Nothing's changed! - Page 2 - PY Online Forums

Goat luver · #21 12-01-2004, 04:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by whatza monaro??:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snowbound:
Funny, this guy hasn't posted on any other part of the board. Under this user name anyways...

QUOTE]
..can you read?... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Snowbound was sayin' that you only post on the 2004 board. There are many different GTO catogeries/boards. The question shoud be.... can you read and understand the post???
Enjoy your GTO-less life.

red70goat · #22 12-02-2004, 10:50 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ozzy:

Enjoy your GTO-less life. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You people in the 04 Glee Club must certainly be enjoying yours. Your post should say: "Forgive them Lutz for they know not what they buy" ( or not buy if you by latest sales figures). Way to go Bob! U the man!!

rabon007 · #23 12-02-2004, 09:48 PM

Check out my other posts about the Monaro history. Yes, your name says it all: you know not what a Monaro is or was. In fact, if the GTO had to be built outside the US, the ONLY choice based on history was Holden!

You may look at the GTO and say: "Nah, that's not right." However, if you had really driven one, particularly the 6-speed, you'd say: "HELL YEAH!".

The simple fact is this: It FEELS like a GTO and PERFORMS, not like a performance sedan but like a MUSCLE car. That is the essence of what the "GTO" badge means.

Are you really so dumb as to think that the first young kid looking for something sporty, sexy and fast walked onto a pontiac lot in 1964, saw the Tempest with a GTO badge and said "YES! That's as sexy as my neighbor's Vette!"? Rather, that young kid was talked into a test drive by the dealer, or his mother looking for something practical, or his father looking for something affordable. After the test drive the young kid (who had really wanted one of the new stangs or maybe a used Vette) said, regarding the little Tempest with the big engine: "HELL YEAH!".

David Jones · #24 12-03-2004, 07:08 AM

Put that motor in a mailtruck. Hell Yeah. Call it a GTO. GM marketing could use you..........

RandyW · #25 12-05-2004, 06:58 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by whatza monaro??:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snowbound:
Funny, this guy hasn't posted on any other part of the board. Under this user name anyways...

QUOTE]
..can you read?... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does your mommie know you're playing with the big boys again? While we're out driving our real cars you're home with mommie dearist....

rabon008 · #26 12-05-2004, 10:59 AM

David Jones wrote: Put that motor in a mailtruck. Hell Yeah. Call it a GTO. GM marketing could use you..........

On the original GM looked for a body in which to put a big engine and call it a GTO (and I am sure Ferrari enthusiast then and today are sick about the GTO badge being on a Tempest OR a Monaro). In '64, GM didn't build a body specifically for their GTO. In '04, it was the same idea: Where can we stick the big LS1? Since GM didn't build a special platform in 1964 and they weren't going to build a special platform in 2004, let me ask all of you '04 haters this: Which GM owned body did all you guys want them to use? A sunfire? a Grand Am? the Aztec? (Aztec is about as close to a mailtruck as I can find). Name the body that was available to GM that you guys wanted. Then we can discuss whether or not that would have been a better choice. GM was NOT going to build a new body just for the GTO!!! It costs too much money. This is true whether we are talking about 1964 or 2004.

Tom McQueen · #27 12-05-2004, 01:27 PM

"Name the body that was available to GM that you guys wanted. Then we can discuss whether or not that would have been a better choice. GM was NOT going to build a new body just for the GTO!!! It costs too much money."

Yep. So instead of having a long term plan to get there, they cheaped out and slapped GTO badges on an import. A nice car by all accounts. But not a GTO.

Mr_GTO · #28 12-05-2004, 02:20 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tom McQueen:

Yep. So instead of having a long term plan to get there, they cheaped out and slapped GTO badges on an import. A nice car by all accounts. But not a GTO. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think there was always a long term plan. Hell it is going to take 4 years to bring the Solstice together. It took 2 years to bring the GTO here and it will take from 2004 to 2007, 4 years, to bring the new GTO up to speed.

