I finally got my MT today and read the article. There it is on page 57: "preproduction pilot vehicle". Fine, So now I'm waiting for the real test.

I thought it was strange that they never once mentioned the exhaust note. Best I can tell, the exhaust note it one of the most in-your-face parts of the car. I would have especially been interested in their subjective comments on any resonance or road noise inside the cabin, especially under acceleration.

UUUHHHH they said something briefly about how it growled when they hammered on it. Read closely. :unsure:

Car and Driver's GTO was also a pilot car...

On motortrend TV they didn't mention the exhaust note either, and it wasn't even that noticeable on the shots where the car was driving by. I think the only time the exhaust was noticeable was when the car was driving away at the end of the segment when the car accellerated out of a corner, didn't sound too impressive. :(

Well the problem is when those were written, there were only *8* GTO's in the US. All 8 were pilot cars and as close to production as you could get at the time.

Okay, I'll make the jump to a conclusion everyone is hinting at here.

These numbers with the pre-production vehicles will hopefully be worse than with the actual production cars. In other words the actual production vehicle will be quicker.

There I said it. So maybe that 13.62 might drop when the production vehicles are tested? :blink:

I'd love to know the automatics numbers also. We need a production vehicle test!!!
:D

Originally posted by Orbit Orange@Nov 2 2003, 04:39 AM
Okay, I'll make the jump to a conclusion everyone is hinting at here.

These numbers with the pre-production vehicles will hopefully be worse than with the actual production cars. In other words the actual production vehicle will be quicker.

There I said it. So maybe that 13.62 might drop when the production vehicles are tested? :blink:

I'd love to know the automatics numbers also. We need a production vehicle test!!!
:D
Exactly. I admit it. I'm disappointed with the car's published performance so far. Mine will be heavily modified before it sees 100 miles, so trust me, I won't be disappointed in mine. I'm just disappointed that the numbers are not really blowing by the M3, C32AMG, S4 etc. I am really rooting for GM here. "Fit and finish" is NOT how I want the GTO to win a head-to-head with those cars. Remember when MT put an M3 up against a Z06, and the M3 got waxed in every performance category but was named victor because it had the back seat? Needless to say, I bought the car doing the waxing, not the one with three passengers with front row seats to my tail light show.

So yes I too hope the production car dose a little better. Its a friggin' GTO, for g's sake, I want some bragging rights! Is that so wrong?

Nothing wrong with bragging rights! :D

Car mags almost NEVER test actual "production" vehicle when they test a new to market vehicle. The car companies time the articles in the mags to coencide (sp?) with the launch of production vehicle. When they use a "pilot" vehicle it is always updated to 100% of expected production content at that time. Mags need atleast 90 days lead time to run the test and write the article.

In other words if Motor Trend would have waited for a "production" GTO the article would come out in the March or April issue. This is three months after the vehicle has hit the show rooms. The auto makers want the buzz at launch to drive people into the show rooms.

I saw one of the pilots at the Anahiem (Calif) auto show. The 5.3 sec 0-60 is per mfg and has been quoted by all of the rags.

Bottom line, we still do not now the actual 0-60 of a production car.

Originally posted by Goat Soldier+Nov 1 2003, 11:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Goat Soldier @ Nov 1 2003, 11:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Orbit Orange@Nov 2 2003, 04:39 AM

I'm just disappointed that the numbers are not really blowing by the M3, C32AMG, S4 etc. [/b][/quote]
Holy unrealistic Batman.

The car is $15k-$20k cheaper than those German performance sedans you mentioned, and it doesn't even compete in the same class as they do.

Worry more about blowing away Magnums, SVT Cobras, G35s, RX8s, and the like, since they're the same type of car, and near the same price.

Originally posted by TriShield+Nov 4 2003, 01:04 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TriShield @ Nov 4 2003, 01:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Goat Soldier@Nov 1 2003, 11:08 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Orbit Orange@Nov 2 2003, 04:39 AM

I'm just disappointed that the numbers are not really blowing by the M3, C32AMG, S4 etc.*
Holy unrealistic Batman.

The car is $15k-$20k cheaper than those German performance sedans you mentioned, and it doesn't even compete in the same class as they do.

Worry more about blowing away Magnums, SVT Cobras, G35s, RX8s, and the like, since they're the same type of car, and near the same price. [/b][/quote]
Okay, you are going to have to explain to me why the GTO and those three cars are not realistically comparable.

All are RWD or AWD, one V8 and two V6, two 6spd and one A5, 333-349hp, 3394 - 3864lbs curb weights, back seats all, one 2-door and two 4-door.
PERFORMANCE: (CD May '03)

S4: 5.0sec, 13.6sec at 103mph, .85g, 168feet.
M3: 4.8sec, 13.6sec at 105mph, .87g, 161feet.
C32AMG: 5.2sec, 13.6sec at 105mph, .81g, 174feet.

Ergo, they are indeed comparable.

The only real difference is price ($45k-$52k) and the fact the people who buy them, for the most part, would NEVER consider a GTO. Which is all the more reason that I want the GTO put those cars and their drivers to shame. I want to hear all the excuses why they spent too much for too little. "Those people" buy those cars to document their delusions of superiority, and I like making them squirm. (Hint, I work with many of these a$$-clowns).

Originally posted by TriShield+Nov 4 2003, 01:04 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TriShield @ Nov 4 2003, 01:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Goat Soldier@Nov 1 2003, 11:08 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Orbit Orange@Nov 2 2003, 04:39 AM

I'm just disappointed that the numbers are not really blowing by the M3, C32AMG, S4 etc.*
Holy unrealistic Batman.

The car is $15k-$20k cheaper than those German performance sedans you mentioned, and it doesn't even compete in the same class as they do.

Worry more about blowing away Magnums, SVT Cobras, G35s, RX8s, and the like, since they're the same type of car, and near the same price. [/b][/quote]
no no no.... G35, Rx8.... I don't thinkso.... Maybe on the auto x, but in a drag race... It's the cobras, STIs, and Evos... as well as the base WRX, and the srt4.... I hope we get a good hi po version... I am verry dissapointed in the 0-60/ 1/4times, but then again I Was planing on getting an STI before the goat....

Originally posted by Goat Soldier@Nov 3 2003, 09:37 PM
[QUOTE=Goat Soldier,Nov 1 2003, 11:08 PM] The only real difference is price ($45k-$52k)
Is there any other difference that matters to almost every person shopping for a car?

Goat Soldier,

You know what's a sick feeling? Driving your euro super car (s4, m3, c32) and getting the jump on the GTO. Only to look in the rear view mirror as he reels you back in as the speed climbs. I've had it happen to me before and it's gut wrenching. No substitute for torque!

Originally posted by cvp33@Nov 4 2003, 02:49 AM
Goat Soldier,

You know what's a sick feeling? Driving your euro super car (s4, m3, c32) and getting the jump on the GTO. Only to look in the rear view mirror as he reels you back in as the speed climbs. I've had it happen to me before and it's gut wrenching. No substitute for torque!
Amen, brother!