Tell Bob Lutz what you think of the GTO - Page 17 - PY Online Forums

red70goat · #**321** 05-11-2005, 10:12 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Merdin:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by red70goat:
Well...it was actually an option on the Ventura which I guess could be argued that was actually a Nova. That did wonders for the cars image. Apparently GM didn't learn any lessons from that. It would appear history is repeating itself. I don't hate the car or the people that buy it. I just enjoy picking on the GM Monaro Glee Club Elite that think they are better than everybody else because they apparently "get something" that those who dislike what GM did to the GTO don't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But it never occured to me that it was "superior" to the classic goats.

As a musclecar it is superior: faster, more fuel efficient, better handling, safer, better creature comforts. As a GTO it is not. GM took the easy way out and shortcuts to get a car to the performance oriented consumer market as a GTO., along the way making it very clear this car was not intended for the traditional GTO buyer. Therein lies the discontent.

Merdin · #**322** 05-11-2005, 11:08 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by red70goat:
As a musclecar it is superior: faster, more fuel efficient, better handling, safer, better creature comforts. As a GTO it is not. GM took the easy way out and shortcuts to get a car to the performance oriented consumer market as a GTO., along the way making it very clear this car was not intended for the traditional GTO buyer. Therein lies the discontent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure who "the traditional GTO buyer" is. Can you define that for me? I know there aren't any styling similarities on the '04, and darn few on the '05. Is that the sole problem?

But if that's all it is, can't we get past that and at least recognize that at least under the body lies a "muscle car" drive train? At least it's not a 4-door, V6, front wheel drive Impala.

rabon008 · #**323** 05-11-2005, 11:31 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by David Jones:
As usual. You read something into a reply that wasn't there. Let me explain it to you like a child. SALES RECORDS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I knew exactly what you meant. Ever hear of sarcasm?

red70goat · #**324** 05-11-2005, 12:07 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Merdin:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by red70goat:
As a musclecar it is superior: faster, more fuel efficient, better handling, safer, better creature comforts. As a GTO it is not. GM took the easy way out and shortcuts to get a car to the performance oriented consumer market as a GTO., along the way making it very clear this car was not intended for the traditional GTO buyer. Therein lies the discontent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure who "the traditional GTO buyer" is

Neither is Bob Lutz

that at least under the body lies a "muscle car" drive train?

No argument there. It is a fine musclecar. The generics of the fleet exterior and drivetrain found in other GM models external of Pontiac fail to distinguish it as a GTO.

Merdin · #**325** 05-11-2005, 12:38 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by red70goat:
...and drivetrain found in other GM models external of Pontiac fail to distinguish it as a GTO.[/b] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, so it lacks the retro styling. I've conceded that point.

But the drivetrain argument is what I find the most preposterous... are you saying that the Pontiac F-Bodies weren't really Pontiacs either? They definately had the LS1's before their demise, and I don't remember how long ago it was that a Firebird or TA had a Pontiac-only engine. The 80's? Maybe the 70's?

David Jones · #**326** 05-11-2005, 01:20 PM

Sorry, since you tried to point out to me how smart you were, I would rather not assume anything........

red70goat · #**327** 05-11-2005, 03:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Merdin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by red70goat:
...and drivetrain found in other GM models external of Pontiac fail to distinguish it as a GTO.[/b] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, so it lacks the retro styling. I've conceded that point.

But the drivetrain argument is what I find the most preposterous... are you saying that the Pontiac F-Bodies weren't really Pontiacs either? They definately had the LS1's before their demise, and I don't remember how long ago it was that a Firebird or TA had a Pontiac-only engine. The 80's? Maybe the 70's? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The GM Monaro is definately a Pontiac because it is VIN'd as such. I just don't think it's a very good GTO. As far as what happened in the 70's / 80's: In 1972 the GTO officially died although it continued to get masked as option material through 1974. 1975 for the Firebirds due to the elimination of the Super Duty's, turbo hyd. trans, muncie 4sd and true duals. Pontiac hasn't revived either since.

Merdin · #**328** 05-11-2005, 05:05 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by red70goat:
The GM Monaro is definately a Pontiac because it is VIN'd as such. I just don't think it's a very good GTO. As far as what happened in the 70's / 80's: In 1972 the GTO officially died although it continued to get masked as option material through 1974. 1975 for the Firebirds due to the elimination of the Super Duty's, turbo hyd. trans, muncie 4sd and true duals. Pontiac hasn't revived either since. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I guess that's it. You're just one of those guys who won't be happy with any new cars until Pontiac makes an exact replica of a 70 GTO (or any other car & year you deam as "real"). I was on a quest to figure out the reasoning behind the comments and I guess I found it. Thanks.

NaOH · #**329** 05-11-2005, 05:15 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Merdin:
You're just one of those guys who won't be happy with any new cars until Pontiac makes an exact replica of a 70 GTO (or any other car & year you deam as "real"). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, and it needs to have 500hp, get 30 mpg, and cost less than $20,000. ( -__-)

red70goat · #**330** 05-11-2005, 05:32 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Merdin:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by red70goat:
The GM Monaro is definately a Pontiac because it is VIN'd as such. I just don't think it's a very good GTO. As far as what happened in the 70's / 80's: In 1972 the GTO officially died although it continued to get masked as option material through 1974. 1975 for the Firebirds due to the elimination of the Super Duty's, turbo hyd. trans, muncie 4sd and true duals. Pontiac hasn't revived either since. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I guess that's it. You're just one of those guys who won't be happy with any new cars until Pontiac makes an exact replica of a 70 GTO QUOTE]

Actually Roudy Rabon did a pretty good job pointing out the similarities of the GM Monaro to a 1970 GTO. If Pontiac would enhance that theme a bit more, give it a Pontiac specific powerplant then I think one could realistically call it a modern day GTO.I have maintained GM needs to downsize their existing inventory, make Pontiac the performance specific division of GM ( without any Australian cross-breeding please ) and make the Corvette it's own franchise GM would be respectable again.

Bob Hall · #**331** 05-11-2005, 07:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by red70goat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Merdin:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by red70goat:
As a musclecar it is superior: faster, more fuel efficient, better handling, safer, better creature comforts. As a GTO it is not. GM took the easy way out and shortcuts to get a car to the performance oriented consumer market as a GTO., along the way making it very clear this car was not intended for the traditional GTO buyer. Therein lies the discontent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure who "the traditional GTO buyer" is

Neither is Bob Lutz

that at least under the body lies a "muscle car" drive train?

No argument there. It is a fine musclecar. The generics of the fleet exterior and drivetrain found in other GM models external of Pontiac fail to distinguish it as a GTO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In reference to the "traditional GTO buyer" I read a statistic that stated that the age range of the purchasers of a brand new GTO ran from the late 20's to mid 40's. Now if that late 20's person bought a GTO in 1964, today they would be in their late 60's and the mid 40's guy would be in his mid 80's. What are these guys driving everyday now? Probably Buicks and Mercurys. So, if you see the "traditional GTO buyer" in this context, Lutz's comment about the traditional GTO buyer makes sense. Well, at least to me it does.

Bob

Skip Fix · #**332** 05-11-2005, 09:44 PM

What Pontiac specific powerplant is even out there now?? There hasn't been one made since the 301 in 81, what a winner that one was, even a turbo couldn;t blow enough air into those screwy ports to make horsepower! Or a "good one" since 79 when they used up the last of the 78 400s TA 6.6s.I guess all the California and other Olds 403 TAs aren't real Pontiacs either. Ort gosh maybe Firebirds aren't real Pontiacs as some had 6 cylinders and some had Chevy motors. I guess the third and fourth gen F bodies aren't real Pontiacs either.

There isn't a DeLorean Time machine to drop back to 1970 to buy your real GTO, actually I thought 70 was ugly compared to 69 and earlier GTOs. The nose and tail lights didn't do it for my.And I was driving when they were new! I'll saw again the first GTO 1964 was double ugly and had mini fake scoops!

The new GTOs accelerate and corner like a 4th gen bird something earlier Pontiacs didn't do from the factory.

red70goat · #**333** 05-12-2005, 08:17 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Skip Fix:
I guess the third and fourth gen F bodies aren't real Pontiacs either.

Who said anything about the GM Monaro or any other car not being a real Pontiac? I just don't think a Monaro makes a very good GTO due to the generic nature of the vehicle. A great Pontiac perhaps, but certainly not distinguishable as a GTO.

... actually I thought 70 was ugly compared to 69 and earlier GTOs.
I agree. IMO the 65 and 69 were by far the best looking GTOs.

I'll saw again the first GTO 1964 was double ugly and had mini fake scoops!

At least they didn't share the same ugly exterior with their import counterparts unlike the 04 / 05 that could easily get lost in a parking lot of full of Pacific Rim jellybeans.

The new GTOs accelerate and corner ....something earlier Pontiacs didn't do from the factory.
Uhhh, didn't I already say that in a previous post?

rabon008 · #**334** 05-12-2005, 08:38 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by David Jones:
Sorry, since you tried to point out to me how smart you were, I would rather not assume anything........ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You talking to me? Didn't think I tried to point out anything about my intelligence. Just about the new GTO.

David Jones · #**335** 05-12-2005, 08:42 AM

You're forgetful also.
You also said you were being sarcastic. Now you say you were trying to point something out. You move around a lot.

rabon008 · #**336** 05-12-2005, 08:52 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by David Jones:
You're forgetful also.
You also said you were being sarcastic. Now you say you were trying to point something out. You move around a lot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pointed out...That the new GTOs are breaking records - track records.

Being sarcastic...That you had a good point in the first place.

Reaction from you...priceless.

skepecs · #**337** 05-12-2005, 08:59 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">At least they didn't share the same ugly exterior with their import counterparts unlike the 04 / 05 that could easily get lost in a parking lot of full of Pacific Rim jellybeans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've never had any come up to me and say "hey, what kind of jellybean is that?" The ONLY responses I have gotten so far are positive responses from (many) people who new it is a GTO right off the bat and wanted a closer look. (Don't be hat'in!)

David Jones · #**338** 05-12-2005, 09:47 AM

Could think of a real answer?

rabon008 · #**339** 05-12-2005, 10:50 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by David Jones:
Could think of a real answer? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was there a question?

David Jones · #**340** 05-12-2005, 11:08 AM

Was there a reaction..........