Pontiac GTO

andys120 · September 2003

to mess up the looks of the T/A. By '76 or so it was a mess. Again the '70 was by far the best looking and IMO most desireable. Ditto the Camaro and the GTO (I had a '70 Goat convertible).

b4z · September 2003

ezrapon · September 2003

The guys here are what we call motor heads. If you are not one... dont let the door hit you in the tail on your way out. More cubes, fatter tires, and neck snapping acceleration..."tim the tool man; huh huh huh yeah." Oh yeah, when it comes to not being able to take it, I recommend a long look in a mirror. BTW, the red or brewster green SD-455 T/A, the lt1 Z/28, and the 351 Mach 1, 454 vette rag top in 73 were probably the best of the last real muscle cars. 1975 was the real end of the era, cat converters, un leaded, etc etc.

bama60 · September 2003

You need to slow down a little. You're thinking faster than your little fingers can type.

mac struted?
loose your cars?
juvinility?
tolerent?
steet?

b4z · September 2003

I was always a Camaro man. I have owned 5.
The 70 LT1 was a good looking car. Split bumpers and small ducktail spoiler.
'69 was the best looking of all.

But most of the cars were not super fast.

Take a '97 Z28 with 285 hp and a '70 with 360 hp and the '97 will beat it. period.

Not sure about the SD455, but those were '73 and '74 with lower hp. Right?

I had a friend with a '76 trans Am (400 cid)and it couldn't spin the tires without power braking it. probably had a 2.56 gear in it. LOL.

There were just a handful of cars with the high horsepower option from each manufacturer that were really quick. Most of the others were 15 sec cars.

Also the overall gearing on those cars is worse than today. 4 speed cars were running 2.20 first gears. Autos were 2.48s.
Today we are running 2.66 to 2.97s in our manuals and 3.06s in our autos. That is 20-30% more torque multiplication in first gear.
3.45s are common for the rearends today. Back then very few musclecars left the factory with much more than 2.7s or 3.08s.
3.55s and 3.73s would have been special ordered or aftermarket.
The Z28 did have stiffer gears but that small high winding engine needed them.

The new GTO will be quicker than just about any musclecar. And get 2 times the gas mileage.

This is truly the golden age of the automobile.

andys120 · September 2003

there has never been so many cars available with so much power factory stock. Let's enjoy it while we can.

riez · September 2003

andys120... And that brake, steer, or handle as well. Today's cars can run rings around muscle cars of the glory years. They could accelerate quickly in a straight line on a flat track and that was about it. Just compare braking distances and slalom times.

garnes · September 2003

I have to agree with you guys, this a great time for car performance.

I just hope nothing happens to ruin it like the early 70's. I started driving in the early 80's and for a long time all you could do was look back at the 60's for power. Finally things have changed and keep getting better. I hope it lasts.

andys120 · September 2003

I'm afraid gas at $2-3 bucks/gal is what'll kill the current wave of high performance cars. IIRC new Goat buyers will incur a "gas-guzzler penalty" in addition to the purchase price.

ruski · September 2003

maybe the killing will start with SUVs first.

regfootball · September 2003

SHOULD start with SUV's

VW touareg. less cargo room than a passat wagon, but like 1000+ more.

andys120 · September 2003

But I don't think the market for 300+ hp cars will hold up with those kinds of gas prices.

b4z · September 2003

Weight is much more important than high hp.
Corvettes regulary pull down over 28 mpg on the hwy. 350 hp but weigh 3250 lbs.
The SRX V6 is rated at 22-23mpg on the hwy. Not horrible.

andys120 · September 2003

double whammy. I hate to be pessimistic but every golden age has to end and it's usually at the apex of wretched excess and frankly as much as I love fast cars I don't think we really need the generation of 400+ hp cars that's coming down the pike.

riez · September 2003

With apologies to whomever this is based on: What America needs is a really good, inexpensive, 300 HP car for the masses.

b4z · September 2003

Don't you mean 500 & 600HP cars that are coming down the pike!

b4z · September 2003

It has been confirmed that the GTO will have much wider 245/45-17 tires.
This replaces the original spec 225's.

YAY!

b4z · September 2003

Where'd eveybody go? I must have stopped the thread with my last post.
I guess everybody went out and ordered one when they found out it was going to have wider tires.

garnes · September 2003

I like your posts. Great stuff. Thanks for sharing that.

I think this board is starved for the actual car or at least some magazine test of the car. Admittedly, I'm not holding my breath for an objective review - but just about anything would be fun to read.

b4z · September 2003

Hardly any GTO info at all except for Jim Wangers drive in Pontiac Enthusiast magazine.

