yeah, not the 05 Stang...but the 05 Stangs nemisis...

I thought this was appropriate seeing as how people like to compare the new Stang and Goat.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/09/pf/autos/d..._cars/index.htm

 

Sums it up pretty well.

 

Yea, this year's GTO is a bore. It will be better next year with the real duel exhaust, etc. Doesn't mean we still can't kick its.....well you know.

 

Haha, nice find SurfnSoCal. It's like the Mustang is everything the Goat is not.

 

The 2005 GTO gets the Corvette's 6.0L 400-hp engine. For some reason GM can't get it through their thick skulls that you can't put a high-performance engine in an ugly car and expect it to sell. Reference Camaro/Firebird. You'd think they wouldn't learned something from that.

 

Wow, they really ragged on the 500! Ouch!

 

GM straps rockets to crap cars, and the enthusiasts wonder why they don't sell.

SPEED is not everything.
Mustang/Ford gets it, why don't they?

Do you know HOW easy it would be to build a winning car?
Its not rocket science

 

I'll tell you what.... there's such a huge market for them here in Denver, that I've never seen a new GTO in person. From day one I thought they were shooting themselves in the foot by making another Grand Am...... the only difference this time around is that it has *****.

 

In all honesty they have reason to do so, too...

 

***** are good...I like ***** (Team America, anyone).

 

I've said from the beginning that the GTO is a blown up Cavalier on roids. Looks like I'm not the only one that feels that way.

GM couldn't design uglier vehicles if they all got wasted and went to the drawing boards. They're proving it again too by popping the new engine in the SSR. The thing is still a two seat, $50,000 retro truck with iffy styling and a non-functional bed. I think with the new engine, it might just keep up with the Lightnings now, but not sure.

 

Camaro/firebird ugly???? Um.....nope.

 

Camaro/firebird ugly???? Um.....nope. [/b][/quote]
Then explain to me why a car with better performance and cheaper price sold only half as many units as the Mustang.

 

Conventional wisdom was "you can sell a ugly car with a great motor, but not a hot looking car with a lousy motor," but I think there are so many choices out there that you can't do either any more.

I don't consider the GTO ugly, but it's just... uninspired. Hood scoops and dual exhaust won't change that. 500 hp won't change that either. It may sell cars to the race market, but when I buy a Vette I'm paying for more than just a great motor - it's a cool car. I don't want to be the salesman who has to convince you to buy a really bland car that no one will look at because it's got a Corvette motor.

 

Folks, I would like to state that I very much like both cars. I saw the 05 Mustang and GTO recently at the Miami/South Florida Auto show and believe both are exceptional cars but built for different tastes. Retro Mustang harkens back to the muscle era with modern interior and handling. Retro in the best sense of the word without being overdone or tacky. Dare I say it? Another Classic for sure.

GTO is a Euro sedan(seats four adults with comfort and room to spare) type with a tough undercarriage/suspension, luxurious interior, capable powerplant. Appearance is very restrained as with a the high performance Audi, BMW, Volvo four seater. The latter cars do not have exciting bodies but are still nice vehicles.

I have read the problem with GTO sales is due to poor marketing, poor acceptance by classic GTO owners, and dealer gouging due to the limited edition status.

I really do not understand the ridicule heaped on the GTO at all. Well, in a way I do... I held on to my 1991 Mustang until now primarily due to all of the 1994-2004 Mustang bodystyles being unappealing. However, I would not insult someone's ride. I think competition is very healthy. In fact, most 04 GTO posters I have read are not scathing of Mustang owners. Most, there are a few unfortunately.

FYI, I still have not made up my mind whether to purchase an 04 GTO or 05 Mustang GT.

Regards,

FC

 

I'm not sure poor marketing and low acceptance by classic GTO orders are valid excuses why the 2004 GTO will sell fewer units in a year than the 2005 Mustang sold before it was launched.

 

I think the GTO is a great car, I just think they would of sold better if they would of named it differently. Putting a name like that on a car, people have huge expectations, hard to fulfill those expectations. Should of stuck with the original name, the Aussie version sells very well.

 

Then explain to me why a car with better performance and cheaper price sold only half as many units as the Mustang. [/b][/quote]

Let me! Let me! My opinion is solely my own....

The Camaro had a couple good years- 96 or so and 68/9....

The Firebird is just another version of the camaro.

BUT the lil GTOooooo is a pretty car, but still GM.
(I drive a GM I can bash a little)

 

Amen to that. 'Vette has the look and the brawn. IMO, same thing with the '05 Mustang. Y'all are wrong about the GTO, it doesn't look like a Cavalier, more like a Sunfire.

For the record, though. I like my Camaro compared to the same year Mustang. It just looked meaner to me. And the V6 had more power, torque and cargo then its competitor. On top of that, I got a better deal, too. I could care less about sales when I bought it.

 

Speaking of those, I would not reject a '88 Camaro Z28..