Pontiac Enthusiast Road Test Mach 1 vs 2004 GTO - PY Online Forums

Tom Vaught · #1 11-25-2003, 10:04 PM

As usual PE put out a fine magazine this month.

Everyone will say I am crying "Sour Grapes" but I have a few questions and comments:

1) Very Truthful article (for the most part).

a) Compare a 281 cid engine with a 346 cid engine
so about 65 cubic inches more for the Pontiac GTO

b) Engine rated at 350 HP for the GTO and only made 259.1 so where is Mr GTO with his crap about
Ford lying to the customers about Ford's Mustang
HP numbers when the 2004 GTO is 100 hp short!

c) Ford Mustang rated at 305 and testers say more like 320 actual.

d) Mustang received by testers and UNTOUCHED by anyone during the testing.

e) GTO received by testers and cannot get out of
its way (repeatedly spanked by Mustang in initial
testing). 14.7 ets vs low 14s for Ford.

f) GTO taken to well known LS-1/LS-6 tuners where
they trick the coolant temp sensor to make the computer go rich, ice the intake and mass air meter after they wipe the factory calibration so
the GTO computer is starting from scratch. No
tweaks were made to the Mustang (BONE STOCK)! The
Mach 1 would have passed emissions testing, we all
know the GTO would not after those mods.

g) Complain that GTO had bad gas but say the GTO engine pulls hard about 20 mph. BAD GAS does not
act that way. Bad gas runs bad at all speeds so
feeble excuse there. Didn't both cars get the same gas? Should have to be fair test.

h) Had Pontiac drivers drive both the Mustang and the GTO, naturally no bias there by the Pontiac
crowd. Drag racers not normally known for driving
a pylon course and is obvious from pics that cars
are in the wrong spot on the track for each pylon.

i) Will all of these tweaks on the GTO the Mach 1 Mustang runs 102 mph in the quarter vs 98 mph with less horsepower (interesting). Comment is
made that the Mustang has a balky shifter so no
one can drive a Manual Trans any more? Interesting
as a Mustang driver might have run much faster when driving the car.

j) Mach 1 tweaked cars are running low 12s out of
the box vs a tweaked GTO that runs 14.05?

The writers even go so far as to point out that the original 64 GTO test was so bad they had to put out specially tuned GTOs (421 engines ) to
make good advertising claims.

This test also looks really bad when comparing APPLES to APPLES without tweaking.

They do make a comment about how they are going to stay away from 400 hp Cobras. (Picking on cripples, just like the old days and staying away
from the fast cars.

Just like the old times after all!

Tom V.

Tom Vaught · #2 11-25-2003, 10:04 PM

As usual PE put out a fine magazine this month.

Everyone will say I am crying "Sour Grapes" but I have a few questions and comments:

1) Very Truthful article (for the most part).

a) Compare a 281 cid engine with a 346 cid engine
so about 65 cubic inches more for the Pontiac GTO

b) Engine rated at 350 HP for the GTO and only made 259.1 so where is Mr GTO with his crap about
Ford lying to the customers about Ford's Mustang
HP numbers when the 2004 GTO is 100 hp short!

c) Ford Mustang rated at 305 and testers say more like 320 actual.

d) Mustang received by testers and UNTOUCHED by anyone during the testing.

e) GTO received by testers and cannot get out of
its way (repeatedly spanked by Mustang in initial
testing). 14.7 ets vs low 14s for Ford.

f) GTO taken to well known LS-1/LS-6 tuners where
they trick the coolant temp sensor to make the computer go rich, ice the intake and mass air meter after they wipe the factory calibration so
the GTO computer is starting from scratch. No
tweaks were made to the Mustang (BONE STOCK)! The
Mach 1 would have passed emissions testing, we all
know the GTO would not after those mods.

g) Complain that GTO had bad gas but say the GTO engine pulls hard about 20 mph. BAD GAS does not
act that way. Bad gas runs bad at all speeds so
feeble excuse there. Didn't both cars get the same gas? Should have to be fair test.

h) Had Pontiac drivers drive both the Mustang and the GTO, naturally no bias there by the Pontiac
crowd. Drag racers not normally known for driving
a pylon course and is obvious from pics that cars
are in the wrong spot on the track for each pylon.

i) Will all of these tweaks on the GTO the Mach 1 Mustang runs 102 mph in the quarter vs 98 mph with less horsepower (interesting). Comment is
made that the Mustang has a balky shifter so no
one can drive a Manual Trans any more? Interesting
as a Mustang driver might have run much faster when driving the car.

j) Mach 1 tweaked cars are running low 12s out of
the box vs a tweaked GTO that runs 14.05?

