PDA

View Full Version : GTO. A car to lust after?


JST
08-20-2003, 02:35 PM
Maybe. Maybe not. But in order to decide, you need to visit the website and listen to the sound clips of its exhaust.

http://www.pontiac.com/

Click on the GTO site on the bottom left; I wish I could provide a more direct link, but it's all Flash stuff that I can't score a URL from.

It sounds sooo cool, and the interior looks like it's about thirty steps above anything we've ever seen in a GM (let alone a Pontiac), even if the red is a bit flashy. I dig the shift light, too--nice touch.

I'm keeping a very close eye on this car.

Alex Baumann
08-20-2003, 02:45 PM
:yikes: what a sound !

Err, why not ? We all criticized the E60 and said it looked like a Pontiac, but this one doesn't have an ugly butt :dunno:

6-Speed, V8, 350 hp sound like a very good combination to me.

EDIT : Do you think it'd be possible to delete the rear spoiler ?

routesixtysixer
08-20-2003, 03:17 PM
It really doesn't look too bad. I was tempted to wait until I could actually drive one before deciding on a new car... but I decided, "Hey, I'll get my 330Ci now and in a few years, after they have depreciated 50%, I'll get a two or three year old GTO to replace my wife's car! Then I'll have it all!" :thumbup:

in_d_haus
08-20-2003, 03:48 PM
Nuthin like the sound of an American V8! :yikes:
5.7L 350 hp.... :thumbup:

Bob330Ci
08-20-2003, 03:53 PM
Built on the Catera chassis, which is pretty underrated. I found the Catera to be pretty capable. Can't wait to try one of these things.

B.

mbalke
08-20-2003, 03:57 PM
I was just down under visiting family and friends. Actually got to sit in the HSV (Holden Special Vehicles) GTO :yikes: :yikes: :yikes: Now that is performance. Tried to get a drive but to no avail :mad:

Try this link to see the big brother of the imported GTO

http://www.hsv.com.au/vy/1024/default.html

The GTS is SWEEEEEEEEET

Jeff_DML
08-20-2003, 04:24 PM
sounds nice, I would take the CTS-V over it though.

Are both are based on the same fundamental engine? Wonder if the V will sound similiar.

Jetfire
08-20-2003, 04:53 PM
Eh. I was really psyched for this car, and when Lutz promised to bring it to America I started to follow it very closely. My problem is with the styling -- it reminds me of the front of a previous-generation Grand Prix attached to the rear of a two-door Sunfire/Cavalier. :( A car with this much power and potential should really have been styled more distinctively than this. Not necessarily audaciously (think Trans Am) but not quite so generic.

I still would love to drive one. But I'm more excited about the CTS-V these days, even if they're not quite in the same price range.

bmw325
08-20-2003, 05:50 PM
Agree w/ Alex. If Bangle is going to try and get us all to drive Pontiacs, we might as well drive the real thing-- and get a nice sounding V8 while we're at it.

JST
08-20-2003, 07:36 PM
sounds nice, I would take the CTS-V over it though.

Are both are based on the same fundamental engine? Wonder if the V will sound similiar.


Yes, it's the same 5.7 liter (346 cid, IIRC). The GTO uses a mildly tuned LS1 V8, with a different cam and exhaust but basically the same as in the Corvette. The CTS-V employs the LS6 derivation of that engine, which is what is used in the Z06. The GTO has 350 hp, and the CTS-V has 400. I imagine that the CTS-V will sound a little less aggressive, just because it's image as an uber-luxury performance car demands a bit more subtlety of tone than the bad-boy image Pontiac is looking for with the GTO.

Jetfire, I agree that the styling is a bit weak, and there is some Cavalier in the rear 3/4 view. But it's not offensive, and is a fairly clean design. It reminds me quite a bit of the old Grant Prix, though the Grand Prix actually had a nicer rear end. It'll do. In black, it might even be a sleeper, which is fine with me.

The biggest question marks for me revolve around the dynamics. The reviews I've read of the Monaro point out that it is more of a comfy GT than a real heavy duty performance car, and mention explicitly weak areas such as the brakes. I know GM is making some changes; I hope these areas are addressed.

If this car comes in at the 35-40K price point, I'll take it very seriously. At that price, it's a competitor for the 330 rather than the M3, and on paper it looks like a good match.

And that *engine...*

·clyde·
08-20-2003, 07:43 PM
And that *engine...*

It's not 1964 anymore, but that engine was always the point of the GTO. This new GTO isn't the same thing. After reading more and more about it and thinking more and more about it, IMVHO, this new one should not be called a GTO. But that's just the semantic traditionalist in me, I guess.

Jetfire
08-20-2003, 07:51 PM
At that price point, I will hazard a guess that you will trade the 330's interior refinement and appointments for the LS1. A fair trade, sort of. I don't mind a less optioned or less luxurious interior, but one of the things I hated about my Grand Prix was its Duplo interior build quality and penchant for squeaks/rattles. I'm of the opinion that GM can improve in this area, but I doubt that the interior will hold up as well in three years as my M3 has in sixteen.

The suspension and brakes give me further doubt. Then again, the GTO was never about handling and stopping. It was about GOING and taking down whoever was stupid enough to challenge. I don't think the GTO will disappoint there at all, especially with under $1000 in bolt-ons.

JST
08-20-2003, 07:55 PM
It's not 1964 anymore, but that engine was always the point of the GTO. This new GTO isn't the same thing. After reading more and more about it and thinking more and more about it, IMVHO, this new one should not be called a GTO. But that's just the semantic traditionalist in me, I guess.

