Poll
Question:
Rather straightforward...
Option 1: 'Stang [Shelby GT]
votes: 10
Option 2: GTO
votes: 32
Okay, spawned by the other thread since the 'Stang defeated the 350Z... I was thinking about this and I honestly can't decide...
(Ignore the fact that the GTO is dead.)
They say the GTO handles a bit better and I'd rather have an LS2 over just about anything, but the 'Stang is (IMO) better looking inside and out. Not that the GTO's a bad-looking car, it's just a little bland (again IMO). GTO's definitely a better sleeper.
(http://www.jannettyracing.com/images/photo_gallery/gto.jpg)
(http://www.stangbangers.com/07_MustangShelbyGT_Wallpaper1.jpg)
I still can't decide what to vote.
You can now get the GTO for almost $10k less. Plus, the interior looks better, and that's where I want to be.
I went with the GTO.
The Mustang GT really only has legacy and more popular styling on its side. Oh, perhaps add in a bit for the aftermarket crowd, but the GTO (LSx really) has a ton as well.
For me, it's 400hp, 6sp MT, IRS, and more upscale interior that seals the deal.
GTO, kinda like my car but with back seats and a good interior.
GTO for me. I like the looks of the interior and exterior more and I'm more a fan of GM than I am of Ford.
The only reason I would probably get a Mustang over it would be the fact that I work for a Ford dealership and could get one at cost.
I chose mustang for 2 reasons.
1. GTO isn't sold in Canada because it won't pass crash tests here.
2. I already own a J-body. I don't need another car in my garage that looks just like it.
Man, I need to think about this one.
400 HP FTW!
GTO, very easy choice. :thumbsup:
Mustang. :rockon:
Besides the GTO was never sold in Canada, so even if I wanted it I couldn't get it. Besides , the GTO looks like a Cavalier. YUCK!
Quote from: 850CSi on April 05, 2007, 02:58:51 PM
Okay, spawned by the other thread since the 'Stang defeated the 350Z... I was thinking about this and I honestly can't decide...
You beat me to it. I had started the same poll but I got a phone call and it timed out on me. :lol:
Mustang for me. The GTO is boring looking and heavy compared to the Mustang. Plus the Mustang has a much better aftermarket, and that means a lot to someone like me (though I admit, this probably does not apply to most people).
I think the GTO (this one not the old ones) looks good. But then again I think most domestic sport/muscle cars are over styled and not to my taste. I must like dull looking cars.
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 05, 2007, 03:50:12 PM
Mustang. :rockon:
Besides the GTO was never sold in Canada, so even if I wanted it I couldn't get it. Besides , the GTO looks like a Cavalier. YUCK!
Better to look like a Cavalier than a brick. :lol:
I believe that if Pontiac would have called it a G8 coupe, 90% of the bitching about the styling would go away. People had this idea in their heads that a GTO was supposed to be a big loud flourescent orange thing from 1969 with 16 racing stripes, side exhaust, big scoops and frickin' laser beams attached to the roof.
The GTO is supposed to be an understated European style GT, not a midlife crisismobile.
I mean look at the '64 GTO. You can barely tell it's not just a regular old Tempest:
(http://www.ncacpoci.org/images2/Richardsonlg.jpg)
Honestly, after looking at both, there is not a single practical thing better about the Mustang. The GTO has better suspension, seats, instrumentation, interior, engine...you name it.
Yu can use the '64 GTO all you want, but the GTO wasn't just a '64 just like the Mustang wasnt just a '64 1/2. How about these ones? There's nothing subdued about them:
(http://img.redu.us/i/i3cct_69-Pontiac-GTO-Judge.jpg)
1969 Pontiac GTO
(http://www.carcovers.com/photos/pontiac_gto_1970_without_cover.jpg)
1970 Pontiac GTO
(http://local.aaca.org/alamance/Gallery/national/2006/06Dover/Pics/P6170072_640c.jpg)
1971 Pontiac GTO
(http://www.pontiacmall.com/images/t_2389631.jpg)
1972 Pontiac GTO
And the '64 looks the best, if you ask me. I don't care for the body color nose of the '68+.
Quote from: the Teuton on April 05, 2007, 03:01:06 PM
You can now get the GTO for almost $10k less.? Plus, the interior looks better, and that's where I want to be.
In that case, GTO. But if it came down to price, I'd have to go with the 'stang, because I'm just cheap like that.
http://www.carspin.net/forums/index.php?topic=2529.0
Blast from the past, just for kicks and comparison.
Quote from: mazda6er on April 05, 2007, 06:43:54 PM
http://www.carspin.net/forums/index.php?topic=2529.0
Blast from the past, just for kicks and comparison.
The GTO won then, and it wins now. It's a winner! :praise:
Mustang is better looking (exterior). The GTO is better in every other way, so I voted GTO.
I went Mustang back then, which was a moment of insanity. GTO.
Quote from: Raza on April 05, 2007, 07:53:23 PM
I went Mustang back then, which was a moment of insanity. GTO.
If you read the posts, you'll even notice that I wasn't an asshole back then. My how a year changes things.
EDIT: That thread was before I met my ex. Now it all makes sense.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on April 05, 2007, 06:02:09 PM
Honestly, after looking at both, there is not a single practical thing better about the Mustang. The GTO has better suspension, seats, instrumentation, interior, engine...you name it.
While the GTO may have an advantage in those categories, it was also a more expensive car (sometimes by a pretty wide margin, before GM started giving them away), which made it less practical in the most important category, price. It also had a sloppy shifter (at least in the year I drove) and a heavier burden to lug around the track (~275lbs heavier for the LS1 model). These, in addition to the conservative/boring/dated styling elements that killed the whole idea from the start (IMO) would lead to the extinction of just about any 2-door domestically branded coupe in that price segment me thinks. I have a sneaking suspicion that most people could not accept this newest interpretation as a true GTO heir, despite its good performance and ergonomics. Even considering what you mentioned about the older models 280z, I feel people were probably looking for something closer to the 69+ models HEMI posted.
All that being said, I do like the GTO. I liked how it drove. I liked the idea of it. I just could not buy a car that I thought looked so anonimous....Heres to GM fixing that the next time around :partyon: (if there is a next time).
I haven't driven the Shelby but I have driven a GT and a LS2 GTO. The GTO is a better car, has a little better handling although it doesn't feel as nimble, better interior, better engine, and better steering. But it just doesn't do anything for me. I got done driving it and couldn't wait to drive my Z. If I see one driving down the road I notice it but then immediatly forget about it. The Mustang is different, I still like my Z better, but when I drive or see one all I can think of is that it is one cool car. Mustang gets my vote.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on April 05, 2007, 06:02:09 PM
The GTO is supposed to be an understated European style GT, not a midlife crisismobile.
I mean look at the '64 GTO. You can barely tell it's not just a regular old Tempest:
Exactly. It's supposed to be just like another cheap Pontiac. With ground-shaking V-8 power.
GTO FTW!!
GTO. First i thought it was a no brainer and voted GTO before I saw the shelby part. Still would go for the GTO though
Quote from: sandertheshark on April 05, 2007, 09:15:15 PM
Exactly.? It's supposed to be just like another cheap Pontiac.? With ground-shaking V-8 power.
GTO FTW!!
Check out the pictures I posted of the so-called "...cheap Pontiac. With ground-shaking V-8 power". It didn't exactly look anonymous when it was redesigned to battle Mustang and Friends. It wouldn't have survived as long as it did without the redesign, because people wanted muscle cars that looked role.
GTO. It's a less aggressive looking sports car, but it's classy in it's own sense, and it's a nicer car overall. I like the Mustang quite a bit, but I'd take a GTO first.
If it was my wallet voting, it'd be Mustang all the way (GT that is, not Shelby). I'd love a black on black GT mustang, the sound, and the looks. But, I will admit that overall, the GTO is the better car, and yes, that 400 hp LS2 is a serious draw. And I like the looks almost as much as I like the Mustang's. So in this comparison, against the Shelby, the GTO gets the vote from me.
Mustang for me, obviously.? :ohyeah: I looked at GTO's before I ordered my Mustang, but the price difference wasn't worth the 50 HP and at the time the desperation sales hadn't started on the GTO's. I really like the LS2 ones, but the only thing I'd think of trading for now would be the Bullit Mustang.
Cobra93, is your Mustang a manual or automatic tranny?
Quote from: The Pirate on April 06, 2007, 09:53:53 AM
Cobra93, is your Mustang a manual or automatic tranny?
Automatic?!?! Blasphemy!!! :lol:
Quote from: Cobra93 on April 06, 2007, 10:08:54 AM
Automatic?!?! Blasphemy!!! :lol:
:lol:
It's a beautiful car, and I like it even better after reading that!
GTO! :praise: :praise:
In other forums I used to be known as GTO_Fan. My fave is the 1966 model.
I prefer a car that looks good without having to rely on previous designs. And having lived with two GM and one GM-powered car; I'm willing to put my money on the GTO. The interior seems more usable, and I am all for the sleeper looks. Something that looks innocent and had more than enough balls to blow your doors off.
Make it Impulse blue metallic with the matching interior, manual and I am happy.
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q36/Panama_Chopster/int_seats1_med-1.jpg)
Oh, and the Monaro VXR rims would be more than welcome.
(http://www.diseno-art.com/images/vauxhall_monaro_vxr.jpg)
Quote from: The Pirate on April 06, 2007, 10:14:57 AM
:lol:
It's a beautiful car, and I like it even better after reading that!
Thank you. You have impeccable taste. :praise:
Quote from: Cobra93 on April 06, 2007, 10:08:54 AM
Automatic?!?! Blasphemy!!! :lol:
That's what I like to hear! Attaboy!
sexy sexy
(http://www.ycc.nu/bilder/pgto66.jpg)
Quote from: Panama_Chopster on April 06, 2007, 10:40:44 AM
sexy sexy
(http://www.ycc.nu/bilder/pgto66.jpg)
(http://f5.putfile.com/5/14611375440.jpg)
:praise:
I went ahead and voted Mustang, only because to me Mustang Convertible > GTO > Mustang Coupe.
One would have to get suspension bits for it, though.
I have no idea. Since we're comparing the Shelby GT and the GTO, it's a tough choice. If it was the GT, I would take the GTO. IMO, the Mustang is better looking by a large margin, but that LS2 is an absolutely fantastic motor. Meh, until Ford puts a new motor in the Mustang GT, the GTO gets my vote.
Not having driven them, a GTO. But, a '05 GT is on my list of cars to look at next year (haven't really looked at prices though). For anyone that cars, black with red leather for the GTO and silver with black leather for the Mustang.
Quote from: TBR on April 06, 2007, 04:49:30 PM
Not having driven them, a GTO. But, a '05 GT is on my list of cars to look at next year (haven't really looked at prices though). For anyone that cars, black with red leather for the GTO and silver with black leather for the Mustang.
Silver Mustang?
I voted Goat, i like sleepers.
Quote from: Raza on April 06, 2007, 04:53:10 PM
Silver Mustang?
Yeah, something wrong with that?
Quote from: TBR on April 06, 2007, 04:57:18 PM
Yeah, something wrong with that?
I just don't think silver works well with angular designs. That's why pre-flame BMWs didn't look good in silver.
Quote from: TBR on April 06, 2007, 04:57:18 PM
Yeah, something wrong with that?
Not at all, but have you ever seen the red leather interior in the Mustang? It's hot. The red leather is on my list of must-haves when I'm looking for my 2005 Mustang next year.
It's too red for my tastes. The Mustang interior is already so shamelessly retro (I really don't like it) and have that retro of color for the interior would put it over the line imho.
And, silver looks awesome on Mustangs. I get so tired of seeing black and red ones.
I like the blue.
Quote from: TBR on April 06, 2007, 05:01:31 PM
It's too red for my tastes. The Mustang interior is already so shamelessly retro (I really don't like it) and have that retro of color for the interior would put it over the line imho.
And, silver looks awesome on Mustangs. I get so tired of seeing black and red ones.
You immature fucking moron. How can you not like the Mustang because it's retro!? It's the best car on the face of the planet and you had no right to say what you said! That is perhaps the stupidest statement ever posted on CarSPIN!
:lol:
Quote from: TBR on April 06, 2007, 05:01:31 PM
It's too red for my tastes. The Mustang interior is already so shamelessly retro (I really don't like it) and have that retro of color for the interior would put it over the line imho.
And, silver looks awesome on Mustangs. I get so tired of seeing black and red ones.
The Red is too red? :wtf:
IMHO the red GTO and 'Stang interiors are awesome.
It makes the interior look cheap to me.
Quote from: NACar on April 06, 2007, 05:03:49 PM
You immature fucking moron. How can you not like the Mustang because it's retro!? It's the best car on the face of the planet and you had no right to say what you said! That is perhaps the stupidest statement ever posted on CarSPIN!
:lol:
Nope. I believe that award goes to this one.
Quote from: NACar on April 04, 2007, 07:38:56 PM
My Esteem looks better than that Mustang.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I went GTO.
I know big surprise but I only know the GTO- I'm thinkning about driving a Cobra/GT500 to see if it's as fast as mine.
On another note I'm buying the 96 Cobra Hounddog has on time. Until it's half paid for in a couple months he's keeping it - upside- he doesn't drive it. When I do get possesion of it my G/F will drive one of them during the summer and I'll drive the ohter. By then we MAY get married ...............but like I told her- don't hold me to it. :lol: Yup we'll have 4 cars. I think I'm gonna sell my truck because we'll have her Durango adn I'm drivin the GTO when it's not too bad out anyway in the winter.
