WHAT?!?! Oh c'mon. If this is true, I'm quickly losing respect for C&D. It's one thing to not like the car, but quite another to out-and-out lie about its capabilities (unless the reviewers had their blue-haired aunt Millie doing the burnouts). I would direct them to the video posted here last week showing a new GTO doing it up John Force style.

 

I agree that review smacks of BS

 

The Phantom Black Metallic GTO I sat in Thursday had 275/45/17 BFG's on it... With a bottle and a half of "Tire Shine" on them I might add...

 

0-60/ 1/4 mile / speed
Pontiac GTO Judge RA III 5.9 400/366
Pontiac GTO Judge RA IV 5.7 13.20 104.0 400/370 test 1
Pontiac GTO Judge RA IV 6.2 14.40 98.0 400/370 test 2
Pontiac GTO Ram Air III 7.4 14.10 98.2 400/366
Pontiac GTO base 400/350
Pontiac GTO economy 400/265 * 65,454
This is what I found on one Muscle Car sight...
www.cccvette.com/1969musclecars.htm

 

Granted there were some VERY fast cars in the late 60's-72, but there's also some distortion of fact it seems.

I think part of this is due to the fact that performance really took a nose dive for about 20 years. Performance is a relative thing and compared to almost all the cars of the mid 70's to late 80's the "muscle car" era cars were blindingly quick in acceleration and had loads of torque and HP. They developed a reputation for being the end all and be all in the 1/4 mile. Which they were! Until fairly recently. Now, most of the older cars are modified. The one's that aren't run at the track very rarely if at all to keep their value up. So people aren't as familiar with the performance numbers of the stock machines.

Styling wise these older cars are now unique. They catch the eye because there's not much on the road like them anymore. Backup 30 years and things were a little different. Not saying they aren't beutiful, but they just wouldn't stand out like they do now.

Now a contemporary, conservatively styled GTO comes out, and you can certainly understand the initial reaction. I say give it a year or 2 and people will catch on.

 

For what it's worth, unless there are two different episodes, the C&D TV show I saw this past weekend didn't say they couldn't break the back end loose, in fact, the segement opened with a cery impressive burn-out.

 

Hmmm....I got this second hand from someone that said they had seen the episode. Gotta be more careful I guess.

From what I gather, the print artical came off impressed with the GTO. The only reason for the disparity that I can think of is that the reviewer was miffed that this "sacriligous" new GTO has been released.

 

I assume they were talking about breaking the back end loose, when powering out of a turn....

which is intresting cause for the Top Gear review of the Australian GTO, which seems to be a bit less powerful than the US ver, had the tail out with smoke pouring out, drifting thru every turn.. He said the ease of handling at the limits in the GTO was phenominal and never drove a car as fun as the GTO from over there.. He couldn't stop raving about how easy it was to drive, and much fun he had steering thru the "side window" since it was so predictable.. about how nice the ls1 feels.. how the driver positioning was dead on, the interior was perfect, room for 4, and a huge truck.. for a low cost.. "amazing".. And this guy has reviewed everything from mini's to a exotics..


So unless GM somehow botched up the US versions dynamics, I dunno what happened on the C&D review.. I have a feeling C&D had some personal bias and assumptions that skewed its review..

 

http://www.ls1gto.com/movies/cmnt.wmv

Somebody needs to show them that the brake AND gas applied together has wonderous results!

I thought I'd kind of clarify the intent of my question.....In 1964, when the 1st GTO came out, IMO people diddn't weigh vehicle styling as highly as they did later on in the muscle car era, or especially now...They were happy to be able to purchase CHEAP SPEED! And that's what the original GTO was about: Drop the biggest engine you can in the smallest car you are allowed to so the cost stays low......That was the magical formula!

Things changed though even in the mid-late sixties....A car had to have a catch, a theme, it had to be different...A big engine in a car that had the appearance of being your "father's car" diddn't sell...Enter all the gimmicks like "ram air" and "pistol grip shifters", cars with funny names: road runners with cute little horns, the judge, super bees SS's....So Image became critical, including styling...

