Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Pontiac Grand Prix - 2000-2005
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
But let's get to the issue here. I had a 95 Eagle Vision TSi with 214 HP. The car was slow as a dog. My 99 Grand Am GT has 175 HP and I can get to 60 in less than 8 seconds.
HP on its own is not the only factor. You have to take into consideration the cars weight and gearing ratios. I'm nore concerned with how fast I can accelerate, not the exact HP of the engine.
I test drove an Intrepid SXT with 240 HP. I was not impressed, because the car was so big.
Get me to 60 mph in 8 seconds or less and I'll be happy. The GTP does it in 6.6 seconds. I think the GT2 I have on order is a little over 8 seconds, so I may need to do some mods to get me where I want to be.
Droping a K&N in the GP should get you up to 60 a touch faster off the bat.
Dindak, There are 4 bangers that will easily outperfrom your Intrigue, just to name a few the Sentra R, 7.1 seconds WRX sub 6 second, Ford Focus SVT 7.8 seconds & Acura TSX 6.8 seconds. Dropping in a regular K&N doesn't do much for the GP. You need to install the cone type with a cold air box like I have to see any actual gains on the track.
The G-Force show car was "280 squared" (hp/torque), it was never a goal to have the production 2004 GP at 280hp.
As long as you can do it in 8 seconds you are ok. The new "04 GP GT is actually slower then the '97-'03 GT. Pontiac has the GT1/2 rated at 8.5 seconds 0-60. They had the old one rated at 8.0 seconds.. go figure? Wonder why? The new GP is only 50 pounds heavier? And basically the same size... weird... This was in the Pontiac Enthusiast magazine I got for free when I bought my '02 GTP.
It is not worth it to heavily Mod. a GT, remember a GTP was only $2-$3k more new, it will take you alot more then that to get the GT to run the same as a stock GTP
I know people that have done this to Monte carlos, which we all know don't come with the supercharger until '04, by the time they have put nearly $5k into the car, it still didn't run any faster then a stock GTP...
If that is true, why is the 2004 selling worse then the 2003 GP? Most likely the $4k rebates that are no longer there on the '04's.... I partially agree with you, but The 1997 outsold the 1996 by 50%!! That isn't because of a longer/shorter year. sorry. because it was so much different, bigger car, bigger more powerfull engines and much better looking. 1997 was NOT the high point of the '97-'03.. actually '98 or '99 was the best selling year, I will have find out. Remember, 20% of all GP sales were COUPES... there was no coupe in 2003.
The 2004 GTP was supposed to make 280 hp/300+ ft lbs torque... it was detuned to only 260 hp and the same 280 ff lbs torque because the Tranny would not take it and GM didn't want to go the expense/risk of an all new tranny or enhancing the current one.
In 2002 the coupe was only $100 less then the sedan to purchase? I forget. Wasn't much.
The funny thing is that some people actually think that using the autostick feature makes the car faster 0-60, it does NOT. I remember motortrend doing a comparo with one 300M left in Drive and one guy using autostick.. the one in Drive was actually faster 0-60.
Just like the new Tapshift will not make the GTP any faster... however though the Comp G GTP is one or 2 tenths faster, because it is has a higher gear ratio then the regular GTP. That is why it is 27 EPA highway vs 28 EPA for the regular GTP. I think the dif is 6.5 vs 6.6 ? not noticeable.
I would wait for the 2nd year... GM/lutz already announced they are adding an improved dual exhaust with better exhaust note. They couldn't get it done in time for the introduction.. The first yr will only have single exhaust and less of an exhaust tone, and other improvements will come for the 2nd year..
I would wait on the GTO... you are also going to pay alot to be first as well..
remember all those people who paid MSRP or higher for the Marauder? $35k? now you can get it for $28k... Remember all the people that paid over MSRP for the new Tbird, that only had 250 horse? you can now get it under MSRP with the enhanced 290 hp engine... suckers.
