Ugly, bland and over priced.

[tekuhn]

I can definitely identify with a lot of the sentiments being voiced here. I have owned a beautifully restored '65 hardtop, tripower, 4-speed that I had to sell to pay medical bills (sure miss that one). I also presently own a '65 Lemans (GTO clone) that for the last 25 years that has been an on-again/off-again project and I also raced it one season. I'm 51 years old and most definitely my passion is 60's and 70's muscle cars. HOWEVER - - with a 25 year-old project progressing quite slowly and feelings of doubt as to whether I will actually be too old to enjoy my '65 by the time I finish it - I bought a 2005 GTO. I don't understand the comments about them being overpriced. Everything is expensive these days and 400HP for 30 grand is in line with other offerings. There are some real bargains out there. I bought a 2005, 6-speed car with 1,069 garage-kept miles for $20,500. I see lot's of low mileage examples for under $20K. I don't think of it the same way I do a classic Pontiac powered GTO, but it is still one fine car. Sure, it would have been great if it would have been a "retro" body style, but let me assure you, the car does turn heads. As expected, the handling is better than any '60's or '70's GTO. The LS2/T56 power train is simply sweet. This car will never captivate me like my '65 does, but it is still an excellent car, and to me, still has the goods and character to make a great ride.

[Sirrotica]

One other fact that has never been brought to light here is the crash test standard that the 04-06 cars got exempted from. They were included on the Grand Prix platform and by doing this circumvented crash testing in order to be brought to market within the short time frame. Having to be grandfathered in with the Grand Prix there was no way GM could make wholesale changes to the body and still be able to use the Grand Prix crash testing standards. Yet another reason there were only so many styling cues that could be adopted to the Australian body and still be within the standards. The only wholesale change the Federal Govt. required was moving the fuel tank to the area under the package shelf in the trunk and stiff metal bars protecting it from rear impacts. The car was made to look closely like the Grand Prix for a reason. GM and holden knew the car was going to be taken out of production in 07 too before they ever commited to using the body and also that new standards were being implemented for 2007 in the U.S. This is another reason the car was dropped in 2007, not because it was a sales failure, GM was going to have to do wholesale (read expensive) changes to have a GTO to sell in 2007 and as was already demonstrated they weren't going to make a whole new car for that market as they already had coasted to the cheapest way to bring it to market already.

Another fact is the devaluation of the. dollar compared to Australian currency had changed in the 3 years and it was costing GM more money than they had originally anticipated to import the car to sell in the U.S. The profit margin had shrunk and with smaller profits it was another strike agaist the GTO to become a new car in 2007.

The same goes for never having more that a maximum of 18,000 cars available per year, There was no way that it could ever outsell hardly any other years of GTO let alone the mustang it's constantly compared to. Limited Production car here being compared to cars that never had any limitation as far as production numbers, Apples and oranges comparison to be sure. People that know little about the car other than to criticize it for the styling never take these facts into account when making their shortsited criticisms. At this point in time I doubt that there are any other cars that you can buy so much performance for so little money, I would expect these cars to gain value in upcoming years as I doubt they'll be relegated to just another used car as time goes on, same as all the muscle cars flattened out in price before they appreciated, time will tell.

[Goathead]

"time will tell."

Car Max alone has over 20 of them between 17 and 21 K as we speak,,,

It is telling....you are correct sir..

[vev78]

My son has an 06 GTO and while I'm not crazy about the looks of the car, the performance is great. I think it would give my BMW M5 a run for it's money. I have a 1967 GTo that i bought as my first car when I was 16 in 1980. It has been the best car I have ever owned. I drag raced the car as a kid and spent countless nights Cruzin showing off my GTO. Now with several upgrades to the suspension, Brakes, Cooling system and transmission, it is just as much fun to drive as any car. I think you either love these cars or you don't. I bet there are even people who love the 73 GTOs!!!???

[Sirrotica]

Originally Posted by Goathead

"time will tell."

Car Max alone has over 20 of them between 17 and 21 K as we speak,,,

It is telling....you are correct sir..

