Next GTO....

Since the Camaro enthusiasts posted what they would love the next Camaro to look like...well.....now the time has come for GTO Enthusiasts to post what they'd like the GTO to look like.

So.....now would be the time to let your voices heard, chops posted, indeas presented about the next Pontiac GTO.

non retro 2dr,RWD,V8, with a manual tranny.

non retro 2dr,RWD,V8, with a manual tranny.
Any styling cues? Any era you'd like to see "moderinzed" anything you'd like to see brought back that was not with this last GTO?

Less 'round' cues and corners, more sharp lines. If that makes any sense... lol

It should also steer from whatever the pontiac front end will be in its time.

Less 'round' cues and corners, more sharp lines. If that makes any sense... lol

It should also steer from whatever the pontiac front end will be in its time.josh what i'd like to see is what he said in the first sentence. i want a crisp modern coupe and i'll disagree with him on the front end as i want it to look like a pontiac. a 2dr VE monaroisd GTO would be perfect.

What if Pontiac gets a good front end?

To be true to GTO it needs to heavily favor them.

I was sorta thinking of dodging the 'it looks like a Grand Prix, G6, whatever'

FWIW, those comments never bothered me personally other than just getting tired of hearing it from the import crowd, AKA, the sheep.

I heard it more from domestic guys who were expecting a T/A.

.. which, in a way, is ironic since the Firebird is a re-fried Camaro.

[runs for cover]

Seriously though... could the car not sell just as well without adapting Pontiac traits?

.. which, in a way, is ironic since the Firebird is a re-fried Camaro.

[runs for cover]

Seriously though... could the car not sell just as well without adapting Pontiac traits?
why does it have to look different? all GTOs so far have had pontiac traits so why change?

http://ultimategto.com/pasture/99ccep.jpg

That styling could easily be pulled off on a 5th gen camaro platform.

AAMOF, that styling seems extremely familiar to the styling of the 5th gen...

Yes, the proportions are similar.

I understand it was based on the early stillborn Sigma Camaro idea.

^ ^ ^ Looks like a Pontiac / GTO to me :thumb: :yes:. Even the old GTO's, I can sometimes mistake for a Firebird at a quick glance, and that rendering could just as easily be a Firebird IMO :cool:. But it's got the little features that the old GTO's had (hood mounted tach, hood vents). Don't know if I'd call that retro or not? :shrug: But I like it! :)

Goddamn...that car looks mean!!!! IF it's anything like that...I'll take mine in black please!!!

I would like to see something based on the 1970 - 1972 GTO's. I thought the early 70's GM B (?) bodies (442, GS/X, Chevelle and GTO) were some of the finest looking cars for their day, and they have stood the test of time styling wise QUITE well.

As far as what it should be IMO, a 2 DOOR, hardtop coupe. Also, it should be have that semi-fastback look that the 1970's had. And it needs seating for 5, make it a GT like it has always been, but go back to the 3 across seating in the back, I believe it will make it easier for family men to rationalize the purchase if they can fit a car seat in the back without being a contortionist.

Guess I didn't mention the other part of that car's history.

It was designed by someone who didn't have a clue what GTO was and knew nothing about it till he did that rendering.

The car also got a thumbs down from the public & press as being far too garish. The car is from the age when GM's styling direction began to look alot like angry appliences from the mind of someone with too much testosterone and too much free time in study hall.

The grille by some accounts was what was actually going to end up on the US-zeta GTO, but with a far better body.

Personally, I think the thing is ugly........ very very ugly. :yuck:

I saw a drawing once that had blended the '66-'67 front with the current Cadillac look. The 2 hoop grille with the chiseled vertically stacked headlights & the Pontiac arrowhead on the beak (& PLEASE could we STOP calling it a dart!) just looked like a perfect blending of old & new! I wish I could remember where I saw it.

Woodward GTO mixed with the 99 GTO concept

The next GTO needs the "Tom Peters Treatment".
Pick a year from the GTO's past and make it modern. It's that simple.
They did an excellent job with the Camaro and I know they could do an excellent job with the GTO.

