# Car and Driver Comparison- 05 stang & 05 GTO



## fireitupgto (Nov 28, 2004)

The *Car and Driver* review was baised toward the mustang. Ford put so much time into that mustang there is no way there going to let C&D bash it. The article says nothing about the extreme power advantage of the gto, and instead of doing so they devot a whole paragraph on how the mustang's 1000watt shaker system is better than the 200watt gto stereo. Whenever they did put the gto ahead in a remark it took 2 or 3 times of reading to realize that they were regarding the gto as better. They didn't even mention how much more luxurious the interior is in the gto and the fact that the gto's back seat highly accomodates 2 decent sized adults(very unlike the mustang's). The only thing that the had the right to complain was the styling and the shifter feel....which i do believe the mustang has the edge over the gto on these. There was very little talk about the performance .....look at these numbers posted:

Mustang GTO
0-60: 5.1 4.8
0-100: 13.0 11.7
0-130: 25.6 19.6
1/4mile: [email protected] [email protected]
top gear: 
30-50 9.8(5th gear) 9.6(6th gear)
50-70 9.6(5th gear) 9.2(6th gear)

Now to me those are numbers that belong to almost two different categories ....as the speed increases the gto just flat out smokes it. The gto beats it in top gear even though the mustang's top gear is 5th and the gto is 6th. Put the gto in 5th and watch those times shrink quick. 
Look at the "Subjective/Objective RESULTS" of the test. The part that decides the winner.

The Mustang and the GTO "tied" in the "vehicle" section (77 to 77)
Putting ridiculous ratings like rear back seat comfort 4 to 5 and rear space 3 to 5. It should be more like 4 to 8 and 3 to 8, since the goat has far more room. Change those numbers and erase the "gotta- have - it - factor"(25 to 18) which is more like "How i think it looks factor," and the goat wins in total points 186 to 198.....a landslide. And just for arguments sake ...keep the "gotta-have-it-factor" and the goat should still win 211 to 216.(includes the powertrain, chassis, gotta-have-it-factor and fun-to-drive)

The GTO beat the mustang in chassis and powertrain (43 to 46) and (44 to 46), and fun to drive (22 to 23).


Clearly the GTO should have been the winner!!!
211 to 216 (at least)


----------



## Xman (Oct 31, 2004)

I agree completely. A piased article. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I shake my head every day when I walk out to me GTO - how can someone say this car is not beautiful. I love it. Hard to see why the automotive press bashes it so much. BTW, the Mustangs always seem to better in these magazine test then they do in real life - its like they have been tuned. I've seen several drag races where the they are still waiting for the new 05 Stang to break 14 seconds in the quarter.


----------



## Whiteshadow (Sep 28, 2004)

I was extremely upset about the GTO vs. Mustang article when I read it today. I wouldn't say that Car and Driver put down the GTO, they basically slaughtered it. I couldn't believe how bad they thought this car really was. How can you beat 400 horses for just above $30,000? I think they had the winner in mind before they ever saw the two vehicles for the first time.


----------



## bsmcall (Sep 11, 2004)

At least they didn't deduct points for the 9 Cu Ft trunk I have, when I know I saw a trunk pass-thru on the 'stang.  
I would never buy a ford for many reasons, but I am glad they made the mustang so that now maybe the General would listen to dollars and sense. 
"MAKE MORE REAR DRIVE CARS, PERIOD!"


----------



## madx2 (Dec 9, 2004)

Just read the article and it was obious that it was biased. The GTO won in every category but looks. The mustang doesn't look bad right now but neither did the previous model when it first came out. But when every other car you see is a mustang it starts to get lame. Not to dis the vette but its the same way. How many out there are still impressed when they see a vette? There are so many in my area that they aren't even a head turner for me anymore. I think thats what truly makes the GTO. The limited quantities make it rare. I personally have only seen about 3 GTO's on the road. Even if they sold as intended there would still be only 1 GTO for about every 13 Mustangs you see.(150,000+ Mustangs planned/12,000 GTOs).


----------



## Groucho (Sep 11, 2004)

bsmcall said:


> At least they didn't deduct points for the 9 Cu Ft trunk I have, when I know I saw a trunk pass-thru on the 'stang.
> I would never buy a ford for many reasons, but I am glad they made the mustang so that now maybe the General would listen to dollars and sense.
> "MAKE MORE REAR DRIVE CARS, PERIOD!"


Great sentiments-- agreed...but they did acually deduct the GTO a few points for it's microtrunk.

