Mustang Kicks GTO Butt

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> R&T showed the MSRP of the '04 Cobra to be $35,895, and the GTO to be
> $33,190 -- a $2,704 diff in favor of the GTO . That's about halfway to
> that 481 hp, 435 lb-ft, Vortech supercharger kit. The other half you
> could get from the fact that the '04 GTO was heavily discounted, while
> the '04 Cobra never was.

Just an FYI.
It may be a geographical anomaly, but here in the northeast the '04 Cobra
was indeed heavily discounted. At summers end the $40k anniversary
convertibles were selling for as low as $30k. The amply produced '03 Cobra
really dragged down the asking price of the late season '04s.

Saturday I saw an '04 GTO on a lot with "The Wild Bore" "$21,999." scrawled
on the windshield. I don't know if the salesman is a genius....or
disgruntled, but it got my attention. If you can get past the looks,
it's a heck of a car for short money.

--
John C.
'03 Cobra Convt.

ZombyWoof wrote:

I think because of the "@" in the ET's of my copy and paste of the "50
Fastest Muscle Cars," that Google Groups deleted the most important
part, the ET's. So here they are again, with spaces on either side of
the "@":

1 1966 427 Cobra 12.20 @ 118
2 1966 Corvette 427 12.8 @ 112
3 1969 Road Runner 12.91 @ 111.8 440-6v
4 1970 Hemi Cuda 13.10 @ 107.12
5 1970 Chevelle SS454 13.12 @ 107.01 LS6
6 1969 Camaro 13.16 @ 110.21 427 ZL1
7 1968 Corvette 13.30@108 427 6V 435 4-Speed 3.70 HC 5/68
8 1970 Road Runner 426 Hemi
9 1970 Buick GS Stage I 455 Stage I
10 1968 Corvette 427 L72 (?)

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclec...s-50fast.shtml

> My Memory is a tad faded, but my
> `72 455 HO SD GTO ran 13.xx stock out
> of the box at DelMarVa in the middle 70's
> with about 33k on the clock. I want to say
> 13.47 on the tires of the day, but I can't
> adamant about the .47 part, only the 13. part.

I don't think there were any Super Duty's in '72; '73-'74 only. But
anyway, a 13.47 is really quick.

Keep in mind, when talking about 13-second cars, that a few tenths
difference in ET may not sound like much, but it really shows up at the
top end. Assuming a 100-105 mph trap speed, a pair of 13-second cars
are traveling at 147-155 ft/sec. So the .4 sec diff between a 13.5 and
a 13.1 is 58-62 ft, or 3-4 car lengths.

About the SD455, I got this from a quick Google:

"1973 saw some significant new changes to the Firebirds. . . . The
first was the introduction of a new Super Duty 455 V8 (SD-455). . . .
[T]he Super Duty 455 was a street legal race prepped engine. . . .
Pontiac rated the SD-455 engines at a stout 310 bhp and 390 lb-ft, but
experts agreed that it was closer to 370 bhp. . . . Unfortunately,
Super Duty engines were expensive and therefore rare; only 252 Trans
Am's and 43 Formula 455's received the SD-455 engine."

http://pontiac.sk/history.php

The same page says 943 more SD's were produced in '74. So total
production was only 1,238. Then, as now, people didn't buy real
performance in as great of numbers as you might expect.

The same page also cites a 13.5 @ 104 for a '74 SD.

A '74 SD 455 also appears as number 15 in the same "50 Fastest Muscle
Cars" chart as I've previously quoted:

15 1973 Trans Am 13.54 @ 104.29 455 SD 310 automatic 3.42 HR 6/73

180 Out

ZombyWoof wrote:

I think because of the "@" in the ET's of my copy and paste of the "50
Fastest Muscle Cars," that Google Groups deleted the most important
part, the ET's. So here they are again, with spaces on either side of
the "@":

1 1966 427 Cobra 12.20 @ 118
2 1966 Corvette 427 12.8 @ 112
3 1969 Road Runner 12.91 @ 111.8 440-6v
4 1970 Hemi Cuda 13.10 @ 107.12
5 1970 Chevelle SS454 13.12 @ 107.01 LS6
6 1969 Camaro 13.16 @ 110.21 427 ZL1
7 1968 Corvette 13.30@108 427 6V 435 4-Speed 3.70 HC 5/68
8 1970 Road Runner 426 Hemi
9 1970 Buick GS Stage I 455 Stage I
10 1968 Corvette 427 L72 (?)

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclec...s-50fast.shtml

> My Memory is a tad faded, but my
> `72 455 HO SD GTO ran 13.xx stock out
> of the box at DelMarVa in the middle 70's
> with about 33k on the clock. I want to say
> 13.47 on the tires of the day, but I can't
> adamant about the .47 part, only the 13. part.

I don't think there were any Super Duty's in '72; '73-'74 only. But
anyway, a 13.47 is really quick.

Keep in mind, when talking about 13-second cars, that a few tenths
difference in ET may not sound like much, but it really shows up at the
top end. Assuming a 100-105 mph trap speed, a pair of 13-second cars
are traveling at 147-155 ft/sec. So the .4 sec diff between a 13.5 and
a 13.1 is 58-62 ft, or 3-4 car lengths.

About the SD455, I got this from a quick Google:

"1973 saw some significant new changes to the Firebirds. . . . The
first was the introduction of a new Super Duty 455 V8 (SD-455). . . .
[T]he Super Duty 455 was a street legal race prepped engine. . . .
Pontiac rated the SD-455 engines at a stout 310 bhp and 390 lb-ft, but
experts agreed that it was closer to 370 bhp. . . . Unfortunately,
Super Duty engines were expensive and therefore rare; only 252 Trans
Am's and 43 Formula 455's received the SD-455 engine."

http://pontiac.sk/history.php

The same page says 943 more SD's were produced in '74. So total
production was only 1,238. Then, as now, people didn't buy real
performance in as great of numbers as you might expect.

The same page also cites a 13.5 @ 104 for a '74 SD.

A '74 SD 455 also appears as number 15 in the same "50 Fastest Muscle
Cars" chart as I've previously quoted:

15 1973 Trans Am 13.54 @ 104.29 455 SD 310 automatic 3.42 HR 6/73

180 Out

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:28:43 -0400, ZombyWoof >
wrote:

