Howdy, Stranger!

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





Howdy, Stranger!

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

Have you recently switched from a luxury sedan to a luxury SUV?
A reporter would like to talk to you; please reach out to [email protected] by 7/25 for more details.
Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Pontiac GTO

11112141617136

Comments

  • riezriez Posts: 2,361
    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.
  • 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.
  • b4zb4z Posts: 3,372
    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.
  • 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.
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Posts: 1,277
    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...
  • garnesgarnes Posts: 950
    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.
  • 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.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 25,823
    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.

    '18 BMW 330xi; '67 Coronet R/T; '14 Town&Country Limited; '18 BMW X2. 47-car history and counting!

  • rjs200240rjs200240 Posts: 1,277
    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.
  • 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.
  • ruskiruski Posts: 1,566
    dude, GTO is Monaro. There have been articles in Australian car magazines with Monaro, M5, and E55 tested against each other on Nurenburg track and Monaro was just as good as M5.
  • goody4goody4 Posts: 55
    PBS' Motorweek gave a quick and, really, half-hearted preview of the GTO. No real testing was done. Instead, a ton of comparisons to Australia's Monaro were made. Here's the transcript.

    Check out the picture of the dual exhaust. Yuck!
  • As I posted earlier, the styling is reminiscent of the original 1964 GTO, and I posted pictures of them together. The 2004 looks like the original with 40 years worth of evolution.
  • goody4goody4 Posts: 55
    This GTO certainly doesn't remind me of the '64 version in any way. It looks more like a two-door Cadillac Catera (a design from which the new GTO is based).

    It could stand to lose that cheesy wing, as well. Hopefully, it can be deleted if you order the car.

    I like Road & Track's observation on the interior, saying it's possibly the best GM has to offer.
  • It certainly doesn't resemble the Catera to me in any way.

    The car only uses the Omega platform, the same one shared with the Catera, and numerous other Holdens. Nothing else is carried over.

    It is a large, smoothly styled coupe with Pontiac design cues, just as it should be.
  • http://www.autonews.com has a story tease today about a problem with the name "Judge" between GM and SLP. Need to buy the story or be a subscriber. Wait a couple days and see if it shows op on their sister "free" site, http://www.autoweek.com .
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 20,391
    where somebody who had nothing to do with making the name owns the rights to it. That's what happened to Ford when they sold the name GT-40 and couldn't use it for their new sports car, a virtual replica GT-40.

    Oh well.

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • GM took a short cut on the road to producing a heart-pounding Euro-beater. It takes them nearly forever to develop a new car. Witness the Pontiac Solstice concept which will take at least 5 years to get to production even though the concept was a working model. So they grabbed the Monaro from the Aussies. Smart move in many ways.

    The interior is far superior than the standard GM slop. Though notably the Monaro's... errr... GTO's instruments have some obvious omissions like an oil preasure gage. Handling should be good.

    And to get the ordinary noticed they've dumped a Corvette engine and transmission into the package so you know it'll burn rubber.

    But the problem with the GTO is that it comes from the same GM Design Studio of Monotony. The photos have cleverly used light and angles to make it look tough but, in fact, it's completely uninspired. I try to like it but can't. Its plain Jane looks scream '90s me-too curvyness. It's as exciting as a Camry. Yawn.

    You look at how very small companies with a fraction of the resources of GM can come out with truly inspired designs. But, I guess, that's the point. GM sells to the masses, not a niche, so must dull down all their cars. Recent Cadillacs and the Aztec being exceptions. And in those cases they go nuts the other way just to prove they can.

    I want to buy a domestic. I've got a couple grand worth of points saved up on a GM card giving me a strong incentive. But, sorry guys, my next car likely will be a 350Z. A car if GM tried to design it would take 5 years of development and end up looking like a Cavalier with racing stripes.
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 20,391
    As an old sports car guy, I too bemoan the lack of instrumentation in cars with sporting intentions. I think the dash of a car should look like that of a WWII fighter but sadly nearly everyone skimps on instrumentation now, not just GM.

    My Audi does not have an OP gauge, it has oil temp which is very useful but newer A4s don't even have that.

    I'm hoping when I see the new GTO next week that it will have more presence than in the publicity photos.

    Photos taken by a poster here (at the Woodward Ave. Cruise) show a more interesting look than the official publicity shots I've seen.

    I'll let you know.

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • rjs200240rjs200240 Posts: 1,277
    Ha ha... There's a car with some inspired styling... It is so generic sports car. I just can't see how anyone finds it good looking. It isn't ugly, but it is very generic/plain. Though, the rear is a bit ugly, IMO.

    You do have a point, though. Nissan is definitely not geared to sell to the masses. Nissan and Infiniti combined sell under a million vehicles here in a year. GM probably sells as many W-body cars as Nissan/Infiniti sells everything. Kudos to Nissan for having a small impact on the market. I bet that is part of their overall strategy.

