# Motor Trend Dec '05 Issue



## Loubo (Nov 3, 2005)

The GTO Against The Charger SRT8 - I wanted the SRT8 when it was first announced. I test-drove both the Daytona (a dog @ 350hp) and the GTO. We (me and my two boys) are now die-hard GTO fanatics. Hope to have our '06 this spring. 

Back to the article - the Goat is faster and 10K cheaper, if u can get the Charger at MSRP. They’re calling for a 5-8K premium, if u can get the SRT8.

GO GTO arty:


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2005)

Ya if u think back to the old dayz, It gets really hard to decide between muscle cars since there was sooo many pimp rides besides "The Judge" .. there was the Cvetts, Novas,Cameros,chevelles,ect...ect...

The only way to decide nowadayz is to test drive um and find out whats best for your bang for the buck ... :willy: arty:

When i bought my LS2, I had a choice of pretty much any car I could have for 40k... I had 4 options in mind... the SRT, STI, Lancer evo, and GTO.

I decided to take a powerful N/A car because I dont wanna deal with more problems then i need to with force induction,overboost, ect ect.. 

All I gotta say is AMERICAN MUSCLE BABY !!! "whootz" :willy: arty:


----------



## GM Kid (Mar 21, 2005)

Geez, I was wondering when someone was going to talk about this comparo. I read it last night, and I have to say that MT's conclusion--giving the upper hand to the Charger--was a little surprising.

Their reasons for granting the Charger the win seem contradictory. They say the GTO is the more fun and the Charger more refined, and yet they claim the Charger is more visceral (I think that's the word they used--not sure). And yet again, a magazine had to harp on the GTO's smooth looks, instead seeming to prefer the sort of nonsensical forward-slanting front end (which also "graces" the Mustang) that thumbs its nose at aerodynamics.

Somewhere near the end of the piece, the writer says something about how the two cars aren't really in the same class. Well . . . DUH! Aside from big V8 power and rear drive, they don't have much in common and serve different missions.

First, did anybody count the number of doors on both cars? Second, did anybody seriously take note of the difference in curb weight? The Charger weighs _500 pounds _ more than the Goat! Yeah, I realize that in the real world, on the street, Charger and GTO owners likely will regard one another with competitive fire, but I think the Mustang is a more natural sparring partner.

I think what seemed weirdest in the article was MT's reference to the GTO as "showing its age." In what respect, exactly, is the Charger more modern? It has more amenities, sure, but it also has a higher sticker to cover those amenities. When you toss out the Charger's extra electronic doo-dads and side-curtain airbags, though, and just talk about each car's underpinnings and motors, where is the GTO inferior?

Almost seemed like the outcome of that joust was a foregone conclusion, if you ask me. Dodge rolls out a new car, so MT squares it off against an existing car. New car wins!


----------



## slowride (Sep 2, 2005)

I read the article last night, too.
Bad comparison: the GTO against a _four-door_. Yes, the magazine may think the two cars will appeal to the same market, but one is a car for the successful vice-president of a medium corporation who takes clients to power lunches (Charger) and the other car will be purchased by the young technician in that same corporation (GTO)....how can this be a battle of equals?
Yes, the GTO may be "showing its age", as they said, but only as compared to a more refined, newer car. Held up against any other three-year old, four-seat, performance coupe or sedan, it can hold its own.
What will they compare it with next....a Ford Explorer? Maybe it'll win then.

slow
(disgusted)


----------



## fergyflyer (Apr 18, 2005)

slowride said:


> I read the article last night, too.
> Bad comparison: the GTO against a _four-door_. Yes, the magazine may think the two cars will appeal to the same market, but one is a car for the successful vice-president of a medium corporation who takes clients to power lunches (Charger) and the other car will be purchased by the young technician in that same corporation (GTO)....how can this be a battle of equals?
> Yes, the GTO may be "showing its age", as they said, but only as compared to a more refined, newer car. Held up against any other three-year old, four-seat, performance coupe or sedan, it can hold its own.
> What will they compare it with next....a Ford Explorer? Maybe it'll win then.
> ...


I actually found a road test of the GTO against the Explorer. The GTO lost again. The Explorer, while not the best offraod vehicle, was able to easily walk away from the GTO in every offroad situation they encountered. 
I found a comparison with the GTO and a 10 year old GEO Metro. The Metro won because it was much easier to get into the back seat and with the current price of gas (3.20 per gallon at the time of the test), it was almost a given that the GTO would lose. 
I also saw a test involving a Kia Rio versus the GTO. You guessed it, the GTO got it's clock cleaned. For the price of the GTO you could get 3 Kias, and again the access to the back seat was a killer. Also the editors noted that the Kia is a retro Korean design thus scored lots of Gotta Have it Points.


----------



## Loubo (Nov 3, 2005)

fergyflyer said:


> I actually found a road test of the GTO against the Explorer. The GTO lost again. The Explorer, while not the best offraod vehicle, was able to easily walk away from the GTO in every offroad situation they encountered.
> I found a comparison with the GTO and a 10 year old GEO Metro. The Metro won because it was much easier to get into the back seat and with the current price of gas (3.20 per gallon at the time of the test), it was almost a given that the GTO would lose.
> I also saw a test involving a Kia Rio versus the GTO. You guessed it, the GTO got it's clock cleaned. For the price of the GTO you could get 3 Kias, and again the access to the back seat was a killer. Also the editors noted that the Kia is a retro Korean design thus scored lots of Gotta Have it Points.


I can't believe that anyone is comparing the GOAT to any of these vehicles. Somebody has a screw loose or they don't have anything better to talk about. As a pure power car, the GTO (IMHO) outranks 99.9% of any vehicle on the road today. It may not have all the bells and whistles – thus the cost –but I think it’s the best buy going.

Styling – Oooooooohhhhhhhh – I guess it could be a bit better but what's wrong with it’s current style. A Plain-Jane that can spank the crap out of most other cars on the road. Not bad for 33K.


----------



## dealernut (Oct 22, 2005)

fergyflyer said:


> I actually found a road test of the GTO against the Explorer. The GTO lost again. The Explorer, while not the best offraod vehicle, was able to easily walk away from the GTO in every offroad situation they encountered.
> I found a comparison with the GTO and a 10 year old GEO Metro. The Metro won because it was much easier to get into the back seat and with the current price of gas (3.20 per gallon at the time of the test), it was almost a given that the GTO would lose.
> I also saw a test involving a Kia Rio versus the GTO. You guessed it, the GTO got it's clock cleaned. For the price of the GTO you could get 3 Kias, and again the access to the back seat was a killer. Also the editors noted that the Kia is a retro Korean design thus scored lots of Gotta Have it Points.




HAHAHA!!!!!


Nice one. I showed that one to everyone in the dealership. That was awesome. 


I propose a internal comparison - GMC 3500 Duramax Crew Cab Dually 4 x 4 compared to GTO. GTO could not hold a candle to the Duramax. While they both had a poweful 6 speed transmission. The GTO faltered dramatically when we connected our 42 foot Boston Whaler on the back of it. It barely made it to the boat ramp. Unfortunately our test model is now a permanent fixture at the bottom of the Intercoastal Waterway Ramp. Pontiac seriously needs to take a better look at their way of building cars.


----------