The writers even go so far as to point out that the original 64 GTO test was so bad they had to put out specially tuned GTOs (421 engines ) to
make good advertising claims.

This test also looks really bad when comparing APPLES to APPLES without tweaking.

They do make a comment about how they are going to stay away from 400 hp Cobras. (Picking on cripples, just like the old days and staying away
from the fast cars.

Just like the old times after all!

Tom V.

ventura7211 · #3 11-25-2003, 10:13 PM

Sour Grapes.

I have a serious question. Does the mach 1 hood scoop actually help? I try to stay away from cobras too, they are mean especially when the boost is turned up.

PITTSBURGH 64 · #4 11-25-2003, 10:14 PM

Isn't that GTO a jap car?
Like that suv they sell.

ventura7211 · #5 11-25-2003, 10:21 PM

"Isn't that GTO a jap car?"

No its australian, you would be surprised how many "jap" cars are made here in the u.s.

Tom McQueen · #6 11-25-2003, 10:41 PM

The only people thar are gonna cry sour grapes are the ones who believed all the BS propaganda that was spread about the Monaro. Tom, your post brought a smile to my face. I too will wait to see how this is responded to. Hard to argue with real test results vs a bunch of crap that was posted on some web site.

78 GHOST · #7 11-25-2003, 11:15 PM

Now Tom, don't go bursting their bubble so soon.

The magazine pukes are just trying to sell units, [SARCASM]nevermind which one is actually best. Now, they couldn't
simply report the news, or facts could they? NO, they must make all kinds of rationalizations about why their car was NOT THE BEST. [/SARCASM]

Seriously Tom, you illustrate valid concerns that should have been honestly dealt with at press time.

Methinks the Ford is gonna be a tough nut to crack for many moons. Unfortunately for us Pontiac fans, Ford has been the only company to make a serious effort to develop the niche market of enthusiast machines, and entice the public with it's product.

Dodge is in a distant second to Ford in cultivating the historical connection with it's product line. Can you say HEMI?

GM kills the F-Body, and introduces the GTO from Australia.. parked next to the cutting edge design of the Aztec on the showroom floor. ..Please excuse me while I go power yawn.

About the only decent performance vehicle from GM is a VERY expensive ZO6, which leaves your 3rd and 4th passengers calling a cab. A buddy of mine has a black ZO6, and I feel like organizing an "intervention" to help Jon with his midlife crisis.

Seems to me the new GTO has only 3 things in common to the original, it's initials.

____________________________________
Much love out to my Peeps

pierced mikey · #8 11-25-2003, 11:20 PM

Hey Tom, you forgot that(since it was supposed to be a "fair" test) they only gave a DRIVING IMPRESSIONS on the GTO and not the Mach 1. They did do something to the Mach 1 between rounds. They checked the oil

Nothing is real if you don't believe in yourself-Rocky Balboa

In order to be old and wise, you must first be young and foolish

Marty Phipps · #9 11-25-2003, 11:30 PM

I still think Ford has it together in the muscle car dept.

The General really should try to get back to it's roots.
Imagine a new brand Camaro, no over the top "look what We'll include" overweight accesories, with an ACTUAL TRUNK!!!!!!!! instead of that $%#^%@ hatchback.
G.M. might just be able to build a good muscle car then.
But We all know that'll never happen.
The S.S.R. is actually better looking in person vs. the photo's.
But from what I hear it's a heavy tank..

If Ford actually builds a Mustang that is similar to the concept car...... I might just have to buy 1

goatseeker · #10 11-26-2003, 12:17 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If Ford actually builds a Mustang that is similar to the concept car...... I might just have to buy 1 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ditto Marty - but I'll keep my '66 GTO!

C'mon Tom - how about some 'insider scoop' on the '05 concept car. We won't tell anybody where we heard it!

http://kurtspontiac.homestead.com/TimSimpson66GTO.html

Aeolian-X · #11 11-26-2003, 12:28 AM

Though I don't like the idea of a Ford outdoing a Pontiac, I saw this one coming sooner or later. Then again, we're not really talking about a Pontiac now are we.

- AX
77 Trans Am

grandville455 · #12 11-26-2003, 04:31 AM

there was an episode on motor trend with the gto this past weekend and it went 13.62@104.68

Grandville 464

14.26@ 95.84 mph in 4860pds!!

Mr_GTO · #13 11-26-2003, 05:15 AM

Yup, truthful. They tested a pilot car with holden tuning and they did "tune it" only so much as GM would allow. It is way off from a production car. Even the cars tested by MT/CD/RT were tested down under as pre production cars.

Yup, maybe Ford should build a bigger V8 that gets better fuel economy and emissions. Guess that is why they threw the blower on.

Again, pre production car. Tom, you are good with Math. 3770lb car that goes 104.68 in the quarter has how much HP?

Tom, I know you know how much ECU's programming has to do with how well EFI motors work. Again, not a production computer.

Icing down the TB and air box just makes the people running the test look like fools. It doesn't do anything for performance in that heat. Also foolish to test the cars in 95 degree heat. What was the rush? Why not just wait to get a 6spd car and test both of them in january at Englishtown or Houston or somewhere where it isn't 95 degrees so both cars can run to potential.

The GTO ran good from 20mph because it wasn't hampered by the traction control. And who really cares about that anyway? Not me. I know how well they accelerate at all speeds. I don't buy the bad gas argument.

THere have been reports of stock Mach1's running high 12's out of the box in ideal conditions. I believe it. I think the GTO will be good for low 13's once in ideal conditions.

I will look forward to seeing Muscle Mustang and Fast Ford mag testing the GTO against the Mach1 and GM High Tech Performance mag also. They have a ringer driver, Evan Smith. He got a 12.89 out of a 99 Z28, got a 12.6 out of a non ZO6 HT 99 Vette.

So overall I am not going to let one test deter me in my thinking of the car. The Holden is a great car. It makes a great race car too. Monaro's(GTO) finished 1-2 in the Bathurst 24. That is equivelent to the Rolex 24 here in the states but that is down in Australia. Running a C5R 427, it beat Porsche, Lambo, Ferrari, Subaru, Mosler, and a few other makes last weekend.

Tom, any rumor that the next gen Shelby Mustang will get that V10 monster?

I have been hearing birdies singing.

Mr_GTO · #14 11-26-2003, 05:47 AM

Just some quick figures using this website:
http://www.clubdsm.com/tools/calchp.htm

R/T Mag tested the car. http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d...3200311617.pdf

3950 test weight. Ran a 13.8@103.8 using that website it gave me
297hp using ET.
345hp using MPH

M/T Test. They only gave curb weight, so we can assume test weight is the same. Ran a 13.68@104

http://www.ls1gto.com/media/artwork/MT1103.pdf

309hp using ET
355hp using MPH.

Just some more food for thought.

I am sure you have your own HP calculators and feel free to use those also.

For Comparison: Motor Trend Mach1 Road Test:
http://motortrend.com/roadtests/coup...ng/index4.html

Using the same 180lbs for a driver, the Mustang curb weight was 3465 + 180 for driver =3645lbs. Using the calculator, the hp is

Using the ET method, I come up with 274 horsepower
Using the Speed method, I come up with 306 horsepower

So, testing by MT shows which car is making more power.

[This message was edited by Mr_GTO on November 26, 2003 at 08:24 AM.]

PITTSBURGH 64 · #15 11-26-2003, 05:53 AM

Thank you Ventura, I stand corrected.
I understand Cadillac is going back to rear wheel drive.
A V-8 rear wheel drive Cadillac.
I'm going to get one once my 83 Olds 98 is finished.
That 83 Olds 98 was the best car ever made,I never had anykind of trouble with it from day one!

KandRGTO · #16 11-26-2003, 06:02 AM

Gee,Ford spanked G.M.again? Is anyone really surprised? lol

1967 GTO Now under construction for spring '04 usage ! Stand clear of spinning wrenches and watch out for flying debris!

Hot Rod · #17 11-26-2003, 07:12 AM

Guy's Truman and Walt Hollyfield were driving the vehicles and that's pretty much how it went!!!!!!
I have yet to read the article but the day that they were tested Walt called me, and said it was fun spanking Truman!!!!! It was the driver as Walt put it!!!! Getting his digs in on Truman.
He did say that, but that was not the case, although Walt was cutting real good bulbs!!!!!!!

Rodney

Outlaw Pontiac Racers Association
"For Those Who Live the Legend"

"WELCOME TO THE NO SPIN ZONE!"

JC455 · #18 11-26-2003, 08:03 AM

Wow Tom,
I'm really surprised that the GTO had so little power.... Well, as compared to the F-body that had the same engine, yet had way more power.
Probably something to do w/ American tuning standards vs. Australian??

I haven't received my copy yet, so I can't comment on the article, but hopefully it'll arrive soon...
I'm still trying to catch the TV program where they test the cars.

John

az67goat · #19 11-26-2003, 08:24 AM

Great..hopefully there will be more negative reports about the 2004 GTO and it will soon be killed.

I have a Ford Explorer with 60,000 mile on it and had to have the trans rebuilt @ $1200.

Another overly complicated new car piece of crap. I'll never buy another new car. All of the good cars were built in the 60s. (O.K. and the early 70s)

Rugratman · #20 11-26-2003, 08:28 AM

100 horsepower short ?

What the ..........?

That's criminal.