    Since you mentioned Nissan, and also bashed GM for sharing parts between models, how many Nissan/Infiniti vehicles can't be had with the 3.5L V6? I can only think of three: Sentra, M45, and Q45. Soon to be two as the M45 sells about as quickly as the Blackwood (I would bet Aztecs leave the lot in bigger numbers than the M45) and is disappearing.

    Oh, FYI, it is quite possible the oil pressure will be viewable on the DIC. And the 350Z doesn't have an oil pressure gauge either, but at least it does cost a lot more and have less power, room, trunk space, etc.

    If you have some concerns or complaints about the GTO, by all means raise them. But if all you have is idiotic ramblings and GM stereotyping, do me a favor and post it on the 350Z board where people may be more likely to appreciate it.
  • Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If you don't like the Z you don't like the Z.

    I'll tell you one thing. You can spot one in a parking lot. Put the new GTO in a lot surrounded by assorted Pontiacs and other domestic sedans/coupes and it'll likely get lost. Holden's special ops has put together an eye-popping Monaro but it's unlikely to be produced by the makers of mass market blandness at GM's US headquarters. Other than the badges and trademark Pontiac grill, despite the marketing hoopla, GM did little to spice up the looks for the American market.

    BTW, there was no bashing of GM sharing parts. Plus, the 350Z does indeed have an oil pressure gauge. And you must know more about the price of a GTO than I. I heard it's going to be in the $33-35 grand range. While it's possible to buy a Z for a tad more (forgetting the ragtop Roadster), one can be easily had for under $30k. Something that won't happen with the new 'Goat' unless GM is forced to discount it. Unlikely at the low production numbers they're talking. A mere 18,000.

    My intent here isn't to bash. As I said, and you obviously missed, I'd like to buy a GM. I have a GM card with 2-3 grand on it in credits. I'll look at a GTO. It has most the right ingredients except a less than inspired skin. Of course, marketers at GM refer to that as "understated" to turn it into a feature.

    Two seater vs. a 2+2. Big trunk vs. a little trunk (Want a big trunk? Buy a Park Avenue!). Well tuned, relatively efficient 'rice burner' vs. gas guzzling, loud muscle car (the Pontiac web site's sound clip of the GTO is cool). That's a choice I and all potential buyers will have to ponder. In my case, it'd be a 2nd car largely for fun and short trips. So either cars, both impractical in their own ways, will work for me.

    And, forgetting the GTO for a moment, I was excited by the Pontiac Solstice concept car. Finally, GM got it right thanks to Lutz. But it was first shown in 2001, I believe, and will be introduced probably as a 2006 model. Huh? You've got a working model of a car that's straight from the parts bin and it takes 5 years to develop?

    I saw a recent spy photo of the Solstice and the masters of blandness at GM appear to be developing the ragtop version of it into a Miata clone. Nothing against Miatas. But it's already been done. Like years and years ago.

    I keep hoping GM gets it. Lutz talks the talk. I'll keep hoping GM starts walking the walk.
  • rjs200240rjs200240 Posts: 1,277
    Sorry, I took comments like: "Well tuned, relatively efficient 'rice burner' vs. gas guzzling, loud muscle car" to be pretty idiotic and baseless. Because the Z is from Japan, it must be efficient, right? Yet my much larger, heavier, 4-speed automatic, V8 powered Aurora, which also has a substantially larger frontal area, has the same highway EPA rating as this "efficient" [non-permissible content removed]-car. The GTO numbers haven't been announced yet. A Z06 absolutely smokes the 350Z from a mileage standpoint. If anything, the Z's numbers are the ones that need some explaining.

    The GTO starts at $33.5, and tops out barely over that. The 350Z can be had under $30k only if you get a total stripper model. They run up to over $38k. And most of the ones I see around here are in the $34+k range.

    As far as trunk space, 7 cubic feet from a non-convertible is downright pathetic. In fact, some convertibles actually have more trunk space than that.

    If the Solstice comes out as a 2006 model, that means it will be on sale in 2005. Also, it was shown at the 2002 North American International Auto Show, not 2001. So that is 3 years. Not to mention that the car wasn't greenlighted right away, and also not to mention that the Solstice is not a template for GM's development process. It doesn't mean every car takes that long. And also not to mention you have not mentioned the development cycles of other cars. How long do most cars take? GM is slower than everyone in development because you say it is?

    The fact that you have a GM card doesn't make your comments somehow more relevant.
  • obiwanobiwan Posts: 57
    While there's no denying that the 350Z has a much more interesting look, some of us are more interested in performance than looks.

    The near 5 second 0-60 sprint and low 13 second quarter mile jaunt that is predicted is substantially better than latest Z car. And I have no doubts it will get fuel economy numbers similar to the estimated 19/26 MPG of the Z as well. In the second overdrive of 6th gear, I've figured out that I'll be cruising down the higway at nearly 75 MPH turning only 1500 RPMs. Running a big engine slowly doesn't burn much more gas than running a small engine quickly. With the manual gearing and the ability to make power low in the RPM range, the efficency will probably astound you. Want proof? Look at the estimated 19/28 MPG of the standard equipped Vette.

    But the questions that no one has a good answer to:

    What do expensive styling and flashy paint jobs matter when all they're going to see is your tail lights fading towards the horizon? And who cares how pretty your doors are when they're getting blown off?
  • hammen2hammen2 Posts: 1,313
    ...the original GTO was no looker, but a bit "stealth" (a big motor in a plain-jane car). I think that was a design aspiration of the new one...
  • b4zb4z Posts: 3,372
    Can't realistically compare a 2 seater sports car to a 4 seater mid size touring/musclecar car.
  • Time for the insults. So I'm an idiot for suggesting the new 'Goat' may be a gas guzzler. Yet, on Pontiac's own web site there's an interview with Bob Kraut mentioning it may be faced with a gas guzzler tax. People looking at the 'Vette forget that the new GTO significantly outweighs a 'Vette 3616 lbs. to 3214 lbs. Also, efficiency is more than just gas mileage. A Z produces 82 HP/liter vs. at tad more than 61 HP/liter for the GTO.

    But those are just stats. I'll have to drive both to compare the experience.

    Price-wise, it's hard to argue the Z can't be had cheaper. It offers 5 models. 2 are under $30k. A 3rd hovers around $30k. Can you go higher? Sure, the top 2 models are around $34k. The convertable tops off higher. You can pick up a two grand navigation system but I've yet to see one with that option on a lot in my area. The one I'm looking at is around $30k. Toss in my GM credits and it all most washes for ME.

    GM's development process is a problem. I won't argue with you. Read industry interviews. Lutz is claiming the infamous GM bureacracy is now thinned out and efficient. We'll see.

    Oh, and I was going by memory on the Solstice's introduction by memory which I noted by saying "I believe". Again, the critics of GM's slowness in getting it out the door is not me. It got a lot of buzz in the press. And, ironcially, not only did it come out as a drivable concept using parts straight out of the bin. It looked like Lutz had a passion for it so I hoped it would be a priority. I ended up wrong.
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Posts: 11,077
    reminder: the term "rice burner" is not appropriate for Town Hall. Thanks!

    MODERATOR

    Need help navigating? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Share your vehicle reviews

  • rjs200240rjs200240 Posts: 1,277
    Good points. 5 years is a long time for a car to be in development. Apparently when it isn't really 5 years, but actually 3 years, this is still too long because there is "buzz" in the press. Excellent point, how can I argue with that? (In case you didn't know, the Z concept debuted in 1999, and made it to production as a 2003 model, which is exactly the same timeframe as the Solstice. But there wasn't a lot of "buzz" so I guess that was an acceptable timeframe to develop something in.)

    "Also, efficiency is more than just gas mileage. A Z produces 82 HP/liter vs. at tad more than 61 HP/liter for the GTO."

    Another stellar point. America's reckless use of displacement is getting out of control. People act like there is an infinite supply of cubic inches, when it is a very precious thing. I'd hate to be around 50 years from now when the world is nothing but liter mines... all the earth torn up in search of more displacement to stuff in whatever the current American luxobarge of the time is...

    If one small two-seater can get 29 mpg cruising and make 405hp, and another can only get 26 mpg cruising while making 287hp, which is really more efficient? hp/liter? Who gives a crap? Maybe GM should come out with a 50hp .5L engine. That would really wow you and the media.

    It's funny that you yourself mention that fuel economy was a concern when the GTO was being developed. Yet, here you are saying it will be a typical poorly-thought-out American fuel-swiller... If it even has similar economy to the 350Z, that will really be a plus for GM or a minus for Nissan. The cars aren't at all comparable in terms of size or weight, or in terms of power.

    "Time for the insults"? For one, I didn't say you are an idiot, I said those "points" you were making are idiotic. And they are. They are just stereotypical bashing of GM. For another, if you ask me, your post was insulting to the people who read and contribute to this board. Feel free to reply or not. I won't make anymore comments on this.
  • regfootballregfootball Posts: 2,166
    i know why people are getting their shorts in a bunch

    a) the car was not originally designed to be a GTO. That's why it looks like it does, its a monaro

    b) people are damn lucky there is any GTO. thanks to Lutz he plugged pontiac's coupe gap with this rear drive 350hp coupe. which is nicer than any other pontiac by the way. so no complaining about whether it looks like a GOAT or not. be thankful this car is sold in NA.

    c) the z car is a two seater, this is a 2+2. while somewhat comparable, it just doesn't matter.

    everyone ought to shut up and be thankful you have a real 2+2 that's nice to look at and isn't a normal cheesy pontiac or the joke trans am. the fact it came from GM is a godsend.
This discussion has been closed.