They're only 4-6 years old right now, I bought a 70 judge in 1975 for $500 bucks 3, 65 GTOs from 1970-1972 anywhere from $75 to a whopping $1200. in 1973 I paid $1200 bucks for a 69 GTO. Add 20 years to any of the cars I bought that were 4-6 years old and they appreciated probably at least 5 times or more what I paid for any of them when they were 4-6 years old. Tell me in 20 more years what their worth and if your right you can say I told you so. If I'm right I'll be telling you the same thing. Don't be so anxious to prove me wrong you got awhile yet. BTW what's a 04-06 charger selling for right now? That's apples to apples.........

I know rustangs ain't holding their value but that's apples to oranges.

[JLHarper]

One thing is true: they will make the list of best buy for a stock performance car.

For under $20 K including buying the car you can have a high 10. / 11 second street machine that runs the A/C.

Example: for a 2005 and probably soon to be for the 06 as its price keeps dropping.

Not bad for a performance toy! They really are a lot of fun.

Jeff

[77 Canamman]

Originally Posted by vev78

I bet there are even people who love the 73 GTOs!!!???

Yeah there are. So..what the hell is your point?

[Ron Landis]

Originally Posted by JLHarper

One thing is true: they will make the list of best buy for a stock performance car.

For under $20 K including buying the car you can have a high 10. / 11 second street machine that runs the A/C.

Example: for a 2005 and probably soon to be for the 06 as its price keeps dropping.

Not bad for a performance toy! They really are a lot of fun.

Jeff

and with a SB Chebby!!!!

[Sirrotica]

Ron, with the vast knowledge you have of speed equipment and you actually owning some chevys why would you think an LS engine is a SB chevy? It is called a small block, but chevy had nothing to do with the engineering or building of LS engines and except for common bore spacing there ain't a thing in common with the 2 engines. No more than a SB ford or chrysler has in common with the LS engines.

Please don't give chevy any credit for this world class engine because they didn't do anything to deserve it and if they did engineer it it wouldn't run as well as they do. Chevy never had a 400 HP stock small block in anything I ever knew they built or designed until the LS engines came along and they got them from GM powertrain same as cadillac and Pontiac and gmc do. Last year for a sb chevy in a passenger car was 1997. I own a 97 T/A with a 5.7 chevy in it and it don't run anywhere close to my 05 GTO LS engine. It'd take a bit of work and money to bring it anywhere near the LS engine because it lacks over 100HP to to start with. And if you did an equal amount of work and spent the same money on the LS engine it'd be more than 100 HP difference still. Just a superior design that chevy had nada to do with.

[Ron Landis]

Originally Posted by Sirrotica

Ron, with the vast knowledge you have of speed equipment and you actually owning some chevys why would you think an LS engine is a SB chevy? It is called a small block, but chevy had nothing to do with the engineering or building of LS engines and except for common bore spacing there ain't a thing in common with the 2 engines. No more than a SB ford or chrysler has in common with the LS engines.

Please don't give chevy any credit for this world class engine because they didn't do anything to deserve it and if they did engineer it it wouldn't run as well as they do. Chevy never had a 400 HP stock small block in anything I ever knew they built or designed until the LS engines came along and they got them from GM powertrain same as cadillac and Pontiac and gmc do. Last year for a sb chevy in a passenger car was 1997. I own a 97 T/A with a 5.7 chevy in it and it don't run anywhere close to my 05 GTO LS engine. It'd take a bit of work and money to bring it anywhere near the LS engine because it lacks over 100HP to to start with. And if you did an equal amount of work and spent the same money on the LS engine it'd be more than 100 HP difference still. Just a superior design that chevy had nada to do with.

it first appeared in Corvettes, as I recall. I know...not a traditional smallblock but the predecessor. Certainly not a Pontiac. Also...the original LT-1 DID make 400 HP if you go by what they made at the flywheel instead of net HP. Just couldn't advertise it that way. I know how touchy you non-Chebby guys are. Same thing with the V-6 Trans Am. Fastest ever only with a Buick motor...which Pontyakkers also swear is NOT! LS engines are Corvette engines any way you slice it....but you can believe whatever floats your boat.

[HUMBLER]

Killing me that there are now 2 new age goats in my neighborhood and one is not in my driveway!!! Workin on it...lol.

[87LC2]

I knew there was a reason I left here three years ago, the rusty old crap won't shut the smurf up.