Well, given that it wasn't a homologation special and that it wasn't built in Italy, the first Pontiac to bear the name never should have, either.

The GTO is credited with popularizing the muscle car trend, but it was never the fastest nor most performance oriented car out there. The new one will likely be as fast in a straight line as any of the 60s GTOs. The old one probably was cheaper, on a relative basis, than the new one, which is positioned more upmarket. But GM has scant few entry level midsize RWD sedans/coupes anymore, so the options aren't too great.

Maybe they should have just called it "Tempest."

Jetfire
08-20-2003, 08:05 PM
Well, given that it wasn't a homologation special and that it wasn't built in Italy, the first Pontiac to bear the name never should have, either.

The GTO is credited with popularizing the muscle car trend, but it was never the fastest nor most performance oriented car out there. The new one will likely be as fast in a straight line as any of the 60s GTOs. The old one probably was cheaper, on a relative basis, than the new one, which is positioned more upmarket. But GM has scant few entry level midsize RWD sedans/coupes anymore, so the options aren't too great.

Maybe they should have just called it "Tempest."
GM has ONE entry level midsize RWD sedans/coupes. When you take Cadillac out of the picture, GM has none.

The moniker "GTO" was obviously chosen for its nostalgic brand value, but I think it fits the car pretty well. Of course, the new GTO isn't a souped-up version of a regular production car. And I don't think Car & Driver is going to write and article comparing it against anything from Modena this time around. Then again, C&D has done some truly nutty/funny things in the past.

After taking a really close look at the GTO at NAIAS last January, I'm still not sold on this car. I'm reasonably sure that it will move in a straight line, but neither the interior nor the exterior did much for me. I do like the Grand Prix-esque front treatment, which also looks quite a bit like the Pontiac G6 concept at the show. I also like the slick Pontiac crest - the border really makes it look good.

tgravo2
08-20-2003, 08:06 PM
It looks awesome, sounds awesome, and probably will be quick but I dunno if I could buy a pontiac :D

Kaz
08-20-2003, 08:28 PM
There's really never been any GM product, old or new, that I've 'lusted' after, so I can't comment on that.

But as for the idea of reviving the GTO name, I don't think it's a terrible idea. Considering the names they've abused (Impala SS, Malibu, Le Mans... goodness, IIRC the original Goat was a souped up Le Mans/Tempest... The last Le Mans was a Daewoo-built Opel Kadett...) at least it looks like this has something it actually could live up to. Maybe open it up to a Chevy version called the Chevelle?

bimmerpunk
08-20-2003, 08:37 PM
at least they are giving it an independent rear suspension, unlike Ford is doing with the 2005 Mustangs.

Im pretty dissapointed with the styling of the car. I was expecting something a little more agressive looking when I heard that the GTO was coming back. If recent history is any indication, GM will cut alot of corners in the production of the car. Expect alot of squeaks and poor handling.
GM said a few months that they were going to change their ways and make a better product. Lets hope that this is a start.

If its good enough, it might just sway me from buying a 330ci like I had planned.

eric5150
08-20-2003, 11:19 PM
I actually prefer this GTO:

http://www.symbolicmotors.com/frames/images/Contemporary/Vehicles/3622/362202.jpg

Jetfire
08-21-2003, 06:08 AM
I actually prefer this GTO:


If we're gonna talk Ferraris, I actually prefer this GTO:

http://next.web-cars.com/monterey_img/104-7_s.jpg

:D This is the model that C&D ran against a Pontiac GTO in 1964. The Pontiac was a ringer with an engine that you couldn't get in regular production, but I don't think C&D really disclosed that. Or did they, I can't remember that part of the story? Anyway, they ranked the Pontiac higher than the Ferrari. That article did a lot to bring attention to the souped-up Tempest and I think it helped to spur the muscle car movement.

·clyde·
08-21-2003, 06:10 AM
Maybe they should have just called it "Tempest."

Yes. And made the LS-6 part of a $300 GTO option package. :D

routesixtysixer
08-21-2003, 07:50 AM
The rumor is that it will sticker at $33,000... if so, it's not a bad deal. This is not your traditional GM production car... but a Holden from Australia. This accounts for the somewhat subdued styling, but also for the decent chassis tuning (more BMW-like in the ride/handling compromise) and way above typical GM interior quality. That said, they have de-contented a bit to bring the Holden Monaro to the states. No auto climate control, no seat memory, etc. Dealers are actually taking advanced orders (when was the last time a Pontiac dealer was able to do this!) and the first boatload should arrive in early November. Wonder if GTO customers will be as anal about tracking their ship as BMW people are with WW :D ?

Jetfire
08-21-2003, 07:55 AM
The rumor is that it will sticker at $33,000... if so, it's not a bad deal. This is not your traditional GM production car... but a Holden from Australia. This accounts for the somewhat subdued styling, but also for the decent chassis tuning (more BMW-like in the ride/handling compromise) and way above typical GM interior quality. That said, they have de-contented a bit to bring the Holden Monaro to the states. No auto climate control, no seat memory, etc. Dealers are actually taking advanced orders (when was the last time a Pontiac dealer was able to do this!) and the first boatload should arrive in early November. Wonder if GTO customers will be as anal about tracking their ship as BMW people are with WW :D ?
When I ordered my Grand Prix back in 10/99, I tracked it every minute of the way from order to production to shipping. I was going to make them keep the plastic stuff on the car until I got there to take it off personally, but forgot to ask them. Man, I still remember the day I brought her home. Ah, the memories....

