# Motor Trend Sucks.



## PEARL JAM (Sep 6, 2005)

Just read the December(I know, I'm late on my reading material)Issue competing the Charger SRT8 against the 05GTO.
Talk about biased reporting. On THEIR rating system the Goat beat the Charger on:
1)0-30
2)0-60
3)0-100
40 1/4 mile time
But...M.T. gave the Charger the checkered flag due to "seat-of-your-pants factor" Give me a freakin break!! They also said the Charger won because it has an optional DVD player. (they did briefly mention the Charger costs 10k more than the GTO.)
I would have a rag called MOTOR trend would judge a car soley on it's performance value. I was wrong. :shutme


----------



## BlownGTO (Dec 9, 2005)

Ok I dont know about you, but I looked at the SRT-8 Charger before I bought my goat. They wanted $37,000 for a loaded R/T and ALMOST $50,000 GALD DARN DOLLARS for the SLOWER 4-Door SRT-8. I literally purchased my hot lil 
'04 GTO for LITERALLY HALF the cost of a new SRT-8. Oh and guess what, I pulled away from one on the street.


----------



## UdnUdnGTO (Jan 30, 2006)

:agree Right on P.J. If a person is looking for objective coverage and unbiased coverage. Forget it. Like news media, pick the one you agree with. Fox for conservative, Headline News for liberal, CNBC for well, you get the idea. I guess that is the way it is. Sooo, why did the federal government help Chrysler when it got in financial trouble and has not lifted a finger for GM? HUMMMM!:confused


----------



## GOATGIRL (Feb 6, 2006)

That does suck! I read the same article and all it reminded of was the same article with the GTO and Mustang with their "Got to Have It" factor!!! When is the media going to realize the beauty of this car?!?!?


----------



## 05GOAT (Nov 11, 2004)

Probably never if they don't pull their heads out of their BUTTTTTSSSSS.


----------



## GO-GTO! (Feb 21, 2006)

We looked at the Charger before we bought the GTO too. IMHO it's too much fluff and not enough power. Plus, it cost just so much more. What really killed it for us was no manual trans. Hands down the Goat was "the" car for us.:cool 

All muscle car and no dvd player! I didn't buy a hot rod to watch movies in!:rofl: 

 Jen


----------



## EEZ GOAT (Jul 9, 2005)

i say send the baby you have in ur avatar and that get it right:lol: 


:willy: *incoming*


----------



## CrabhartLSX (Feb 12, 2006)

I stopped taking C&D seriously after their 04 GTO/ 05 mustang GT comparo. They arn't even in the same CLASS, in any way. They loved the looks of the mustang, understandable, but you might as well say a 3000GT is better than a GTO because it "looks better".

Motor trend is just as biased, i knew they would give it to the SRT-8, at least they're in the same basic class, but there really isn't much of a comparason.

I got a kick out of their Viper/C6Z06/Ford GT comparo though. They gave it to the Z06, i mean, you have to, but you could tell they really didn't want to.


----------



## gto_lady04 (Jan 25, 2006)

Well I suppose a DVD player would be nice on the Charger, they gotta have something to do.

Cause they ain't gonna be runnin' with the Goats.

Monica


----------



## b_a_betterperson (Feb 16, 2005)

My Dad gave me a crap load of car magazines yesterday -- and that issue was in there. They say the Charger feels more sophisticated -- while the GTO feels old and out of date.

Look, I'm not arrogant enough to say that I'm an expert -- but, geez Louise, what are these guys talking about? Yes, the on-center steering feel could be a little bit better. Yes, the initial feel of the brakes could be a little better, too (at least on the 04s). But to choose one car that got its ass kicked in on every performance measure over the clear winner is nuts.

I don't know who handled media relations for the GTO -- but they should be fired. This car got screwed by C/D in its comparison to the Mustang -- and screwed by MT in its comparison to the Charger. 

Look at it this way, nobody other than Dan Gurney says that the GTO is an awesome car. Do you seriously think that any car magazine knucklehead is going to offer a better opinion than him?