Gunit : Yes, I know there are lots of fast 4 bangers, but they cost as much if not more than an Intrigue did also, not to mention the noise.
the Dodge Neon SRT-4, Focus SVT & Civic SI are all 4 bangers that do 0-60 in 7.8 or less seconds and all cost about $20k MSRP, noticeably cheaper then your Intrigue. Yes you are right, they are noiser and I would rather the Intrigue over those cars as well. Though that Neon does 0-60 in under 6 seconds.. might be fun... Though I wouldn't want to get into an accident in a car that small, like Civic/Focus/Neon.
I don't know how Subaru gets $25k for the WRX.. fast and fun with the manual, but cheap interior and rough engine for my tastes... that is NOT alot of car for $25k, pretty small inside. That 5.8 second 0-60 time is nice... Remember, you only get that time by dumping the clutch at high rpms, a street start is closer to 6.5 - 7.0 second range.
The 3800 engine is one of the rare drivetrains that in 0-60 and street start 0-60 tests the numbers were near identical.. Didn't have to pwr brake it. unlike some of these cars that they have to dump the clutch at 4000+ rpm... imagine that wear on your drivetrain?
I traded my 98 GT for an 04 GTP and live in the city where I can rarely open it up. HP matters to me up to a point.
When comparing a 180 HP cat to 260 HP car, yes HP matters somewhat. But comparing a 180HP car to a 200HP car, or a 240HP car to a 260HP car, I could care less obout the difference in HP.
gunit : Those Neons will give you a headache they are so noisy, especially under hard acceleration. No many people buy those either, <5% of sales.
And please don't comment about this policy here. The policy is set way above my level and a debate here about it is not appropriate and cannot happen. If anyone needs to comment, email either myself or our Community Manager, Sylvia at sylvia@edmunds.com.
Thanks for everyone's understanding.
dindak, you have to consider that if GM wants to ape Pontiac as the American BMW, HP figures are very important.
Therefore, I think that if GM wants to stay in business, it can't afford ranking below its competition, at least not the halo version.
Pat, can we mention rice fryers when talking about food?
:-)
But most people don't actually buy the car that has the big horsepower.
They buy the car that has the standard engine.
A lot of people buy the car that has the look or the body style that appeals to them. That is why more 325i's are sold than 330i's.
Or why the Mustang outsold the now defunct Z28 Camaro, etc.
Gm forgot that the fbody was a passenger car and that real people need to fit in it, and that passengers don't like huge humps where their feet go.
I hope the uncomfortable backseat does not become a liability for the GP.
It, along with the uglycloth (TM Regd.) and assorted hard plastic bits in the cabin, already is a liability - unfortunately so.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
I do tend to prefer OHC motors so I hope the GP gets a 3.6L derivative in the next year or two as an option at least.
b4z, to add to your list, why are the bulk of all Accords sold 4 bangers rather than the excellent V6s? Why are the bulk of all Altimas sold the 4 banger? For those of us who lurk around these forums HP is important, but to the average consumer I don't think it is.
Midlifecrisis, The people that put $15k+ in a civic/focus are out of their minds. They could have bought an entry level BMW 325 for that price. after all that $15k they aren't much faster then the GTP...
B4Z, Not all people buy the std engine, I always buy the biggest/most powefull engine and most of the cars I buy, Aurora and I30t only have one choice. The F body gave alot of bang for the buck but was cramped, so is the Mustang.. My GTP coupe is much larger/just as fast and 20% cheaper to insure, and with FWD I can drive in the snow.
Oldsman01, The 4 banger Accord/Altima is a waste, my opinion, if you are going to buy it, pay extra for the V6, makes a big diff. The 4 cylinder version is rougher/louder and for me just not powerfull enough.
Drive a 4 banger Accord with 4 adults with the A/C on in the summer and try to pull out on a highway.. good luck!!
Just like the V6 Mustang is a waste... it kind of says, I wanted a Mustang but couldnt' afford one.. No go showboat. The newer V6's are getting better but the 1997? With 140 horse.. was a joke.
