First OFFICIAL pictures of 2004 GTO
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,308
From: Calgary
Well it's not a real hot looker but at least it's no Aztek!! 7 out of 10.
A Ram Air Hood would liven it up.
I'd like to see a rear shot.
If Pontiac is going upscale towards BMW- this is the perfect car. BMW's look good- no one would call them beautiful or sexy though-
but they are a true high performnace car with
a rep Pontiac would kill for
A Ram Air Hood would liven it up.
I'd like to see a rear shot.
If Pontiac is going upscale towards BMW- this is the perfect car. BMW's look good- no one would call them beautiful or sexy though-
but they are a true high performnace car with
a rep Pontiac would kill for
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 564
From: Fletcher, NC, US
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Z284ever:
They will undoubtedly sell out 20k units...probably faster than they can build them.
The great irony with the 4th gens in general was that those could afford them...didn't want them and those who wanted them couldn't afford them.</font>
They will undoubtedly sell out 20k units...probably faster than they can build them.
The great irony with the 4th gens in general was that those could afford them...didn't want them and those who wanted them couldn't afford them.</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by 305fan:
A Ram Air Hood would liven it up.
I'd like to see a rear shot.</font>
A Ram Air Hood would liven it up.
I'd like to see a rear shot.</font>
the rear bumper could benefit from some squaring off too. If you look at the rear bumper from one end to the other, it just bulges out too much and looks countrerproductive. I'd move it in a couple of inches towards the middle where the license plate mounts.Or better yet: move the license plate down to the bumper itself, and then you have more room to enhance the taillight design towards the middle, on the actual trunk lid, adding maybe just reflective non-illuminated panels or something there. I did a prelimilary retouch of a Monaro pic this way and it looks excellent!
------------------
1982 Recaro Trans Am (Y84), LU5/WS6/CC1/G80/J65/etc. 3,070 orig. miles (6/20/2002) - http://ohok.com/82recaro
1985 Base Firebird, F41/LB8/GU5/etc. CB radio, 142kmiles. http://ohok.com/82recaro/kizzsfb.jpg
1984 Firebird S/E, WS6/LL1/MD8/etc. All original, 102kmiles. Sold 5/02 http://ohok.com/82recaro/kizzsse.jpg
[This message has been edited by kizz (edited June 23, 2002).]
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 124
From: Milwaukee, WI
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Z284ever:
GOATCRAZY, I think I may have asked you this before but,what specific things would you change on this GTO to make it acceptable?
...I mean it looks like a Pontiac...it carrys current Pontiac styling themes.
Is this more a sense of dissatisfaction with Pontiac itself, rather than this GTO?
What would YOU change on it if you could?</font>
GOATCRAZY, I think I may have asked you this before but,what specific things would you change on this GTO to make it acceptable?
...I mean it looks like a Pontiac...it carrys current Pontiac styling themes.
Is this more a sense of dissatisfaction with Pontiac itself, rather than this GTO?
What would YOU change on it if you could?</font>
THAT'S what I expect from GM. Other car manufacturers have done it. If Chrysler can make low-production specialty cars like the prowler, viper, pt cruiser, etc etc..Why can't GM??? Why does GM have to take the easy way out and slap badges on other people's vehicles? It's a cop-out in my opinion..It's an easy business decision..Spend millions developing, designing, manufacturing, and marketing a vehicle that they're really not sure will sell...Or slap badges on something else that already is a hit..It's almost a no-brainer....But to a loyalst, it's an insult
As for specifics, I'd like to see the obvious: ram-air hood scoops, styling flavor of the 68-70 models [endura bumper, body shaping], maybe even a modern hidden headlight system. Hurst 6-speed or dual-gate automatic. Modern version of ralleye wheels..
I think you see where I'm coming from..When I look at this car, I want to see a MODERN RENDIDTION of a classic.
JUST LIKE FORD
------------------
'69 GTO 400 H.O. 350 HP
'96 Bonneville 231 S.D.