What doesn't make the new GTO a "GTO"? ANd don't say styling because the 64 was a box. Styling is subjective. other than that, please explain it.

David Jones · #29 12-05-2004, 02:38 PM

ALL cars in 64,except the Corvette, were boxes. Yes styling is subjective. And it would seem that subjectively the popular opinion is that GM missed it. If it really takes GM 4 years to get a car right, then they have a big problem. No wonder their market share has dropped like a rock over the last few decades.

Mr_GTO · #30 12-05-2004, 03:11 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by David Jones:
ALL cars in 64,except the Corvette, were boxes. Yes styling is subjective. And it would seem that subjectively the popular opinion is that GM missed it. If it really takes GM 4 years to get a car right, then they have a big problem. No wonder their market share has dropped like a rock over the last few decades. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, yea, because import cars had no part in that right? GM didn't exactly have to deal with that problem back in the 1960's.

Do you have any idea what it takes to get a car from paper to showroom when you don't have a chasis, a plant to build it in, etc?

You people bitch about Bob Lutz but since he has been in charge, we have the GM Performance Division, the GTO, the C6, the CTS/STS RWD cars and the solstice and other cars coming down the pike.

seems to me that GM is doing a lot better than it was and it does have a long way to go though.

Andretti · #31 12-05-2004, 03:18 PM

My 2 cents...

I liked the concept Goat. Mean, radical tuff look. I like cladding, buldges and even inoperative scoops and body vents.

You're right, it will take GM 3-4 years to "get it right". By then it'll pass Canadian bumper laws and I can even road test one! I feel guilty ever time I look at a new Stang or 300/Magnum...

I've never had an affair.

red70goat · #32 12-05-2004, 03:24 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Mr_GTO:
seems to me that GM is doing a lot better than it was and it does have a long way to go though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps. However GM shouldn't have left the design and implentation of an icon in the hands of Beavis and Lutzhead. An extra 50 hp. and a couple of phoney hood scoops are going to do nothing to enhance the appeal of this car as a GTO.

red70goat · #33 12-05-2004, 03:49 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Randy W:

Does your mommie know you're playing with the big boys again? While we're out driving our real cars you're home with mommie dearist....

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee, When I bought my C5 3 yrs ago I thought I was buying a real car. Thank you for informing me. I guess my well worn 70 Goat that I've had since high school ( 30 yrs ago ) isn't a real car either. I'm glad we have you people who bought a GM Monaro as a GTO to tell us what is real or not.

RandyW · #34 12-05-2004, 04:04 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by whatza monaro??:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Randy W:

Does your mommie know you're playing with the big boys again? While we're out driving our real cars you're home with mommie dearist....

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee, When I bought my C5 3 yrs ago I thought I was buying a real car. Thank you for informing me. I guess my well worn 70 Goat that I've had since high school ( 30 yrs ago ) isn't a real car either. I'm glad we have you people who bought a GM Monaro as a GTO to tell us what is real or not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You must be a bitter human being, so it makes your day to try to bring others into your pitiful hole in the ground, where all you do is tell people how silly they are! We all know it is you that have small ***** syndrome or Napolionic complex. What is it that makes you so small minded and hateful??

RandyW · #35 12-05-2004, 05:32 PM

For the record, I don't own a new GTO, though I have owned a '65 conv. and a '66 conv. over the years.
I just looked at this forum to see what owners thought of thier cars. What I found was you and your hang up about "Monaros" and your attempt at looking smart. Really you only look like a smarta$$! Why don't you post a couple of pics under your 'real' user name, of you and your cars? I'd like to see what a perfect individual looks like! You must be the most insecure s.o.b. on the planet, to make you feel you need to bash people online. I'm sure in person, you would hide behind mommie!

David Jones · #36 12-05-2004, 06:18 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>LOL, yea, because import cars had no part in that right? GM didn't exactly have to deal with that problem back in the 1960's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Had GM made some cars in the 70's and 80's that were worth a hoot, the imports wouldn't have made such inroads and GM wouldn't have a reputation as building unreliable no resale value cars.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Do you have any idea what it takes to get a car from paper to showroom when you don't have a chasis, a plant to build it in, etc? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The imports swap chassis's about evry 4 or 5 model years. GM and Ford and Chrysler are still behind the curve on that. I'm sure you're well schooled on new model development as an internet super sleuth.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>it does have a long way to go though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed

red70goat · #37 12-05-2004, 06:37 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Randy W:
... your hang up about "Monaros"... I'm sure in person, you would hide behind mommie!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhhh, whatever. I'm not hung up about Monaros. I'm sure they are a fine car. I just don't like the half assed attempt GM has done as lableing them as a GTO or the people that support that as a good idea. And why are you so hung up on my mama?...Go hide behind yo' mama.

red70goat · #38 12-05-2004, 07:52 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Randy W:

Does your mommie ...you're home with mommie ....

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeez dude...You've got about 10 references or so to my mama on these forums. You got a real problem there pal, kinda deviant. I mean, she's like 81 yrs. old. If you're really that interested though I'm sure she could line you up with one of her blue hairs in her gardening club or something.

rabon008 · #39 12-05-2004, 08:19 PM

Tom McQueen quoted Rabon(leaving out that I was talking about both the '64 and the '04) "Name the body that was available to GM that you guys wanted. Then we can discuss whether or not that would have been a better choice. GM was NOT going to build a new body just for the GTO!!! It costs too much money."

Tom McQueen Wrote: Yep. So instead of having a long term plan to get there, they cheaped out and slapped GTO badges on an import. A nice car by all accounts. But not a GTO.

So, by that statement, since GM approached the '64 GTO and the '04 GTO the same way, you must believe the '64 is not a true GTO either. What year did GM get the original GTO right? Is there any year that the GTO is a true GTO? Is the only "true" GTO the body style that you like? I noticed that you didn't answer the question. Answer it now if you have the guts: What currently available platform was GM supposed to use for the new GTO? Remember, please, that the original (Pontiac) GTO was built on an EXISTING platform. Also keep in mind that if GM had to develop a "new" retro body style JUST for the GTO then we'd be paying $50K for that priviledge. Who would buy it then, as opposed to a Vette? Please answer this question if you dare: Which existing platform for $30K would have made you happy?
_______________________________________________

whatza monaro wrote: Gee, When I bought my C5 3 yrs ago I thought I was buying a real car. Thank you for informing me. I guess my well worn 70 Goat that I've had since high school ( 30 yrs ago ) isn't a real car either. I'm glad we have you people who bought a GM Monaro as a GTO to tell us what is real or not.

So, tell us. I am sure we are all waiting to hear. EXACTLY what makes your 70 GTO a 'real" GTO that prohibits the Monaro from being a real GTO? Also, do you agree with Tom that slapping a GTO badge on a Tempest in '64 meant that the first Pontiac label of GTO was also not "really" a "true" GTO? I'm sure Champ will be most disappointed that he has a conterfeit. Is '70 the only year that they made the "true" GTO? Give us answers. We are all waiting to be enlightened as to what a true GTO is and is not. Is gtoric's '67 really a true GTO? Is Goathead's '65 really a true GTO? Since Goathead also shares your views about the '04 GTO, I'm sure he will be interested to hear your most wise discourse regarding what classifies as a true GTO. Enlighten us!!!

red70goat · #40 12-05-2004, 09:05 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rabon:

Remember, please, that the original (Pontiac) GTO was built on an EXISTING platform. !!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You answered your own question. Now what EXISTING PONTIAC platform did GM use for the 04 again? Given that GM owns the Pontiac GTO name (and please don't bore us with the origination.We all know GM ripped it off from Ferrari 40 yrs ago)they can tag any car in their fleet and rightfully call it a Pontiac GTO. Most consumers apparently disagree. I suppose if Dodge slaps a Hemi Charger badge on a Mitsubishi with hemispherical heads then that makes it a Hemi Charger, Right?