GTO unlikely to last beyond 2005

GM is trying a "subtle" restyling and maybe a horsepower boost to address the dismal reception this car has gotten. I think it's a mistake. They should either radically restyle it to
reflect something like the 1970-71 GTO, and hammer people with comparison ads, or just shut down the project. Every car Pontiac makes looks almost the same. The only way this car could have been worse is if it was a sedan. Ford's marketing of the upcoming Mustang has been brilliant and if they can fix up the 8's, it will fly out of the showrooms.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I have never seen a GTO till a week ago in traffic. I had read stories of the reception this car has gotten but I really never thought much of them .... till then. It was dusk and I saw what I thought was a Sunfire or Grand Am or Grand Prix, etc and then saw the GTO badge. No wonder its a failure. It has to be the most nondescript performance vehicle I've seen in recent history. The Mustang will certainly set the standard for how this should be done. But being a Ford shareholder I'm sure they will screw something else up to make up for it. The 500 will probably help do the trick. Great conservative styling Ford, but for gosh sake put a freakin' engine in the thing. Every review pounds this car for its lack of a sufficient powerplant. I'll shut up now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 17 Oct 2004 00:29:44 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (DriveSpy) wrote:

I think the 500 is some horrifying hybrid of the Crown Victoria and Taurus.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It's well executed for a daily driver I must say. Incredible amount of space, and the quality is lightyears ahead of the Taurus. It drives well I think. Little too soft for my appetite but that's just me. Fit and finish is very good. I think Ford is going to sell a lot of these cars. Why do you think it is horrifying ? Remove NO-SPAM from email address when replying
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The 500 isn't a horrible car by any means.
I just don't understand where it falls in the marketing strategy. It doesn't really bring anything new to the table. I'll be surprised if it pulls customers away from the Japanese automakers, and if they were targeting the Chrysler 300 customers....they missed. If anything, they seem to be building a front drive, Crown Vic with bland styling. The first customers to buy will probably be CV owners looking for FWD. Like the GTO, it lacks "showroom appeal".
Time will tell, but I think the Chryslers are going to get the lions share of customers for this market segment. Without more engine options, I don't see the 500 as having much of a chance. Look for some early incentives on this one. -- John C. '03 Cobra Convt.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

why anything new ? Just look at the camry's and (less) the accords thesed days. What's new here ? They are boring as hell, the camry is SO ugly. People in this category don't seem to mind. It just has to work , and work well. Plus it needs to be reliable.

Still beats a camry !

nah, I think a dark 500 looks quite well.

Maybe. Then again, this crowd (taurus,camry,accord) doesn't want that, really. Remove NO-SPAM from email address when replying
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Calling it a GTO was a big mistake. The near silence marketing wise and the plainness of it only compound the error. A marketing blunder of a car that wasn't the typical junk foisted upon the domestic market. Now automakers will refuse to bring anything over from down under and likely resist putting RWD cars on the market using the poorly executed GTO as an example for the reason.
If the dodge RWD cars fail, then we can expect another 20 years dominated by FWD crap.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 04:42:24 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:

You would think GM had learned their lesson after the aztek...nope.
Remove NO-SPAM from email address when replying
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
So I saw a 500 (and Freestyle) in the flesh today, along with a new Mustang. The 500 looks better in person than photographs. Quite nice for that type car I guess. I still thing the powertrain choice is lame. Oh well. The Mustang was beautiful. God this thing is big. The interior, incredibly different. Lots of head room. It seems that everything has a different positional relationship to the driver than before. That console, shifter, and especially ebrake handle will take some getting use to. This one had the Mach 1000 and I see now why the Autoweek female writer bitched about hitting the speaker grills with her feet when exiting. The grill was kinda goofy looking and overly large. Funny the intake manifold did not have the aluminum cover I'd seen in pictures. The lower control arms on the rear suspension are so wimpy looking compared to the old suspension. I guess thats what happens when you take almost all the lateral load off with a panhard rod.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There's a yellow GTO at a Pontiac dealer on my way to work. It's very nondescript. Funny, but that's how I like them!
It does look like it could use a little something visually, but at the same time your average musclecar from the past was also nondescript. It wasn't until the Judges, GSX's, some of the AMC's, etc... that they started going nutso visually. Personally I like the plain cars with power. There was nothing flashy about the Fox 5.0 notchbacks, yet they remain my favorites.
I'm just hoping they take a rapid dip in value until it's time for me to buy one for a daily driver, especially if they get the LS2's.
I don't mind a car that looks like crap but goes like snot. I just wish Buick would do some styling changes and make a GS version.
Steve 72 Skylark Custom455
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Personally, I like the '64-'67 models better.

They only need to make it reliable and fun to drive.

The last thing we need is a RWD, V8-powered car to go away.

Steve,
We both see the new GTO the same way. I like it, a lot! It's a great non-descript (read: sleeper) musclecar. (I don't need a cop-bait exterior.) It has a nice suspension, great interior, awesome transmission and a spectacular engine. Can't wait for it to get the new LS2 motor! When these things hit the used car market they'll be the buy of the century. My only complaints are the very small trunk and it has a little more heft than I care for. If it had a fold down rear seat and it weighed a couple hundred pounds less it would be damn near perfect.
Patrick '93 Cobra '83 LTD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

...now that's where Buick needs to start off the project.
Steve 72 Skylark Custom455

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

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.