Last post on Oct 13, 2010 at 5:13 PM
You are in the Pontiac GTO
What is this discussion about?
Pontiac GTO, Coupe
Oct 28, 2003 (6:15 pm)
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If you don't like the Z you don't like the Z.
I'll tell you one thing. You can spot one in a parking lot. Put the new GTO in a lot surrounded by assorted Pontiacs and other domestic sedans/coupes and it'll likely get lost. Holden's special ops has put together an eye-popping Monaro but it's unlikely to be produced by the makers of mass market blandness at GM's US headquarters. Other than the badges and trademark Pontiac grill, despite the marketing hoopla, GM did little to spice up the looks for the American market.
BTW, there was no bashing of GM sharing parts. Plus, the 350Z does indeed have an oil pressure gauge. And you must know more about the price of a GTO than I. I heard it's going to be in the $33-35 grand range. While it's possible to buy a Z for a tad more (forgetting the ragtop Roadster), one can be easily had for under $30k. Something that won't happen with the new 'Goat' unless GM is forced to discount it. Unlikely at the low production numbers they're talking. A mere 18,000.
My intent here isn't to bash. As I said, and you obviously missed, I'd like to buy a GM. I have a GM card with 2-3 grand on it in credits. I'll look at a GTO. It has most the right ingredients except a less than inspired skin. Of course, marketers at GM refer to that as "understated" to turn it into a feature.
Two seater vs. a 2+2. Big trunk vs. a little trunk (Want a big trunk? Buy a Park Avenue!). Well tuned, relatively efficient 'rice burner' vs. gas guzzling, loud muscle car (the Pontiac web site's sound clip of the GTO is cool). That's a choice I and all potential buyers will have to ponder. In my case, it'd be a 2nd car largely for fun and short trips. So either cars, both impractical in their own ways, will work for me.
And, forgetting the GTO for a moment, I was excited by the Pontiac Solstice concept car. Finally, GM got it right thanks to Lutz. But it was first shown in 2001, I believe, and will be introduced probably as a 2006 model. Huh? You've got a working model of a car that's straight from the parts bin and it takes 5 years to develop?
I saw a recent spy photo of the Solstice and the masters of blandness at GM appear to be developing the ragtop version of it into a Miata clone. Nothing against Miatas. But it's already been done. Like years and years ago.
I keep hoping GM gets it. Lutz talks the talk. I'll keep hoping GM starts walking the walk.
Oct 28, 2003 (6:39 pm)
Sorry, I took comments like: "Well tuned, relatively efficient 'rice burner' vs. gas guzzling, loud muscle car" to be pretty idiotic and baseless. Because the Z is from Japan, it must be efficient, right? Yet my much larger, heavier, 4-speed automatic, V8 powered Aurora, which also has a substantially larger frontal area, has the same highway EPA rating as this "efficient" jap-car. The GTO numbers haven't been announced yet. A Z06 absolutely smokes the 350Z from a mileage standpoint. If anything, the Z's numbers are the ones that need some explaining.
The GTO starts at $33.5, and tops out barely over that. The 350Z can be had under $30k only if you get a total stripper model. They run up to over $38k. And most of the ones I see around here are in the $34+k range.
As far as trunk space, 7 cubic feet from a non-convertible is downright pathetic. In fact, some convertibles actually have more trunk space than that.
If the Solstice comes out as a 2006 model, that means it will be on sale in 2005. Also, it was shown at the 2002 North American International Auto Show, not 2001. So that is 3 years. Not to mention that the car wasn't greenlighted right away, and also not to mention that the Solstice is not a template for GM's development process. It doesn't mean every car takes that long. And also not to mention you have not mentioned the development cycles of other cars. How long do most cars take? GM is slower than everyone in development because you say it is?
The fact that you have a GM card doesn't make your comments somehow more relevant.
#542 of 4353 Performance vs image.
Oct 28, 2003 (8:20 pm)
While there's no denying that the 350Z has a much more interesting look, some of us are more interested in performance than looks.
The near 5 second 0-60 sprint and low 13 second quarter mile jaunt that is predicted is substantially better than latest Z car. And I have no doubts it will get fuel economy numbers similar to the estimated 19/26 MPG of the Z as well. In the second overdrive of 6th gear, I've figured out that I'll be cruising down the higway at nearly 75 MPH turning only 1500 RPMs. Running a big engine slowly doesn't burn much more gas than running a small engine quickly. With the manual gearing and the ability to make power low in the RPM range, the efficency will probably astound you. Want proof? Look at the estimated 19/28 MPG of the standard equipped Vette.
But the questions that no one has a good answer to:
What do expensive styling and flashy paint jobs matter when all they're going to see is your tail lights fading towards the horizon? And who cares how pretty your doors are when they're getting blown off?
#543 of 4353 Remember...
Oct 28, 2003 (10:15 pm)
...the original GTO was no looker, but a bit "stealth" (a big motor in a plain-jane car). I think that was a design aspiration of the new one...
#544 of 4353 comparison
Oct 29, 2003 (4:52 am)
Can't realistically compare a 2 seater sports car to a 4 seater mid size touring/musclecar car.
Oct 29, 2003 (5:51 am)
Time for the insults. So I'm an idiot for suggesting the new 'Goat' may be a gas guzzler. Yet, on Pontiac's own web site there's an interview with Bob Kraut mentioning it may be faced with a gas guzzler tax. People looking at the 'Vette forget that the new GTO significantly outweighs a 'Vette 3616 lbs. to 3214 lbs. Also, efficiency is more than just gas mileage. A Z produces 82 HP/liter vs. at tad more than 61 HP/liter for the GTO.
But those are just stats. I'll have to drive both to compare the experience.
Price-wise, it's hard to argue the Z can't be had cheaper. It offers 5 models. 2 are under $30k. A 3rd hovers around $30k. Can you go higher? Sure, the top 2 models are around $34k. The convertable tops off higher. You can pick up a two grand navigation system but I've yet to see one with that option on a lot in my area. The one I'm looking at is around $30k. Toss in my GM credits and it all most washes for ME.
GM's development process is a problem. I won't argue with you. Read industry interviews. Lutz is claiming the infamous GM bureacracy is now thinned out and efficient. We'll see.
Oh, and I was going by memory on the Solstice's introduction by memory which I noted by saying "I believe". Again, the critics of GM's slowness in getting it out the door is not me. It got a lot of buzz in the press. And, ironcially, not only did it come out as a drivable concept using parts straight out of the bin. It looked like Lutz had a passion for it so I hoped it would be a priority. I ended up wrong.
Oct 29, 2003 (6:19 am)
reminder: the term "rice burner" is not appropriate for Town Hall. Thanks!
#547 of 4353 Bested once again
Oct 29, 2003 (8:32 am)
Good points. 5 years is a long time for a car to be in development. Apparently when it isn't really 5 years, but actually 3 years, this is still too long because there is "buzz" in the press. Excellent point, how can I argue with that? (In case you didn't know, the Z concept debuted in 1999, and made it to production as a 2003 model, which is exactly the same timeframe as the Solstice. But there wasn't a lot of "buzz" so I guess that was an acceptable timeframe to develop something in.)
"Also, efficiency is more than just gas mileage. A Z produces 82 HP/liter vs. at tad more than 61 HP/liter for the GTO."
Another stellar point. America's reckless use of displacement is getting out of control. People act like there is an infinite supply of cubic inches, when it is a very precious thing. I'd hate to be around 50 years from now when the world is nothing but liter mines... all the earth torn up in search of more displacement to stuff in whatever the current American luxobarge of the time is...
If one small two-seater can get 29 mpg cruising and make 405hp, and another can only get 26 mpg cruising while making 287hp, which is really more efficient? hp/liter? Who gives a crap? Maybe GM should come out with a 50hp .5L engine. That would really wow you and the media.
It's funny that you yourself mention that fuel economy was a concern when the GTO was being developed. Yet, here you are saying it will be a typical poorly-thought-out American fuel-swiller... If it even has similar economy to the 350Z, that will really be a plus for GM or a minus for Nissan. The cars aren't at all comparable in terms of size or weight, or in terms of power.
"Time for the insults"? For one, I didn't say you are an idiot, I said those "points" you were making are idiotic. And they are. They are just stereotypical bashing of GM. For another, if you ask me, your post was insulting to the people who read and contribute to this board. Feel free to reply or not. I won't make anymore comments on this.
Oct 29, 2003 (12:56 pm)
i know why people are getting their shorts in a bunch
a) the car was not originally designed to be a GTO. That's why it looks like it does, its a monaro
b) people are damn lucky there is any GTO. thanks to Lutz he plugged pontiac's coupe gap with this rear drive 350hp coupe. which is nicer than any other pontiac by the way. so no complaining about whether it looks like a GOAT or not. be thankful this car is sold in NA.
c) the z car is a two seater, this is a 2+2. while somewhat comparable, it just doesn't matter.
everyone ought to shut up and be thankful you have a real 2+2 that's nice to look at and isn't a normal cheesy pontiac or the joke trans am. the fact it came from GM is a godsend.
#549 of 4353 yep
Oct 29, 2003 (2:01 pm)
The GTO can seat 4 real adults. Not 2 adults and 2 8 year olds.