Bring back The Judge!
Quote from: TBR on April 06, 2007, 05:04:53 PM
It makes the interior look cheap to me.
Really?? I thought it was by far the richest looking colour for the interior.? To each their own.
(http://www.shadetreemechanic.com/images/ford_2005_mustang_interior.jpg)
This kinda ironic this thread was about 100X more civil than the 350Z vs Mustang thread.
The blue interior on the GTO is better. How many more cars will you see with blue leather? not that many.
Oh and grabber orange for a mustang.
Quote from: 850CSi on April 06, 2007, 10:44:17 AM
I went ahead and voted Mustang, only because to me Mustang Convertible > GTO > Mustang Coupe.
One would have to get suspension bits for it, though.
Mustang
Convertible is in the front?! :confused: Whhhhyyyyyyyy. It's so...not Mustang-y.
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 06, 2007, 07:17:20 PM
Really? I thought it was by far the richest looking colour for the interior. To each their own.
(http://www.shadetreemechanic.com/images/ford_2005_mustang_interior.jpg)
I'm sorry, but the interior on the Mustang is an absolute nightmare. I've sat in one and hated it instantly. They need to add that tacky aluminum shit just so it doesn't look like a work truck interior.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on April 06, 2007, 11:30:28 PM
I'm sorry, but the interior on the Mustang is an absolute nightmare. I've sat in one and hated it instantly. They need to add that tacky aluminum shit just so it doesn't look like a work truck interior.
millions would disagree...including me.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on April 06, 2007, 11:30:28 PM
I'm sorry, but the interior on the Mustang is an absolute nightmare. I've sat in one and hated it instantly. They need to add that tacky aluminum shit just so it doesn't look like a work truck interior.
I am with you, that is why the GT has never been at the top of my list. I like the exterior because it is pretty modern while still retaining a lot of the classic Mustang styling cues, but the interior is just plain retro.
Quote from: 565 on April 06, 2007, 10:09:07 PM
This kinda ironic this thread was about 100X more civil than the 350Z vs Mustang thread.
Screw you, goat lover. :evildude:
Quote from: Cobra93 on April 07, 2007, 12:18:39 PM
Screw you, goat lover. :evildude:
^makes love with a horse^
:lol:
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 07, 2007, 08:11:14 AM
millions would disagree...including me.
Millions voted for George W. Bush...twice.
Quote from: mazda6er on April 05, 2007, 06:43:54 PM
http://www.carspin.net/forums/index.php?topic=2529.0
Blast from the past, just for kicks and comparison.
Quote from: 93JC on September 26, 2005, 09:37:35 PM
Quote from: mazda6er on September 26, 2005, 05:52:18 PM
It's muscle car time! Let the games begin. (The post title is a variation of a "Ghostbusters" quote for those who aren't privy to that info.) :D
"This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions."
"What do you mean, biblical?"
"What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor... real Wrath-of-God-type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies."
"Rivers and seas boiling!"
"Forty years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanos."
"The dead rising from the grave!"
"Human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!"
:lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: 93JC on April 07, 2007, 12:50:46 PM
"This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions."
"What do you mean, biblical?"
"What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor... real Wrath-of-God-type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies."
"Rivers and seas boiling!"
"Forty years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanos."
"The dead rising from the grave!"
"Human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!"
:lol:?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Sounds an awful lot like what Al Gore and David Suzuki would have us believe is going to happen with global warming. :lol:
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on April 07, 2007, 12:40:02 PM
Millions voted for George W. Bush...twice.
Thankfully people have much better taste in cars then they do in Presidents. :ohyeah:
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 07, 2007, 01:18:00 PM
Thankfully people have much better taste in cars then they do in Presidents. :ohyeah:
Even more people buy Camrys.
:(
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on April 06, 2007, 11:30:28 PM
I'm sorry, but the interior on the Mustang is an absolute nightmare. I've sat in one and hated it instantly. They need to add that tacky aluminum shit just so it doesn't look like a work truck interior.
Eh, I would disagree. Yea, it certainly is not great, but in perspective, it is no worse than a 350Z IMO. The GTO, on the other hand, does have a very nice interior.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=8461.msg409784#msg409784 date=1175973580
Even more people buy Camrys.
:(
You have to find a hole in every argument don't you? :lol:
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on April 07, 2007, 12:38:30 PM
^makes love with a horse^
:lol:
Well. I am hung like one. :tounge:
A seahorse. :mask:
If GM was watching this poll, they'd probably be wondering why people were ordering Mustangs and paying a premium over sticker while Pontiac couldn't give away GTO's. :huh:
Quote from: Cobra93 on April 07, 2007, 01:35:50 PM
If GM was watching this poll, they'd probably be wondering why people were ordering Mustangs and paying a premium over sticker while Pontiac couldn't give away GTO's. :huh:
Trendiness has nothing to do with quality.
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 07, 2007, 08:11:14 AM
millions would disagree...including me.
Millions? I think that's a rather large number. How about thousands?
Quote from: Raza on April 07, 2007, 01:38:32 PM
Trendiness has nothing to do with quality.
Obviously, many perceived that. :tounge:
Quote from: Cobra93 on April 07, 2007, 01:43:24 PM
Obviously, many perceived that. :tounge:
The reason the Mustang hasn't bust yet is that there is quality there. And affordability. The GTO came here with the wrong nameplate, classic good looks that were, perhaps, wrong for the era, and a price tag that was higher than most people expected. The GTO suffered from people expected it to be something it wasn't. They wanted a new Trans Am. It wasn't. They wanted a retro muscle car. It wasn't. What it was was a sophisticated, strong handling, European-style GT that was more fit to go against cars like the G35 and 330Ci than the Mustang GT.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=8461.msg409818#msg409818 date=1175975286
The reason the Mustang hasn't bust yet is that there is quality there.? And affordability.? The GTO came here with the wrong nameplate, classic good looks that were, perhaps, wrong for the era, and a price tag that was higher than most people expected.? The GTO suffered from people expected it to be something it wasn't.? They wanted a new Trans Am.? It wasn't.? They wanted a retro muscle car.? It wasn't.? What it was was a sophisticated, strong handling, European-style GT that was more fit to go against cars like the G35 and 330Ci than the Mustang GT.?
Nicely put.
GTO for me too.
If I can afford one after school, and it makes any sense at all to drive a V8 everywhere, I'll be looking for a clean example.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=8461.msg409807#msg409807 date=1175974712
Trendiness has nothing to do with quality.
No, but 80% of the respondents to this poll say they would buy a GTO over a Mustang, yet in the real world it was more like 90% took a Mustang.
Quote from: Raza on April 07, 2007, 01:48:06 PM
The reason the Mustang hasn't bust yet is that there is quality there. And affordability. The GTO came here with the wrong nameplate, classic good looks that were, perhaps, wrong for the era, and a price tag that was higher than most people expected. The GTO suffered from people expected it to be something it wasn't. They wanted a new Trans Am. It wasn't. They wanted a retro muscle car. It wasn't. What it was was a sophisticated, strong handling, European-style GT that was more fit to go against cars like the G35 and 330Ci than the Mustang GT.
It may have suffered more from ignorant dealer practices than anything else. When I was shopping, the dealers were trying to get $4K over sticker and they were only stocking automatics. :banghead:
In August of '04, I was able to find a dealer to order me a Mustang GT at $300 over invoice.
Quote from: Onslaught on April 07, 2007, 01:39:32 PM
Millions? I think that's a rather large number. How about thousands?
Since the S197 Mustang came out they are on pace to sell over 600,000 of them by the end of this year. There are exponentially more that want one or lust after one that aren't in the position to buy one...like me. That translates into millions.
Well, the Mustang is the cheaper car. When it comes down to the final decision, money spent counts for a lot. Generally speaking, as price goes up, sales volume goes down.
Quote from: Cobra93 on April 07, 2007, 02:15:53 PM
It may have suffered more from ignorant dealer practices than anything else. When I was shopping, the dealers were trying to get $4K over sticker and they were only stocking automatics. :banghead:
In August of '04, I was able to find a dealer to order me a Mustang GT at $300 over invoice.
Yeah, that definitely hurt it as well. You had dealers that wanted 5 grand over sticker (and we here on the forums know that even paying sticker is generally a ripoff) and were, as you said, only stocking automatics, and weren't offering test drives unless you were prepared to take delivery. It's a big turnoff to buyers.
Quote from: Tave on April 07, 2007, 02:09:23 PM
Nicely put.
GTO for me too.
If I can afford one after school, and it makes any sense at all to drive a V8 everywhere, I'll be looking for a clean example.
The LS1 versions get 29mpg highway, if that sways you at all...
(http://planetsmilies.net/angel-smiley-8427.gif)
I'll take the GTO as well. The Mustang is a nice car, but after getting a chance to ride in a couple of them, I don't think it would be something I'd want to drive every day. The interior is really not that great, and the Goat just felt so much more substantial to me. Besides, I'll take the LS2 any day of the week. :ohyeah:
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=8461.msg409887#msg409887 date=1175982458
The LS1 versions get 29mpg highway, if that sways you at all...
(http://planetsmilies.net/angel-smiley-8427.gif)
My 6.0 gets about 25-26 highway and that's pretty good.?
Quote from: rohan on April 08, 2007, 08:11:47 AM
My 6.0 gets about 25-26 highway and that's pretty good.
OT- does anyone know anything about the new GXP that looks like a updated version of the GTO? Is it v8 or supercharged v6?
The G8? That has an LS2, I think, and a regular old V6. 362bhp and 261, respectively.
(http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/2007/Q1/020620071441376564.jpg)
Good looking, but I fear for its weight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikGtsI6Xo00
Quote from: 93JC on April 07, 2007, 12:50:46 PM
"This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions."
"What do you mean, biblical?"
"What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor... real Wrath-of-God-type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies."
"Rivers and seas boiling!"
"Forty years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanos."
"The dead rising from the grave!"
"Human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!"
:lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I made that topic back when we could add sub-titles to the topics, so I think it originally read "Pandemonium! Goats and horses, living together...mass hysteria!" :lol:
I think many thought "It goes from 0-60 in about 5 seconds and costs less and looks cooler(this may vary)". But you'd end up paying as much as for a GTO. I'm confused :huh:.
Here they didn't go under 45K!.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=8461.msg410826#msg410826 date=1176048925
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikGtsI6Xo00
In that video he says the 5.7 GTO goes 0-60 in 6.5 seconds?? Could that be right?? Does anyone know what the 6.0 does the 0-60 in?? ? I know the 96 Cobra I'm payin tony for does it in less than 6 seconds- and that's a convertible- ??? I know the 330 convertible does it in like 6.5 seconds too- could they really be that slow?
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=8461.msg410661#msg410661 date=1176041855
The G8?? That has an LS2, I think, and a regular old V6.? 362bhp and 261, respectively.?
(http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/2007/Q1/020620071441376564.jpg)
Good looking, but I fear for its weight.
That;s a pretty good looking 4 door- and that's not bad power either- wonder what the torque is? Thanks for looking that up- believe it or not I'm pretty busy today and am on my way back out now.
Quote from: Raza on April 08, 2007, 08:17:35 AM
The G8? That has an LS2, I think, and a regular old V6. 362bhp and 261, respectively.
(http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/2007/Q1/020620071441376564.jpg)
Good looking, but I fear for its weight.
It's a fullsize 4 door, why worry about its weight?
Quote from: rohan on April 08, 2007, 12:03:46 PM
Does anyone know what the 6.0 does the 0-60 in?
according to MT, 5.0 seconds
And Raza, how can the 3.6 VVT V6 be old? It's up there with the other sixes.
Quote from: rohan on April 08, 2007, 12:03:46 PM
In that video he says the 5.7 GTO goes 0-60 in 6.5 seconds? Could that be right? Does anyone know what the 6.0 does the 0-60 in? I know the 96 Cobra I'm payin tony for does it in less than 6 seconds- and that's a convertible- ??? I know the 330 convertible does it in like 6.5 seconds too- could they really be that slow?
Did he say 6.5? That's not right. The LS1 hits it in about 5.3-5.5 on the slow end, and the LS2 will run between 4.6 and 4.9 seconds.
Quote from: Panama_Chopster on April 08, 2007, 12:16:11 PM
according to MT, 5.0 seconds
And Raza, how can the 3.6 VVT V6 be old? It's up there with the other sixes.
Not old, as in age-wise. "Regular old" is an expression for "normal" or something like that. I was just stressing that the V6 is the standard engine and the V8's the special one.
Quote from: Raza on April 08, 2007, 08:17:35 AM
The G8? That has an LS2, I think, and a regular old V6. 362bhp and 261, respectively.
(http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/2007/Q1/020620071441376564.jpg)
Good looking, but I fear for its weight.
From CarPoint:
Quote
There's an acuity to the SS V's tuning and a delicacy of balance rare in an 1803kg car (67kg lighter than the GT, and 85kg lighter than the SRT8 by the way). It's never more obvious than when the bonnets of all three cars are opened. The VE's L98 disappears down and back under the cowl, while the Boss thrusts up as if ready? to spring from the engine bay. The Hemi is big, impressive and well forward. It's not hard to surmise which one has the lowest centre of gravity and best weight balance.