With that being said, I'd like them to use the '69 GTO as their basis. The '69 was smooth, taut, muscular; it was a work of art.

But the car needs to remain a 2 door, RWD, V-8, manual optioned, 2+3 GT car. It would be nice if they could give more choices than they did on this last one. I mean, I would have preferred cloth over leather, for example.

If GM makes a retro, "retro-modern" or GTO that is in anyway associated with that whole bandwagon Ill shake every baby I come across...

Promise. :mad:

There were a number of styling themes that design fiddled around with on the cancelled GMX282 GTO. They ranged from very G6 like to overtly retro.

Anyway, IMO, a GTO needs to be useable. I would have bought a GTO if it met my utility needs. If it offered 2+3 seating. If it had a useable trunk.

What GTO should be is neither a ponycar nor a sportscar.

Shouldn't be an Eldorado either... Especially if we've got one on the way.

Shouldn't be an Eldorado either... Especially if we've got one on the way.

Ahha! If we have that coming and a Camaro coming, then what should a GTO be? Tough question, huh?

We are about to trade in our 2004 GTO (father just got a Charger as a company car). After two years, I'd have something of a list of demands for the next car.

1) Trunk. I understand the miniscule trunk was a casualty of the last minute transition to a U.S. ready car. It effectively rendered the GTO useless on road trips - the raison d tere for a grand tourer - not to mention drives to the airport and big grocery runs.

2) Gas mileage. This was the first car we've owned where we really felt financial pain at the pump. Surely, this has a little to do with the prices as of late, but with the Camaro's and also the Corvette we had, economy was a non-issue. We were already used to cars that did not ask us to compromise between performance and economy, and won't be prepared to do so again (the company pays for the Charger's gas). The next GTO needs to be a shining star at the pump like the rest of the LS cars.

3) Toughness. This is one of those subjective ratings that start arguments, but it nevertheless was an issue, so I'm mentioning it. One of the things I always liked about Camaro's was that it was a real car. You could load all sorts of filthy things from Home Depot in that hatchback, drive it through puddles. You could put cheap snow tires on it along with sand bags in the back and slug it through winter. The GTO in contrast, always seemed to be just a bit fragile. Electronics went haywire at random and at each and every oil change. It chewed through tires more than any other car we've had. It just seemed like it was an auto that needed a bit of pampering. Of course, to some people, such issues may be a perfectly acceptable compromise for a high performance car. However, I thought musclecars were always renowned for the fact that they were, at least in theory, still big cars that could do real car stuff.

That's about it. We certainly liked the car. Styling was never an issue for us - it had a lovely subtlety to it. I really don't care what the next one looks like - so long as it's good. If that means modern, fine. Retro, fine.

Not really, between the two... Depending on how much between there is?

Im guessing GTO will be LS3 maybe with a few extra ponies, dont see that crowd clamoring for anything obscene.

Will probably have whatever gadgets dont belong on Camaro, NAV, CC seats, etc. With more room, though Im not feeling 2+3... Seems like it.

LS3 Camaro should be 28-29? Current 3.6 CTS is 33k, so add cost for a coupe, new features and we're looking at what 38k?

GTO at 32k?

yeah that 1999 Concept GTO is Ugly as HELL

i like this one.. both.. but especially the one on the bottom right.. very nice modern interpretation of the stacked headlights from the 65-67 GTO
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a215/dabanj6/08gto1.jpg

got it from this (http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/showpost.php?p=722125&postcount=154) post on GMI

yeah that 1999 Concept GTO is Ugly as HELL

i like this one.. both.. but especially the one on the bottom right.. very nice modern interpretation of the stacked headlights from the 65-67 GTO
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a215/dabanj6/08gto1.jpg

got it from this (http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/showpost.php?p=722125&postcount=154) post on GMI

Wow! Now those are cool!

I like the one of the left, looks like the MT drawing... Ill say it again, they should give all of Pontiac this treatment...

Just enough class and just enough Batmobile.

With that being said, I'd like them to use the '69 GTO as their basis. The '69 was smooth, taut, muscular; it was a work of art...

