Nothing's changed! - Page 12 - PY Online Forums

Goat luver · #**221** 12-10-2004, 06:43 PM

"Whatza GTO wrote" Uhhh, Ok. Nobody is saying it's wrong to set a scenario no matter how ridiculous or inapplicable. Make us another one Rab."

You haven't answered his first one sufficiently yet and you are already askinfg for more?... Typical actions for your profession :-)

judge_jury_executioner_69 · #**222** 12-10-2004, 06:58 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Mr_GTO:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by David Jones:
LS1/LS2 not Chevys? Who designed the basic architecture? In their current form, who used them 1st? GM has lost its way and is trying to convince the world that it can still engineer with the best automotive mfg's. Corporate engine? Bull. Consumers can see through the smoke screen and have made that clear with their pocketbooks. Sadly Toyota is soon to become the top automaker because of decisions like the one that created the "new" GTO. GM is capable of better.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>But then again, educated people and people not in denial already know this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since you fit in neither category why should anybody believe you? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for proving my point. I'll challenge you as I do with everyone else, find on GM's website where it states the LS1/LS2/LS6 as a "Chevrolet" engine. PLEASE.

Sorry, but Chevy ALONE took over sales lead from Ford. Toyota is WAY behind GM in sales. Keep dreaming. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

remember back to the late 70's when pontiac stopped making their own engines. what other GM car was making a 350 (5.7L). was it buick ? was it oldsmobile? was it chevy ? i think it was chevy. then they put those chevy motor in pontiacs. so youre saying back in the late 70's up to today that the 5.7L is a GM motor used in all GM cars ? only 2 come to mind (pontiac and chevy) only because pontiac was forced to.

http://www.pontiacheaven.org/about%2...c%20heaven.htm

red70goat · #**223** 12-10-2004, 07:02 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ozzy:
"Whatza GTO wrote" Uhhh, Ok. Nobody is saying it's wrong to set a scenario no matter how ridiculous or inapplicable. Make us another one Rab."

You haven't answered his first one sufficiently yet and you are already askinfg for more?... Typical actions for your profession :-) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Answer what? If there had been a 30 year gap between the original GTO and my 70 would anybody have recognized it as a GTO? Hell yes! Because it still had a unique enough grill and aggressive stance to set it apart from the rest of the Pontiac fleet, unlike the 74 which was just a rebadged Ventura. History repeats itself in 2004 with a Holden Monaro badged as a GTO that looks like a Grand Am /Gand Prix / Bonneville.

Goat luver · #**224** 12-10-2004, 07:28 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by red70goat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ozzy:
"Whatza GTO wrote" Uhhh, Ok. Nobody is saying it's wrong to set a scenario no matter how ridiculous or inapplicable. Make us another one Rab."

You haven't answered his first one sufficiently yet and you are already askinfg for more?... Typical actions for your profession :-) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Answer what? If there had been a 30 year gap between the original GTO and my 70 would anybody have recognized it as a GTO? Hell yes! Because it still had a unique enough grill and aggressive stance to set it apart from the rest of the Pontiac fleet, unlike the 74 which was just a rebadged Ventura. History repeats itself in 2004 with a Holden Monaro badged as a GTO that looks like a Grand Am /Gand Prix / Bonneville. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again, you did not read the question correctly before your usual "shoot from the hip" reply.
Let me help you along here...... If there had been a 30 year gap between the '64 and the next GTO production model would it have been instantly recognizable as a GTO?
Answer: No.
Reason: Because automobiles are constantly evolving and using technology as it becomes available.

IMHO, If the 04 had been "instantly recognizable" as a GTO it would have sold even less than it has for the simple reason that it would have looked like a way outdated/old fashioned model compared to the other modern cars that are on the market.

red70goat · #**225** 12-10-2004, 08:00 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ozzy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by red70goat:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ozzy

QUOTE]

Let me help you along here...... If there had been a 30 year gap between the '64 and the next GTO production model...
Answer: No.
Reason: Because automobiles are constantly evolving and using technology as it becomes available.

QUOTE]

You need to stick to the original question: 30 yr. gap between the 64 and 70, not as you have revamped the question of 64 and next production model. The 70 would have definately been recognizable as a GTO due to it's unique grill and stance, setting it apart from the rest of the Pontiac fleet. Had Rab. mentioned '74 I would have agreed with him because it was not unique in any way and was basically a rebadged model of something else already in mass production. While the 2004 certainly evolved technologically, aestically it had not evolved into anything recognizable other than what Pontiac was already producing in a fleet line.

RandyW · #**226** 12-10-2004, 08:29 PM

You guys bad mouth the '74, but they were more popular than the '72 or '73! A lot of the magazine guys liked them and they were not terrible performers in thier time, compared to other cars!

red70goat · #**227** 12-10-2004, 08:52 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Randy W:
You guys bad mouth the '74, but they were more popular than the '72 or '73! A lot of the magazine guys liked them and they were not terrible performers in thier time, compared to other cars! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Every now and then I'll see a very respectable '74 at a car show.

Goat luver · #**228** 12-10-2004, 09:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by red70goat:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ozzy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by red70goat:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ozzy

QUOTE]

Let me help you along here...... If there had been a 30 year gap between the '64 and the next GTO production model...
Answer: No.
Reason: Because automobiles are constantly evolving and using technology as it becomes available.

QUOTE]

You need to stick to the original question: 30 yr. gap between the 64 and 70, not as you have revamped the question of 64 and next production model. The 70 would have definately been recognizable as a GTO due to it's unique grill and stance, setting it apart from the rest of the Pontiac fleet. Had Rab. mentioned '74 I would have agreed with him because it was not unique in any way and was basically a rebadged model of something else already in mass production. While the 2004 certainly evolved technologically, aestically it had not evolved into anything recognizable other than what Pontiac was already producing in a fleet line. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Gee, for an Attorney you sure are having a difficult tme with this.
OK ....one more time. If there HAD been a 30 year gap between the 64 and the 70 would it have been instantly recognizable?
Answer: No, for the reasons previously stated.

judge_jury_executioner_69 · #**229** 12-11-2004, 12:42 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ozzy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by red70goat:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ozzy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by red70goat:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ozzy

QUOTE]

Let me help you along here...... If there had been a 30 year gap between the '64 and the next GTO production model...
Answer: No.
Reason: Because automobiles are constantly evolving and using technology as it becomes available.

QUOTE]

You need to stick to the original question: 30 yr. gap between the 64 and 70, not as you have revamped the question of 64 and next production model. The 70 would have definately been recognizable as a GTO due to it's unique grill and stance, setting it apart from the rest of the Pontiac fleet. Had Rab. mentioned '74 I would have agreed with him because it was not unique in any way and was basically a rebadged model of something else already in mass production. While the 2004 certainly evolved technologically, aestically it had not evolved into anything recognizable other than what Pontiac was already producing in a fleet line. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Gee, for an Attorney you sure are having a difficult tme with this.
OK ....one more time. If there HAD been a 30 year gap between the 64 and the 70 would it have been instantly recognizable?
Answer: No, for the reasons previously stated. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

why did ford go retro with their 05 mustang ? at least from the front end it looks like a 60 something mustang.

Nickv · #**230** 12-11-2004, 08:10 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
why did ford go retro with their 05 mustang ? at least from the front end it looks like a 60 something mustang. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because they ran out of styling ideas.

Goat luver · #**231** 12-11-2004, 08:51 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Nickv:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
why did ford go retro with their 05 mustang ? at least from the front end it looks like a 60 something mustang. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because they ran out of styling ideas. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL... Great reply :-)

Goathead · #**232** 12-11-2004, 09:26 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Because they ran out of styling ideas. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If that's so, why are they selling so well...?

PS: Are you saying the '04 has style of it's own? Get real....

Nickv · #**233** 12-11-2004, 12:01 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Goathead:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Because they ran out of styling ideas. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If that's so, why are they selling so well...?

PS: Are you saying the '04 has style of it's own? Get real....

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you misunderstood. Blatant retro designs are in my opinion a deadend design. The 05 Mustang is not slated to get a major redesign till 2010MY, if you don't believe that I can point you to the website and doc from Ford. The new GTO has a bland style compared to the 05 Mustang. But the new GTO's can and will change over the next 2-3 yrs.

In 2 or 3 years the "new" Mustang will be dated. Hell, it's already dated circa 1967.

David Jones · #**234** 12-11-2004, 12:51 PM

I'm seeing from sales figures that people seem to like the "dated" styling cues pretty well. Pontiac seems to be adding a few "dated" touches of their own to the 05 goat. I suspect that Ford also will change their Mustang over the model run. All mfg's update their designs during the life of a model. Ford just isn't going to have to do it to move the product. Pontiac is.

red70goat · #**235** 12-11-2004, 01:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by judge_jury_executioner_69:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ozzy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by red70goat:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ozzy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by red70goat:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ozzy

QUOTE]

Let me help you along here...... If there had been a 30 year gap between the '64 and the next GTO production model...
Answer: No.
Reason: Because automobiles are constantly evolving and using technology as it becomes available.

QUOTE]

You need to stick to the original question: 30 yr. gap between the 64 and 70, not as you have revamped the question of 64 and next production model. The 70 would have definately been recognizable as a GTO due to it's unique grill and stance, setting it apart from the rest of the Pontiac fleet. Had Rab. mentioned '74 I would have agreed with him because it was not unique in any way and was basically a rebadged model of something else already in mass production. While the 2004 certainly evolved technologically, aestically it had not evolved into anything recognizable other than what Pontiac was already producing in a fleet line. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Gee, for an Attorney you sure are having a difficult tme with this.
OK ....one more time. If there HAD been a 30 year gap between the 64 and the 70 would it have been instantly recognizable?
Answer: No, for the reasons previously stated. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oz: We are going to have to agree to disagree on this for reasons previously stated. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anybody that would disagree that 1970 was the last discernable year for the GTO. Even if it had a 30 yr. absence between then and inception it would still have been instantly recognizable as a GT0 due to it not looking like a carbon copy of other vehicles in their inventory, unlike the models that followed thereafter, including the 2004.

red70goat · #**236** 12-11-2004, 01:26 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ozzy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Nickv:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
why did ford go retro with their 05 mustang ? at least from the front end it looks like a 60 something mustang. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because they ran out of styling ideas. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL... Great reply :-) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, so did Pontiac. With the exception of the Solstice, everything they make looks like a Grand Am or Aztec.
" Forgive Bob Lutz, for he knows not what they want."

rabon008 · #**237** 12-11-2004, 04:23 PM

Always going back to the same old argument...mustang styling cues mean they know what they are doing and it makes them sell well.

Once again...someone give me the numbers on how well the Cobra model sells compared to the new GTO. And the Cobra model is only JUST in the class of the new GTO, doesn't beat it, performance wise.

Give me those numbers...don't talk to me about what some puny six or some weak a$$ V8 is doing...give me the numbers on the 390 HP model...How many of those is ford selling?

I really want to know.

red70goat · #**238** 12-11-2004, 04:49 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rabon:
Always going back to the same old argument...mustang styling cues mean they know what they are doing and it makes them sell well.(QUOTE]

Yeah. Maybe the geniuses @ Beavis and ButtHead Inc. will learn something from that. There's a reason why the GM Monaro, given it's a faster, better performing car than the 'Stang, wasn't even mentioned or considered in C/Ds MuscleCar category. GM: R U taking notes??

David Jones · #**239** 12-11-2004, 04:50 PM

No, lets compare colors and how they sell. Thats the important issue

. 390hp, thats not as much as 400 so it doesn't count. 6 or 8 cylinders. Yeah gotta be equal horsepower to count thats it. Maybe if Pontiac had started with a clean sheet of paper, designed their own car instead of trying to morph a GTO out of a Monaro we would be talking about something else.Ford did their own thing. Made a car that can appeal to a lot of different people, with a lot of choices on the option list, instead of Pontiacs decision to import a vehicle that can appeal to a very narrow group and compounded that mistake by making it look like a Cavalier. Then again maybe you are right, there is no comparison.

red70goat · #**240** 12-11-2004, 04:50 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by red70goat:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rabon:
Always going back to the same old argument...mustang styling cues mean they know what they are doing and it makes them sell well.(QUOTE]

Yeah. Maybe the geniuses @ Beavis and ButtHead Inc. QUOTE]

That would be Beavis and LutzHead.