Underpinning it all is the VE's immensely strong body, whose vital importance becomes obvious when the SS V travels the same roads as the SRT8 and the GT. It is undoubtedly set up softer than the other two, with more give? and body roll. Paradoxically, it manages to produce more linear and talkative steering, intimately communicative handling and progressive, impressive grip.
and
Quote
At low speed, it is still a heavy chunky car to drive compared to most of those listed above, an impression reinforced by the beefy optional steering wheel and gear lever knob. Yet this is its main appeal. Approach it as an up-to-the-minute refinement of an old-school muscle car and you will be delighted.
Out on the open road, I would question why anyone needs to pay $200,000 for an old muscle car for driving when the SS can provide all the thrills and then some. The way it shrinks around you at speed as the huge power, powerful brakes and accurate steering and handling wipes away its bulk, made it feel as light and agile as the several XU-1 Toranas I owned during the 1970s.
I really hope that's true.
:praise: :praise: :praise:
A lot of that can be attributed to this:
(http://photo.netcarshow.com/Holden-VE_Commodore_Calais_V_2006_photo_2d.jpg)
That was one thing that surprised me at the Motor Show - the engines are a long way down, and a long way back.
Quote from: omicron on April 09, 2007, 12:53:11 AM
Paradoxically...
That's the very first time I have ever seen that word in a car review. :lol:
The GTO is extinct a second time. Extinct again, when there is no competition from the SS-396, the 4-4-2, the Gran Sport, the GoTeX, the Road Runner, the two-door Charger, the Coronet R/T, or any of the ponycars except for the Mustang and it's many tuner versions. The Fairlane GT and the Cyclone GT were no competition until '68 and later, in case you're wondering why they weren't mentioned in that list. And anything from American Motors merits no mention among musclecars.
There have to be reasons, other than the most painfully obvious reason that paying customers bought something else. Most people are not fooled that putting "GTO" badges on a Monaro thereby makes the Monaro a GTO...While Dodge did sorta create the Charger out of a shortened 300/Magnum instead of developing a proper coupe body/frame, that still is a lot more engineering than creating some badges, some stitching, and a steering wheel emblem. Ford developed a coupe body/frame with 6000 pounds/inch of torsional rigidity exclusively for the '05 Mustang and then, after testing with the twenty-eight GT500 mules, upgraded every Mustang (V6s as well as V8s) to nearly 7500 pounds/inch of torsional rigidity for the '06 and all later Mustangs. A lot more expense and effort was required here, but it's the best Mustang ever and still selling strongly after forty-three continuous years of production. Doing the job right always pays off...In the first 30 selling days of 2006 Ford sold more Mustangs than Pontiac sold GTOs in the entire year of 2005--and that's with GTOs discounted to well below the selling price of Mustang GTs. Now, of course, every Mustang sold is one more than Pontiac will sell GTOs in 2007.
Pontiac ripped off every true GTO fan when they rebadged an import instead of building the GTO themselves like Dodge did with the Charger and Ford has always done with the Mustang. I'll bet the men who designed and built the fabulous '64 GTOs, the '66 GTOs, and the '68 GTOS would not even look twice at the 2004 thru 2006 faux GTOS--Can you blame them?
Because Dodge didn't have any help from Mercedes...
Nethead, I don't know what kind of grudge you have against the GTO, but I'm assuming you haven't driven one?
The GTO is not dead, it just comes with four doors and a new name now. An upgrade, if you ask me.
Let the Australians make the interior and the Corvette boys build the engine and you have an awesome car. If the GTO was really an All-American (as if that's even possible in this day and age), it wouldn't be as good. Case in point:
(http://gmhightechperformance.com/features/0310sc_05z+2002_chevrolet_camaro_ss+interior_view.jpg)
(http://images.automotive.com/cob/factory_automotive/images/Features/auto_shows/2004_CIAS/2005_Pontiac_GTO__interior.jpg)
Quote from: Nethead on April 09, 2007, 10:02:56 AM
And anything from American Motors merits no mention among musclecars.
You really want to exclude the big-inch Javelins and AMX?
(http://www.hemmings.com/images/store/Muscle22CVR6.jpg)
(http://www.dragtimes.com/images/6458-1969-AMC-AMX.jpg)
(http://www.planethoustonamx.com/press_photos/70_AMX_studio.JPG)
I want a '68-'70 AMX. Glorious cars, and quite rare here, too.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=8461.msg411720#msg411720 date=1176134813
Because Dodge didn't have any help from Mercedes...
Nethead, I don't know what kind of grudge you have against the GTO, but I'm assuming you haven't driven one?
Raza:? Yes you do know my grudge, RazDude!? Call a Monaro a Monaro--a fine vehicle in its day, but putting "GTO" badges on a Monaro does not change the fact that it is a Monaro.? Sell 'em as Monaros, but don't try to persuade, cajole, bullyrag, or otherwise misguide yourself into thinking you can influence those of us who remember and have driven the
REAL GTOs into any kind of acceptance that slapping badges on an import thus creates a genuine GTO.? B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.? Putting "GTO" badges on a Veyron wouldn't make the Veyron a
REAL GTO either.? Conversely, building a GTO here and shipping it to Australia and applying "VXR" badges to it won't make that GTO a
REAL VXR, either.? Dropping an LS2 into a Magnum and applying some "GTO" badges doesn't make that Magnum a
REAL GTO, now does it???
REAL GTOs are
BUILT by Pontiac, not
BADGED by Pontiac.? Does this distinction go over everyone's heads, or what??
Let's hear from those of you who (a) had sufficient cash to buy a new GTO outright but didn't, or (b) could have afforded the payments on a new GTO but didn't:? Why
DIDN'T you buy a GTO?? Why were you
NOT one of the 44,042 or so folks who bought either an '04, '05, or '06 GTO?? There's gotta be reasons ("Couldn't afford it" is certainly a reason, but what were the reasons why those of you who
COULD afford a new GTO in those three years did not buy one?).? I don't know how many vehicles were sold in the US during those three years, but of those multiple millions and millions why did only 44,042 buy GTOs?
Quote from: Nethead on April 09, 2007, 11:09:18 AM
Raza:? Yes you do know my grudge, RazDude!? Call a Monaro a Monaro--a fine vehicle in its day, but putting "GTO" badges on a Monaro.? Sell 'em as Monaros, but don't try to persuade, cajole, bullyrag, or otherwise misguide yourself into thinking you can influence those of us who remember and have driven the REAL GTOs into any kind of acceptance that slapping badges on an import thus creates a genuine GTO.? B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.? Putting "GTO" badges on a Veyron wouldn't make the Veyron a REAL GTO either.? Conversely, building a GTO here and shipping it to Australia and applying "VXR" badges to it won't make that GTO a REAL VXR, either.? Dropping an LS2 into a Magnum and applying some "GTO" badges doesn't make that Magnum a REAL GTO, now does it???
REAL GTOs are BUILT by Pontiac, not BADGED by Pontiac.? Those this distinction go over your heads, or what??
Let's hear from those of you who (a) had sufficient cash to buy a new GTO outright but didn't, or (b) could have afforded the payments on a new GTO but didn't:? Why DIDN'T you buy a GTO?? Why were you NOT one of the 44,042 or so folks who bought either an '04, '05, or '06 GTO?? There's gotta be reasons ("Couldn't afford it" is certainly a reason, but what were the reasons why those of you who COULD afford a new GTO in those three years did not buy one?).? I don't know how many vehicles were sold in the US during those three years, but of those multiple millions and millions why did only 44,042 buy GTOs?
Waits for ChrisV to sink teeth into this post.....
Quote from: Nethead on April 09, 2007, 11:09:18 AM
REAL GTOs are BUILT by Pontiac, not BADGED by Pontiac. Those this distinction go over your heads, or what?
(http://images.google.com/url?q=http://www.prowleronline.com/ubb/image_uploads/040123_223905-1232_who-fuckin-cares.jpg&usg=__Gs7I_wd9urXu-FZkHY9olnZ9wr8=)
This is a global economy. Get over it. The Charger is built in Canada with chassis design from Mercedes. The Mustang itself also shares some design with the European Focus/Mazda 3/Volvo S40/etc. as well as the Jaguar S-type.
Quote from: Nethead on April 09, 2007, 10:02:56 AM
And anything from American Motors merits no mention among musclecars.
:confused:
It was already painful to read what you have to say because of your lack of using paragraphs, but now your ignorance has given me a good excuse to completely ignore anything you say. For shame...
QuoteThere have to be reasons, other than the most painfully obvious reason that paying customers bought something else.
The biggest reason, which I have always maintained, is that old farts with the money and in the market wanted something silly and garish-looking more than they wanted a good GT.
QuoteFord developed a coupe body/frame with 6000 pounds/inch of torsional rigidity exclusively for the '05 Mustang and then, after testing with the twenty-eight GT500 mules, upgraded every Mustang (V6s as well as V8s) to nearly 7500 pounds/inch of torsional rigidity for the '06 and all later Mustangs.?
Pounds per inch of torsional rigidity? :wtf:
QuotePontiac ripped off every true GTO fan when they rebadged an import instead of building the GTO themselves like Dodge did with the Charger and Ford has always done with the Mustang.? I'll bet the men who designed and built the fabulous '64 GTOs, the '66 GTOs, and the '68 GTOS would not even look twice at the 2004 thru 2006 faux GTOS--Can you blame them?
I'll bet the men designed and built the '64, '66 and '68 GTOs don't really give a damn, but the old geezers who
wanted a '64, '66 or '68 GTO hate the new one because there aren't enough scoops, swaths and "THE JUDGE" badges to satiate their poor taste.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on April 09, 2007, 11:15:17 AM
Waits for ChrisV to sink teeth into this post.....
Naw, I agree with him, for the most part, though there were a lot of reasons the GTO tanked, not the least being poor advertisement, poor dealer practice, and generally outdated styling. Not old, not retro, not bland, just outdated. Had it arrived when the Monaro coupe was introduced, it would have done better, and had it been advertised more, it would have done better, and had the dealers not been such utter pricks across the board, it would have done better. Hell, had it been the top model of a reintroduced LeMans line with V6 and 4 door basic models (taken from the Holden lineup and built here in large numbers), it would have done better. Due to limited production capability in Aus, they were never EVER going to sell very many of them. 18k annually was the projected target.
And of course, GM management is always a factor in that decent cars, that get good, tend to get killed off just as they realize their potential.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on April 09, 2007, 11:24:20 AM
(http://images.google.com/url?q=http://www.prowleronline.com/ubb/image_uploads/040123_223905-1232_who-fuckin-cares.jpg&usg=__Gs7I_wd9urXu-FZkHY9olnZ9wr8=)
The Mustang itself also shares some design with the European Focus/Mazda 3/Volvo S40/etc. as well as the Jaguar S-type.
Uhh, no. The Mazda3 is on the C1 platform, the S-197 Mustang is on a heavily revamped DEW98 platform (LS, S-type) called the D2C (d-class two door coop). The? D2C has similar floor pans, front frame rails, similar fuel tank design, and parts of the transmission tunnel are the same. There are
parts of the suspension that are similar to the C1 design, but the rest of the suspension, firewall and other stuff is unique.
-FordSVT-
93JC:? The body\frame of the 2005 Mustang could support 6000 pounds hung from any corner of the frame/body before the body/frame would twist one inch.? Clearer now?? I've never read the amount of weight the body/frame of the 2005 Mustang could support before the body/frame would twist one degree.? The current FR500C, with its roadracing rollcage, can support 20,000 pounds before it will twist one degree, but the Nethead here does not know if twisting one degree produces less than, greater than, or exactly one inch of deflection/twist. I quote the figure for the FR500C because that's on a website, but the pounds/degree for the production Mustang was not. That racing rollcage more than doubles the torsional rigidity for sure.
The production musclecars produced by American Motors in the late 'Sixties could not match the performance of the production musclecars produced by The Big Three.? The AMX, much smaller than the intermediate-sized musclecars, may not have matched the performance of the musclecars, either.? Not that it mattered greatly after 1967, once the ponycars began offering big block engines...
Quote from: Nethead on April 09, 2007, 12:01:56 PM
93JC:? The body\frame of the 2005 Mustang could support 6000 pounds hung from any corner of the frame/body before the body/frame would twist one inch.? Clearer now?? I've never read the amount of weight the body/frame of the 2005 Mustang could support before the body/frame would twist one degree.? The current FR500C, with its roadracing rollcage, can support 20,000 pounds before it will twist one degree, but the Nethead here does not know if twisting one degree produces less than, great than, or exactly one inch of deflection/twist.
That's... ridiculous. Tosional rigidity is expressed in foot-pounds (or Newton-metres) per degree (or radian). No one would report it on a per length basis: it's useless.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on April 09, 2007, 11:24:20 AM
(http://images.google.com/url?q=http://www.prowleronline.com/ubb/image_uploads/040123_223905-1232_who-fuckin-cares.jpg&usg=__Gs7I_wd9urXu-FZkHY9olnZ9wr8=)
This is a global economy. Get over it. The Charger is built in Canada with chassis design from Mercedes.
Parts of the rear suspension and that's it.? Not even all of the suspension, just parts of it.
QuoteThe Mustang itself also shares some design with the European Focus/Mazda 3/Volvo S40/etc. as well as the Jaguar S-type.
It does not.? The Mustang has it's own dedicated chassis.
Quote from: FordSVT on April 09, 2007, 11:47:12 AM
Uhh, no. The Mazda3 is on the C1 platform, the S-197 Mustang is on a heavily revamped DEW98 platform (LS, S-type) called the D2C (d-class two door coop). The? D2C has similar floor pans, front frame rails, similar fuel tank design, and parts of the transmission tunnel are the same. There are parts of the suspension that are similar to the C1 design, but the rest of the suspension, firewall and other stuff is unique.
-FordSVT-
Actually it's even less then that. Modifying the DEW98 platform was abandoned halfway through because the platform was too expensive to produce for the Mustang and keep the prices reasonable. The platform was basically designed from scratch.
This is what wikipedia says:
The D2C (for "D-class 2-door coupe" and also known as DC2 and S197) is Ford's newest global rear-wheel drive automobile platform. The platform basics are a MacPherson strut suspension in front and 3-link solid axle in the rear with a Panhard rod. The 2007 high performance Special Vehicle Team (SVT) Mustang variation, called the Shelby GT500, will not include an SVT-designed independent rear suspension, but will also have the solid rear axle. Engines include a 4.0 L V6, Ford's Modular 4.6 L V8, and a supercharged 5.4 L Modular V8 in the GT500.
Despite rumours hinting otherwise, D2C is loosely based on the Ford DEW platform which served as the basis for the Lincoln LS, Ford Thunderbird, and Jaguar S-Type. The 2005 S197 Mustang was originally designed to use a "Lite" version of the DEW98 platform, but while that plan was eventually scrapped as too expensive, most D2C platform development completed prior to that decision was retained. This led to the carryover of several DEW98 chassis components. These components include the floor pans, portions of the transmission tunnel, the front frame rails, and fuel tank design.
Differences between D2C and DEW98 are most noticeable in the suspension: The DEW98-based Lincoln LS uses a 4-wheel independent double wishbone suspension. The D2C platform's MacPherson strut front suspension and solid axle rear suspension are less expensive to produce than DEW's more complicated setup. D2C also shares components with other Ford platforms. These include Ford's global C1 platform, with which D2C shares front strut and rear trailing arm components.
Ford's current The Way Forward plan calls for Mustang derivative models to be launched in 2007 and 2008.
Quote from: FordSVT on April 09, 2007, 11:47:12 AM
Uhh, no. The Mazda3 is on the C1 platform, the S-197 Mustang is on a heavily revamped DEW98 platform (LS, S-type) called the D2C (d-class two door coop). The D2C has similar floor pans, front frame rails, similar fuel tank design, and parts of the transmission tunnel are the same. There are parts of the suspension that are similar to the C1 design, but the rest of the suspension, firewall and other stuff is unique.
-FordSVT-
I said shares some design, not that the Mustang rode of the same platform.
You can try to pick away at my post, but the point I was trying to make is that in a global economy, are there really all-American cars anymore? I think not. It's a worldwide effort nowadays.
Quote from: 93JC on April 09, 2007, 12:21:16 PM
That's... ridiculous. Tosional rigidity is expressed in foot-pounds (or Newton-metres) per degree (or radian). No one would report it on a per length basis: it's useless.
93JC: I don't make these figures up, JCDude, I just quote 'em.? Personally, a pounds-per-degree value seems less perceptual than a pounds-per-inch value.? You can measure an inch of deflection with a yardstick, ruler, or tape measure but a more complicated apparatus might be necessary to prove that a body-frame had deflected one degree.? ?
If you don't understand what is meant by needing 6000 pounds suspended from any corner of the body/frame to cause that corner to deflect one inch from its non-weighted position, I can't explain that concept in simpler terms other than to say "It takes 6000 pounds of weight to twist the current Mustang's body/frame one inch."
Is it any clearer
now?? If not, you need to buy a Mustang body-in-white ($3500 or so) from Ford Racing Performance Parts and perform tests using measurements/standards that you understand.? Keep us posted!
Had they called it anything other than a GTO it would've sold better IMO (or at least not any worse).
With a UAW-limited target number of 18,000 and the baby boomer-GTO legacy, it played to a very small and specific demographic.
That demographic IMO didn't want a rebadged hand-me-down no matter how good it was.
So, Nethead, you've never driven a GTO?
Quote from: GoCougs on April 09, 2007, 12:48:49 PM
Had they called it anything other than a GTO it would've sold better IMO (or at least not any worse).
With a UAW-limited target number of 18,000 and the baby boomer-GTO legacy, it played to a very small and specific demographic.
That demographic IMO didn't want a rebadged hand-me-down no matter how good it was.
I really think it was the exterior design that turned people off. It wasn't ugly by any means, but it certainly wasn't pretty. It was just....there. It needed to strike an emotional cord with people to shell out $32K for a two door coupe. If the exterior design doesn't cause anyone to lust after it then that type of car is a hard sell.
i would rather have a Shelbie GT any day over the new mustangs they have out now...now, don't get me wrong the new mustangs look nice, but i would still rather have the GT.... :nono:
welcome.
off-topic: are you the danielle from facebook?
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 09, 2007, 12:59:20 PM
I really think it was the exterior design that turned people off.? It wasn't ugly by any means, but it certainly wasn't pretty.? It was just....there.? It needed to strike an emotional cord with people to shell out $32K for a two door coupe.? If the exterior design doesn't cause anyone to lust after it then that type of car is a hard sell.
In the grand scheme of things, what
was the GTO? Did it help define the most memorable era in US automotive history? Yes. Did it sell in volume to a wide demographic? No. Was it the best performing vehicle of its era? No. Was it a somewhat pricey two door coupe? No.
I think Dodge will run into these issues with the Challenger as well, but even more so. The Challenger really only earned a widespread reputation long after it ceased production, and with the blatant copying of the original, it plays to a very small demographic.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 09, 2007, 01:21:10 PM
In the grand scheme of things, what was the GTO? Did it help define the most memorable era in US automotive history? Yes. Did it sell in volume to a wide demographic? No. Was it the best performing vehicle of its era? No. Was it a somewhat pricey two door coupe? No.
I think Dodge will run into these issues with the Challenger as well, but even more so. The Challenger really only earned a widespread reputation long after it ceased production, and with the blatant copying of the original, it plays to a very small demographic.
I think Dodge will sell every Challenger they can build for about 3 years. After that I think the demand will drop off dramatically and it will be cancelled. Unfortunately I believe the same thing will happen to the Camaro. It might last a year or two longer, but I don't see it lasting much longer then 5 years.
Quote from: Nethead on April 09, 2007, 12:43:15 PM
93JC: I don't make these figures up, JCDude, I just quote 'em.
I'd like to read your source, if you don't mind.
QuotePersonally, a pounds-per-degree value seems less perceptual than a pounds-per-inch value. You can measure an inch of deflection with a yardstick, ruler, or tape measure but a more complicated apparatus might be necessary to prove that a body-frame had deflected one degree.
That's silly. For several reasons.
QuoteIf you don't understand what is meant by needing 6000 pounds suspended from any corner of the body/frame to cause that corner to deflect one inch from its non-weighted position, I can't explain that concept in simpler terms other than to say "It takes 6000 pounds of weight to twist the current Mustang's body/frame one inch."
I understand that perfectly. It's stupid, because you haven't a clue where that inch of twist was measured. (Twist, mind you, not deflection. A body is
twisted when under torsion and
deflected when
bending.)
Measuring an inch of twist at the outer edges of the chassis is completely different than an inch of twist near the centreline. That's one of the reasons no one in their right mind reports torsional rigidity based on a per-length unit. You measure it per degree, because one degree measured near the centreline is still one degree at the outer edge.
The other big reason being that you can't compare the figures to anything else. Let's say the Lotus Elise has 7000 "lbs/in" of torsional rigidity. Is it stiffer than the Mustang? Maybe, maybe not. One inch of twist on an Elise is, as a function of the Elise's geometry, proportionally more than an inch in a Mustang (assuming the Elise is narrower; I don't know off the top of my head, I'm just guessing. Assume for the purposes of this discussion that it is narrower than the Mustang). If you measure the twist at the outer edge of both vehicles the overall twist may be the same, but the overall effect on the Elise's geometry is more pronounced.
If we were to say the Mustang had a torsional rigidity of 6000 ft-lbs/? and the Elise has 7000 ft-lbs/?, we would know that the Mustang would twist more than the Elise
as a function of it's geometry, which is eminently more important than the overall length of twist.
In a simpler example, take two perfectly cylindrical bars and set them up in a torsional testing machine (which is what torsional rigidity figures are obtained from). Let's say one has a very small diameter, let's say a quarter of an inch. If you measured torsional rigidity on a per inch basis the smaller would wrap around itself (the circumference would be only pi/4 inches, a little over three quarters of an inch) if it twisted an inch. Let's say the other one has a one inch diameter: it would wrap around about a third of it's circumference (3.14... inches). Which one is stiffer?
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on April 09, 2007, 12:43:14 PM
I said shares some design, not that the Mustang rode of the same platform.
You can try to pick away at my post, but the point I was trying to make is that in a global economy, are there really all-American cars anymore? I think not. It's a worldwide effort nowadays.
Your point is well taken and I agree with it, but you said the Mustang shared a platform with the Mazda 3 (which is incorrect) and the S-Type (which is 75% incorrect).
-FordSVT-
Quote from: FordSVT on April 09, 2007, 01:51:21 PM
Your point is well taken and I agree with it, but you said the Mustang shared a platform with the Mazda 3 (which is incorrect) and the S-Type (which is 75% incorrect).
-FordSVT-
I did?
"The Mustang itself also shares
some design with the European Focus/Mazda 3/Volvo S40/etc. as well as the Jaguar S-type."
I stand corrected, you did say that. But from what I can tell, the Mustang shares about as much with the Mazda 3 as it does with a BMW.
Anyways, next subject.
-FordSVT-
Quote from: Nethead on April 09, 2007, 11:09:18 AM
Let's hear from those of you who (a) had sufficient cash to buy a new GTO outright but didn't, or (b) could have afforded the payments on a new GTO but didn't: Why DIDN'T you buy a GTO? Why were you NOT one of the 44,042 or so folks who bought either an '04, '05, or '06 GTO? There's gotta be reasons ("Couldn't afford it" is certainly a reason, but what were the reasons why those of you who COULD afford a new GTO in those three years did not buy one?). I don't know how many vehicles were sold in the US during those three years, but of those multiple millions and millions why did only 44,042 buy GTOs?
I didn't buy a GTO because I'm an old fart with money who wanted something silly and garish looking more than I wanted a good GT. Or so I'm told. :devil:
Quote from: Cobra93 on April 09, 2007, 04:06:25 PM
I didn't buy a GTO because I'm an old fart with money who wanted something silly and garish looking more than I wanted a good GT. Or so I'm told. :devil:
Damn straight, gramps.
Don't give me excuses to put you in a home, you old codger. :rage:
:lol:
Quote from: 93JC on April 09, 2007, 04:38:41 PM
Don't give me excuses to put you in a home, you old codger. :rage:
:lol:
I'm still pretty spry. I'll take my teeth out and cut loose with a cane thrashing on your hiney. :heated:
Just make sure you have a fresh pair of Depends on.
Quote from: 93JC on April 09, 2007, 05:01:25 PM
Just make sure you have a fresh pair of Depends on.
I doubt I'll be straining any. :mrcool:
:lol: :praise:
Quote from: omicron on April 09, 2007, 10:25:02 AM
I want a '68-'70 AMX. Glorious cars, and quite rare here, too.
My dad had a '69 AMX 343 back in the day that he bought new over a (surprise, surprise) Shelby Mustang. He was young and stupid with it. In 1990, he finally had to sell it as a parts car with the floorpan rusting out to a guy restoring one or two of them. I will buy my dad one someday, but that's beside the point. It was an amazing car, and I wish they built more than only 18,000 of them.
Also, anyone who thinks the Javelin was a pushover, guess again. They owned the Trans Am racing series for a few years.
This is the same year as my dad's and was for sale for $18k 2 years ago. This is my next car photo submission, btw.
(http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/194/amxfront05zi6.jpg)
And here's the original AMX concept car at the Crawford Auto Museum in Cleveland.
(http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/7594/dscf0027pk7.jpg)
(http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/685/dscf0029cf8.jpg)
Quote from: GoCougs on April 09, 2007, 12:48:49 PM
Had they called it anything other than a GTO it would've sold better IMO (or at least not any worse).
With a UAW-limited target number of 18,000 and the baby boomer-GTO legacy, it played to a very small and specific demographic.
That demographic IMO didn't want a rebadged hand-me-down no matter how good it was.
Plus, at the time, the Elizabeth plant could not physically build many more cars - they were running a three-shift 24hr production line.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=8461.msg411829#msg411829 date=1176144549
So, Nethead, you've never driven a GTO?
RAZA: I've driven two real GTOs, three if you count a '73 based on the Chevy Nova chassis. 'Never have driven the import rebadged as a GTO. Why would I?
The '67 had more punch than the '68, but the '67 was not stock and the '68 was essentially stock (aftermarket mufflers only). The less-than-two-weeks-old '73 was a very short drive, maybe three miles. It was very Nova, and the owner and another co-worker were weighting it down. I thought it would never get worse than seeing the GTO downgraded to a Nova chassis...
