stars1010

Man I must have been tired. I just woke up from a 15 hour nap. And I was feeling great until I walked over to my computer and read the rest of this thread.

Hello?!?! This is no longer the 60’s! Auto Companies are run different now. If you want a cheap car with a huge motor in it go buy an old car. GM wants to build world class cars. If you think Ford is so much better go buy a Ford. I don’t think it will hurt anyone’s feelings around here. I think GM is right on track to be the best automaker in the world. Ponykillr, but mostly Heatmaker you’ve been !

Now can someone please lock this thread. I'm really sick of all the trolling lately.

guionM

Neat feat considering GTO isn't on the lot yet.

What do you exactly consider "good" brakes and "good" suspension. Have you even read a single review of GTO? Have you even read a single review of Monaro? Good take-offs? Tell us what exact suspension system you are thinking of as the "good example?

Quote:

Where do you get your info? The platform for the base model was a cheap piece of crap and the GTO was an even faster piece of crap.

If you are talking about the original GTOs, then you are right. They were for the most part as you describe. They were lousy at stopping (drum brakes all around!), lousy at handling even for their day, and they were e-x-p-e-n-s-i-v-e after 1966.

Quote:

And your also forgetting that the Muscle car only came into being for those peopel that couldn't afford the Corvette. Or do you now know why the Camaro is what it is? Even to this today it still has vette counterparts.

Since you are very unaware, let me clear this up for you.

GTO came into being as a limited edition promotional tool for the reengineered Pontiac Tempest & a despute Delorean had with Oldsmobile. Pontiac in the early 60s had a "old ladies car" reputation. The roadblock was GM's limit on the size of engine allowed in midsize cars at the time. Yes GTO was an accident!
Instead of wasting time going into detail for you, I'm including a few websites that you can read up on for yourself.
http://tripower455.freeservers.com/gtohist.htm
http://www.delorean.org/tgraham/history.htm
http://www.gtoalley.com/gtopagens.html
Note: No where was anyone generously offering a cheaper alternative to the Corvette. Get Real!

I really am starting to get the feeling you are just a young kid with alot of idealistic ideas, so I'll ignore that except to say I've probally forgotten more about Muscle cars than you'll probally ever pick up in your life.

Quote:

Tell me exactly what "family" look Pontiac eliminated, and exactly what "rebellious" look beyond the hood scoop Pontiac actually did to the Tempest and LeMans to make the GTO. I am serious. I want to hear your answer. "

Are you serious? Tell me your kidding?

TEMPEST

GTO

The GTO is like the anti-christ

You just proved my point, thank you for posting that.
Hood scoop, black grill paint. That's it.

1. If Ford Thunderbird is targeted for the same demographic group as "Cadillac's" then tell me exactly which Cadillac is Ford pulling buyers from with the Thunderbird.

2. Corvettes are 45 grand. V6 Buick Park Avenues run 40 grand. BMW M3s run nearly 50 large. You know why they sell? They offer something for the price. Thunderbird doesn't beyond styling. If Price was the Thunderbird's sole problem, it wouldn't have sold well in the begining, not the end. Especially after it's early recall for shorting out it's electrical system (I'll explain it to you if you wish).

3. Thunderbird wasn't launched with a 6.



1. Who told me this? You must have been living under a boulder for the past 8 years, because pretty much everyone and their brother knows this. Team Mustang members, Mustang's former Chief Engineer, Art Hyde, and even John Coletti, chief of Ford SVT has mentioned this. have you ever noticed that up to 2002, the Mustang Cobra never could outrun the F-body? There IS a reason behind that. You really need to get out more often.

2. The Ford GT is not an example of giving people what they want. It's giving CEO Bill Ford, design chief J. Mays, what they want, and giving the rank & file at Ford a morale booster. If you think this was done due to overwhelming demand, please post where you got this bit of information. It should be pretty good.


The old GTO left it's footprint because of performance. Period. It was the 1st car to put a big engine in a small car. As far as sales drop, don't count on it. 2005 GTO will have a more powerful engine, so will 2006, 2007 will be all new. It's not a retro car, so it's sales will be steady, it's a high performance RWD car, so it's customer base, though small, is solid. As far as Mustang goes, Mustang is a full line car from base V6s to blown V8s. GTO is a single High Performance Grand Tourer. Cobra vs GTO, Ok. Mustang vs GTO, I don't think so.


Why don't you simply post this so-called Grand Prix concept. I'm calling on this one.

There was a foam GTO concept brought out in '99 that was simply horrid (http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame...ar.mv&num=1154). This was a Pontiac effort.

The GTO we have debuted as a Monaro concept car at the Sydney International Auto Show in late 1998 to rave reviews and demands to make it (http://www.aushomepage.com.au/Article/637/)

No where does it say Grand Prix.

I've already taken a truth chainsaw to this claim and tore it to shreds earlier, so I'm not going to waste anymore time on this.

Ponykillr

http://www.motionperformance.com/mot-ads/68m427-9.jpg

http://www.motionperformance.com/mot-ads/67_427-7.jpg

http://www.motionperformance.com/mot-ads/68m427-8.jpg

In 1968, the Phase III Camaro was guaranteed to turn 11.50 1/4 miles times at over 120 mph with a M/P (Modified Production) licensed driver on an NHRA or AHRA sanctioned track. This car was "reliable & streetable" and was able to run these times shortly after being driven off the showroom floor. The warranty on the SS-427 Camaro was 90 days or 4000 miles on the powertrain and 24 months/24000 miles on the rest of the car - excluding all speed options. There was no warranty on any engine that was fitted with "internal engine modifications", such as a camshaft and high rev-kit.

BTW here is an Nova a GM "economy car" well equiped with a SS427 with 425 HP:
http://www.motionperformance.com/magazine/68mnov-2.jpg

1fastdog

If you think $3700.00 wasn't a lot of money in 1968 I presume you were not alive at the time. If you think Baldwin Chevy teaming up with Motion Speedshop is a factory muscle car you are again coming to an erroneous conclusion.

I was 18 in 1969 and bought a Z/28 that year and it was not considered cheap but rather expensive @ $3800.00 and change.

A $400 difference in car prices was the equivalent of $4000.00 bucks today. Desirable muscle cars were not unaffordable for those that had the money or didn't mind spending it.

Berger and Yenko did COPO cars and they were not cheap. Motion, Dana, and Nickey did engine swaps.

If you were there at the time I think you didn't come away with the same memory I have of the times and what actually translates in terms of dollar conversion.

The GTO was a hot ticket in 1964-1965 but the '66 SS396 Chevelles were a far better choice and a lot more popular with street racers only to be supplanted by a steady stream of different muscle.

Don't know what to tell you, I was there...

Ponykillr

Most of my last post was to answer the problems people had with my figures. Cars back then were more powerfull than now. Yes limited by tire tech but still more powerfull. Put some slicks on it and your in a good spot. Yes I know the BM Camaros were the most expensive way to get a Musclecar. I simply was illustrating the technology that was around then. people have this notion that the original Muscle Cars are all a bunch of heavy slow cars.

The main problem for this is the lack of leaded gas to maintain the high compression levels.

BTW you also answered my argument of GM outpricing their own market. YOU were 18 in 1969 and bought a Z/28! Id like to see any 18 year old now go ouut and buy a new Z/28. That is a $28000 - $30000 dollar car. Sorry folks way out of the reach of not only 18 year olds but a lot of older people also.

L.A. Z

You right. That one example proves that todays cars are much slower and less powerfull. Get real.

Not only do these people have idealistic veiws on what was and what should be (even though most werent alive in those days) but they are hard-headed enough to continue to argue with plain logic and facts.

You did mention the demise of leaded gasoline, but any other outside factors you completely ignore. If you can be anything be thrilled about the new direction of GM then you have a chip on your shoulder that nothing can fix.

Joe K. 96 Zeee!!

If you take into account Gross vs. Net HP levels then 425 gross comes out to about 350 Net HP. Or about the same as a 2001-02 Z28, T/A, or Formula. Impressive for sure...I'd bet that most people here don't consider muscle cars as "slow and heavy". But if you look at the whole picture you not only can get the power, but a whole host of unheard of luxury items AND handling AND better build quality AND double the gas milage AND safety.

Not to mention that some cost is due to regulations that made this possible. I mean, no seatbelts...you gotta be crazy. Airbags, crush zones, steering wheels that don't impale people. All this engineering and equipment adds to cost. Improved productivity takes up some of the cost I'm sure, but not all of it.

Anyway....it's a whole different set of rules now. Which is why you can't really compare cars from now and then. For sure I'd take a modern performance car over a muscle car unless I had the money to buy one as a toy.

Ponykillr

I totaly think GM is heading in a very good direction with Lutz at the wheel. Id like to see GM make people as ethusiastic about cars like they did in the 60s. The SuVs now are like the Muscle cars then as in they are all the rage.

Once again though the numbers were sandbagged back then to get around the Insurance issues. Take example of the L-88 427 rated at 435HP this # is completly bogus. The compression #s of some of the high end Muscle cars are astronomical. Compression is power in the game of NA cars. The reason why I bought an LT1 to begin with was becasue of its ability to run a higher compression ratio.

These older cars were absolutly ruied when the Leaded gas went away. This is all beside the point though. What Heatwave and I were really talking about is putting the Muscle car flare and enthusiasm back into the car market. Even the 4th gens though respectable in every mesure of the words amreican muscle failed to excite the buying public. Excitement has a lot to do with selling cars. Saddly the GTO is not very Exciting to most non pure car ethusists.

Yes the GTO will sell out of its *cough* 18k units. GM needs to sell 90k - 100k units to put it back on track in the car market.

One of the best Ideas yet out of GM is the Pontiac Solistice. What a car for the price. I have been pissed off ever sence the Miata came out and GM refused to play with it. The market for Fun affordable cars will always be there if GM is just willing to provide for it.

Lets just all hope and cross our fingers that the Solistice does not go to far over the $25k range. An unpractical car costing more than $25k will not sell.

Z284ever

Let's say the L-88/ZL1 were under rated at 435, (which they were),....let's say they were good for 500 gross hp.

Let's say the LS-6 was conservatively rated at 450. We'll give this one 500 hp too.

426 HEMI...maybe also under rated at 425.

Current LS6 if rated under old gross rating system would be around 500 hp. So would Cobra.

Ford GT and Viper would be well over 600hp.

I realise the GT is in it's own league price wise. But adjusted for inflation.....all the classic muscle cars with the big blocks I mentioned were very expensive in their day.
Probably the equivalent of $50-$75K today.

Ponykillr

The LS6 as advertised has 405hp it lays down on the street 350hp. The compression of an LS6 vs a L88 or even an LS6 in 70' is way lower. Also the older cars ran solid rollers.

If your telling me that an lead eating all aluminum 427 with a higher compression and solid instead of hydrolic cam is make less power than a all aluminum 346 with less compression and hydrolic cam?

Remember that Cars equiped with the lesser GM iron block 427 were guarented to run 11.5 at 120mph in the 1/4 mile. Sorry folks these cars were fast and had much more potential than our sorry small blocks. Not to mention they came with heavier duty parts including rearends and transmissions. These cars also came with much less restrictive exhaust systems and seatbelts even though some people forget that they had seatbelts. They are cliped above your head on the roof. These blets are just as advanced as the ones I wear in the old Cessna 172 and work exactly the same.

1fastdog

I was making good money at that time and was a footloose and fancy free guy. If a person of that age bracket was making with little or no expenses the '03 equivalent of '69 $8K a year, I think they would be able to swing a car, some do, some do with less.

Point is, muscle cars were above the "mean" car price at the time and remain so today. Roadrunners were one of the least expensive cars of the late '60's muscle era. They were expensive comparatively for how spartan a deal they were.

Not all of the '60's muscle cars were a pair of slicks away from the 12's... actually damned few were. When they became more expensive to insure than to buy.. emissions legislation, OPEC ...well, that was it.

I think affordable performance is a great goal, but real muscle was never "cheap".

Z284ever

I'm saying that if you rate them with the same rating system....they'll both make comparable power when stock.

Ponykillr

Some perspective on what people made vs price of cars here are some unarguable examples. The US Goverment has always been a good paying to military officers. here is the pay comparisons to 1968, 1969 and 1974. vs 2002

1968 an O-1 started out making $343.20 that = $4118.40 a year.

1969 O-1 was at $386 = $4632 a year

1974 (years prices and salaries started to rise to stupid proportions) $634.20 = $7610.40 Salaries and prices have doubled in almost 4 years.

2002 O-1 makes $2097 a month = $25164 a year.


Ok people a BM SS427 with over 500 Hp and 11.5 1/4s in 1968 started at $3500 a decent salery was $4000 a year.

When I bought my Z28 in 1995 it had 275 hp and ran consistant 14.0 in the 1/4. A O-1 made $1636.20 a month = $19392. My car cost $22000.

A equivalent to the BM SS 427 now would be a Berger Camaro. They far out price the BM SS427s of 1968. Also it was not hard to reach into the $30k range for a SS.

All together now the GTO is a $35k car. A good salary is around $26K. This ratio is not the same as the 60s. Cars are more expensive today. Performance cars are much more expensive today than they were in the 60s. Facts are a funny things sometimes and never change. And memories are never accurate.

1fastdog

L88 was underated to keep folks from buying it. Thus the heater delete requirement in 1967. The motor was made for homologation purposes and in numbers to satisfy race sanctions. I loved the times when this stuff was going on, but I see it in a perspective differently than some.

I figure we are in the midst of the "good old days".

Z28Wilson

All 427-equipped GM cars ran mid 11 second quarter miles??? First of all if you look at that ad you posted and read exactly what it says..it doesn't say much at all..."Guaranteed to run to 120 mph in 11.5 sec or better". What does that even mean? There's no mention of "quarter mile" there at all. Even the legendary 1st Gen Z/28 struggled to break into the 13's in most magazine tests. Yeah I know rag editors can't drive...but it's not like a decent driver cuts 2 full seconds or more off a quarter mile time.

As far as power ratings back then go, they were very impressive, but there's a little thing called gross vs. net horsepower. Back then, engines were rated using gross horsepower...that is, no belt-driven accessories attached to rob horsepower. I believe the current LS6 would be rated near 500 HP in 1968 terms...and gets twice the gas milage and is twice as reliable. So I'm not sure where you're getting this thought that today's small blocks are crap compared to the engines of that time.

*Sigh*. I give up.