Pandemonium!...

[93JC]

The Goonies, yeah.

[Raghavan]

The Goonies, yeah.

LOL. This Friday i hope i can check it out.

[93JC]

Nice.

[Raghavan]

Nice.

It's avalible at any blockbuster place, right?

[93JC]

Should be.

[Raghavan]

Should be.

Cool. I'll try to watchit this friday...

[Speed_Racer]

'05 GTO all the way.

[SJ_GTI]

...the GTO doesn't handle all that well...

 

[footoflead]

...the GTO doesn't handle all that well...

Well the GTO is ~300lbs heavier, and even though its got 100hp on the mustang the mustang is ~.2 seconds quicker to 60,

To me those #'s mean the mustang is more bang for you $$ and is just as fast as the famous GTO, To me the choice is obvious

*and it gets slightly better mpg!

[SJ_GTI]

...the GTO doesn't handle all that well...

Well the GTO is ~300lbs heavier, and even though its got 100hp on the mustang the mustang is ~.2 seconds quicker to 60,

To me those #'s mean the mustang is more bang for you $$ and is just as fast as the famous GTO, To me the choice is obvious

*and it gets slightly better mpg!

Except in the head to head test the GTO was labeled as the better overall handler (though the Stang was more nimble, there is more than just nimblness to handling) and its also faster despite what you think (~4.8 seconds to 60 vs the Mustang's ~5.1). From there the distance only grows (1/4 mile in 13.3 for the Goat, 13.8 for the Stang).

They gave the Goat better marks for handling (9/10 vs 8/10) and better steering (10/10 vs 7/10). The only performance aspect they liked better on the Mustang was the transmission (10/10 vs 7/10).

The Goat does just about everything better than the Mustang, but it is more expensive. But its not really surprising that the Mustang does "enough" performance while looking more tendy and being cheaper that it outsells the GTO. The V6 model helps too.

The Stang does get better mileage around town than the Goat (17 vs 15) but then the Goat gets better mileage on the highway thanks to its extra gear no doubt (27 vs 25).

I don't fault people for picking on over the other, but why kid yourself about which is the better performer?

edit: here's the link in case you want to check for yourself
Goat vs Stang Test Results

[footoflead]

...the GTO doesn't handle all that well...

Well the GTO is ~300lbs heavier, and even though its got 100hp on the mustang the mustang is ~.2 seconds quicker to 60,

To me those #'s mean the mustang is more bang for you $$ and is just as fast as the famous GTO, To me the choice is obvious

*and it gets slightly better mpg!

Except in the head to head test the GTO was labeled as the better overall handler (though the Stang was more nimble, there is more than just nimblness to handling) and its also faster despite what you think (~4.8 seconds to 60 vs the Mustang's ~5.1). From there the distance only grows (1/4 mile in 13.3 for the Goat, 13.8 for the Stang).

They gave the Goat better marks for handling (9/10 vs 8/10) and better steering (10/10 vs 7/10). The only performance aspect they liked better on the Mustang was the transmission (10/10 vs 7/10).

The Goat does just about everything better than the Mustang, but it is more expensive. But its not really surprising that the Mustang does "enough" performance while looking more tendy and being cheaper that it outsells the GTO. The V6 model helps too.

The Stang does get better mileage around town than the Goat (17 vs 15) but then the Goat gets better mileage on the highway thanks to its extra gear no doubt (27 vs 25).

I don't fault people for picking on over the other, but why kid yourself about which is the better performer?

edit: here's the link in case you want to check for yourself
Goat vs Stang Test Results

13.3 @ 107-GTO
13.6 @ 105-Stang

0-60
4.8
5.1

To me it seems as if the mustang is holding its own right there, it seems as if towards the end of the 1/4 the mustang makes a little bit of a come back

(GTO requires 93 while the GT will take 87...)

I think that the mustang will murder the Goat with a few suspension mods and a couple under the hood

[Fire It Up]

You guys praising the Mustang aftermarket don't realize that the GTO aftermarket is also quite large, almost as big. Especially for the engine (I'd wager it's just as if not bigger).