It's funny you should point that model out as what a GTO should look like (as do alot of the anti-Monaro GTO guys). When that design came out, it was roundly critisized. It was called too weak, to feminine, and worse.

The only thing that's more ironic is how many GTO fans point to the "Judge" as the ultimate GTO, yet "The Judge" was a complete failure and barely lasted a year and a half.

Amazing. :shock:

I would rather it be 68, still resembles the blue one above... This would also put it into a direct line against the Challenger. :D

http://next2.web-cars.com/gto_nu_images/1968PontiacGTO_a_s.jpg

http://www.web-cars.com/gto/1968_gto.php

GTO at 32k?

How does that make it's case? The Camaro and CTS coupe will both overlap that price.

It doesen't. I didn't know thats what I was being asked to do.

I thought we were talking about what we wanted, not why it should exist?

Its been said that its a definite yes and that its a definite no?

If it is a go, then its going to overlap but would hopefully be differentiated by personality like every other GM model ever. I dont see why this needs to be different especially since its being imported and wont exist or sell in huge numbers either way?

It doesen't. I didn't know thats what I was being asked to do.



I asked that because I said it shouldn't be a ponycar and you said it shouldn't be an Eldo.

Honestly, if I had to pick a GTO from the past to draw on, I'd pick on the '66. Maybe do that, but with the '68 front. Make it 2+3, like what everyone is saying. That would be a car I'd write a check for.

As for what it should be, I think the new one had it, but just add a few more options; OnStar, StabiTrack, sunroof, spoiler delete, navigation, TAP Shift. Maybe sticker around $35.

yeah that 1999 Concept GTO is Ugly as HELL

i like this one.. both.. but especially the one on the bottom right.. very nice modern interpretation of the stacked headlights from the 65-67 GTO
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a215/dabanj6/08gto1.jpg

got it from this (http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/showpost.php?p=722125&postcount=154) post on GMI

I like the tail lights on the orange car in the rendering. The rest of it kinda looks like a CTS. The blue one looks like a 78 Firebird rather than a GTO. I also liked the 1999 GTO concept. I agree that the car needs to be usable in terms of the trunk and especially the back seat seeing as it will be bigger than camaro. I like the 69 GTO front end. Im still more likely to buy a Camaro though.

I'll echo two doors...and the concept on the first page of this thing is uglier than Nell Carter's buttocks. :no:

I'll echo two doors...and the concept on the first page of this thing is uglier than Nell Carter's buttocks. :no:

Yeah, Ill echo that.

Well, the concept is actually real, has alot of 5th gen cues(most likely what it'll be based on), and doesn't look 80% VW Corrado....

That's enough for me to be happy about...

Ahha! If we have that coming and a Camaro coming, then what should a GTO be? Tough question, huh?

No, not at all.

GTO should be essentially that 2 door, 5 passenger Dodge Charger-like vehicle alot of people have wanted.

That is very much removed from a comparatively small 4 passenger Camaro and an BMW 6-series-ish CTC.

(Hard to imagine someone being confused between a SRT Charger coupe and a Camaro or Cadillac, isn't it? ;) )

yeah that 1999 Concept GTO is Ugly as HELL

i like this one.. both.. but especially the one on the bottom right.. very nice modern interpretation of the stacked headlights from the 65-67 GTO
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a215/dabanj6/08gto1.jpg

got it from this (http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/showpost.php?p=722125&postcount=154) post on GMI

The black one is what I'd see as a Firebird, not GTO. The orange one is intriging, and clearly makes the case that Pontiac has to get away from the BMW spin-off kidney grill. BMW does it better. Pontiac's has grown stale.

I agree. These are pretty cool. :thumb:

What he said, I just couldnt come up with it. :p


Still betting black though.

So a 2+3 vehicle. A GTO on the sedan based Zeta program but with two less doors??

Some would say it's kinda big, like the Challenger will be when it hits the streets in just months.

Glad this thread has sparked the debate that it has.

