this is one reason why i dont like the new GTO...yet. i just hope GM can make it fast enough to beat a import 4 door 4 banger with a 3 foot wing.

http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthr...threadid=50866

this is just one car. i would post more but i have to go to work. ill get back to you with more.

this is one reason why i dont like the new GTO...yet. i just hope GM can make it fast enough to beat a import 4 door 4 banger with a 3 foot wing.

http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthr...threadid=50866

this is just one car. i would post more but i have to go to work. ill get back to you with more.

The GTO ran a 13.6 @104.5 Trap Speed means the GTO is making more power than the evo but because of the tires and no AWD, it can't launch as well as it should. Plus it is at least 200lbs heavier than the evo.

Not sure what point you are trying to make.

Maybe his point is that the GTO's performance is only slightly more inspiring than it's appearance.

Just got the new C&D, they managed a best of 14.0 sec at 102 mph and a 5-60mph time of nearly 6 seconds. Took 185 ft to stop from 70mph. Nearly 30 seconds to 140 mph? C'mon. This isn't a performance car! It gets plain old out-classed by other imports costing less.

They also complained of parts falling off during testing. It seems that the fuel tank has been moved to the trunk for safety reasons, leaving a cargo volume of a whopping 7 cubic feet!

The only things they praised were ride quality, the seats, the exhaust note, and the snazzy red stitching on the shifter. Oh, and they said the door handles were nice, too. Thankfully, it will only be imported for 3 years --- may they pass quickly.

1981 Trans Am, 462ci/4sp
1995 Formula
1963 Bonnie (for sale)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by trigger:
Maybe his point is that the GTO's performance is only slightly more inspiring than it's appearance.

Just got the new C&D, they managed a best of 14.0 sec at 102 mph and a 5-60mph time of nearly 6 seconds. Took 185 ft to stop from 70mph. Nearly 30 seconds to 140 mph? C'mon. This isn't a performance car! It gets plain old out-classed by other imports costing less.

They also complained of parts falling off during testing. It seems that the fuel tank has been moved to the trunk for safety reasons, leaving a cargo volume of a whopping 7 cubic feet!

The only things they praised were ride quality, the seats, the exhaust note, and the snazzy red stitching on the shifter. Oh, and they said the door handles were nice, too. Thankfully, it will only be imported for 3 years --- may they pass quickly.

1981 Trans Am, 462ci/4sp
1995 Formula
1963 Bonnie (for sale)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


So you take the ONLY negative road test as gospel? Have you even read the MT, Autoweek or Road and Track reviews of the car? Not a very good sample in anything if you ONLY look at one view of it.

So you take the ONLY negative road test as gospel? Have you even read the MT, Autoweek or Road and Track reviews of the car? Not a very good sample in anything if you ONLY look at one view of it.[/QUOTE]



from a lot of the response that i've seen to these threads you may want to accept that not everyone likes the new import.



hopefully gm picks up the ball and will improve the car, but i wouldn't hold my breath.


i still think you're on gm's payroll. http://forums.performanceyears.com/g.../icon_wink.gif http://forums.performanceyears.com/g.../icon_wink.gif


mike

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mike nixon:



from a lot of the response that i've seen to these threads you may want to accept that not everyone likes the new import.



hopefully gm picks up the ball and will improve the car, but i wouldn't hold my breath.


i still think you're on gm's payroll. http://forums.performanceyears.com/g.../icon_wink.gif http://forums.performanceyears.com/g.../icon_wink.gif


mike<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Mike, learn to use the quote function.

Still waiting on trigger. And since when was a subsidiary of a US owned company a import? Because it was built outside the United States? If that is the case, then the 93-02 F-body fits that too.

Did you read the same articles?

And nope, not on GM's payroll. Just know a good thing when I see it.

"So you take the ONLY negative road test as gospel? Have you even read the MT, Autoweek or Road and Track reviews of the car? Not a very good sample in anything if you ONLY look at one view of it."


I've been awaiting a rear-drive V8-powered 4-seater from GM as anxiously as anyone, and I've read every word I've seen about the new car, both good and bad. I certainly don't take C&D's response as gospel... their editirial staff ranks barely above the staff of the National Enquirer in my book. However, the times that their lazy editors turn in are usually accurate in terms of what the average driver could manage.

So some other editors managed a half-second quicker in a different car... that means nothing to me... it's a matter of traction, temperature, and driver. Fact is, the car should be a LOT quicker, or else it should be called something else.

For a new GTO to be a hit with me, it will need to look like a Pontiac should, and at least be able to keep the 4-cylinder import cars at bay. As it stands, it looks nothing like a Pontiac, and a stock GTP with nothing but a pulley change would undoubtedly clean it's clock for ten grand less! That's simply not what a GTO should be.

1981 Trans Am, 462ci/4sp
1995 Formula
1963 Bonnie (for sale)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by trigger:


I've been awaiting a rear-drive V8-powered 4-seater from GM as anxiously as anyone, and I've read every word I've seen about the new car, both good and bad. I certainly don't take C&D's response as gospel... their editirial staff ranks barely above the staff of the National Enquirer in my book. However, the times that their lazy editors turn in are usually accurate in terms of what the average driver could manage.

So some other editors managed a half-second quicker in a different car... that means nothing to me... it's a matter of traction, temperature, and driver. Fact is, the car should be a LOT quicker, or else it should be called something else.

For a new GTO to be a hit with me, it will need to look like a Pontiac should, and at least be able to keep the 4-cylinder import cars at bay. As it stands, it looks nothing like a Pontiac, and a stock GTP with nothing but a pulley change would undoubtedly clean it's clock for ten grand less! That's simply not what a GTO should be.

1981 Trans Am, 462ci/4sp
1995 Formula
1963 Bonnie (for sale)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, you think the editors are beating on the car trying to get the best out of them the same way an avg person does at the strip? LOL, A good driver will be able to knock a good half second off a mediocre driver.

What old GTO went 13.6 in the quarter again from any magazine? Please show us all...

Hmmm, it looks like the 97-03 GP. Did the 66 GTO and 66 GP look alike? Answer that for me.

GTP's sticker for $28K, GTO's at 33K. That is 5K. GTP's run 15 flat. GTO's 13.6, that is a difference of 1.4 seconds. You think a pully alone is going to net 1.4 seconds? Yea, like I said before you are still in fantasy land.

Good night.

"good night"

does that mean I'm done? That's okay. I'm not big on swallowing pills from people who think they're the opinion police.

GTPs with nothing but a pulley regularly run low 13s with the tires wanting traction far past the 60' marker. Have you ever been to a dragstrip? are they longer than 1320' in kangaroo-land?

Speaking of "fantasy-land" , since when does the GTO look like a Grand Prix? I think it would be going over a lot better if it looked like a GP. The GTO looks more like an overgrown Moldsmobile Alero with an Audi interior grafted in by a high-school vo-tech class. The rear end screams "rental car". And no hoodscoops? what's up with that?

And if you want to compare quarter mile times from 40 years ago, go ahead and give the old 389/4-speed car a set of those snazzy Z-rated radials, then we'll race. Or would you prefer we find one with more than 389ci? Maybe a R/A Judge? Try getting an extra handfull of horses from your new one with nothing but a screwdriver and $10 in carburetor parts and advance springs. Or bolt on a set of slicks and see how long your teeny pinion gear lasts.

and there's no excuse whatsoever to try to sell us a car of that size and cost with a trunk that holds SEVEN CUBIC FEET! My wife's little (imported) Firebird holds more, goes faster, looks better, and costed twenty-grand less to purchase.

1981 Trans Am, 462ci/4sp
1995 Formula
1963 Bonnie (for sale)

Mr GTO, since even the moderators are negative toward this new car...

maybe we should just give it a rest.

if the car is successful maybe in 3 mnths , 6 mnths , 1 year - attitudes will change, maybe they wont.


for now... it like talking and wasting time.

Australian RWD + American V8 - Now THAT'S what I call a "coalition".

times on subaru WRX STI ( 4 banger import )

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show.../t-454416.html

im gonna stop wasting my time looking up times on imports. i think i made my point. in case you missed it whats the hype about a GM car that is half a**ed? this boils my blood. gm can and should do better.

Greatest Of All Time

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr_GTO:
The GTO ran a 13.6 @104.5 Trap Speed means the GTO is making more power than the evo but because of the tires and no AWD, it can't launch as well as it should. Plus it is at least 200lbs heavier than the evo.

Not sure what point you are trying to make.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


well the EVO VIII has half as many cylinders as the GTO. id hope the GTO makes more power too. but its slower in the 1/4.

Greatest Of All Time

ive made my point time and time again. i back my point up with facts. i dont need ot say anything else.

Greatest Of All Time

http://www.migpc.com/Members/Grunewa...waldtfront.jpg

http://ultimategto.com/2004/04_00088_1.jpg

Hmmmm, not very far apart uh?

I agree the old ones will get up and go, but so does this one. And MT doesn't test their cars at the track, they test them with side equipment. It should go better in the hands of an enthusiest. You did see my my response to Tom Vauaght in his thread right? THe HP calculators? If not, go read it.

The car has 9 cubic feet of trunk space or about the same as the corvette. Had to be done because of the gas tank placement. That will change in 3 years when the car is built here.


69, when you put a turbo or SC on a motor it in effects doubles the CID of the motor. They are fairly light cars with boost and AWD, I would hope they would be quick. They still don't make as much HP as the stock GTO though. And if the GTO was a few hundred pounds lighter the car would be even more so....

So I will ask you again, is 13.6@104.5 quick or not?

[This message was edited by Mr_GTO on December 06, 2003 at 08:16 AM.]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by judge_jury_executioner_69:
ive made my point time and time again. i back my point up with facts. i dont need ot say anything else.

Greatest Of All Time<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For someone that should enjoy the throaty roar of a V8, you sure spend alot of time checking out the oversized lawn mower engines... http://forums.performanceyears.com/g...n_rolleyes.gif

No matter what you have, their will always be something bigger, faster, better...

The new GTO is a car that has decent performance.

I can live with that.

I don't want to drive something with a three foot wing and a fart pipe out the back. I don't even want to be near one.

So go ahead and spend your time on the 4 banger sites if that's what trips your trigger.

As for the folks that glorify the rUsTanG, just remember that the rUsTanG comes in many different varieties. The base rUsTanG comes with a V6, the modern equivalent of the original L6 that that the original rUsTanG had.

The GTO has never had a 6 cylinder. Not in 1964, and not in 2004.

I sure hope I never see the Pontiac equivalent of this from the rUsTanG website:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>V6 buyers get an exciting offering with the Pony Appearance Package. It includes special 16” polished wheels, unique rear fascia with black MUSTANG letters, GT hood, and leather-wrapped steering wheel (available with Deluxe and Premium models.) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When you see a GTO (new or old) you know that it is a performance vehicle.

I can live with the fact that their may be a bigger, faster, better something or other out there.

But at least I know that if I drive a GTO, I won't be confused with the school marm that bought the car because she thought it was cute, but wanted an economy car.

And I sure as hell hope that I never see a 4 cylinder GTO like fOrD put in the rUsTanG.

The Champ now gets off soap box. Please excuse the rant, but I'm getting sick of all this BS...

http://kurtsplates.homestead.com/files/wisconsin.jpg

My '64 GTO Convertible Webpage

The '49 Caddy Limo Page

The '72 Camaro Page

"when you put a turbo or SC on a motor it in effects doubles the CID of the motor"

who's in fantasy-land now? Makes me wonder who's spending all their time on import sites, bacause that's ricer-logic. I suppose the yellow GTOs will be twice as fast as the red ones?

I guess if I just bolt on a little hairdryer, my new "GTO" will have 695 cubic inches! How awesome! GM should put that on a plastic badge right next to the one that claims the car is The Great One.

If the trunk is 9 cubic feet, why are all the tests listing 7 cubic feet? Either way, that's teeny. It's a large 4 seater... it better have 3 times the cargo capacity as a little plastic Vette.

1981 Trans Am, 462ci/4sp
1995 Formula
1963 Bonnie (for sale)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by trigger:
"when you put a turbo or SC on a motor it in effects doubles the CID of the motor"

who's in fantasy-land now? Makes me wonder who's spending all their time on import sites, bacause that's ricer-logic. I suppose the yellow GTOs will be twice as fast as the red ones?

I guess if I just bolt on a little hairdryer, my new "GTO" will have 695 cubic inches! How awesome! GM should put that on a plastic badge right next to the one that claims the car is The Great One.

If the trunk is 9 cubic feet, why are all the tests listing 7 cubic feet? Either way, that's teeny. It's a large 4 seater... it better have 3 times the cargo capacity as a little plastic Vette.

1981 Trans Am, 462ci/4sp
1995 Formula
1963 Bonnie (for sale)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How would you know what any publication says because you haven't read them. There you go.
http://motortrend.com/roadtests/coup...to/index4.html

And as far as the CID argument, it is based of the old NMCA classes that said that turbo cars have to go into the big block classes because of the huffers. The GN's and Turbo TA's had to be in the same class as big block cars. Not my rule, just stating what the NMCA used to do.

Ever gonna trump me on any argument about this GTO?

since your "arguement" is that you are always right, and anyone who isn't a fan of the new car is always wrong, I see no need. To me, you're a little child who will get pissed off if other little children don't agree that your toys are better than theirs. I left that party about 25 years ago.

Facts are simple... this car is SLOW, does not have the features it should (usable trunk, easily accessible backseats, hoodscoops, etc) and it's butt-ugly. There's no arguement about any of that.

Let me sum it up: slow, impractical, ugly. It's not a GTO no matter how you state it.

and just because the most backwards sanctioning body this side of NASCAR says turbo v6s have to run a certain class, we can all double our cubic inches if we pressurize the intake charge a bit? That sounds like the *****-enlargement emails that clutter my mailbox up.

1981 Trans Am, 462ci/4sp
1995 Formula
1963 Bonnie (for sale)

Trigger, considering all your facts are always wrong, and I can't fine one fact that you have spouted that was right yet, you should stick to car audio instead of automotive fact.

13.6@104 in a 3900lbs car isn't impressive? LOL. What would be? Running 12 flat?

Who said the back seat isn't accesable? What good would a hood scoop be if it doesn't work?