>On 19 Apr 2005 18:20:35 -0700, wrote something
>wonderfully witty:
>
>>Nicholas D wrote:
>>
>>> To be fair we must also conclude this. The
>>> GTO is more in line with the
>>> Cobra or so it should be. . . .
>>> There are many comparisons that were done
>>> in '04 with the GTO Cobra. For instance:
>>> http://www.roadandtrack.com/ar ticle.asp?section_id=31&articl
>>e_id=1368...
>>
>>R&T showed the MSRP of the '04 Cobra to be $35,895, and the GTO to be
>>$33,190 -- a $2,704 diff in favor of the GTO . That's about halfway to
>>that 481 hp, 435 lb-ft, Vortech supercharger kit. The other half you
>>could get from the fact that the '04 GTO was heavily discounted, while
>>the '04 Cobra never was. Yet R&T chose the GTO over the Cobra, by
>>588.1 total points to 574.4. How much higher would the GTO have scored
>>if it had been packing the extra 50 hp, 35 lb-ft, 18 ci, and better
>>cylinder heads of the '05?
>>
>>So when comparing either the '04 or '05 GTO to the '04 Cobra, at least
>>according to R&T the "value" shoe is on the other foot.
>>
>>> Motortrend also list the '05 Stang as 0-60 5.1 1/4 mile 13.6.
>>
>>I mis-typed the '05 Mustang GT's 0-60 as recorded by C&D. It was 5.1
>>secs, not 4.8. The '05 GTO was 4.8. Also, I copied and pasted the
>>GTO's "strut, coils, sway bar; IRS, coils, sway bar" to the Mustang
>>and didn't change it to "strut, coils, sway bar; solid axle, coils,
>>sway bar."
>>
>>> I have to disagree with your presumption of
>>> this very new motor having a huge aftermarket parts source.
>>
>>Although Chevy is calling the 6.0 LS2 the "4th gen" SBC, it's really
>>not a lot different than the LS1 that's been out since the 1997 model
>>year. The "3rd gen" is also used extensively in GM trucks and SUV's
>>(and ironically these engines run the LS6-style heads that the '04 GTO
>>lacked). There are lots of speed parts out already -- cams, intakes,
>>valvetrain upgrades, stroker cranks, blowers -- and with hundreds of
>>thousands of Gen 3/Gen 4's on the road there is an ever-growing market
>>for more.
>>
>>Bottom line is, I am very uncomfortable with being the designated GTO
>>spokesmodel in this thread comparing it to the '05 Stang. I love the
>>new Stang, and I am as tempted to buy one as I have ever been in a
>>lifetime of buying used only. But I like the GTO better. The bland
>>styling -- which is the most often heard complaint -- is actually a
>>plus to me.
>>
>>And really, the reason I jumped into this thread is no one who imagines
>>him/herself to be any kind of an enthusiast should EVER look down on
>>anything with 400 hp. When I see all the genuflecting going on toward
>>old heaps from the '60's that only dreamed of 300 hp, much less an
>>honest 400 net hp, it bugs me to see the GTO so disrespected by the
>>same crowd. There are VERY FEW muscle cars that could do a 13.1 @ 107
>>bone stock. Just Google up one of those "50 Fastest Muscle Car"
>>compilations and see what I mean. In fact, I just did, and here are
>>the TOP TEN:
>>
>>1 1966 427 Cobra 12.20@118 427 8V 425 4-Speed 3.54 CC 11/65
>>2 1966 Corvette 427 12.8@112 L72 427 425 4-Speed 3.36 CD 11/65
>>3 1969 Road Runner 440 Six BBL 390 4-Speed 4.10 SS 6/69
>>4 1970 Hemi Cuda 426 Hemi 425 4-Speed 3.54 CC 11/69
>>5 1970 Chevelle SS454 454 LS6 450 4-Speed 3.55 CC 11/69
>>6 1969 Camaro 427 ZL1 430 4-Speed 4.10 HC 6/69
>>7 1968 Corvette 13.30@108 427 6V 435 4-Speed 3.70 HC 5/68
>>8 1970 Road Runner 426 Hemi 425 automatic 4.10 SS 12/69
>>9 1970 Buick GS Stage I 455 Stage I 360 automatic 3.64 MT
>>1/70
>>10 1968 Corvette 427 L72 427 425 4-Speed 3.55 CD 6/68
>>
>>ONLY 5-6 EVER THAT COULD RUN WITH A BOX STOCK '05 GTO!!! And just try
>>to buy a '66 427 Shelby Cobra or a '69 ZL-1 Camaro, or any of these
>>cars, for $32,295.
>>
>>180 Out
>>
>My Memory is a tad faded, but my `72 455 HO SD GTO ran 13.xx stock out
>of the box at DelMarVa in the middle 70's with about 33k on the clock.
>I want to say 13.47 on the tires of the day, but I can't adamant about
>the .47 part, only the 13. part. Of all the cars I've owned and sold,
>it is the only one I truly and dearly want back.

You know the funny thing? Whenever they do these comparisons,
they put in only late 1960-1970s vehicles when in reality,
the fastest muscle cars existed in the mid-1960s. Thunderbolt
Fords and those ugly Chryslers that could whip off 1/4s in
consistently low to mid 11's. The only cars to better them
where the specialty vehicles like the late 1960s Hemi Darts
and Barracudas that could drop into the 10's in stock form.
-Rich

On 18 Apr 2005 14:16:04 -0700, wrote:

>Nicholas D wrote:
>
>> perhaps the larger 6L motor is heavier
>> then the previous 5.7 or maybe
>> they had to change gearing or something
>> else that gobbled up the extra 50hp.
>
>'05 GTO: wt: 3787; gear: 3.46:1; '04 GTO: wt: 3821; gear: 3.46:1. So
>the gear is the same and the weight is less (although a mere 34 lb diff
>may be accounted for by the weight of gas, the test driver, etc.)
>
>These numbers are from the side by side test of '05 GTO vs. '05 Mustang
>in January '05 Car and Driver
>http://www.caranddriver.com/article....age_num ber=1
>and the December 2003 test of the '04 GTO
>http://www.caranddriver.com/article....age_numb er=1
>. C&
>
>C&D also got a 5 mph trap speed improvement from the additional 50 '05
>horses, and the '045 was 0.7 seconds quicker in the quarter. These
>numbers make sense. The Autoweek numbers don't.
>
>Here are all the vital stats from the C&D stories:
>
>'04 GTO:
>
>0-60: 5.3. 1/4 mile: 14.0 @ 102; 346 ci; 350 hp @ 5200; 365 lb-ft @
>4000; wt: 3821; gear: 3.46:1
>
>'05 GTO:
>
>0-60: 4.8; 1/4 mile: 13.1 @ 107; 364 ci; 400 hp @ 6600; 400 lb-ft @
>4400; wt: 3787; gear: 3.46:1
>
>'05 Mustang GT:
>
>0-60: 4.8; 1/4 mile: 13.8 @ 103; 281 ci; 300 hp @ 5750; 320 lb-ft @
>4500; wt: 3575; gear: 3.55:1
>
>> Again with 100 hp more then the Stang it is only
>> .3 seconds quicker then the Stang not 7 tenths
>> not sure were that came from.
>
>I got my wires crossed between Autoweek's numbers showing the '05 GTO
>being seven tenths quicker than the '04 GTO, and three tenths quicker
>than the '05 Stang. I meant to type "3" but it came out "7". For the
>GTO to beat the Stang by seven tenths would be OK (e.g., see the C&D
>numbers); three tenths from a car that's only 200 lbs heavier and 100
>hp stronger and I say something's wrong.
>
>> How about handling, breaking, price,
>> style?
>
>Handling and braking: From the C&D comparo:
>
>'05 GTO: wt ft/r %: 53.8/46.2; strut, coils, sway bar; IRS, coils,
>sway bar; 300 ft skid pad g: .88; vented discs/vented discs; 70-0: 167
>ft;
>'05 Stang: wt ft/r %: 52.5/47.5; strut, coils, sway bar; IRS, coils,
no irs
>sway bar; 300 ft skid pad g: .89; vented discs/solid discs; 70-0: 170
>ft.
>
>> Also aftermarket accessories.
>
>Potential for mods is where the GTO leaves the Stand far in the dust.
>First, it comes with IRS and an utterly bullet-proof 6-spd, while the
>Stang comes with a solid axle that will NEVER equal IRS in street

uh, there's irs and there's irs. I think the 05 stang gt was able to
outhandle the 04 cobra on a street course. solid axle vs irs. It's all
about the implementation. The 03/04 cobra implementation of irs wasn't
great, but the gto's isn't all that great either.

>handling, and the latest update of the failure-prone T-5. So the same
>aftermarket handling improvements to both will still leave the Stang
>behind.
I liked your comments upto here. if we start throwing in aftermarket
stuff you can compare all you want, the outcome will be different.
Let's stick to stock for now.

>
>And as far as the engines, well that was my point to begin with, that a
>364 ci LS2 (that means with the GOOD LS6-style heads and the ability to
>pop it out to 400+ ci no problem) kills the GT mod motor off the
>assembly line, and with a few mods will kill the GT, the Cobra, AND the
>GT500 too. There is no replacement for displacement. Already there's

see above. If you replace the Gt500's blower with a KB (am sure
they'll come out with one by the time the fr500 is on the street) it
will blow the GTO away... heck, a pulley swap, chip mod and some other
cheap mods will blow the GTO away, and a lot cheaper also. See what I
mean ? I can keep reasoning here.


>a Vortech blower/intercooler kit for the '04 GTO
>http://www.vortechsuperchargers.com/...ar/04_gto.html : 481
>hp and 435 lb-ft @ 7-8 psi. That's with a stock baseline of 350 hp,
>365 lb-ft. Adding the same percentage increases to an '05 puts you at
>550 hp, 477 lb-ft.
>
>Finally, as far as "value," the '05 GTO is already selling at or below
>list price. The '05 Stang is barely there. With added dealer profit
>of $5000+ the Stang GT verts are going for thousands MORE than the GTO.
> There's also the collectibility factor. I predict the GTO will be the
>Hemi Cuda of 2030, and the '05 Stang will be the '65 with the 289-2v.
>As in $1 mil for a perfect low miler, vs. $20,000. Remember, no one
>bought the Hemis when they were new either.

nah, nobody wants the GTO now.. it's a Monaro with a different engine.
Lots of Monaro's in Ausie land.

>
>180 Out