Anyway, I get AutoWeek and Automotive News. All these other rags I just glance at and fling in the recycling bin.


----------



## Holden (Sep 10, 2005)

I’m so sick of Media saying lack luster GTO! Are we looking @ same car?


----------



## Stephen Hopkins (Feb 6, 2006)

The one good article I've seen that gives the GTO its due was in Motor Trend. It was called "Two For One" and compared the GTO ('05 i believe) to the Mercedes CLK 55 AMG. The article made the comparisson between the two under the premise that the GTO was 90% of the car for 1/2 the price. Pretty good article comparing the GTO to the kind of car it should be marketed to compete with.


----------



## PEARL JAM (Sep 6, 2005)

Stephen Hopkins said:


> The one good article I've seen that gives the GTO its due was in Motor Trend. It was called "Two For One" and compared the GTO ('05 i believe) to the Mercedes CLK 55 AMG. The article made the comparisson between the two under the premise that the GTO was 90% of the car for 1/2 the price. Pretty good article comparing the GTO to the kind of car it should be marketed to compete with.


I did read that, and you are right. It was a good (nonbiased) article.


----------



## Good 2 go (Sep 7, 2005)

There's another article, don't remember which mag, that gave the win to the slower, more "mature" muscle car a couple years ago. The '04 GTO beat out the S/C'd Mustang Cobra. :lol:


----------



## jacobyb (Jan 2, 2006)

If you want a good magazine that is more centrist and actually tests cars in the manner they should be, look into MPH.


----------



## fergyflyer (Apr 18, 2005)

I've been a subscriber to Car & Driver since 1978. That magazine has been the automotive bible to me. After I read the article where the GTO lost to the Mustang due to the "Gotta have it factor" I decided that they were biased. They have chosen to select winners in performance and driveability contests by using subjective data such as looks and public opinion. My subscription will not be renewed, and when they call to ask why, my answer will be short and sweet. There are other magazines with better gotta have it ratings.


----------



## Clueless (Mar 2, 2006)

I've read so many biased articles (not necessarily against the GTO, but just in general) over the years from both car magazines and websites, that I rarely read them any more except for just general reading, like for instance at work (since most car websites are work safe).

I've seen multiple times where, in the individual sections, car A will get better scores in the majority of categories, but in the end car B is declared the 'winner'. 

Most of the time I've seen this happen, it has been when comparing a Japanese and American vehicle. Now I feel whatever car is really better should get the win, regardless of the country where the corporate headquarters are. However, when there are silly things happening, it drops my opinion of the site/magazine quite a bit. For example, my husband found an article for a Swedish company (newspaper, I think) that gave the Honda Ridgeline the "best full sized pickup" reward. Whereas everyone I know who wants a full sized truck for towing and whatnot will avoid the Ridgeline like it was a minitruck.

More on the topic of GTO reviews, I remember seeing a review a couple months ago (sorry, can't remember which mag, and I don't have a real good memory of the details) where an STi and GTO were compared, and the STi was given the win, with one of the biggest deciding factors being the STi's superior interior. Everywhere else I've seen semi-literate comparisons or reviews, even from STi fans, the GTO always takes the cake on the interior and many STi fans say the interior could be better. *strange*

/me steps off soapbox.


----------



## LRAR05GTO (Sep 10, 2005)

Stephen Hopkins said:


> The one good article I've seen that gives the GTO its due was in Motor Trend. It was called "Two For One" and compared the GTO ('05 i believe) to the Mercedes CLK 55 AMG. The article made the comparisson between the two under the premise that the GTO was 90% of the car for 1/2 the price. Pretty good article comparing the GTO to the kind of car it should be marketed to compete with.


Here is the link:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0405_sport_coupe_comparison/


----------



## bergenfelter (Nov 11, 2005)

I took a Magnum for a ride before I bought the goat, can you say "squeel like a piggie!!!

The magnum was heavy, unresponsive, and felt like driving a tank!!!


