2005 - Fastest GTO EVER and BY FAR

:dribble:

I want one...

I also want more than 7 cubic feet of trunk space from a ~ 3,900 pound car.

Either way, 400 REAL HP (SAE NET vs the old SAE GROSS) from a stock GTO is certainly something to celebrate.

Yes it is very nice. Moving to the proper forum... :D

3725 pounds but who's counting. ;)

well appearntly we are... the GTO is no 300C/Magnum.

You want one? Congratulations.

When you get yours, be sure to post pics.......

It's a great car, and the 05 will be great too, but the design has some stupid problems - poor trunk-space given the size and weight, excessive weight (!!!), fuel tank location (which also raises safety questions)...

But I'd take one.

Originally posted by KMK454@Aug 26 2004, 12:07 PM
the design has some stupid problems - poor trunk-space given the size fuel tank location (which also raises safety questions)...
The fuel tank placement on the US spec '04 & '05 models was done specifically for the car to meet US regulations as far as I am aware of.

The fact that the fuel tank is placed where it is makes it much safer (ala NASCAR style) than the original placement which was lower down to the ground, similar to many other vehicles.

Unfortunately this means the loss of trunk space, although it's not like lugging stuff around is the primary reason for buying a GTO. :lol:

I'v discussed this with an aussie member on this site, and while it is placed to meet US requirements there isn't any real proof that it is safer at all from what I have learned.

Originally posted by Nocturn@Aug 26 2004, 03:03 PM
I'v discussed this with an aussie member on this site, and while it is placed to meet US requirements there isn't any real proof that it is safer at all from what I have learned.
Is there a technical drawing anywhere about of the Holden Monaro with the old fuel tank placement? I'll admit I've never seen where the original was placed but I can remember a little while back that whole thing with Ford Crown Victoria police cars being suceptible to exploding because of the Fuel tank placement. Bad placement or bad impact crash design perhaps?

Originally posted by DrachenGTO+Aug 27 2004, 01:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DrachenGTO @ Aug 27 2004, 01:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Nocturn@Aug 26 2004, 03:03 PM
I'v discussed this with an aussie member on this site, and while it is placed to meet US requirements there isn't any real proof that it is safer at all from what I have learned.
Is there a technical drawing anywhere about of the Holden Monaro with the old fuel tank placement? I'll admit I've never seen where the original was placed but I can remember a little while back that whole thing with Ford Crown Victoria police cars being suceptible to exploding because of the Fuel tank placement. Bad placement or bad impact crash design perhaps? [/b][/quote]
crown victoria fuel tanks as well as those found on the ford mustang are extremlly tough, there haven't been that many fuel tank explosions, espacilly given how many of these cars are out on the highway. the ones were i have seen that they have exploded is when they get hit from behind on the itnerstate at about 80mph....no one can design the "perfect" car. Ford designed the Mustang fuel tanks to sustain a rear impact from a full size pick up truck at 50 mph with out leaking, if you look on the underside, you can see the steel bars that incase the tank. same for the vics. you can only do so much. i'd rather have the fuel tank on the GTO back in its original place for the extra room, but so long as it can fit my box full of auto-detaling supplies and a bag chair...i'm a happy camper :D i did read one story from an australian paper where the fuel tank of a Monaro CV8 did catch fire after it was hit from behind, but that also was quite a severe blow, and both occupants were already out of the vehcile when it happened.

Originally posted by Nocturn@Aug 26 2004, 02:03 PM
I'v discussed this with an aussie member on this site, and while it is placed to meet US requirements there isn't any real proof that it is safer at all from what I have learned.
I've studied the issue as well and have come to the same conclusion.

The Monaro never had a rear collision problem, and the placment may actually have been done to accomodate the exhaust.

In any case, it's not hard to move the fuel tank back under the car on 2004 GTOs. It won't be possible with the new dual exhaust on the 2005 models.

I dont know what ya'll 'been studying ??? I am quiete confident the Aussies put the gas tank near the center for "balance" issues...ie... a nearly perfect 50/50 weight balance. Safety did not factor into the placement of the Monaro gas tank. In order to meet US standards we HAD to move the tank to the rear. Moving the tank to the rear was accomplished both by putting it there AND lifting the overall HEIGHT of the car itself. This caused the center of gravity to shift slightlly. I believe our cars have a 55/45 weight balance...The Monaro is better balanced but I dont know the exact stats...The lift in height of our cars may have likely caused the understeer problem you read about in the auto mags...

so....your saying....they make the GTO with a higher roof line....?

I think it was Scott Knight who gave this info prior to the GTO release. What ever happend to Scott?