Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

2008 Pontiac G8



  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,993
    Well dad said run premium every 10 fill ups to flush the injectors out. My uncle runs 89 mid grade in his pick-ups that require 87. He says he's able to gain about 1 mpg extra. GM's engines you are correct won't gain much power if it's set up to run on regular 87' octane. I however always ran premium in my 02' Cadillac Seville STS and it was fine to run on 87' octane.

  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    Yeah when I'm doing towing in my Armada I throw in a tank or 2 of 93. More important than the octane is where you get it. High volume, newer stations you are going to get better fuel than lower volume older stations.

  • Hmm, well interestingly unless your car is tuned for higher octane, you actually get WORSE performance from a higher octane fuel. The higher the octane the less actual power you get from each explosion.

    Got to disagree on that one.
    I ran the car on the lower grade, 91 here, which is what the car is supposedly tuned for 4 about 3 years.
    Then I started using 95.
    2 tanks through the car and the increase in power and economy are terrific.
    Have been using the 95 for about 2 years now and the car has never been better.
    It runs so much smoother and has heaps of grunt on tap.
    I'll never go back to 91.

    Here is a nice little review with pics
    on the VE HSV Clubsports.
    I just want one! lol.
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    In your case, your ECU must be tuned to run on the 95 then, or learned to run on the 95. Similarly, here in the states the Armada is the same truck as the QX56 except the QX56 requires Premium and the Armada only requires 87, a msg board did a test and dynoed both vehicles then reset the ECUs and ran 1000 miles of the opposite fuel in them. After that they re-dynoed them and the Armada had the HP/Torque curves of the QX56 and visa versa. The Q get's about 10hp and 10lbs torque more than the Armada.

  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,993
    Yeah I agree.....I try to also buy top tier-1 fuel from places like Shell and Phillips.

  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,993
    Kirstie, can you change this title to Pontiac G8. I saw you shut that other fellows G8 forum down but his title now is officially accurate. ;)


  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,993
    Thanx Kirstie :)

  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    Whoever started that post with "formerly rumored G8" in the title got slapped in the face.
    I love this new G-8. It's no Charger, but It will be great competition(finally!).
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    Yeah the 300c and Charger are nice, however no MT available killed it for me. That's why I went over to the GTO camp and probably get a 2nd year G8 after they work out the bugs, like they did in the first year GTO.

  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,993
    Whoever started that post with "formerly rumored G8" in the title got slapped in the face.

    I did and I asked Kirstie to change it for me to the G8 name because the articles I read when I started this forum was GM, was thinking about keep the Grand Prix name instead of naming it G8. However they instead went back to the G8 name and let the Grand Prix name die. :P

  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 2,935
    First, by raising the issue ( for me ) of the apparent near 4,000 pound weight of the G8 V8, I mean no disrespect to GM \ Pontiac , nor do I mean to ignore or “gloss over” the fact that they will be bringing to market something with features & specifications that many, many here & elsewhere have been asking for – for quite a long time:

    For example:
    6-Speed Manual trans. available

    I think that this G8 marks quite an important product and an important time for Pontiac & for GM. I find it hard to judge the aesthetics without seeing one in person, but I am encouraged by what I have seen & read so far.

    ( I expect that the show car will be here in Atlanta for this year’s auto show, March 10 – 18, so I may have an opportunity then. Though of course it is likely to be stuck up on a turntable with a ‘spokesmodel’ – sigh. )

    If I was going to seriously consider buying one early next year ( I’m not ), I’d prefer the HUD. I have had it in 2 Grand Prix-s and now in my Corvette. I would also prefer a lighter curb weight. But neither may end up being a ‘deal-breaker’, come decision time.

    OTOH: With the gearing quoted, I expect that a MN6 version of the V8 maybe capable of mid-13s. And the 6L80 \ manumatic, with a somewhat more aggressive final drive than is in my A6 Corvette, might also manage something close to that – maybe high 13s. Reasonably quick, for a 4DR sedan of this size expected to carry an MSRP in the mid-30s.

    ( 2.92:1 final drive vs 2.56:1 in the Corvette A6 = approx. 14% more ‘dig’ \ mechanical advantage – against approx. 21% more weight for the G8. )

    If I do seriously consider one, it will likely be a 2009 or a 2010 – and at least 2 years from now. ) Did I hear from Bob L. say in some interview that the G8 will be sold here starting just after the beginning of 2008 – as a 2009? ) Anyway, we’ll se what changes that second Model Year brings. And where it is assembled. Etc.

    Point here is that while I generally agree with several criticisms here leveled at the specifications released so far – I hope that they are not taken to mean that I don’t respect the fact that GM \ Pontiac is bringing this car to market in NA. I am optimistic. The fact that they are bringing to market what looks like a worthy competitor to various other RWD V8 sedans – well, I see as a very positive step.

    I look forward to seeing one up close.

    And eventually driving one.

    - Ray
    Not in the market today, but a card carrying CCBA . . .
    2016 BMW 340i
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    big "duh" here:
    Lutz on chasing BMW.