Quote from: danielle_16_09 on April 09, 2007, 01:05:24 PM
i would rather have a Shelbie GT any day over the new mustangs they have out now...now, don't get me wrong the new mustangs look nice, but i would still rather have the GT.... :nono:
Danielle 16 09: Yeah, wouldn't we all! Anyone who bought the Mustang GT woulda taken the Shelby GT for the same money as the Mustang GT. It's likely that anyone who bought a V6 Mustang woulda taken a Shelby GT for the same money as the V6 Mustang, although there may be some who would not give up the better mileage of the V6 for a Shelby GT. There are some weird characters out there...
Quote from: Cobra93 on April 09, 2007, 04:06:25 PM
I didn't buy a GTO because I'm an old fart with money who wanted something silly and garish looking more than I wanted a good GT. Or so I'm told. :devil:
In Canada, we didn't even have a
choice to buy the POS instead of the Mustang. :evildude:
-FordSVT-
Quote from: 93JC on April 09, 2007, 01:31:14 PM
I'd like to read your source, if you don't mind.
That's silly. For several reasons.
I understand that perfectly. It's stupid, because you haven't a clue where that inch of twist was measured. (Twist, mind you, not deflection. A body is twisted when under torsion and deflected when bending.)
Measuring an inch of twist at the outer edges of the chassis is completely different than an inch of twist near the centreline. That's one of the reasons no one in their right mind reports torsional rigidity based on a per-length unit. You measure it per degree, because one degree measured near the centreline is still one degree at the outer edge.
The other big reason being that you can't compare the figures to anything else. Let's say the Lotus Elise has 7000 "lbs/in" of torsional rigidity. Is it stiffer than the Mustang? Maybe, maybe not. One inch of twist on an Elise is, as a function of the Elise's geometry, proportionally more than an inch in a Mustang (assuming the Elise is narrower; I don't know off the top of my head, I'm just guessing. Assume for the purposes of this discussion that it is narrower than the Mustang). If you measure the twist at the outer edge of both vehicles the overall twist may be the same, but the overall effect on the Elise's geometry is more pronounced.
If we were to say the Mustang had a torsional rigidity of 6000 ft-lbs/? and the Elise has 7000 ft-lbs/?, we would know that the Mustang would twist more than the Elise as a function of it's geometry, which is eminently more important than the overall length of twist.
In a simpler example, take two perfectly cylindrical bars and set them up in a torsional testing machine (which is what torsional rigidity figures are obtained from). Let's say one has a very small diameter, let's say a quarter of an inch. If you measured torsional rigidity on a per inch basis the smaller would wrap around itself (the circumference would be only pi/4 inches, a little over three quarters of an inch) if it twisted an inch. Let's say the other one has a one inch diameter: it would wrap around about a third of it's circumference (3.14... inches). Which one is stiffer?
93JC:? The Nethead here should be able to find the 20,000 pounds/degree figure on the websites easily--I read it the first time in February or March.? The article stating that the '05 Mustang had a torsional rigidity of 6,000 pounds/inch may be tougher--a website posting in late '05 that I found in early '06, which may be archived by now.? It was found by googling some generic input like "2005 Mustang"? and reading some of the thousands of replies.? Now, that would be tens of thousands of replies.? I'll google and see what turns up now.? Damn
AutoWeek for abolishing their website, as it was posted there and with the source website given.? I'll probably post whatever I find as an Addendum via an "Edit" to this posting.? Check back here later...
Addendum 1:? Back when I first found these figures, a google on "FR500C" would return maybe 25 pages of results.? A google on the "FR500GT", no more than 3 or 4.? Today, a google on "FR500C" returned 6,620 pages and a google on the extremely rare "FR500GT" returned an amazing 1,233 pages of results!? Resurrecting the correct data will be more difficult and time-consuming than I ever would have believed.? I wish this browser could sort by age of the articles...
Addendum 2: These data for the FR500C and FR500GT are from 'fordracingparts.com/mustang/specifications.asp':
CHASSIS:
* Type: Uni-body full seam welded with integrated safety cage
* Structural Performance: Over 20,000 ft-lbs/degree (torsional)
* Construction: Ford - modified stock steel
BTW, if one end of a frame/body is clamped rigidly in some sorta gizmo, and 6,000 pounds is suspended from one of the corners at the extreme other end of that frame/body, there'll be
different degrees of deflection along the entire length of the frame/body--almost no deflection within a few inches of the clamped location, but the maximum degrees of deflection probably occur at the point where the weight is suspended.? Midway between the suspension point and the clamping point is probably gonna be roughly half the degrees of deflection as would occur at the suspension point--this is only approximate since automobile body/frames are anything but symmetric, and the amount of deflection at any given point between the weight and the clamps probably varies much moreso than would the amount of deflection of a straight steel pipe or a straight steel box section.? Do you agree?
Quote from: Nethead on April 10, 2007, 08:23:48 AM
BTW, if one end of a frame/body is clamped rigidly in some sorta gizmo, and 6,000 pounds is suspended from one of the corners at the extreme other end of that frame/body, there'll be different degrees of deflection along the entire length of the frame/body--almost no deflection within a few inches of the clamped location, but the maximum degrees of deflection probably occur at the point where the weight is suspended.? Midway between the suspension point and the clamping point is probably gonna be roughly half the degrees of deflection as would occur at the suspension point--this is only approximate since automobile body/frames are anything but symmetric, and the amount of deflection at any given point between the weight and the clamps probably varies much moreso than would the amount of deflection of a straight steel pipe or a straight steel box section.? Do you agree?
Angle of twist is measured at the end of the free end (the end with the force applied to it), by convention, since that's where it's easiest to measure, and where you're most interested (as you would be more concerned with the maximum angle of twist moreso than the corresponding smaller angle at some point along the body).
I know what you're saying.
Quote from: Nethead on April 10, 2007, 07:37:20 AM
RAZA: I've driven two real GTOs, three if you count a '73 based on the Chevy Nova chassis. 'Never have driven the import rebadged as a GTO. Why would I?
Because it's spectacular.
Quote from: sandertheshark on April 10, 2007, 05:49:18 PM
Because it's spectacular.
Compared to the Monte Carlo SS and the Cobalt SS, definitely!
Quote from: Nethead on April 11, 2007, 10:54:41 AM
Compared to the Monte Carlo SS and the Cobalt SS, definitely!
You've obviously never driven it, because if you had, you wouldn't say something so silly. I could rattle off cars that I've driven that the LS2 GTO is better than, if you really want me to.
I hate Shakespeare, but...
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet."
"You are a fishmonger."
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=8461.msg414200#msg414200 date=1176310604
You've obviously never driven it, because if you had, you wouldn't say something so silly.? I could rattle off cars that I've driven that the LS2 GTO is better than, if you really want me to.?
Raza, you're reading me wrong here!? The GTO was certainly GM's best-performing import, and probably outperforms all of GM's US vehicles except for the Corvette models and
maybe the XLR (or whatever Cadillac calls its version of the Corvette).? Forum dudes are too touchy--you included--to compare the GTO to anything other than a GM vehicle--I compare a GTO very favorably to two other GM performance models and you
STILL get all pissed!?
After all, over the three-year production of GTOs there are no figures on how many folks compared the GTO to a (fill in the vehicle of your choice), but 44,042 bought GTOs in 2004 through 2006 and the rest of the folks either didn't buy/trade for anything or else bought/traded for something else.? You reckon there were
reasons for this?? I've read there were big, BIG discounts offered, too, but I can't believe the size of some of the discounts I've seen claimed in various forums...
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on April 11, 2007, 11:00:34 AM
I hate Shakespeare, but...
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet."
Not true in the least.
Quote from: Nethead on April 11, 2007, 10:54:41 AM
Compared to the Monte Carlo SS and the Cobalt SS, definitely!
Even compared to, you guessed it, the GT. As much as I love the GT (no question about that), I have to admit that the GTO IS a good car that drives well. It would be....ignorant for me not too since I have driven one. I just like the GT better.
Maybe you should go drive one ;)?
Quote from: LonghornTX on April 11, 2007, 01:34:51 PM
Even compared to, you guessed it, the GT.? As much as I love the GT (no question about that), I have to admit that the GTO IS a good car that drives well.? It would be....ignorant for me not too since I have driven one.? I just like the GT better.
Maybe you should go drive one? ;)?
Maybe you should go drive a
real GTO, in which the entire vehicle was built by Pontiac. I recommend a '64, a '66, or a '68, or even a '65.
But if I
were to drive a late-model Holden, I'd hold out for a VXR. Why compromise?
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on April 11, 2007, 11:00:34 AM
I hate Shakespeare, but...
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet."
That line wasn't intended to be deep or philosophical.
It's a joke about how bad the Rose playhouse (the Globe's rival) smelled.
We look back on it in amazement and say, "oh yeah, that Shakespeare guy is so intelligent," while in its day all it got was laughter.
[quote author=Tave link=topic=8461.msg414391#msg414391 date=1176327495
We look back on it in amazement and say, "oh yeah, that Shakespeare guy is so intelligent," while in its day all it got was laughter.
Quote
That's the way all the people we now consider"brilliant thinkers" were in their day. Well, maybe not all but I would say something above 90%. Anyone remember Einstein's letter to FDR that atomic bombs were a threat? FDR laughed it off as he believed it impossible to make the biggest bomb ever from a stupid little element. This was of course before we were in WWII.
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 11, 2007, 12:46:09 PM
Not true in the least.
It's 100% true.
The name on the back of the car doesn't affect handling, speed, acceleration, braking, steering, or comfort.
They could call it a Pontiac Asswipe and it would still be a great car.
I had to vote GTO. The looks are right up my alley, understated but still aggressive. I love the interior, handling, engine, and pretty much the whole car. I would have mine in black. And while I really like the Mustang, the GTO is just the better car, even if it is not picked on looks alone (again, i like it).
Quote from: Nethead on April 11, 2007, 11:52:57 AM
After all, over the three-year production of GTOs there are no figures on how many folks compared the GTO to a (fill in the vehicle of your choice), but 44,042 bought GTOs in 2004 through 2006 and the rest of the folks either didn't buy/trade for anything or else bought/traded for something else.? You reckon there were reasons for this?? I've read there were big, BIG discounts offered, too, but I can't believe the size of some of the discounts I've seen claimed in various forums...
You know, you keep saying that it sold so poorly that they were cancelled. You are wrong. They announced they were to be limited production for the beginning. They even said they would probably only be made for three years, and if demand was high enough maybe a fourth. They only put discounts on them after they finished production of the car, and the 07's were out. They do this with every hold over car on every lot. Dealers don't want them sitting on the lot when the next years models have arrived. The car was not a failure. In fact, it did everything it was supposed to do sales-wise. Admittedly, the GTO didn't sell really well in 06, which caused it to not be held over for that last year. I have a lady that I stay in contact with sometimes who is an engineer for GM and now oversees a certain program. The GTO did everything GM wished it to do, and now,
because of the GTO's success we are getting two new muscle cars from GM that will be permanent. (At least that's what they are saying right now.) You can take that to the bank.
Quote from: Tave on April 11, 2007, 03:38:15 PM
That line wasn't intended to be deep or philosophical.
It's a joke about how bad the Rose playhouse (the Globe's rival) smelled.
We look back on it in amazement and say, "oh yeah, that Shakespeare guy is so intelligent," while in its day all it got was laughter.
Don't present it like it's fact.
That's one speculation made by "some scholars." No one knows exactly what the audience's reaction would have been.
If anything it's not Shakespeare's intelligence that has been exaggerated. The exaggeration of intelligence lies in those who think they can divine exactly what Shakespeare meant with his words.
I was simply pointing out that we tend to be very pruddish with the interpretation of his plays. A lot of it is humor, and pretty dirty stuff at that.
And the past isn't a complete cipher. There are accounts of how the Rose stank because of backed up sewer pipes. We know it was the most popular theatre of the time and that it competed with the Globe. We have that line. Part of literary analysis is putting these individual observations together.
And geez, excuse me for trying to offer up an amusing anecdote. I guess next time I'll put the stick back in my ass.
Quote from: Tave on April 11, 2007, 07:36:43 PM
I was simply pointing out that we tend to be very pruddish with the interpretation of his plays. A lot of it is humor, and pretty dirty stuff at that.
And the past isn't a complete cipher. There are accounts of how the Rose stank because of backed up sewer pipes. We know it was the most popular theatre of the time and that it competed with the Globe. We have that line. Part of literary analysis is putting these individual observations together.
And geez, excuse me for trying to offer up an amusing anecdote. I guess next time I'll put the stick back in my ass.
Sig! :lol:
Quote from: hounddog on April 11, 2007, 06:43:59 PM
In fact, it did everything it was supposed to do sales-wise.?
Except it sold 15,000 fewer units then expected...which is 25% lower then expected for entire run of the car.
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 12, 2007, 06:52:48 AM
Except it sold 15,000 fewer units then expected...which is 25% lower then expected for entire run of the car.
I think the only car GM has that performed worse than expected from a percentage POV would be the SSR.
I don't know how anyone can defend the GTO's sales record, even people who own them admit they didn't sell anywhere near what was expected.