I know back in '97 I should have waited until '98 to get the Bosch traction/ABS and 2nd generation airbags. The '97's in house Delco system was very noisy for ABS and couldn't handle the traction for the s/c motor.
Disabled the DRLS on both my '97 and '02 GTP coupes, and it is fully LEGAL in the USA to do that. You do not need them. Ever notice Honda and Toyota don't have them here. My '01 I30t doesnt' have them. My '95 Aurora did NOT have DRLS. They started that on the 1996 Aurora.
I think in Canada you must have DRLS though...
4 bangers, I have never owned a car with a 4 and the only 4 I've driven that I liked was the Saab 9-3. It was smooth, quiet, and had a good torque range. One of the things I liked about the Intrigue was that no matter if you bought the fully loaded top end model or a no option base model, you still got a powerful V6 standard along with some other serious hardware like ABS, 16" alloy wheels, 4 wheel disc brakes, etc. In fact, there never was an Intrigue made with 15" plastic wheel covers, rear drum brakes, and a 4 cylinder engine. Hmmm, maybe GM should have done one then maybe the car would have sold better. Seems to work for everyone else.
Most of the Accords I see have the plastic wheels cover base look to them. I wish GM did not offer them on the Grand Prix.
If you remember in 1995 there were only 4 options on the Aurora... heated seats, sunroof, Bose and autobahn pkge, everything else was STD!!
I believe in Canada under law, cars have to have DRLS.. or they have to have their headlights on during the day? Correct me If I'm wrong.
There is NO PROVEN fact that states DRLS are a safety device.. in fact according to the NHTSA, increase of in fatal crashes of 8 percent for vehicles equipped with DRLs, there were many complaints made to the NHTSA in 1998 about them being annoying...
<<<They decrease your gas mileage slightly. See: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/dearmfr/cd9402.pdf. The decrease in mileage due to the increased load on the alternator is very small, but it is still measurable. One one of the biggest proponents of DRLs, GM, asked for and received permission to disconnect DRLs when doing tests for their fuel economy ratings. >>>
<<< They annoy other drivers. “In 1998, after receiving hundreds of complaints, NHTSA acknowledged that the intensity limits were too high and proposed reductions in DRL intensity.>>>
.<<< Drivers with DRLs often forget to turn on their low beam headlights in rain or fog and at dusk or dawn. This is especially dangerous because the taillights do not come on until the low beams are turned on.>>>
<<<Is there any proof that DRLs in the United States reduce accidents?
Yes, no, maybe so. From the NHTSA report: “Using the FARS data the combined odds ratio technique shows an increase of in fatal crashes of 8 percent for vehicles equipped with DRLs>>>
On my '97 and '02 GTP coupe I got the highly polished 16" alloys which almost look like chromed wheels, it was only $300 more and looks way better to me. I got the ones look like the '00 daytona Pace Car.
The GTP would have looked better with 17" wheels, but that is just me, I think 17" is now on the 2004 as an option?? But the problem with 17" Tires as I know from I30t is that they COST alot more then 16" tires... about $50 more a tire.
ABS/Traction works fine, as long as you keep ALL 4 tires the same size...
As for you arguments against DRLs, I've seen them all before and they generally don't wash. It's been proven over and over that cars are more visible with them than with out. It has also been shown in Europe that accident rates were reduced with them. I hated them at first, but I know I have avoided a couple of accidents over the years because I was better able to see the other vehicle sooner with DRLs. The reduced gas mileage argument is also BS, the amount of added fuel consumption is EXTREMELY small.
Since 1989 Canada has required that all new vehicles manufactured or imported here be fitted with DRL systems, so yes 1988 and older cars in canada do NOT have to have them...
<<<DRLs are in fact a safety hazard because they create a confusing, glare-filled and chaotic driving environment.
For example, prior to the widespread use of DRLs, it was easy to spot funeral processions and emergency vehicles because these were the only vehicles operating in daylight with their headlights on. Today, in contrast, emergency vehicles, postal trucks, funeral processions, etc., easily get "lost" in the sea of DRL-equipped vehicles -- and this arguably creates a safety hazard.>>>
It is a proven fact that DRLS reduce fuel economy, not much, but it still does why do you think GM asked the EPA to disconnect the DRLS when testing?
<<<Q. Will DRLs reduce fuel economy?
A. Yes. The energy required to power the DRLs is not free. It is not surplus energy that is just "available" from the vehicle's engine. Various estimates place the reduction in overall fuell efficiency at 0.25 - 0.5 mpg>>>
DRLs started on the 1990 model in Canada and the bottom line is it's not illegal to disconect them.
I usually get over posted mileage estimates on my Intrigue so I guess those DRLs must have the opposite effect on some cars huh?
LOL
How does noticing a funeral save lives?
You sound like you are reading lines off the I hate DRLs web site. Give me a break!
The only people that I know that have ever bragged to me about getting or exceeding the EPA gas mileage ratings on their cars are the old slow drivers that hold everybody else up. You know the ones that do only 55 mph in the fast lane and refuse to move over?? They actually drive so slow that they nearly cause accidents... I have never gotten the EPA figures on any car, and no big deal.
The fact is that DRLS do cause your headlights to burn out faster and your car to use more gas, MORE $$.. , yes it is very small $ but it's extra cost nevertheless. Why do think GM asked for all of it's cars special permission to have the DRLS off when EPA testing??
There is NO substantial proof that DRLS reduce/prevent accidents. I have read that it goes both ways.. in fact some studies by NHTSA did say that accidents were reduced, BUT, fatal accidents increased 8%... go figure?
You like DRLS I don't... we'll keep it at that. There is pros and cons with both.
It is unlikely you will ever get pulled over/ticketed for driving with the foglights on, but it could happen... look at NY and it's ticket blitzes recently...
Oldsman01, Some of the DRLS cars, the older ones are pretty bright, GM toned them down, esp the older Saturns... I can remember from personal experience back in '97 with my GTP coupe 2x, where someone actually yelled at me in traffic, "Hey idiot your lights are on!!"
I see many late model and new GM cars/trucks with one headlight already burned out at night... gee, wonder why that is? Maybe because the lights are on ALL the time...
So you are going to now say that cars like the new Maxima and Accord to name 2 that do NOT have DRLS are NOT safe?? Give me a break.
If you can't see a car during daylight hours without DRLS, then you NEED a eye check and should be driving on the road.
I guess I must not drive enough at night, or people here in Massachusetts are better at keeping thier cars in good running condition, becuase I don't see any late model GM cars/trucks running around at night without headlights on other then Azteks. And Aztek's don't use the low beam headlamps as their DRLs.
The main culprit on new and late model GM vehicles is the full sized pickups and trailblazer with burned out headlights and tailighs already at night. In fact a guy on my street with a relatively new Trailblazer already has one burned out headlight and one burned out tailight, I told him this 2 months, still driving around that way...
I have seen many new full sized Silverado's with only ONE light on during the day as a DRLS? Either the other one is burned out or that is the dumbest design GM every came out with?
Why is GM going more and more with the AMBER lights only now instead of the headlights for DRLS? Notice? Probably too many complaints.
This actually happened to me back in '97....in a parking lot or at a 4 way stop or etc...try to flash someone during the day by turning your lights on and off so they can go... much more challenging with DRLS on...
In my area many people have shut off the DRLS, I see MANY intrigues with nothing on during the day. Sorry, if you can't see that car during the daylight then you have vision problems.. and shouldn't be driving...
It is NOT that easy to just disable the DRLS on some GM models, but to each their own.
I will not comment on the DRLS anymore, do what you want.
I will be putting an aftermarket kit in my '02 GTP, just putting off spending $500+ for now...
The headlights were VERY POOR on the 1997-2003 GP. Esp the highbeams which were near useless...
I hope the 2004 are at least better.