'96 Sunfire 2.4L H.O.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 124
From: Milwaukee, WI
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ponchoV8:
GOATCRAZY, so is the 231 S.D. in your '96 Bonneville and 2.4L H.O. in your Sunfire any more respectful to the Pontiac 421SD, SD455, and 455HO of yesteryear as this modern interpretation of the GTO is to the classic goats? Are you serious about those designations or is that all in jest? Are you one of those traditional Pontiac enthusiasts that don't like Wenzler and E-heads, or IA blocks and Eagle cranks because they are not "real" Pontiac parts and that you can go faster using outdated and expensive swap-meet relics? I visit a lot of the traditional Pontiac websites and soooo many diehards like yourself will never be pleased by Pontiac nowadays unless a real Pontiac V8 sits between the fenders of a new Pontiac. I think it's time to get over this. This car IS worthy of the GTO name. Lutz and Pontiac did good IMO, far better than what Chevy has done to the Impala or Monte Carlo. Yeah, the car could have been designed and built in the U.S., but oh well. They made use of their resources to get a replacement for the F-bods quickly and efficiently, and it is superior to any 4th gen F-bod in terms of suspension and interior design. And it is different from anything in GM's current domestic line-up.
This isn't a flame GOATCRAZY. I guess I can understand your discontent, but Pontiac could have done far worse to the GTO name. Thank the God's that Lutz is slowly making a difference at GM. I too love my old Pontiac, and once I have my 6X-4's and stuff in from P-Dude, I'll have my weekend warrior. In addition, I gonna be helping my old man restore his first new car that he ever bought and still has, a '74 Grand Am 400/4-speed, once he retires in a couple of years. Meanwhile, I'm gonna think about how I can rearrange my finances so I can get my hands on a new GTO when my '97 Z-28 is paid off. And to think, I was contemplating on getting one of those ugly-azz blown Cobra's, yuck. I just can't see myself buying a Ford just yet. I am still pissed that GM cancelled the Firebird and Camaro and the causes surrounding their demise, but with Lutz at the helm and the GTO on the horizon, I think GM is definitely on the verge of a serious comeback.
</font>
GOATCRAZY, so is the 231 S.D. in your '96 Bonneville and 2.4L H.O. in your Sunfire any more respectful to the Pontiac 421SD, SD455, and 455HO of yesteryear as this modern interpretation of the GTO is to the classic goats? Are you serious about those designations or is that all in jest? Are you one of those traditional Pontiac enthusiasts that don't like Wenzler and E-heads, or IA blocks and Eagle cranks because they are not "real" Pontiac parts and that you can go faster using outdated and expensive swap-meet relics? I visit a lot of the traditional Pontiac websites and soooo many diehards like yourself will never be pleased by Pontiac nowadays unless a real Pontiac V8 sits between the fenders of a new Pontiac. I think it's time to get over this. This car IS worthy of the GTO name. Lutz and Pontiac did good IMO, far better than what Chevy has done to the Impala or Monte Carlo. Yeah, the car could have been designed and built in the U.S., but oh well. They made use of their resources to get a replacement for the F-bods quickly and efficiently, and it is superior to any 4th gen F-bod in terms of suspension and interior design. And it is different from anything in GM's current domestic line-up.
This isn't a flame GOATCRAZY. I guess I can understand your discontent, but Pontiac could have done far worse to the GTO name. Thank the God's that Lutz is slowly making a difference at GM. I too love my old Pontiac, and once I have my 6X-4's and stuff in from P-Dude, I'll have my weekend warrior. In addition, I gonna be helping my old man restore his first new car that he ever bought and still has, a '74 Grand Am 400/4-speed, once he retires in a couple of years. Meanwhile, I'm gonna think about how I can rearrange my finances so I can get my hands on a new GTO when my '97 Z-28 is paid off. And to think, I was contemplating on getting one of those ugly-azz blown Cobra's, yuck. I just can't see myself buying a Ford just yet. I am still pissed that GM cancelled the Firebird and Camaro and the causes surrounding their demise, but with Lutz at the helm and the GTO on the horizon, I think GM is definitely on the verge of a serious comeback.
</font>
And, remember I used to work for GM, so I know that It's no longer realistic to have divisional powertrains in vehicles..That was an inefficient way of doing things fron the beginning...Of course GM brands competing against each other for sales in the 60's diddn't make sense to me either...So I'm not asking for a Pontiac engine in a Pontiac-specific car designed just for Pontiac. I wouldnt have a problem with that PLATFORM being used as a springboard for the return of the Gutless 442, chebby SS, and Skylark...They were all on the same platform back then anyway!
All I'm asking for, and I don't think that's too much, is for GM to put the same time and effort into this platform as Ford did with the Thunderbird. The Thunderbird is not styled along the same lines of the taurus, or focus, or escort, or anything else. It was designed as a modern rendition of a classic. NOT just another model in the lineup! And that's what the GTO has been reduced to..Just another in the lineup..
It's not a very flattering way to do a tribute to a legend!
------------------
'69 GTO 400 H.O. 350 HP
'96 Bonneville 231 S.D.
'96 Sunfire 2.4L H.O.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 124
From: Milwaukee, WI
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Z28Wilson:
Hmmm. I guess our point is, it just seems like a cop-out to throw a Grand Prix front end on the thing and call it a day. Give the GTO its own identity styling-wise....no scoops or other gimmics necessary. The car deserves to be distinguished from the W-body, because it is most certainly NOT a W-body. If this is going to be Pontiac's flagship then just set it apart somewhat.
</font>
Hmmm. I guess our point is, it just seems like a cop-out to throw a Grand Prix front end on the thing and call it a day. Give the GTO its own identity styling-wise....no scoops or other gimmics necessary. The car deserves to be distinguished from the W-body, because it is most certainly NOT a W-body. If this is going to be Pontiac's flagship then just set it apart somewhat.
</font>
------------------
'69 GTO 400 H.O. 350 HP
'96 Bonneville 231 S.D.
'96 Sunfire 2.4L H.O.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 124
From: Milwaukee, WI
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by HuJass:
To all of you that don't like the new GTO, click on the below link, scan down a few posts, and take a look at the photoshopped pic. Is that what you're after?
poncho,
I agree whole heartedly. These die-hard Pontiac fans want an antiquated iron block & head engine between the fenders or they're not happy. Compared to today's engines, the old Pontiac design is really not very good. Everytime you spun 'em past 5 grand you had to hold your breath in fear something was gonna shoot out the base, unless TONS of money was put into the engine. The old stuff is heavy and inefficient.
And I wish these guys would quit saying that Pontiac is ruining the car by putting a Chevy engine in it. I'm so sick of that. The LS1 is NOT a Chevy engine. It is a GM Corporate engine. It shares no parts or design with ANY of the previous versions of the small block Chevy. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this.
And then they compare the car to the current Impala & Malibu. How can you compare those? GM bastardized those names onto ugly FWD, V-6, 4 door sedan cars. The new GTO is staying true to it's heritage.
I'm afraid people just don't understand or are too narrow minded.</font>
To all of you that don't like the new GTO, click on the below link, scan down a few posts, and take a look at the photoshopped pic. Is that what you're after?
poncho,
I agree whole heartedly. These die-hard Pontiac fans want an antiquated iron block & head engine between the fenders or they're not happy. Compared to today's engines, the old Pontiac design is really not very good. Everytime you spun 'em past 5 grand you had to hold your breath in fear something was gonna shoot out the base, unless TONS of money was put into the engine. The old stuff is heavy and inefficient.
And I wish these guys would quit saying that Pontiac is ruining the car by putting a Chevy engine in it. I'm so sick of that. The LS1 is NOT a Chevy engine. It is a GM Corporate engine. It shares no parts or design with ANY of the previous versions of the small block Chevy. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this.
And then they compare the car to the current Impala & Malibu. How can you compare those? GM bastardized those names onto ugly FWD, V-6, 4 door sedan cars. The new GTO is staying true to it's heritage.
I'm afraid people just don't understand or are too narrow minded.</font>
I strongly disagree with the notion that purists want unrealistic things from GM. You guys think that we want GM to get out the old PAD documents, Get out the old stamping dies, fire up the old tooling plants, and start pushing '68 GTO's out of the door at the pontiac central plant in michigan!!
Did GM demolish the name of the GTO as BAD as the impala or monte carlo? No, I can't honestly sit here and say that. Could GM have done better? YES! I view this as a quickie, half-@ss attempt at a boost in sales, and re-lighting the fire of excitement at pontiac.
It's sad that GM has fallen to this level of mediocrity. Like I've stated in previous posts, if Ford and Chrysler can do it, why can't we??