:shrug: it might be as large, but i dont think its as tested and proven...

And as several people already said, with just a few mods the mustang is more powerful and lighter and better handling, etc

You realize that the Goats engine is probably older than you?

[footoflead]

You guys praising the Mustang aftermarket don't realize that the GTO aftermarket is also quite large, almost as big. Especially for the engine (I'd wager it's just as if not bigger).

:shrug: it might be as large, but i dont think its as tested and proven...

And as several people already said, with just a few mods the mustang is more powerful and lighter and better handling, etc

You realize that the Goats engine is probably older than you?

Yea, but what does that have to do with ANYTHING,

[SJ_GTI]

...the GTO doesn't handle all that well...

Well the GTO is ~300lbs heavier, and even though its got 100hp on the mustang the mustang is ~.2 seconds quicker to 60,

To me those #'s mean the mustang is more bang for you $$ and is just as fast as the famous GTO, To me the choice is obvious

*and it gets slightly better mpg!

Except in the head to head test the GTO was labeled as the better overall handler (though the Stang was more nimble, there is more than just nimblness to handling) and its also faster despite what you think (~4.8 seconds to 60 vs the Mustang's ~5.1). From there the distance only grows (1/4 mile in 13.3 for the Goat, 13.8 for the Stang).

They gave the Goat better marks for handling (9/10 vs 8/10) and better steering (10/10 vs 7/10). The only performance aspect they liked better on the Mustang was the transmission (10/10 vs 7/10).

The Goat does just about everything better than the Mustang, but it is more expensive. But its not really surprising that the Mustang does "enough" performance while looking more tendy and being cheaper that it outsells the GTO. The V6 model helps too.

The Stang does get better mileage around town than the Goat (17 vs 15) but then the Goat gets better mileage on the highway thanks to its extra gear no doubt (27 vs 25).

I don't fault people for picking on over the other, but why kid yourself about which is the better performer?

edit: here's the link in case you want to check for yourself
Goat vs Stang Test Results

13.3 @ 107-GTO
13.6 @ 105-Stang

0-60
4.8
5.1

To me it seems as if the mustang is holding its own right there, it seems as if towards the end of the 1/4 the mustang makes a little bit of a come back

(GTO requires 93 while the GT will take 87...)

I think that the mustang will murder the Goat with a few suspension mods and a couple under the hood

Hey don't feel bad, I know personal bias can cloud people's ability to read.

The 13.6 @ 105 is the test average of both cars.

(13.8+13.3=13.55, or 13.6)

The Mustang ran 13.8 @103, which does point out that the Goat was pulling away. Apart from that, the 5-60 times were 0.5 seconds in favor of the Goat, which means its 0-60 times are hampered by poor traction. 5-60 numbers are more representative of "real world" results to most people.

Also the GTO does require premium, but premium is 91 octane.

As for your assertion that a modded Mustang will be faster or better at a track than a stock GTO...  

[SJ_GTI]

You guys praising the Mustang aftermarket don't realize that the GTO aftermarket is also quite large, almost as big. Especially for the engine (I'd wager it's just as if not bigger).

:shrug: it might be as large, but i dont think its as tested and proven...

And as several people already said, with just a few mods the mustang is more powerful and lighter and better handling, etc

You realize that the Goats engine is probably older than you?

he's probably alluding to the fact that their are aftermarket packages that can greatly increase the power of any LSX series engine.

Here's one for 530 BHP (normally aspirated):

2005 Lingenfelter GTO

Here's one for a 2004 with a supercharger (400 RWHP, or ~475-500 BHP):

2004 S/C GTO

[footoflead]

...the GTO doesn't handle all that well...

Well the GTO is ~300lbs heavier, and even though its got 100hp on the mustang the mustang is ~.2 seconds quicker to 60,

To me those #'s mean the mustang is more bang for you $$ and is just as fast as the famous GTO, To me the choice is obvious

*and it gets slightly better mpg!

