So So GTO

[super cirrus]

or just modify one...

 

[1X83Z]

They say if you buy a Mercedes CLK55 AMG Coupe, you can buy TWO of these GTOs...

Yeah. So?

 

[I6-4-eva]

I like it 👍 so far I've seen a yellow one with stickers and a silver one with some aftermarket rims very nice.

 

[JohnBM01]

Im'a tell you sumthin, boys 'n gals... the new Pontiac GTO has been bashed on by some, and respected by others. It's kind of like the middle-of-the-road racing game "R: Racing Evolution." Some liked it, others didn't.

People may not like the new GTO, but I think this is at least better than most of the crap GM is coming out with now. I disagree with the people who say it's bland. The GTO is Australian styling meets American agression. The Monaro-turned-GTO is actually a blessing in my view. I don't know what other GM car looks better, even considering the somewhat blandness of the upcoming C6 Corvette. While I... wait a minute, folks. I want to welcome Super Cierra to GTPlanet, from my hometown of Houston, TX, USA. I seen the GTO at this year's Houston Auto Show, but didn't get to get into it. But all I have to say is that "at least it looks better than most American cars now" (excluding Daimler-Chrysler (if they call themselves that)). The new GTO doesn't look overaggressive (compared to the Comp G), doesn't look thin on the sides (compared to the Corvette C6), and all in all, I like. Me gusta. If I wanted an American car that isn't from Dodge or Ford, make my car a 2004 Pontiac GTO. It has the right amount of style and prestige to make it seem more than your average 4-door sedan. Bob Lutz kind of made a good move looking to Australia's Holden brand for help in bringing back the GTO. You have to give GM credit for coming up with a nice car like this one. I actually think it looks better than the Grand Prix, even though they tend to look pretty close. And one last thing, the GTO can make one hell of a sleeper, even if its name doesn't remind you of this car's capabilities and what made it a household name in America. By the way, good points in post #14, M5Power.

 

[wdb]

If North American manufacturers were doing what they're meant to be doing, they wouldn't need to source a car from Australia, and they wouldn't need to try and dress it for American tastes (And judging from the cars that were released in USA in the 1990s, some American automakers - and consumers - have their taste in their a$$).

I'm Australian, I'm not gonna pretend i don't reckon the Monaro is a good car. But if GM had decided to design and produce a new GTO in North America, you can bet it would never have left North America under ANY branding because it simply would not be good enough to sell overseas. (Maybe the great American muscle car needs reconsidering...)

You'll get more aggressive styling with the updated model, and probably bigger chrome wheels (ooh-la-la! chrome! ), but for now the GTO's styling is compromised because someone decided Americans needed more aggressive styling. And the budget for this restyling was set by the *North American* arm of the company and not by the Australian arm...

 

[87chevy]

Yep. Of course the Celica owner would want to put performance aside and focus on looks. But have one - the GTO is a PERFORMANCE CAR. And more importantly, its bland looks serve two purposes:

1. They keep the price down. This vehicle is sourced from an overseas-market car, so GM did no research and development here. That's why they can afford to give you leather, ABS, 6-CD, keyless entry, 17" alloys, and 350bhp for $32500.
2. They make the car the sleeper that it is. The damn thing looks like the Grand Prix coupe. When you ignore performance and focus solely on styling, the vehicle loses every bit of its appeal.



But not to prove that you judge many cars based purely on styling? It's absurd. Once you guys - all of you - get past the fact that looks and color only matter to 20-year-old girls you'll be able to see cars however you wish - for performance, for value, for pricing, for economy. Until then, decisions are based heavily on styling. Of course, if you want to be that superficial, go ahead - but you'll never know what you missed in all those 'ugly cars' you passed up. Take it from the Nissan Titan owner - it might look ugly, but it's the best truck on the market.



It's the station wagon version of the Audi 90 with about seven zillion horsepower. 87chevy thinks it's ugly, though he's probably never seen it.

wow, i'dont know why you feel the need to make this personal.... Nice comment about the "celica owner", I think my celica performs well, naturally because i've never driven anything that performed better, well maybe my moms 'new to her' '02 Miata. I'm definately getting the TRD suspension upgrade for my car as soon as i can afford it. But anyways, I'm not saying i wouldn't drive a GTO, or even buy one, It's not ugly, i never said that, i just said i was disappointed, really disappointed. When i think of sleeper cars, i think of 350'ed S10's and Rangers, or conversion cars. it seems kinda silly for a Factory to build a Sleeper Car, because, well, then it's not much of a sleeper is it? When they spend millions of dollars on advertising it's performance.... think about that. Sure it's a good value, and i'm sure for the reasons you stated. I respect many a car i dont' like. (except honda's ) Sure, Volvo's are fantastic cars, would i ever drive or buy one, NO. They don't appeal to me at all. Saabs are good cars to, Would i buy one, no, i don't like their styling. Why would i drive something i don't like? Isn't it my right to not like cars based on styling? I didn't really think you had such an ego, but i guess this thread really brought it out of you, well, i guess I did. I guess you think 'brand loyalty' is stupid too. Maybe it is. But just because i'd drive any camaro over any mustang, doesn't mean i don't know the mustang might be faster or better. I menioned Honda earlier, yeah, they are reliable and cheap, and some or them perform pretty well, but i don't like their styling *gasp* and i don't want to be associated with all the kids that drive their Civic's with coffe can mufflers and stick on ground effects. So why don't you let me have my opions and quit making assumptions about me, oh, and quit telling other people what i think! I've never seen that damn car your talking about, so how would i be able to call it ugly! Get a life.

 

[ShobThaBob]

I think what M5 is trying to say is that your reasoning is stupid. Thats like saying "I dont want to own a C5 vette cuz most of the people that drive them are 60 yearolds." The way M5 values a car is based on how it suits his criteria, and how it ranks to all the other available vehicles of the same type. And btw, I think your reasoning is pretty stupid too, although, I would probably never drive a car that I thought was just hideous...but it'd have to be pretty f-ing ugly.

 

[87chevy]

The way M5 values a car is based on how it suits his criteria, and how it ranks to all the other available vehicles of the same type.

gee, that's exactly what i do to! but apparently my criteria has to be the same as yours or else i'm stupid.

 

[Josh]

I think the new GTO sucks ass, and so does Doug!

 

[AP1]

Yeah. So?

Sooooo...is that why people rather buy the CLK55 instead?

Oh wait...and you own a CLK55 too...

 

[Chevelle SS]

People may not like the new GTO, but I think this is at least better than most of the crap GM is coming out with now. I disagree with the people who say it's bland.

I do have to agree with the GM statement. The new GTO does grow on you as far as looks, it's far from ugly, and far from bland performance-wise. Also, it has that classic muscle car stance. The more I look at it, the more I like it.

 

[87chevy]

I will agree with JohnBM01 and Chevelle SS in that The GTO does look better than some other GM cars out there today. Let me also restate this one for ya
At no point did i ever say The New GTO was ugly!!!!!!!

I only said, i thought it was pretty bland styling for a powerful, RWD, 'musclecar'. In fact, it probably will grow on me as other things have. I remember when the Last F-150s first came out, I thought they were HIDEOUS, but now, eh, they're okay. But it has been several years. I stated i was disapointed that it looked basically like a smoothed out 2-dr GrandPrix. Now, i was pretty vocal about how blah i thought it was, but, once again, I only called it 'blah' now if somehow, you can transform 'blah' into 'ugly', well i guess then you know something i don't.

 

[240Z]

Not to be mean, but, I'd never be caught dead in a pasta rocket.

What?

 

[Driftster]

I'm sorry..but a car that has GTO all over the side of it is hardly a sleeper, not to mention a car that's medeocre performance has been backed by commercial after commercial and B-rated movies saying how great of a car it is......The CONCEPT of a sleeper went into it. But the fact that it's a GTO throws that out the window. saying the GTO looks better than some GM cars don't say much on it's behalf. The ones that are better looking IMO, are 2-3x it's price.....and at 32,495 MSRP base it's not that "affordable" meaning it's not much of a "Muscle car" considering they were affordable, and with a 13.6+ 1/4 mile it's not that great of a performer....Although it does do nice powerbreaks

 

[1X83Z]

Isn't it my right to not like cars based on styling?

Yep - but, like I said, you're missing out. The 1994-1997 Volvo 850 Turbo/T5 is probably the best sub-$10000 used car on the market. It was the first vehicle ever made to have side airbags, many models have traction control, and ABS and twin front airbags were standard, as was an advanced side impact protection system. Standard features included automatic climate control, full power and seat memory, a power sunroof, and 17" alloy wheels. They're reliable, they do 0-60 in 7.2 seconds, and they have 222 horsepower. For about $8500. But you wouldn't buy one because of the styling, or Volvo's image, or whatever.

Here's my contention: styling doesn't matter to me at all. I look for two things in a car: performance and features. I consider the Pontiac Aztek AWD to be one of the best midsize SUVs on the market because of its standard spec list. But you'd never know - because your list would never include something so 'ugly.' When styling is your top priority... it's time to re-evaluate your priorities.

I've never seen that damn car your talking about, so i would be able to call it ugly!

HA! I've never seen it, so I would be able to call it ugly! I knew he'd call it ugly even though he's never seen it!!

I think the new GTO sucks ass, and so does Doug!

If they'd give the damn thing a freaking options list I'd like it. But it doesn't even have a sunroof, for Christ's sake. Not one option! In fact, its only option - the manual transmission - actually makes it cheaper than the automatic because the automatic qualifies for the gas guzzler tax - barely - but the manual doesn't.

Sooooo...is that why people rather buy the CLK55 instead?

What?

at 32,495 MSRP base it's not that "affordable"

Can you name anything with that price with power anywhere near the GTO's? And I'm not asking for price-per-horsepower here: for $32500, can you name any new car with 350bhp?

 

[West Side Ninja]

You know what really makes me angry about the GTO? You have to pay EXTRA for a manual transmission. If it's a PURE performance car, why does it come stock with a automatic trans? Somthing seems fishy there.

 

[West Side Ninja]

Can you name anything with that price with power anywhere near the GTO's? And I'm not asking for price-per-horsepower here: for $32500, can you name any new car with 350bhp?

Can you say '04 mustang cobra? 390 hp. OWNED. 34k.

 

[1X83Z]

You know what really makes me angry about the GTO? You have to pay EXTRA for a manual transmission. If it's a PURE performance car, why does it come stock with a automatic trans? Somthing seems fishy there.

The Pontiac GTO "starts" at $31800, stock with a 4-speed automatic transmission. But the automatic transmission version comes with a $1000 gas guzzler tax, bringing the starting price up to $32800. Meanwhile, the manual transmission, which does not carry the gas guzzler tax, is a $695 option to the $31800 base, bringing the true base price to $32500 with a manual, making the manual, indeed, cheaper.

The Chevrolet Corvette comes standard with an automatic transmission as well, the obvious theory being that the kind of people who buy a Corvette will want a manual transmission and be willing to pay the $915 extra for a manual transmission. For the GTO, the theory has - in theory - backfired, though manual versions see a higher markup. The theory kind of backfires for the Corvette, too, if you've ever tried to look for used C4s, as I have: the vast majority of C4 Corvettes are, indeed, automatics, meaning their retail value is lower than it probably would be if they were manuals, meaning Chevrolet's brand resale value suffers. But only slightly.

In the short run, Chevrolet's doing the right thing whereas Pontiac's not.

 

[West Side Ninja]

Nothing to say about the cobra? Also, It's another problem with the GTO that it handles like a cruise ship.

 

[Darin]

I hate the GTO. GM couldn't think of a design so they took Holdens Commordor styling..

 

[Sage]

Erm, they imported the whole car. The Pontiac GTO is the Holden Commordor, with various Americanized changes.

 

[87chevy]

Yep - but, like I said, you're missing out. The 1994-1997 Volvo 850 Turbo/T5 is probably the best sub-$10000 used car on the market. It was the first vehicle ever made to have side airbags, many models have traction control, and ABS and twin front airbags were standard, as was an advanced side impact protection system. Standard features included automatic climate control, full power and seat memory, a power sunroof, and 17" alloy wheels. They're reliable, they do 0-60 in 7.2 seconds, and they have 222 horsepower. For about $8500. But you wouldn't buy one because of the styling, or Volvo's image, or whatever.

Okay, listen, Looks are not my #1 priority, It is definately second though. I'd say performance is my number One priority. And performance includes reliablity and quality of build to me also. I'm sure Fiero's were quick, but what peices of $h!T they turned out to be. I drove an 89 Toyota P/U for, 5 years. Not exactly bling bling. But i loved that thing, and still do. I won't ever get rid of it. Mechanically that thing is a TANK. The only major thing i've ever had to do was replace the Carburetor, and that was my fault for sucking an inch of muddy water down it. I didn't sell it as soon as i could because it wasn't flashy enough, it is a great truck.

Also, i have NO, none - zippo - zilch- nada, use for a big 4 door sedan. So how is it that i'm missing out??????? Is it going to allow me to do what i like to do? Like go romping in the woods and drive through 3 feet of water? no. So when i got money to buy another vehicle, i bought what MET MY CRITERIA. An 87 Chevy Silverado short bed 4x4. Now, i will admit, i really wanted a early 90's Toyota 4x4, but those were going about 10k for a decent one like i wanted. So i picked up the most buildable 4x4 on the market for 4200 bucks. did it look perfect no. But it is my favorite Truck Body Style. (well maybe the 72's and earlier look better) It fit my bill so i bought it.

Here's my contention: styling doesn't matter to me at all. I look for two things in a car: performance and features. I consider the Pontiac Aztek AWD to be one of the best midsize SUVs on the market because of its standard spec list. But you'd never know - because your list would never include something so 'ugly.' When styling is your top priority... it's time to re-evaluate your priorities.

no, youre right, i think they are UGGGGLY, but once again, i nave no need for something like that, not to mention the money if i did want one when they came out. And since when do you know what's best for me? If I think about it, aren't you a family guy? Wife and kiddies? or just Wife? So how is it that i, a single 21yr old student, should have the same priorities as you?

HA! I've never seen it, so I would be able to call it ugly! I knew he'd call it ugly even though he's never seen it!!

wow, that has got to be the worst typo i've ever done!! what horrible timing to have a typo. i didnt' even see it. Thanks for pointing it out I've changed it to what it was supposed to say.

If they'd give the damn thing a freaking options list I'd like it. But it doesn't even have a sunroof, for Christ's sake. Not one option! In fact, its only option - the manual transmission - actually makes it cheaper than the automatic because the automatic qualifies for the gas guzzler tax - barely - but the manual doesn't.

What?

Can you name anything with that price with power anywhere near the GTO's? And I'm not asking for price-per-horsepower here: for $32500, can you name any new car with 350bhp?

Yeah, sounds like it is a good deal when you compare it's peformance to price. I won't agrue with that, and i never did. I will state again, that i was mearly stating how disapointed i was in the styling. But now that i'm learning more about the car (mostly from you), apparently styling isn't it's only shortcoming. But, it's still a good deal for the price it seems.

 

[1X83Z]

Okay, listen, Looks are not my #1 priority, It is definately second though.

In this post, you actually say:

"Go with a Chevy ... To me, personally, Chevy Trucks are the only trucks that still look like trucks. Straight sides, flat grilles, nothing of the wall(dodge) and not covered in loads of chromed plastic (nissan)." You're recommending the Chevrolet Silverado based purely on the fact that the Dodge looks off-the-wall and the Nissan is full of chromed plastic. Nothing in the entire post about performance or dependability. Doesn't sound like those are your number one priorities to me...

Also, i have NO, none - zippo - zilch- nada, use for a big 4 door sedan. So how is it that i'm missing out???????

Welcome to the world of examples.

I also used the example of the Pontiac Aztek, and, earlier, the Nissan Titan. You seem to believe you have the need for a pickup truck - but you'd only choose Chevrolet because it looks better. Therefore you're missing out, because I've been in the Silverado LT Crew Cab 5.3 4WD and driven the Silverado LT extended cab 5.3 4WD and I've got to tell you, they don't compare at all to the Nissan, which performs much better no matter how you measure performance. Seems to me someone with performance as a first priorty would agree.

So how is it that i, a single 21yr old student, should have the same priorities as you?

I don't think you quite understand that those were hypothetical examples, based on what you said earlier. As is the one above. Keep in mind that you wouldn't own a GTO right now, but you're talking about its styling - but as soon as I introduce the Aztek as an example you talk about how it doesn't meet your needs.

Examples, they were examples. I'm sure the Nissan Titan one is much more to your liking.

 

[Driftster]

GTO's an ugly car for it's price, and an underperformer for it's price...If it were in the neighborhood of Trans Am's...Formula's and the like when they went out then it'd be a bit better...but otherwise......it gets a "eh" rating from me

 

[West Side Ninja]

Underperformer in a straight line? Hell no.

Underperformer in curves. Yes.

 

[Jetboy.]

Underperformer in a straight line? Hell no.

Underperformer in curves. Yes.

Well of course it isn't going to handle, it's a 3400 pound coupe with a 350 V8. That does kinda suck, though, manual being an option.Since when does a performance vehicle have auto standard?! (Besides Mercedes) It defeats its own purpose. One thing it does have going good for it is that is The GTO. Otherwise Pontiac would be Shat out of luck for performance vehicles. That and it looks good in yellow.

 

[1X83Z]

Well of course it isn't going to handle, it's a 3400 pound coupe with a 350 V8. That does kinda suck, though, manual being an option.Since when does a performance vehicle have auto standard?!

Oh my God. You can't scroll up on this very page to find post where I answered that? It's worse than creating a thread that's already been done without searching - you can't even find stuff on the very same page!

GTO's an ugly car for it's price, and an underperformer for it's price...If it were in the neighborhood of Trans Am's...Formula's and the like when they went out then it'd be a bit better...but otherwise......it gets a "eh" rating from me

Some day they'll teach you the difference between using an apostrophe preceding an 's' and not using one.

Some day.

Until then, I asked you to name any other car that gave you 350bhp for $32500. You, of course, can't, and dodged the question entirely. Truthfully, Driftster, the GTO is an unrivaled performance buy for its price, no matter what your ill-educated opinion dictates.

 

[RyosukeFCDS]

Not to go against you, but if you base performance just on a power figure, it's a bit silly, the whole car as a package should be considered.

Just a side note.

 

[Jetboy.]

Oh my God. You can't scroll up on this very page to find post where I answered that? It's worse than creating a thread that's already been done without searching - you can't even find stuff on the very same page!

Gimme a break, it was 2am over here.

 

[1X83Z]

Not to go against you, but if you base performance just on a power figure, it's a bit silly, the whole car as a package should be considered.

Just a side note.

That's the only thing you can measure. I believe that the Pontiac GTO handles better than a Jaguar XK8. Once I say that, Driftster would probably just say, "naw... the XK8 handle's much better", despite the fact that he's probably never driven either vehicle. So I stick to horsepower.