    He says they benchmarked BMW on the structure and tuning, and Audi on the interior.

    Based on my experience with both of those brands, I would have done precisely the same. This is all hopefull.

    Problem with GM recently though, IMO, is that while they have produced some appealing cars that certainly update their image as being real contenders, most have been also-rans in their classes and not the TKOs I think they need to take back share (G6 leaps to mind immediately). They have produced some things that are "as good as" the competition, or there abouts, and seem to want to trade on price.

    My thought is that, for at least a stretch of five years or so, they have to produce clear class winners consistently, and trade on price as well, in order to really reverse the tide.

    And what's with these long stretches (IMO) to market? A car based on existing architecture with major parts-bin applications and yet we won't see it until early next year? With a Camaro that won't arrive until, what, a year after that? Late August. That's what it ought to be, late August says I... :blush:

    Remember 90's Chrysler before DCX, and their 24-month concept to showroom successes?

    C'mon General, you're getting so close!
  • 14871487 Posts: 2,407
    Camaro cant be built until the factory is retooled for Zeta production. They have to phase out products in Oshawa like the Monte Carlo and Grand Prix before they can prepare it for Camaro. Obviously they need the G8 here before they can phase out the GP completely and I've heard the GP will go out of production in December. By late 2008 the Camaro's production will begin.

    I assume the G8 cant be sold her sooner do to crash and emissions certifications and other regulatory stuff.
  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,993

    Sounds to me you need a 502 hp G8 GXP after the
    HSV-grin :blush: That will be available probably in 2009' ;)

  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    "I assume the G8 can't be sold here sooner do to crash and emissions certifications and other regulatory stuff..."

    I'm assuming that's a great part of the equation, but I also think there is a corporate process adding some man-hours here. ;)
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "I'm assuming that's a great part of the equation, but I also think there is a corporate process adding some man-hours here."

    Actually, I'm assuming that's only a small part of the equation (just how different emmissions-wise is the 6.0l V8 compared to the LS2 in the old GTO?). Personally, I think the internal corporate BS process is at fault here more than anything else.

    GM just CAN'T get new product to the market efficiently enough.
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    Well, I was being nice... :P
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    Well the LS2 in the old GTO is different in that it doesn't have the MDS also each car has to be tested for safety and emissions regardless of if the engine is in a different car IIRC, especially if it has different HP and what not.

    Also they haven't finalized the body panels yet I think. They are going to still be refining it through the summer.

  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "Well, I was being nice..."

    Was today YOUR turn to be the 'good cop'? ;)
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "...also each car has to be tested for safety and emissions regardless of if the engine is in a different car IIRC, especially if it has different HP and what not."

    Yes. They must be TESTED. But it's not like the new engine is a clean sheet of paper design. If anything, I'd imagine the MDS system would make emissions testing easier. The point isn't whether the new engine/vehicle must be tested but how LONG such testing/certification must take?

    Particularly when other manufacturer's seem to get through the same process quicker with designs which ARE all new.....
  • subearusubearu Posts: 3,613
    anxious to see the non "show" version, should still be a good looker and quite the 4DSC with the GT's V8. Can't wait to take it for a drive.

  • rmozolrmozol Posts: 124
    Did I miss anywhere if the rear seats will fold down like in the current GP GXP? That was a deal-maker for me!
  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 2,935
    The official GM release does not state anything about fold down rear seats.

    And the stated "Cargo Volume" lists only a single number ( 17.5 cu ft ) where typically it would list 2 numbers if the seat(s) folded....

    So - I believe it is unlikely, but not impossible...
    - Ray
    No rear seats in current 'ride' to fold up or down...
    2016 BMW 340i
  • No, the rear seats don't fold down.
    I think it has something to do with the positioning of the fuel tank.
    Someone asked ages ago if it will have AWD.
    No, the position of the steering rack is to far forward of the motor.
    As for passing crash tests,
    Yes, the car has a 5 star rating.
    This car is as solid as rock.
    I wish I could show you the DVD I have on the development and testing of the chassis and body.
    It impressed the hell out of me :)
  • Yes Paisan,
    The cars ECU does sense the higher octane and adjusts for it.
    I have not heard of a car down here that doesn't.
    Except maybe some carburetted old hack.
    Even my old 1985 VK Commodore with a 3.3 litre straight 6 that had Bosch Jetronic fuel injection fitted was able to,"learn".
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    The previous version of the commodore/monaro was available in AWD though right? Shame it isn't anymore :(

  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,993

    Who knows maybe they can figure something out. I'm hoping they will bring the Holden Statesman over and build it here as the Pontiac G10/Bonneville ;) Holdenguy, doesn't the Statesman have AWD as a option ????

  • Sorry mate, no AWD Monaro.
    They made some Commodore wagons and Utes AWD.
    They were called Avalanche(wagon) and Cross 8 (Ute).
  • Sorry Rockylee, No AWD Statey. Just keep dreaming about your HSV mate.
    I've seen a few getting around lately.
    A guy at work who's buddy has one has done a zero to 60 mph time of 4.65.
    Now that's not to bad :)
This discussion has been closed.