Pontiac GTO

ruski · September 2003

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.

goody4 · October 2003

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!

trishield · October 2003

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.

trishield · October 2003

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=9&article_- id=869&page_number=1

goody4 · October 2003

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.

trishield · October 2003

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.

montanafan · October 2003

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 .

andys120 · October 2003

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.

earlfargis · October 2003

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.

andys120 · October 2003

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.

rjs200240 · October 2003

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.

earlfargis · October 2003

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.

rjs200240 · October 2003

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.

obiwan · October 2003

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?

hammen2 · October 2003

...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...

b4z · October 2003

Can't realistically compare a 2 seater sports car to a 4 seater mid size touring/musclecar car.

earlfargis · October 2003

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_H · October 2003

reminder: the term "rice burner" is not appropriate for Town Hall. Thanks!

rjs200240 · October 2003

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.

regfootball · October 2003

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.

b4z · October 2003

The GTO can seat 4 real adults. Not 2 adults and 2 8 year olds.

trishield · October 2003

http://www.autoweek.com/search/search_display.mv?port_code=autowe- ek&cat_code=reviews&content_code=09661586&Search_Type- =STD&Search_ID=1651998&record=9

tdubz · October 2003

does anyone else think the gto looks just like a grand am or grand prix?(i forget which one is the 2 door) while the interior is nice, i would have expected gm to make a more stunning exterior for a car that wears the gto name. performance wise its pretty good for a car that is as heavy as it is. i believe the weight of the gto is like 3700 lbs and if i remember correctly it goes 0 to 60 in like 5.7

ruski · October 2003

here we go. Another Japanese car fan starts talking about HP/L when cornered.

What is so friggin special about HP/L if the total output is less?

b4z · October 2003

One of the advantages of a larger displacement, and lower HP/L is often excellent highway mileage. Sometimes bettering the 2 and 3L engines.

Kirstie_H · October 2003

Several off-topic posts have been removed. Carry on!

andys120 · October 2003

Actually, I'm pleasantly surprised. The grillework seems to be more in proportion to the rest of the car than in other photos and sketches
I've seen and AUTOWEEK's comments about how favorably it compares to the older cars are certainly germane.

I'd like to see styling a little less bland but let's recall that this car was rushed to market. I have no doubt that a more agressive look is in the offing, wait a year and hope they don't go overboard with spoilers, wings and add-ons.

rjs200240 · October 2003

Looks like I missed the excitement...

However, that article you posted up was very interesting. Thanks!

qbrozen · October 2003

You posted them! Can you ban yourself? You'd probably like to after dealing with those kids.

qbrozen · October 2003

in any case, I'm glad maybe this will be a bit more civilized of a discussion. So thanks for that.

By the way, I do agree that the styling is too close to standard pontiacs already on the road. The Monaro, in comparison, is much better looking. I don't know why they felt the need to change it.

trishield · October 2003

I highly doubt the styling of the car will change much at all until it's redesigned in a few years.

andys120 · October 2003

not a total restyle, trim changes, wider fenders, sexier tail pipes, things like that.

regfootball · October 2003

"So to all of you looking to the resurrected GTO as the second coming of a sacred old nameplate, too bad"

"This aint your daddys GTO, and no, it doesnt have a hood scoop, not even of the sticker variety with which Pontiac jokingly threatened us. Youre better off picking up any one of a thousand 30-year-old models still spewing fumes around the back roads of this great nation and being done with it."

I gotta admit, I thought that if I got a coupe anytime soon the G35 or RX8 would be it, but I could easily add the GTO to that group. I would likely go with the GTO. Too bad I ain't got the money.

"Pontiac aims to market the car to young, affluent males who dont necessarily patronize the brand and have no preconceived notions about GTO."

I like that.

"It doesnt feel like any other car in the Generals North American lineup, not even the Corvette with which it shares a powertrain. Steering feel is fantastic"

sweet.

qbrozen · October 2003

new Car and Driver and MotorTrend just arrived. Both have the GTO on the cover and test drive info.

only read C&D's so far. VERY positive review. They say it is a new level of fit, finish, and build quality from GM.

white6 · October 2003

I found this on Motor Trend's website:

Motor Trend Television
The November episode of Motor Trend Television premiers Saturday, November 1, and features the Sport / Utility of the Year as well as the new Pontiac GTO....

Saturday, November 1 at 7:30 p.m. Eastern time on SpeedChannel

Kirstie_H · October 2003

Sorry all... one of the banned members seems to think he's clever and registered under kirstie_h_host. If it's really me, you'll see the HOST in red letters.

qbrozen · October 2003

was wondering about the lack of red letters. interesting.

OK. I screwed up in my previous post, it was actually MotorTrend I read first and gave the glowing review of the GTO. I just read C&Ds now and it wasn't quite as glowing, but they seemed to like it. But they did comment that fit and finish was a low point. So here we have 2 VERY different comments on the build quality of the car.

Both got 0-60 in 5.3. C&D says 1/4 mile in 14 flat and MotorTrend says 13.8 (giving that one by memory, but I think that's right). So very very close from 2 sources. Wish I could remember MotorTrend's skidpad, but C&D is .88, so not bad at all even with the stock tires.

