GTO vs. TL

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old May 12, 2004 | 03:35 PM
  #41  
ndabunka's Avatar
'06 750Li Sapphire/Creme
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,012
Likes: 0
From: Charlotte, NC
Originally Posted by AzNxJ32Aspec
you're comparing a 80K mercedes with a 35K Pontiac.
Well, seems that others on here like to compare their $55K BMW M3's (or even the $45K+ 330s) to our cars, why not the CLK? Reality is the price is "inconsequential" here. We are talking about the performance you get out of the horsepower. The fact that the merc, Beemer, etc is more expensive has "nearly nothing" to do the the amount of HP it produces. The $'s are going into things like "luxury, status, etc). The car I actually compared it to was my 2001 CLK55. $40K vs. $35K. Not REALLY so much of a difference other than the poor, poor performance of the GTO. If you want to see a $50K car KILL the GTO, just take a look at the new CTS-V. 400HP and zero to sixty in 4.5. Pretty darn good (if you can stand the FUGLY interior of the Caddy).
Reply
Old May 12, 2004 | 03:50 PM
  #42  
Dutchml's Avatar
Racer
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 321
Likes: 4
From: Virginia
I've owned a '70 Firebird (400 hp), '77 6.6 Trans Am, and two Grand Ams. My brother owned a '67 and '70 GTO. This new thing is hideous. Who the hell is running Pontiac these days? It's a travesty. I saw a baby blue Goat today and it looked like an Oldsmobile Alero on steroids.
Reply
Old May 12, 2004 | 07:50 PM
  #43  
jjsC5's Avatar
Three Wheelin'
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,402
Likes: 370
From: Texas Hill Country
Originally Posted by ndabunka
Well, seems that others on here like to compare their $55K BMW M3's (or even the $45K+ 330s) to our cars, why not the CLK? Reality is the price is "inconsequential" here. We are talking about the performance you get out of the horsepower. The fact that the merc, Beemer, etc is more expensive has "nearly nothing" to do the the amount of HP it produces. The $'s are going into things like "luxury, status, etc). The car I actually compared it to was my 2001 CLK55. $40K vs. $35K. Not REALLY so much of a difference other than the poor, poor performance of the GTO. If you want to see a $50K car KILL the GTO, just take a look at the new CTS-V. 400HP and zero to sixty in 4.5. Pretty darn good (if you can stand the FUGLY interior of the Caddy).
You might want to read the road tests on the CTS-V. It is slightly faster than the GTO, but it's way off Caddy's claims for it. They have not broken into the 4's at all.

Also, I don't understand your comment about the money. Great, money isn't why the CLK55 is faster. But it's still twice the money.
Reply
Old May 12, 2004 | 10:53 PM
  #44  
ndabunka's Avatar
'06 750Li Sapphire/Creme
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,012
Likes: 0
From: Charlotte, NC
Got a guy in my neighborhood with the new CTS-V. He's got the g-tech (or whatever that things called). He is getting 4.6 out of his (he can drive). Hasn't seen a drag yet but he leaves my butt wondering if I missed a light in my TL. He's WAY gone. Just wish I still had my 55 to run against him. C'est La Vie!
Reply
Old May 13, 2004 | 01:05 PM
  #45  
Pro
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
From: Somerset, NJ
Originally Posted by AzNxJ32Aspec
you're comparing a 80K mercedes with a 35K Pontiac.
Uhhh, Motor Trend just did the same thing: CLK55 vs GTO!!!
Reply
Old May 13, 2004 | 02:29 PM
  #46  
DaveK's Avatar
Instructor
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
From: Redlands,CA
Rumor has it that they are going to put the ls6 in the GTO and put a fancy hood and paint package on the GTO and call it the Judge.
Reply
Old May 13, 2004 | 04:03 PM
  #47  
Ruski's Avatar
Three Wheelin'
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,377
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by berzerker
The GTO I saw at the Atlanta car show already had pieces of plastic interior trim popping off/coming loose. This from a car on a pedastal that nobody could get in to much less even touch.

So how did you get in?
Reply
Old May 13, 2004 | 04:19 PM
  #48  
kilrb's Avatar
Instructor
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
From: Kansas City
Originally Posted by ndabunka
The GTO has 350HP and good torque but the performance isn't that good for that much power. Zero to sixty in 5.4? In comparison, the CLK55 is 342HP/376Torque and zero to sixty in 4.9. The GTO "barely" squeaks into the high 13's. The CLK is mid to low thriteens. Where's the value? Besides the radio volume button is on the wrong side (ala foreigners car).
Keep in mind, the damned thing weighs a ton! Well, compared to a Vette, anyway. It weighs in at 3,725#'s. That's a lot of weight for even a four door sedan. 350hp / 3725# vs the same thing in a 3,100# Vette = big difference. It just hurts to see all that hp being eaten up by excessive weight!
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Yumcha
Automotive News
4
Aug 15, 2019 12:58 PM
Oakroadsteve
3G TL (2004-2008)
9
Oct 28, 2015 10:28 PM
DiamondJoeQuimby
Car Parts for Sale
1
Sep 10, 2015 11:40 AM
gavriil
Automotive News
525
May 15, 2007 05:54 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:53 AM.