2004 Pontiac GTO

[95RAM 10+ year member]

Agreed.
Only company that I know of that is bringing back an original muscle car, and doing it right is Ford.

The soon to be in production GT40.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

Even though a i hate ford with a fiery passion, you are right

 

[wErd 5,000+ posts]

I have just one question, how is it not GTO material if it not only meets, but surpasses every single performance, handling, emissions, and efficiency rating of the former GTO? Granted it may not be the right body style to carry on the traditional image, but for the money..finding a RWD muscle car for that cheap w/those features is a hard feat. I'll be ****ed surprised if you don't see more and more of them around. 9 out of 10 reviews I've read, as well as taking a look throughout the car at a local dealership all tell me that they've done a **** good job and it will be at least a worth succesor. Granted it may not create another legend..but it will certainly hold it's own.

cheap? that POS is more than 30 grand, you could go out by a brand new mustang GT for 23 grand, and you'll still run faster than a GTO plus you have alot of room for cheap aftermarket.

 

[wErd 5,000+ posts]

Or you could get a 2002 Camaro SS for less than that //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

but then everyone will laugh at you

 

[zane 10+ year member]

Anything that's over $100,000 can't really be considered a muscle car //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif I'm pretty sure that passes into the supercar realm ...

I tend to think of the GT40 as both, in a weird cooky sort of way.

My point was, look at the old GT40. Then look at the new.

Thats how a car should be brought back in my book.

Kudo's to Ford for realizing this.

Now if only they would do something with the chasis on the 05 Mustang........

I like clean lines and a smooth vehicle.

The new "GTO" just doesn't do it for me one bit.

From the sounds of it over at ls1tech, a lot of that crowd isn't too keen on it either.

Yes, the new "GTO" screams Cavalier to me. I honestly can not see how anyone could miss that. There are several styling cues that they share.

Call it a Cavalier/Sunfire - Grand Prix rolled into one.

If GM want's to re-think and definately re-badge the new "GTO," I'm all for it.

Most likely any average "bandwagon" joe off the street will find this car allright enough. Personally, I like a car that responds a bit more when I floor it, has less weight, and has an agressive styling all of it's own.

When GM puts the new chasis under the 04 "GTO," that could likely change.

As for right now, after driving it; I personally found nothing at all that stands out above the pack. Several other vehicles out there easily offer as much, and more than this "GTO" does.

Sure it's spec sheet looks d*mn impressive, but in this case, an old saying comes to mind.

"Just because it looks good on paper, doesn't mean that it is the same off the paper."

Just my thoughts after spending the better part of a few hours with the car, driving it, and talking with the GM Techs here.

Agree or disagree, I don't really care.

You're welcome to do either.

In my book it sure as h*ll isn't anything GTO.

 

[ss3079 5,000+ posts]

This is a muscle car:

This is not:

- Steve

 

[davidfre21 5,000+ posts]

new GTO is ugly lol

 

[Bavarian3 10+ year member]

new GTO is ugly lol

lol werd.

then again so is the old one. that thang got a hemi!!

 

[davidfre21 5,000+ posts]

Chrysler/MOPAR = Hemi ... Not GM ...

lol where is that coming from?

 

[davidfre21 5,000+ posts]

oh i didnt catch that, i read it like 3 times to....

 

[LoudCrownVic 5,000+ posts]

No no no no no!!!! God this thing *****!

Does anyone know exactly what GTO really stands for? Gas, tires and oil. It seems to me this car will barely use any of those things anywhere near the rate of a true GTO.

My dad's high school buddy has an old school GTO with the six pack carb setup. It burns a quart of oil ever 500 miles, gets 4 and a half miles to the gallon, and runs straight 12's (you can guess where the tires get burned) This Cavalier ripoff is not a GTO. It is a STO. ***** to own. I can guess without even trying it. 350 or not.

