redzed 11-23-2003, 04:29 PM A quick review through some Car and Driver test results shows that the GTO falls behind out-of-production GM performance vehicles in braking.
1994 Chevrolet Impala SS (C&D June 1994)
Braking, 70-0mph: 179 ft.
1998 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 (C&D Decemeber 1997)
Braking, 70-0mph: 172 ft.
2004 Pontiac GTO (C&D December 2003)
Braking, 70-0mph: 185 ft.
If the GTO's braking distance seems a bit "truck-like," consider that a April 2001 test of an SVT Lightning also obtained a 185ft result.
Does anyone still believe that the GTO represents progress at GM?
Z28Wilson 11-23-2003, 04:38 PM :lol:
What's next for you, the GTO's carpet is difficult to vaccuum crumbs out of? If braking performance is a problem, it will be looked at for sure. Disappointing, but AGAIN the complete package that the 2002 F-body was doesn't compare favorably to the 2004 GTO at the same price. Not that these are supposed to be the same cars anyway, which is another thing you are forgetting....
RiceEating5.0 11-23-2003, 05:03 PM Isn't the GTO really heavy? 37XXlbs without driver? Still, the L is 1,000lbs heavier. Either the L's brakes are really good or the GTO's are somewhat poor.
Still an excellent car.
Sixer-Bird 11-23-2003, 05:07 PM Mound out of a mole hill.
Here are some other stats from other magizines in 60-0 braking:
2003 350Z = 122ft. (Mar. 03 Road & Track)
2002 BMW M3 = 122ft. (Mar. 03 Road & Track)
2004 GTO = 120ft. (Dec. 03 Motortrend)
2002 Porsche 911 Targa = 120ft. (Mar. 03 Road & Track)
2003 Evo = 117ft. (Mar. 03 Road & Track)
2003 Z06 = 114ft. (Mar. 03 Road & Track)
If the GTO can out brake a M3 and 350Z and do as good as the 911 then it is ok in my book
Z28Wilson 11-23-2003, 06:51 PM Also consider that the LS1 Z28 did not brake as well as many other coupes on the market...but for some reason Redzed forgot to mention this...
Decromin 11-23-2003, 07:16 PM Originally posted by Z28x
Here are some other stats from other magizines in 60-0 braking:
2003 350Z = 122ft. (Mar. 03 Road & Track)
2002 BMW M3 = 122ft. (Mar. 03 Road & Track)
2004 GTO = 120ft. (Dec. 03 Motortrend)
2002 Porsche 911 Targa = 120ft. (Mar. 03 Road & Track)
2003 Evo = 117ft. (Mar. 03 Road & Track)
2003 Z06 = 114ft. (Mar. 03 Road & Track)
If the GTO can out brake a M3 and 350Z and do as good as the 911 then it is ok in my book
I agree - It's amazing how some people can choose thier statistics to try and back up a preconceived opinion. I guess this will be yet another post that gets convieniently overlooked by certain members ...
stars1010 11-23-2003, 08:19 PM Hey redzed
Is the glass half empty or half full?
formula79 11-23-2003, 08:51 PM tool
SFireGT98 11-23-2003, 09:42 PM :rolleyes:
Trash the GTO all you want, its an awesome car, as is the Holden Monaro.
Capn Pete 11-23-2003, 10:20 PM Originally posted by Z28Wilson
Also consider that the LS1 Z28 did not brake as well as many other coupes on the market...but for some reason Redzed forgot to mention this...
Really?:think:
Funny, 'cause I read a magazine article a while back that compared a 2002 Z28, to a Mustang GT, an Acura Integra, a Honda Civic, and a couple other cars...........I think a 3-series BMW:think: and something else. The Z28 had the BEST acceleration of all the vehicles tested, as well as the BEST braking out of all of them;). IMO, the LS1 F-bodies have VERY capable brakes:thumb: ......................I know they've saved my butt a few times!!:D
morb|d 11-24-2003, 04:52 AM Originally posted by Z28x
Here are some other stats from other magizines in 60-0 braking:
2003 350Z = 122ft. (Mar. 03 Road & Track)
2002 BMW M3 = 122ft. (Mar. 03 Road & Track)
2004 GTO = 120ft. (Dec. 03 Motortrend)
2002 Porsche 911 Targa = 120ft. (Mar. 03 Road & Track)
2003 Evo = 117ft. (Mar. 03 Road & Track)
2003 Z06 = 114ft. (Mar. 03 Road & Track)
If the GTO can out brake a M3 and 350Z and do as good as the 911 then it is ok in my book
you can't compare those numbers. i'm sure its a total coincidence that you "hid" the GTO numbers from Motortrend in between all those other numbers out of Road & Track. these are apples and oranges. those two don't even have the same testing procedures.
i'd have to agree that based ont C&D's numbers it is disturbing that the stopping distance is so long. if i had to speculate, i would pin it on the somewhat skinny tires for this car.
Z28Wilson 11-24-2003, 06:33 AM Originally posted by Capn Pete
Really?:think:
Funny, 'cause I read a magazine article a while back that compared a 2002 Z28, to a Mustang GT, an Acura Integra, a Honda Civic, and a couple other cars...........I think a 3-series BMW:think: and something else. The Z28 had the BEST acceleration of all the vehicles tested, as well as the BEST braking out of all of them;). IMO, the LS1 F-bodies have VERY capable brakes:thumb: ......................I know they've saved my butt a few times!!:D
Hmm...I'm not saying the F-body braked poorly don't get me wrong. But C&D tested a 3-series, for example, and it stopped shorter than the F-body from 60-0. I guess these tests are unscientific at best anyway, unless there is a gaping discrepency between the numbers. Find one article/magazine that says one thing and I'll find you one that says something else. I think we'll find out about all of GTO's capabilities when real people get their hands on them.
BlackLS1Z 11-24-2003, 07:03 AM Why is everything that comes from Redzed so negative? Here comes come wahmbulance! I think the GTO is a sweet car...If I had the $$ I'd trade my 98 in and never look back. I need to hit the lotto.
Colin
98 Z28
guionM 11-24-2003, 09:17 AM Originally posted by BlackLS1Z
Why is everything that comes from Redzed so negative?
Damn Redzed! Seems they're on to ya! :lol:
Originally posted by morb|d
you can't compare those numbers. i'm sure its a total coincidence that you "hid" the GTO numbers from Motortrend in between all those other numbers out of Road & Track. these are apples and oranges. those two don't even have the same testing procedures.
i'd have to agree that based ont C&D's numbers it is disturbing that the stopping distance is so long. if i had to speculate, i would pin it on the somewhat skinny tires for this car.
I didn't hide anything, I just listed them in order. Also remember weather, air temp, and brake temp can effect results so unless the cars are tested at the same time, results may vary. I used that R&T b/c it was the only other mag I had at the time.
Here are some #'s out of old motortrends. GTO was 120ft.
'03 Saab 93 2.0T = 126ft. (Jul. 03 Motortrend)
'04 Acura TSX = 124ft. (Jul. 03 Motortrend)
'03 Mustang Mach 1 = 120ft. (03 Motortrend (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0310_frst2_mach1/index1.html))
'03 Lexus SC430 = 120ft. (Jul. 03 Motortrend)
'04 Audi S4 = 117ft. (Aug. 03 Motortrend)
'03 Cobra = 116ft. (Jun. 03 Motortrend)
GTO seems to be right in line with other respectable sport sedans and coupes. It also has the same breaking as the Mustang Mach 1.
blckbrd84 11-24-2003, 09:52 AM Originally posted by redzed
A quick review through some Car and Driver test results shows that the GTO falls behind out-of-production GM performance vehicles in braking.
1994 Chevrolet Impala SS (C&D June 1994)
Braking, 70-0mph: 179 ft.
1998 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 (C&D Decemeber 1997)
Braking, 70-0mph: 172 ft.
2004 Pontiac GTO (C&D December 2003)
Braking, 70-0mph: 185 ft.
If the GTO's braking distance seems a bit "truck-like," consider that a April 2001 test of an SVT Lightning also obtained a 185ft result.
Does anyone still believe that the GTO represents progress at GM?
Way to magazine race :lol:
Different years, most likely different tracks, different conditions.....
You can't even compare any numbers unless they were all gotten on the same day, same track, same hour, and even then it's questionable as the track might heat up and get more sticky.
Chris
centric 11-24-2003, 10:40 AM Either redzed owns a Toyota dealer or wants to write for Car & Drivel.
Doug Harden 11-24-2003, 11:07 AM Betcha' he's be all smiles and giggles if the Malibu wore a Toyota badge.....:rolleyes:
According to him, GM should just surrender and close the plants....:death: :rolleyes:
redzed 11-25-2003, 10:12 AM Originally posted by Doug Harden
Betcha' he's be all smiles and giggles if the Malibu wore a Toyota badge.....:rolleyes:
According to him, GM should just surrender and close the plants....:death: :rolleyes:
1. Slapping a Toyota badge on a Malibu wouldn't accomplish much. Look what happened when they tried to sell the "Toyota" Cavalier in Japan.
2. I'm really sorry I don't own a Toyota dealership. My local Toyota dealer has a 90 day inventory turn-over rate, and historically moves more cars per month than the Ford dealer in the same town. (Well, it was a lousy Ford dealer!)
3. GM did surrender on the F-body. They allowed the F4 to die, and then they closed the plant. Now we have the partially engineered Aussie GTO as an overpriced replacement. If I point out the flaws, it's because the GTO is a serious flawed vehicle.
Darth Xed 11-25-2003, 10:15 AM Originally posted by redzed
1. Slapping a Toyota badge on a Malibu wouldn't accomplish much. Look what happened when they tried to sell the "Toyota" Cavalier in Japan.
Of course, I could flip this on you and say "See what slapping the Chevy badge on the Corlla (Prizm) did"...
Prizm had tons of customer complaints... Corolla did not... mostly because of ignorant, under-informed consumer comments, not unlike many of the ones you are currently making in many threads.
redzed 11-25-2003, 10:40 AM Originally posted by Darth Xed
Of course, I could flip this on you and say "See what slapping the Chevy badge on the Corlla (Prizm) did"...
Prizm had tons of customer complaints... Corolla did not... mostly because of ignorant, under-informed consumer comments, not unlike many of the ones you are currently making in many threads.
If the the Chevy "Prison" had a less satisfactory record than the Corolla, it comes down to GM's efforts at marketing and service. My best guess is that Chevrolet/Geo dealers offered ham-fisted service, and GM accidentally marketed the car to a less-affluent demographic. Corollas seem to run forever in the hands of old geezers - or even Kabul taxi drivers.
Darth Xed 11-25-2003, 10:48 AM Originally posted by redzed
If the the Chevy "Prison" had a less satisfactory record than the Corolla, it comes down to GM's efforts at marketing and service.
Exactly how did GM drop the ball marketing and servicing Prizm?
My best guess is that Chevrolet/Geo dealers offered ham-fisted service,
This falls under the whole under-informed thing I mentioned. I hate to break it to you, but there are just as many bad imprt service departments as there are domestic... The dealerships are an "X" factor, because they are not owned by the manufacturer.
and GM accidentally marketed the car to a less-affluent demographic.
:lol: OMG!! THAT is a classic line... exactly how 'affluent' are Corolla buyers, anyway??? :think: :lol:
Corollas seem to run forever in the hands of old geezers - or even Kabul taxi drivers.
Again, it's because people are apparently more willing to accept problems with import cars than they are with domestics, or egos get in the way and they don't want to admit that the glorious imports can have problems too.
redzed 11-25-2003, 10:54 AM Originally posted by Z28x
Here are some other stats from other magizines in 60-0 braking:
2003 350Z = 122ft. (Mar. 03 Road & Track)
2002 BMW M3 = 122ft. (Mar. 03 Road & Track)
2004 GTO = 120ft. (Dec. 03 Motortrend)
2002 Porsche 911 Targa = 120ft. (Mar. 03 Road & Track)
2003 Evo = 117ft. (Mar. 03 Road & Track)
2003 Z06 = 114ft. (Mar. 03 Road & Track)
If the GTO can out brake a M3 and 350Z and do as good as the 911 then it is ok in my book
Amazing, you didn't bother using a Road & Track test result for the GTO. You had to look to Motortrend to prove you point.
December 2003 Road & Track
2004 GTO: 60-0mph in 132 ft.
April 1999 Road & Track
1999 Camaro SS: 60-0mph in 129 ft.
Using R&T test results, it's pretty obvious that the GTO can't outbrake the M3, the 350Z or a 5-year old Camaro.
guionM 11-25-2003, 10:55 AM Originally posted by redzed
1. Slapping a Toyota badge on a Malibu wouldn't accomplish much. Look what happened when they tried to sell the "Toyota" Cavalier in Japan.
2. I'm really sorry I don't own a Toyota dealership. My local Toyota dealer has a 90 day inventory turn-over rate, and historically moves more cars per month than the Ford dealer in the same town. (Well, it was a lousy Ford dealer!)
3. GM did surrender on the F-body. They allowed the F4 to die, and then they closed the plant. Now we have the partially engineered Aussie GTO as an overpriced replacement. If I point out the flaws, it's because the GTO is a serious flawed vehicle.
1. Pontiac slaps a Toyota badge on the Vibe, calls it the Voltz, and sells it in Japan (the plant is just outside San Francisco in Fremont California). It does well as I understand. No, the Toyota Matrix isn't sold there.
2. Only one Ford dealer in your town??? :think:.....naw, too easy. ;)
3. You're 100% correct on GM surrendering on the F-body (hey, when someone's right, I'll admit it :p). But I have yet to hear a honest & real issue from you on the GTO. Ironically, the one issue that GTO's distractors all mention without exception (it's looks) you never brought up.
I said this before, if you don't like the car, that's OK. But you've gone into hysterically funny and completely irrelevent and desparate extremes to justify your adversion to the car. :no: :lol:
96_Camaro_B4C 11-25-2003, 10:59 AM Originally posted by redzed
Amazing, you didn't bother using a Road & Track test result for the GTO. You had to look to Motortrend to prove you point.
December 2003 Road & Track
2004 GTO: 60-0mph in 132 ft.
April 1999 Road & Track
1999 Camaro SS: 60-0mph in 129 ft.
Using R&T test results, it's pretty obvious that the GTO can't outbrake the M3, the 350Z or a 5-year old Camaro. Amazing, once again you are doing a ridiculous comparison. The cars need to be tested on the same day at the same track by the same driver to be accurate to the degree you are after. Plus or minus 5 feet is a tight tolerance for tests conducted on different surfaces (or at least different surface conditions), likely different drivers, 5 years apart. A useful reference? Sure. But claiming that the 3 feet separating the Camaro from the GTO means the GTO is inferior is ludicrous. Now, if the difference were 20 feet, you might be onto something...
Originally posted by redzed
Amazing, you didn't bother using a Road & Track test result for the GTO. You had to look to Motortrend to prove you point.
I don't have the R&T that is why I didn't use it.
If you want all the stats from the same Magazine then read my second stats post
'04 Pontiac GTO = = 120ft. (Dec. 03 Motortrend)
'03 Mustang Mach 1 = 120ft. (03 Motortrend)
'03 Lexus SC430 = 120ft. (Jul. 03 Motortrend)
GTO braking = Mach 1 braking & Lexus SC430 at 120ft.
|
|