Been a While, Pics of the Car (56K Die In A Fire)

Come here to discuss the performance side of our vehicles.
User avatar
josh99ta
Posts: 6361
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2002 1:00 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby josh99ta » Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:12 pm

Username stays. I'll always be josh99ta at heart.

danssoslow wrote:josh06gto. :)

I've always liked the GTO. They need to import the El Camino version of the Manaro here. What is that LS2 rated at, anyways?


400hp/400tq. And its got every bit of it. This car moves for being such a pig (400 lbs heavier than my Trans Am was).
2006 Pontiac GTO :: Stock and Staying That Way
1999 Pontiac Trans Am :: Gone but Not Forgotten
User avatar
Big Mack
Posts: 4622
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 1999 12:00 pm
Location: Phoen-town, USA

Postby Big Mack » Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:32 pm

danssoslow wrote:josh95PW


:p

danssoslow wrote: They need to import the El Camino version of the Manaro here.


No. No, no they do not. We have enough ugly cars. I have hated El Camino's and Ranchero's forever. Ugliest pieces of crap.

josh99ta wrote:Username stays. I'll always be josh99ta at heart.


See above.

josh99ta wrote:400hp/400tq. And its got every bit of it. This car moves for being such a pig (400 lbs heavier than my Trans Am was).


Hmmm...and they only needed 6L to do it. Amazing!! Yep, that's what GM should be focused on, a car that will sell 14K, as opposed to trying to make something the sells 40K. :rolleyes: Oh well, doesn't matter much now anyways, since they've stopped making them. Possibility it could return with the Camaro, but nothing's been said. I do like the color, though. The wheels? Yeah, not so much. They really make it look like a Mustang.

From what I've read, if they wanted to keep building them, they would have had to re-enginerd a lot of the car due to a new airbag deployment requirement. But, the testing on the 05 and 06 Cobalts was decent, so I'm sure you're fine.

Big Mack
User avatar
Speakerboy
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 1:00 pm
Location: Brandon FL

Postby Speakerboy » Sat Jan 20, 2007 5:37 pm

Big Mack wrote::
From what I've read, if they wanted to keep building them, they would have had to re-enginerd a lot of the car due to a new airbag deployment requirement. But, the testing on the 05 and 06 Cobalts was decent, so I'm sure you're fine.

Big Mack


Ouch. That has to hurt.
Yeah, 6L to get to 400hp/400tq, but that torque curve is so flat. I drove that engine in a CTS-V, and it was killer.
If I were a gangster, my name would be "Jimmy the Gimp".
User avatar
Big Mack
Posts: 4622
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 1999 12:00 pm
Location: Phoen-town, USA

Postby Big Mack » Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:04 pm

Speakerboy wrote:Yeah, 6L to get to 400hp/400tq, but that torque curve is so flat. I drove that engine in a CTS-V, and it was killer.


Yes, but it's at significant expense. Check out some of the HP numbers from MB or BMW or Lexus with smaller engines, and you'll see better numbers with more fuel economy. The rule that there is no replacement for displacement may work for some, but the world is changing. The new S550 is 5.5L, but pushes out 382HP. The BMW 750 is 360, but the 760 puts out more power (438) and STILL gets better fuel economy (not by much, but still there is a difference). The new Lexus LS460 is only 4.6L, and it's 380. The tuned version for the GS460 will probably get to the 400 level as well. Oh...and it gets better gas mileage than any of them, big surprise.

Let's also take into account...the Cobalt weighs significantly less than any of the others. 500 less than the MB, a full 1K less than the BMW, and 600 less than the LS460. That difference ALONE should give the Cobalt a huge leg up on fuel economy, but yet...it lacks.

GM needs to re-evaluate their priorities. People want power, obviously and without a doubt or these others wouldn't sell, but not at a cost like that. GM is not alone in this, though. The "big 3" need to all look at information like this and decide if they want to be forced into the "have beens" category. Buyers do more research, which is why Toyota, Honda, and the others are pulling sales from domestics.

Oh, and yes, I know that the others are much more expensive, but the engineering that GM does is spread across brands, as Speakerboy points out -- the core of that engine is in the Caddy.