 

[josh99ta 10+ year member]

Most likely any average "bandwagon" joe off the street will find this car allright enough. Personally, I like a car that responds a bit more when I floor it, has less weight, and has an agressive styling all of it's own.

So the majority of enthusiasts dont like the car, and the majority of the public doesn't like the car, you included, and that puts people who do like it on the bandwagon? I think you are sorely mistaken on this one. I've said just about everything I have to say on SIN, and wont repeat it here because you didn't happen to post about how that 16 second Protege can spank the GTO over here, but again I have to wonder how a car that fits four, hauls the groceries, and can run a 13 second 1/4 mile isn't true to the GTO heritage. Seems like that was what it was all about, a family car that could haul groceries or haul ass, and be at home doing both. Look at the cars of old, they all looked similar to the GTO. Look at the cars of new, they all look similar to the GTO. Just a different day and age. Take an 01 Mustang or 01 Camaro and compare them to their late 60s counterparts. I suppose the last model Mustang and Camaro dont deserve to carry the name either? They are affordable, RWD muscle cars that dont break the bank. Seems like everything the old ones were intended to do. I suppose there are no modern day muscle cars though huh? The new GTs and Cobras or the Z28s and Trans Ams are just lackluster attempts to make a muscle car? I say thats a load of crap. Evolution is a fact of life, products and styling are going to change over time. That doesn't change the fact that today's Mustangs, Camaros, and GTOs dont still hold to their original intent from thirty years ago.

Oh well, it's a pointless arguement. Just providing a counter side. I'd encourage people to go drive it themselves before discrediting the GTO because of someone thinking it doesn't slam them into the seat enough or they dont like the styling.

 

[denim 5,000+ posts]

ponitac = rebadged bland poo

 

[ss3079 5,000+ posts]

Take an 01 Mustang or 01 Camaro and compare them to their late 60s counterparts. I suppose the last model Mustang and Camaro dont deserve to carry the name either? They are affordable, RWD muscle cars that dont break the bank. Seems like

I guess it isn't so bad when the car wasn't put out of production.

Easy to see the Camaro/Firebird and Mustang evolve over the years, through the different generations.

- Steve

 

[Wonderbread 5,000+ posts]

I don't know how many of you realize this, but the new GTO wasn't designed to be the same kind of car as the original. Right or wrong, that's not what it was meant to be. They needed something to give a slightly better than average car a catch, and that's giving it a classic name that rings clear in the ears of those who will buy this car, the 35-50 male crowd.

The car was based off the Australian Holden Monero, which in turn was based off the highly unsuccesssful Cadillac Catera platform. It was never meant to be the original GTO. It's a decently quick, all around car. Something the GTO was not. The GTO was fast. Didn't turn worth a **** though. Then again, nothing from that era was made to turn much //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[zane 10+ year member]

I don't know how many of you realize this, but the new GTO wasn't designed to be the same kind of car as the original. Right or wrong, that's not what it was meant to be. They needed something to give a slightly better than average car a catch, and that's giving it a classic name that rings clear in the ears of those who will buy this car, the 35-50 male crowd. The car was based off the Australian Holden Monero, which in turn was based off the highly unsuccesssful Cadillac Catera platform. It was never meant to be the original GTO. It's a decently quick, all around car. Something the GTO was not. The GTO was fast. Didn't turn worth a **** though. Then again, nothing from that era was made to turn much //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

Honestly I did expect a lot more from a car bearing the GTO namesake.

This new "thing" just doesn't do it for me. Even as a re-vamped model.

Doesn't mean that I will never give it another shot; as I am looking forward to what Pontiac has allready hinted at for the 05' platform.

New Chasis, stiffer suspension, a true dual side-dual exhaust, and more agressive styling.

All of these things could easily and dramatically change the outcome of where I have my initial complaints right now.

I'd hope that Pontiac would however have a little more common sense than to just slap the new model with the famed "Judge" badge, without adressing some other issues before.

We'll see.