Bigger than a Camaro (roughly Challenger sized, maybe a little smaller), styling that draws on vintage GTO cues but is modern and not jellybeany (it should be the MEANEST looking car in the Pontiac lineup, by far, but a suit-and-tie adult sort of mean, something that makes a BMW look silly), a real trunk, 2+3 interior that compares with the outgoing car's quality, taut, responsive, and end-to-end serious.

It should NOT look like that '99 concept car. That thing looks like a rejected Hot Wheels design. Hideous.

I think the black one above looks the best, but I like the tailights of the orange one. Reminds me of my grandfather's 67 GTO. I may be a little biased, but I always thought the 66-67 had the best proportions. The 68-70 seemed to have a large greenhouse and looked more bloated overall. I would prefer something that looked lean and mean. Even if it isn't so lean.

I like the orange one in that drawing. Pretty cool! :)

It definitely should be a bigger coupe, a real 4-5 passenger coupe.

The black one is what I'd see as a Firebird, not GTO. The orange one is intriging, and clearly makes the case that Pontiac has to get away from the BMW spin-off kidney grill. BMW does it better. Pontiac's has grown stale.

I agree. These are pretty cool. :thumb:

I like them both, but the orange one has really caught my eye. And I agree about the twin kidney grill. Pontiac has gotta get away from this BMW wannabe nonsense and be Pontiac.

Pontiacs need beaks.

Good Lord, not this crap again. You're killing me GM, abso-****ing-lutely killing me.

You say you want Pontiac to become the American BMW? Why don't you go over to some BMW forums and see what they think of the current GTO. They like it, you've actually gotten some German conquest sales with it. Imagine that, someone giving up their Bimmer for a Pontiac.

You want to know why? Sure, bang for the buck and a decent interior have lots to do with it but there is also something to be said for clean modern lines on an automobile. BMW owners don't like gimmicky styling. Just look at how toned down Bangle's designs have become as of late. That is also why they find the current GTO appealing, subdued clean stying. Heritage styling cues won't work with them.

Let Holden do the styling on the new GTO. If you can't do that, start importing Holdens as Holdens.

On a personal note, GM the more retro you offer the less choices you give me. I don't live in the past and I expect my car to reflect that.

Here's a few renderings that I thought were pretty good. Some are a little too retro, but they're all good jumping off points.

http://ultimategto.com/pow/pow0450.jpg

http://ultimategto.com/pow/pow0443.jpg

http://ultimategto.com/pow/pow0443a.jpg


There's probably a lot more renderings out there that are good. I just don't know where to look to find them.

Good Lord, not this crap again. You're killing me GM, abso-****ing-lutely killing me.

.

All of these drawing are just pure speculation, with no relation to GM.

The black one is what I'd see as a Firebird, not GTO. The orange one is intriging, and clearly makes the case that Pontiac has to get away from the BMW spin-off kidney grill. BMW does it better. Pontiac's has grown stale.

I agree. These are pretty cool. :thumb:

Personally, I think Pontiac needs to look harder at BMW. I dont see evidence that the kidney grille originated from BMW, infact I wouldnt be surprised if the inspiration for the current kidney grill came from pontiac. This could have very easily been the future of Pontiac in the looks dept.

http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_9912AUCCWGB.jpg

http://www.bmwusa.com/NR/rdonlyres/E918F44C-28E8-4944-B25B-608DA2F827AA/0/0733_01.jpg

The 69 firebird has more in common with the look and shape of the kidney grill than say this 86 BMW. Maybe there are BMW's before this date that had the enlongated Firebird kidney grille, but I dont think BMW can claim exclusivity to that look. ESPECIALLY from Pontiac!

http://www.bmwheritage.com/images/e30/1986_m3_large.jpg

"Kidneys" were not really a Pontiac trademark until the mid-1980s. Before then the Pontiac signiture was having a pointy nose and split-grille. I know a lot of people felt that the 80s Grand Am was a BMW ripoff.

http://www.proactivedesign.net/eric/transportation/art/1987-pontiac-grand-am.jpg

However in recent years, BMW has been using the wide-kidney look and looking more and more Pontiacish.

I like them both, but the orange one has really caught my eye. And I agree about the twin kidney grill. Pontiac has gotta get away from this BMW wannabe nonsense and be Pontiac.

Pontiacs need beaks.

I agree that it's time for a refresh on the grill treatment. Whether it's mimicking BMW or the other way around, it's grown way too stale.

Don't have it handy, but I recall seeing a CTS based rendering with stacked lights. That get's my vote. The later GTO styling may look too similar to the Camaro/Mustang imo.

Realistically, a 2+2 works, because you'd be hard pressed to get 3 adults interested in getting into the back of coupe anyway. Just make it larger for two actual adults, like the current GTO, and leave room for cupholders, A/C vents etc between the back two seats. Grand Tourer.

Good Lord, not this crap again. You're killing me GM, abso-****ing-lutely killing me.

You say you want Pontiac to become the American BMW? Why don't you go over to some BMW forums and see what they think of the current GTO. They like it, you've actually gotten some German conquest sales with it. Imagine that, someone giving up their Bimmer for a Pontiac.

You want to know why? Sure, bang for the buck and a decent interior have lots to do with it but there is also something to be said for clean modern lines on an automobile. BMW owners don't like gimmicky styling. Just look at how toned down Bangle's designs have become as of late. That is also why they find the current GTO appealing, subdued clean stying. Heritage styling cues won't work with them.

Let Holden do the styling on the new GTO. If you can't do that, start importing Holdens as Holdens.

On a personal note, GM the more retro you offer the less choices you give me. I don't live in the past and I expect my car to reflect that.

Thank you! My thoughts exactly....but, I guess that is also why both you and I own current-gen GTOs.

I personally like the subtle lines and design approach of the current GTO. If this board had it's way with GM design, I think every car would be low-slung and batmobile like.

http://ultimategto.com/pow/pow0443.jpg



I like this one, it is modern yet it looks very GTO with a '07 Holden GTS mix

http://ultimategto.com/pow/pow0443.jpg
http://www.cardata.com/images/2006/Mitsubishi/Galant%20Special%20Edition.jpg

I'm glad that we've gotten 3 years worth of the Monaro based GTO. It gives more interest to our automotive landscape. But GMNA could never have designed such a car.

Don't get me wrong, it's impressive for the way that Holden was able to so cheaply delete two doors from the Commodore sedan - but man, is that thing cobbled together.

I don't think anyone in NA would have signed off on the rigamarole required to get into the back seat. Or the small trunk, (obviously, someone did after the fact). Holden had their own way of doing things, which in many cases didn't involve the GM certification process. Anyone want to know why 18" wheels were delayed until 2005? To GMNA's horror, Holden had never bothered to put the 18's through the GM certification process, since they were such a low volume item. Good or bad, GMNA just doesn't work that way.

Everyone that I know, (including me), who seriously considered a GTO, but didn't end up buying one, did it because the GTO was simply not easy to live with. It wasn't because it didn't have enough scoops, or it didn't look like a '68 Goat, or whatever. It simply lacked the utility that would be desired in a midsized car.

http://www.cardata.com/images/2006/Mitsubishi/Galant%20Special%20Edition.jpg

You're kidding right :). Apart from the color and the fact the actualy black parts of the top grill are similar, it ain't that close of a match. The GTO is a work of beauty. The Mitsubishi is ugly.

Still, I really like that GTO concept.. though purists would hate it. Me, I'd be happy if any new GM car came out looking like that.

I'm glad that we've gotten 3 years worth of the Monaro based GTO. It gives more interest to our automotive landscape. But GMNA could never have designed such a car.

Don't get me wrong, it's impressive for the way that Holden was able to so cheaply delete two doors from the Commodore sedan - but man, is that thing cobbled together.

I don't think anyone in NA would have signed off on the rigamarole required to get into the back seat. Or the small trunk, (obviously, someone did after the fact). Holden had their own way of doing things, which in many cases didn't involve the GM certification process. Anyone want to know why 18" wheels were delayed until 2005? To GMNA's horror, Holden had never bothered to put the 18's through the GM certification process, since they were such a low volume item. Good or bad, GMNA just doesn't work that way.

