It's apparently selling at half the rate of the Aztec. What a joke. They apparently need to major re-work to get people to anti-up the money, Vette engine or not. I guess it doesn't help that all Pontiacs look the same...
Trolling or not, I have to agree. While the GTO seems to be a tremendous car and enormously capable, I'm not actually sure I've seen one on the road. From what I've seen in pictures, it doesn't stand out. A car with that sort of capability should turn heads of people who are other than just Pontiac fans.
On 22 Aug 2004 12:52:59 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (John Del) wrote something wonderfully witty:
Now that you mention it. I don't think I have ever seen one on the road either. The very first one my local Pontiac dealer got is still sitting on the showroom floor.
I don't keep up on Pontiac models much now, but they all look so similar to one another. I'd bet the design team is being restricted from above. The Grand am/prix is a hot selling model and the bean counters want to capitalize on it. The motor heads may go after it, but that's a lot to pay for a car that looks like a granprix.
Gas prices may be part to blame. Four months of this and no relief!
IMO, the SVT Cobra is much better way to go in this case, unless you're a die hard Ford hater.
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (John Del) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mb-m12.aol.com:
Agreed. I've seen a few on the road, and they look just like any of the other Pontiacs but with less of the boy-racer thing. In the looks department, the GTO is the epitome of mundane.
Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:25:56 GMT, "jriegle" wrote something wonderfully witty:
I am actually a fairly diehard Goat guy going way back. I've owned numerous ones including a 64, 67, 71 Judge & 72 455 HO. I would have really loved to get one to add to the stable. However, it just didn't have a personality. The Pontiac dealers in my area all wanted premiums for the one they each had sitting in their showrooms. Most still have them.
Personally I find the 2004 Mach 1 to be a better looking & performing car all the way around. Haven't seen an `05 in the flesh yet, but from what I've seen & read it more then likely will be as well. Hell I even like my daughters `01 V6 drop top better then the current incarnation of the GTO.
Living in Metro Detroit, I'm surprised to see only see a few of these also. We love our muscle cars 'round here, and one would think they'd sell.
I have been fooled by some of them because it looks so much like a Grand Prix coming down the road, until you see the back end. Is that GM's problem? Why spend the $$$ on a cookie cutter Grand Prix, when you could gave the real thing and still have decent performance?
I have to go along with your last statement: a car should turn heads. I loved the Mustangs of the '60s and early '70s but was turned off until the '94s came out. Those box-bodies of the '80s and early '90s just looked a lot too much like Japanese imports and Escorts to inspire any feeling in me. I know there're a lot of Fox-body devotees on this group, but that must be from a performance standpoint, not looks; they certainly weren't head-turners then or now.
Maybe the GTO will acquire a similar base of devoted fans, concerned with performance and not looks.
I stopped to take a good look at a GTO the other day. I like it! I think it looks much better in person than in the magazine pics. The interior is very nice and the overall fit and finish seems first rate. The only thing that would keep me from buying one is the tiny two-suitcase trunk.
I think it's ironic that we all loved the plain-Jane five-liter LX Foxes, but the conservative GTO gets kicked around because its styling is too plain. Strange...
Sure they were. That's why there were so many copy-cats (The Japanese imports and Escorts you mentioned). The FOX Mustang was one of the best looking cars of the '80s; well proportioned, edgy yet smooth, to this day the FOXes are a masterpiece of design and style. Given equal performance and based only on looks, I'd choose a 79-93 over a 94-04 any day.
Me too. To me, it looks like what the GTP SHOULD have looked like, plus the coolness of RWD and a lot of HP. I don't think it'll be mistaken for a Cavelier. Saw the CTS-V the same day. Now that looks MEAN!
From that testimonial, you either like nondescript cars or you own one. Those poor things didn't even have the classic Mustang symbol on the grille, just the blue oval Ford logo. Don't tell me the Escorts copied that!
It's okay to like those little econo-boxes though; there wasn't much innovation during those times and everything was very conservative. The Fox-bodies were just going along with those times. But the '94s were true head-turners; whether you liked them or not, you noticed them. That's the sign of a great body design, something the Fox-bodies never accomplished.
I dunno, Doc... a mundane V6 '94-98 car really doesn't do it for me like a Fox does. It's all a matter of opinion I guess. The '87 redesign was a big crowd-pleaser, and put the Mustang back on the map. You think the Mustang was rounded back then... if people didn't like the '87-88 Mustang so much and badger to Ford to keep it, we'd all now be driving hi-po Probes. Now
*that* was a bubble-car.
Some people dig the Foxes, and even my girlfriend can recognize them from the headlights alone.. though she doesn't really see the mass appeal. There is definately a big difference between a Fox GT and an Accord or Camry of
*any* year though.
That said, I've owned a number of Foxes, and currently, my only 4-wheeled ride is a '97 Cobra. The couple of tweaks to the nose and hood make a big difference to me. Now the '99-up cars are nice... and the '05 promises to be a pretty nice car.
The LX five-liter was a stripper version of a relatively hot car (for the era). It was both cheap and light. It was all about go fast, not about comfort, luxury, etc... plus, it wasn't the only option - the GT, the convertible, and the GT convertible were available. If you could get a GTO that looked like a Cavalier, or a GTO that is close to the same but has a more aggressive look to it... you'd only take the Cavalier if there was a benefit - like lower cost or lighter weight, etc.
I guess my idea is that it's too expensive and too plush to be considered an LX-style car, and not enough style to really look the part of an expensive performance machine. They're... eh... nice. That's about all I can say. I probably wouldn't trade it in if you gave me one... but I wouldn't spend my money on one.
Kind of like you notice the Firebirds with all the neat graphics. Yea, thats the ticket. :)
But you are right. I like nondescript performance cars and believe that any visible aftermarket mods are a crime. Probably why I think Taurus SHO's and BMW M cars are neat. You don't have to look fast to be fast.
Howard
1989 LX 5.0 OEM except handling and performance mods.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.