I guess it isn't so bad when the car wasn't put out of production.
Easy to see the Camaro/Firebird and Mustang evolve over the years, through the different generations.

- Steve

Sir, I believe that you have hit the nail squarely in the arse! //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

Neither the Mustang or Camaro had gaps in their production as the GTO did.

Evolution is the healing factor with these cars.

The Mustang and Camaro have always had agressive, sexy body lines, and more ponies under the hood with each year. You actually know that you are in one of these cars when you drive them.

Doesn't mean I don't have my beef with them either.

I personally think that the Modified Tbird Chasis/Stance of the 05 Stang is completely wrong.

However, the 05 GT is said to have 400HP and 390 ft lbs of torque.

Thats up from the previous years models:

GT - 290 HP

Mach 1 - 310 HP

SVT Cobra - 390 HP

Again, it looks impressive otherwise on paper.

But, that is JUST paper.

The Camaro/Firebird/TA were discontinued but GM has been hinting at a return of the Camaro. I honestly hope that the new Camaro design lives up to it's predecessors. I doubt there will be much issue with that, as a few years break in production is arguably a lot different than 30 for the GTO.

The last few years of Camaro production, I have found that the Catalytic Converters are prone to clog and fail extremely too easily. I have also worked on far more ignition problems on the 02 Camaro than I care to admit.

Both of those primary items were addressed within the TSB's for the car as well. But those are my primary nitpicks.

So the majority of enthusiasts dont like the car, and the majority of the public doesn't like the car, you included, and that puts people who do like it on the bandwagon? I think you are sorely mistaken on this one. I've said just about everything I have to say on SIN, and wont repeat it here because you didn't happen to post about how that 16 second Protege can spank the GTO over here, but again I have to wonder how a car that fits four, hauls the groceries, and can run a 13 second 1/4 mile isn't true to the GTO heritage. Seems like that was what it was all about, a family car that could haul groceries or haul ass, and be at home doing both. Look at the cars of old, they all looked similar to the GTO. Look at the cars of new, they all look similar to the GTO. Just a different day and age. Take an 01 Mustang or 01 Camaro and compare them to their late 60s counterparts. I suppose the last model Mustang and Camaro dont deserve to carry the name either? They are affordable, RWD muscle cars that dont break the bank. Seems like everything the old ones were intended to do. I suppose there are no modern day muscle cars though huh? The new GTs and Cobras or the Z28s and Trans Ams are just lackluster attempts to make a muscle car? I say thats a load of crap. Evolution is a fact of life, products and styling are going to change over time. That doesn't change the fact that today's Mustangs, Camaros, and GTOs dont still hold to their original intent from thirty years ago.

I posted what I did at SIN because it was an actual representation of my observations after DRIVING these cars.

It's fine that you disagree with me. That's your right.

It's also my right to disagree with you because I can.

You think I am mis-informed.

I think you place too much value on paper specs and their boundaries.

Fit's four and hauls groceries may be a bit of an overstatement if you have actually been in this car.

The rear seat space is nothing to get excited over. It's still nothing that a lot of people would like to ride in.

At 6'2" - the rear seats were anything but comfortable or roomy.

Cargo space actually bites in the new "GTO." The fuel tank takes up a large portion of what would otherwise be trunk space.

Oh well, it's a pointless arguement. Just providing a counter side. I'd encourage people to go drive it themselves before discrediting the GTO because of someone thinking it doesn't slam them into the seat enough or they dont like the styling.

That's exactly what I did, and because you do not agree with my opinion of the GTO, you fault me.

Yeah.........

Pointless.

Either way, yes- by all means I would encourage others to drive the new "GTO" too if they are curious. Drive a few other cars at the same time to compare them head to head. Don't get ****** in to what the car can do on paper, see what it does in the real world, and base your opinion on that instead.

I'm sure that several of you will love the new "GTO" and find little to dislike.

I'm also sure that several of you will also find conclusions similar to my own.

More power to you either way.