Everyone that I know, (including me), who seriously considered a GTO, but didn't end up buying one, did it because the GTO was simply not easy to live with. It wasn't because it didn't have enough scoops, or it didn't look like a '68 Goat, or whatever. It simply lacked the utility that would be desired in a midsized car.

What utility and easy to live with traits does the Mustang possess over the GTO? Or what comparison vehicles to the GTO exhibit better utility and easy to live with characteristics?

You're kidding right :). Apart from the color and the fact the actualy black parts of the top grill are similar, it ain't that close of a match. The GTO is a work of beauty. The Mitsubishi is ugly.

Still, I really like that GTO concept.. though purists would hate it. Me, I'd be happy if any new GM car came out looking like that.
Similar grill shapes, different lights, hood scoops, and a different chin spoiler. But the fact remains that similar lines are used in both grills. I am just pointing it out. Don't shoot the messenger I didn't design or draw either one.

What utility and easy to live with traits does the Mustang possess over the GTO?


None, which is why he bought a CTS. Notice that ease of getting in and out of the backseats was a key criteria to him, and therefore why a 4 door was a natural fit for him.

What i find funny is people act like it takes soooo long to get in the GTO backseat. It takes 3-5 seconds to roll the seat forward and another 3-5 seconds to put it back. and that's if you even bother to move it.

I cleaned my interior this weekend and climbed in and out of my backseat a few times and never moved either seat except when i vacuumed. If you are capable of moving sideways, rear seat access is easy. I don't find rear seat access to honda accords or 3 series BMW coupes any easier than my GTO, and i ride in said cars all the time going to lunch at work.

The 3series seat pulls forward, and then fold forward too... So its like its not even there...

Its great, everyone should rip that off.

None, which is why he bought a CTS. Notice that ease of getting in and out of the backseats was a key criteria to him, and therefore why a 4 door was a natural fit for him.

What i find funny is people act like it takes soooo long to get in the GTO backseat. It takes 3-5 seconds to roll the seat forward and another 3-5 seconds to put it back. and that's if you even bother to move it.

I cleaned my interior this weekend and climbed in and out of my backseat a few times and never moved either seat except when i vacuumed. If you are capable of moving sideways, rear seat access is easy. I don't find rear seat access to honda accords or 3 series BMW coupes any easier than my GTO, and i ride in said cars all the time going to lunch at work.

Correct, so it isn't a GTO issue as much as ANY coupe for that matter didn't fit the requirements. If the ANY coupe didn't meet the requirements, then why did Charlie make a poke at the GTO? Just trying to understand logic or what was truly implied.

The 3series seat pulls forward, and then fold forward too... So its like its not even there...

Its great, everyone should rip that off.

I've been in 3 series backseats plenty of times. And despite the seat moving so far out of the way, i don't find it significantly easier to get in and out of than my GTO. Slightly easier, yes, but not enough to actually matter or even be a factor in the buying decision.

To me, if backseat access is a MAJOR criteria when car shopping, then i have no idea why you woudl even look at a 2 door car.

Not to speak for Charlie, but I do remember him saying that even more so than the ingress was the lack of 3 across seating, something about 3 kids or some such nonsense :)

Sorry, but as someone who's owned both (2004 330Ci and 2004 GTO) there is no comparison. Of course, I'm 6-3; just accessing the back seat in the GTO was virtually impossible, much less actually getting in and out. That said, once there, I found it acceptable.

Im also 6-3 but didnt remember any grimmacing getting in the back. I was drinking though, lol..

Correct, so it isn't a GTO issue as much as ANY coupe for that matter didn't fit the requirements. If the ANY coupe didn't meet the requirements, then why did Charlie make a poke at the GTO? Just trying to understand logic or what was truly implied.

Not ANY coupe, the Monte Carlo SS actually fit my needs perfectly....but in the end, I just couldn't see myself owning one those.

I can forgive cars like Mustang or Camaro for any percieved lack of utility - after all, they're ponycars, they're allowed - but I have different expectations for a GTO.

And like James said, I really needed/wanted 2+3 seating. Actually, if the GTO had a 3rd seatbelt in back, (like the Cobalt coupe for example), I could have overlooked everything else.