----------



## purplehaze (Dec 27, 2005)

i went and looked at the charger before i got the GTO, walked in said let me see that one with a manual transmission... dude said no manuals, they don't make them..... i waved as i walked out and went next door to the Ponitac dealership.... the rest is history


----------



## noz34me (Dec 15, 2005)

IMHO the "gotta have it" factor includes more than just exterior styling. Engine, powertrain, interior should all be factored in.

The problem (if it is a problem) with the GTO is it's either perceived as a throat lozenze, or looks too much like the Grand Am/Grand Prix cousins. I don't see that as an issue, but evidently a huge percentage of the buying public does, since sales of the Mustang and high, and the Charger seems to have a lot of demand as well. I don't have any sales figures to back this up, maybe some of the dealers do. 

That said, I really like the styling of the Mustang GT, and the Charger. I've like that Dodge 300 since it came out. Looks really "gangsta". 

I think the lack of a manual transmission is another compromise the car manufacturers are making to get things to market. Should a Charger not be available in a manual? Seems unthinkable; yet they still sell. 

Everybody needs to be happy with their choice. If there was a Hemi Charger, a Mustang GT and a GTO sitting side by side by side, and all were the same price, similar features, which would you take? I personally would probably take the Charger. If the interior of Mustang matched the exterior as far as quality, that would be a tough choice, but it doesn't, so it's not. 

I bought my '05 GTO, using my GM card points for $23,400 brand new. 400HP and impeccable interior styling. I'm happy. I'm also happy for anyone that buys the Mustang or Charger.


----------



## GTO_go_BLUE (Oct 18, 2005)

If people want to get the other cars for looks and magazine articles, let them.
The expressions in the rearview mirror says, "Should've bought the GOAT"....

Another 2 cents


----------



## PEARL JAM (Sep 6, 2005)

GTO_go_BLUE said:


> If people want to get the other cars for looks and magazine articles, let them.
> The expressions in the rearview mirror says, "Should've bought the GOAT"....
> 
> Another 2 cents


:agree :agree %100!


----------



## b_a_betterperson (Feb 16, 2005)

LRAR05GTO said:


> Here is the link:
> http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0405_sport_coupe_comparison/


Good read. Thanks for the link.


----------



## C5ORGTO (Dec 30, 2004)

I actually do like the looks of the Mustang, but there is what I call the "Don't wanna have a Ford Factor" that made me choose the GTO.:rofl:


----------



## CrabhartLSX (Feb 12, 2006)

C5ORGTO said:


> I actually do like the looks of the Mustang, but there is what I call the "Don't wanna have a Ford Factor" that made me choose the GTO.:rofl:


Yes the "don't enjoy being stranded factor" is why i prefer GM vehicles.


----------



## PEARL JAM (Sep 6, 2005)

CrabhartLSX said:


> Yes the "don't enjoy being stranded factor" is why i prefer GM vehicles.


Let's not forget the "don't want to make payments on a second rate muscle car factor".:cool


----------



## CrabhartLSX (Feb 12, 2006)

PEARL JAM said:


> Let's not forget the "don't want to make payments on a second rate muscle car factor".:cool


let's not indeed. :agree


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2006)

Aww, you guys don't have to pick on the Stang just because C&D AND Motortrend put down your cars.

My Explorer has 175,000 on the original drivetrain so I don't know what you are talking about when you say Fords strand you.

I like the Charger for some reasons, but just like the GTO, the styling doesn't remind me anything of the original, and I like retro. A lot of people don't tho...


----------



## Starrbuck (Dec 13, 2005)

Shea said:


> Aww, you guys don't have to pick on the Stang just because C&D AND Motortrend put down your cars...


We won't do it just because of that. There are plenty of other reasons!


----------



## noz34me (Dec 15, 2005)

Shea said:


> Aww, you guys don't have to pick on the Stang just because C&D AND Motortrend put down your cars.
> 
> My Explorer has 175,000 on the original drivetrain so I don't know what you are talking about when you say Fords strand you.
> 
> I like the Charger for some reasons, but just like the GTO, the styling doesn't remind me anything of the original, and I like retro. A lot of people don't tho...


