Could They Sell This Today?

[Gateclyve Photographic]

back in the 60's they didn't have to spend 50k in retesting the areo of the car by adding a fake scoop for the epa either.
Face it the 2004 gto smokes the old goat in every way, and the 05-06 ups that with the bigger engine.
it was faster it handled better. and would go 100k without much of anything if well cared for, something unheard of in the good ole days.
Should've left the holden nose on it, and just slapped sunbird on it. it have got no back lash and sold better, as the purist that would've never bought it anyways, even if it was a carbon copy of the 1966 gto. .

Of course the Holden upon which Pontiac based the revival GTO wasn't previously sold in the US, so they had to certify the car anyhow. Why not do the job correctly to start with instead of wasting a selling season with the scoopless GTO, only to add scoops later? The scoop fiasco was merely one example of the larger problem of Pontiac missing with the GTO's styling in general . . . .

(Not that Pontiac was on a roll at that point anyhow. See Aztek)

[Eric]

Of course the Holden upon which Pontiac based the revival GTO wasn't previously sold in the US, so they had to certify the car anyhow. Why not do the job correctly to start with instead of wasting a selling season with the scoopless GTO, only to add scoops later? The scoop fiasco was merely one example of the larger problem of Pontiac missing with the GTO's styling in general . . . .

(Not that Pontiac was on a roll at that point anyhow. See Aztek)

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!! the epa let the GTO go untested because it looked like the g/p in the nose, if they wanted the scoop it needed to be retested, holding up the car being put on sale 8-14 months.
As for the aztek, it was 15 years to early. it sell as a crossover today, as most of the crossovers look like crap.

[Gateclyve Photographic]

I'd certainly be interested in documentation of this claim.

But it's a systemic problem if it takes over a year to obtain corporate and regulatory approval of something as simple as a hood scoop. Would even a pair of unobtrusive NACA ducts (see 1973 GTO) have caused such "problems?"

Obviously a lot of GM decision makers signed off on the revival GTO, so its generic appearance must have appealed to someone.

The Aztek is still hideous, even under today's diluted aesthetics.

[Gateclyve Photographic]

Interestingly, the marketing "spin" from back in the day suggests that the appearance of the 2004 GTO was an intentional choice, and not one constrained by regulatory approvals. See link appended below.

But fans of the car say that's not good enough. They are angry that Pontiac ignored the GTO's heritage by leaving off such things as the signature twin hood scoops and a dual exhaust system - a part of every GTO of the 1960s and 1970s.

But this was no oversight by Pontiac, says GTO brand manager Robert Kraut. He says Pontiac is designing a new image for the car . . . .

Of course the official story could have just been a smokescreen meant to put the best face on it.

However, now that we have the benefit of hindsight (and hundreds of thousands of Mustang, Camaro and Challenger sales) we now know that the GM product planners missed it (which should have been obvious had they LISTENED to people who actually knew something back in the day).

[Eric]

I'd certainly be interested in documentation of this claim.

But it's a systemic problem if it takes over a year to obtain corporate and regulatory approval of something as simple as a hood scoop. Would even a pair of unobtrusive NACA ducts (see 1973 GTO) have caused such "problems?"

Obviously a lot of GM decision makers signed off on the revival GTO, so its generic appearance must have appealed to someone.

The Aztek is still hideous, even under today's diluted aesthetics.

it came out of the horses mouth, you can google it yourself. It was also in h/r mag/motor trend/car and driver/popular science.
about the whole getting it over here and the changes they needed to make, (fuel tank placement) being one and the reason for no scoop.etc.
Sorry I am not digging out my mags and spending a week looking for it.

[RockJustRock]

Wow, a lot of agony over the little GTO. The new one was just a feeble attempt to revive the dying marque. Next they tried an ersatz BMW with the G8. Pontiac has had no reverence in a long time. Think about what they did with the LeMans name. Grand Am. It was just endless. No respect.

[Gateclyve Photographic]

it came out of the horses mouth, you can google it yourself. .

You do realize that a lot of what OEMs put out for public consumption isn't always the whole truth. Good historical examples include the "official" explanations for the wing height and front fender scoops on the Plymouth Superbird . . .



Official story reported by the press -- Wing height required for clearance to open the trunk; scoops for tire clearance

Truth -- Both features improved aerodynamic performance and the stories told to the press were "bravo sierra"

[Gateclyve Photographic]

Wow, a lot of agony over the little GTO. The new one was just a feeble attempt to revive the dying marque. Next they tried an ersatz BMW with the G8. Pontiac has had no reverence in a long time. Think about what they did with the LeMans name. Grand Am. It was just endless. No respect.

Flogging a dead Gee Tee OH Tiger here with an Orange Julius-soaked whip . . .

Darwin Holmstrom wrote in his book Pontiac GTO 50 Years (Minneapolis: Quarto Publishing Group, 2014), at page 212:

The problem with the Monaro was that it did not look like a real American muscle car. Lutz had an extremely limited budget when bringing the car to the US market, and his team burned up most of the available funds converting the car from right-hand drive to left-hand drive. When they finished, there was little money left for restyling efforts. . . .

[T]he car's appearance was nondescript at best. Pontiac's front-drive Grand Prix . . . turned more heads than the plain-looking GTO . . . . [N]o one but Pontiac's advertising people called the new GTO 'The Great One.' Mostly no one even noticed it existed and if they saw one driving on a road, they dismissed it as a Grand Prix or a Grand Am.

The cars sold as slowly as the last generation of Firebirds. Pontiac imported 15,728 cars from Australia . . . for the 2004 model year, but sold just 13,569 of them. By the middle of the 2004 model year, it had become clear that buyers weren't responding to the new GTO and dealers were discounting the car by 30 percent of their original retail price or more.

[Eric]

Ya, ya, you're right, I give. i'm out. even if it came with the scoop the first year the gto purist would not have bought it. but carry on.

[AndyB]

TORQUE! . . . . That takes eight slugs a--pumpin' in all but the rarest exceptions . . . . That's also why electrics won't cut it, regardless of how quick and fast they are before the expensive, earth-crushing batteries go flat.

You have not driven a small turbo engine lately then. Small engines can make believable torque, and you're not going to find a V8 in anything that doesn't weigh as much as a small house today (excluding the exotic stuff, where frankly you should be shopping for a V12 anyway).

The turbo fours do sound like a vacuum cleaner in heat, no argument.

But hell, if you want fast? That's what bikes are for. You aren't going to go deep 9's in your absolutely reliable street car until you've spent 10x the money that it can be done on two wheels. So if you want fast on a budget, two wheels is the clear winner. If you want 'big torque' then buy a diesel. If you want a properly fast street car with 'the soundtrack' that you're so bent on about, then you need to open your wallet, and open it widely. Sorry, those days are done and over. They're not coming back no matter how loudly you cry about it.

[Markmx6]

I agree the GTO was a mistake that I believe could have been reduced by not calling it a GTO. I had also heard that the reason that GM did not add the scoops was that they were trying to bring it to market sooner and piggy backed off of the certification of the Grand Am or Grand Prix or something and that the hood scoops made the vehicle too different to include them together...

In hindsight it seems like total BS, but with government agencies very little surprises me.

I'm saying anything above is accurate, just that I had heard the same story as well...

[Gateclyve Photographic]

You have not driven a small turbo engine lately then.

Not true. I've owned turbo fours beginning in the mid-1980s and have driven a wide selection of recent ones from several manufacturers, including Volvo, Mercedes, Ford, FCA and others. I've directly compared the EcoBoost Mustang to both the non-turbocharged Coyote 5.0 and the supercharged GT500 (not the new prototype but the S197 version). I also have to drive an EcoBoost 3.5-powered sedan at least once a week, and have driven virtually all of the EcoBoost-powered Ford and Lincoln models except for the Ford GT and a couple of crossovers. So, I'm fairly informed as to the evolution of OEM turbocharging over the past thirty-five years as well as the current OEM state-of-the-art.

Small engines can make believable torque

Yet comparing turbo engines to turbo engines of similar valvetrains, a turbo V8 is going to sound better, typically breathe better (more valve curtain area), and generally have more cubic displacement -- which translates in to a higher power density as well as more aggregate power. . Sadly there aren't very many turbo V8s and the few that exist are not priced for the mass market..

But all of this takes my original comment out of context. I was commenting on the essence of "Detroit Muscle" as compared to the typical tuner-type vehicle (e.g. sub 3.0 liter FWD four cylinders (both blown and unblown)) or some other "buzzin' half-dozen" substitute . . . . The overall thesis was that it's difficult to replicate the sound, feel, and image of a proper American muscle car without a V8. The torque curve is just one element. Yet I avoided the absolute statement, leaving room for the possibility that stuff like the old-time Grand National and a few other exceptions are good enough imitations, despite how awful they sound at speed. .

The turbo fours do sound like a vacuum cleaner in heat, no argument.

The sixes aren't much better.

But hell, if you want fast? That's what bikes are for. You aren't going to go deep 9's in your absolutely reliable street car until you've spent 10x the money that it can be done on two wheels. So if you want fast on a budget, two wheels is the clear winner.

Organ donor.

And people were complaining about the lack of weather protection in a street buggy or street kart in that other thread . . . . Motorcycles have long had a better power-to-weight ratio for a lower cost than automobiles. That's got questionable relevance in a discussion of "Detroit muscle" other than as a footnote.

If you want 'big torque' then buy a diesel. If you want a properly fast street car with 'the soundtrack' that you're so bent on about, then you need to open your wallet, and open it widely. Sorry, those days are done and over. They're not coming back no matter how loudly you cry about it.

I don't know that. Who would have predicted the Hellcat or the Demon or even the GT500 thirty years ago? While I do suspect that the horsepower party, if it continues, will cost increasingly more and will become less accessible to regular folks (mostly as a result on unnecessary, obtrusive regulations), there are still more than a few folks who are turbocharging various V8s themselves, with results that often can shame almost any FWD "tuner" they're likely to come up against. So not all the steps are backward. It's easier to build big power now than it ever has been. And if one is going to the trouble. it makes a lot of sense to turbocharge the largest engine one can afford. That means V8s in most instances.

[Gateclyve Photographic]

I agree the GTO was a mistake that I believe could have been reduced by not calling it a GTO..

I've begun to question whether or not a high-performance vehicle without a corresponding high-performance appearance and image can be successful. The past several decades are littered with expensive failures of vehicles which performed relatively decently, but failed to sell enough because they didn't project a "hot" appearance and image.

The sleeper market is limited -- much more so than the high-performance niche as a whole. I suspect to be a success in the high-performance niche requires the whole package -- objective performance numbers, appearance, image, heritage, a motorsports tie-in, and visceral appeal. Miss one small element, and failure is likely. It's a tough business.

But I do agree that if one is going to do a rush job on the cheap, it's bad form to name it after a venerated legend.

[RockJustRock]

The only car worth driving is a big V8. And the only ice cream worth eating is Vanilla. The only bike worth riding is a Harley. The only opinion worth stating is one you don't think can be disagreed with.

The GTO was a perfectly fine car. Pontiac was doomed anyway. Makes me wonder how Buick and Mercury are still hanging on.

[squirrel]

heh...Mercury?