Personally, I think most of points made in the article was fair. I have to admit being underwhelmed by the GTO's styling when it was first released...of course, this was before I test drove one.  Now, however, not a week goes by where someone doesn't walk up to me and admire the car, asking questions and generally eliciting favorable responses. I actually like the way the new 'Stang looks (a big win in the article as well), but as they churn them out the novelty will wear quickly. Not so with the low-volume GTO.

As I previously posted, their complaint about pedal placement is a mystery to me. The lack of a dead-pedal was a boneheaded maneuver by Pontiac, sure, but I have no problem heel-toeing the car.

They also seem have an inordinate problem with the M6 tranny. I have always thought that the throws were way too long, but that's easily remedied with a short-shift kit. I find the feel of the tranny to be pretty good, all in all. BMW-precise it ain't, but it didn't cost like a BMW either.

Which brings the gripe they have with the GTO's pricing. It's valid. I must admit...had it not been for the great deal I was able to carve out for my Goat, I would have walked and bought the VW R32 I had my eye on. Given the proper factory & dealer incentives and low APR financing, however, and the GTO is an _excellent_ value.

The Mousetang's ancient-tech solid-rear axle should have weighted more against it. The huge HP disparity should have as well.


----------



## fireitupgto (Nov 28, 2004)

I put this same exact post on a mustang forum........man that was like commiting suicide. They told me to go away and get out of the forum. They didn't however give me a logical excuse as to why the mustang won.....cause there is none. They kept telling me how the mustang looks so much better(wich is does), and the popularity of the mustang. Seems to me they were stuttering over their words. Especially when one said that there is more to a mustang than performance numbers. I thought mustangs were built for performance and thats why the mustang lovers love them. 

It's fun to have the bragging rights


----------



## terry1122 (Nov 10, 2004)

Cheer :cheers :cheers


----------



## Guest (Dec 11, 2004)

fireitupgto said:


> I put this same exact post on a mustang forum........man that was like commiting suicide. They told me to go away and get out of the forum.


Uuuhhh..like this forum won't do the same thing when it doesn't want to hear what its hearing?
Larry

By the way, kiddies, any of you get past the GTO vs. GT and read the 10 Winners and Losers in that same issue? The GTO is mentioned more than once....and I don't have to tell you what the category is.


----------



## fireitupgto (Nov 28, 2004)

code5coupe said:


> Uuuhhh..like this forum won't do the same thing when it doesn't want to hear what its hearing?
> Larry


yep..


----------



## Groucho (Sep 11, 2004)

fireitupgto said:


> I thought mustangs were built for performance and thats why the mustang lovers love them.


Now that's a laugh. The vast majority of Mousetangs on the road now are what our very own LarryM called "secretary cars"...nearly the same sheetmetal as their performance cars but with cheap suspensions, slushbox trannies, and anemic 4 and 6 cyl engines.


The '05 + models will be no different.


----------



## drmustang (Nov 29, 2004)

I've never felt that Car and Driver was biased (excluding their continued praise for underpowered Jap stuff) until reading this article. There were good points made on both sides. The GTO's interior appearence, quality, and instrument arrangement are in another league. An undisriminating, nonenthusiast would find this obvious. As a current owner of an "03 Cobra I can tell you that the interior matters. Horsepower and torque along with expected differences in straightline performance again favor the GTO by a significant margin. Cornering ability with an IRS compared to solid axle is self explanatory. The factors above generally constitute a top 3 if you will and are heavely weighted in the minds of most enthusiasts. Trunk space, total stereo wattage, # of cupholders etc. could be included in the comparison but are of little or no importance to a knowledgeable performance enthusiast. An objective evaluation clearly favors the goat.


----------



## zone 5 (Sep 24, 2004)

I just finished reading the review. Yea, IMHO, it a very biased review. They complain about the solid rear axle, and say the IRS is great, yet they only downplay the Mustang by ONE point? and I'm not sure what the Engine "NVH" is, but whatever, there is no way the Mustang's engine is tied with the GTO/Vette motor. Not in this life time. and of course, as others have said, the Gotta have it factor is BS. I like the Mustang's outer styling, but I really don't want to see the 60's look inside the car. Its just plain ugly.