So now, in 2004 is it good enough to produce a car that follows the 1st formula of all power & not much styling emphasis?

Is image just as important now as the late sixties?

Or is only the complete package of speed, image, and styling going to sell cars?

 

I think now, image and styling has much more weight that raw speed.

And then when it comes to speed, people want something that they can percieve as "great handling"

I think the majority out there has shifted away from just "cheap speed" unfortuantly.. Or at least cheap speed usually means some FWD 4 banger car that at least handles nicely for a FWD car..

 

Personally, give me a few "gimmicks" to set a GTO apart, like the R/A twin scoops, hood mounted Tach, plus all the New GTO offers.

I think they(C&D) only have problems with the "Automatics", some built in Holden "torque protection" Protocal programmed in to protect the tranny...(?) Maybe hard to defeat..(?)

Question, what would J.Delorean, P.Estes and J.Wanger think about the New GTO, as a "Package"(?)...( The managers responsible for the Original..)

 

Here's an article with Jim Wangers driving the 04 GTO....

http://www.advanceautoparts.com/howt...200307014G.htm

 

Wagners also wrote a glowing report about GTO in Pontiac Performance. I also recall a letter in the same magazine but different month where a reader slammed GM for the GTO... and the magazine rightly slammed him in return!

This poll (is GTO a sham?) is in itself ridiculous IMHO. Why?

1. The new GTO is the fastest accelerating GTO from the factory in history. A sham would indicate a false pretender or wannabe. The new GTO is clearly not a wannabe in accelration.

2. The new GTO lives up to the purpose of the old GTO. A sham would be a GTO that doesn't live up to the original's purpose, or it's purpose over the years. GTO started out as a sleeper car, that evolved into the pricest muscle car of all. Save the obnoxious "Judge" models, every GTO was all about engine. Is the current one all about engine? Yes... and more.

3. The new GTO looks like a Pontiac. It's gets forever stale hearing from some so-called GTO enthusiast (not particularly here on this site, but at another site which will remain nameless) about some type of GTO "look". Take away hoodscoops and a rear spoiler, the GTO looked just like any other Pontiac in the dealer's lot that year. What's a GTO look? Stacked lights? Side by side lights? Hidden lights? Squared off body? Rounded body? The fact is that not only did GTO look like other Pontiacs, GTO had many looks as well. The new GTO resembles a Grand Prix. So did the old ones. Doesn't sound like a sham to me.

4. The new GTO is V8 and RWD. If the new GTO was FWD or a V6, then I think it would qualify as a sham. Pontiac called their performance Grand Prix the GTP only because it didn't want to tread on GTO's heritage with something that didn't fit the bill. There has also been an assortment of supercharged V6 & 4 cylinder Pontiacs that have been proposed as the new GTO. None were. That would be a sham.

On the opposite side of the poll is the choice of calling the GTO marketing "Brillant". This is also ridiculous. Again, why??

1. Ford's Mustang was brillant. Chevrolet had the Corvair which had IRS, turbocharged rear mounted engines, & sporty stryling & handling. Ford wasn't going to spend the money to go head to head, so they put a Continental Mk2 body on a economy car (the Ford Falcon), added a sporty front & rear, came up with a name that evoked running wild on the range, priced it low & gave it a phenominally lengthy options list, and proceeded to sell the living begezzeus out of them. Minimal investment, ingenous idea. This qualifies as brilliant.

2. Ford's original Thunderbird was brilliant. Take a shortened version of a sedan chassis, create a car that's both a luxury cruiser and a sports car, adopt a downsized version of the Ford Fairlane as the body style, and create a car that outsold expectations and created a whole new class of American car. That qualifies as brillant.

3. The original GTO was brillant. Pontiac in 1964 was known as a car line for women & old men. GM returned to cheaper live axles & traditional engines (the '63 Tempests had turbo V8s, IRS, and flexable driveshafts!) and Pontiac needed a limited edition car that would attract attention to it's lineup. GM had a ban on large displacement engines in midsize cars. A couple of Pontiac execs and engineers devised a way around the rule & got dealers to order up initial batches of these cars. The same guys created "press cars" which were race prepared, and touted as "production" cars. The public read the articles, next thing you know, Pontiac couldn't keep GTOs in stock for 2 years as demand outstripped the initial small supply, and a whole class of car that defined a decade was born. That qualifies as brilliant.

You aren't going to find anything brillant in any cars today. Ford's creation of the 5.0 HO in 1982 may come close, as will putting a big bird on Firebird's hood in the 1970s. But even in with this group, bringing an already made performance car from Austraila to plug a gapping hole left by the old GM management also falls into this catagory.

So on both ends this poll is pretty tilted. No cars are brillant today. Brillant denotes an ingenious vehicle that creates a entirely new market or defines a period in automotive history. Does the new GTO do that? Of course not. Does that mean it's a car not worth considering? Only if you no longer have a pulse and lost your appriciation for performance cars.

Is GTO a sham? Again, of course not. The only people who consider GTO a sham IMHO are whiners. I AM NOT refering to those who simply want the GTO to look more agressive, so I want to make this clear (My taste in cars is towards sleepers... why I love the original GTOs as opposed to the "Judges").

The new GTO falls in the broad middle of those 2 extreme and ridiculous choices. In that middle are people who don't like the styling or people do. People who want hoodscoops & spoilers, or people don't. It's all on where your taste is in the car's appearence is as to whether you like the car or not. These differences of opinion are expected, and perfectly good!! We can't even agree on what's the best looking Camaro model, let alone the style of another division's car.

But with a car that does 0-60 in a hair over 5 seconds, has a top speed limited to 155mph, handles better than any other car sold by a US manufacturer here short of Corvette, Viper, Cadillac's CTSv, and Ford's GT, costs no more than a loaded Camaro SS or a mid-level WS-6 Trans Am while offering IRS, top notch assembly quality, the best sounding exhaust around, and faithfully follows every single catagory that GTO followed, calling it a "sham" is dishonest.

Don't like the new GTO's styling or the lack of hood scoops? No problem. Quite a few people have said that, and believe it's a good car that needs more vinegar in it's appearence.

Call the whole car a sham (and make up fake stories) over a shallow excuse that goes no farther than styling, and you're liable to blow your credibility out of the water.

It isn't the Aztec, and short of flamers, I have yet to read a post on any site that calls it ugly.

 

Right on!

 

Before I bought my Camaro, I was a Pontiac Man(still F-Bod). My first car was a '67 400 Firebird...pretty much stock, trust me, NOT a 14 second car...My first runs, with a single exhaust, transverse mounted muffler behind the axle, and an open air filter and good tires were 13.6's.
(Dad had a 396/325 SS Camaro..way faster!..)
NOT ALL Muscle Cars were rockets, but SOME were really FAST!..DEFINITELY "as fast" as today's GTO...
Some Magazines can't even drive the new GTO into the 13's, does that prove its a 14 second car???...NO!...
What I will say is, that technolohy has brought us this power form a smaller MUCH more efficient motor..No small feat...But right inline with Pontiac's policy to "build high performance cars that are also highly efficient and good citizens"..

originally posted by guionM
Did you know:
In 1959 Pontiac switched to the "Wide-Track" body style and quickly became the No.1 mid-priced car, selling in America...and No.3 overall by 1960..?

A Gran Prix, in 1962, could be oredered with an aluminum front end and a Dual Quad, 405HP/421 Super Duty!..?(A factory Race Car)
And when John, Pete and Jim (and others) dropped a 389ci, 4spd on the floor and bucket seats into a Tempest, you had the FIRST "Packaged Muscle Car".
And things like the 'Hood Tach" and twin scoops let everyone know what was coming their way!...It was so popular that "Ronny and the Daytonas" even wrote the "GTO" song..

Persoanlly, I think it favors the Cav more, the NEW GP has more character...
The sorta plain looking 4th Gens didn't sell well for $25K, do you think a plain looking GTO will fare much better at $34K???

Give it some character, and it'll be closer to brilliant.