I will give Ford credit, the Mustang was built ground up to be a retro based vehicle. It appears they've successfully tapped into the aging baby boomer market for folks trying to re-live car experiences from the '60's/'70's.

The only other car that would appear to be of a similar design (and similar effort) will be the Dodge Challenger, if it comes to fruition.

The GTO, the Charger, while desirable cars are not retro in any way. They are attempts by GM and Chrysler to cash in on the retro popularity of the Mustang, (mainly by sticking old name badges on new cars) and pull some of that market share away. That does not mean that in some (or most) ways they are not superior to the Mustang, just they were not designed from the ground up to appeal to a market group that wants "retro". 

We need to face the fact that none of these cars are going to be a huge market segment, and compromises are going to be made somewhere or the other. As long as John Q. Public is looking for a FWD kid toter and grocery getter, automakers will be forced to put most of their resources in a Honda Accord type vehicle. 

Curiously, the only Mustang I ever owned was an old Mustang II. No power, but the sweetest factory shifter I've ever had. My wife owned an old '67 Mustang when she went off to college, and for that reason I was going to buy a Mustang GT- -muscle car for me, retro for her. Once she got inside it, she hated it. Said it didn't remind her anything of her old Mustang. Go figure. I didn't like the interior or the shifter in the Mustang, so that was that, and I re-focused my attention on the GTO.


----------



## b_a_betterperson (Feb 16, 2005)

Shea said:


> Aww, you guys don't have to pick on the Stang just because C&D AND Motortrend put down your cars.


We don't. We bag on Mustangs because they have 50-100 horsepower less, have that lovely solid rear axle, an interior a Revell model could love, and aerodynamic numbers so bad that Ford has never published them -- yet their owners, for some reason, feel compelled to compare them to our cars.


----------



## smkdu (Sep 22, 2005)

Now I love cars but with all the car mag I scribe to they are terrible in accurate and compare apples to orange all the time lets look at the STI vs. GTO comparo the STI is a FORCED INDUCTION car it is not even remotely in the same class as a GTO if it didn't have a turbo the thing would be slower than an old woman with arthritis. As for comparing the GTO to the Charger even then technically not the same class, while both house a N/A V-8 one is a coupe which is a sports car... the other is a 4 door which if I'm not mistaken is a SEDAN it doesn't matter if the thing is pumping 600 horses 4 doors is not a sports car PERIOD. As for the mustang GT's it's at least closer in caparision both have V-8's both are 2 door coupes and both are rear wheel drive or come with a manual tranny. That's where they stop being the same they scewed the numbers on the Mustang's fiercely saying that it runs a 13.8 in the 1/4:willy: what did they give it a rolling start. I have seen mustangs at the track and I have never seen a stock 05 Mustang GT run a 13.8 I've seen them run between 14.1-14.4 and just one hit the 14 flat mark. Now I really tring not to rag on Ford the Mustang does look nice but the original mustang was not built for looks alone it was built for performance too, Ford has forgotten that fact. I love the style but come on a 300 horse power dog that motor could easily put out more power. The goats even the 04's out perform an 05 Mustang in all aspects handling, speed, you name it and they lost to the Mustang b/c it wasn't pretty enough WTF. That's like saying if cars were like women only pick the one that's better looking, well I rather a sexy one that will smack the ****e out of a "pretty" one and look good doing it. JMO


----------



## GTOtbird (Mar 4, 2006)

*Get over IT!*

The 05' and up GTO is the best value for the money of ANY car. 
Not to mention its exotic appeal from having the VIN start with the number 6!
I just purchased one TODAY after looking at Dozens of other cars.
You'll be hearing from me again.


----------



## putergod (Jan 12, 2006)

Shea said:


> My Explorer has 175,000 on the original drivetrain so I don't know what you are talking about when you say Fords strand you.


Good for you... I had a Posf (read POS Ford) once... It caught on fire TWICE!! (no lie) After the second time, my Posf buying experience was over...

On the flip side, I have a T/A with over 300,000 miles on it. It left me stranded *once*, at about 220k, when the original fuel pump went out. Never caught fire though...


