Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 7/27/2005 8:07:58 AM EDT
I just want to lease one and drive the hell out of it for a couple years. 400 hp and around a 450/month car payment.

Who has one and how do you like them? What don't you like about them?


Link Posted: 7/27/2005 8:11:38 AM EDT
They look kinda nice excoet for being small, but thats my opinion,

Also expect the typical bad things to happen to it withing 3 months of getting it.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 8:40:05 PM EDT
It was a great idea for a replacement for the F-body (Camaro/Firebird) as far as power, but it's just way to ugly if you ask me.
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 3:39:19 AM EDT
Get a Charger.
They are a lot prettier.
They are also a VERY fun to drive car.
The suspension and steering is nearly perfect.
The weight of the car makes it very smooth riding, as well.
It's like the best of both worlds.

The current 5.7 liter engine is being upgraded to a 6.1 liter next year.
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 7:36:39 PM EDT
Gas
Tires
Oil


If you're thinking of a GTO, get the real thing, like a '65-'70.
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 7:47:25 PM EDT
the new ones are great cars...400hp/tq and a sex-speed for about 30K with the discount...cant go wrong!
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 7:56:05 PM EDT
I plan to get one in the next year or 2. At least a 2005, black, red seats, 6 spd.
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 8:40:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/30/2005 8:40:36 PM EDT by 1BMF]
Ive seen a red and white one driving around town here in Orlando, i have mixed feelings on them. They look good except for the typical dodge hood, and the grill.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 3:18:34 PM EDT
The new GTO is a sweet car. A heavy, comfortable touring coupe capable of 12 second passes. The new Charger is an ugly POS and cant even keep up w/ the GT Mustang. No comparison. Oh and the Charger is more expensive than the Goat as well.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 4:00:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By YELLOWV:
The new GTO is a sweet car. A heavy, comfortable touring coupe capable of 12 second passes. The new Charger is an ugly POS and cant even keep up w/ the GT Mustang. No comparison. Oh and the Charger is more expensive than the Goat as well.



That's not a good comparison though. The Charger and Mustang are totally different cars. The Charger wasn't built to be a serious performance car. It was built to be a nice family sedan, with enough muscle under the hood for dad to be able to have some fun. If you want to compare cars, go for it with the GTO and the Stang, but the Charger just doesn't fit in with them.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 7:23:45 PM EDT
It was just an example of the $35,000 + Charger not having the balls it's made out to have. Hell it's slower than the damned SRT-4. To bring back a car and call it a Charger it should be able to back it's namesake up a bit better than a low 14 second 1/4 mile. True the SRT-8 version will be quicker but hell for the money it will cost you could probably buy a CTS-V. The new Hemi is nothing but marketing hype. It cant touch the LS1 more or less the LS2 engine.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 8:10:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By YELLOWV:
It was just an example of the $35,000 + Charger not having the balls it's made out to have. Hell it's slower than the damned SRT-4. To bring back a car and call it a Charger it should be able to back it's namesake up a bit better than a low 14 second 1/4 mile. True the SRT-8 version will be quicker but hell for the money it will cost you could probably buy a CTS-V. The new Hemi is nothing but marketing hype. It cant touch the LS1 more or less the LS2 engine.



Post some number of STOCK 60's-70's Chargers done by credible testers, with stock tires.

I bet the numbers you get are not as low as you would expect.

The "hold my beer, watch this" numbers may be lower.

I also expect that the traction control system is a signifigant hindrance for the standing start times on the Charger, and way less of a problem for a turbo-fwd car.

