NJFBOA - Home of New Jersey's Camaros and Firebirds
Page 5 of 6 1234 5 6
Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page

NJFBOA - Home of New Jersey's Camaros and Firebirds (http://www.njfboa.org/forums/index.php)
-   Lounge (http://www.njfboa.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Why the Mustang succedes BIG TIME! (http://www.njfboa.org/forums/showthread.php?t=49139)

1QWIKBIRD 01-17-2010 08:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty (Post 673219)
So then every Pontiac would fit your description sans the Firebird right? The CTS is a bit flashy IMO with the rigid body lines and styling, certainly more flashy than a GTO.

Like or hate the styling, that's fine. But in the true name of the GTO and what it was back in the 60's, Pontiac/GM actually did right. A similar looking model as to what was in their lineup. If everyone was expecting some totally redesigned, stand out on it's own GTO then they don't know what the GTO was back in the day. In fact if the car was completely opposite of what other Pontiac's looked like then the GTO nameplate would be wrong.

I just don't understand what people wanted the car to be. They got a car that was better built than the Fbody, a bit more luxurious and had more than ample power...should GM have given a free blowjob and an 8-ball of coke with each purchase too? :rofl: A lot of dealers did screw up sales due to them being greedy and I would venture to say that a lot of people were hesitant to plop down a good chunk of change on a Pontiac when the Grand Prix, Grand Am and others were known to have stupid **** break all of the time. I know I wouldn't have purchased one new in their respective model years.

I think I've established through my time here that I'm a big critic of GM and don't ride their coattails because I like their cars however I just don't see where the major screw ups were on this car. You make the argument for the lack of trunk space but as far as the styling, quality, power, etc I don't think it's a bad car.
You miss the point as to what the GTO was. You are seeing a car. Tempest was the car. GTO is the iconic name that started the musclecar era. The original GTO in 64 was a dressed up Tempest with the 389 etc. etc.. For 1964 it was a pretty large departure from the automotive norm of the time. So the name GTO represents more than just a car, at least to me. It ushered in a new era of automotive performance.

The 2004-06 version (just like the bogus early to mid 70's Ventura with GTO sticker packages on them, another GM miss step) hardly ushered in anything. That's where GM failed with the GTO.

I never once mentioned trunk space????

Frosty 01-17-2010 08:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1QWIKBIRD (Post 673320)
I never once mentioned trunk space????
I never said you mentioned it :confused: If you read my post again I was saying the car wasn't a failure aside from the trunk. ;)

I'm not missing the point, the GTO was really rebadged car with power.

We'll agree to disagree but IMO they continued the name of the GTO just fine...liking the looks is purely subjective.

I still ask again though, what should they have done for a car that was only going to go 3yrs?

Featherburner 01-17-2010 08:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonzoHansen (Post 673309)
Of course this does not apply to the ladies here, they are not average. :)
Ass kisser.:lol:

BigAls87Z28 01-17-2010 08:58 PM
GTO was not any stretch of the norm?
1964 Tempest GTO got a big engine, manual trans, HD equipment, and chrome hood accents.
I hate when people say it looks like "another Pontiac" when it always was just another Pontiac. I dont get that saying.

http://image.automotive.com/f/images...side_angle.jpg

http://www.eng.ysu.edu/~tmdonnad/200...iac_gto_03.jpg

Frosty 01-17-2010 09:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28 (Post 673346)
I hate when people say it looks like "another Pontiac" when it always was just another Pontiac. I dont get that saying.
Thank you :nod:

1QWIKBIRD 01-17-2010 09:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty (Post 673322)
I never said you mentioned it :confused: If you read my post again I was saying the car wasn't a failure aside from the trunk. ;)

I'm not missing the point, the GTO was really rebadged car with power.

We'll agree to disagree but IMO they continued the name of the GTO just fine...liking the looks is purely subjective.

I still ask again though, what should they have done for a car that was only going to go 3yrs?
oops mis-read the first part....sorry

They should never have called it a GTO. Why not just use the Monaro name or come up with something or reuse the Ventura label? They used the GTO name in an attempt to artificially infuse excitement into an otherwise average looking car and it failed. The car didn't come close to their sales projections of 18,000 per year. Might have been a good car, but not a good GTO.