----------



## xMeekSx (Mar 7, 2006)

I came very close to get one of the 05 mustangs, but after sitting in one and sitting in a GTO, I'm glad I got my gto even if its an 04. I actually had the issue of C&D where they pretty much handed the win to the Mustang. I didn't understand why but I guess its just their biased.


----------



## CrabhartLSX (Feb 12, 2006)

Shea said:


> Aww, you guys don't have to pick on the Stang just because C&D AND Motortrend put down your cars.
> 
> My Explorer has 175,000 on the original drivetrain so I don't know what you are talking about when you say Fords strand you.
> 
> I like the Charger for some reasons, but just like the GTO, the styling doesn't remind me anything of the original, and I like retro. A lot of people don't tho...


hey we all get lucky with different cars. I've had 4 GM vehicles in the past, a 1995 tahoe with 120k, not a single drivetrain problem, only thing i think was a faulty window motor that a recall had been issued on.

2002 Z28, 2001 silverado 5.3, 2004 silverado 5.3. none stranded me once, none had a problem of consequence.

had a 2001 windstar, stranded us a couple times, my bro's bro in law has a 2003 F-250 powerstroke, engine blew before he hit 40k.


----------



## PEARL JAM (Sep 6, 2005)

You get ANY GM with a 3.8V6(vins C,K OR 1) and it will see 200k before you MAY have any engine problems. Those things are bullet proof! We have an 01 Bonneville that is only serviced by my shop.....345k on the clock. Never had the heads pulled.:cool


----------



## putergod (Jan 12, 2006)

Werd...

That Buick 3.8 is one solidly built motor...


----------



## smkdu (Sep 22, 2005)

Didn't get the buick 3.8 but I have a S10 chevy blazer 4x4 with the 4.3L V6 that has 356,235 miles on it and that's on the original motor and tranny besides normal wear and tear it still runs and statrs first try everyday. Hasn't stranded me once and it will still do some pretty nasty burnouts when it needs too


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2006)

b_a_betterperson said:


> We don't. We bag on Mustangs because they have 50-100 horsepower less, have that lovely solid rear axle, an interior a Revell model could love, and aerodynamic numbers so bad that Ford has never published them -- yet their owners, for some reason, feel compelled to compare them to our cars.


Wow, you keep repeating the same old stuff. I could keep saying that same old stuff that people say regarding why the GTO sucks, but I won't...and I didn't start comparing my car to yours, C&D did that so bitch at them.

Anyway, regarding engines, yeah that 4.3L is a great engine, unlike the POS 2.8L they put in those Blazers. I've rebuilt a few of those.

On that note I just picked up another Explorer last night with 220,000 on it. The 4.0L they put in that truck (the newer version) is essentially the same as the one in the V6 Mustang.


----------



## Ironmancan (Feb 11, 2006)

Shea said:


> Wow, you keep repeating the same old stuff. I could keep saying that same old stuff that people say regarding why the GTO sucks, but I won't...and I didn't start comparing my car to yours, C&D did that so bitch at them.


 Damn it how the hell did I get on the Mustang site?


----------



## GOATGIRL (Feb 6, 2006)

Ironmancan said:


> Damn it how the hell did I get on the Mustang site?


:willy: *Danger Will Robinson!!!! Danger Will Robinson!!!!*:willy:


----------



## Ironmancan (Feb 11, 2006)

GOATGIRL said:


> :willy: *Danger Will Robinson!!!! Danger Will Robinson!!!!*:willy:


 ROFL. Thanks I needed that:cheers


----------



## mumrah (Apr 3, 2005)

Shea said:


> Aww, you guys don't have to pick on the Stang just because C&D AND Motortrend put down your cars.
> 
> My Explorer has 175,000 on the original drivetrain so I don't know what you are talking about when you say Fords strand you.
> 
> I like the Charger for some reasons, but just like the GTO, the styling doesn't remind me anything of the original, and I like retro. A lot of people don't tho...


Ford does make good trucks it is their car line that is inferior build quality.

I don't know of anyone that had a Taurus that did not have transmission problems.


