[powervette]

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?se...article_id=7360 :argue:
just read it
and do not buy Car and Driver anymore

 

[Camaroz28lover]

Not that I particularly like car and driver, but to say that the opinion of one writer out of an editorial staff (most of which praised the car)is the opinion of the entire staff is rediculous. I agree with alot of the things they had to say (as scary as that might be) but i think pontiac will add the extras either next year or when they redesign the car (in what 07 -08 time period)

 

[mackingu]

what's wrong with this article by C/D? they praised the things that deserved to be praised, and they knocked the things that should have been exposed. sure, they might ignore those things with other brands, but that doesn't make their comments any less valid. parts broke off, and they mentioned that. it has stupid fast performance. that they mentioned that too. take what they give you, because you'll never get anything better.

 

[Canuck]

So which Phone Company has GTO's for a fleet car? I am sure people will line up to work for any company that supplies GTOs for its employees.

 

[nsap]

Originally posted by Canuck@Nov 12 2003, 01:47 PM
So which Phone Company has GTO's for a fleet car? I am sure people will line up to work for any company that supplies GTOs for its employees.

I work at a phone company (actually, I just help out, until college) and alls we have are Impalas and Silverados... <_< I would loooove for them to have GTO's!! :lol:

BTW: Car And Driver needs to start getting un-baised, or they are going to lose a lot of BIg-Three fans as costomers...

 

[TAFreak]

I almost never agree with Car and Driver and I do in this article.

Not only that, but for all they did to kill the Fbodies, they sound like they want the Firebird back.

*Edit*

Even though I agree with most things in this review, I believe Car and Driver would have seriously ripped on the GTO even if it was abolutely perfect.... because it's an American car.

 

[nightwave]

I think it's funny; they say it's a good car, but the impression I got was that they wanted a reborn "retro" GTO. As much as I thought that would have been cool, I wonder how long sales would have lasted.

 

[TAFreak]

I really wish they would have gone neither boring nor retro.

They could have designed a Modern GTO around the principles the past ones maintained (well... except the 74):

A) The car should exude an aura of power from it's looks to it's exhaust note.

B) The car should easily surpass all the other vehicles in it's class, even higher and lower.

C) The car should be affordable.

Unfortunately, the new GTO does not completely meet these ideals. But hey.. it could have been worse®..

"Pontiac", "GTO" and "It could have been worse" are all trademarks of the General Motors® Corporation.

 

[sceltor]

I saw a Car & Driver commercial where they mentioned something about being objective and honest. Funniest thing I've heard all month!

 

[doh]

I still find it BLAH! looking, I mean all the ingredients are there and it may taste really good, but they forgot the icing on the cake, I mean this is Pontiac " the excitement people" with a muscle car that looks "fleet"

The T.A. was always more radical looking than the Camaro or the Grand Prix was more radical than the Century and so on.

I just thought this was to be Pontiac's Halo car

 

[BigAls87Z28]

* note to self, apply for job at AT&T, Verizon, and Bell South

Man, I wana know if i get he option to buy the car after a year?

 

[goatfarmer]

I just don't get it. I do realise the gto isn't the most eye popping car around it still looks pretty cool to me. To each there own i guess

 

[monger]

Originally posted by doh@Nov 12 2003, 11:10 PM
I still find it BLAH! looking, I mean all the ingredients are there and it may taste really good, but they forgot the icing on the cake, I mean this is Pontiac " the excitement people" with a muscle car that looks "fleet"

The T.A. was always more radical looking than the Camaro or the Grand Prix was more radical than the Century and so on.

I just thought this was to be Pontiac's Halo car

So you think a GTO looks fleet? I would have to disagree with you there, this car is understated, it looks more Euro, than anything in the Pontiac fleet. Car and Driver would never call a BMW 3 series "fleet" even though IMHO it looks more boring than the GTO they would praise it for having clean lines and such. But then again GM didn't make the 3 series. :type:

 

[hockey81289]

and now we will start our web wide caranddriver revolt
no one buy car and driver
ever
until they shnge theyre views toward american cars

 

[nsap]

Originally posted by hockey81289@Nov 12 2003, 07:15 PM
and now we will start our web wide caranddriver revolt
no one buy car and driver
ever
until they shnge theyre views toward american cars

:lol: I would, but I have a 2-year subscription that is already paid for...

 

[casket_demon]

The back end of the GTO is waaay 2 clunky. If it weren't 4 that it'd B a nice looking car (the Catera had the same problem with it's rump). I'm sure with the next incarnation of the GTO it'll have more pizzaz. This car is just a stop gap just as the Catera was 2 the CTS.

 

[nsap]

The car is just TOO MUCH like the Catera, and as we all know: the Catera is out-dated. That is why it left in the first place!

 

[Hudson]

Any negative comments is bashing American cars if it comes from Car and Driver? Get a backbone! They say nice things about American cars when it's warranted. There are just a large number of imports brands out there. With only two US-based manufacturers, ANYONE (with an open mind) is bound to find a better product from a non-US based manufacturer...it's a simple game of numbers. Two domestics vs seven Japanese companies...one Korean...three major German companies!

This particular C&D review was positive. Give me a break. They like the GTO. I see absolutely no reason to be made at, let alone BOYCOTT, Car and Driver.

 

[sykboy]

Right. You can see no bias in reading C&D. Just look at the luxury sedan test. And the fact that in the SUV comparison they rip the SRX the whole time only to say in the end it is one of the most compelling? I don't see how ANYONE could read the article and come to the conclusion that the SRX is compelling. They obviously didn't want to like it and probably felt bad that they couldn't find a reason to give it an "F".

 

[69nova]

I'm a Chevy guy and I do believe styling is what every person perceives it to be. So, on that note, I thought the article was well written.
I am not a fan of the body but cannot refute the performance figures. After all, it took only 17 months to get a rwd, performance vehicle to the dealerships. Wit hthe economy, GM needs something now to help sales.
Personally, I liked Brock Yates comments regarding the 64's.
Even parked, they look great. Take off the top and they are even better yet.
How they will be perceived in a decade, who knows.

No, I don't think a new Chevelle should look like the 69-70 models. With the new engineering tech tools, I expect them to be better on the road as well as easier to assemble. But style-wise, looking like a big Cavalier or a GTO with a different grill would turn me off.
Regarding the car mags, I have been suspicious of the writers' trend to knock American cars. But, in this month's Motor Trend (or is it C&D), they have a comparison article between Dodge's SRT-4, Ford's Focus and a Mazda. The Focus and Mazda are nowhere in the same class as shown by the 0-60 numbers. And the magazine does note that the Dodge is clearly more fun to drive. So, maybe the writers are not all that biased.