We agree to disagree.....

BigAls87Z28 01-17-2010 09:16 PM
sold around 15k in the first year, and then around 17k the last two years.
the addition of more power and dual side exhaust helped apparently.

Frosty 01-17-2010 09:16 PM
But what made the 60's GTO that much more special than the body it was built on? Nothing aside from the motor IMO.

1QWIKBIRD 01-17-2010 09:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty (Post 673322)
I never said you mentioned it :confused: If you read my post again I was saying the car wasn't a failure aside from the trunk. ;)

I'm not missing the point, the GTO was really rebadged car with power.

We'll agree to disagree but IMO they continued the name of the GTO just fine...liking the looks is purely subjective.

I still ask again though, what should they have done for a car that was only going to go 3yrs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28 (Post 673346)
GTO was not any stretch of the norm?
1964 Tempest GTO got a big engine, manual trans, HD equipment, and chrome hood accents.
I hate when people say it looks like "another Pontiac" when it always was just another Pontiac. I dont get that saying.

http://image.automotive.com/f/images...side_angle.jpg

http://www.eng.ysu.edu/~tmdonnad/200...iac_gto_03.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty (Post 673350)
Thank you :nod:
It was just another Pontiac in lots of ways, except that this one particular model carries with it the legacy of starting the muscle car era. So if you are into bringing back and the honoring past, why do it with a rebadged dead beat model that offered little visual appeal and only base level V8 performance? If they knew it was a 3 year run, why not at least offer some sort of unique engine package upgrade or do something to give the car some pop, something....GM tried to cash in quick by diving head first into the parts bin, came up with the GTO and well...now all we have are our opinions and the GTO is on the sidelines (again) with the rest of Pontiac soon to follow....

Chris

BigAls87Z28 01-17-2010 09:37 PM
You keep refering to it as a dead beat model?
The Monaro was a huuuuge success in Oz, and got amazing reviews in England when it was sent there.
Dead beat? Not by a long shot. The whole chassis was being replaced. GM NA did not give Holden the go ahead to build a coupe, and its why we dont see one now.

1QWIKBIRD 01-17-2010 09:40 PM
http://media.wheels.topscms.com/imag...353f9c3fa.jpeg

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/...9501990001.jpg

quick....which one is the GTO which one is the Grand AM?????:rofl:

relax...just kidding.....

So why does the Mustang succeed anyway?:lol:

1QWIKBIRD 01-17-2010 09:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28 (Post 673365)
You keep refering to it as a dead beat model?
The Monaro was a huuuuge success in Oz, and got amazing reviews in England when it was sent there.
Dead beat? Not by a long shot. The whole chassis was being replaced. GM NA did not give Holden the go ahead to build a coupe, and its why we dont see one now.
What I mean is they brought the model over knowing it had a shelf life and was going to be discontinued...thats what I mean by dead beat.

Blacdout96 01-18-2010 07:37 AM
That's greatfor us it got rave reviews in England, and was a success in Oz.....If we lived there, but we don't, and thus why it's became a controversal car here in the States.

LS1Hawk 01-18-2010 11:30 AM
The argument has been made that the last generation GTOs were what the car would have evolved into had it not been discontinued in the '70s. GM had every intention to not market this car as a muscle car. Their idea at time was that it would be put on par with a BMW 3 - 5 series and take Pontiac away from the slab-sided, plastic cladding cars of the '90s.

BigAls87Z28 01-19-2010 08:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blacdout96 (Post 673415)
That's greatfor us it got rave reviews in England, and was a success in Oz.....If we lived there, but we don't, and thus why it's became a controversal car here in the States.
It got great reviews here as well. It as the best car GM offerd at the time by a good distance.

Slow-V6 01-20-2010 12:31 AM
I loved everything about the 04-06 GTOs. They were really nice cars that had pretty much every options you could get. My Uncle has a 69 GTO and after driving my Uncles car and a 05 GTO I would take the 05 over my uncles Ram air GTO any day. It doesnt look as mean as the 60's cars but it evolved into a modern day sports car. Not to mention 04-06 GTO's were the fastest and best handling GTO's made. I mean if the orignal GTO's were the best thing to own then why did they stop making them? They kept the F-body pretty much the same car since 1967. Crappy driving, fast but not very practical, Very mean looking, and look what happened to them.

When I had my Foxbody mustang after having it for a while I thought it looked and drove just like a For Tempo/Escort.

Slow-V6 01-20-2010 12:41 AM
I havent really read all the posts but has anyone mentioned the attempt Ford had to bring back the Thunderbird?? I believe that was a mistake on there part.

1972LT1 01-20-2010 12:54 AM
Mustangs are selling because Ford isn't charging people 5-8k over list like Chevy is doing with the Camaro.

NastyEllEssWon 01-20-2010 07:09 AM
4th gen > 5th gen

WildBillyT 01-20-2010 08:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slow-V6 (Post 673867)
I loved everything about the 04-06 GTOs. They were really nice cars that had pretty much every options you could get. My Uncle has a 69 GTO and after driving my Uncles car and a 05 GTO I would take the 05 over my uncles Ram air GTO any day. It doesnt look as mean as the 60's cars but it evolved into a modern day sports car. Not to mention 04-06 GTO's were the fastest and best handling GTO's made. I mean if the orignal GTO's were the best thing to own then why did they stop making them? They kept the F-body pretty much the same car since 1967. Crappy driving, fast but not very practical, Very mean looking, and look what happened to them.

When I had my Foxbody mustang after having it for a while I thought it looked and drove just like a For Tempo/Escort.
They weren't, and that's besides the point. The gas crisis and environmental laws killed off that entire era. It's not like the market just 'moved on'.

In the end the GTO was a rebadged Nova.

LS1Hawk 01-20-2010 09:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildBillyT (Post 673898)
They weren't, and that's besides the point. The gas crisis and environmental laws killed off that entire era. It's not like the market just 'moved on'.

In the end the GTO was a rebadged Nova.
Sadly, yes. In reality the GTO was done in '72. In '73 it went back to being an option on the LeMans, and in '74 it was an option on the Ventura.

edpontiac91 01-20-2010 09:51 AM
The end was coming because of HIGH insurance costs and the gas crisis. By the late '60's these muscle cars had also become bogged down with weight and options. What started as a low cost model in the Plymouth line (Road Runner) became a luxo barge with the GTX. Even sales for the iconic "JUDGE" started to fall around 1970 and with the advent of low-octane unleaded gas bringing the H.P. ratings down (companies had to reduce compression ratios), the muscle era was just about gone by 1971. I have to admit (showing my age) that having had a new 1965 tri-power GTO and a 1967 H.O. GTO and a 1969 Impala SS 427, they were a hellva good time to have been in. Drive-In's, car hops, girls, drag racing, weekends at the shore LOL. Did I leave anything out that I wouldn't give my right arm to go back to? :lol:

NastyEllEssWon 01-20-2010 09:58 AM
bogged down with weight, options and safety features was the death of the gto you say???? sounds a lot like the hideousness they call the new camaro

WildBillyT 01-20-2010 10:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NastyEllEssWon (Post 673912)
bogged down with weight, options and safety features was the death of the gto you say???? sounds a lot like the hideousness they call the new camaro
No, that's not what he said. The death of the original muscle cars was due to:

1.) Rising gas prices
2.) Federal emissions standards
3.) Safety standards (seen the bumper on a '69 Camaro, or worse, a C3 Corvette lately?)
4.) Rising insurance costs (insurance companies catching on to the fact that the "1970 Chevelle V8" is not a 307/glide but an LS6/TH400)

and probably more that I'm missing. People still wanted the cars. ****, people still do NOW.

Slow-V6 01-20-2010 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NastyEllEssWon (Post 673912)
bogged down with weight, options and safety features was the death of the gto you say???? sounds a lot like the hideousness they call the new camaro
That is probably pretty much the Definition of a Muscle car!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:44 PM.
Page 5 of 6 1234 5 6
Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.