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2006)

mumrah said:


> I don't know of anyone that had a Taurus that did not have transmission problems.


I agree. I had a Sable for a short time...same thing. I think their car line is much better now though.


----------



## b_a_betterperson (Feb 16, 2005)

Shea said:


> Wow, you keep repeating the same old stuff. I could keep saying that same old stuff that people say regarding why the GTO sucks, but I won't...


Right, because you and one_focused_svt can't get it through your thick heads that your cars stink. Please go to your Mustang forums and stay there.



Shea said:


> ...and I didn't start comparing my car to yours, C&D did that so bitch at them.


Excuse me, you're the dope on another thread posting magazine performance measurements from a Mustang GT and comparing it against the GTO. You are indeed comparing your car to GTOs. 

Look, at this point, you're just a troll that likes banging on trash cans to make dogs bark. My time is valuable -- and I'm not wasting any more of it on you. 

You're on my ignore list -- and I sincerely hope the members of GTO Forum do the same. Later.


----------



## fergyflyer (Apr 18, 2005)

My brother had an 02 Sable that he put 90k. the tranny was starting to do funny things, but probably had another 30k??? before it failed. He did change the fluid every 15k in it. Seems like the Taurus Sable would need a tranny at 60-70k. 

The Explorer needs front end work on the 4x4's with around 60k on them. My Dakota is known for Ball joints going bad. The Acura TL is known for 5spd tranny failures. Every car has it's weak link. 

My opinion is Ford's have gotten better, but still are not up to the standard of the rest. I'd take a Bonneville with 200k and a 3.8 over the Taurus with 120k and the 3.0. Just my .02.


----------



## Guest (Mar 15, 2006)

fergyflyer said:


> My opinion is Ford's have gotten better, but still are not up to the standard of the rest. I'd take a Bonneville with 200k and a 3.8 over the Taurus with 120k and the 3.0. Just my .02.


I would as well. I was mainly speaking of Ford in the last few years, since Bill Ford took over and things started turning around, which would be about 2002.


----------



## carbuff (Feb 7, 2005)

GOATGIRL said:


> That does suck! I read the same article and all it reminded of was the same article with the GTO and Mustang with their "Got to Have It" factor!!! When is the media going to realize the beauty of this car?!?!?


I agree....
GTO should have won the Motor Trend Muscle Car of the year. 
I read that and wondered What the heck is the "GOTTA HAVE IT FACTOR"?Reading between the lines they said they couldnt in good faith give their award to a warmed over Aussie car that was 2nd year in production, therefore they gave it to the "NEW" Mustang.
Not to take any thunder away from the Mustang, it sure is a pretty car, but I liked the way the GTO drove... to me it was noticibly better.

The deal with the Charger SRT8.... Come on guys, compare Apples to Apples, they should have compared the GTO to the Charger R/T, base hemi. Not the SRT-8.
To me thats like putting a stock GTO against a Saleen or Roush and calling it just a Mustang GT. Fair is Fair.


----------



## carbuff (Feb 7, 2005)

Stephen Hopkins said:


> The one good article I've seen that gives the GTO its due was in Motor Trend. It was called "Two For One" and compared the GTO ('05 i believe) to the Mercedes CLK 55 AMG. The article made the comparisson between the two under the premise that the GTO was 90% of the car for 1/2 the price. Pretty good article comparing the GTO to the kind of car it should be marketed to compete with.


It was the 04 GTO.


----------



## JMVorbeck (Jun 1, 2005)

jacobyb said:


> If you want a good magazine that is more centrist and actually tests cars in the manner they should be, look into MPH.


This is my favorite car mag currently, of the 4 I get. Edgy, raunchy, funny and they liked the GTO. Plus the chicks are so GD HOT! Ouch, I am in love with the mail lady.


----------



## Kurt G. (Mar 27, 2006)

carbuff said:


> ...GTO should have won the Motor Trend Muscle Car of the year. I read that and wondered What the heck is the "GOTTA HAVE IT FACTOR"?Reading between the lines they said they couldnt in good faith give their award to a warmed over Aussie car that was 2nd year in production, therefore they gave it to the "NEW" Mustang.
> Not to take any thunder away from the Mustang, it sure is a pretty car, but I liked the way the GTO drove... to me it was noticibly better.
> 
> The deal with the Charger SRT8.... Come on guys, compare Apples to Apples, they should have compared the GTO to the Charger R/T, base hemi. Not the SRT-8.
> To me thats like putting a stock GTO against a Saleen or Roush and calling it just a Mustang GT. Fair is Fair.


You nailed it, carbuff... 

1. When C&D magazine had to "cheat" to give their test to the Mustang, it was like losing a long time friend, because those guys were my favorite mag for many years! 

2. We already had our '04 GTO, when my 26 yr old nephew and I went down to the Ford dealer to try out a new '05 Mustang... after we determined that it just didn't have the same indescribable driving pizzaz as the GTO, he worked his way into the back seat of the Mustang... 
Him: "Can you move your seat up?" 
Me : "I am up"
Him: "All the way?"
Me : "Yep.."
Him: "Uncle K., I think we've seen all we want to see..."
Me : "Yep.."

Our GTO was more fun to drive, tighter, finished out better both inside and outside, so much more so that the two cars really shouldn't be in the same class. 

The ONLY point I would have given to the Mustang back then was exterior looks. Now, we wouldn't even give that point, because there are just too many of 'em tooling around. I'd much rather be seen in a GTO now.

My dad (77 yrs old... he likes sport) just bought a 2006 Charger R/T Hemi.
Yes, it runs nice. Yes, it's finished pretty nice, but not what I would call better than a GTO. He bought it so he and friends can have some respect on the hwy and at red lights! 

But, he's not ever going to modify a single thing on that car, and I would bet that most Chargers are that way. 
With the GTO's, we have a never-ending buffet of options (both performance and cosmetic) on which to blow money...
Most GTO owners have a different mindset than most Charger owners (my opinion, of course).

The only people who recognize what an accidental jewel these GTO's really are, are those of us who own them. That's not really a bad situation. I think there are enough of them on the road finally, to help keep the aftermarket performance folks at least interested.

Good Day to All!:seeya:


----------



## PEARL JAM (Sep 6, 2005)

I honestly bet I SEE 12-15 NEW Mustangs for every GTO I see. (Probably 20 
'04 and under Mustangs!!):cool


----------



## PEARL JAM (Sep 6, 2005)

I will give credit where credit is due. Ford is better at pricing and marketing a car, though.(just not building one):cool


----------



## Clueless (Mar 2, 2006)

Speaking of the Charger SRT8 vs GTO comparison, it brings to mind another inconsistency I've seen in car reviews.

One of the things I remember reading about in that review, as a point in favor of the Charger, was that it had more gadgets (navigation, etc). Therefore, they bumped up consideration of the Charger due to the gadget factor.

However, I have read reviews in the past--I'm almost certain from MT (unfortunately, I cannot remember the cars tested offhand)--where they will test drive some sports/performance car that they like, and when they mention that there are very few amenities (for instance, no power windows, or some other feature), the reviewer would say something like "That doesn't matter in this type of car--who drives a performance car and worries about little things like having to roll down the windows themselves?". Or a roadster they like that has a lousy stereo, will get a comment like "In a vehicle like this, who wants to listen to the stereo anyway? You should be listening to the purr of the engine." 

Well obviously my 'examples' above are made up, but you've probably read reviews that have said things like that. But then, the GTO gets knocked for not having navigation and cell-phone hookups....


----------



## carbuff (Feb 7, 2005)

*TRADE IN values - humbling revelation*

OUCH!
I just did a fast and dirty check on KELLY BLUE BOOK....
RETAIL NEW price vs TRADE IN (15,000 miles) on the following 2005 cars all equiped with V-8, AutoTrans and std equip in zip 37216(Nashville, TN) to see what the retained value was at trade in time.
*MUSTANG GT 4.6 
GTO 6.0
300 C Hemi RWD
MAGNUM RT Hemi RWD*
this shows trade in price divided by MSRP

Mustang GT- $27,235 list/$21,050 trade it retained 78% of its LIST MSRP 
GTO - $34,295 list/$22,900 trade it retained 67%
300C - $33,805 list/$27,225 trade it retained 81% 
MAGNUM RT - $30,745 list/$23,575 trade it retained 77%

Did i do this right???