------------------
'69 GTO 400 H.O. 350 HP
'96 Bonneville 231 S.D.
'96 Sunfire 2.4L H.O.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 124
From: Milwaukee, WI
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by gtjeff:
Its great to see GM resurrect the GTO, but I believe more restyling should be done on the front end. My first car was a 67 tempest, I thought the front grill on it was an excellent design with cat eye grill and stacked headlights.
Those huge parking lights looked bad on Solstice and dont belong here. This front end says grand prix or grand am too much. It doesnt look like alot of effort was put into the restyle. They should take some of the old gto's more popular design elements (like ford did with the Thunderbird) and incorporate them into the new gto.
Also why cant GM make a copy of Holden's tooling and build these here in the us or canada instead? Many people are going to be ticked off when they go to buy the gto or ssr and find huge dealer markups. With no 2 door gp soon, there is no reason the market couldnt absorb 50,000 gto's. It is the goal of every manufacturer to maximize sales, wonder when gm will learn this?</font>
Its great to see GM resurrect the GTO, but I believe more restyling should be done on the front end. My first car was a 67 tempest, I thought the front grill on it was an excellent design with cat eye grill and stacked headlights.
Those huge parking lights looked bad on Solstice and dont belong here. This front end says grand prix or grand am too much. It doesnt look like alot of effort was put into the restyle. They should take some of the old gto's more popular design elements (like ford did with the Thunderbird) and incorporate them into the new gto.
Also why cant GM make a copy of Holden's tooling and build these here in the us or canada instead? Many people are going to be ticked off when they go to buy the gto or ssr and find huge dealer markups. With no 2 door gp soon, there is no reason the market couldnt absorb 50,000 gto's. It is the goal of every manufacturer to maximize sales, wonder when gm will learn this?</font>
[Sorry for all the back-to-back posts, I diddn't realize the thread was moving so fast!]
Here's my last comment {for today}. The new GTO should be designed such that Jim Wagners, John DeLorean, anybody who owned (or owns) a GTO, or anybody who loves GTO's can look at the car WITH NO BADGES!!! [Important point]
And say WOW! Is THAT A GTO! If someone has to look at the badges of the new car, IT'S NOT A GTO. That's the most simple, and succinct way of describing the emotion behind the words. You shouldn't have to say...Well it says GTO on the side, and it's got a V8, and it's a 2-door, so I guess it's a GTO..
If you have to think that hard about it, you're rationalizing something that really isn't meant to be.
So my issue (and I think others are on board as well), is not spoilers or not, hood scoops or not, body cladding or not. The issue is the need for a car that screams GTO!
------------------
'69 GTO 400 H.O. 350 HP
'96 Bonneville 231 S.D.
'96 Sunfire 2.4L H.O.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by THE Z-MAN:
It won't sell, i'm sorry. Even former Pontiac guru Herb Adams said he highly doubts it will do well. He said he hopes he's wrong.
Think about it people. Don't you think anyone wanting a rear wheel drive, V-8 powered Pontiac wouldn't they have bought a Trans/Am?
2000 Ram Air T/A
92 Firebird
79 Z/28
</font>
It won't sell, i'm sorry. Even former Pontiac guru Herb Adams said he highly doubts it will do well. He said he hopes he's wrong.
Think about it people. Don't you think anyone wanting a rear wheel drive, V-8 powered Pontiac wouldn't they have bought a Trans/Am?
2000 Ram Air T/A
92 Firebird
79 Z/28
</font>
Seems that just having a GTO at those planned production levels won't fill the vaccum left buy discontinuing 40,000 coupes. I predict a shortage of GTOs & unfortunately dealers going crazy with markups as they are currently doing with TransAms & Z28s here in Dan Diego.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 190
From: Toronto, Ont, Canada
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by GOATCRAZY:
...the Gutless 442, chebby SS, and Skylark...
</font>
...the Gutless 442, chebby SS, and Skylark...
</font>
Why have you bastardised those legendary names?
------------------
---Ted Krygier-->
TED ONLINE
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 2,224
From: CNY
GOATCRAZY,
RE: your disagreements about my comments about Pontiac engines: This looks like a good place & time.
I have been around the Pontiac hobby for around 20 years now. I can't remember how many Pontiac engines I have built. I've been racing the real Pontiac stuff since 1988. I've probably got every book, magazine, and/or article written about the Pontiac engine. And I happen to be an engineer for one of the Big 3 car companies. I know what they're capable of and what their downfalls are. I still think it's a great engine with one caveat: for a by-gone era. They do not stack up to a modern engine in any way, shape, or form. Sure you can get the same power (and more) from them then, say, the LS1. But what do you have to give up? Driveability, efficiency, mileage, longevity, not to mention they spew tons of emissions into the atmosphere. Plus, they make a car nose-heavy. The Pontiac engine isn't exactly light.
And the aftermarket hasn't exactly gotten behind Pontiac. Where's the sequential tuned port fuel injection kits for these engines, or a distributorless ignition system? Or other high tech stuff. Non-existant, unless you want a super-small company (read, 1 guy) cobbing something up in his garage.
These engines were developed in the early and mid- 1950s, for crying out loud!
I'm sorry, time marches on.
And about the purists. I consider myself a purist. If it had a Pontiac engine when it was built, then it damn well better have one now, otherwise the car was hacked up.
But I'm visiting some GTO boards to gauge GTO owners opinions of the new car (Performance Year's, for example). Many of the owners have expressed quite clearly that if it doesn't have a Pontiac engine in it, it's not a Pontiac. They want their 400 back. What a shame. To be living in the past, with blinders on, never opening your mind to new and better ideas.
Maybe GM Powertrain should bore & stroke the LS1 to 400 CI, paint it blue, and call it a day. That's the only resonable alternative
RE: your disagreements about my comments about Pontiac engines: This looks like a good place & time.
I have been around the Pontiac hobby for around 20 years now. I can't remember how many Pontiac engines I have built. I've been racing the real Pontiac stuff since 1988. I've probably got every book, magazine, and/or article written about the Pontiac engine. And I happen to be an engineer for one of the Big 3 car companies. I know what they're capable of and what their downfalls are. I still think it's a great engine with one caveat: for a by-gone era. They do not stack up to a modern engine in any way, shape, or form. Sure you can get the same power (and more) from them then, say, the LS1. But what do you have to give up? Driveability, efficiency, mileage, longevity, not to mention they spew tons of emissions into the atmosphere. Plus, they make a car nose-heavy. The Pontiac engine isn't exactly light.
And the aftermarket hasn't exactly gotten behind Pontiac. Where's the sequential tuned port fuel injection kits for these engines, or a distributorless ignition system? Or other high tech stuff. Non-existant, unless you want a super-small company (read, 1 guy) cobbing something up in his garage.
These engines were developed in the early and mid- 1950s, for crying out loud!
I'm sorry, time marches on.
And about the purists. I consider myself a purist. If it had a Pontiac engine when it was built, then it damn well better have one now, otherwise the car was hacked up.
But I'm visiting some GTO boards to gauge GTO owners opinions of the new car (Performance Year's, for example). Many of the owners have expressed quite clearly that if it doesn't have a Pontiac engine in it, it's not a Pontiac. They want their 400 back. What a shame. To be living in the past, with blinders on, never opening your mind to new and better ideas.
Maybe GM Powertrain should bore & stroke the LS1 to 400 CI, paint it blue, and call it a day. That's the only resonable alternative
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 564
From: Fletcher, NC, US
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by IZ28:
Post it. Before and after. </font>
Post it.
Before and after. </font>
BEFORE:
http://ohok.com/monarofront.jpg
http://ohok.com/monarorear.jpg
AFTER:
http://ohok.com/gtofront.jpg
http://ohok.com/gtorear.jpg
Obviously there's not a lot happening in the back, but I moved the license plate, added dual exhaust, and removed all Holden logos. Same on the front, plus the obvious changes.
Let me know if it's any good or if you have suggestions
GT
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 564
From: Fletcher, NC, US
Is this pic new or old? http://www.motortrend.com/feb02/gto/GTO.jpg
URL and story with it are old but I don't think I've seen the pic before.. front end looks like !!TED!!'s and the headlights are from a Pontiac G-Force ( http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/0...s/g-force1.jpg )
GT
URL and story with it are old but I don't think I've seen the pic before.. front end looks like !!TED!!'s and the headlights are from a Pontiac G-Force ( http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/0...s/g-force1.jpg )
GT
