22nd Sep 2006, 18:05
If you want to drive a car that looks like a Honda Accord with a fake hood scoop.
10th Nov 2006, 15:30
The GTO is a re-badged Holden Monaro with added hood scoops it also handles worse than the Mustang.
12th Dec 2006, 15:20
With regards to the 2nd post'er:
Are you kidding, a GTO 6.0L? In a test pitting a GTO 6.0L against a Mustang Mach 1, the Mach 1 beat the GTO in 0-60, 1/4, and the 1000m. In the 1000m it beat it by over a second if I remember correctly; and on paper, the GTO has 95 more hp than the Mach 1. And you can get a 2004 Mach 1, brand new for under $30k; and since it's a few years old, it would be even cheaper. That bigger engine did nothing for the GTO, but make it heavier.
13th Dec 2006, 04:40
I doubt that above commenters facts. Even if it was true, Do really want to drive a Ford? Fords golden age came and went a long time ago. Their pickups are nice, but I'd still take a new Silverado instead. The blue oval is swirling the drain fellas.
13th Dec 2006, 08:35
I do not like the styling of the new GTO whatsoever, but it seemed to handle pretty well following us in our Viper on a Florida winding back road. It actually stayed with us for a brief period on the expressway. So it must handle pretty well. The Mustangs are an outstanding bargain as a sports car. My son went straight from 3 different Mustangs to his Viper. The new Cobra coming out will be a terror by the way. Its nice to be impartial and appreciate all brands.
28th Dec 2006, 09:08
There is no comparison to the newest mustangs. Even comparing a new GTO to a Mustang GT is like comparing apples to oranges.
The Mustang is a true muscle car, where the GTO which has a great motor, stops there.
The handling and excessive power (for the chassis) wears out tires every 15k miles. It's too heavy and is barely faster than the mustang in both the quarter mile and 0-60 times.
I have driven both cars of the same year (2006's) and the mustang wins hands down over a modified looking GTO.
With the the price difference between the two, an experienced mechanic can add a supercharger to the stang, and have a GTO eater. Plus, if you use traction control, the Mustang will actually have tires left after 30k miles.
29th Jan 2007, 16:50
If the GTO was so good then the why the hell did they stop making it? The mustang has always hung in there according to my knowledge.
29th Jan 2007, 17:07
It has 100% to do with sales, and the GTO failed not because it wasn't a good car, but because its looks were not that dramatic like the Mustang.
29th Jan 2007, 17:15
True muscle cars didn't handle the slightest bit. they were all strait line, and nothing else.
29th Jan 2007, 18:03
You guys had better quit all this juvenile "Ford sucks, GM rules" stuff, and wake up to the fact that the real enemy is Toyota and Honda. It's time for all domestic owners to start sticking together, or in 10 years you guys will be arguing about whether your Daewoo or Kia is faster. You don't really want that, I hope.
10th Oct 2007, 19:43
The GTO is definetely a better car then the Mustang. The interior is far nicer, it's quicker then a GT, and it handles better. Whoever said a Mustang Gt handles better then a GTO has not done their research, and probably only made that assumption based on the GTOs bulky look and weight. GTOs far out-handle Mustangs.
But agree that the GTO is rather boring looking, even with the added hood scoops. I'm looking into getting a new car, and was looking at '04 GTOs, '05 Mustang GTs, or '05 350Zs. I've eliminated the GTO, just because it's not cool enough looking for me, haha. And my friend has one, so I know firsthand how awesome it is, but I want to get something different. Still looking Mustangs and 350s, leaning toward a Z though.
24th Dec 2008, 04:07
The Ford Mustang is a pony car. They are made so the average person can afford to drive a fun car that is stylish and safe and has sporting performance.
They are designed to compete in FSstock autocross, and also to do 14's or better at the drag strip.
They are cheap enough to allow the average owner to afford modifications, which are numerous and available, to bring the car to a much higher level of performance if desired.
Ford has done a great job with the Mustang, as it fulfills its purpose, and is also a breadwinner for the company. It's retro look adds to the fun.
The Mustang should not be compared to cars outside its class one way or the other. All cars serve a purpose, meaning that they have both strengths and weaknesses.
The Mustang is simply a fun, safe car. It only has one real drawback for performance, and that is weight, but Ford has kept the weight up to maintain safety. Ford has always done that with its cars, and even the famous GT40 was a relatively heavy race car, that became safe and durable over a two year development period.
The weight means Fords never have quite as good performance and gas mileage as some competitors, but all Fords have good safety and durability. (Many import makers do not have these scruples, and make lighter cars). Domestic makers have more in common than many posters here seem to realize.