My only gripe about getting in the backseat of the GTO is the amount of time it takes for the seats to come forward. Once they are fully forward, no one I know has had a problem getting back there including my 6'2" 54 year old father.

So a 2+3 vehicle. A GTO on the sedan based Zeta program but with two less doors??

Some would say it's kinda big, like the Challenger will be when it hits the streets in just months.

Glad this thread has sparked the debate that it has.

2+3 would be OK. Better for the business case anyway.

However Challenger hitting the street in a just months? Not really. Challenger SOP is near the end of the first quarter of 2008. Closer to 20 months.

2+3 would be OK. Better for the business case anyway.

However Challenger hitting the street in a few months? No. Challenger SOP is near the end of the first quarter of 2008. Closer to 20 months.
Challenger will be here before we know it.

Much in the same that dare I guesstimate...Camaro is farther along than anticipated??

http://ultimategto.com/pow/pow0450.jpg

http://ultimategto.com/pow/pow0443.jpg

http://ultimategto.com/pow/pow0443a.jpg

#1 No way, not even close to anything I would consider.

#2 The front looks a little too busy. That bar in the lower valence bugs me. The front reminds me of an offensive lineman's facemask, fugly. The fastback is too 350Zish. Other than those things it's OK.

#3 is intriguing. Believe it or not I have nothing against the beak. In this design it is well integrated and works with the lines of the car. The stacked headlights look good but the non-car guy will say G35 copy-cat. The bar in the lower valence is disturbing. It make the front look like a bucktooth Jack-o-Lantern with an eyelift. The hood scoop doesn't work for me. Something like #2 (Woodward GTO) would look better but that may be a bit much.

My only gripe about getting in the backseat of the GTO is the amount of time it takes for the seats to come forward. Once they are fully forward, no one I know has had a problem getting back there including my 6'2" 54 year old father.
I've found it greatly simplifies my daily life, to just run the seat forward on its tracks and recline it so it's not blocking my side view. Then when my two kids want to get in, they just flip the passenger seat back forward and clambor in. They have no difficulty doing so, nor do I (5'9", 160 lb). When the wifey is involved in a trip, she uses the SmartSeat feature integrated with the upper power seat convenience button and has not once complained about the seat being too slow.

I agree with what someone mentioned above about rear seat access... if that is a major criteria for someone, that someone should maybe be looking for a sedan.

And this idea of 2+3 seating... one of the coolest things about my GTO's interior which in fact initially drew me to the car, are the true bucket seats in the rear. Very cool :cool:

This may be a dumb question, but why are they comtemplating styling on a car that is supposed to be out in 2008? Was Maximum Bob not being truthful?

If you can't do that, start importing Holdens as Holdens.

If GM did that, I might not ever look at another GM product that didnt have Camaro or Corvette badges on it.

So, in other words. Yes please!

If GM did that, I might not ever look at another GM product that didnt have Camaro or Corvette badges on it.

So, in other words. Yes please!

Likewise. :)

This may be a dumb question, but why are they comtemplating styling on a car that is supposed to be out in 2008? Was Maximum Bob not being truthful?

2008 is a dream at this point. The earliest would be saleable models on the streets in 2010.

This may be a dumb question, but why are they comtemplating styling on a car that is supposed to be out in 2008? Was Maximum Bob not being truthful?

In all fairness to Bob Lutz, I don't think he was ever actually quoted as saying 2008. That was just speculation by Autoweek.

Nevertheless, I think Lutz was abit ahead of the curve on those GTO comments, (the ones that he actually DID make), perhaps trying to stir some excitement for it.

Challenger will be here before we know it.

Much in the same that dare I guesstimate...Camaro is farther along than anticipated??

Being optomisic is good. Being accurate is better. Work on the latter. ;)

Being optomisic is good. Being accurate is better. Work on the latter. ;)

In context to my posting...the latter from what I've said is the Camaro will be here before we know it. Still stand by it. I firmly believe it's farther along than what is being said.

