shelleys_man_06

It's the GTO's fleet-car look that turns people off. I hope that Pontiac has better luck designing the new one. No retro though. It's played-out and gross . You're right about the Corvette. I had a friend wreck his dad's C5. I'm talking about wrapped it around a tree. Okay, it wasn't that bad, but there's some serious fron-end damage. He said the car was way too expensive to fix, so now it just sits in their garage. It's really sad .

jonnyb

HELLO?!? is anyone forgetting how muscle cars came about? car companies took took their economy car and put a big *** engine in it. they were heavy and didnt handle well but they werent supposed to. they were supposed to make big reliable power and tear up the drag strips.

the gto isnt some wimpy jap car that has a steering wheel for a reason. like the old muscle cars iti s heavy, looks plain, and makes a shitload of power.

personally i think the gto looks awesome. its nice to see some subtle conservative styling in a world of evo's 350z's and rx8's. its not that the new jap cars look bad, its just nice to have something more laid back.

shelleys_man_06

What? A Jap car? Well, as ignorant as that sounds, the Japanese put a lot of work into designing their cars. Musclecars are by nature, existing models with big *** engines. Remember the Plymouth Roadrunner? It's a Belvedere with a V8, Hemi-V8, whatever. Why GM is working with the old 60s formula is beyond me. Besides, the Holden Monaro already has an LS1, albeit a weaker one in comparison with the GTO. Instead of throwing in a much larger engine, GM has decided to free up some power and re-badge it for U.S. consumption. And, as we know, the United States is the world's largest, and dumbest consumer nation. Take, for example, cell phones. I hate cell phones, but that's for a different thread. Japanese cars are wimpy because...If you can give me a more specific definition, then maybe I could refute your argument. I didn't know sacrificing balance for weight and low-end torque was still appealing. The GTO is a modern version of a 60s car; it's like using new technology to create a car that symbolizes the old. "Modern musclecars" such as the GTO are not only rare, but a contradiction into itself. Nevertheless, people are going to buy it, because they're nostalgic, and they like to be subtle, plain and conervative, like you jonnyb. When it comes to musclecars, conformity is embraced, uniqueness is shunned.

m477

They could give it 1000hp if they want, but they will still have to make it not look like a Grand Am if they want to actually sell any of them.

KC_Prelude

This is the truest statement of the whole thread.

Rotarian_SC

Yes the GTO is a pure muscle car. A big engine in an economy car, with only slightly modified stlying. That makes it cheap, but I really doubt reliability, as it will be GM. Muscle car is a 1960's concept. I would prefer something more modern, like putting a turbo and awd on an econocar and giving it good handling. The Evo/Sti are as fast in a strait line, will destroy the GTO on a racetrack, have sedan capabilites, and are cheaper.

FamilyGuy

GM has turned their stylists loose - it's the Art & Science theme on new Cadillac. And while improved interiors, performance, and handling has started a Cadillac revival, there's about a 50/50 split between people who love the funky styling and people who hate it. I can see why GM is waiting to see how Cadillac does before pulling a similar trick with any other brands.

Also, if you read any industry newsletters, it takes a major automakers at least three years to take a model from concept to production. GM probably couldn't have made a US GTO before 2007 if it wanted to, so the only thing to do was re-badge the Monaro.

shelleys_man_06

First, I have to commend your s/n. Family Guy has been one of my favorite shows since 1999. Anyways, what is the deal with GM's Art & Science theme for Cadillac? I still think GM, especially in the United States is playing catch-up with car design. I hope Ileana is doing good in Warren . Anyways, this type of styling is love-it-or-hate-it; I personally hate it, but I understand how hard it is to design new cars. Try making up a car, on the fly. It's not easy is it. It's not the lack of creativity. I think it's the time-alottment for designing new products. I'm sure these guys don't get a break. The United States is always fast-paced; we like fast food, fast Internet, new products. My dad always told me the U.S. auto manufacturers design cars that will last only three years. After three years is up, something new comes out to entice the buyer. Meanwhile, their current American car experiences so many problems that they have no choice but to buy a new car. Thus, the cycle begins anew. I think buying a new car every three years helps put money back into the economy, but a car company can quickly lose its credibility of building "reliable cars that will last forever." This strategy doesn't apply in the U.S. exclusively. For example, in Japan, they impose a huge tax for owning any car older than three years (methinks ). It keeps the consumer trapped in a cycle of buying new cars. Luckily, we don't have that in the United States. Most Japanese cars have proven themselves to be marathon runners. I hope this makes sense, because it's 6:36...

babylou

Love/hate designs are fine. The key is to find enough people that love a particular design enough to buy the vehicle. The sales show that Caddy has found enough lovers. The Pontiac Aztec didn't. The CTS and XLR are technically very good vehicles. If they looked non-descript like a Toyota or whatever their sales would be lower than today even though there would be less haters.

Jeffjett

Buttocks unattractive IMO