This is a Real Pontiac

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.

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".

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

>

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

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.

That absurd, I had a big 69 Ply RoadRunner with the 383 Magnum rated at 335 HP with an automatic trans, and with 135k miles on it I could still leave a

10 foot patch of rubber on the road just by stomping on it.

Uhh no the Holden GTO is ugly thats why no one buys them. They look like over sized Neons.

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.

If gas is 30cents a gallon which is about what it was in 68 who cared about mileage? You could fill it up from empty for $5.

In 1968 that $5 fill up was about 4% of my wages today the $40 fillup is about 3%. Gas was really not that cheap back then.

And that was a lot of sausages, wasn't it?

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.

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.

I think, in general, you are wrong. Please give several examples along with the 'actual HP' produced.

Dave

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.

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

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.

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..

No problem for me. Common knowledge.

Why would I want to be frank? My name is Dave.

By the 70's, the 455HO was reportedly underrated

Yep..

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

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!