MotorWeek - Retro Review: '87 GM Muscle Cars: SS
Re: MotorWeek - Retro Review: '87 GM Muscle Cars: SS
It isn't a huge stretch to make a regular car version of the Camaro, like the 80's Monte kind of was. They don't look that far off considering they are 25 years apart (especially the grill/front clip of the Camaro). They should just use the Alpha platform and make a Monte Carlo SS, but have the seat position a little higher than the Camaro, more like the ATS. They could make a 4 door version and call it the Caprice, and G and B body fans could rejoice that there is a car to buy again that doesn't cost 50K.
Re: MotorWeek - Retro Review: '87 GM Muscle Cars: SS
I would wager an informed bet that the cost of making a new model (even on an existing chassis) is a lot more expensive than it used to be. GM would have to have a business case for it, either in terms of direct ROI, or on return from the marketing benefit. I just don't know the answer.
Historically, and I'm making up these numbers for the sake of conversation, most informal internet polls about "would you buy this if they build it" result in a lot of passion, and probably less than 10% actual putting their money where their mouth is. I'm not saying you wouldn't be in that 10%, but it's what happens. You know why? Because most people on sites like Jalopnik don't stop and think about how THEY acquire vehicles. They buy them used and depreciated. This isn't rocket science. Someone has to step up and buy the damn thing new, before it can be a used car. It would be like saying they should have made a RWD G-body replacement in 2007 so you could buy one today. That's great, but could they have sold that then, in numbers? You can't ignore that question.
Historically, and I'm making up these numbers for the sake of conversation, most informal internet polls about "would you buy this if they build it" result in a lot of passion, and probably less than 10% actual putting their money where their mouth is. I'm not saying you wouldn't be in that 10%, but it's what happens. You know why? Because most people on sites like Jalopnik don't stop and think about how THEY acquire vehicles. They buy them used and depreciated. This isn't rocket science. Someone has to step up and buy the damn thing new, before it can be a used car. It would be like saying they should have made a RWD G-body replacement in 2007 so you could buy one today. That's great, but could they have sold that then, in numbers? You can't ignore that question.
Re: MotorWeek - Retro Review: '87 GM Muscle Cars: SS
What about the 04-06 GTO? Those should be pretty well depreciated by now.kevm14 wrote:It would be like saying they should have made a RWD G-body replacement in 2007 so you could buy one today.
Re: MotorWeek - Retro Review: '87 GM Muscle Cars: SS
Actually, that's a great point. But the reason it isn't mentioned is because G-body people are so self-conscious that they are afraid someone might not approve of the body style, even though it is V8, RWD with IRS, and affordable. Sucks to be them I guess.
In my case, I am not interested in a 2 door, so what I would lament is a Holden VZ sedan that was imported in that timeframe (i.e. a Commodore):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holden_Commodore_(VZ)
In my case, I am not interested in a 2 door, so what I would lament is a Holden VZ sedan that was imported in that timeframe (i.e. a Commodore):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holden_Commodore_(VZ)
Re: MotorWeek - Retro Review: '87 GM Muscle Cars: SS
C/D did a comparison in 2005 between the Mustang GT (which was new then, with a 3 valve 4.6), and the updated 2005 GTO (LS2, better brakes, scoops, true dual exhaust, misc).
Spoiler alert: the Mustang GT won. By a single point. Anyway, that is subjective. What isn't subjective, is the stats and specs. See attachments.
GTO is fairly porky at 3,787 (barely lighter than my CTS-V). Though this is very similar to the Gen 5 Camaro, so you can't be too critical. The Mustang GT was almost 3,600 so it wasn't exactly a featherweight, especially with only 300 hp.
The GTO completely dominated in acceleration.
How about 0-60 in 4.8 and the 1/4 in 13.3 @ 107? LS2 is 400hp and 400 lb-ft, by the way. 6.0. And with a 4" bore, it can accept the later model L92-style rectangular port heads so there is tremendous future potential.
As far as chassis, I will admit the GTO is more GT tuned (ironically) so the Mustang has a significant advantage in lane change. But in terms of braking, the GTO did 70-0 in 167 feet which is fairly good and 3 feet better than the Mustang GT. The GTO also pulled 0.88G which was only 0.01G worse than the Mustang GT.
Overall, I cannot see how you could overlook this car/platform. Just need a price check to confirm value.
Spoiler alert: the Mustang GT won. By a single point. Anyway, that is subjective. What isn't subjective, is the stats and specs. See attachments.
GTO is fairly porky at 3,787 (barely lighter than my CTS-V). Though this is very similar to the Gen 5 Camaro, so you can't be too critical. The Mustang GT was almost 3,600 so it wasn't exactly a featherweight, especially with only 300 hp.
The GTO completely dominated in acceleration.
How about 0-60 in 4.8 and the 1/4 in 13.3 @ 107? LS2 is 400hp and 400 lb-ft, by the way. 6.0. And with a 4" bore, it can accept the later model L92-style rectangular port heads so there is tremendous future potential.
As far as chassis, I will admit the GTO is more GT tuned (ironically) so the Mustang has a significant advantage in lane change. But in terms of braking, the GTO did 70-0 in 167 feet which is fairly good and 3 feet better than the Mustang GT. The GTO also pulled 0.88G which was only 0.01G worse than the Mustang GT.
Overall, I cannot see how you could overlook this car/platform. Just need a price check to confirm value.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: MotorWeek - Retro Review: '87 GM Muscle Cars: SS
The GTO is an updated F-Body/F-Body replacement, it isn't really like a car like the Monte was. Kevin, saying that the GTO is the next step from the G-Body is like saying it is the 2 door version of the B-Body, which it isn't. It is also ugly, and has zero styling that emulates the Monte.
I would argue that the new Camaro at least has some styling cues from the Monte. Which I do like. Why is it closed minded to not really like a car that looks nothing like a car I do like? I would rather go the souped up Cadillac route because I like the styling better. To me the GTO looks like a big late 90's Cavalier.
I would argue that the new Camaro at least has some styling cues from the Monte. Which I do like. Why is it closed minded to not really like a car that looks nothing like a car I do like? I would rather go the souped up Cadillac route because I like the styling better. To me the GTO looks like a big late 90's Cavalier.
Re: MotorWeek - Retro Review: '87 GM Muscle Cars: SS
I agree that it will be cheap power pretty soon. Currently they are around 13K. I think I would prefer the 2000 Trans Am though, but I don't see myself buying that either. I guess I am looking at the Monte, Gen 5 Camaro 1LE, or a Cadillac, or if GM makes something new RWD and affordable that looks good. So a Monte, Gen 5 Camaro, or Cadillac. I have come to the conclusion that I will never be able to buy something I like from GM new. It is too bad because if there was something affordable, I wouldn't mind buying it new because of the new reliability standards. You can finance over 6 years, and I would keep it for much longer, like double that time. Life is short. I am not going to finance 45K for a Camaro though.
Re: MotorWeek - Retro Review: '87 GM Muscle Cars: SS
Negative. It has the passenger space (including rear seat), overall size, upright seating position and overall approach to handling which is identical to the mission of the G-body. It is sedan-based. There's nothing closer to a G-body that was made since 1988.billgiacheri wrote:The GTO is an updated F-Body/F-Body replacement, it isn't really like a car like the Monte was.
Re: MotorWeek - Retro Review: '87 GM Muscle Cars: SS
Enjoy.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: MotorWeek - Retro Review: '87 GM Muscle Cars: SS
And now there are millions of those terrible things clogging the roads and filling the junkyards with fantastic power plants for us to put back into our B and G bodies. Everyone wins.kevm14 wrote:I can only be mad at people who were clamoring for fullsize SUVs. GM was just making things that could be sold for the most profit, as they damn well should be.