This is a Real Pontiac

Page 2 of 2  


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That would be low gearing, nose-heaviness, plenty of low end torque, combined with the not very good tires of that era. It is a well know fact that the "SAE" hp figures of the '60's and early '70's were inflated and fell dramatically when manufacturers went to SAE net ratings...as used today.
Of coarse, modern engines make much more power per cubic inch thanks to design improvements, so there are plenty of 300 hp plus models out that can light up their tires at will, they just don't need almost 400 cid to do it.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think, in general, you are wrong. Please give several examples along with the 'actual HP' produced.
Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

fact
with
I came close to posting this same question Dave. Actually, it was very common for the big 3 to under-rate the HP back then to keep insurance costs down for the consumers.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

and
costs
While that's true, that isn't my only quibble with his statement. He claimed that the HP ratings were "inflated", and that simply isn't true, in general. All US carmakers used the same SAE gross measurement, which was the standard at that time. The same engines would have a lower number today with SAE net, but that doesn't mean the numbers were inflated. Just a different standard.
Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wow! I'm a bit surprised anybody would be that ignorant, but I have to admit that people generally have struggled to get the years right. I'm not sure why. It's incredibly easy to get the information you've asked for.
Here's what you need to do: Pontiac didn't really change their engine lineup from 71 to 72, so you can find basically any engine that you are genuinely familiar with and just check those two years. That was the year they went from gross to net. No problem.
Just for example, the Pontiac 455 HO. 335 hp in 1971, vs 300 in 1972. The 71 and 72 engines are totally identical. Anybody posting in this thread should know that, to be frank. By the 70's, the 455HO was reportedly underrated rather than overrated.
Here's another example: The 350 2-barrel, manual transmission version, fell from 250 hp to 175.
If you're really curious about this, you can just look up anything you want in any list of hp figures you want.
Most people cannot grasp what year that was, nor how simple it is. Some of them may reply to this thread, saying "oh, no, it was 1986 or 1975" or some other stuff. They're wrong.
There were three drops in hp at GM that can confuse people. The first was in 1971, when they did away with high compression across the board. The 2nd was in 1972, and that's the one that was on paper only. The third was in 1975, when they put those badly designed catalytic converters on.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

and
admit
Jeez...take a Midol, why don't ya.

No struggle for me.
I'm not sure

Me either.
It's incredibly easy to get the information you've asked for.
Yep..

lineup
No problem for me. Common knowledge.

71
should
Why would I want to be frank? My name is Dave.
By the 70's, the 455HO was reportedly underrated

Yep..
fell
Yes, because the standard for testing changed for '72. That doesn't mean that the numbers were "inflated" in '71, as another poster stated. Please work on your reading comprehension.
~snip~
Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They are not quite identical. The '72 455 HO had revised heads and intake to deal with emission requirements that actually lowered the net HP by 5 HP but boosted torque by 5 ft lbs. The carburator and distributor were also retuned to improve emissions and gas mileage('71 455 HOs are gas hogs, 73 jets, 38B rods!)
'71 455 HO was gross rated at 335HP, 480 ft lbs, net was 310HP, 410 ft lbs. Real world findings put the net power at even higher than the gross ratings!
--
_________________________________________________________________
Dennis Smith
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Holden GTO is not ugly. Ugly is a term you apply to something like an Aztek. The Holden GTO is restrained or under-stated...plain, even, but it is not ugly by any stretch. In some colors it is very handsome. And the interior is very nice.
It's biggest problem is that it does not have very loud styling, like the later early GTO's that everyone remembers. It is, actually, not unlike, in restraint, the earliest GTO's, prior to '68. They don't look alike, but both generations are simply styled and quite tasteful.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
> On 3/18/2006 12:33 AM ... GLitwinski wrote:

Of course the Aztek had similar sales numbers to the GTO. Not many people buying either. The Aztek is quite ugly, I agree with that!

I wouldn't use the term "ugly" for the new GTO either. It's not a bad looking car. As you state, very plain and non-descript. Adding the hood scoop helped some.

True, the early GTO's were very similar to their LeMans and Tempest siblings. What set the Mustang apart was it had very specific styling elements that have carried forward to today (especially the new model). Apart from the hood scoop, the GTO never really had many styling elements that were "GTO-specific".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The older GTOs just had a rugged look, it was definatly a mans cars not a unisex, cant say the same about the new GTO, other than the sport wheels it just blends in like the average grocery getter.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Uhh no the Holden GTO is ugly thats why no one buys them. They look like over sized Neons.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
There are two that I see regularly. One is black and the other (screaming) yellow. Both draw the eye for their simple, but handsome shape. The yellow one makes the heart race just a little...it looks very nice.
They don't sell because they cost too much for the Camaro/Firebird crowd (and look too restrained, anyway) and were marketed stupidly by GM. I said it before and I'll say it again...if GM had sold the Holden as a semi-exotic Aussie import with Paul Hogan or Mel Gibson doing the honors in the ads it would have sold very well. (Oh yeah, and they needed to fix the poor trunk space.)
These things are going to be classics, specially the 400 horse versions. Do yourself a favor, if you love to drive, go test drive a 6-sp one before they are all gone. These cars are not Goats, but they are great sports coupes and a blast to drive.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
> On 3/16/2006 9:04 PM ... GRL wrote:

The new GTO beats the 0-60 time by about a second, true. (6 seconds vs. 5 seconds). Although if I had the three deuces instead of the Rochester Quadrajet, it probably would knocked a half-second off of the time and have given a respectable showing.
I didn't do well in the 1/4 mile though. With the 4-11 rear, I'd redline at 105MPH and had to pull back from the throttle a good distance before I hit the end of the run. Surely I'd have hit 110- 115 in the quarter had the old Hurst Dual-Gate auto tranny had overdrive.
Still, the 67 looked better. ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

the
Yeh but keep in mind those old Goats had either 3 speed autos or 4 speed manuals that limit top end speed, compared to a 5 or 6 speed on a new GTO.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
> On 3/17/2006 9:16 PM ... Shoe Shine Boy wrote:

Yea, she was still gaining speed fast at redline (105MPH). If she only had overdrive she could have kept on going.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Those old 440 Dodges and Plymouths would do 140+ with just 4 speeds, can you imagine adding 2 more gears?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just remember that adding gears doesn't necessarily mean a different maximum ratio. It can just mean having a finer refinement of stops in the range.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

In the quarter mile you shouldn't see more than 4th gear at all unless you have some seriously high (numerically >4.56:1+ ) gear ratio in the differential. The larger difference is that technology always makes things more efficient.
...Ron -- 68'RS Camaro 88'Formula 00'GT Mustang
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.