So anyway, yeah, I bet there will be some super obsessive GTO owners waiting for their cars. Is the car going to be fully assembled in Australia, or will the chassis be brought stateside for assembly?

routesixtysixer
08-21-2003, 08:00 AM
They will be driving them off the boat ready to go (just like my 330Ci). Next gen GTO is already in the works; also to be built in Australia. Supposedly, there will be a Chevrolet version as well, to spread out production costs over at least three models: GTO, Chevelle(?), and Monaro.

Jetfire
08-21-2003, 08:52 AM
They will be driving them off the boat ready to go (just like my 330Ci). Next gen GTO is already in the works; also to be built in Australia. Supposedly, there will be a Chevrolet version as well, to spread out production costs over at least three models: GTO, Chevelle(?), and Monaro.
Woah, a Chevy version in the works as well? Very interesting, indeed.

I think this car will do well in the market, based on my gut instinct and some hubbub on a number of Pontiac boards I peruse on occasion. I almost bought a Camaro SS instead of that Grand Prix, and it looks like this might be the General's closest thing to those cars for the next couple of years.

Edit: These cars are probably going to ship with Cosmoline, aren't they? ROFLMAO. I bet no GTO from the past had to suffer THAT indignity. :D

pdz
08-21-2003, 10:30 AM
the only worrisome aspect (on paper) about the GTO is that it looks to be about 3500 pounds.

when i asked a representative (not a local dealer yokel) about the curb weight, they said that it would be more like 3500 and less like 3000.

that put me off a little bit. in this case in particular because who knows if GM is going to put decent brakes on it like they will for the CTS-V.

ps. until the BMW M3 can beat 8:19 on the nurburgring with their testdrivers, people here need to shut up about GM and their vehicle dynamics.

Kaz
08-21-2003, 10:36 AM
ps. until the BMW M3 can beat 8:19 on the nurburgring with their testdrivers, people here need to shut up about GM and their vehicle dynamics.

...well, maybe when GM can put vehicle dynamics on more than 3 cars (Vette, STS, CTS) :D

pdz
08-21-2003, 10:51 AM
...well, maybe when GM can put vehicle dynamics on more than 3 cars (Vette, STS, CTS) :D

it will be supreme irony if the V series cars can outdo their bavarian counterparts on a track.

and i mean all of them. the CTS-v, the STS-v, the SRX-v, etc.

because, in reality, the cadilliac division is poised to be the only one competing with BMW right now. i know pontiac is aimed there, but the price-sensitive demographic which is still steeped very much in nascar would balk at paying for the price of a chassis that could effectively compete with a BMW inside and outside.

i mean, let's think about this: the reason for the holdup on getting the monaro to the US is that they plastics used in australia are optimized only for warm weather. so they had to re-engineer all of the plastics for extremely cold and extremely hot while still being on a budget because the car is imported.

not a great combination. i'm not expecting much inside unless the sticker is about $40,000 out the door if not higher.

J. Kidd
08-22-2003, 05:28 AM
I hope this car stirs up some competition. It would be nice if they would build it in a 4-door...

...and then have Dodge re-release the Charger. Styled much like the concept of a couple years ago but powered by their new Hemi, putting out 375 hp, 6-speed and independent rear....THAT would be COOL!

It would be nice to see a global battle for high-performance sedans!

Artslinger
08-22-2003, 05:34 AM
Sounds like a fast car... the only problem is I don't think I've ever seen a Pontiac over 5 years old, that didn't look like it was falling apart.

Modern Pontiac's do not age well.

GimpyMcFarlan
08-22-2003, 07:17 AM
...and then have Dodge re-release the Charger. Styled much like the concept of a couple years ago but powered by their new Hemi, putting out 375 hp, 6-speed and independent rear....THAT would be COOL!

Funny you mention that... I heard during a recent NASCAR race broadcast that Dodge is thinking about bringing back the Charger nameplate to replace the Intrepid. :clap:

bmw325
08-22-2003, 07:42 AM
Sounds like a fast car... the only problem is I don't think I've ever seen a Pontiac over 5 years old, that didn't look like it was falling apart.

Modern Pontiac's do not age well.

Comparing this car to other US Pontiacs is sort of meaningless. As others have said, its really an Australian-built Holden Monaro. I don't know how well these hold-up-- but trying to extrapolate based on US designed and built Pontiacs is useless. Its like assuming that the Chevy Prizm will be unreliable because its a Chevy -- when in fact its really an ultra-reliable Toyota Corolla.

pdz
08-22-2003, 07:57 AM
Sounds like a fast car... the only problem is I don't think I've ever seen a Pontiac over 5 years old, that didn't look like it was falling apart.

Modern Pontiac's do not age well.

the one thing that is interesting about this thread are the different reactions to the Pontiac brand.

there is no doubt that GM will always be the lowest cost bidder manufacturer and that their interiors are terrible, the technologies they invest in are typically more influenced by the bottom line than by innovation and halo effects.

but, really, are there that many people here that would want to keep their present BMWs beyond 5 years and think that the maintenance and/or repair costs are somehow going to be LESS than the average GM vehicle? how long do you think the dual mass flywheels are going to last in the manuals? and remember, teh automatics use GM parts...so that's about the same. BMW shocks? they do not last any longer but are more expensive. it's a safe bet that BMW electronics, since there are more of them on the car, will fail.

so, this pooh pah-ing of the GTO strikes me as supreme denial of what we would all face saddled with a 5 year old BMW. so easy to forget, isn't it? to apply that same measure to any other car.

again, another strike of irony is that the GTO and the CTS-V with less than cutting edge technology basically might achieve the same dynamic benchmarks as the M division. but, instead of being ironic, this should be a clarion call to an automaker that only sells 900,000 cars a year that instead of supremely expensive 8000rpm S54 engines, maybe a cheaper small displacement V8 would suffice.

Jetfire
08-22-2003, 08:14 AM
again, another strike of irony is that the GTO and the CTS-V with less than cutting edge technology basically might achieve the same dynamic benchmarks as the M division. but, instead of being ironic, this should be a clarion call to an automaker that only sells 900,000 cars a year that instead of supremely expensive 8000rpm S54 engines, maybe a cheaper small displacement V8 would suffice.

The C5's been kicking just about every other sports/exotic car in the butt since its introduction when it comes to vehicle dynamics. Its formula? 5.7 liter pushrod V8 engine, fiberglass leaf springs, balsa wood in the frame. Still, with its low-tech drivetrain and relatively cheap plastic interior and absolutely cheap leather seats, you can keep up with and pass Ferraris, Porsches, etc. all day long. The best part is that you can then drive it back home at 30 mpg, change the oil, and drive it to work the next day. How many Ferrari owners do that? :D

The issue is not straight-up performance. There's a lot of awesome technology packed into engines like the S54 and I'm very impressed that BMW can produce numbers almost as high as the LS1's with two fewer cylinders and 1.5 liters less displacement. I somehow think the charm of the E46 M3 would be lost on me if it came instead with an LS1. A small, lightweight V8 with a high redline, however, would be a different story.

JST
08-22-2003, 08:25 AM
The C5's been kicking just about every other sports/exotic car in the butt since its introduction when it comes to vehicle dynamics. Its formula? 5.7 liter pushrod V8 engine, fiberglass leaf springs, balsa wood in the frame. Still, with its low-tech drivetrain and relatively cheap plastic interior and absolutely cheap leather seats, you can keep up with and pass Ferraris, Porsches, etc. all day long. The best part is that you can then drive it back home at 30 mpg, change the oil, and drive it to work the next day. How many Ferrari owners do that? :D

The issue is not straight-up performance. There's a lot of awesome technology packed into engines like the S54 and I'm very impressed that BMW can produce numbers almost as high as the LS1's with two fewer cylinders and 1.5 liters less displacement. I somehow think the charm of the E46 M3 would be lost on me if it came instead with an LS1. A small, lightweight V8 with a high redline, however, would be a different story.

Jetfire, don't fall into the "more displacment = bigger engine (physically)" fallacy. The LS1 is actually quite compact, since it's a pushrod design; one of the reasons GM elected not to use a multivalve engine was because of the packaging constraints in the front-engined Corvette. It's also all aluminum, so it's relatively light, as well. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the LS1 were smaller in length and height than the S54, and lighter, besides (the S54's block is iron, remember).

Super high volumetric efficiency is interesting, but is really sort of academic. If the 5.7 liter V8 can provide more power, a smaller external package, lighter weight, and similar fuel economy, what's the point of the S54? Other than ogling the technoporno rank of gleaming throttle bodies, all you have is an engine that's massively more expensive but that provides no discernable performance advantage.

The LS1/LS6 is one of the most remarkable engines in production today. It provides performance in line with much more expensive, bigger (physically), heavier and more complex engines from fancy European makes, yet uses relatively simple technology to do so. It's burdened by an "old tech" image, but if I had to choose between an LS6 and an S62 or S54 to power my race car, guess which one I pick every time?

Jetfire
08-22-2003, 08:58 AM
Jetfire, don't fall into the "more displacment = bigger engine (physically)" fallacy. The LS1 is actually quite compact, since it's a pushrod design; one of the reasons GM elected not to use a multivalve engine was because of the packaging constraints in the front-engined Corvette. It's also all aluminum, so it's relatively light, as well. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the LS1 were smaller in length and height than the S54, and lighter, besides (the S54's block is iron, remember).

Super high volumetric efficiency is interesting, but is really sort of academic. If the 5.7 liter V8 can provide more power, a smaller external package, lighter weight, and similar fuel economy, what's the point of the S54? Other than ogling the technoporno rank of gleaming throttle bodies, all you have is an engine that's massively more expensive but that provides no discernable performance advantage.

The LS1/LS6 is one of the most remarkable engines in production today. It provides performance in line with much more expensive, bigger (physically), heavier and more complex engines from fancy European makes, yet uses relatively simple technology to do so. It's burdened by an "old tech" image, but if I had to choose between an LS6 and an S62 or S54 to power my race car, guess which one I pick every time?
To be fair, let's compare eights to eights. The 159kg S62 provides the M5 with 400 honest horsepower, while the LS6 makes 405hp with 226 kg. The S54 weighs...I don't know how much. The engines definitely produce more power for less weight, and weight is the enemy of speed. (engine weights found on the web from supposedly reputable sources. I may be off.)

Of course, what happens on the race track doesn't always correlate to what's best for the street. The S62 is much more expensive to maintain and drinks gas roughly 2.5 times faster than the LS1. The comparisons only get worse when you consider Ferrari engines, which are technological gems but celarly better off on a race car. I don't think the issue is what you would put into a race car, but what you would buy in a STREET car. Obviously the LS1 is the practical choice. But would you buy a BMW with a 5.7L OHV V8? More importantly, would BMW even think to create such a beast, especially now that GM has so clearly shown their dominance in the design?

Even though they are not really race-derived at all, the technology in BMW's S engines are developed from F1-style philosophies. The idea is to make more power while saving weight, thus allowing for better packing and ideal weight balance without producing a porky car. The LS1 breaks all the rules but I don't think it will inspire BMW M to kill off their Valvetronic development team. Can you imagine what GM could do if it made similar enhancements to the LS1?

Alex Baumann
08-22-2003, 09:08 AM
@Jetfire

S54 weighs 147.5 kg (~ 325 lb)

J. Kidd
08-22-2003, 09:14 AM
I think we're looking at two different approaches here.

Corvette owners (when polled prior to the release of the C5) wanted a hi-po pushrod V8 - primarily for the reasons given by Jetfire and the strong desire to be able to work on the motor themselves with a good understanding how everything works. Chevy used technology to enhance an already proven design - this is how they are getting over 400 hp out of 346 cu. in. - at the same time meeting emissions standards, decent fuel economy, low weight, and street driveability.

BMW chooses to use technology to create/change engine system designs. I think both approaches can benefit each other.

If you polled M3 owners and asked if they'd prefer an I-6 with DOHC, 24 valves, etc. making 350 hp or a 346 cu. in. pushrod V8 (weighing the same), I bet most would go with the I-6.

Heritage? Technology? Practicality? Ideals? Don't know...

But, as an enthusiast, I am equally impressed by the current M3 motor making 333 hp as well as the current LS6 making 405 hp.

JST
08-22-2003, 09:30 AM
To be fair, let's compare eights to eights. The 159kg S62 provides the M5 with 400 honest horsepower, while the LS6 makes 405hp with 226 kg. The S54 weighs...I don't know how much. The engines definitely produce more power for less weight, and weight is the enemy of speed. (engine weights found on the web from supposedly reputable sources. I may be off.)

Of course, what happens on the race track doesn't always correlate to what's best for the street. The S62 is much more expensive to maintain and drinks gas roughly 2.5 times faster than the LS1. The comparisons only get worse when you consider Ferrari engines, which are technological gems but celarly better off on a race car. I don't think the issue is what you would put into a race car, but what you would buy in a STREET car. Obviously the LS1 is the practical choice. But would you buy a BMW with a 5.7L OHV V8? More importantly, would BMW even think to create such a beast, especially now that GM has so clearly shown their dominance in the design?

Even though they are not really race-derived at all, the technology in BMW's S engines are developed from F1-style philosophies. The idea is to make more power while saving weight, thus allowing for better packing and ideal weight balance without producing a porky car. The LS1 breaks all the rules but I don't think it will inspire BMW M to kill off their Valvetronic development team. Can you imagine what GM could do if it made similar enhancements to the LS1?

I was puzzled by that weight difference, since the engines are both all aluminum and the LS6 has many fewer components in its valve train.

On John Burns web site, it gives the weight of the S62 as 158 kg.

http://www.unixnerd.demon.co.uk/enumber.html

However, this is "for a dry engine with no manifolds, starter motor, alternator, etc."

This Corvette site lists the weight of the LS6 as 226 kg
http://corvetteactioncenter.com/specs/z06/ls1ls6.html

This is "fully dressed," though, which I assume means replete with manifolds and accessories. The intake manifold only weighs 7 kg, but who knows how much the other crap hung on the Corvette engine that isn't on the S62 weighs.

Jetfire
08-22-2003, 09:48 AM
I was puzzled by that weight difference, since the engines are both all aluminum and the LS6 has many fewer components in its valve train.

On John Burns web site, it gives the weight of the S62 as 158 kg.

http://www.unixnerd.demon.co.uk/enumber.html

However, this is "for a dry engine with no manifolds, starter motor, alternator, etc."

This Corvette site lists the weight of the LS6 as 226 kg
http://corvetteactioncenter.com/specs/z06/ls1ls6.html

This is "fully dressed," though, which I assume means replete with manifolds and accessories. The intake manifold only weighs 7 kg, but who knows how much the other crap hung on the Corvette engine that isn't on the S62 weighs.
70 kg = 154 pounds. That's a lot of stuff, but not a whole lot. Hmm...

JST
08-22-2003, 10:02 AM
70 kg = 154 pounds. That's a lot of stuff, but not a whole lot. Hmm...


Especially considering that the Corvette's exhaust manifolds are cast iron. Not sure what BMW uses on the S62.

Jetfire
08-22-2003, 10:13 AM
Especially considering that the Corvette's exhaust manifolds are cast iron. Not sure what BMW uses on the S62.
As I said, the LS1 is a rule-breaker. It's also rather ironic that for all their volumetric efficiency, the S engines don't come close to the LS1/6's fuel efficiency.

But once again, I wouldn't buy a BMW with an LS1 in it. BMW doesn't make pushrod engines and they probably wouldn't be very good at it (at first). What's funny is that I'd consider a GM product with a DOHC engine, especially because of the later LT-generation V8 engines that were installed on some of the meaner C4s.

OK, how about this: With the EXCEPTION of the freaking LS1, high-tech designs are required to produce light engines that produce lots of power. A light weight old-school engine that makes lots of power and is cheap to produce just blows the whole thing away, and the LS1 is probably the only powerplant that fits the bill. This is what makes the CTS-V so interesting and exciting, and what makes the C5/F-body/etc. also exciting but not necessarily interesting (due to historical interior and fit issues with those cars).

bmw325
08-22-2003, 10:23 AM
As I said, the LS1 is a rule-breaker. It's also rather ironic that for all their volumetric efficiency, the S engines don't come close to the LS1/6's fuel efficiency.

But once again, I wouldn't buy a BMW with an LS1 in it. BMW doesn't make pushrod engines and they probably wouldn't be very good at it (at first). What's funny is that I'd consider a GM product with a DOHC engine, especially because of the later LT-generation V8 engines that were installed on some of the meaner C4s.

OK, how about this: With the EXCEPTION of the freaking LS1, high-tech designs are required to produce light engines that produce lots of power. A light weight old-school engine that makes lots of power and is cheap to produce just blows the whole thing away, and the LS1 is probably the only powerplant that fits the bill. This is what makes the CTS-V so interesting and exciting, and what makes the C5/F-body/etc. also exciting but not necessarily interesting (due to historical interior and fit issues with those cars).

Very interesting points and discussion. When it comes down to it, the LS1 and LS6 do indeed break all the rules-- and are in some ways superior to any other engine design-- they give you alsmot all the benefits of a modern engine design w/ the durability, low-end torque, ease of maintenance of an old proven design. THe only reason to find BMW's S54 and S62 engines superior are very superficial: technology for tehcnology's sake, engine sound (if you prefer the sound of higher revving multivalve engines), and revability. Not very compelling reasons--especially when you consider how fragile the S54 is, i'd gladly take an
LS engine over it any day.

JST
08-22-2003, 11:03 AM
As I said, the LS1 is a rule-breaker. It's also rather ironic that for all their volumetric efficiency, the S engines don't come close to the LS1/6's fuel efficiency.

But once again, I wouldn't buy a BMW with an LS1 in it. BMW doesn't make pushrod engines and they probably wouldn't be very good at it (at first). What's funny is that I'd consider a GM product with a DOHC engine, especially because of the later LT-generation V8 engines that were installed on some of the meaner C4s.

OK, how about this: With the EXCEPTION of the freaking LS1, high-tech designs are required to produce light engines that produce lots of power. A light weight old-school engine that makes lots of power and is cheap to produce just blows the whole thing away, and the LS1 is probably the only powerplant that fits the bill. This is what makes the CTS-V so interesting and exciting, and what makes the C5/F-body/etc. also exciting but not necessarily interesting (due to historical interior and fit issues with those cars).


Is that true, though? If GM can develop a V8 that does all that, why not a V6? I've always bagged on GM for it's devotion to the 3.8L pushrod V6, but when you look at what it does, it's not so far behind some of the smaller displacement, higher tech V6s out there. And GM isn't the only one; the 3.8L in the Mustang, when fitted with modern acoutrements like variable intake manifolds, makes power in line with its 24 valve, 3.0L counterparts (190 v. 200).

Both the GM and Ford V6s are engines that have been massaged; they're fundamentally old designs. I wonder whether a 4.0L or 4.5L pushrod V6 designed along the same lines as the LS1 wouldn't be able to give other companies 3.XL V6s a run for their money, as well.

Artslinger
08-22-2003, 11:12 AM
the one thing that is interesting about this thread are the different reactions to the Pontiac brand.

there is no doubt that GM will always be the lowest cost bidder manufacturer and that their interiors are terrible, the technologies they invest in are typically more influenced by the bottom line than by innovation and halo effects.

but, really, are there that many people here that would want to keep their present BMWs beyond 5 years and think that the maintenance and/or repair costs are somehow going to be LESS than the average GM vehicle? how long do you think the dual mass flywheels are going to last in the manuals? and remember, teh automatics use GM parts...so that's about the same. BMW shocks? they do not last any longer but are more expensive. it's a safe bet that BMW electronics, since there are more of them on the car, will fail.

so, this pooh pah-ing of the GTO strikes me as supreme denial of what we would all face saddled with a 5 year old BMW. so easy to forget, isn't it? to apply that same measure to any other car.

again, another strike of irony is that the GTO and the CTS-V with less than cutting edge technology basically might achieve the same dynamic benchmarks as the M division. but, instead of being ironic, this should be a clarion call to an automaker that only sells 900,000 cars a year that instead of supremely expensive 8000rpm S54 engines, maybe a cheaper small displacement V8 would suffice.


My comments were directed more towards the body/interior materials and build quality then the mechanicals.

Jetfire
08-22-2003, 11:16 AM
Is that true, though? If GM can develop a V8 that does all that, why not a V6? I've always bagged on GM for it's devotion to the 3.8L pushrod V6, but when you look at what it does, it's not so far behind some of the smaller displacement, higher tech V6s out there. And GM isn't the only one; the 3.8L in the Mustang, when fitted with modern acoutrements like variable intake manifolds, makes power in line with its 24 valve, 3.0L counterparts (190 v. 200).

Both the GM and Ford V6s are engines that have been massaged; they're fundamentally old designs. I wonder whether a 4.0L or 4.5L pushrod V6 designed along the same lines as the LS1 wouldn't be able to give other companies 3.XL V6s a run for their money, as well.
I owned a GM 3800 engine. Actually, it was the 3800 Series II Supercharged variant (L67), which put out 240 hp/ 280 ft-lb from the factory. As you might have guessed, a simple pulley swap raised those numbers rather easily up to a certain point.

In N/A trim, I don't find the 3.8L engine (L36, IIRC) very compelling. I have no idea how much it weighs (it's not light), but that's an awful lot of displacement to make 200 hp and about that much torque. Honda is making 240 hp without try too hard in its new Accord V6. The GM V6 is dependable for sure, but not very sporting. The supercharged version provides a reasonable amount of horsepower, but the Eaton non-intercooled unit from the factory is terribly prone to heat issues.

GM also sells a number of other V6 engines, such as the 3.4L that was (is?) available in Grand Am GTs. That thing is a dog. The same goes for the 3.1L V6 that was offered in Grand Prix SEs until they were superceded by the L36.

I'm not saying that GM is incapable of building a solid V6. GM has a cadre of very capable engineers, as evidenced by the LS1 and their automatic transmissions. If the L36/L67 represent the best that OHV V6 designs have to offer, I think the future lies only in DOHC and variable timing. This may not yet be the case in the I-6 world, where GM's most recent entry (in use in Trailblazer, Envoy, etc.) is excellent.

Don't get me started, though on their four-bangers.

J. Kidd
08-22-2003, 11:26 AM
I wonder if overall size (width and/or depth) is what keeps the pushrod V6's size down - espescially considering the cars they are used in? I, too, always bagged those V6's primarily because they needed another 0.8 L to ALMOST match the output of the DOHC V6's...

What are the pros and cons of a 5.0L V6 as opposed to a 5.0L V8? I wonder if emissions and driveability (street) come into play? I know Chrysler kind of had to wait for technology to catch up before it could re-release a Hemi - apparently they are excellent motors but tend to laugh in the face of emissions standards. Chrysler used alot of modern technology to clean them up and take advantage of the inherent benefits of its design.

I do remember some years ago a NASCAR team fielded a V6 and from what I remember, it hung with the rest of the field pretty well. Not sure why they no longer do that...

Kaz
08-22-2003, 11:32 AM
In N/A trim, I don't find the 3.8L engine (L36, IIRC) very compelling. I have no idea how much it weighs (it's not light), but that's an awful lot of displacement to make 200 hp and about that much torque. Honda is making 240 hp without try too hard in its new Accord V6. The GM V6 is dependable for sure, but not very sporting. The supercharged version provides a reasonable amount of horsepower, but the Eaton non-intercooled unit from the factory is terribly prone to heat issues.

The thing I've always noticed about the 3800 (I believe this was originally an old Buick design from the 60s) is that the cars it's designed into, despite their size and weight (like Park Aves and such), get EPA economy numbers that my 325 can't touch. Granted, these things are geared REALLY tall, but when a 4000lb car EPAs at 20/29 (which is nearly identical to a Accord V6 at 3300lb) with an engine with 40-year-old roots, you can't blame GM for sticking with it.

Jetfire
08-22-2003, 11:38 AM
The thing I've always noticed about the 3800 (I believe this was originally an old Buick design from the 60s) is that the cars it's designed into, despite their size and weight (like Park Aves and such), get EPA economy numbers that my 325 can't touch. Granted, these things are geared REALLY tall, but when a 4000lb car EPAs at 20/29 (which is nearly identical to a Accord V6 at 3300lb) with an engine with 40-year-old roots, you can't blame GM for sticking with it.
True. It's hard to argue with fuel economy on a 3800-lb vehicle. The N/A engines do get pretty darn good mileage. My '99 M3 got roughly similar city and highway mileage than my '00 Grand Prix GTP. Of course, the M3 was over 500 pounds lighter.

The LS1, of course, is able to achieve remarkable fuel efficiency while also packing quite a punch. My point is that GM's V6 engines currently don't offer the same combination of performance and efficiency.

JST
08-22-2003, 11:50 AM
True. It's hard to argue with fuel economy on a 3800-lb vehicle. The N/A engines do get pretty darn good mileage. My '99 M3 got roughly similar city and highway mileage than my '00 Grand Prix GTP. Of course, the M3 was over 500 pounds lighter.

The LS1, of course, is able to achieve remarkable fuel efficiency while also packing quite a punch. My point is that GM's V6 engines currently don't offer the same combination of performance and efficiency.


Right, but what I was saying is that they aren't new designs. They date back to the 60s, and though they've been updated, they haven't been completely redesigned since then. A better comparison would be to the LT1, rather than the LS1.

I've read that GM is introducing a new range of pushrod V6s in its mainstream cars. We'll see how those do.

Jetfire
08-22-2003, 12:06 PM
Right, but what I was saying is that they aren't new designs. They date back to the 60s, and though they've been updated, they haven't been completely redesigned since then. A better comparison would be to the LT1, rather than the LS1.

I've read that GM is introducing a new range of pushrod V6s in its mainstream cars. We'll see how those do.
GM is really being dogmatic about pushrod technology, eh? I eagerly await the new engines; I wonder how they'll compare against their "modern" counterparts. Should be interesting

pdz
08-22-2003, 12:29 PM
GM is really being dogmatic about pushrod technology, eh? I eagerly await the new engines; I wonder how they'll compare against their "modern" counterparts. Should be interesting

yes. well, this is the conundrum for street cars, isn't it? OHV v8s have low redlines and cannot take advantage of breathing well at high RPMs like their dohc counterparts. imagine what a monster the z06 would be if it had a modern version of the ZR1 mercury powerplant with lighter materials! then it would have displacement plus the full rpm range.

let's not forget that nascar v8s have redlines up to 9000 almost. it IS possible, but not truly something GM would do for the mass market.

the new ohv v6s are about to enter the market. and the power numbers are darn close to the 3.5L nissan powerplant. i think the 3.6litre ohv v6 is something in the 240-260hp range. it's actually not giving much up to the ohc designs in terms of power. and one big thing that GM added was exhaust variable valve timing like on the 4200 vortec motor. the power numbers for the inline 5 cylinder based on the 4200 vortec are going to be pretty good also.

i think they looked at the cost per engine as well as fuel economy and the compromise is updated ohv engines. i have to say, for the mainstream commuter, that is not a bad decision at all as long as power is there.

i feel that it is wrong here to a priori call something, without looking deeper into the rationale as archaic. there is a reason why mercedes, for example, went back to three valves per cylinder on their engines. presumably, without seeing the engine characteristics, it would appear to be a step backward, but is it?

the main disadvantage of the v6 engine in the ohv configuration is the parasitic loss due to friction of all of the running gear, it's even worse than the dohc designs. but as GM has demonstrated in the 3800 V6 engines, when they attack the reciprocating masses and friction, they have a bulletproof engine with good torque, no oil consumption and 30mpg on the highway.

Jetfire
08-22-2003, 12:36 PM
yes. well, this is the conundrum for street cars, isn't it? OHV v8s have low redlines and cannot take advantage of breathing well at high RPMs like their dohc counterparts. imagine what a monster the z06 would be if it had a modern version of the ZR1 mercury powerplant with lighter materials! then it would have displacement plus the full rpm range.

That would be interesting, but the LS6 actually pulls quite hard all the way up to redline. It's amazing, really. I've seen it in person.


the new ohv v6s are about to enter the market. and the power numbers are darn close to the 3.5L nissan powerplant. i think the 3.6litre ohv v6 is something in the 240-260hp range. it's actually not giving much up to the ohc designs in terms of power. and one big thing that GM added was exhaust variable valve timing like on the 4200 vortec motor. the power numbers for the inline 5 cylinder based on the 4200 vortec are going to be pretty good also.
...
the main disadvantage of the v6 engine in the ohv configuration is the parasitic loss due to friction of all of the running gear, it's even worse than the dohc designs. but as GM has demonstrated in the 3800 V6 engines, when they attack the reciprocating masses and friction, they have a bulletproof engine with good torque, no oil consumption and 30mpg on the highway.

I do want to see how they perform. I forgot to mention that my Grand Prix leaked exactly zero drops of oil and burned exactly zero ounces over its 50,000 miles of spirited driving. Contrast this to my high-tech S50B32US, which consumed a good half a quart every 500 miles, and my high-tech S14, which is so caked with oil that the aluminum surfaces are black. :( And of all three of those engines, the Poncho was the one with the most HP and torque.

Still, I never took my GTP to a track and I wouldn't have done so. That supercharger just can't make power for any extended period of time without getting too hot for itself. And although I'm sure it would hold up to hundreds of thousands of daily driven usage, even spirited usage, I wonder if it could consistently withstand track time. :dunno:

routesixtysixer
08-22-2003, 03:44 PM
as I traded a 2001 Pontiac Firebird Formula (7,500 miles) for my 02 330Ci. On the drive to the BMW dealer in Wichita Falls, Texas from Oklahoma City to trade, I pulled down 30 mpg. And that was in 90 degree afternoon heat, A/C blasting, and driving 75 to 85 mph on the turnpike. This car also had the 3.23 "performance axle" (the only option on the car, other than the auto trans). In daily driving, it returned 21-22 mpg. And it was, with no doubt, a screamer! 0-100 could not fail to put a huge grin on your face! It was completely stock... rated at 310 hp (probably closer to 340 hp in reality) as I've seen bone-stock TA's dyno in the 310-320 hp range, at the rear wheels. You know, what's funny is that after two years and 7,500 miles, the car was solid as a rock, with not a squeek or rattle! Typical GM... when you get it as good as it can be, take it out of production. These cars were about bang-for-buck and were hard to beat in this category. I paid (after rebates, incentives, etc.) $20,800 for it brand spanking new and the BMW dealer gave me $17,000 trade on my new 330Ci. If the new GTO can do all that, plus give you a decent quality interior and build integrity it could definitely be a winner.
The 3800 is a "value-leader" in that it is extremely inexpensive to build. 200 hp from 3.8 liters may seem poor, but I would be interested to see a manufacturing cost per horsepower produced.

Maverick
08-22-2003, 05:15 PM
Comparing this car to other US Pontiacs is sort of meaningless. As others have said, its really an Australian-built Holden Monaro. I don't know how well these hold-up-- but trying to extrapolate based on US designed and built Pontiacs is useless. Its like assuming that the Chevy Prizm will be unreliable because its a Chevy -- when in fact its really an ultra-reliable Toyota Corolla.

I am ultimately biased, but I prefer the styling of the Monaro to GTO. Holden and Ford are the leading volume car companies in Australia and have spent a lot of time and money trying to prove their increasing reliability. Although, Holden has been selling many more cars in the last decade or so. I would not think that reliability would be a major problem. Parts are not too expensive and are linked to GM. It's too bad they do not import any of the other HSV cars. Highly sought after in Australia and they do not make a high volume. It's a small shop based in Melbourne. No doubt they make less than ///M or AMG.

ed325i
08-22-2003, 08:43 PM
From the sounds of it, the GTO should be a good performance car, both in straightline and in the curves. My concerns would about GM's traditional weaknesses in fit & finish and in reliablity.

Ed