Production started about 12 days ago.

They will wait until they get a boatload of cars in the holding yard befroe they ship.

It will take 30 days from the time the ship leaves Australia until they are at the dealerships!!

Looks like the end of October.

I am guessing that GM will send some over to be tested by the mags by plane or something.

Autoweek should be the first with a review.

garnes · September 2003

I always thought it would be great for the auto reviewer(s) to disclose just what the heck they have in THEIR garage. From there it's not hard to put 2 and 2 together. Automobile purchases are extremely personal - especially for someone in the business of cars. It's human nature to circle the wagons around the maker or model of what you drive.

Nonetheless, it'll be interesting to read anything about the GTO. More pictures would be cool too.

andys120 · September 2003

the black one here from the Woodward cruise that was posted left me wanting to see more colors.

rcc442 · September 2003

For those who haven't seen it, perhaps you should read this test drive report:
http://www.advanceautoparts.com/howtos_tips/automedia_html/pht/PH- T200307014G/index.html?page=/howtos_tips/automedia_html/pht/PHT20- 0307014G/PHT200307014G.htm

Like some others, the reason I'm interested in this car is because it's from GM, it's V8, RWD, and a 2-door. (My '96 Impala SS isn't sporty enough for me because its a sedan, instead of a coupe.) And like still others, I also believe it was prudent of GM to stick with tried and true technology (engine and tranny). I was upset the price came in over $30k, but I think GM knows what it's doing... they purposely took the V8, RWD cars away from us, and now they're testing to see just how much we'll pay for one. And of course, to keep the price up, they are limiting production. (As b4z pointed out, you could option a Camaro over $30k, and the plastic inside was junk, so $33k doesn't sound that bad anymore, especially since this is "fully-equipped" for $33k... although not a convertible.) Just a shame it isn't being produced in the US. I'll bet the shipping back and forth (engines to Australia, and cars back) adds quite a bit to the price.

But the good news is that we'll finally have a decent V8 RWD coupe model from GM again!

trishield · September 2003

andys120 · September 2003

Black certainly does nice things for the look of the new GTO. I thought the interior looked impressive, especially for a GM, it looks better inside than a CTS, IMO.

Did you notice that the silver '64 is the rare B-pillared coupe, rather than the more popular HT?
The street racing crowd liked the 3-poster because it was the lightest body style but everyone else got HTs or convertibles.

b4z · September 2003

faux pas?

"I can't wait for this car to hit the stealerships"

LOL.

Thanks for the pics. Especially #7 and #8.

trishield · September 2003

A shot at the dealers who plan on gouging for this car, shop around guys!

rcc442 · September 2003

For those of you who have placed orders, what kind of pricing were you able to get?

Results of my "stealership" visits:

1. Dealer has been allocated 18, has ordered 13, and of those, 5 have deposits on them. Dealer is charging a flat $5000 above MSRP.

2. Dealer has been allocated 8, has ordered all 8, and of those, 3 have deposits on them. Dealer "expects" to charge between $1000 and $2000 above MSRP. But when I balked at the colors they chose, the said I could order one the way I want, at because it would be entered into the system as a "sold order" it might come in before most of those they have already ordered for "stock" and have deposits on. Dealer may lso throw in a few goodies for the first few orders, such as a leather jacket from the GTO catalog.

3. Dealer has been allocated 6. Salesman said dealer has policy to never sell above MSRP; when the Hummers were really hot, they stuck to this policy and salesman expects them to do so with GTOs also.

So, this is good news... first, as usual, you save by shopping around and talking. Second, the dealers don't appear to be making the same mistake the Ford dealers did with the 2002 Thunderbird (up to $12,000 above MSRP for the first few sold!). I wonder if GM asked dealers to exercise some constraint.

goody4 · September 2003

Man, what a crock the ending of that article is! Nothing within $20,000 will match the performance of this GTO?

Well, let's see, I bet we can come up with some contenders within $20,000:

How about the most obvious, a Ford Mustang Cobra, roughly 2k more than the GTO, if the GTO is 33k. Plus, 390 SC'd HP for the Cobra.

Audi S4, a 340 HP NA V8 that adds AWD, 6 spd, 46k
BMW M3, an I6 making 333 HP NA, 6 spd, 46k
Mercedes C32 AMG, a SC V6 349 HP, "crappy" 5 spd auto, 51k

Some "lesser" cars include:

Subaru WRX STI
Mitsubishi Lancer Evo VII

Or, how about a Ford Mustang Mach 1, at 29k, but "only" a 5spd, and 310 HP NA.