-FordSVT-
Quote from: hounddog on April 11, 2007, 06:43:59 PM
You know, you keep saying that it sold so poorly that they were cancelled.? You are wrong.? They announced they were to be limited production for the beginning.? They even said they would probably only be made for three years, and if demand was high enough maybe a fourth.? They only put discounts on them after they finished production of the car, and the 07's were out.? They do this with every hold over car on every lot.? Dealers don't want them sitting on the lot when the next years models have arrived.? The car was not a failure.? In fact, it did everything it was supposed to do sales-wise.? ?Admittedly, the GTO didn't sell really well in 06, which caused it to not be held over for that last year.? ?I have a lady that I stay in contact with sometimes who is an engineer for GM and now oversees a certain program.? ?The GTO did everything GM wished it to do, and now, because of the GTO's success we are getting two new muscle cars from GM that will be permanent.? (At least that's what they are saying right now.)? ?You can take that to the bank.
hounddog: HoundDude, you mean well I admit. However, history may have some facts that will disturb you since they are contrary to some statements in your posting. GTOs had big discounts while they were still in production in Australia (Adelaide, wasn't it?). In the early Spring of 2006, Pontiac had a 200 days supply of GTOs languishing on dealership lots nationwide (Production of GTOs did not cease until sometime in the first week of July, 2006). That's two-hundred days--not a mis-type. I've sold cars for a living (Chevies)--200 days is effin' deplorable. I haven't ran across any figures recently, but I believe 68 days is the average--the bad as well as the good--for typical early Spring sales in the US. This figure is what I recall from well over a year ago--so if you see some other figure, trust that other figure. For any car at any time of year in the US, domestic or import, a 200 days supply is a disaster of Aztek proportions. SSRs may have had this kind of sales problem, but I doubt it. Luckily, I believe SSRs were produced in far fewer numbers.
So, HoundDude, history says one thing and you say another. Who would you believe? I'm gonna go with history this time.
The original plan was to produce 18,000 GTOs per year, and probably there was a plan to reassess the market for the GTO at the end of three years. At some point, production was cut so that the total number produced was 44,042 or very near it. A planned 18,000 units/year times three years yields 54,000, or actual sales very near twenty percent under hoped-for sales. This in itself isn't all that bad, perhaps, except that selling a lot of those 44,042 units required major incentives. I saw somewhere that there were still some unsold 2005s at the point production ceased in the first week of July, 2006--but that may have been a forum posting, so how valid that statement is the Nethead here just does not know.
I know the GTOheads in these threads are a touchy bunch--but what killed the GTO was simply that there was a competing car with better looks, better build quality, and almost as much performance for a LOT less money.
GTO production certainly was in Adelaide :praise: :praise:
GM-H at Elizabeth, a northern suburb.
Quote from: omicron on April 12, 2007, 08:43:35 AM
GTO production certainly was in Adelaide :praise: :praise:
GM-H at Elizabeth, a northern suburb.
omicron: I thought so! Thank you for the verification! The Nethead here had hoped we'd get a VXR with the minimum modifications needed to meet US standards--and that it would be sold here as a
Holden. It didn't happen like that at all, but it's not the fault of the good folks in Elizabeth!
Quote from: Nethead on April 12, 2007, 08:41:35 AM
I know the GTOheads in these threads are a touchy bunch--but what killed the GTO was simply that there was a competing car with better looks, better build quality, and almost as much performance for a LOT less money.
The GTO wouldn't pass crash testing for 2007 I believe, which is why it was planned for only a 3 year run to begin with. However the car did not sell well and they had to give it away near the end. I don't know about the build quality issue although the Mustang is rated one of the most reliable cars on the market, but the interior is certainly nicer in the GTO. I do not care about interior quality in a pony/muscle car because that's not what the car is about and Ford has never pretended the Mustang had good interiors. They are about tire melting power, performance, and style at a much lower price then anyone else offers. The Mustang excels at that.
Quote from: Nethead on April 12, 2007, 09:00:16 AM
omicron: I thought so! Thank you for the verification! The Nethead here had hoped we'd get a VXR with the minimum modifications needed to meet US standards--and that it would be sold here as a Holden. It didn't happen like that at all, but it's not the fault of the good folks in Elizabeth!
Selling the HSV Coupe 4 may well have aided sales - one of the best-looking of all the Monaro variants, and 4WD.
(http://www.hsv.com.au/multimedia/wallpapers/sms/800/coupe4.jpg)
That must have weighed 4000 pounds!
Quote from: Raza on April 12, 2007, 10:13:10 AM
That must have weighed 4000 pounds!
Almost exactly. 'Twas a fat bastard.
The final Signature Coupes were fantastic:
(http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/8320/gtonb2.jpg)
Quote from: Nethead on April 12, 2007, 08:41:35 AM
hounddog: HoundDude, you mean well I admit.? However, history may have some facts that will disturb you since they are contrary to some statements in your posting.? GTOs had big discounts while they were still in production in Australia (Adelaide, wasn't it?).? In the early Spring of 2006, Pontiac had a 200 days supply of GTOs languishing on dealership lots nationwide (Production of GTOs did not cease until sometime in the first week of July, 2006).? That's two-hundred days--not a mis-type.? I've sold cars for a living (Chevies)--200 days is effin' deplorable.? I haven't ran across any figures recently, but I believe 68 days is the average--the bad as well as the good--for typical early Spring sales in the US.? This figure is what I recall from well over a year ago--so if you see some other figure, trust that other figure. For any car at any time of year in the US, domestic or import, a 200 days supply is a disaster of Aztek proportions.? SSRs may have had this kind of sales problem, but I doubt it.? Luckily, I believe SSRs were produced in far fewer numbers.
So, HoundDude, history says one thing and you say another.? Who would you believe?? I'm gonna go with history this time.
The original plan was to produce 18,000 GTOs per year, and probably there was a plan to reassess the market for the GTO at the end of three years.? At some point, production was cut so that the total number produced was 44,042 or very near it.? A planned 18,000 units/year times three years yields 54,000, or actual sales very near twenty percent under hoped-for sales.? This in itself isn't all that bad, perhaps, except that selling a lot of those 44,042 units required major incentives.? I saw somewhere that there were still some unsold 2005s at the point production ceased in the first week of July, 2006--but that may have been a forum posting, so how valid that statement is the Nethead here just does not know.
I know the GTOheads in these threads are a touchy bunch--but what killed the GTO was simply that there was a competing car with better looks, better build quality, and almost as much performance for a LOT less money.
First off, it is HOUNDDOG.
Secondly, show me a credible link or provide information showing me they were deeply discounted before the end of production.
Lastly, the GTO did exactly what it was intended to do. It prooved to GM that there was still indeed a market for muscle car production.
I believe I will take the information given to me by a VP of _______ at GM over any drivel you post.
Catman knows who I am talking about. She used to come and chat with us occasionally at autoweekly.
Quote from: hounddog on April 12, 2007, 06:01:46 PM
First off, it is HOUNDDOG.?
He calls everyone ______dude.
Quote from: hounddog on April 12, 2007, 06:01:46 PM
First off, it is HOUNDDOG.?
Secondly, show me a credible link or provide information showing me they were deeply discounted before the end of production.?
Lastly, the GTO did exactly what it was intended to do.? It prooved to GM that there was still indeed a market for muscle car production.?
I believe I will take the information given to me by a VP of _______ at GM over any drivel you post.
Catman knows who I am talking about.? She used to come and chat with us occasionally at autoweekly.
GTOS were pretty deeply discounted towards the end. It might be hard to find a link proving that, but that is pretty much common knowledge :ohyeah:.
Also, you keep mentioning how the GTO was some kind of harbinger of the return of the muscle car for GM. Are you sure about that statement, because according to this http://www.leftlanenews.com/shock-general-motors-puts-zeta-rear-wheel-drive-revolution-on-hold.html, we are not going to get a GTO anytime soon.
Quote from: Nethead on April 11, 2007, 01:49:05 PM
Maybe you should go drive a real GTO, in which the entire vehicle was built by Pontiac.? I recommend a '64, a '66, or a '68, or even a '65.?
But if I were to drive a late-model Holden, I'd hold out for a VXR.? Why compromise?
Indeed I have, a 66' convertable. It sucked driving wise. What's your point?
Seriously, go drive a new GTO before you completely discredit it.
Quote from: Tave on April 11, 2007, 07:36:43 PM
I guess next time I'll put the stick back in my ass.
HAHAHAHA Tave FTW! :lol:
Quote from: LonghornTX on April 12, 2007, 11:31:40 PM
Indeed I have, a 66' convertable.? It sucked driving wise.? What's your point??
Seriously, go drive a new GTO before you completely discredit it.
LonghornTX: LongDude, how can I drive a
new GTO? Unless of course there are still some unsold 2006s at Pontiac dealerships...
And I'm not completely discrediting the Extinct GTO, Second Edition. However, and I hate to have to repeat this a third or fourth time, Pontiac claimed that the 3,777 pounds GTO was their resurrected musclecar. Dodge claims that their 4,266 pounds Charger SRT8 four-door automatic is their resurrected musclecar. Ford claims that their 3,990 pounds Shelby GT500 with a lowly live-axle is their musclecar. Chevrolet claimed that their ??? pounds Monte Carlo SS was their resurrected musclecar.
Motor Trend listened to these four companies talk the talk, and decided to find out just how well the hardware from these companies could
walk the
walk, but spared big-advertising-bucks Chevrolet the embarrassment and humiliation of having to go up against these three 400 HP (and up) pavement rippers, even if one of them only comes as a four-door automatic.
I am not going to repeat the results for the three vehicles in tests of 0-60, 0-100, standing-start quarter-mile, 600-feet slalom, the figure-eight, and 60-0 braking. It's obvious you're as touchy as all the other GTOheads on this subject, so I will let you read the article (so you will know the Nethead here didn't fudge the figures a little here and there to make the GTO look bad) yourself. The article is entitled "Thunder Road" on pages 48-57 in the July, 2006 issue of
Motor Trend. All three were tested at the same time in the same place by the same drivers, which should eliminate whining that one was tested downhill at sea level in sub-freezing conditions while the others were tested on a boulder-strewn uphill climb at 7,000 feet in the Andes at the Equator.
This was a strictly "as delivered from the manufacturers" comparo--no rear slicks/front skinnies nor air filters removed nor stripped interiors nor aftermarket brake pads nor trick aftermarket shocks nor lowering springs nor yada yada yada...These are the cars you get ("got" in the case of the GTO) when you buy ("bought" in the case of the GTO) one off the floor of the respective dealerships. There was nothing up this sleeve nor nothing up that sleeve.
Go read the story.
Now, all three cranked out impressive figures. Too bad the naturally-aspirated 5.0 liter (a stroked 4.6 3-valver) Saleen Parnelli Jones Edition wasn't available back in April or May when this comparo was done--it woulda finished in second place (per
Motor Trend testing at a later date) and would have beaten every one of them around The Streets of Willow racetrack. But it's a tuner car, cammed and geared more for roadracing than for the strip, so it may have an unfair advantage in the slalom, in the 8, and in braking.
hounddog:
"I believe I will take the information given to me by a VP of _______ at GM over any drivel you post."
DogDude, if the "VP of _______ at GM" is a winsome lass with a comely ass :rockon:, I'll take her information (and her firm, round buttocks :ohyeah:) over any drivel I post, too!
Quote from: Nethead on April 12, 2007, 08:41:35 AMI know the GTOheads in these threads are a touchy bunch--but what killed the GTO was simply that there was a competing car with better looks, better build quality, and almost as much performance for a LOT less money.
:confused:
We're talking about the Mustang here, right?
Quote from: VetteZ06 on April 13, 2007, 03:01:21 PM
:confused:
We're talking about the Mustang here, right?
I don't think anyone can say which is built better. The Mustang is one of the most reliable vehicles sold in North America, but the GTO uses better interior materials. Interior materials have nothing to do with build quality.
And neither one of them are old enough to be called reliable yet in my books. A car needs to me 5+ years old before you can say it's reliable. A brand new car design better not be having problems this soon in it's life.
Quote from: Onslaught on April 13, 2007, 03:33:50 PM
And neither one of them are old enough to be called reliable yet in my books. A car needs to me 5+ years old before you can say it's reliable. A brand new car design better not be having problems this soon in it's life.
Except the Mustang has been consistently rated one of the most reliable cars for years.
But that car has nothing to do with the new one for the most part. I'm not saying that the Mustang is unreliable but we won't know for some time now just how good it is or isn't.
I couldn't stand the 80's or 90's Mustang so I'm sure this new one is way better in every way.
Quote from: Nethead on April 13, 2007, 08:19:45 AM
LonghornTX: LongDude, how can I drive a new GTO?? Unless of course there are still some unsold 2006s at Pontiac dealerships...
And I'm not completely discrediting the Extinct GTO, Second Edition.? However, and I hate to have to repeat this a third or fourth time, Pontiac claimed that the 3,777 pounds GTO was their resurrected musclecar.? Dodge claims that their 4,266 pounds Charger SRT8 four-door automatic is their resurrected musclecar.? Ford claims that their 3,990 pounds Shelby GT500 with a lowly live-axle is their musclecar.? Chevrolet claimed that their ??? pounds Monte Carlo SS was their resurrected musclecar.? Motor Trend listened to these four companies talk the talk, and decided to find out just how well the hardware from these companies could walk the walk, but spared big-advertising-bucks Chevrolet the embarrassment and humiliation of having to go up against these three 400 HP (and up) pavement rippers, even if one of them only comes as a four-door automatic.?