Big Mack
User avatar
Speakerboy
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 1:00 pm
Location: Brandon FL

Postby Speakerboy » Sat Jan 20, 2007 10:30 pm

Big Mack wrote:Yes, but it's at significant expense. Check out some of the HP numbers from MB or BMW or Lexus with smaller engines, and you'll see better numbers with more fuel economy. The rule that there is no replacement for displacement may work for some, but the world is changing. The new S550 is 5.5L, but pushes out 382HP. The BMW 750 is 360, but the 760 puts out more power (438) and STILL gets better fuel economy (not by much, but still there is a difference). The new Lexus LS460 is only 4.6L, and it's 380. The tuned version for the GS460 will probably get to the 400 level as well. Oh...and it gets better gas mileage than any of them, big surprise.

Let's also take into account...the Cobalt weighs significantly less than any of the others. 500 less than the MB, a full 1K less than the BMW, and 600 less than the LS460. That difference ALONE should give the Cobalt a huge leg up on fuel economy, but yet...it lacks.

GM needs to re-evaluate their priorities. People want power, obviously and without a doubt or these others wouldn't sell, but not at a cost like that. GM is not alone in this, though. The "big 3" need to all look at information like this and decide if they want to be forced into the "have beens" category. Buyers do more research, which is why Toyota, Honda, and the others are pulling sales from domestics.

Oh, and yes, I know that the others are much more expensive, but the engineering that GM does is spread across brands, as Speakerboy points out -- the core of that engine is in the Caddy.

Big Mack


If you really want to get technical, the core of that engine is in a lot of other products besides these two - the Caddy just happens to be the most expensive. The CTS-V was the most parts bin car of all of the V-Series models. It is only 10K more than a loaded regular CTS, and has 140 reliable horsepower more.

My point was that the numbers only tell half of the story. We have all seen the turbo car that has a lot of power, but the curves (horsepower and torque) are quite peaky. To a lesser extent, all of those cars you just mentioned are the same. Only Mercedes has a reputation of building an engine with substantial torque, and they were using the 3 valve per cylinder design for decades. Only recently did they switch to four per cylinder.

You also can't cherry pick the nicer engines in those brands. What about the V-8 engines in the Lexus SC, GX, and LX? The 4.7 liter V-8 in the LX and GX only have 268 and 263 hp respectively. Yes they have more torques than horsepower (320's), but still, it is a V-8 in an import.

If you really want to compare similarly priced vehicles, compare the $77,090 STS-V to the vehicles you listed. This is a car with 469hp from a 4.4L V-8. I know, it is boosted, but that is nothing new. Ton of room, enough power to scare the pi$$ out of you, and killer looks (I think).

His GTO was also about half price of the any of the cars mentioned, and has a completely different audience. I guess GM at least evaluated that priority right.
If I were a gangster, my name would be "Jimmy the Gimp".
User avatar
Big Mack
Posts: 4622
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 1999 12:00 pm
Location: Phoen-town, USA

Postby Big Mack » Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:23 pm

Speakerboy wrote:If you really want to get technical, the core of that engine is in a lot of other products besides these two - the Caddy just happens to be the most expensive. The CTS-V was the most parts bin car of all of the V-Series models. It is only 10K more than a loaded regular CTS, and has 140 reliable horsepower more.


As I said, their enginerding is spread over more than just one line.

Speakerboy wrote:My point was that the numbers only tell half of the story. We have all seen the turbo car that has a lot of power, but the curves (horsepower and torque) are quite peaky. To a lesser extent, all of those cars you just mentioned are the same. Only Mercedes has a reputation of building an engine with substantial torque, and they were using the 3 valve per cylinder design for decades. Only recently did they switch to four per cylinder.


I don't know, the torque on every single one of them was pretty respectable. The MB has 391, the BMW 5.0 is 360, 6.0 is 444, and the Lexus is 367. Those all seem like they're torqued well. ;)

Speakerboy wrote:You also can't cherry pick the nicer engines in those brands. What about the V-8 engines in the Lexus SC, GX, and LX? The 4.7 liter V-8 in the LX and GX only have 268 and 263 hp respectively. Yes they have more torques than horsepower (320's), but still, it is a V-8 in an import.


Torque wins for trucks. The don't have a need to have tons of horsepower to tow ;) And I didn't cherry pick, I compared based on engine sizes. Would it be fair to compare the 6.0L to a 3.0L for fuel economy? I didn't think so, either. And as for the SC, it's the 4.3L that's 5 years old, and it was 300HP and 300lb/ft, and it's in a car ;) And if you want to bring other engines into play, what about the Mustang? V8 that's 300HP (NA 4.6L), SVT Cobra that's 390HP/390lb/ft (4.6L SC), and the 5.4L 550HP GT500 (again, with SC). Oh, and the Cobra is $38K. The GT500 is supposed to be under $40K, too.

Speakerboy wrote:If you really want to compare similarly priced vehicles, compare the $77,090 STS-V to the vehicles you listed. This is a car with 469hp from a 4.4L V-8. I know, it is boosted, but that is nothing new. Ton of room, enough power to scare the pi$$ out of you, and killer looks (I think).


Normally aspirated was one of the things I singled out. If I wanted boosted, I could have gone to the MB 5.5L that does 505, or the BMW M5 or M6, both with a 5.0L that does 500. Or, if you wanted to get even more exotic, the proposed "tuned and turbo'd" Lexus F-line that is supposedly going to get 500+ out of the 4.6L.

Speakerboy wrote:His GTO was also about half price of the any of the cars mentioned, and has a completely different audience. I guess GM at least evaluated that priority right.


I pointed that out, too. I didn't base it on price. And let's also keep in mind, the GTO sold 14K. And no, GM didn't evaluate it right. According to MSN (here)

"Indeed, the best year for the modern reincarnation of the GTO was in calendar 2004, but with only 13,569 GTO sales in the U.S. The modern GTO is actually a U.S. version of the Holden Monaro coupe made in an Australian factory by Pontiac's parent company, General Motors Corp. The GTO never hit the company's 18,000 annual U.S. sales target."

18K was their goal and it never sold that many?? Wonder how many S550's or LS460's will be sold...:rolleyes:

If the sales numbers in Japan are any indicator for the LS460, then they've got a winner. They sold 12K of them in a month. That's quite a bit of demand for a car that's $70K+. Appears that Toyota might be a bit better judge of what people want than GM, regardless of price. They suck at predicting total demand, though. They thought it would move 1300 units the first month. I'd want to have that kind of problem. :cwm18:

Big Mack
User avatar
Speakerboy
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 1:00 pm
Location: Brandon FL

Postby Speakerboy » Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:00 pm

Big Mack wrote:Torque wins for trucks. The don't have a need to have tons of horsepower to tow ;)


Torque wins for everyone, as it is what gets you off the line.

And I didn't cherry pick, I compared based on engine sizes. Would it be fair to compare the 6.0L to a 3.0L for fuel economy? I didn't think so, either. And as for the SC, it's the 4.3L that's 5 years old, and it was 300HP and 300lb/ft, and it's in a car ;) And if you want to bring other engines into play, what about the Mustang?


The Mustang....you mean the car with a solid rear axle? I think you can see where they spent there money, and it is obviously not in the handling department.


"Indeed, the best year for the modern reincarnation of the GTO was in calendar 2004, but with only 13,569 GTO sales in the U.S. The modern GTO is actually a U.S. version of the Holden Monaro coupe made in an Australian factory by Pontiac's parent company, General Motors Corp. The GTO never hit the company's 18,000 annual U.S. sales target."

18K was their goal and it never sold that many?? Wonder how many S550's or LS460's will be sold...:rolleyes:

If the sales numbers in Japan are any indicator for the LS460, then they've got a winner. They sold 12K of them in a month. That's quite a bit of demand for a car that's $70K+. Appears that Toyota might be a bit better judge of what people want than GM, regardless of price. They suck at predicting total demand, though. They thought it would move 1300 units the first month. I'd want to have that kind of problem. :cwm18:

Big Mack


The main reason why the GTO never sold was marketing. How many GTO commercials did you see compared to Lexus LS commercials ("I use to have to parallel park..")? We were seeing that Lexus commercial before the car even came out. I think the 1300 units/month is fluff. They were trying to create excitment and rarity for the car and it worked. It is a good problem to have, as long as you don't drag it out to long. Then people start going elsewhere.

GM has never been good at marketing. One good example is the Saturn line. They truly are the bastard children of GM. The Saturn Aura just won North American Car of the Year, and for $20,595, will wipe the floor with the Accord and the Crammy. Base car has 224hp, 6 airbags, 17" alloy wheels, and Onstar standard. Both Honda that Toyota are using their tired four cylinders, 15" wheels, and 2 airbags at the same price. Have you seen any Aura specific commercials? Me neither, and I work for a Saturn/Cadillac dealership.

All that being said, my dream car is a Mercedes. An older one, but still with the three pointed star.:cwm3:
If I were a gangster, my name would be "Jimmy the Gimp".
User avatar
Big Mack
Posts: 4622
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 1999 12:00 pm
Location: Phoen-town, USA

Postby Big Mack » Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:56 pm

Speakerboy wrote:Torque wins for everyone, as it is what gets you off the line.


I know this, but torque is more important in trucks because it's what gets the load moving.

Speakerboy wrote:The Mustang....you mean the car with a solid rear axle? I think you can see where they spent there money, and it is obviously not in the handling department.


Yes, we can see where they spent "their" money. But we were debating HP, not handling. No fair changing the subject. :p

Speakerboy wrote:The main reason why the GTO never sold was marketing. How many GTO commercials did you see compared to Lexus LS commercials ("I use to have to parallel park..")? We were seeing that Lexus commercial before the car even came out. I think the 1300 units/month is fluff. They were trying to create excitment and rarity for the car and it worked. It is a good problem to have, as long as you don't drag it out to long. Then people start going elsewhere.


I disagree. The reason the GTO never sold wasn't solely marketing. It's that it's a Cobalt with the same standard GM "quality" and a bigger engine. Unless you had a serious desire for really crappy gas mileage in a small car, you looked elsewhere.

Speakerboy wrote:GM has never been good at marketing. One good example is the Saturn line. They truly are the bastard children of GM. The Saturn Aura just won North American Car of the Year, and for $20,595, will wipe the floor with the Accord and the Crammy. Base car has 224hp, 6 airbags, 17" alloy wheels, and Onstar standard. Both Honda that Toyota are using their tired four cylinders, 15" wheels, and 2 airbags at the same price. Have you seen any Aura specific commercials? Me neither, and I work for a Saturn/Cadillac dealership.


Actually, I have seen a few Aura commercials. And no, it is not standard with alloys, according to the website. It comes standard with painted fascia steel wheels. And the Toyota gets better gas mileage with either the 4 or the 6 than the Aura, which is 20/30. The Toyota is 24/33 in the 4, and 22/31 in the 6, which has more power, BTW. Costs a bit more to get leather in the Camry than in the XR ($100 for leather is a steal, even if it is GM leather), but you get the idea. Is the 4 grossly underpowered? Without a doubt, we agree. The Accord isn't really even worth considering, IMO, since it doesn't have any comparisons to either for the money. And let's not forget, the Civic is only about 1 inch shorter in wheelbase then the Accord. Even then, not really a good comparison.

I have to admit, though, if you've seen what the "new" Accord is going to look like from the autoshow previews, I was seriously intrigued. It looked a LOT like a 6-series. Crazy, I know, but check it out here.

Speakerboy wrote:All that being said, my dream car is a Mercedes. An older one, but still with the three pointed star.:cwm3:


I have long been a fan of MB, but for features/dollars, I have found better options. That and one of my friends was an exclusive MB buyer, and he had such terrible experience with service and reliability in the last 2 he bought, he hung up the keys and bought a motorcycle and a Honda. This wasn't a one-shot deal, though, he had owned 5 MB's previously. He said he would never buy another since he wasn't getting the service he used to get, and yes, he tried 3 different dealers.

Big Mack
User avatar
X-OvrDistortion
New Member
Posts: 10182
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 11:00 am
Location: Blacker then the blackest black times infinity
Contact:

Postby X-OvrDistortion » Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:29 pm

Have we seen the new Silverado, 22mpg. Bah, I love my 13mpg.
User avatar
vfootballphs
New Member
Posts: 652
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 12:00 pm
Location: Post, TX
Contact:

Postby vfootballphs » Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:09 pm

Nice pics sir. The backgrounds are pretty busy in most of them and with that I would have liked to have seen a shallower dof, but they are still nice. I reallllly like 12, 19, and 20 :)


I guess the d80 doesn't feel too small to you? It felt TINY in my hands.

Return to “Automotive Performance”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest