Any pics of the 2005 Mustangs?

Home  \  Domestic Cars  \  Any pics of the 2005 Mustangs?

Wow, I'm just opposite. I think the new GTO is a sellout. Just GM's way of cashing in on an old name plate. Just a dressed up Grand Am. The Mustang on the other hand is a modern statement of a timeless design. With every line, bulge, and curve it exudes muscle car. There's no mistaking it for what it is.

posted by  Widowmaker2k

I was womdering if anyone has pics on the new style mutsnags since every1 is talking about it?

GTOs comin back :) [/u]

posted by  KuChA

it was in a car and driver a few months back...forget which month...sorry (it was on the cover and inside too)

posted by  Conc3pt pg



posted by  Widowmaker2k

The GTO I love, but the Mustang...

::cries:: :( :( :( :(

posted by  TM875

The Mustang is okay. I'm glad a really cool exotic looking car is being introduced into the market such that you can get one without being a millionaire, but the GTO looks cheap...

The charger looks great. But Dodge stole the Viper's thunder with that front end. Now the Viper looks wimpy, and they're making the Charger the ultimate muscle car... I guess.

I'm young, and stupid, and pretty much all my life, the Viper has owned the road in my views as being the most graceful muscle car.

Still, the Charger has a great look to it, and the Mustang is good too.

{{Edited for stupid speelig mistakes}}

posted by  Chekr

Just a dressed up Grand Am, eh? Oddly enough the Grand Am is FWD with a 4 or 6 cylinder engine. The GTO is RWD with an aluminum 5.7 liter V8. General Motors sure did alot of dressing up to do that. No, wait a minute. It's not a Grand Am at all, it's a repackaged Holden Monaro from our friends in Australia.

In the future please ensure you are at least close to the facts before hitting submit.

posted by  vwhobo

I'm sorry but it resembles a grocery-getter much more clearly than the mustang does. It is not at all true to it's original name-plate in terms of styling. While calling it a dressed up grand-am is a bit of an overstatement, it holds true in that it is not nearly as performance-oriented as the car it is replacing.

posted by  Widowmaker2k

uncovered, unclassified
too bad it's in B&W
click for a bigger version (
courtesy of

quick photo-chop by someone with color

BTW - i agree with widowmaker, the GTO is a cop-out, it could have been done so much better, it looks like a rebadged Grand Am, it isn't, it came direct from Oz, but it still looks like one (but then again, every new car is starting to look like every other new car, check out the new Ford Australia Falcon ( and compare it to the above pics, gimme the cars of yesteryear, they can keep the new stuff)

and the FWD - RWD has been done:
a 420 HP Focus, click for the biggies 2147385f&size=sm ( 92147385f&size=) 2aff4f7a&size=sm ( d2aff4f7a&size=) 720af33e&size=sm ( a720af33e&size=)

posted by  asa67_stang

I have to agree with Widow also, the engine may the the huge powerhouse that could blow a grand am off the freeway, but if I saw one I would mistake if for a very new grandam/grand prix. The charger looks good but has also seemingly taken something from an already existing product on Dodge's line. The Mustang may or may not have the most powerful engine of the 3 but it seems most along the lines of something new and improved with a retro look. Maybe if Dodge and GM had gone in the same direction. Either way all 3 cars will be something to reckon with, and they are all very clean, new, and improved. Finally car company's have actually gone back to the performance enthusiast's cry for something new, and not a sport compact. These are very nice cars but there are too many of them. Congradulations to all 3 companies.

posted by  Local1984FM

im liking the front iend of the mustang, but im not quite sure about the back of it.

the GTO looks like a a stratus (front end) mixed with a nissan sentra (back end anyways)

and the charger.... i dunno, its not giving me a "charger" feeling

posted by  mazda6man

The Mustang's front and side intake I like,but the rear is not even close to a tad-impressive.I also think that the new GTO is just one of those GMC splashcar designs again.(lol,splashcar,I call such cars as a Camaro,new and such.They remind me of rain drops in cartoons that hit the ground,they just turn into these heavy blobs.)So my conclusion is that the GTO is ugly.This is my opinion.We are aloud to express them aren't we?

posted by  vwmaniac

When it comes to looks the new Mustang wins hands down!! It doesn't looks like any modern car on the road. The GTO looks like a pumped up 1997 Monte Carlo! Heck Ford didn't need to run to their Australian division to revive an American Classic!!!! ;)

Just remember that!

posted by  Mustang79

::puts hands up again:: :rolleyes:

posted by  BavarianWheels

As long as this post has been here I never noticed the spelling. WTF is a "Mutsnag"? 8O :D :rolleyes:

posted by  vwhobo

Happy 1500, vwhobo!!

posted by  BavarianWheels

Holy mutsnag, 1500 posts. Thanks Bav.

posted by  vwhobo

I believe the s and t are transposed, mustnag= significant other ( female )

posted by  lectroid

I think the samething. All they did was take a Grand Am put the Corvette engine in it change the body a little bit and slap on the GTO name. Personaly it makes GTO look bad.

