Cafe Racer Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,287 Posts
And buick somehow thrives, It isn't Fair!!!!!

kidding aside (I like buicks also and had a few fast ones), Pontiac was just getting onto its feet again in terms of product when GM decided to kill it last year. the G8 GT and GXP were probably two of the finest pontiacs made in the post 1970s era, but even know few know about them because GM's marketing budget went into Chevy with the camaro and volt and cadillac with the CTS-V. When I shot the CTS-V challenge there was a G8 GXP 6speed there for me to look at (taken out of the motor pool by one of GM's brass) and that car was 1/3 of the price of a cts-v but almost as much car. Had GM invested in pontiac's advertising it may not have ended this way, but there is only so much money to go around.

Even the 2004-2006 GTO isn't a terrible car, they just made a marketing error by calling it a GTO. Had they called it something else it might have been the world beater in sales everyone hoped, but people heard GTO and were expecting a retro car like the camaro, and that it was not.

in other news, my father's Volt should be delivered before the end of this year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,287 Posts
quote:Originally posted by krapfever



Yeah, the Dodge brass tried to pull the same cheap trick with the new Charger. And they killed Plymouth.
The reason it worked with the charger (those things are everywhere) is that the charger is a practical car, the GTO wasn't (although it was more practical than the 4th gen camaro). Additionally dodge primed the marketplace with the 1999 4 door concept and the magnum wagon - gave buyers time to get used to the idea. Also the new charger is an agressive looking car, something the new GTO wasn't (it looked like a rental gran am).

1999 concept


When dodge finally delivered on their retro promise with the challenger, they made sure that the car was practical as well. It may be the size of a full size, not a pony car, but it has a huge trunk and real 4 seats.

This was the last GTO concept car GM put out before actually bringing the GTO back. Despite looking terribly dated (even for the 1990s) it is an aggressive looking car.


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
854 Posts
It never made sense to me why they needed all of those brands under the same GM umbrella.

Once the 80's hit all they were doing was putting body kits on cars like the Monte Carlo and Caviler to make the Grand Prix and the Sunfire. Its bad business.

Though everyone else does it too. The VW Passat is the Audi A something, Honda probably has one too, and Ford has even done it with Land Rover.

Pontiac is a name that should have never made it out of the 70's only because GM was making the name cheap. If GM was smarter they would have went for the retro styling with the GTO that came out and died a few years back. That car had potential, but fell on its face from being under powered and looking like a clunky grand prix.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,287 Posts
There is a lot of GM internal people who agree that the change in management in pontiac in the 1980s was the worst direction the company could have taken. Until 1983, the company still used its own engine designs (or borrowed from oldsmobile in some cases) but by 1986 all pontiacs were basic GM platforms with restyling, and unfortunately 1980s GMs are some of the worst cars made. There wasn't enough brand recognition, to separate a grand am from a regal, from a lumina. However, after the GTO fiasco, pontiac threw its lot in with cadillac and most of the pontiac lineup post 2006 was based on CTS platform or the Saab 9-3 (the chevy malibu shares a platform with the Saab as well but it was an Opel design first). They also offered things that cadillac offered but chevy didn't, like retractable hardtops, VVT, and paddle/button shifting. The brand was on its way back up but really needed the marketing to push that it was a different car company than just a badge job. it takes 5 years (approx) to change the public's mind, and pontiac just didn't have that kind of time. Why 5 years? because that is how long it takes for new cars to infiltrate the used market.

The 2004-2006 GTO however was NOT underpowered. Using LS1 and LS2 engines powering the last year of the F body, and the corvette, it was a 12 second car out of the box for under $25K. in GM's lineup only the z06 was faster. Just 5 years earlier the fastest thing with 4 seats out of GM was a 13 second LT1 Trans Am WS6. Technology moves so fast in the auto industry that just 5 years later they are midpack performance cars but 5 years before they came out the performance they offered was unheard of.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
191 Posts
quote:Originally posted by Geeto67


Had GM invested in pontiac's advertising it may not have ended this way, but there is only so much money to go around.
Not having the money to advertise is part of it. Waiting until the brand is so hurt to upgrade the cars was a bad idea and a lot of lost money too.

Same that happened at Saturn. They stuck with the same old cars so long that lost their following. By the end they had good cars but no money to advertise them and no return customers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
237 Posts
Its the same reason Oldsmobile died, up till the mid 80s Olds had the best selling car in america, they used their own engine still too (matter in fact in 78-79 GM was sued for selling Olds with chevy motors lmao) then they went from sharing basic frames and structurs to just having different grills, headlights, and bumpers. Everything else looked the same. Then they cut the advertising to olds and thier business went down (duh really, no advertising and business goes down, who would have thunk it) Same think basically happened to Pontiac, when was the last time you saw a commercial for them? Its been a rare occasion I've seen one, but look at chevy, caddy, and gmc, lots of advertising for them. Buick will be next
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,388 Posts
Well, I for one am glad to see the brand consolidations. I haven't seen an American car that I've wanted to buy in years, anyways. The new retro-cruiser-muscle cars look like pathetic attempts to reconnect with past glory. And what glory it was... huge bad handling cars with crap brakes that used massive amounts of fuel for the power they put out.

The new Charger and Mustang aren't attractive to me at all. Sure, as a weekend toy the top of the line engine models might be fun to convert tires to smoke with, but there's other cars out there that do more with less.

Buick. Oldsmobile. Pontiac. Blah, go away and make those heaps "collector cars." GMC and Dodge are two other brands I'd never look at, considering the amount of problems that people I know have with them. New cars with brake lines corroding away in 30K miles, oil pans rusting through is 50K miles, disposable steering racks and underengineering brakes that are $1K a pop to replace.... Yes, oil pans rusting through.

Ford is the only US auto manufacture I'd consider buying a vehicle from. And I don't see anything in their current model line-up I want to own.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,287 Posts
Let me tell you a story of three guys and three trucks.

My one friend bought an f250 diesel manual trans. He bought it new from a dealer his brother worked at. Before 50k he had to replace:
Turbo 3 times
Brakes and lines (cracked calipers)
Ecu
Two gears in the tranny
And all the usual service items.

A second buddy bought a gmc diesel 2500. Before 100k he had to replace:
Stearing rack. and it was admitted that the dealer screwed it up putting it on a lift.

A third bought a ram 2500 gas powered. He had no major failures but had to replace the truck with a Honda civic as the damn thing ate him out of house and home. It was the cheapest feeling of all the trucks and lots of little shit went wrong but nothing major.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,459 Posts
I may buy a ragtop new challenger if they ever show up. Just to go with the original I have.

Pontiac was gaining alot of ground here with the 25-35 set. Performance cars, four doors, and not the overpriced VW or BMW stuff. (sorry I love BMWs but new ones are painfully expensive)

The charger has made it because it is a practical car. And even the bottom line v6 has enough balls to move the car better than most base most models.

The new GTO should have been badged lemans and something really wild shoulda been the GTO, maybe one of those factory supercharged ls engines stuffed in it?

Personally I think my 96 LT4 powered corvette keeps my modern muscle appetite in check. I can drive it 600 miles in a day, its got a strong 6 speed and is a good all around package. It still rattles and reminds me of my 3rd gens but without the constant deathtrap bashing the 47 year old suspension design of the 3d gens give me.

On my list of cars to pick up in the next few years: 3rd gen IROC camaro, a really ratty big window 3rd gen corvette (i wanna build a split window 3rd gen, saw one once and thought it was cool), and a Mach 1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,453 Posts
quote:Let me tell you a story of three guys and three trucks.

My one friend bought an f250 diesel manual trans. He bought it new from a dealer his brother worked at. Before 50k he had to replace:
Turbo 3 times
Brakes and lines (cracked calipers)
Ecu
Two gears in the tranny
And all the usual service items.

A second buddy bought a gmc diesel 2500. Before 100k he had to replace:
Stearing rack. and it was admitted that the dealer screwed it up putting it on a lift.

A third bought a ram 2500 gas powered. He had no major failures but had to replace the truck with a Honda civic as the damn thing ate him out of house and home. It was the cheapest feeling of all the trucks and lots of little shit went wrong but nothing major.

I bought my F-250 new in 2004 - 5.4L gasoline 6spd 2wd Crew cab. 6yrs later, 80,000mi, I am just now doing brakes. Truck has never been in for service, other than routine maintenance (oil change, front end alignment). It was making a throwout bearing noise for a while, but that has disappeared recently. I traded in my 1990 Ranger (2.9 5spd) for it, after 7yrs, w/180,000mi on the odometer - only because I couldn't get 3 kids on the cab... and it was literally falling apart due to rust.

Lest you think me a shill for Detroit... we replaced my ex-wife's 1992 Saturn after 180,000mi, with a brand new 2000 Saturn. The first had been so trouble free over 8yrs, we didn't even look at anything else. Just went straight to the Saturn dealer. Biggest piece of crap I ever owned or drove, and dealership experience was a nightmare. Yeah, they had the fixed pricing first, and touted the "different" nature of the company... blah, blah, blah. Body panels never fit properly, things broke, fast interior wear, rattly, squeaky, etc, since day one.

American cars tend to be painted with a broad brush, as severely inferior to foreign products. I've loved all my Fords, and 50/50 GM-wise.

We probably get more industry news than most of you, but the most insightful thing I ever read about the industry, is that American car makers haven't yet figured out that cars have become a mere commodity. They're not the status symbol they were in the 50s/60s. They have yet to grasp the idea that anyone can make a quality product, and after 100+ years, the technology is so familiar to the end user... people just want their fucking cars to get them from here to there without any trouble.


I just want them all to get their shit together and start selling lots of product. 14% unemployment rate is playing havoc with job & housing market here.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,267 Posts
Unga, my 68 GTO, with some modifications, was making close to 400hp and would get 17-18mpg all day on the highway at 70+mph (course it had 2.93 gears). The four power drums would work quite well if maintained properly, only weakness was fading under constant use.

Muscle cars were made for people with testicles, designed for US roads, mostly long and straight and plenty big. Euro cars were made for people with smaller testicles and curvy narrow roads. Euro cars back in the day had horrible reliability in many cases, big rust problems, finicky tuning and often delicate drive trains ...so they were not by any means far and away better, only different.

Engineering and materials has come a long way since then. Right now Euro cars have no appreciable advantage in reliability over US made cars. http://www.jdpower.com/autos/ratings/dependability-ratings-by-brand/sortcolumn-1/descending/page-/

Things are pretty much still the same in that ...if you want a reliable econo-box, buy Asian, if you want a tire burner, buy US, if you want handling, buy Euro. Although the Asian cars have crossed over into the performance/luxury market pretty effectively.

To think that somehow Euro companies are building a better product with the same technology, materials and costs is naive. They do have better marketing and reputation despite the actual facts that their cars are are no more reliable, kudos to their marketing dept. ...helped of course by the Euro-centric uninformed buyers in the US market willing to pay considerably more for their products. When you take into account their premium price for purchase and repair, they are even worse.

Cars are just WAY better today. In the 60s-80's a gas vehicle with 100k miles was considered used up. Now, US, Euro, Asian ...go 200k miles no problem. My current GMC has 100k miles, original battery, alternator, water pump etc. Engine has never been opened up for any reason ....try that 30 years ago.

Vehicles come in 4 types, for the:

Man
Woman
Accountant
Homo

A person just has to decide what category they are in.
JohnnyB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
424 Posts
Now that you are talking about american cars- wasnt there an Olds (in the 70s maybe) with ball diferential?
Just popped up in my mind...

Chris
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top