Except in the head to head test the GTO was labeled as the better overall handler (though the Stang was more nimble, there is more than just nimblness to handling) and its also faster despite what you think (~4.8 seconds to 60 vs the Mustang's ~5.1). From there the distance only grows (1/4 mile in 13.3 for the Goat, 13.8 for the Stang).

They gave the Goat better marks for handling (9/10 vs 8/10) and better steering (10/10 vs 7/10). The only performance aspect they liked better on the Mustang was the transmission (10/10 vs 7/10).

The Goat does just about everything better than the Mustang, but it is more expensive. But its not really surprising that the Mustang does "enough" performance while looking more tendy and being cheaper that it outsells the GTO. The V6 model helps too.

The Stang does get better mileage around town than the Goat (17 vs 15) but then the Goat gets better mileage on the highway thanks to its extra gear no doubt (27 vs 25).

I don't fault people for picking on over the other, but why kid yourself about which is the better performer?

edit: here's the link in case you want to check for yourself
Goat vs Stang Test Results

13.3 @ 107-GTO
13.6 @ 105-Stang

0-60
4.8
5.1

To me it seems as if the mustang is holding its own right there, it seems as if towards the end of the 1/4 the mustang makes a little bit of a come back

(GTO requires 93 while the GT will take 87...)

I think that the mustang will murder the Goat with a few suspension mods and a couple under the hood

Hey don't feel bad, I know personal bias can cloud people's ability to read.

The 13.6 @ 105 is the test average of both cars.

(13.8+13.3=13.55, or 13.6)

The Mustang ran 13.8 @103, which does point out that the Goat was pulling away. Apart from that, the 5-60 times were 0.5 seconds in favor of the Goat, which means its 0-60 times are hampered by poor traction. 5-60 numbers are more representative of "real world" results to most people.

Also the GTO does require premium, but premium is 91 octane.

As for your assertion that a modded Mustang will be faster or better at a track than a stock GTO...

:o Wow, you can point out typo's, Good for you give yourself a pat on the back

[mazda6er]

MTL you're very confrontational as of late.

On topic, not sure how they differentiated "steering" and "handling" in that review, but I think I would still go with the Mustang. I don't really need that extra .3 seconds off the 0-60 times when you could smoke virtually every car you see with the 'stang anyway. To me, the 10/10 for the tranny is very important. I also see the Mustang as a slightly sportier car, so that all adds up to it being my pick by a narrow margin.  The GTO's interior is a bit nicer and has more back seat room, but I've never been one to care about the needs of others anyway (:P).  As for the better handling of the GTO, my 6 handles more than fine enough for me, and I can't imagine the 'stang being worse.

So, make it a Mustang for me (barely). B)

[SJ_GTI]

:o Wow, you can point out typo's, Good for you give yourself a pat on the back

So it was just a "typo" when you said the Mustang was faster and handled better than the GTO.

Gotcha.

[SJ_GTI]

MTL you're very confrontational as of late.

Sorry, I just think there are plenty of good reason to prefer the Mustang (cheaper, arguably better looks, some better options, etc...) and there is no reason to just make stuff up about why you like a car.

[mazda6er]

MTL you're very confrontational as of late.

Sorry, I just think there are plenty of good reason to prefer the Mustang (cheaper, arguably better looks, some better options, etc...) and there is no reason to just make stuff up about why you like a car.

Yeah, I see where you're coming from.  :)  

[Raza]

As tested and proven?

The '05 is basically a clean slate design (sure it's based on the LS/S type/Tbird, but still modified a bit).

The Holden Monaro's platform has been around, relatively unchanged since '97 at least. The LS series of V8 engines has been around for much longer too.

You're seriously think that?

Sure, the GTO's got a large aftermarket, but it won't change the fact that the Mustang is an enduring icon, and will be cheaper to modify.


Also, you can't shave 200 pounds off the goat without sacrificing daily-driveability.

[footoflead]

As tested and proven?