Heres a real GTO 70.jpg

posted by  Car Guy

Please read this post about 12 up. The same goes for you.

posted by  vwhobo

Yes its a aluminum 5.7 liter V8 because they put Corvette's LS1 engine in it.
And ok its Rwd as the Grand Am is Fwd ok so they put a new drive train in it still I bet you there are a lot of parts from the Grand AM and Grand Prix in the new GTO. Pluse I bet you they put other parts from the Corvette in it aswell all just to save money.

posted by  Car Guy

You have to kidding, right? Nobody is really that thickheaded.:banghead:

posted by  vwhobo

CF Asshole says a lot about you

posted by  Car Guy

Oh, that really hurts. Instead of talking about me, why don't you stick to the subject which is... The Grand Am and GTO have essentially nothing in common except the name Pontiac.

posted by  vwhobo

no its simply him telling the facts....and if you actually read the facts you would know how dead wrong you are. almost all the GTO parts are original, not copied from the Corvette or anything. that's why the interior is so unique.

posted by  SuperJew

Dude, what do you think the original GTO was? It was a grocery-getting family car, with a big engine. The original GTO was never meant to be a performance car and even C&D proved that. Infact, C&D hated the car because GM just used the basic Monaro platform. I'm sorry, but vwhobo does know what he's talking about. The GTO was NEVER about performance, but people eventually turned them into performance cars because they had a strong engine.

posted by  Vassar

Same with the Chevelle too.

posted by  Satty101

Damn, I'm sorry I know what I'm talking about too. From reading your few posts so far, I'm gonna say you look like you've done more than read "Import Tuner" magazine to learn about cars.

I do have to correct you on one point. When the GTO first came out it was all about performance. That's exactly why they took a stripper grocery getter and put a monster (for the time) engine in it.

posted by  vwhobo

What was it based off of when they first came out? Le Mans or the Catalina? There might've been something else too.

posted by  Satty101

You know, the main magazines I read are Import Tuner and C&D.

I don't know where I got that the GTO wasn't performance. I might have read something about the Tempest and stuck it with the GTO. The Tempest was the grocery-getter, the GTO was a Tempest with a bigger engine. Damn, I don't know where I got that from.

posted by  Vassar

Technically the Tempest. That'd be a good name for a glam rock band. :clap:

posted by  vwhobo

Hey, shit happens. I'm still looking for some discussion about "Mutsnags".

posted by  vwhobo

Sattyorino, just for you Bub.

posted by  vwhobo

Damn. I thought it started with a "T" :banghead:

posted by  Satty101

the 2005 Mustang isn't for me... I like the GTO though, especially the inside... It looks so comfortable...

posted by  SilverCivicSi98

Ya amen to that one, that picture of the interior of the GTO makes me want one lol, anyways, does anyone know the specs. for all these new cars (even concepts) like - the new mustang, the new GTO, the new Charger, the new Bronco, the Shelby (already in another thread *600 HP v10*), and anyother domestic car well on its way... thnx :thumbs:

posted by  JaBoFordRid3r

Thank you very much hobo! You're the best! :thumbs:

posted by  Satty101

My point was that I don't care for the styling. I was simply stating that I thought it looked more like a Grand Am than a modern muscle car. THAT'S IT! I wasn't saying it was slow or making any other inferences as to performance.
I was stating no facts, and prefaced the statements with "I think." It was an opinion.

posted by  Widowmaker2k

Well guys, all I have to say is that you can't beat a classic. I would take the classic Charger, Mustang and GTO over any of this new stuff. The charger definately takes its stylings from the Viper at the front end, and although I'm a Dodge fan I'm pretty ****ing dissapointed in that. The GTO was a kick ass car back in the day too, but they've butchured it. It is definately the front end of a Grand Prix with the back of the Sentra, which I find really weird because the back end lighting is way too close to Sentra. The Mustang is a beautiful car but I haven't heard anybody mention the fact that the front end is just a reformed classic front end of the 60s and 70s Mustang. Oh, by the way, I've hated the Mustangs from the 80s, 90s and up until the 2005. I haven't cared for the appearance, it's just not right.

Personally, I don't care for sports cars and I would take a Caddy Sedan Deville from back in the day over a sports car, these are nice cars on the outside but I never really went for that whole two tone black and red leather crap.

Anyways, if I had to drive a sports car I would want to have a '69 Charger.

If I could have any luxury car, it would be a '76 New Yorker.

posted by  PatrickS

new mustang - its avg.... i give it a 5 on a scale from 1-10 10 being the highest...

Gto - lol man... i give it a 2.5

charger - thats one hot car.. i give it a 8.5

posted by  Ki2AY

Doin a little bit of back reading are we?

Do you mean the new versions of those cars or any new car at all. Because if its the latter then you are a little lacking on the intelligence side, New cars have so much more technology packed into them that they could out perform your classic muscle cars with relative ease using less cylinders and less displacement.

1970 Chevelle SS
450 hp LS6 454 V8, 0-60: 6.1 seconds
QM in 13.7@103 MPH

2004 WRX STi
300 hp 2.5 liter Flat 4, 0-60 in 4.8 seconds
QM in 13.26@105mph

But if your comparing the Charger, mustang, and GTO to their modern day replacements then I would probably agree with you. Except for the charger. It lookes great and according to will come equipped with one of them new fangled 5.7 liter Hemi's that Dodge is slapping into everything nowdays. So I would probably take the new charger over the old one. Even though I despise V8's (I don't consider it talent for a car company to slap the biggest engine they can fit into a vehicle in order to make it go fast, I prefer when car companys actually use engineering talent to Make a car perform well) I have to give the right V8's respect.

You got that right. I think I would actally like them if I had never seen one in my life. But since i see 20 GT's a day i'm kinda jaded and I find the styling bland and the performance mediocre.

I'm pretty sure thats classifed as a muscle car not a sport car. Sport cars have finesse and subtlty. Muscle cars have aggressive looks, aggressive sounds, Usually handle rather poorly but that doesn't matter because muscle car guys are all about straight-line-plant-your-ass-in-the-seat power.

posted by  Zalight

death by displacement. v8's own. 4 bangers would own if each cylinder was about 6 inces wide. the truth of the matter is you get more potential with more displacement. il give any one a 2.4 I4 and 20 grand to spend. then il pend 20 grand on a v8 big block......we will see who makes more power.....we will see.

posted by  Pac127

Its not about how much power you make, Its about how much you can make work for you, how much you can put to the pavement. As shown in my post above, You have the 7.5 liter 1970 LS6 putting out 450 hp@5600 and 500 tq@3600 and then you have a 2.5 liter 2004 EJ25 putting out 300 hp@6000 and 300 tq@4000. And magically the EJ25 performs better. Thats because the STi makes use out of every little horse it can.

By the way, do the math on that 454 and you'll find out it makes 60.48 BHP per liter. Thats horrible! My CRX makes 58.5 BHPL. Its ungodly slow, and only needs to make 4 more Horsepower to be more powerful then a 7.5 liter V8. The EJ25 makes 120 BHPL. If the 454 made that much, it would be pushing 900 BHP.

So don't try to say your old school V8's are powerful. The only reason they make as much power as they do, is because they pour as much gas as possible into the cylinder.

posted by  Zalight

That's only true to an extent, because you could pit a 2.0L DOHC 16v with (say the 4g63T) against an age old OHV 16v 305 motor and I can almost bet you the smaller more techy motor will make more power (smaller engines CAN flow better than bigger ones).

posted by  thunderbird1100

Looks like you yankies got ripped on the ass-end of the new monaro aswell. we dont usually have body colour on the back, and it curves up more.

Im happy with the new monaro except for the nostrils/new bonnet scoops and the vertical foglights. BTW i thought somebody said that it comes with a 6L engine, the 5.7 is the engine it comes with here.

Here the monaro owns anything else in its class (hehe there arent many in that class anyway), but the reason why is sells here is because of its style.

I have a natural hatred of fords, being australian. but i do think the new mustang licks nuts. looks more like an 80 movies attempt at trying to make pretend future cars.

EDIT: that isnt the 04/05 GTO. I dont think so anyway.

posted by  Bleaaargh

Do you even know the history behind the GTO.... when it was first produced it was a "Grocery Getter" with a huge engine. It was not a sports car. It was a plain jane no thrills go fast in a straight line. not a sports car. AKA "Muscle Car" The mustang was a "Pony Car" Carol Shelby made it a "Muscle Car" With the GT series. Ya know GT350, Gt500, GT500KR. So Ford Cashed in on Carols idea. The BOSS mustang was FORD, as was The Mach1 Mustang. The mustang was a cheap piece of garbage to compete with chevy's corvete. By putting in a 289 cid in a light weight F-Body. then came the pontic firebird and camero to chalenge the cheap mustang. mustang had nothing to do with muscle cars till after the GREAT CAROL SHELBY. and the Dodge Charger was created AFTER the GTO. I Really Love the GTO 1: its stylish, not to flashy, like the original GTO. 2: it kicks BMW's rear for the fact its 20g's cheaper then the M3 series or M5. It was produced to go after the Eropean models NOT ford or Dodge. it was produced for BMW, Mercedz, Volvo, even the low end Ferrais. The Charger is a Sell out. 1: its a FOUR DOOR. a REAL Charger is a 2 door. The GTO is Perfect get in sit down shut up and hang ON!. :fu:

posted by  nsigary

Your Message