----------



## fergyflyer (Apr 18, 2005)

carbuff said:


> OUCH!
> I just did a fast and dirty check on KELLY BLUE BOOK....
> RETAIL NEW price vs TRADE IN (15,000 miles) on the following 2005 cars all equiped with V-8, AutoTrans and std equip in zip 37216(Nashville, TN) to see what the retained value was at trade in time.
> *MUSTANG GT 4.6
> ...


Looks right to me. 

Most of the Magnum and 300C owners paid a grand or 2 over list. That brings them closer to the GTO, but still ahead. The GTO owners really paid around 31,000 as an average thanks to rebates and discounts on it. The Mustang guys paid 3-5k over list so it really sucks to be them. They are stuck with a car that is depreciating faster than the GTO pulls away from it. At least you can get a nice discount on a new 06 Mustang now.


----------



## Guest (Apr 11, 2006)

even motor trend knows the new cavalier ( GTO ) are junk....its a wonder they even showed that uglyass car on their pages:agree


----------



## noz34me (Dec 15, 2005)

carbuff said:


> OUCH!
> I just did a fast and dirty check on KELLY BLUE BOOK....
> RETAIL NEW price vs TRADE IN (15,000 miles) on the following 2005 cars all equiped with V-8, AutoTrans and std equip in zip 37216(Nashville, TN) to see what the retained value was at trade in time.
> *MUSTANG GT 4.6
> ...


Don't believe many people paid even near 30K for their Goats after the rebates. Rebates are great, but I think they affect trade in value down the road. 

That said, with all my rebates I was at $23,700, so $22,900 for a trade seems pretty good.

Over the next couple of years, it will be interesting to see if those percentages remain relative to each other.


----------



## kwiktsi (Apr 5, 2006)

noz34me said:


> Don't believe many people paid even near 30K for their Goats after the rebates. Rebates are great, but I think they affect trade in value down the road.
> 
> That said, with all my rebates I was at $23,700, so $22,900 for a trade seems pretty good.
> 
> Over the next couple of years, it will be interesting to see if those percentages remain relative to each other.




Wow- what rebates???? I never saw any on the GTO around here except maybe $500 to $1000 occassionally. What rebates did you get to keep the price so damn low? The dealers around here do not budge on GTO pricing and i have yet to see good rebates.
Joe
Joe


----------



## Mad_Dan_Eccles (Mar 25, 2006)

In all fairness a comparison is simply the reviewer's or review teams opinion at the time - possibly influenced by the amount of advertising dollars that the mag makes from the various makers. 

If you don't like the MT comparison go to www.racingflix.com, browse the road tests section and find the BBC "Top Gear" Muscle Car Challenge and see how Top Gear felt about the Vauxhall-badged Monaro. 

Try http://www.racingflix.com/getvideo.asp?v=878&p=6 for a direct link

I love Jeremy Clarskon's closing remark "if you're look to spend thirty thousand on a car and don't buy this one then you're mad... or boring" 

There are a couple of other tests from top gear on the same page including some nice drifting action and a lap time test - it's under under VXR not Monaro.


----------



## carbuff (Feb 7, 2005)

PEARL JAM said:


> Just read the December(I know, I'm late on my reading material)Issue competing the Charger SRT8 against the 05GTO.
> Talk about biased reporting. On THEIR rating system the Goat beat the Charger on:
> 1)0-30
> 2)0-60
> ...


Has anyone seen the NEW MOTOR TREND? where they compare the 2006 Mustang to the VIRTUAL CAMARO???
WE PREDICT WHO THE WINNER WILL BE.....
GOTTA HAVE IT FACTOR FOR CAMARO 1 Kabillion!


----------

