The new Autoweek has a comparison between the 05 GTO and the 05 Mustang GT in it. They declare the Mustang GT the winner saying..."Sound the bell, it's no contest: The winner is the Mustang GT."

They also said that they felt any advantage the GTO had in acceleration was more than offset by the Mustang GT's superior handling. FYI the GTO turned the 1/4 mile in 13.75sec. @ 104.1mph, and the Mustang ran the same in 14.07 seconds at 100.2 mph. Both times seem about a half second slow, on average, compared to what I have seen elsewhere thus far.

I saw this and figured you guys might want to know what Autoweek had to say, and I knew it would end up on here eventually anyway. Not trying to rub salt ih the wound here guys, as I think the 05 GTO is actually pretty nice with the newfound power. The Goat has lost a few comparos now, but they have all been squeakers or close to it which has get to be frustrating for you fellas.

And really, so long as GTO owners got what they wanted when you layed out the cash, that is the only comparo that matters in the end.

What bothers me is that in the comparisons the editors seem to ignore any factual numbers and focus on the styling of the cars.

By far that is the worst time I have seen for an 05 GTO, thats around what 04s have been getting stock. It seems that Autoweek can't drive for ****.

Someone want to explain to me how the mustang "handles better" using a live rear? Odds are they liked the styling better but just didn't want to come out and say it.

But Jsaylor has a point, most GTO buyers wouldn't be caught dead in a Mustang, and in which case the comparisons don't matter.

UGH! Those quarter times are poop.

Who's grandma was driving, jeesh! :rolleyes:

Mustang's superior handling huh? :lol:

Live rear axle, 55 series tires vs. IRS and 45 series tires, hmm.....

Autoweak won't be seeing any of my money soon. For the record I thought they were biased and crummy before this article. Like they care though, 12 to 15 K GTO owners as possible subscribers or 300 BILLION Rustang owners as possible subscribers. They are in it for the $$$. I won't be convinced otherwise.

Car and Whiner and now Autoweak. They can :tongue:

SWEET LORD! Autoweek=worst drivers in history? How is it possible to get those times while try to drive it.

As if the Stang can handle better. Where is its nearly perfect weight distribution.

Hmmmmmmmmm...... Pretty sure my mini-van might get 13.7 if I take out the seats and riced er a bit. The driver must not of known which pedal was the accelerator. Don't worry. These things happen. Or maybe they meant to print 12.75? That would be more realistic for 400 horses, dunn ya think? Or am I just smoking too much crack again? B)

Are magazines systematically trying to create the downfall of the new GTO?

I think its funny that almost any magazine raves about how great the Monaro or Vauxhall is, but when the same car is given an unagressive skin it suddenly can't handle as well, or doesn't have that gotta have it factor. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Nocturn@Jan 8 2005, 04:26 PM
I think its funny that almost any magazine raves about how great the Monaro or Vauxhall is, but when the same car is given an unagressive skin it suddenly can't handle as well, or doesn't have that gotta have it factor. :rolleyes:
I have already whooped 2 05 Stangs and have had 3 turn me down. Now I agree the turn downs could be
Car too new, I do not street race, etc...

All I know is like Jsaylor said....Be happy with you car (WHICH I AM VERY HAPPY WITH MY 04!!!!!! :friday: ) and live life :D

We all know the magazines suck butt just like the 300C article.

But for me one thing is for **** sure (this one is for you jsaylor)

I would buy a 2005 Mustang over a 300C any day!

Originally posted by TheJizzer@Jan 8 2005, 10:35 PM
But for me one thing is for **** sure (this one is for you jsaylor)

I would buy a 2005 Mustang over a 300C any day!
Well thanks Jizzer. That is actually kind of touching in a 'you think the Mustang only sorta sucks' kind of way..lol :afro:

Originally posted by jsaylor+Jan 9 2005, 01:19 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jsaylor @ Jan 9 2005, 01:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-TheJizzer@Jan 8 2005, 10:35 PM
But for me one thing is for **** sure (this one is for you jsaylor)

I would buy a 2005 Mustang over a 300C any day!
Well thanks Jizzer. That is actually kind of touching in a 'you think the Mustang only sorta sucks' kind of way..lol :afro: [/b][/quote]
:friday:

Originally posted by jsaylor@Jan 7 2005, 08:30 PM
And really, so long as GTO owners got what they wanted when you layed out the cash, that is the only comparo that matters in the end.
I second that. :)

the numbers on the mustang seemed good but the GTO was so slow. With a decent driver that car has to be doing at least a 13 flat, and probably getting into the very high 12s with practice. Oh well another bull**** article from caranddriver. The funny thing is caranddriver helped the GTO become popular in 64 and now in the 21st ceuntry all there articles on it have been negative.

Here is the article.

http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=101521

Steve