Some random possibilities:

1) Ford has learned it's lesson and is now underrating it's performance cars instead of overrating them.

2) Peak HP versus Average HP. A good broad average of say, 250 HP from 2k to 6k might very well beat another car which has 270 HP but only from 5k to 7k.

3) Weight distribution--more weight over the drive wheels in one car than another

4) Suspension geometry--solid axles are the best setup for drag racing, period

5) Tires size/compound?

6) Gearing?

7) Drivetrain efficiency?


Personally, I'm inclined to believe reasons #1, #2, and #4.

 

for speed forget the rx8, 350z, sti. evo, or the mustang gt its all about the 05 GTO 0-60 4.6sec quartermile 13.0sec now thats some stock power!

 

i agree theres a reason this car doesnt have factory turbo on it.

 

I have driven the Z and it does not feel like there are 287 hp in there. It doesnt feel any faster than my car.

I found this to be pretty funny. One of my freinds is a salesperson at a Nissan dealer. A guy (who bought a Z from my friend) was waiting for his car in service. He ran into my freind and asked if he knew of any easy ways to make his car faster. The Z was just smoked by a stock SRT-4. :p

 

Wow...if those numbers are right, gosh the new GTO just kicked the Mustang in the teeth..

I just wish that the next GTO come in at 3,400 pounds but NO MORE than that...such a sweet little piggy....lol

If the GTO weighed less, handled better, and looked better (like a RX8) I would have gotten one.

I agree with your #1,2, and 4 theory....something just aint right with a 3500 pound car with 300HP getting 13.5's in the 1.4 mile.

 

If they made the SRT-4 in AWD....it would be an even bigger seller!!!

That is one fast little sucker...

 

If I recall correctly, the current GTO is merely a placeholder until GM designs a new (read: less porky, better styled) RWD coupe platform. I think the new one's due in 2006, as an '07 model.(?)

 

Dont fret guys.....theres been alot of heated discussions on mustang boards about the slower than expected performance of mustangs. It seems that many mustngs are only achieving very high 13's to mid 14's.

IMHO Ford have been handing mags some under the table incentives.....................just look at the caranddriver article, where the mustang lost nearly all performance categories yet still won over the gto (because of the "gotta have it factor").

 

Depends on what you compare it to. :D

 

Could it be the next Camaro? Firebird? I like the name GTO and it's history so they should just stick to that while reduceing it's PORK factor by 300 pounds...oh yeah, and making it handle like a proper sports car. Then we are talking....

Chevy really punked out on the Camaro & Firebird...shame on them...

 

I think GM's plan is to keep offering it as the GTO in 2007. Latest rumor I remember hearing is that a Chevy version won't be the Camaro. Who knows though.... Of course if GM wanted to they could be selling a Chevy version here already:

 

What was that? LOL

Yeah, I think they should keep the GTO name....BUT, to compete with Mustang you have to bring back the Camaro because the GTO cost more.

Listen up Chevy, do this:

3350 pounds
2+2 (a la RX8 & GTO "usable" rear seats)
5.7L LS2 V8 325HP (easy to make into 400HP...lol, wink wink)
Price range: $18,000 - 24,000 (to undercut the Mustang by a $1,000)

But, Chevy punked out...and that wont happen...

Meanwhile, the Mustang's numbers still don't add up completely. It's probably making more power than is listed???

 

That was the Lumina SS. Its the Monaro exported to the Middle East as a Chevy. What you suggested would be nice, I'd say they could have two versions of the Chevy. One using the 5.3L V8 making 305HP as a base model, then an SS model using the LS2 @ 405HP just like the GTO.
No one can seem to explain the Mustang numbers.
I think the gearing is really aggressive but I'm not sure. Most of the mag's seem to suggest it'll hang with the GTO, but I've seen stories to suggest that those numbers aren't correct. Who knows.....

 

I thought we had already established that...

 

ok..what ever dude...

FWHP = FLYWHEEL HORSEPOWER<>not FRONT WHEEL..or as you say.."at the crank...everyone knows the Z is RWD, i owned a freaking SMZ....no manufacturer posts hp on the rear wheels...

so YOUR WRONG..smarty pants...i rest my case...next time you put up an arguement...RESEARCH...