want to put your foot in your mouth today.
Since I have nothing else to do for the next half hour. I'll play.

FWIW: Holden has the fuel tank under the rear seat (just like the Sigma & Zeta, as well as the Lincoln LS & Mustang) in it's long wheelbase cars (Caprice, Statesman, and the UTE), and Ford's Falcon line has it there across the board. F-bodies, just like the "explosive" Crown Victoria, has it mounted high up, behind the rear axle in almost the exact identical place.

 

The new U.S. standards are coming only three decades after the Ford Pinto became notorious because of the fuel tank placement issue. I'd say that the new standards are more than reasonable and they're long overdue.

You've already forgotten about the Crown Vic?


Except the Commodore/Monaro. Sad, isn't it?


I'd say the fuel tank placement on the Monaro demonstrates what a manufacturer can get away with in Australia.

 

"get away with"? more like get grandfathered in. The car was designed before those standards were in place, and incidents in which the fuel tank actually does explode due to its placement are few and far between, and when found are from extreme cases.
Apparently, over there, they dont have the same safety regulations as we do because they dont have any evidence towards it posing a real danger...but then again, I'll leave specualtion and information on the Australian auto market and lifestyle to someone who has been there.
Guion?

 

I'm 100% with you on this. There has been big improvements on this over the years. The most amazing thing is that the Fox & SN95 Mustang with that fuel tank hanging visibly under the bumper isn't a hazard. But apparently, being rearended happend above the tank, and the thick plastic around it does the job. Apparently it works.

Ford traced the problem to a bolt on the rear axle that tends to puncture the fuel tank on severe impact. When Ford redid the Panther a few years ago, the bolt was one of the things that changed. That's why despite Panther based Crown Victorias being around as long as half the people on this board, we are only just now hearing about Vickys exploding when rear ended by trucks and buses going 80+.

Still have to admit, the idea of being stationary and then being hit by a large vehicle going 80 MPH or more and surviving only to get burnt up by a fuel tank rupture is extremely ironic & gruesome, but also extremely impressive.

Same can be said about us not adopting Euro's pedestrian safety front end standards. Some think it's sad we aren't adopting them. Most think it's silly because it's going overboard. Most of us would be lucky to survive being rearended at 50 mph let along 80.

There was a story here about 5 years ago about 4 women in a 4th gen Camaro who were rear ended at a stoplight by a drunk driver in a pickup truck going 50mph+. Both passengers in the back seat were killed, the driver was paralysed and the front passenger was severly injured. It can be said if they were in a Crown Vic, they'd all live and likely be fine. Intrestingly, it seems only police Crown Victorias that have the problem.

Better include the US in this as well.

Again, like Fox & Sn95 Mustangs, it isn't a problem. There's no record of these cars doing the Crown Vic when rearended. GM B-bodies also had tanks back there. You can't say that without laying the same blame here in the US.

 

This poll just goes to show you that people who want to bash something will blabber on and on forever just to hear themselves talk about how "bad" something is... for basically no purpose but to make themselves feel good somehow.

Even I thought this poll would be overwhelmingly for the Mustang based on how much "GTO hating" goes on here... very interesting that GTO is winning 21 to 19 as of right now.


Oh, and I did "go buy one"... where's a certain idiot's Mustang GT that he is saying is so superior... or his Mercedes SL500 from another thread?

 

Fair and balanced......

 

I'll tell you, I hit several LOTs this fine warm weekend, and the GT with some Shelby striping, loooooooks pretty d__n good! I even saw one painted like "Elanor" from Gone in 60 sec...
As far as looks, GT hands down; performance GTO hands down!

 

Theres no way you could take a base GT and add :

Ind. rear susp.
Fully forged 4.6 built to the spec the cobra eng. is
t-56 trans
custom leather/suede seats
full unique ground fx , and front and rear fascia's

....for $10K on your own using all brand new parts .

The bolt on to the 9's Cobra was a bargain . The only thing that coulda made it better was a 8.8 stuffed with moser axles , 4.30's and a HD eaton posi instead of the IRS .

 

I've driven the Mustang and GTO both. Two test drives on the Mustang and the GTO at the GM autoshow in motion. The best thing the Mustang has is it's look at me looks. IMHO I don't think the exterior is anything fantastic, if anything it's already dated, haven't we done that look before?

The interior room on the Mustang is a disappointment. Belt line is too high for my liking, feels like your driving a coffin. Back seat in the Mustang feels no more roomy than any of our previous 88 LX, 91LX or 95 Cobra. This was a huge disappointment. We installed our daughters safety seats in the back then I biased my driver seat forward of my normal driving position. This still didn't allow for adequate room for my 3 year old's legs and feet behind my seat. With my wife driving, salesman in the passenger seat and me in the back, I had to split my knees apart making room for the seat back. After the test drive I asked my wife how it was in back, she said it was cramped and had the same experience with making room for the front seat back. The interior materials are nothing to praise, nor is that tacked on door speaker grill. The Mustang does have a huge trunk for a 2+2 sport coupe. Though I would have forgone a few of the cubic feet of trunk I’d need to use 4 times a year for something more spacious in the back seats.

The Mustang interior feels as if they tried to make something fantastic happen, but didn't really know how to make it fantastic. I’m really not fond of the large gauges, the 1960 era font used on the numbers or the fact the increments only take up 180 degrees of the pod, makes for hard to read at a glance.

The 5spd Mustang we drove felt power challenged below 2400 or there abouts.

Only real positive point on the Mustang would be the confident chassis feel and ride. I might have a different opinion of this car if it came with a LS2 and a 6 spd.

The GTO has it over the Mustang in spades. The GTO falls short on the "look at me I'm a 400 HP car" looks. On the flip side the GTO isn’t a bad looking vehicle, it’s proportioned right and has a subtle handsomeness. There's so much more to a great car than the shell, and that's where the GTO shines. Interior is very well laid out, attractive, good materials. Only negative would be the volume **** being on the right side. Awesome supportive seats, everything feels as if the cockpit was made exclusively for me. Rear seats are something to behold for a 2+2 coupe. The official specs state there's 7" more leg room than compared to the Mustang. This is rather prevalent after sitting in the back. Installing child safety seats in the back, there's plenty of leg and feet room for the kiddos.

The drive, powertain, and chassis are spot on and complement each other very well. There's a substantial amount of torque feel below 2500 rpm in the GTO. The chassis soaks up road irregularities while still remaining taught.

IMHO there's a considerable difference in vehicles with the $27,800 Mustang and the $33,690 GTO. With the positives the GTO brings over the Mustang I would expect the GTO to cost more. Selecting the Mustang would be like settling for second best.