Look at the variables. The Holdens have all been introduced. The production plant has been named. How long did it take the Solstice to go from confirmation to production (in a saleable aspect) then fast forward to 2007.....

I think Camaro may be coming sooner than we think. Again, that's my thought and only my thought. But........there comes a time when u have to say "wow....GM is set to blow the industry by storm" and well.......the plant is gearing up for something pretty quick.

yes the production plant has been named.. Oshawa will be busy producing other cars until 2008, then you have to give time for retooling and setting up the new production line..

yes the production plant has been named.. Oshawa will be busy producing other cars until 2008, then you have to give time for retooling and setting up the new production line..

That, and actually have a program - either unnofficial or official.

That orange GTO concept on the first page is about the ugliest thing I've ever seen.

I don't think anyone in NA would have signed off on the rigamarole required to get into the back seat. Or the small trunk, (obviously, someone did after the fact).

You do know that they had a decent-size trunk, until GMNA changed its location from behind the rear axle into the trunk, and Holden decided to make its 2005/2006 "VZ" Monaros with the same trunk location (and hood scoops), in order to standardize assembly processes?

Holden had their own way of doing things, which in many cases didn't involve the GM certification process. Anyone want to know why 18" wheels were delayed until 2005? To GMNA's horror, Holden had never bothered to put the 18's through the GM certification process, since they were such a low volume item. Good or bad, GMNA just doesn't work that way.

I dunno about the certification, but I do know that Holden's wheel manufacturer (ROH?) couldn't even begin to produce the 18's in enough quantity for the 2005's until March of 2005 (and the '05's ended production in June/July), hence very few 2005's got the 18" wheel option (seems like > 50% of the 14k 2006's did get it, though)...

You do know that they had a decent-size trunk, until GMNA changed its location from behind the rear axle into the trunk, and Holden decided to make its 2005/2006 "VZ" Monaros with the same trunk location (and hood scoops), in order to standardize assembly processes?



...

Of course. That's the only way the car would have bee saleable in the US.

In all fairness to Bob Lutz, I don't think he was ever actually quoted as saying 2008. That was just speculation by Autoweek.

Nevertheless, I think Lutz was abit ahead of the curve on those GTO comments, (the ones that he actually DID make), perhaps trying to stir some excitement for it.

Lutz was refering to 2008 calendar year, 2009 model. He was refering to the project as approved, while he mused about long term projections on exchange rates as the determining factors.

Everyone in GM future product is ahead of the curve. They tend to live about 3 years ahead of us mere mortals. One of the neat things I've learned about this group is how they view product approval versus the rest of us. Most people here view approval as something that can be done anytime the company wants to. I tend to use the final signing of the checks and the contracts as the point of approval. They use something that's best described as something in between.

Hypothetical examples:
1. A 2010 Impala.
It's a mainstream car that's going to have to be made. In creating the specs on the car, a coupe is added to the package. Because the coupe is essentially the Impala sedan's structure with a different skin, and no real investment to make, it becomes part of the program. Where things get thrown is that while the Impala would be a needed program, and it's production is a given (even without final approval) the coupe, although part of the program, doesn't need to have a final decision till very late in the game, and still come out the same time.

2. A 2009 Camaro.
In this instance, this is a car that's not "needed". It isn't sharing it's inner structure with anything else, though it shares suspension and some structrual parts. It requires a bigger investment than the "Impala Coupe", therefore needs a clear approval and comittment before anything can move forward.

Bob Lutz's comments were part of the 1st example. The GTO is a reskinned version of a sedan (Impala or Commodore), that's going to share the same structure, hardpoints, wiring, drivetrain, etc..., with the only major structural difference being perhaps the "B-pillar". It the donor car is a go (even without final approval) he can...and did... say the coupe based off that donor car was a go as well. Nothing devious, or jumping ahead of the facts. And you can bet the farm he isn't making false product comments (something about false claims, FTC investigations, and stockholder lawsuits. :))


When you look at the timetable at Oshawa, and the timetable that Holden plans for their V-car production change over, all point to 2008 calender year for a coupe (Holden's replacement for the current Ute is due late next year).