The '05 is basically a clean slate design (sure it's based on the LS/S type/Tbird, but still modified a bit).

The Holden Monaro's platform has been around, relatively unchanged since '97 at least. The LS series of V8 engines has been around for much longer too.

You're seriously think that?

Sure, the GTO's got a large aftermarket, but it won't change the fact that the Mustang is an enduring icon, and will be cheaper to modify.


Also, you can't shave 200 pounds off the goat without sacrificing daily-driveability.

Another good point B)    

[ifcar]

...the GTO doesn't handle all that well...

Are you saying that it does? It is not nimble (that's not everything, but for me it represents what I want anything but a track car) and there is nothing to like about the steering.  

[SJ_GTI]

...the GTO doesn't handle all that well...

Are you saying that it does? It is not nimble (that's not everything, but for me it represents what I want anything but a track car) and there is nothing to like about the steering.

No I'm sure you're right. I hear its front seat sucks and it lacks rear seat space as well.

I for one would take a Kia Rio over either of these cars.

[Tom]

...the GTO doesn't handle all that well...

Are you saying that it does? It is not nimble (that's not everything, but for me it represents what I want anything but a track car) and there is nothing to like about the steering.

No I'm sure you're right. I hear its front seat sucks and it lacks rear seat space as well.

I for one would take a Kia Rio over either of these cars.

:o  :blink:  

[ifcar]

...the GTO doesn't handle all that well...

Are you saying that it does? It is not nimble (that's not everything, but for me it represents what I want anything but a track car) and there is nothing to like about the steering.

No I'm sure you're right. I hear its front seat sucks and it lacks rear seat space as well.

I for one would take a Kia Rio over either of these cars.

What sort of response could you expect from such a statement? An apology?

If you have a point, please present it. The class is waiting.  

[SJ_GTI]

...the GTO doesn't handle all that well...

Are you saying that it does? It is not nimble (that's not everything, but for me it represents what I want anything but a track car) and there is nothing to like about the steering.

No I'm sure you're right. I hear its front seat sucks and it lacks rear seat space as well.

I for one would take a Kia Rio over either of these cars.

What sort of response could you expect from such a statement? An apology?

If you have a point, please present it. The class is waiting.

I don't know what you mean.

The Kia Rio offers more features at lower price and has more rear seat room than these cars.

[ifcar]

...the GTO doesn't handle all that well...

Are you saying that it does? It is not nimble (that's not everything, but for me it represents what I want anything but a track car) and there is nothing to like about the steering.

No I'm sure you're right. I hear its front seat sucks and it lacks rear seat space as well.

I for one would take a Kia Rio over either of these cars.

What sort of response could you expect from such a statement? An apology?

If you have a point, please present it. The class is waiting.

I don't know what you mean.

The Kia Rio offers more features at lower price and has more rear seat room than these cars.

What does practicality have to do with what I said?

[Raghavan]

...the GTO doesn't handle all that well...

Are you saying that it does? It is not nimble (that's not everything, but for me it represents what I want anything but a track car) and there is nothing to like about the steering.

No I'm sure you're right. I hear its front seat sucks and it lacks rear seat space as well.

I for one would take a Kia Rio over either of these cars.

What sort of response could you expect from such a statement? An apology?

If you have a point, please present it. The class is waiting.

I don't know what you mean.

The Kia Rio offers more features at lower price and has more rear seat room than these cars.

LMAO.  

[footoflead]

...the GTO doesn't handle all that well...

Are you saying that it does? It is not nimble (that's not everything, but for me it represents what I want anything but a track car) and there is nothing to like about the steering.

No I'm sure you're right. I hear its front seat sucks and it lacks rear seat space as well.

I for one would take a Kia Rio over either of these cars.

What sort of response could you expect from such a statement? An apology?

If you have a point, please present it. The class is waiting.

I don't know what you mean.

The Kia Rio offers more features at lower price and has more rear seat room than these cars.

How in the heck Does a kia have anything to do with this thread? :blink: