how bout them apples - PY Online Forums

judge_jury_executioner_69 · #1 12-05-2003, 11:09 AM

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.

judge_jury_executioner_69 · #2 12-22-2003, 10:07 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by The Champ:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by judge_jury_executioner_69:
yeah im still waiting for him to admit he was wrong about the LT1 running under 13.6. still waiting im not gonna hold my breath tho.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well if you are referring to this,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>13.5 for a firehawk ? thats faster then 13.6 and its a LT1. what excuse this time ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

maybe you should realize that the Firehawk is a specially modified car built by SLP Engineering.

Interestinly enough, at the link you provided, they posted the times for the Firehawk and the Trans Am right next to each other, and the Trans Am ran a _14.8_...

From your own link that you used:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Q: How fast is my LS1 car?

A: Once again, each car will perform differently, however various magazines have tested the new cars, and came up with quarter mile times between 13.6 and 13.9 _stock_ for 1/4 mile times, and top speeds between 160 for the Camaro to 162 for the Trans Am WS6.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So from your own source, a 13.6 is the best time produced by a _STOCK_ LS1.

The GTO posted a 13.62.

Thanks for providing the information to prove you wrong...

I'll be waiting for your apology...

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

http://kurtspontiac.homestead.com/Mi...64GTOConv.html

http://community.webshots.com/album/15849580xmGcRmPeoB/

http://community.webshots.com/album/12663529FeuMopVfMu/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i know SLP made the firehawk. but its still a LT1. as far as i know basically it has a diffrent exhaust. its not like theyre putting turbos or blowers on the car. the firehawk stock from SLP does 13.5. oh i forgot the chrome rims. does that give it a tenth or 2 over a car with stock rims ? cmon man you can do better then that.
Greatest Of All Time

#3 12-28-2003, 10:50 AM

[QUOTE]Seems a guy might get by telling a fellow hunter that his wife is ugly, his kids look wormy, and his shotgun is a pos, But, don't tell him his retriever sucks hind tit!

CT Gross

to funny, but true.

Support bacteria. They're the only culture some people have.

judge_jury_executioner_69 · #4 12-05-2003, 11:09 AM

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.

Mr_GTO · #5 12-07-2003, 05:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by trigger:
1. never said it was made here. Get your "facts" straight.

2. I haven't looked for a test, but i've seen it with my own two eyes many times. If ours was still stock, I'd tick off a 13.xx pass just for you.

3. Never claimed that, or even implied it. again, check your "facts".

4. Sorry for the mistake. substitute 3.23 for 2.76, recompute.

5. yes, i am in fact a prophet. live with it.

6. many dealers are jacking the price. Check Ebay to see what a reseervation for the privelidge to purchase at MSRP is going for. That's a markup.

7. again I've read plenty. Why you think otherwise is beyond me.

8. http://tacgp.clubgp.com/charissis_alexandros/index.html

there's one of many GTPs I found running just as quick or quicker than a GTO with only a cold air intake and pulley swap. There are hundreds more of them if you bother to look around. Sticker on a new GTP is $26,500. Sticker on a GTO is $33k with a manual trans. Not quite ten grand, sorry. But pretty damn close.

9. The GTO doesn't look like a Pontiac to me. Sorry. It looks like a bastard rental car.

10. For the last time, no I'm not impressed with the performance.

11. so my history's bad. Point is, the F-body was killed in part due to slagging sales, while the F*rd counterpart is thriving and selling well.

honda: RSX-S
Mazda: RX8
Nissan: 350z
Toyota: GS series (lexus)

all have 4 seats and will give the 14-second GTO a run for the money.

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

1. Right, I said you bitched it WASN'T made here.
2. Right, so look for a test and back up your claims.
3. Sorry, you said the GTO "barely" outperforms the maxima. Maxima ran a 14.8 and the GTO a 13.6
In drag racing that is an asswhooping.
4.
5.

6. Yup, many dealers will. More won't. And you think Ebay is a good baramoter for telling which dealer is going to offer MSRP? LOL
7. Because you don't want to recognize the facts stated by the other magazines. That's why.
8. yup, but with just a pully, nope, not quite to the GTO and it is Wrong wheel drive.
9.Looks are subjective all the time. Looks like a Pontiac to me with the split grill.
10. 13.6 isn't impressive. Ok. Fair enough. It is for most.
11. F-body was killed back in 1996 when the feds said there were new crash test regulations coming in '03 and they decided that the contract extension with Canada, retool and redesign the car were not in the cards. Had Bob Lutz been at GM during that time, the F-body might have survived.

judge_jury_executioner_69 · #6 12-06-2003, 01:24 AM

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

trigger · #7 12-05-2003, 05:28 PM

"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)

trigger · #8 12-06-2003, 12:32 PM

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...category=33742

I just ordered one of these off Ebay! Now I have a 924ci Trans Am! Maybe I should get another so I can have a 778-inch mill in my '63 Bonneville. Wouldn't that be fun?

I'd get a third unit for our "import" (1995 Formula) but I don't think my wife could handle the 700 cubic inches, as the car already struggles for traction and bends it's little suspension parts. (probably a result of being able to carry more than 2 golf bags)

At least I have no fear of her getting beaten on the street by a new "GTO" on the way back from the grocery store.

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

Darrell · #9 12-27-2003, 12:53 PM

Yer right Mikey I'm not tall, I'm AVERAGE. YOU are less than average. Thats not I look down on you ( no pun) its because you are a pompous A**

ET 13.2 and spinning like a mother

Mr_GTO · #10 12-06-2003, 12:22 PM

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?

The Champ · #11 12-28-2003, 08:36 PM

Darrell

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I dont think Mustang was considered a muscle car till they came out with the Mach 1. I dont think Tempest was a muscle car till the GTO. My point is Mach 1 still has never had a 6 banger much like the GTO.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The GTO was it's own totally separate model for the majority of it's history. Check the title for you Judge and see if it says Tempest on it.

The Mach 1 has been a derivative of the Mustang for most of the 40 year history, but has always been a Mustang.

And the Mach 1 in 1976 had the 134 HP 302 that did the 1/4 in either 17.9 seconds...

Here's the link to the Ford Pinto based Mustang....

And let's not forget the I4 turbo Cobra of 1979... At least it was faster than the 302 of 1976 - it ran a 17.4 1/4 mile.

My post that you quoted:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your post:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Mike does this mean you want take a ride in my Judge when its done?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I was actually referring to a three foot tall wing and a fart pipe. I truly believe most people understood that the two go together.

The wing on your Judge and other GTO's and Firebirds (even the Camaro in my garage) were all original styling elements on these cars we love.

As to going for a ride in your Judge - based on your current disposition, no thank you.

I posted:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I'm not a drag racing expert, but there are many here that could tell us if 35 HP will provide a 1.3 second improvement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You posted:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>No friggen way!!!!!!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what else causes a 1.3 second improvement? Did they reduce the weight, put on stickier tires, traction aids???

My point is, the STOCK Firebird from the provided link ran a 14.8. The Firehawk, with engine and other mods ran a 13.5. It is documented that the Firehawk had 35 extra HP by the site linked.

As the self proclaimed resident expert - how much does 35 HP improve an ET?

What else explains the mysterious 1.3 second improvement?

Neither you, nor the original poster has answered that question

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Is that really a GTO? You seem to frown on Cars with fake wings, but you put fake scoops on your GTO (or tempest). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again, you bring up the wings, but just what is a fake wing?

As to the scoops, If you don't realize, most GTO's had non functional hood scoops.

But yes, it is a real GTO, and I remember you standing in my garage and being very appreciative of it.

Why now, do you choose to discredit it?

If it's to continue a personal vendetta, let's leave the personal attacks and name calling at the door.

No one here wants to read it. I emailed you what I thought of one of your posts on another thread to your business address listed on the board. You never responded except here on the board.

If you want to call me names and make personal attacks send me an email, call me, write me a letter.

I repeat, no one else wants to read it here.

My '64 GTO Convertible Webpage

The '49 Caddy Limo Page

The '72 Camaro Page

Tails · #12 12-20-2003, 08:01 PM

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What car is faster, bigger trunk, easier back seat access (and more leg room), with hood scoops for around $35,000?

Phantom Black/Red

#13 12-28-2003, 05:59 AM

[/QUOTE]Apparently the "opinion" poll on a new car most of us have not even seen live yet, much less driven, has shifted to bashing of members classic rides, and pride of them.

Not cool!

CT Gross

Well said, At the same time I think the reverse is also true. Some classic owners dont want anything else to subtract from what they own.So they bash everything else, others try to compare against what they have. Pride comith before the fall.

Support bacteria. They're the only culture some people have.

The Champ · #14 12-26-2003, 07:07 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by judge_jury_executioner_69:
the whole point of the link was for the firehawk. i dont give a sh** what the t/a would run. thats what happens when you twist words. the stock firehawk will run 13.5. what motor did it have in it ? LT1. becuase the firehawks have ram air and optional exhaust and diffrent rims/tires thats not a stock LT1 ? where did you read in that link that said they done something diffrent to the same LT1 that is in slowmaros and t/a's ? yes it is a "specialty" car. but the point is it has the same LT1 thats in other GM cars.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read your own link.

I quoted the link where it says the "STOCK" LT1 is 275 HP and where it says the Firehawk has 315HP.

So obviously, it is not the same "STOCK" LT1 as the other cars.

You're the one who's trying to twist that a Firehawk has a "STOCK" LT1, when everyone knows that 315 HP is 15% over stock.

How many guys at the strip would like to have an EXTRA 15% HP over their competitor in a headsup race?

If you want to talk "STOCK" let's talk "STOCK".

If you want to talk tuner cars, let's wait and see what SLP does with the GTO.

If they do the same for the GTO that they did for the FIREBIRD, than you're talking a low 12 second car...

My '64 GTO Convertible Webpage

The '49 Caddy Limo Page

The '72 Camaro Page

ChiefIronHorse · #15 12-07-2003, 11:38 PM

Here's another post. This person has (or claims) driven a 2004 GTO.

http://web.camaross.com/forums/showt...hreadid=194333

Snowbound · #16 12-07-2003, 10:53 PM

Thought I'd chime in here. I have here in front of me the Top 50 Fastest MuscleCars list that was published by a car mag a couple years ago. So no cars built in the last couple years are in the list. I'll list a few of interest.
#1 - '97 Viper 12.05@116
#6 '97 Hurst Firebird 12.99@103(fastest Pontiac on list)
#12 '97 Camaro SS 13.20@108.8
#19 '73 Trans Am 13.54@104 (fastest Pontiac motored car 455SD )
#30 '87 Buick GN 13.70@102
#49 '67 GTO 400HO 13.90@102.8 ( only GTO on the list. That's right, no Judges, RA IV's etc. )

These times are taken from road tests published over the years from car mags. The new GTO would rank at #22 with a 13.60 time.

Now I know the older cars would have been faster with modern tires ect. but 13.6 is still pretty respectable IMO. Sure a couple imports are faster, but look at the styling. Who thinks the WRX looks nicer than the GTO? Not me.

Take the car for what it is. Not the fastest. Not the best looking. Not the cheapest or most expensive. But all in all a pretty good first year car. Future models will be faster, sleeker, scoops, dual exhaust, ect.

If you don't like it that's OK. Don't buy it.

BTW, I own a '00 GTP and have followed the GP board for some time. Fastest reported stock time I have seen is 14.6. These cars are very different cars in hot weather. Very doggy. Good thing about living in northern Canada I guess. It's cold most of the time.

Brian

1967 GTO project in the works. 2000 GTP family hauler.

Mr_GTO · #17 12-05-2003, 04:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<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.

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.

Mr_GTO · #18 12-06-2003, 06:04 AM

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.]

ctgross · #19 12-28-2003, 05:32 AM

Apparently the "opinion" poll on a new car most of us have not even seen live yet, much less driven, has shifted to bashing of members classic rides, and pride of them.

Not cool!

CT Gross
------------------------------------------

"It's never too late to have a happy childhood"!

66 Blue GTO
http://community.webtv.net/ctgross/GTO

trigger · #20 12-06-2003, 12:38 PM

to enter the back seat, you must manually flip a lever, which moves the seatback to vertical, then wait on a SLOW motor to slide the seat forward on it's tracks. It's accessible, but not conveniently.

And no, 13.4 (or 14.0, as another test indicated) or anywhere in between is not impressive. Ten years ago it would've been, but not now, and certainly not a few years down the line.

My question is "why not the LS6"? Why not shave a little weight? Why not give it mild body treatment so it doesn't look like a bastard Buick?

I'm not a prophet of doom, but they are really trying to pass off a peice of crap as a GTO. It can be fixed, and i hope they do fix it.

Until they do, you will not convince me of a thing. (if you don't count the 2 cubic feet in the trunk... both of them). So save your breath.

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