The 6.1 Hemi's are for the SRT versions, the 5.7 is supposed to stay as the base "hemi".
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 8:16:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/1/2005 8:18:27 PM EDT by YELLOWV]
Most old muscle cars posted slow times back in the 60's and 70's due to crap tires. Take those same stock cars today and put a good set of modern rear tires on them and those times would drop considerably. A 68' 440 charger back in 68' would run high 14's. Slower than the new Charger. Yet put a set of wider modern tires on it and that time would be at least in the low 13's if not better. Are you saying it is easier to lauch a turbo FWD car than a RWD Charger? I dont think so. I am not familiar with the Dodges traction control system but I would imagine like most other modern American made muscle cars it has an off switch.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 8:53:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By YELLOWV:
Most old muscle cars posted slow times back in the 60's and 70's due to crap tires. Take those same stock cars today and put a good set of modern rear tires on them and those times would drop considerably. A 68' 440 charger back in 68' would run high 14's. Slower than the new Charger. Yet put a set of wider modern tires on it and that time would be at least in the low 13's if not better. Are you saying it is easier to lauch a turbo FWD car than a RWD Charger? I dont think so. I am not familiar with the Dodges traction control system but I would imagine like most other modern American made muscle cars it has an off switch.



Well in stock vs stock the new cars will perform better. The new cars are also easier to drive for most people.

RWD Charger, 50% of weight on rear tires appx. When you whack open the throttle there is more than enough power to cause wheelspin. A little won't hur acceleration. BUT, most "traction control" systems will apply the brakes if the POSSIBILITY of wheel spin is predicted, and if that isn't enough, begin dropping out fuel to cylinders.

On an SRT-4, something like 65-70% (Guess) of the vehicle's weight is on the front tires. More weight on the tires=more traction. The turbo won't be putting out power until it is spooled up. So the tires have to have enough traction to hook-up at launch, like the car has a normally aspirated engine. Then, after the car is moving and the turbo spools up, it will add power. That power, since the car is hooked up and already moving is less likely to break those tire loose than if it was applied to the tires at 0 mph.

"Off" switches are not always installed. On some cars they move wahtever system from "full" to "partial", not truly "off".
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 7:49:42 AM EDT
Have you ever driven a powerful front drive vehicle? Doesn't sound like it. The SRT-4 has tons of wheelspin and torquesteer problems. Not to mention a good driver will lauch in boost. A torquey rear drive V8 is worlds easier to launch. If you're going to test the old vs. new why not make it a level playing field? Why must the old Charger run on crappy bias ply tires? We both know on equal ground the old Charger would more than humiliate the new one.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 8:19:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By YELLOWV:
Have you ever driven a powerful front drive vehicle? Doesn't sound like it. The SRT-4 has tons of wheelspin and torquesteer problems. Not to mention a good driver will lauch in boost. A torquey rear drive V8 is worlds easier to launch. If you're going to test the old vs. new why not make it a level playing field? Why must the old Charger run on crappy bias ply tires? We both know on equal ground the old Charger would more than humiliate the new one.



I owned a Taurus SHO for several years.

If we leveled the playing field, the old Charger would have a 318 or 360, since very few old Chargers had Hemi's, or even 383's.

What is possible to buy, and what is bough are 2 different things.

I'm sure more hemi Chargers are being built and sold now...............

Until I launch a new CHarger, I guess I won't know.

I suspect a lot of old cars were actually timed by "seat of the pants"............... newer cars often "feel" slower, but are in fact quicker, they are just more refined.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 11:36:06 AM EDT
Sorry but I dont consider a Taurus SHO a powerful front drive vehicle. My little Nissan SER rapes SHO's like they are standing still and it's at best a mid 14 second car. I'm talking 250-300whp.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:59:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By YELLOWV:
Sorry but I dont consider a Taurus SHO a powerful front drive vehicle. My little Nissan SER rapes SHO's like they are standing still and it's at best a mid 14 second car. I'm talking 250-300whp.



Umm, the older SHO's had the 200 and some horse 24v 3.0 V6, and the later models had the 4.6 V8 I believe. I know they had some kind of V8 in them. Care to explain to me how that isn't a powerful fwd vehicle?
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 8:40:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/3/2005 10:14:38 AM EDT by legalese77]

Originally Posted By jaqattack02:

Originally Posted By YELLOWV:
Sorry but I dont consider a Taurus SHO a powerful front drive vehicle. My little Nissan SER rapes SHO's like they are standing still and it's at best a mid 14 second car. I'm talking 250-300whp.



Umm, the older SHO's had the 200 and some horse 24v 3.0 V6, and the later models had the 4.6 V8 I believe. I know they had some kind of V8 in them. Care to explain to me how that isn't a powerful fwd vehicle?



Actually, it was a 3.4L. Whether or not 235 bhp/230 lb/ft at the crank is 'powerful' is, of course, a matter of opinion. It's certainly not overwhelming for a car that weighs 3500lb and that is borne out in the 7.5s or so 0-60 times. Stock 3.4L SHO 1/4 times are nearly 16 seconds.

p.s., THIS is a GTO:



Link Posted: 8/3/2005 12:01:16 PM EDT
A SHO weighs a hell of a lot more than an SRT-4. When I said powerful front wheel drive vehicle I should have been specific and said 4 cylinder turbo. I'm talking a 2500-2800lb vehicle with the power I stated earlier. Even the V8 SHO's were mid 15 second cars at best.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 4:47:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By legalese77:

Originally Posted By jaqattack02:

Originally Posted By YELLOWV:
Sorry but I dont consider a Taurus SHO a powerful front drive vehicle. My little Nissan SER rapes SHO's like they are standing still and it's at best a mid 14 second car. I'm talking 250-300whp.



Umm, the older SHO's had the 200 and some horse 24v 3.0 V6, and the later models had the 4.6 V8 I believe. I know they had some kind of V8 in them. Care to explain to me how that isn't a powerful fwd vehicle?



Actually, it was a 3.4L. Whether or not 235 bhp/230 lb/ft at the crank is 'powerful' is, of course, a matter of opinion. It's certainly not overwhelming for a car that weighs 3500lb and that is borne out in the 7.5s or so 0-60 times. Stock 3.4L SHO 1/4 times are nearly 16 seconds.

p.s., THIS is a GTO:

img308.imageshack.us/img308/9048/69judgeragtop0026ev.jpg




Yes, that's an old GTO, this is a new GTO:


Times and cars change, you guys need to accept that, and stop whining that new cars are coming out with the old name. At least the new GTO has some serious power under the hood, and, in my opinion at least, lives up to it's heritage pretty well, even if it doesn't look a whole lot like the old one.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 8:49:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 8:50:09 AM EDT by legalese77]

Originally Posted By jaqattack02:

Times and cars change, you guys need to accept that, and stop whining that new cars are coming out with the old name. At least the new GTO has some serious power under the hood, and, in my opinion at least, lives up to it's heritage pretty well, even if it doesn't look a whole lot like the old one.



Nobody's whining, but labeling a Holden Monaro 'GTO' is more marketing than the modern embodiment of the classic and its heritage. You opinion is just that. Why is it that because you have an apparently different opinion, anyone who doesn't agree is whining? good grief.


p.s. that ugly turd looks like the bastard child of a grand prix and a monte carlo
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 10:05:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By legalese77:

Originally Posted By jaqattack02:

Times and cars change, you guys need to accept that, and stop whining that new cars are coming out with the old name. At least the new GTO has some serious power under the hood, and, in my opinion at least, lives up to it's heritage pretty well, even if it doesn't look a whole lot like the old one.



Nobody's whining, but labeling a Holden Monaro 'GTO' is more marketing than the modern embodiment of the classic and its heritage. You opinion is just that. Why is it that because you have an apparently different opinion, anyone who doesn't agree is whining? good grief.


p.s. that ugly turd looks like the bastard child of a grand prix and a monte carlo



I have to disagree about the whining part, not necessarily you, but in general. There's been lots of it about both the Charger and the GTO.

You're right though, it is a good a bit of marketing involved, but it's still a sweet car, hot looking in my opinion. If it makes any difference, I think 06 will be the last year of ths model, then they will be coming out with a new redesigned model of it for 08. Supposedly this one will look more like the old school goats.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 10:42:55 AM EDT
I was quite dissapointed w/ the 04 GTO. VERY plain looking and 350hp. Nothing special although still a pretty damn good car that mods real easy. W/ the 05 I think GM got it right. They made it more aggressive looking w/ the ram air hood and dual exhaust and they gave it some real balls. You do have to remember the original formula of the GTO. In 64' all GM did was take a plain old Le Mans and put a big engine in it. It wasn't any super exotic looking car. GM basically did the same thing with the new GTO although now it can stop and turn as well and it's very comfortable and pretty damned refined for a Pontiac.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 10:55:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By YELLOWV:
I was quite dissapointed w/ the 04 GTO. VERY plain looking and 350hp. Nothing special although still a pretty damn good car that mods real easy. W/ the 05 I think GM got it right. They made it more aggressive looking w/ the ram air hood and dual exhaust and they gave it some real balls. You do have to remember the original formula of the GTO. In 64' all GM did was take a plain old Le Mans and put a big engine in it. It wasn't any super exotic looking car. GM basically did the same thing with the new GTO although now it can stop and turn as well and it's very comfortable and pretty damned refined for a Pontiac.



This is exactly what I meant by saying it kept to the heritage of the original.

Well said
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 12:51:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 12:52:20 PM EDT by Striker]
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 1:40:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jaqattack02:

You're right though, it is a good a bit of marketing involved, but it's still a sweet car, hot looking in my opinion. If it makes any difference, I think 06 will be the last year of ths model, then they will be coming out with a new redesigned model of it for 08. Supposedly this one will look more like the old school goats.



Holden (the Australian branch of GM that makes the bodies for the GTO) has already announced that they will stop selling the Aust version (the Monaro) here in Aust at the end of this year, but they will keep building it for export to the US and UK (where it's sold as the Vauxhall Monaro). There's been no announcement that they will have a replacement model available in Aust in 06, but it's likely that there will be an equivilent model in the pipeline to fill the 2 door large wheelbase coupe niche in countries where GM doesn't have something similar to the 'vette.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 5:24:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Striker:
If I was going to buy a new / old Mopar..I'd wait for this to go into production.
www.weblogsinc.com/common/images/0039361835960125.JPG

Concept drawing of a 2008 Challenger. Now that is a bad ass looking car from the grill back.I think the front is ugly.



I think that's a concept rendering, the real thing probably won't look much like that.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 5:33:49 PM EDT
If you want to save some money just get the V6 version grand prix
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 5:46:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 5:47:33 PM EDT by VLODPG]

Originally Posted By jaqattack02:

Originally Posted By Striker:
If I was going to buy a new / old Mopar..I'd wait for this to go into production.
www.weblogsinc.com/common/images/0039361835960125.JPG

Concept drawing of a 2008 Challenger. Now that is a bad ass looking car from the grill back.I think the front is ugly.



I think that's a concept rendering, the real thing probably won't look much like that.



True,

The Charger is proof of that! Dodge stepped on their dick again! A Charger with 2 doors too many! No manual transmission with a Hurst Pistol Grip!

That concept looks like a 71 Cuda! Now if they made that like a 70 Challenger (2 door)with the Hemi option & manual transmission, Id give my left nutt for one!
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 5:48:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 3:57:05 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 7:02:04 PM EDT
I work for a Pontiac dealership, and I'd get an '05 GTO in a heartbeat if I had the cash.

Cons:
Rear visibility
tiny trunk
no factory sunroof / onstar / XM
the key is flippin huge, and has the keyless entry remote built in.

Pros:
Everything else
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 10:21:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mr_camera_man:
I work for a Pontiac dealership, and I'd get an '05 GTO in a heartbeat if I had the cash.

Cons:
Rear visibility
tiny trunk
no factory sunroof / onstar / XM
the key is flippin huge, and has the keyless entry remote built in.

Pros:
Everything else



I drive a stratus coupe, and of the con's listed, mine already has low rear visibility, no factory sunroof, onstar, and xm. Key is ok, and trunk is huge. For 400 hp and 6 spd rwd car, I think I can make a sacrfice and deal with the big key and small trunk.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 1:45:02 AM EDT
People who need to say that need to realize, That the GTO of the 60's was thier era GTO, They one thats rolling off the Assembly line know is the GTO of my era. And I would bet today GTO would blow away the GTO of the 60's.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 8:30:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sixgun357:
People who need to say that need to realize, That the GTO of the 60's was thier era GTO, They one thats rolling off the Assembly line know is the GTO of my era. And I would bet today GTO would blow away the GTO of the 60's.



That's for sure, same goes for the Charger.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 9:29:15 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 5:46:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Striker:

Originally Posted By Sixgun357:
People who need to say that need to realize, That the GTO of the 60's was thier era GTO, They one thats rolling off the Assembly line know is the GTO of my era. And I would bet today GTO would blow away the GTO of the 60's.


You do realize..if not the for the GTO of the 60's..you wouldn't have the GTO of today.
As for todays GTO blowing away the original..in off the assembly line form, it probably would.
Now if you applied todays suspension technology, fuel management,tires, brakes and cooling ability to the original...I wouldn't bet the farm on the new one winning.



Forget all of those things. Just tires and the the two GTO's would be pretty evenly matched. Now the new Charger vs. a 68' Hemi Charger or even a 440 on todays tires the new Charger would get ripped a new asshole so wide that it would'nt even be funny. The new goat is capable of 12 second 1/4 miles. Very impressive for a 3900 lb sport coupe. The New Charger is in the low 14's. Even on todays tires not much faster than the old Charger on crappy, skinny bias ply tires.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 8:15:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By YELLOWV:
Most old muscle cars posted slow times back in the 60's and 70's due to crap tires. Take those same stock cars today and put a good set of modern rear tires on them and those times would drop considerably. A 68' 440 charger back in 68' would run high 14's. Slower than the new Charger. Yet put a set of wider modern tires on it and that time would be at least in the low 13's if not better. Are you saying it is easier to lauch a turbo FWD car than a RWD Charger? I dont think so. I am not familiar with the Dodges traction control system but I would imagine like most other modern American made muscle cars it has an off switch.



Well in stock vs stock the new cars will perform better. The new cars are also easier to drive for most people.

RWD Charger, 50% of weight on rear tires appx. When you whack open the throttle there is more than enough power to cause wheelspin. A little won't hur acceleration. BUT, most "traction control" systems will apply the brakes if the POSSIBILITY of wheel spin is predicted, and if that isn't enough, begin dropping out fuel to cylinders.

On an SRT-4, something like 65-70% (Guess) of the vehicle's weight is on the front tires. More weight on the tires=more traction. The turbo won't be putting out power until it is spooled up. So the tires have to have enough traction to hook-up at launch, like the car has a normally aspirated engine. Then, after the car is moving and the turbo spools up, it will add power. That power, since the car is hooked up and already moving is less likely to break those tire loose than if it was applied to the tires at 0 mph.




You assessment of FWD turbo traction was hilarious. Thanks.

As for the GTO, it is way too understated for me. If I spend that kind of money on a sports car I want a little more flair than the GP styling that it inherited, and it does not go fast enough for me to overlook it.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 8:21:23 PM EDT
FWD is the suck because the weight transfers to the back tires at launch anyway, and they torque steer if they have decent power.

Ever see a FWD drag car? There are a few of them, but they run slower than a similar vehicle set up for RWD.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 7:55:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
FWD is the suck because the weight transfers to the back tires at launch anyway, and they torque steer if they have decent power.

Ever see a FWD drag car? There are a few of them, but they run slower than a similar vehicle set up for RWD.



Exactly. FWD was invented to decrease productions costs, improve fuel economy, and offer safer handling for the average Joe (meaning understeer).

Now, you can make a FWD car perform pretty well, in some cases VERY well, but that's like modifying a Ferarri to get better fuel economy.


Purpose-built race cars are always either RWD or AWD.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 1:23:23 AM EDT
Top Top