A Corvette would run circles around the GTO, but gets extremely close to--and likely over--that $20,000 threshold the advanceauto article mentions.

These cars will certainly match, if not beat, the GTO, in any performance category, all well within the $20,000 limit. The two Japanese makes will actually do it cheaper: 31k for the WRX STI, 29k for the Mitsu. And, don't sweat the four doors. The '04 GTO started out as a sedan in the US and Europe.

The author didn't mention this car is based on an already-failed U.S. model, the Cadillac Catera, which was the inspiration for the Australian-made Holden Monaro.

The article also claims the GTO enthusiast said he'd get a low 5 second 0-60 time, and still run the 1/4 in the 12s. You'd need a SUB-5 second time to 60 mph in order to pull off a high-12 quarter-mile.

The GTO comes into an-already crowded market segment; you can lump a lot of the performance machines together. There are plenty of fast, fun, great handling, (some even "safe"), vehicles available.

GM has its work cut out for it with the GTO. Chairman Bob Lutz has always been a closet European-performance fan. In fact, he's worked for BMW. I wouldn't mind seeing more practical, medium to high HP, RWD cars with tight handling from GM.

qbrozen · September 2003

"You'd need a SUB-5 second time to 60 mph in order to pull off a high-12 quarter-mile."

sorry, but that's just unfounded. There are plenty of cars that are slow out of the gate but take off like a rocket in the higher gears. Its a very European type of acceleration. The autobahn cares more about high-speed than low-down torque. I happen to drive a car like that. It is a full second slower than a WRX to 60, but catches up to it by the time the 1/4 mile ticks by.

obiwan · September 2003

Audi S4, a 340 HP NA V8 that adds AWD, 6 spd, 46k
BMW M3, an I6 making 333 HP NA, 6 spd, 46k
Mercedes C32 AMG, a SC V6 349 HP, "crappy" 5 spd auto, 51k

All of them are MORE than $20K over the $33K stikcker of the GTO.

The only vehicle that has similar performance to the GTO in it's price range will be the Cobra. The Mach 1 won't be able to keep up.

riez · September 2003

Unless and until the car is actually tested in full production American guise, we have no idea what the GTO will be able to do.

Mercury hyped up the Marauder. It failed to do what people said it was going to do. Nissan hyped the Q45. It's numbers don't seem to match what was promised.

Hope GM/Pontiac under promises and over delivers!

qbrozen · September 2003

uh... actually, $33K plus $20K equals $53K. So if those prices listed are correct, then they are within $20K.

goody4 · September 2003

...0-60 time where the car ends up in the high 12s at the end of the quarter-mile. I just want to see one, or give me any publication's year and month where that happened, and I'll look it up. From what I've read, mid-second 5 cars usually end with mid-14s in the quarter.

Here's pricing directly from Edmunds. ALL of these cars at least have a base price thousands of dollars under the $20k mark set by the advanceauto article.

Audi S4: $46,340

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2004/audi/s4/100311876/prices.html?tid- =edmunds.n.mipmake.pricetable.num2.1.audi*

BMW M3: $47,195 (loaded, Edmunds has close to $50k)

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2004/bmw/m3/100349157/prices.html?tid=- edmunds.n.mipmake.pricetable.num2.1.bmw*

Mercedes C32: $51,400 (loaded $56,000)

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2004/mercedesbenz/c32amg/100342518/pri- ces.html?tid=edmunds.n.mipmake.pricetable.num1.1.mercedesbenz*

Looks like the only one over the $20,000 parameter is a loaded C32.

Or, maybe the batteries in my calculator are getting weak, and spitting out erroneous results.

Go to each of these links and see what your calculator comes up with.

qbrozen · September 2003

Why does the past dictate the future? I won't look for one because it doesn't matter. This is a different car with its own properties. There are so many factors that go into determining how fast a car can be that its just not as easy as stating "it can't have a strong top end because its got such a weak low end."

i'm not saying this car CAN pull of these numbers because, I agree, it would be out of the ordinary. But just because something may not have been done before doesn't mean it can't be done at all.

b4z · September 2003

Lets be careful here. The GTO wasn't the fastest musclecar, or biggest bang for the buck car in the'60s and it won't be now.
It's a midsize car with excellent performance.
it is a much larger car with more room than a Mustang therefore a comparison is not really valid.

obiwan · September 2003

Maybe I should check my math.

A degree in math and I can't do simple arithmetic...

garnes · September 2003

Come on guys - so the stupid article said within 20k. It's a stupid statement even if true. 20k is huge money. Who really cares if something for 17,500 more(number out of the air < 20k - please no issue with it) "beats" it to whatever in some magazine test. It's sad to have your automotive ego so tied to the magazine numbers anyway. Better buy them all and keep the one that has the best times so you will feel the best.

As for the pocket rockets referenced - give us a break. These things perform well if launched just right from a dead stop - at least the ones given to the magazines do - the earliest "first drive" ones. And then they often give back a huge amount of acceleration from any kind of a roll. If you want a "cheap" car with magazine number bragging rights, by all means, go for it. They certainly are very quick. But in the real world they will likely be beat by a GTO.

trishield · September 2003

The GTO will be a 5.5-5.7 sec to 60, and 13.8 - 14.4 quarter mile car with the size, weight and gearing.

That's the kind of performance Pontiac is officially promising from the car, and that is likely what it will deliver.

If it holds up, that will be a big improvement on the Monaro (6.6 to 60 with 302HP), and comparable to the GTO's main competition which is the Nissan 350Z, Infiniti G35, Mazda RX8, BMW 3-Series, Chrysler Crossfire and other sporty cars of that ilk. Those are the cars Pontiac is putting the GTO directly against. Don't take Jim Wanger's personal opinions/statements as Pontiacs, or as gospel. They're his alone.

If you really want a good idea of what the car will be like, read the AutoSpeed (car mag from down under) review of the Monaro I posted earlier.

http://www.autospeed.com.au/A_1381/cms/article.html

sirharper · September 2003

Since when was an AMG-tuned automatic considered "crappy"?

If manual-clutched transmissions were better in high end applications where are they in F1, NHRA, or even Ferrari?

riez · September 2003

Guys, unless you can accurately see the future, can't ya wait till the test numbers are actually published? There isn't a one of you that has any true knowledge of what an actual production American-spec GTO will do. We are all waiting. So why make up all the numbers? Heck, not sure anyone here is absolutely certain as to the size, make or model tires it will even use.

goody4 · September 2003

The automatic transmission comment was mine. The quotes around it were meant to show I was being facetious. Honestly, I don't care which tranny one chooses.

The pocket rockets will only perform well if launched "just right"? No car will perform well unless it's launched properly. Why would you think it's only difficult to take-off with AWD?

And we're not just talking about dumb 0-60 times or the 1/4 mile, but the overall PERFORMANCE of the car. This includes how fast it can go around corners. The Subura and Mitsubishi do this extremely well (and, inexpensively), so I say they're comparable to the GTO, aka, Monaro. BTW, the autospeed article linked above says 0-60 in the mid-7s. Yikes! If that stays true for the U.S. version GTO, we can start bringing in the Accord coupe, Camry Solara, Monte Carlo, Mazda RX8, Chrysler Sebring, and others for comparison.

Who beats who? No of us know, but it sure is fun to speculate, isn't it? That's one of the purposes of this discussion, like it or not.

b4z · September 2003

I predict that both 6 speed and the auto will do the quarter mile in under 14 secs.
Which by the way is quicker than just about any
'64-72 GTO.

Also I think a lot of people here have extensive experience with LS1 Camaro/Firebirds.
In out minds we are thinking, the camaro weighed 3500lbs and the GTO weighs 3700 lbs, so the GTO
will be____________slower than the Camaro.

I think the 2 will be almost identical.Torque rules. The hp numbers will be very cloe but there
will be more torque and it will happen lower in the rev range.
This is what will make the GTO come off the line well.
It will not be a slow car period.

trishield · September 2003

With 302 bhp at 5200 rpm and 339 lb.-ft. of torque at 4400 revs, the Holden Monaro goes to 60 in 6.6 seconds and through the quarter in 14.7 sec. at 99 mph.

Now consider the GTO's increased power (350bhp) and torque (365lb.-ft.), it seems Pontiac will likely hit the numbers they are shooting for.

rjs200240 · September 2003

Goody4: "The pocket rockets will only perform well if launched "just right"? No car will perform well unless it's launched properly. Why would you think it's only difficult to take-off with AWD?"

I think what he was alluding to was the 0-60 times vs. times like the 5-60 times (a rolling start). Many of these pocket-rockets have 5-60 times that are a full second or more worse than their 0-60 times. I think this illustrates just how much they depend on the perfect launch. The car has less to accelerate, yet takes substantially longer to do so. One ought to expect the 5-60 time to actually be lower than the 0-60 time... A car that takes substantially longer would indicate to me a poor powerband. In everyday driving, they won't pull all that hard.

While a perfect launch will be beneficial for any car, not all cars are as dependent on it for decent acceleration. I doubt the 5-60 time for a GTO will be very much higher than the 0-60 time for it.

As for the previous comment about 5 sec 0-60's and 12 sec 1/4 mile times, just look back about 30-40 years in the magazines. Take a car like a 427'd Corvette. It would run 5-6 second 0-60's because of the terrible traction, but then high 12's in the 1/4 with incredibly high trap speeds. While it would be unusual for a new car to do this, it isn't impossible. I suspect the CTS-V will have good 0-60 times, but probably much more impressive 1/4 mile times because of the 245 rubber on the launch wheels.

I can't wait to see both the V-series and the GTO at my local dealership... ...drool...

garnes · September 2003

rjs - thank you.

I just have to add this - especially for the pocket rocket devotees. Why is it that cars like the WRX constantly quote 0 to 60 times as measured by the likes of C&D? Of course that's always in the bottom of the add too. Why wouldn't the MFG of a purely performance car like that make their own track measurements and advertise those? I'm sure they do test the cars a lot. So why do they often defer to C&D or MT or whoever for their advertising performance numbers? Perhaps it's because you can't be held responsible for citing what somebody else measured from a car that you (ahem) gave them for testing. I'll admit it's pretty widespread, but I'll still recommend you keep the magazine article track test numbers for your pocket rocket. You can hold it up for the guy in the GTO to see when you catch up at the next light.

goody4 · September 2003

In magazines (and, apparently on this board), performance is all about 0-60 and 1/4 mile times.

If a quick car that handles like a chuck wagon is someone's dream auto, there's plenty of those out there.

I guess you could take comfort in the fact that at least you were quicker when you both first started, but then the bends in the road slowed one of you down a bit.

GM's brochure for the GTO says the car will get to 60 in the "mid-fives", nothing more specific.

Does this mean the manufacturer hasn't had time to get a more specific number? Does it mean Chevrolet is too embarrassed to publish an actual number? Doubtful, since they also don't say how fast the Corvette makes the sprint to 60 mph.

Oddly, Subaru doesn't say how fast its pocket rocket is, either.

Do you know why Chevrolet and other companies don't quote 0-60 or 1/4-mile stats? Because they realize a car's PERFORMANCE is measured long after 1320 feet.

qbrozen · September 2003

I'm willing to bet they give those numbers in an ad because its an independent 3rd party measurement. It is perceived as having more validity than the manufacturer testing their own car.

Chevy does claim 0-60 stats on its website for the Vette. On the Z06 page, "Its 405-horsepower engine will propel it to 60 mph in under four seconds". So while its not specific, it still shows that they put emphasis on its acceleration. And there is nothing wrong with that. You have to give the general buying public the information it wants. If 0-60 bragging rights are the most important aspect to someone, then give them that info and get the sale.

rjs200240 · September 2003

So, now your point is not that it will be slow in straight-line acceleration, but instead that it will be fast but handle like crap? What makes you think it won't have competent underpinnings? They didn't go with the styling of the original GTO, I doubt they'll go with the handling of it...

Also, how well does a street-car need to handle? In my opinion it needs to handle well enough that the driver enjoys it. But to have ultimate handling in a car that will be driven on the road really isn't necessary, and usually comes at the expense of comfort.

But mainly, why do you think it won't handle well? When you talk about being faster down the road, this isn't only about gripping well or having a highly tuned suspension. Having the power to accelerate coming out of the turn, and getting to the turn first, certainly go a long way towards being faster around a track or down a road... But again, who says it won't handle well?

To me, the S2000 is a perfect example. It has great handling but suck power. So, on the track it still gets owned by just about any other car because they can smoke it in the straights. And on the street, ultimate handling just can't be explored. So you have a car that a magazine says can handle well, and which makes zero power until about 8 grand. So in everyday driving it's like driving a rough-riding Civic with no trunk and less torque (if you can imagine less torque than a Civic) that cost you $30+k... Why buy a car that is great in the <1% of driving you do but sucks a big one the other 99+% of the time? I don't quite get that... At least the top comes down, though. So if the GTO doesn't follow this formula, I won't be too upset.

Oh, I bet they said "mid 5's" because the final tune of the powertrain was still being worked out. But no matter the final tune, it will certainly hit 60 in the mid 5's. That'd be my guess.

goody4 · September 2003

I'll bet the GTO will handle very well. Likely having traits from both the Corvette and Cadillac CTS. But, that aspect of the car was hardly mentioned on this board.

I don't recall ever writing the GTO would handle badly. The incessant babbling about 0-60 guesses was maddening. There's more to a car's performance than dumb acceleration times. THAT I have said previously.

Certainly agree that drivers of the S2000, WRX STi, and Evo VII have sore left legs after a day of spirited driving with constant up and down speeds.

Pontiac GTO

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles