PDA

View Full Version : 3 quick cars.GTO vs Caddy vsChrysler



John B
04-22-2005, 04:23 AM
all low 13 sec straight off the showroom floor. naturally aspirated and, in the case of the GTO anyway, strangled by exhaust and induction restrictions. motortrend article (http://motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0502_trio/index.html)


The GTO is of course, the Holden Monaro dressed with a different face. The 2005 model is getting the LS2 motor though ,and thats only available in HSV models here as yet.The LS2 motor has come out here at 400 hp with cast iron manifolds . people are putting LS1 headers on and picking up 25 or 30 hp easily. The codes haven't been cracked yet so editing the engine computer is yet to come for giant leaps I suspect.
The Holden( and so the genesis of the GTO) has been in that form since about 1998 and is still the old "organic" design. the rounded look. So it looks a bit dated compared with the new squared off corners of the Caddy and Chrysler. New shapes due for the Holdens in 2006 with the new zeta platform they are going to hang their hat on.

anyway... interesting read. The new age of muscle cars.

Hwyl
04-22-2005, 04:45 AM
Hmmm, one of the few times I'll disagree with you. Did I read correctly "pushrod" engines. Perhaps they would have been more successful if they'd gone the whole way and gone to sidevalve. I'm not an engine expert, is there any advantage to pushrods? Are they carbon now? It would always seem an extremely heavy way of opening valves. What happened to desmodronic? I'd have thought engines would be revving to 15,000 by now.

The article meandered a bit. I'm assuming the Cadillac still has front wheel drive, at least that's a nod to the developments of the last 40 years.

GM just announced a huge loss.

John B
04-22-2005, 04:56 AM
Front drive! wash your mouth out Hwyl :D
Ford has brought out a nice developed overhead cam V8 they are putting in everything. Yes its more advanced technically speaking but ... it weighs a lot more than the alloy pushrod engines, it develops the same/similar hp and its physically a monster necessitating a ridiculous bulge in the bonnet ( wassat.. hood ?) so it fits in the local Ford Falcon, and its no more economical. so technology for the sake of it ?as many are saying.. the motor is delivering so why go complex. I read a Jay Leno article recently about the C6 Corvette saying the same and I agree.

DOD next.

[ 04-22-2005, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: John B ]

John B
04-22-2005, 05:11 AM
Here, I'll explain. Today was a machine day for us. School holidays, I've got the kids, Kirsty is in the States and my way of amusing them was to go to the local transport museum. We stood beside a running triple expansion steam engine out of a ferry which was sunk in Australia.under a lancaster bomber, peered in the windows of a Sunderland flying boat, looked at a Curtis Kittyhawk,Vampire jet, rode a tram and a carriage towed by 2 percheron horses .And THEN, just to complete the day Dad just had to stop at every car yard on the way home just to see what was going. oooooooo
TT quattro coupe.ooooo. HSV clubsport.mmmmmmm.HSV GTO ooo yeah.

cars and boats. Where's wind and the willows for some bed time reading. ;)

The steam engine is from the Greycliffe if anyone is interested.
web page (http://brew.clients.ch/MDaily.htm)

[ 04-22-2005, 06:24 AM: Message edited by: John B ]

brad9798
04-22-2005, 08:16 AM
I read that ... good stuff.

If only GM would have some balls when it comes to design (with the exception of the Cadillac moniker) ...

The new 'GTO' except for the engine ... is pathetically embarassing to the GTO badge.

Another classic 'OldsmoBuick' design ...

John B
04-22-2005, 08:33 AM
I think just about everyone down this way hates whats been done to the Monaro. Its actually quite a subtle looking machine in its original form ,before it had the Pontiac front stuck on it. And without having to carry the historical Pontiac baggage along with it.Any way.. as I said , its old hat styling now because its from the 90's.The HSV GTO/GTS sold here is a much better looking car IMO.

John Bell
04-22-2005, 08:47 AM
" Perhaps they would have been more successful if they'd gone the whole way and gone to sidevalve."

:D Yearning for the days of the flathead V-8, eh?

(Although I'm sure you meant overhead cams...)

FWIW, the pushrod smallblock V-8 has been under constant development since the 50's. Current versions are Very Good Indeed. Going to an OHC design would open the door to some other neat performance enhancing tricks like variable valve timing, etc, but it's not necessary when you've got 400+ ponies on tap. The stock car guys are getting 800+ horses out of a carbed pushrod 358 ci small block these days which it pretty darned impressive.

The Caddy is a rear driver.

What is the most powerful front-drive car, anyway?

Chadd Hamilton
04-22-2005, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by brad9798:
[QB]The new 'GTO' except for the engine ... is pathetically embarassing to the GTO badge.
QB]Brad, I totally agree. I kind of expected them to go the retro-route, maybe using the '67 GTO styling. Oh no. Looks like a cross between a Grand Am and a Ford Mustang...shame shame.

Chadd

Ross M
04-22-2005, 10:01 AM
Anyone else just hate plastic engine covers?

I blame the Germans. MB & BMW specifically.

Ross

John Bell
04-22-2005, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by Ross M:
Anyone else just hate plastic engine covers?

I blame the Germans. MB & BMW specifically.

RossAgreed. Even my wife's lowly Sienna minivan has one. I've no idea what the engine looks like on that thing!

brad9798
04-22-2005, 10:10 AM
Yes- Chadd, as usual, GM gets into the retro game about five years too late ... then in name only.

GM has a new 'retro' ... kind of like a PT Cruiser looking thing coming out about 2-3 years after the rush. :rolleyes:

HOWEVER, they do seem to be pretty decent on the retro Camaro coming out in 2007???

brian.cunningham
04-22-2005, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by John Bell:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ross M:
Anyone else just hate plastic engine covers?

I blame the Germans. MB & BMW specifically.

RossAgreed. Even my wife's lowly Sienna minivan has one. I've no idea what the engine looks like on that thing!</font>[/QUOTE]They look like they have 2 hoods! Rediculous.

Regarding pushrods vs overhead cams.
Chevy did that with the ZR1 Corvette, which was great on a sportscar, but when they went with the LS1 they created an engine that had enough low end torque that it could be run in all thier prodicts and not just they're performance cars. Overhead cam engines are big ( large heads to hold the cams ) and heavy (2 or 4 cams vs 1 ), with all that extra weight up top. Also they sacrifice low end torque to get the high end performace. Modern 2 valve head breath just as well and can run just as much compression as the 4 valve heads. Also with the smaller heads, you can run a bigger displacement in the same space. The new Z06 has 7 liters

John B
04-22-2005, 03:24 PM
Engine covers.. the first thing you do is remove them. They are a heat trap and kill power. the funny thing is that the ls1 motors come out here with a turtle shell single cover. get car.. get turtle off is #1. But they are sought after by the GTO boys in the U.S. :rolleyes:
Mine hangs on the wall in the garage.
I 've tried to talk myself into a monaro but a big GT coupe like that should be able to shoe horn in a 5th person IMO. at the very least it should have split folding rear seats so you can chuck the oars in. ;)
Did you do the road trip OK Brian?

brian.cunningham
04-23-2005, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by John B:
Did you do the road trip OK Brian?NO, I still haven't gone yet! :mad:
Work keeps moving the scheduale around.

John B
04-24-2005, 05:43 PM
strangely enough, Top Gear, Clarksons motor show , was on tv last night with the UK version of the Monaro( Vauxhall vxt?), the Chrysler 300 and a supercharged S type Jag as the 3rd car.
They loved the look and power and PRICE of the chrysler but made some salient points in the comparison.
jag... Clarkson hates the S type but gave it credit for its 400 hp and superb handling and finish.
Chrysler.. fantastic looks and amazing price by comparison with the jag and any other euro offering. Profoundly disappointed with the soft handling and poor brakes. very annoyed with the lack of an off switch for the traction control! I hadn't realised that it had DOD ( displacement on demand).
Monaro/vauxhall/GTO...the truest to the old musclecar mould. I hadn't reall thought about it but of course nowdays most high powered cars are full of electronic aids..the point he made about this car is it has ABS and a primitive traction contol( same as my car. it comes on by default, I turn mine off automatically each time I start up) So the point they made was that this was a raw 370 hp( the version he was driving) manual stick car which handled and drove fast and well without the props.In short they raved about it.

Its a shame its been sold as a Pontiac GTO really. All that emotional baggage it has to carry. Its a great car in its own right. The Vauxhall version is an HSV ( Holden Special Vehicles)body kit and looks a lot better too.

Beowolf
04-24-2005, 07:08 PM
Why are so many people so hard on the GTO? Granted, the original predates me by ten years, but if my history is correct, back in the day, they (Pontiac) took the smallest car in their line-up (The Tempest), dropped the most race ready engine they could into it, modified the suspension to utilize it and put it on the market at a price that made it available to the masses.

40 years later, GM took the baddest motor they had, dropped it into the smallest car that could handle it, beefed up the drivetrain and suspension accordingly and put it on the market for as reasonable a price as possible. I honestly don't see a difference. (400 HP for $30,000)

So it's not square, and the headlights aren't stacked on top of each other. I for one am glad that they didn't follow everyone else with the whole retro thing.

In fact, if you want my opinion (which no one has specifically asked for, but it's never stopped me in the past...) The closest thing to the old muscle cars are today's import tuners. Affordable, lots of available aftermarket performance goodies, and for similar chunks of cash, you get similar performance. Ask MJC to compare one of his son's sr20det Nissans to a 64 Impala. My guess is that the Nissan will put the Impala a full second behind it in a 1/4 mile.

Jeff

John B
04-24-2005, 07:23 PM
"and put it on the market at a price that made it available to the masses."
well put. its not there to be compared in ultimate terms to a Ferrari or any other supercar that costs anywhere from 50% to 300% more.
its bang for buck go. and a one hell of a lot of fun.

John Bell
04-24-2005, 07:52 PM
I think the main criticism of the new GTO isn't its performance, but it's ho-hum styling. The dang thing is indistiguishable from a Chevy Cavalier or a Pontiac Sunfire! If you want a stealth car, that might be a good thing, but most people wanted something more visually exciting and distinctive.

I agree the GTO moniker was unfortunate. There is too much emotional baggage for what is otherwise a good car to have to carry.

John B
04-24-2005, 08:11 PM
as a vauxhall it looks like this
http://wunschauto24.com/news/newssys/galerie/4728/4728_1.jpg
which , apart from the new nostrils ,is a 2002 HSV GTO. 2005 sees the nostrils (added to placate the US Market) and the change from LS1 to LS2 engine. 400 hp and a flatter earlier torque curve/ delivery.

Beowolf
04-24-2005, 08:13 PM
I can understand where a lot of people are disappointed in the appearance. I happen to like it. It's very "clean" and solid looking. Lines match up, proportions fit. I'm so glad that Pontiac has finally drifted away from the plastic ruffled potato chip look.

Jeff

Beowolf
04-24-2005, 08:14 PM
John, I love the car in that photo!!!!! Wow! that looks good.

John B
04-24-2005, 08:20 PM
They have great impact in the flesh ,Jeff.
I'll find a pic of the donor car. so understated. this is the CV8 Monaro. same shape from about 2002 to now.
http://www.autobuy.co.nz/dealers/910/car/247026_medium_top.jpg

see what I mean. no fruit.Not even a rear spoiler. 2005 sees the nostrils added but it keeps the LS1.

[ 04-24-2005, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: John B ]

John Bell
04-24-2005, 08:31 PM
Sorry about the blow-up, but this illustrates the problem.

http://www.autogazeta.com/c/8/b/pontiac_sunfire_gt_baltimore_03.jpg
http://www.rsportscars.com/foto/03/pontiacgto05_02.jpg

I agree the the new "Goat" is attractive, but it's nothing special in a pretty stellar feild.

Personally, I'd save about 10K and spring for an '05 Mustang GT. Not in the same class performance-wise as a GTO or CTS-V, but what a great looking car! And no one will ever mistake it for an econobox 'sports' coupe! ;)

John B
04-24-2005, 09:09 PM
I can't see the connection myself there John. But then I 'm used to seeing them in the flesh. that whatever it is doesn't even make me look.
I'm biased towards action over appearance myself though. The first thing I did with the sedan version of that monaro.. an SS Holden, was to remove all the badges that said " generation 3"and " SS" in numerous locations around the car. Within reason I don't care what it looks like. I do care about how it goes though.
Having said all that. Yep...I like that muzzie too.

John B
04-24-2005, 09:21 PM
This is the recently facelifted/upgraded Holden HSV LS2 clubsport.400 hp detuned for the market.spit on it for an extra 30 hp or so and whatever else when the computer codes are cracked and packaged for the tuning guys. When the Chrysler arrives here it will be directly competing for the market this car has a hold on here and in Aus. This the last run of the old vt body which has been about since 98 or so. Zeta is out next year and by all accounts we'll have a car which looks more like an Audi on steroids.

http://www.powerupdates.com/clients/Moyes/ImageLibrary/Nov20hsv.jpg

[ 04-25-2005, 12:46 AM: Message edited by: John B ]