Something I didn't realize before, though, is that there are no options available other than transmission choice ($695 for the 6-speed). $33K or $33,695 is it. Maybe I'm being too picky, but I'm kind of disappointed. The way they were making it sound, I thought this was going to be a more luxurious muscle car. But the only luxuries are leather and a power seat. No sunroof, no Nav, no auto climate control, etc. Just seems to me like they are falling in between here. Not enough to appeal to the luxury sporty european buyers and too much for the power-hungry gearheads. Am I wrong?

andys120 · October 2003

Perhaps they'll beef up the option list as they go along but I think they're trying to keep the MSRP as low as possible at intro.

Personally I don't think MT would have any idea of what a good car is or how it's screwed together.

qbrozen · October 2003

I think if their goal was a low price, they could have used cloth instead of leather, manual instead of power seat, and a single CD instead of an in-dash 6-disc. Then they could have come to market with a $29,995 or $30,995 pricetag.

ouch on the MT comment. I actually always liked them the best, but I know that's not a common opinion. I think some folks just take those kind of publications too seriously. But to each his own.

goody4 · October 2003

Odd that no stability control is offered or more airbags. The look of the dual exhaust is a disappointment.

But, I suppose the twin pipes set to one side of the car may have others thinking the car is just an ordinary Pontiac. And when the thing launches like a scalded cat, watch the mouths drop.

regfootball · October 2003

sunroof is a major omission. takes the car off my list, but i ain't got the money anyways so who cares.

white6 · November 2003

is available (I think it's standard equipment, as a matter of fact) on the Holden Monaro... seems it would cost more to develop a non-climate control system than to just equip it like it's Monaro brother. If not, I guess this is just a bit of de-contenting. Can't imagine it saves much money, since the system is already being produced! I also read that the car Motor Trend tested was "fixed" so that the traction-control could NOT be disabled and that it really hindered 0-60 mph times in the hands of an experienced test driver. Any tire slip resulted in MAJOR reduction of power. I'll be curious to see a REAL test by GM High Tech or Pontiac mags... those guys know how to run a quarter-mile! I know that most of the "high-end" rags ran high 13's in the f-bodies and one of the smaller mags got a stock 02 Z-28 into the 12's!

rjs200240 · November 2003

Good point White6. Usually the rags like C&D, R&T, and MT have times that just about anyone can improve upon. For one, they tend to "adjust" them to a set temp/pressure/humidity through some calculations, also they test the car with a topped off gas tank and such. Then there's the fact that they are more journalist than car-lover. Not so with Chevy High Performance and other such magazines (though their writing is often a notch below the mainstream car rags). Usually a regular joe could go to the track on a cool day with a 1/4 tank of gas and improve on the mainstream car magazines' numbers.

Someone mentioned Car & Driver's negative review of the GTO's interior. For some perspective on that, read a Car & Driver review of a G35, pay special attention to the positive comments they make about the interior (not even just a lack of negatives, but actual positives). Then go sit in one.

Next, read their review of a CTS's interior (a car that costs the same as a G35) and notice how they bash it. Then go sit in a CTS.

While some people might want more wood or more aluminum bits or something in the CTS, it is hardly a cheap interior. It isn't overly opulent, but it is quite reasonable for a car of that price. The G35 on the other hand is downright cheap. It's like wannabe-upscale Kia cheap. The horribly fake nickel colored plastic center console, the way the flashing on the grey colored (are they supposed to look like metal?) plastic door handles scratch you (and feels like it will snap off in your hand if you open the door to get out), the huge gaps around the instrument cluster so that it can tilt (who really cares if it tilts anyway?)... There isn't one thing in that interior that feels like it belongs in a $35K car. Heck, it would be a turn-off in a $20K car...

That should give you an idea of what Car & Driver's opinion on interiors is worth...

regfootball · November 2003

sory but the cts interior is not even as good as a jetta. and certainly not close to an A4. which is its competition.

vcjumper · November 2003

And how is the CTS doing vs its competition the A4?
VW is all flash and no reliability. If you are happy with that, go buy one.
The CTS interior is nicer than the g35 which is also its competition.

regfootball · November 2003

And how is the CTS doing vs its competition the A4?

not sure what the numbers are but i know the a4 sells quite well, and the bmw3 likewise. I think the BMW comes close to 100,000 A YR. IN THE us and Audi does pretty well also.

I think both outsell the CTS.

b4z · November 2003

37,000 CTS's were sold calendar year 2002.
So far this year 46,000 CTSs have been produced.
So I would guess at least 45K sold or maybe even 50K for calendar year 2003.
Doubt if the A4 is that popular.

vcjumper · November 2003

According to autosite, A4 has only sold 28K and the G35 only 27K units compared to 37K for the CTS. Quite a margin considering the extra body styles available for those vehicles.

How many GTO's are planned to be brought over?

orwoody · November 2003

Per what I have seen in several articles 18000 GTOs max per year for 3 years.
Good news - 4 colors of interiors! Something that has been rare in GM cars for the last 5-7 years.

vcjumper · November 2003

Is there a link to interior colours available?
Black looks very good as it is.

Pontiac GTO

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles