The GTO concept has a 6.3 L V8 engine with 500 hp at 5200 rpm and 500 lb-ft of torque at 5000 rpm, matching early rumors about the LS7 for the C6 Corvette Z06. It also has a six-speed manual transmission, modified brakes, bigger wheels and tires and new exhaust. The bright orange exterior features a new hood, fender, quarter panel, spoiler, front and rear fascia and rockers.

Full Article HERE! (http://www.auto-report.net/index.html?gmpd-woodward.html)

I have a serious porblem with the rpm number for the HP. Either it's 1000 rpms too low or the displacement is wrong. I'll believe 500 hp on a 6.3 liter engine at 6200 rpm, but not 5200. For it to be 500 at 5200 rpm the displacement would have to be 7.0 liters.

Sorry Blue Max,
I've said it before, its all about the engines engineering purpose................

Remember, 455cid engine, 5600RPM
400cid engine 5600RPM
Even though not 500HP still lower RPM
My 67 Bird has around 530HP and peaks around 5600-6000

And thats fast as hell!!!!!!!!!!!! Imagine peaking at 5200RPM

Besides an engine peaking power at a low RPM is better at the strip and in street racing. You only want High RPM peak for racing your GTO in an Indy car 500

You missed my point. What I'm saying is that it isn't possible for a 6.3 liter engine to make 500 hp at that low an rpm. You either need to spin it faster to make the hp or increase the displacement. If you take into account the hp peak rpm of the LS1, LS6 and LS2, you will notice that all peak at higher rpms than what has been stated for the supposed 6.3 liter 500 hp LS7. The math doesn't work. It also doesn't work when I run it through Engine Analyzer. It needs another 1000 at least to get to 500 hp.

Oh and notice all the examples you gave have more cubic inches and less hp at higher rpms. Except for the t-bird, which I assume is not a stock engine. My point is you can imagine making that much hp at that low an rpm all you want. It's not gonna happen with a 6.3 liter engine at 5200 rpm, unless you use nitrous or forced induction.

Sweet - stock NOS for the Judge and C6 Z06!!!
Dan



You think that's how all internet rumors get started?

Originally posted by bluemax@Aug 16 2004, 12:50 PM
You missed my point. What I'm saying is that it isn't possible for a 6.3 liter engine to make 500 hp at that low an rpm. You either need to spin it faster to make the hp or increase the displacement. If you take into account the hp peak rpm of the LS1, LS6 and LS2, you will notice that all peak at higher rpms than what has been stated for the supposed 6.3 liter 500 hp LS7. The math doesn't work. It also doesn't work when I run it through Engine Analyzer. It needs another 1000 at least to get to 500 hp.

Oh and notice all the examples you gave have more cubic inches and less hp at higher rpms. Except for the t-bird, which I assume is not a stock engine. My point is you can imagine making that much hp at that low an rpm all you want. It's not gonna happen with a 6.3 liter engine at 5200 rpm, unless you use nitrous or forced induction.
How can it not make more power at a lower RPM? It makes more power at a lower RPM as it is a larger displacement. The 6.3 is similar, but not the same as the LS1/2 or 6. What about this makes it so impossible for the peak HP to occur at such a low RPM? There are a bunch of factors that have to be introduced before you can just say "it can't have said HP at said RPM with said displacment" Its possible for any displacement motor to have any HP at any RPM (extremes aside).

I'd like to point out there is a strict mathimatical connection between gross torque and gross hp. Lets see what this tells us.

HP = (rpm x torque)/5252

HP = (5000 rpm x 500 ft/lbs)/5252 = approx. 476 hp at 5000rpm
----------------------------------

Torque = (5252 x HP)/rpm

Torque = (5252 x 500)/5200 = approx. 505 ft/lbs at 5200 rpm


So either the max torque is a little higher than advertised or the max hp is a little less than advertised. Either way though its true something is fishy with the numbers. However, it in no way requires a 500 ft lbs at 6000 rpm to make 500 hp. In fact, since hp and torque are always equal at 5252 rpm and both ratings being near this value, it should have been quickly obvious that the 6000 rpm statement is an even bigger error. The ratings may be off by 1 to 2 percent but the needed rpm statement is off by 15 to 20 percent.

:afro:

Here it is...the GTO you've all been waiting for :friday:

WoooooW!!! :woot: That is S W E E T! Beautiful orange color. That thing is mean. :dribble:

Thanks TrueBlue!

Whoa....interesting.

Its got no curves, I think I would have to see this in person or have more pictures next to an 04/05. But from that I dont think it looks to bad, not the greatest color though, to flat...needs more of a sparkle.

That GTO looks so sweeeeet!!! :D Do you have any more pics?! I really like the lines on that car!!

I'll post more tomorow!!

Well, um, Ok. I guess now I know what I'd get if I turned my car over to the MTV Pimp my Ride folks...

I love it. Give those guys a raise and a promotion and make the 07 look like that. And throw in a Judge option with the LS7 for under 41,000.

:dribble: :dribble: :dribble: ... They should make the 07 like that because its SWEET! Dont care for the spoiler or the exhaust though :/ those 2 things could of been better in my mind.

Looks good but way to over the top, I don't care for the front/rear fenders being wider than the doors, the widebody kits look to wacky IMO.

First off thanks for the pics.

I LOVE the color of course but overall I just don't like it. It's too Fast and Furious. I just wish Pontiac would go ahead and build the d@mn Firebird again so it would get all this extraneous styling cr@p and the GTO could be more smooth and "mature".

High points:

1. Great color!!
2. I actually kind of like that hood.
3. The recessed grille inserts are nice.

Low points:

1. Those fender bulges in my book are awful. They just don't look right. Kinda looks like an older Viper mated with an RX-8. Icck!!! :(

2. The front bumper is way too low and flat. Looks like it ought to be out plowing driveways clear of snowdrifts.

3. The rear bumper fascia. Just bad. Nothing fits or flows here. It looks like some kind of FrankenGTO with all types of different styling elements.

4. The exhaust tips look totally out of place. I love the split duals on the old GTO's but it just doesn't do it for me here.

So overall I'm not into it. Just my opinion though. I'm sure others will like it. But what I said above about the Firebird is what I wish would happen. Give all this over the top styling to a new "Pony Car" and leave a more refined and muscular and mature ride for the GTO. And no that doesn't mean the GTO has to be boring. It can be spiced up without looking like something a west coast tuner drives around in.

:)

Originally posted by Nocturn+Aug 18 2004, 07:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nocturn @ Aug 18 2004, 07:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>"I don't care for the front/rear fenders being wider than the doors, the widebody kits look to wacky IMO."[/b]

Thats what made it look more mean and tough in my opinion... It made it look like it could tear everything else on the road in two and chew the pieces up and spit them out in a wad (the back lookes horible though).

Originally posted by Orbit Orange@Aug 18 2004, 10:40 PM

I just wish Pontiac would go ahead and build the d@mn Firebird again so it would get all this extraneous styling cr@p and the GTO could be more smooth and "mature".
...
Those fender bulges in my book are awful. They just don't look right. Kinda looks like an older Viper mated with an RX-8. Icck!!! :(

I think that they actually make it look more muscular, tough, and mean and kinda "smooth and mature". Kinda gives it the "I AM THE LAW!!!!!" kind of look, like it is an unstopable machine that shows no mearcy.

Originally posted by Orbit Orange@Aug 18 2004, 10:40 PM

1. Great color!!
2. I actually kind of like that hood.
3. The recessed grille inserts are nice.


Dont think there will be any arguments here and if there are i think they will be minimal. I to liked (actually i loved) those aspects of the car.

Originally posted by Orbit Orange@Aug 18 2004, 10:40 PM

2. The front bumper is way too low and flat. Looks like it ought to be out plowing driveways clear of snowdrifts.

I dont think it looks THAT bad, kinda low but thats the way it is supposed to be, also the shadow i think makes it look lower and the fact that it's in grass (if you look at the wheels the grass i think is higher than it seems which would make the car then seem lower). Then again you might have taken all this into consideration already. Just pointing some stuff out.

Originally posted by Orbit Orange@Aug 18 2004, 10:40 PM

3. The rear bumper fascia. Just bad. Nothing fits or flows here. It looks like some kind of FrankenGTO with all types of different styling elements.

4. The exhaust tips look totally out of place. I love the split duals on the old GTO's but it just doesn't do it for me here.

Once again i dont think there will be ANY ARGUMENTS ON THIS ONE...The back looks horible...

<!--QuoteBegin-Orbit Orange@Aug 18 2004, 10:40 PM
So overall I'm not into it. Just my opinion though. I'm sure others will like it. But what I said above about the Firebird is what I wish would happen. Give all this over the top styling to a new "Pony Car" and leave a more refined and muscular and mature ride for the GTO. And no that doesn't mean the GTO has to be boring. It can be spiced up without looking like something a west coast tuner drives around in.[/quote]

I thought that this made it actually look more "refined and muscular and mature" than the current GTO Not TOO MUCH styling like the Firebird which is good...some more styling than the current but it actually made it look pretty good and added to the car.

ALSO I would like to say that i respect your opinions up above and like to see opinions that are oposite of mine. Sometimes gives me something to think about...I read your posts and after being endecided on the back overall i made up my mind that the rear looked screwed p and not right (though i started feeling like that at first)

I was just comparing and contrasting our views and pointiong out some things that others may or may not have noticed. B)
...
That is all :)

Goat Lover

You show a great deal of maturity and class for someone of your age. I appreciate that. I will still stand by my opinions as they are just that. I can see why this would appeal to a younger crowd than myself though. That's why I really feel there needs to be a new Firebird to fit that mold for the 16 to mid/late twentysomethings. I really kind of like a more refined yet muscular GTO aimed a little more at the 30/40 somethings.

That's part of the problem too. When your price of a vehicle starts climbing into the mid 30 K range there aren't too many teens and early 20's that can swing that kind of dough. It's the slightly older set that is coming into their earning power (even though they might be swinging mortgages and families at the same time) that can land a mid 30K vehicle.

I guess it all comes down to what a person really thinks a GTO should be. We all have different thoughts on the subject. I'm just into the "Velvet glove, Iron fist" camp. Good smooth and muscular looks with the guts to take out a lot of other pretender vehicles. Some are into the "In Your Face, Blow Your Doors Off" camp of over the top looks with a boatload of power yet lacking some of the niceties.

Lastly, even though I don't like the big fenders I do feel the GTO could use a little more "character" in the fender area. A little of that bulging would be OK, I just feel the prototype shown here is a little to much for my taste.

To each their own. :)

ooops a day late...sorry guys

Another gripe. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Wow I'm picky, but the rear side scoops are WAY to "Mustangy". I really want to distance the GTO from the old Crustang.

I still love that Orange. :afro:

Thanks for the extra pic TrueBlue. :)

Those are my thoughts aswell...dont like that look on those...thats also the angle people will se alot IF these were mead so that would be a downside :/ if thaty part of the car looked smooth or had a different type of look it might work out on that part. BTW, thanx for the comment Orbit Orange

When can i get a gto like that?

Originally posted by Orbit Orange@Aug 20 2004, 04:07 PM
Wow I'm picky, but the rear side scoops are WAY to "Mustangy".
I agree that there is something about this car that resembles a mustang. For more proof go to a mustang website and look at a thread concerning that picture... They love it. They said that was how it should have looked in the first place. In fact I couldn't find one negative response except for some idiots that couldn't see the dual exhausts and critisized it for only having one.

I cant see how someone can compare it to a mustang...THe only resemblance is is the rear side scoops...
...
The rest is just goat.

If they had had a spoiler on the goat up above like this one...
http://ultimategto.com/2004/04_00046_4.jpg
http://ultimategto.com/2004/04_00046_5.jpg
http://ultimategto.com/2004/04_00046_6.jpg
http://ultimategto.com/2004/04_00046_7.jpg
Then it might have looked better in the back (along with exhaust and rear bumper like this)
http://home.ripway.com/2004-1/50476/04_00092_2.jpg

Then it would have been BAD A$$!!!!

hey true blue, any chance of getting the large version of that last pic. the wheels on it are the first set of 20's we made and the first set with satin finish on the face
jp

I agree that there is something about this car that resembles a mustang. For more proof go to a mustang website and look at a thread concerning that picture... They love it. They said that was how it should have looked in the first place. In fact I couldn't find one negative response except for some idiots that couldn't see the dual exhausts and critisized it for only having one.


Interesting.

I think that might prove one of my points that this prototype is to "Mustang-like".

I just really want to distance the GTO from the Mustang and the Mustang crowd in general. (Not all Stang owners because some are cool) Let them have the Rustang and let us have a more mature and "studly" GTO.

I just don't want the average Joe Blow looking at a tarted up GTO and saying, "Bah there goes another Mustang." The GTO need to stand apart and above. Just not some cartoonish boy-racer.

Just my thoughts. Maybe they could make the GXP version like this??? :)

Being that HP & Torque are equal at 5252 and the torque rating is accurate the engine will make the 500 HP at that lower RPM. That would either mean that the engine is limited from making higher RPM HP (via computer or camshaft) or they are advertising on the conservative side. If that engine were to make peak HP at (even slightly) higher RPM it could be as much as 600 HP by 6000 RPM! Having said that, that would make that engine one of the most efficient engines ever in a production vehicle.

Dave

I dont think the GTO has to much to worry about with the new 1964 Mustang comming out in 05 With that the GTO will look even more different as long as GM hopefully stays away from retro cues.

Any more pictures of that 500 horse power gto.

dont get to picky with ls7 numbers, remember its still not official in facts

http://www.micro-op.com.au/execls1/front05b.jpg

http://www.micro-op.com.au/execls1/back05b.jpg

2005 GTO RamAir 6

http://www.micro-op.com.au/execls1/front05a.jpg

http://www.micro-op.com.au/execls1/back05a.jpg

2005 GTO Autocross version with optional 18" wheels.

We do know that the autocross version is an option for 2005. Will the 05 Woodward concept also be some kind of mid year option?

Originally posted by nikivee@Aug 30 2004, 02:32 PM
Will the 05 Woodward concept also be some kind of mid year option?
Inquiring minds want to know...

like...maybe a judge?

Now why would anyone wanta do something like that to this bad a** of a car? ;) :huh: <_< :blink:

A bunch of high res wallpapers of the Ram Air 6 are here-

Seriouswheels.com (http://www.seriouswheels.com/top-2004-Pontiac-GTO-Ram-Air-6.htm)

And here's a bunch of other angles-

SVT Performance (http://www.svtperformance.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=121644)


Man, I love this body-kit and overall look. Maybe someone will get the b4lls to actually produce it.

Here are the engine specs:

Engine Displacement: 6.4L (389 CID)
Bore: 105.03mm (4.135”)
Stroke: 92.00mm (3.622”)
REV Limit: 7000 RPM
Peak Hp: 575 Hp @ 6800 RPM
Peak Tq: 500 Lb-Ft @ 5200 RPM
Compression Ratio: 10.5:1
Cam Shaft: Custom GM Hyd Roller
Valve lift: 15.75mm (.620”)
Cam Duration Int: 232 deg @ .050” Tappet
Cam Duration Exh: 272 deg @ .050” Tappet
90mm Throttle Body
Dual Mass Air Flow sensors, Cold air induction system