----------



## lambertgoat (Oct 24, 2004)

in my own opinion, C & D is bias, i don't think for one minute that any car magazine or tester for that matter is going to be fair when there are advertisements of particular cars somewhere in the magazine. it's not hard to bump a few #'s for the public to see if a few dollars are slipped under the table


----------



## zone 5 (Sep 24, 2004)

lambertgoat said:


> in my own opinion, C & D is bias, i don't think for one minute that any car magazine or tester for that matter is going to be fair when there are advertisements of particular cars somewhere in the magazine. it's not hard to bump a few #'s for the public to see if a few dollars are slipped under the table


And Pontiac forked out BIG bucks for the GTO ad on the back cover of the issue. Guess that couldn't get them another point


----------



## toyotatom (Nov 14, 2004)

Gee Im surprized no one posted the link on the mustang sites where Road & Track a while ago picked the 04 GTO over the beloved 04 COBRA on a comparison test. The shoe is on the other foot this time, the cobra was faster but the GTO won the overall rating.


----------



## Neo-GTO (Sep 29, 2004)

I don’t think it was an issue of being biased by C&D. If I remember correctly, they often picked the f-bodies winners over past Mustangs numerous times.

The C&D folks got mesmerized by the new Mustangs styling. Its retro and yet manages to look fresh. When a car can do that it creates a lot of excitement. Look no further than the initial PT cruiser release. People were paying over MSRP to get what essentially is a Dodge Neon wagon. Not that I am bashing the Neon, but its not exactly a Benz either. 

When you really hit on the styling, all other objective observations get thrown right out the window. Most appliance cars sell based on reputation, perceived reliability and quality, and price. However, cars that have styling that creates passion in people will sell regardless of how well, or how poorly they are assembled. They are passionate about the styling, and they feel they must have the car on site.

I think this is what happened with the C&D writers. Hence they’re “gotta have it” factor. They found some nits to pick in the GTO, but basically admitted it is as good or better of a performer as the Mustang. Its appearance just didn’t stir their soul as much as the retro-modern Mustang.


----------



## fireitupgto (Nov 28, 2004)

Neo-GTO said:


> I don’t think it was an issue of being biased by C&D. If I remember correctly, they often picked the f-bodies winners over past Mustangs numerous times.
> 
> The C&D folks got mesmerized by the new Mustangs styling. Its retro and yet manages to look fresh. When a car can do that it creates a lot of excitement. Look no further than the initial PT cruiser release. People were paying over MSRP to get what essentially is a Dodge Neon wagon. Not that I am bashing the Neon, but its not exactly a Benz either.
> 
> ...



The front page showed "MUSCLECAR SHOWDOWN" not "FASHION SHOW" or "PEOPLE'S CHOICE."


----------



## zone 5 (Sep 24, 2004)

fireitupgto said:


> The front page showed "MUSCLECAR SHOWDOWN" not "FASHION SHOW" or "PEOPLE'S CHOICE."


Yup, and lets face it, the 1965 GTO was not excatly "pretty", but I do see what neo-gto is saying. They looked at the Mustang, thought it was cool, and it was the winner right then. Its like loud exhaust. Even if you are slower, you "sound" faster.


----------



## TexasRealtor (Oct 4, 2004)

zone 5 said:


> Yup, and lets face it, the 1965 GTO was not excatly "pretty", but I do see what neo-gto is saying. They looked at the Mustang, thought it was cool, and it was the winner right then. Its like loud exhaust. Even if you are slower, you "sound" faster.


But they even said the GTO's exhaust was louder. I can't figure out how the 'stang edged out on points in the performance catagory. :confused


----------



## Neo-GTO (Sep 29, 2004)

fireitupgto said:


> The front page showed "MUSCLECAR SHOWDOWN" not "FASHION SHOW" or "PEOPLE'S CHOICE."


I realize it is a muscle car showdown. However, C&D wouldn’t be a very thick magazine if they only lined up at the track, recorded the ¼ mile time, pronounced the winner, and called it a day. Their job was to evaluate each muscle car and decide which one was the better total package. That includes styling as much as stats. Based on the sum of both vehicles, they chose the Mustang and they admit styling was one of the areas where the Mustang stood out for them. That is just how they evaluate cars. Its their magazine. 

Had the GTO won, you know the Mustang people certainly would have cried bias, since there is a GTO add on the back cover of the magazine.


----------



## fireitupgto (Nov 28, 2004)

Neo-GTO said:


> I realize it is a muscle car showdown. However, C&D wouldn’t be a very thick magazine if they only lined up at the track, recorded the ¼ mile time, pronounced the winner, and called it a day. Their job was to evaluate each muscle car and decide which one was the better total package. That includes styling as much as stats. Based on the sum of both vehicles, they chose the Mustang and they admit styling was one of the areas where the Mustang stood out for them. That is just how they evaluate cars. Its their magazine.
> 
> Had the GTO won, you know the Mustang people certainly would have cried bias, since there is a GTO add on the back cover of the magazine.



At least we would be able to explain logically and objectively to why the gto won .....unlike the mustang forum.


----------



## djdub (Oct 23, 2004)

Neo-GTO said:


> I realize it is a muscle car showdown. However, C&D wouldn’t be a very thick magazine if they only lined up at the track, recorded the ¼ mile time, pronounced the winner, and called it a day. Their job was to evaluate each muscle car and decide which one was the better total package. That includes styling as much as stats. Based on the sum of both vehicles, they chose the Mustang and they admit styling was one of the areas where the Mustang stood out for them. That is just how they evaluate cars. Its their magazine.
> 
> Had the GTO won, you know the Mustang people certainly would have cried bias, since there is a GTO add on the back cover of the magazine.


Yeah but giving the Mustang 7 more points on the "gotta have it" factor to give it the 1 point edge on the GTO, that's BS.

"Gotta have it" should be based on the fact that the GTO donkey punched the 'stang in every performance category and also the interior.

The only thing the stang has going for is it's exterior styling and even that is subjective.


----------



## GTO_Newbie (Dec 13, 2004)

djdub said:


> "Gotta have it" should be based on the fact that the GTO donkey punched the 'stang in every performance category and also the interior.


 :agree


----------



## Trace (Dec 15, 2004)

I drove both cars among others before making my choice. I like both cars, & the updated mustang is a significantly better car than its Fox platformed forebearers. My still fresh recollections (just got my GTO 3 days ago, drove the Mustang 4 days ago) -- 

GT I drove seemed well put together, much tighter than my neighbors '03 Mach I. "Mineral Gray" paint was nice with red seats (with a color that, frankly, looked sprayed so uniform it looked & felt like a fine grade of vinyl). They weren't bad to sit in, just not in a league with the GTO thrones. Back seats - no comparison - GTO much better.

The best part of the GT in my opinion was the steering - excellent on-center feel & weighting - a BIG improvement over earlier pony cars

5 speed was precise, but a bit "drier" shifting than the GTO's more liquid action. Nothing wrong with it at all, just a different feel (&, uh, missing a gear) 

They need to can the live axle rearend - ferchissakes, Ford, you used a variation of the Lincoln LS platform, why not 4WIS??

Engine was nice, just not the low-end of our beloved LS1 - again, not bad, just not quite there.

Mustang wins with pass-thru seats for those that need that feature, &, hey, don't forget you can choose from a zillion different dash lighting colors! 

I do like the retro styling, though it looks a little "butch" & blocky, but then I'm a smooooooth aerodynamics fan. All in all the 'Stang is nicely done, but I promptly went down to my local Pontiac dealer to pick up my Beeeutiful, sleek, relatively rare, M6, blue leather seats, dream from Down Under


----------



## lambertgoat (Oct 24, 2004)

djdub said:


> Yeah but giving the Mustang 7 more points on the "gotta have it" factor to give it the 1 point edge on the GTO, that's BS.
> 
> "Gotta have it" should be based on the fact that the GTO donkey punched the 'stang in every performance category and also the interior.
> 
> The only thing the stang has going for is it's exterior styling and even that is subjective.


yeah very true, if you really wanna get technical, you can say that the schmuckstang isn't original after all, since they did try to get it to resemble the later 60's models. what's up with the whole nostalgia thing going on, even Gm and it's SSr is retarded, it's ugly for one, and very heavy, didn't think i'd ever see a tank with a V8 engine....


----------



## Neo-GTO (Sep 29, 2004)

djdub said:


> Yeah but giving the Mustang 7 more points on the "gotta have it" factor to give it the 1 point edge on the GTO, that's BS.
> 
> "Gotta have it" should be based on the fact that the GTO donkey punched the 'stang in every performance category and also the interior.
> 
> The only thing the stang has going for is it's exterior styling and even that is subjective.


I agree with you, that they overplayed the “gotta have it” factor a little too much in the comparison. I just thought someone had to play devils advocate here to keep things in perspective. It does look like they did it to make up for other deficiencies. 

We’ll have to wait and see what some other magazines conclude. I bet Motortrend, Automobile, et al have a comparos within the next couple issues, and they don’t have to defend the Mustang because they awarded it a “10 Best” spot.


----------



## Thrashed (Dec 16, 2004)

Anybody else notice that the clutch and brake pedals aren't mounted correctly in the shot of the footwell in the C&D article? They're pointing in opposite directions.


----------