I am not going to repeat the results for the three vehicles in tests of 0-60, 0-100, standing-start quarter-mile, 600-feet slalom, the figure-eight, and 60-0 braking.? It's obvious you're as touchy as all the other GTOheads on this subject, so I will let you read the article (so you will know the Nethead here didn't fudge the figures a little here and there to make the GTO look bad) yourself.? The article is entitled "Thunder Road" on pages 48-57 in the July, 2006 issue of Motor Trend.? All three were tested at the same time in the same place by the same drivers, which should eliminate whining that one was tested downhill at sea level in sub-freezing conditions while the others were tested on a boulder-strewn uphill climb at 7,000 feet in the Andes at the Equator.
This was a strictly "as delivered from the manufacturers" comparo--no rear slicks/front skinnies nor air filters removed nor stripped interiors nor aftermarket brake pads nor trick aftermarket shocks nor lowering springs nor yada yada yada...These are the cars you get ("got" in the case of the GTO) when you buy ("bought" in the case of the GTO) one off the floor of the respective dealerships.? There was nothing up this sleeve nor nothing up that sleeve.
Go read the story.
Now, all three cranked out impressive figures.? Too bad the naturally-aspirated 5.0 liter (a stroked 4.6 3-valver) Saleen Parnelli Jones Edition wasn't available back in April or May when this comparo was done--it woulda finished in second place (per Motor Trend testing at a later date) and would have beaten every one of them around The Streets of Willow racetrack.? But it's a tuner car, cammed and geared more for roadracing than for the strip, so it may have an unfair advantage in the slalom, in the 8, and in braking.
Hey, Netdude, just because a car does not win out in a comparison test does not mean it is not a good car. The
newGTO is a good car to drive, inhabit, and own (from what I hear at least), no matter how it did in comparison to the GT500, a car which was significantly more expensive to buy in the real world.
Go drive one and form your own opinions about the car and stop quoting the same Motortrend comparison test :ohyeah:. I know you like the mustang (as do I), but you are starting to sound like a troll :lol:.
99% of Motor Trend is rubbish anyway.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=8461.msg417047#msg417047 date=1176511289
99% of Motor Trend is rubbish anyway.
Yea, I agree with that. I stopped reading their mag on a consistent basis a long time ago.....
"LongDude, how can I drive a new GTO? Unless of course there are still some unsold 2006s at Pontiac dealerships..."
Actually, there is one on the lot of my local dealer...
"Now, all three cranked out impressive figures. Too bad the naturally-aspirated 5.0 liter (a stroked 4.6 3-valver) Saleen Parnelli Jones Edition wasn't available back in April or May when this comparo was done--it woulda finished in second place (per Motor Trend testing at a later date) and would have beaten every one of them around The Streets of Willow racetrack. But it's a tuner car, cammed and geared more for roadracing than for the strip, so it may have an unfair advantage in the slalom, in the 8, and in braking."
You think? An expensive, tuner car would be faster than a stock one? I'd never believe it. Maybe we should compare a Ligenfelter GTO to a stock GT. Oh wait, that wouldn't make any sense, now would it?
I'll be getting data from Car and Driver and Road and Track tomorrow (if I remember), both of which are far more reputable sources than MT.
Alright, I say dude a lot in the course of talking on the internet and in real life, but I swear to God, if Netdude combines one more user name with "dude" I will kill puppies until they are extinct.
Quote from: VetteZ06 on April 13, 2007, 03:01:21 PM
:confused:
We're talking about the Mustang here, right?
VetteZ06: Yes, we certainly are! In 2005,
Consumer Reports found that the 2004 Mustang had only 5 defects per 100 sold--the best build quality of any domestic or foreign car built in the USA. Two low-volume Korean imports (built in Korea, not here) scored higher at 3 defects per 100 sold. All the other vehicles built in the US or outside the US and imported here had more defects per 100 sold.
Quote from: LonghornTX on April 13, 2007, 04:25:09 PM
Hey, Netdude, just because a car does not win out in a comparison test does not mean it is not a good car.? The newGTO is a good car to drive, inhabit, and own (from what I hear at least), no matter how it did in comparison to the GT500, a car which was significantly more expensive to buy in the real world.? ?
Go drive one and form your own opinions about the car and stop quoting the same Motortrend comparison test? :ohyeah:.? I know you like the mustang (as do I), but you are starting to sound like a troll :lol:.
LonghornTX:? The Nethead here knows where you're coming from, and I'm willing to listen carefully when you yourself get to test a GTO, an SRT8 Charger, and a GT500 at the same track or dragstrip on the same day.? Let me know when that is, and we'll drink 'til we stink afterwards :partyon: :partyon: :partyon:
Otherwise, I don't have a whole lot of choice but to listen carefully to the one group that
HAS gotten to test a GTO, an SRT8 Charger, and a GT500 at the same track on the same day...
All the touchy GTOheads in this thread never liked them well enough to buy a new one for themselves, now did they?? Even GTOphile Raza passed on a GTO to buy a Boxster S (which shows that his judgment remains unblemished)...
When you start talking the talk that you've resurrected the Godfather of all the intermediate-sized musclecars, you better have a vehicle that can outperform all the others that say you're talkin' bullshit.? Else shut up and hope nobody noticed!
Motor Trend noticed, but apparently no one else did--where else have you seen these three vehicles tested by the same drivers on the same day at the same location???
And if
Motor Trend was too hapless to get the GTO up to its maximum guts, they're too hapless to have gotten the SRT8 Charger up to its maximum guts and too hapless to have gotten the GT500 up to its maximum guts so the results would still be exactly the same--only each one's speeds would have been somewhat faster, each one's times would have been somewhat lower, yada yada yada.? Nothing would change.
As I've said before but the touchy
refuse to acknowledge:? The GTO is almost certainly the fastest GM import and probably outperforms every domestic GM product except the Corvettes and
maybe the Cadillac XLR.? Have you touchy GTOheads got a problem with that?? If so, please enlighten us what other GM import or domestic outperforms the GTO...
Quote from: mazda6er on April 14, 2007, 12:28:45 AM
Alright, I say dude a lot in the course of talking on the internet and in real life, but I swear to God, if Netdude combines one more user name with "dude" I will kill puppies until they are extinct.
That's tough shit for the puppydudes...
Quote from: TBR on April 14, 2007, 12:10:31 AM
"LongDude, how can I drive a new GTO?? Unless of course there are still some unsold 2006s at Pontiac dealerships..."
Actually, there is one on the lot of my local dealer...
"Now, all three cranked out impressive figures.? Too bad the naturally-aspirated 5.0 liter (a stroked 4.6 3-valver) Saleen Parnelli Jones Edition wasn't available back in April or May when this comparo was done--it woulda finished in second place (per Motor Trend testing at a later date) and would have beaten every one of them around The Streets of Willow racetrack.? But it's a tuner car, cammed and geared more for roadracing than for the strip, so it may have an unfair advantage in the slalom, in the 8, and in braking."
You think? An expensive, tuner car would be faster than a stock one? I'd never believe it. Maybe we should compare a Ligenfelter GTO to a stock GT. Oh wait, that wouldn't make any sense, now would it?
I'll be getting data from Car and Driver and Road and Track tomorrow (if I remember), both of which are far more reputable sources than MT.
TBR:? TBRDude, the Nethead here knows the Saleen PJ Edition is a pricey tuner car--did you not notice that I said as much in the posting?? The point there was that proper attention to details makes a naturally-aspirated 5.0 liter able to outperform everything but a supercharged, intercooled, dual-injected, DOHC 5.4.? To the Nethead here, the Saleen PJ is going about the high-performance vehicle development the right way--because I am so friggin' ancient that I saw great vehicles like the original G.T. 350, Z-28, and Boss 302 shoved aside for big-blocks.? The big-blocks were dead and gone over three decades ago--and bringing them back is less smart now than it was then...That was the point.
However, if you had the Saleen PJ's stroked 4.6 engine, suspension, and brakes but no commemorative bodywork, PJ interior trim, PJ badges, mark-up for being a Saleen, and further mark-up for being a Parnelli Jones Edition, you might have Saleen PJ performance for the low-to-mid $30s when you're starting with an under-$26,000 Mustang GT.? You'd have $10,000 to work with before you reached the SRT8 Charger's list price.? And if the company did it, it could probably be done for less than $10,000 considering all that's done to the GT500 for $40,930.? Food for thought...
I never liked puppies, anyway.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on April 11, 2007, 04:02:58 PM
They could call it a Pontiac Asswipe and it would still be a great car.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Nethead Why do you keep talking like the newer GTO was so unbelievably heavy?? ? :wtf:
I'm not doing every year because I'm just showing how they could be fat pigs too-
1964 GTO 3443
1968 GTO 3506
1969 GTO 3503
1970 GTO 3641
1971 GTO 3619
1973 GTO 4029
2005 GTO 3725
And anyone who knows anything about the GM musclecars of that 60's time knows the 4-4-2 was actually better in handling and power
Also- the 06 and 07 Charger and 300c SRT-8's are both 4160
the 07 Shelby Cobra GT500 is 3920
These are all available on teh web and I got the 05 GTO weight from my owners manual in the glovebox.
Quote from: Nethead on April 14, 2007, 09:34:46 PM
LonghornTX:? Otherwise, I don't have a whole lot of choice but to listen carefully to the one group that HAS gotten to test a GTO, an SRT8 Charger, and a GT500 at the same track on the same day...
I've driven the GTO and SRT-8 on the same day and pretty much the same way! I can tell you they are pretty close in performance and the GTO gets a decent adnvantage in handling. They can both do great figure-8's while smoking the tires and they both have wonderful sounding motors. The SRT-8 has a pretty good interior but the GTO is pretty much better in comfort and styling but I'ld be happy with either.
Quote
As I've said before but the touchy refuse to acknowledge:? The GTO is almost certainly the fastest GM import and probably outperforms every domestic GM product except the Corvettes and maybe the Cadillac XLR.? Have you touchy GTOheads got a problem with that?? If so, please enlighten us what other GM import or domestic outperforms the GTO...
Why are you going on and on- no one here will say that something else outperforms it- that was pretty much the point ot the car wasn't it? Corvette engine- everyday car looks and ride?
rohan: roDude, what are you talking about? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
"Nethead Why do you keep talking like the newer GTO was so unbelievably heavy?"
3,777 pounds isn't heavy! I've never said the GTO was heavy in any posting anywhere in this forum!
It's the SRT8 Charger that's heavy at 4,266 pounds--but it IS a four-door automatic so that's hardly a shock, right? Most big four-doors weigh more...What's astonishing is that the SRT8 outhandled and outbraked the GTO despite a weight handicap of nearly 500 pounds.
Have you read Motor Trend's July, 2006 comparo entitled "Thunder Road"? Have you read all the other postings in this thread?
From your posting, it sounds like we agree that the GTO is the fastest GM import, and that the GTO outperforms any current GM domestic product except for the Corvettes and possibly the Cadillac XLR. Anything else?
The GTO will smoke an XLR. It has trouble keeping up with an SL500.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=8461.msg418818#msg418818 date=1176690849
The GTO will smoke an XLR.? It has trouble keeping up with an SL500.
Raza: That's what I woulda figured, but I don't keep up on Cadillacs so I could hardly speak with authority on how an XLR might fare against the GTO. 'Glad to hear it!
Quote from: Nethead on April 15, 2007, 08:20:06 PM
rohan:? roDude, what are you talking about? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
"Nethead Why do you keep talking like the newer GTO was so unbelievably heavy?"
3,777 pounds isn't heavy!? I've never said the GTO was heavy in any posting anywhere in this forum!?
It's the SRT8 Charger that's heavy at 4,266 pounds--but it IS a four-door automatic so that's hardly a shock, right?? Most big four-doors weigh more...What's astonishing is that the SRT8 outhandled and outbraked the GTO despite a weight handicap of nearly 500 pounds.?
Have you read Motor Trend's July, 2006 comparo entitled "Thunder Road"?? Have you read all the other postings in this thread?
From your posting, it sounds like we agree that the GTO is the fastest GM import, and that the GTO outperforms any current GM domestic product except for the Corvettes and possibly the Cadillac XLR.? Anything else?
Asswipe-Yup- your wrong.? For one thing I don't read that trash rag- it's love for Asain cars disgusts me and sorry- but the SRT-8 hit 0-60 in about 5.0 seconds while the GTO hits in about 4.6.? ? ?Tell me where on this planet that wiell ever mean the SRT-8 is faster to 60mph?? AND- since I onw and drive a 05 GTO every day - except in more than 4 inches of snow- I can tell you it handles noticably better thant the SRT-8.? hounddog and I drove one for about an hour and 1/2 beating it on most every curved road street and highway we knew of in the northern part of the Detroit area.? Even the salesman said we wouldn't like the handling when I told him what I drove into the dealership with.? We drove it so far we had to put $17.00 of gas in and I have a receipt if you want to see it- it has the license plate number on it that the cashier wrote in.? UNLESS you driven both cars- which I doubt you ever have- don't start spouting BS from some magazine writer.? I have 2 high speed pursuit certificates from the Ingham County Sheriff Dept. at Michigan International Speedway in 1994 and 1996 and I've been to the Michigan State Police Advanced Precision Driving and Nighttime Pursuit 2 times too.? This year I'm going to the MSP instructors course that hounddog went to- for all we know those guys have no training on how to handle a car at high speed so why would I ever take their word on anything when the michigan supreme court calls guys like me experts in the field of motorvehicle operations?? ?So stop blowing on about Motortrend-? it's a piece of crap magazine.? Next- DiamlerChrysler says that the SRT-8 weighs 2160.? I don't care what motortrend says it weighs- the MAKER of the car says it weighs 2160.? And asswipe- my car weighs 3725 pounds- according to the MAKER information in my glove box.? Since you don't own either car- if you don't take my word or the maker of either one I really could care less.? ?And when you start getting peoples names right I'll stop calling you asswipe.? If that gets me banned- so be it- I can't stand people like you who know nothing about the actual cars other than what you read in the least considered magazine on the racks. Now I;'m gotta go see Erica.
Quote from: rohan on April 16, 2007, 10:18:32 AM
Asswipe-Yup- your wrong.? For one thing I don't read that trash rag- it's love for Asain cars disgusts me and sorry- but the SRT-8 hit 0-60 in about 5.0 seconds while the GTO hits in about 4.6.? ? ?Tell me where on this planet that wiell ever mean the SRT-8 is faster to 60mph?? AND- since I onw and drive a 05 GTO every day - except in more than 4 inches of snow- I can tell you it handles noticably better thant the SRT-8.? hounddog and I drove one for about an hour and 1/2 beating it on most every curved road street and highway we knew of in the northern part of the Detroit area.? Even the salesman said we wouldn't like the handling when I told him what I drove into the dealership with.? We drove it so far we had to put $17.00 of gas in and I have a receipt if you want to see it- it has the license plate number on it that the cashier wrote in.? UNLESS you driven both cars- which I doubt you ever have- don't start spouting BS from some magazine writer.? I have 2 high speed pursuit certificates from the Ingham County Sheriff Dept. at Michigan International Speedway in 1994 and 1996 and I've been to the Michigan State Police Advanced Precision Driving and Nighttime Pursuit 2 times too.? This year I'm going to the MSP instructors course that hounddog went to- for all we know those guys have no training on how to handle a car at high speed so why would I ever take their word on anything when the michigan supreme court calls guys like me experts in the field of motorvehicle operations?? ?So stop blowing on about Motortrend-? it's a piece of crap magazine.? Next- DiamlerChrysler says that the SRT-8 weighs 2160.? I don't care what motortrend says it weighs- the MAKER of the car says it weighs 2160.? And asswipe- my car weighs 3725 pounds- according to the MAKER information in my glove box.? Since you don't own either car- if you don't take my word or the maker of either one I really could care less.? ?And when you start getting peoples names right I'll stop calling you asswipe.? If that gets me banned- so be it- I can't stand people like you who know nothing about the actual cars other than what you read in the least considered magazine on the racks.? Now I;'m gotta go see Erica.?
OK, rohan, you being the unbiased GTO owner that you obviously are, how do you explain how the SRT8 outhandled and outbraked the GTO? Did I ever say that the SRT8 beat the GTO in either of the three acceleration categories (0-60, 0-100, and the standing-start quarter-mile)? No, I didn't. It was the slalom, the figure-eight, and the 60-0 braking test.
You leave the impression that you are a law-enforcement officer, although in this thread you haven't specifically stated as much.
Do you gather evidence with the same misattention to details?
Or show the same attitude towards suspects at an arrest?
What terms would you use to describe the Rutgers women's basketball team? I think you'd have a bright future in broadcasting at CBS and MSNBC. And they've got an opening! They're looking for someone who doesn't let facts get in the way of their opinions and have no silly inhibitions about using profanity in public or in a public forum, name-calling, et cetera. There's big money in jerkwork--Stern, Imus, and Limbaugh are all wealthier than a dozen honest law-enforcement officers. Give it some thought...
Quote from: rohan on April 16, 2007, 10:18:32 AM
Asswipe-Yup- your wrong.? For one thing I don't read that trash rag- it's love for Asain cars disgusts me and sorry- but the SRT-8 hit 0-60 in about 5.0 seconds while the GTO hits in about 4.6.? ? ?Tell me where on this planet that wiell ever mean the SRT-8 is faster to 60mph?? AND- since I onw and drive a 05 GTO every day - except in more than 4 inches of snow- I can tell you it handles noticably better thant the SRT-8.? hounddog and I drove one for about an hour and 1/2 beating it on most every curved road street and highway we knew of in the northern part of the Detroit area.? Even the salesman said we wouldn't like the handling when I told him what I drove into the dealership with.? We drove it so far we had to put $17.00 of gas in and I have a receipt if you want to see it- it has the license plate number on it that the cashier wrote in.? UNLESS you driven both cars- which I doubt you ever have- don't start spouting BS from some magazine writer.? I have 2 high speed pursuit certificates from the Ingham County Sheriff Dept. at Michigan International Speedway in 1994 and 1996 and I've been to the Michigan State Police Advanced Precision Driving and Nighttime Pursuit 2 times too.? This year I'm going to the MSP instructors course that hounddog went to- for all we know those guys have no training on how to handle a car at high speed so why would I ever take their word on anything when the michigan supreme court calls guys like me experts in the field of motorvehicle operations?? ?So stop blowing on about Motortrend-? it's a piece of crap magazine.? Next- DiamlerChrysler says that the SRT-8 weighs 2160.? I don't care what motortrend says it weighs- the MAKER of the car says it weighs 2160.? And asswipe- my car weighs 3725 pounds- according to the MAKER information in my glove box.? Since you don't own either car- if you don't take my word or the maker of either one I really could care less.? ?And when you start getting peoples names right I'll stop calling you asswipe.? If that gets me banned- so be it- I can't stand people like you who know nothing about the actual cars other than what you read in the least considered magazine on the racks.? Now I;'m gotta go see Erica.?
Whoa!? rohan, nobody takes offence to him making up nicknames for everyone, so take it easy.? Why get so upset?? This is an internet forum and some people spout off information that others don't like.? Take it for what it's worth, because after reading your post my heart was beating fast and my face was flush because your anger was pouring through my monitor as plain as day and I was feeling it man.? Don't let him get to you.? I agree with him on a lot of things and then he will say something stupid like Mustangs should come in a station wagon bodystyle.? But I don't get mad and I'm the biggest Mustang troll on this site.
Quote from: Nethead on April 14, 2007, 09:34:46 PM
LonghornTX: The Nethead here knows where you're coming from, and I'm willing to listen carefully when you yourself get to test a GTO, an SRT8 Charger, and a GT500 at the same track or dragstrip on the same day. Let me know when that is, and we'll drink 'til we stink afterwards :partyon: :partyon: :partyon:
Otherwise, I don't have a whole lot of choice but to listen carefully to the one group that HAS gotten to test a GTO, an SRT8 Charger, and a GT500 at the same track on the same day...
All the touchy GTOheads in this thread never liked them well enough to buy a new one for themselves, now did they? Even GTOphile Raza passed on a GTO to buy a Boxster S (which shows that his judgment remains unblemished)...
When you start talking the talk that you've resurrected the Godfather of all the intermediate-sized musclecars, you better have a vehicle that can outperform all the others that say you're talkin' bullshit. Else shut up and hope nobody noticed!
Motor Trend noticed, but apparently no one else did--where else have you seen these three vehicles tested by the same drivers on the same day at the same location???
And if Motor Trend was too hapless to get the GTO up to its maximum guts, they're too hapless to have gotten the SRT8 Charger up to its maximum guts and too hapless to have gotten the GT500 up to its maximum guts so the results would still be exactly the same--only each one's speeds would have been somewhat faster, each one's times would have been somewhat lower, yada yada yada. Nothing would change.
As I've said before but the touchy refuse to acknowledge: The GTO is almost certainly the fastest GM import and probably outperforms every domestic GM product except the Corvettes and maybe the Cadillac XLR. Have you touchy GTOheads got a problem with that? If so, please enlighten us what other GM import or domestic outperforms the GTO...
I am still struggling to see your point. No one is argueing that the GT500 won that MotorTrend test (which, BTW, is from one of the lowest quality general automotive publications in print). The point we are trying to make is that there is more to a cars worth than its performance in a comparison test (stress the
a here). Especially when comparing two cars that can be had for VASTLY different real world prices (the GT500 recieving ADMs of 20k or more while any remaining GTOs are likely to have HUGE discounts)!
The GTO has many things going for it, like a much nicer interior (this is from someone who likes the Mustangs interior), that might make someone like it more than the GT/GT500 that may not be captured in a
single comparison test. Go drive the car yourself before you start quoting a single comparison test ad nauseam as the coup de grace of Mustang vs. GTO, and then I will be able to listen carefully to what
you have to say.
With all that said, I still like the Mustang more, but that is mostly down to personal preference, not some inherent advantage the Mustang has over the GTO.
Quote from: LonghornTX on April 16, 2007, 02:21:46 PM
I am still struggling to see your point.? No one is argueing that the GT500 won that MotorTrend test (which, BTW, is from one of the lowest quality general automotive publications in print).? The point we are trying to make is that there is more to a cars worth than its performance in a comparison test (stress the a here).? Especially when comparing two cars that can be had for VASTLY different real world prices (the GT500 recieving ADMs of 20k or more while any remaining GTOs are likely to have HUGE discounts)!
The GTO has many things going for it, like a much nicer interior (this is from someone who likes the Mustangs interior), that might make someone like it more than the GT/GT500 that may not be captured in a single comparison test.? Go drive the car yourself before you start quoting a single comparison test ad nauseam as the coup de grace of Mustang vs. GTO, and then I will be able to listen carefully to what you have to say.
With all that said, I still like the Mustang more, but that is mostly down to personal preference, not some inherent advantage the Mustang has over the GTO.
If I cared about interiors in a muscle car I wouldn't like Mustangs. :lol:
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 16, 2007, 03:00:12 PM
If I cared about interiors in a muscle car I wouldn't like Mustangs. :lol:
The interior isn't that bad. I think the GTO does have a better interior, though.
Mustang won Wards "Interior of the Year" award in 05.
http://media.ford.com/newsroom/feature_display.cfm?release=21014
Quote from: Ron From Regina on April 16, 2007, 04:32:33 PM
The interior isn't that bad. I think the GTO does have a better interior, though.
Mustang won Wards "Interior of the Year" award in 05.
http://media.ford.com/newsroom/feature_display.cfm?release=21014
The new one isn't that bad, but it's not great either. But all the Mustangs I have owned are Fox and SN95s. The interiors were shit, but like I said, if I cared about interiors I wouldn't love the Mustang. If nice interiors matters to you and that would stop you from buying a Mustang, then you don't "get" the Mustang anyway.
Quote from: Ron From Regina on April 16, 2007, 04:32:33 PM
The interior isn't that bad. I think the GTO does have a better interior, though.
Mustang won Wards "Interior of the Year" award in 05.
http://media.ford.com/newsroom/feature_display.cfm?release=21014
Ron from Regina:? Great point, RonDude!? So that we'll cover the bases properly, would you please post which car's interior won in 2004 and 2006 in case it might have been the GTO?? The touchy will howl if the GTO won? in '04 or '06 but nobody posted it...
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 16, 2007, 08:13:00 PM
The new one isn't that bad, but it's not great either.? But all the Mustangs I have owned are Fox and SN95s.? The interiors were shit, but like I said, if I cared about interiors I wouldn't love the Mustang.? If nice interiors matters to you and that would stop you from buying a Mustang, then you don't "get" the Mustang anyway.?
If the interior was legitimately SHIT, like an 86 Topaz, then yes, that would probably prevent me from buying one.
That's certainly not even close to the case though. I really like the interior design, it's distinctive, unique and decidedly "Mustang". And it's build solidly, but the material quality of my Mazda is much better. I'd have paid an extra $500 for better materials to be honest.
-FordSVT-
Quote from: FordSVT on April 17, 2007, 10:50:03 AM
If the interior was legitimately SHIT, like an 86 Topaz, then yes, that would probably prevent me from buying one.
That's certainly not even close to the case though. I really like the interior design, it's distinctive, unique and decidedly "Mustang". And it's build solidly, but the material quality of my Mazda is much better. I'd have paid an extra $500 for better materials to be honest.
-FordSVT-
Back in '86, I believe the Topaz had a relatively decent interior. :tounge:
I really opened a can of worms here... :lol:
Quote from: FordSVT on April 17, 2007, 10:50:03 AM
If the interior was legitimately SHIT, like an 86 Topaz, then yes, that would probably prevent me from buying one.
That's certainly not even close to the case though. I really like the interior design, it's distinctive, unique and decidedly "Mustang". And it's build solidly, but the material quality of my Mazda is much better. I'd have paid an extra $500 for better materials to be honest.
-FordSVT-
We agree. I like the design, the materials could have been better, but the materials weren't and aren't the worst I've seen. It doesn't matter much to me if the interior of my Mustang is as nice as a Mazda or VW. I care more about what's under the hood and if I can send the rear tires up in smoke.
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 17, 2007, 10:56:59 AM
We agree.? I like the design, the materials could have been better, but the materials weren't and aren't the worst I've seen.? It doesn't matter much to me if the interior of my Mustang is as nice as a Mazda or VW.? I care more about what's under the hood and if I can send the rear tires up in smoke.
Agree super-excellent one hundred percent!!!!
(http://www.jauws.org/images/tsuruya.jpg)
-FordSVT-