I traded my '06 A4 in on a '06 M6. The A4 had 51,000miles on it after two and a half years, and the M6 only had 12,000. It was a garage queen, cleaner than the one I bought new. The main reason for the swap was the gearing on the six speed, plus I was able to get rid of some road rash and a bunch of miles. The M6 now has +77,000miles and I love every mile. At over 22,000miles a year an old goat would have cost a fortune and left me stranded in banjo country many times over.

To get an old GTO to perform, handle, get fuel mileage and be as comfortable as a '04-'06 would cost well over $100,000. That was proven by the Wangers "New" 1969 GTO, it cost well over $100,000 and failed to out perform a stock new era GTO in all categories other than dyno output.

When one of those old POS GTO's can do 80mph at 2000rpm while getting 25mpg, top out at over 160mph, pull over 0.95g and run 12's in the quarter....right out of the box, someone please PM me. Otherwise they are best used in a parking lot on Sunday's while seated in a lawn chair waxing about the old days. I'm 50years old and these old coots stuck in the sixties and seventies have got to learn to let go.

So done here.

[PontGuy]

Pretty funny- a bit overstated but at the same time lots of truth.

I've put my 69 in a few shows just to see what kind of response it would get. But I only last about 30 min or so before I start getting bored. I need to come up with a better signature. I love showing off the old vert, but by driving it- not by sitting in a chair behind it in a parking lot.

The 06 is a different story entirely. I really like the "stealth" aspect of the body style, and the fact that it does not stand out has helped keep me out of trouble a time or two. Still the best "drivers" car that I've ever owned.

[ClassJ]

Idk how many years later, the point of this thread is still lost. Was the new gto a decent performing car for the era, yes. Was it a commercial success? Absolutely not. Reasons it failed are many but I still put most of the blame on the marketing group at Pontiac and a halfhearted styling effort. The car did not look bad but GM did not have a cohesive package styling, performance, and advertising wise.

[Sirrotica]

Originally Posted by ClassJ

Idk how many years later, the point of this thread is still lost. Was the new gto a decent performing car for the era, yes. Was it a commercial success? Absolutely not. Reasons it failed are many but I still put most of the blame on the marketing group at Pontiac and a halfhearted styling effort. The car did not look bad but GM did not have a cohesive package styling, performance, and advertising wise.

If there are only 20,000 cars available each year for export due to UAW agreements and the ability of Holden to produce only that many cars for export to the US, how is it going to be a marketing success? It never failed because it wasn't meant to be anything other than what it was, a LIMITED PRODUCTION car.

The 20,000 car production was a given before the first car was made, The car was a LIMITED PRODUCTION car never meant to outsell anything, never meant to be marketed trying to outsell anything. Before you project what you think you know about the car do some research so you don't make yourself look foolish. This dead horse has been beaten over and over on these pages and each and every time the people making accusations never educate themselves about the car before they open there mouth and insert their foot.

If you were GM how much money would you budget to sell 20,000 cars a year when you have other models that make you far more profit per unit and have almost unlimited production? I'm betting not your whole advertising budget, the cars were a draw to get people into the showrooms same as other marques have done for years. The GTO did increase showroom traffic as it was meant to, it was never meant to be a huge marketing success. People that look at it as a failure don't perceive the bigger marketing picture that people at GM were looking at.

Another thing people usually don't know the car is that Holden didn't just stick a GTO badge on the car and ship it to the states and hope for the best, Holden HSV (Holden Special Vehicles) had a GTO model years before Pontiac expressed interest in having them build a car for Pontiac.

Remember Ferrari had a GTO model, then Pontiac had one, and Holden had one, some smaller car companies also had GTO models, Pontiac didn't own the name FIA did. It means loosely translated, a H/P street driven car made mostly from race car parts, Gran Turismo Omolagato/Grand Touring Homologated. The car lives up to it's billing no matter if it was a 1964-74 model made in the US or the 2004-06 car made in Australia for Pontiac. I have owned both and each has its good and bad same as any car does. I've owned 9 GTOs of all different years and have fond memories from each one I've owned.

[ClassJ]

I don't think anyone here looks foolish first of all.

Secondly, no one is questioning Pontiac's intent here market share wise. No one is here is questioning that it met the performance expectations that were set.

With all that said, many people, journalists, Pontiac fans, etc expressed that from a marketing standpoint, Pontiac did a poor job. If GM felt they hit the mark it is a moot point.

Regardless, the horse is dead, let's move on.