Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General General help defend SVT tours!

http://navisite.collegeclub.com/servlet/channels.NewCarsArticleServlet?articleid=2687&channelid=50

Someone with some good, hard facts go help me out please, it's self explanatory

I didn't know what I was looking for until I found the messages on the right. I had to read about some chick go on about the GA GT.

Coolunderfire:

"one more thing, to the person who said they had a grand am with a 3300 V6. Um, as far as I know, GM never made a 3300 V6. They have the 3100, 3400, and 3800. They used to make a 2.5 V6 a while ago but they don't anymore.. But I have never heard of the 3300 V6."

This little morsel of uneducated, mindless drivel tells me all I need to know about this pansy.

Since I'm not going to waste my time registering at CollegeClub to post, will someone put the slightest hint in this troglodyte's ear that he should perform a cursory search of "GM 3300 V6" in any major search engine before posting any more?

It's unfortunate that he has set his sphincter in motion ahead of his brain, even more so because he has demonstrated that since he isn't familiar with his own family, there's no way he can expect us to take him seriously when commenting on the competition.

LMAO
Brinn! Good to hear from you again! Where ya been?

This is kinda of funny cus yesterday I just took "road raced" a Ram Air Grand Am Gt through some of the worst twistes and inclines I know, at speeds of and exceading 110 mph!!!
Lets just say the guy in the Ram Air was impressed by the Tours performance !!!!!!

People like this guy piss me off. You should not have the right to rip on another car unless you drive it. I have drove a GT befor nothing special yes power but not like the SVT at least in start off.

Friends-

Please remember that the GM motor has only a specific output of arund 40horse/liter vs. the Contour's 80 horse/liter. The contour's engine is much more advanced than that old Smithsonian piece that they have been putting in Buicks for 20 years.

Plus their mostly automatics, what kind of driving excitement is that?

I also will not waste my time registering with that site, but here are that facts that I know.

I encountered what looked to be a 2000 or 2001 Pontiac Grand Prix GTP (You know the one with a Super Charger) at a stop light. Needless to say he was faster than my Stock SVT, but when I hit 3rd gear, he was less than half a car length ahead. At that point we both let off because of a hill where the Cops like to hide. As far as racing goes, I have only seen one Pontiac show up to an autocross, other than the Firebirds. That was a lowered and hopped up Grand AM GT. On the same course the times were. Contour SVT 53.45 and Grand AM GT 55.56. Oh, as far as their Porsche statements. A Boxter finished with at 54.47. Faster than the Grand AM, but not me and my SVT. All of our race results are posted at http://www.neokla-scca.org/SoloII/EventResults/ Any time a Pontiac Grand whatever wants to come and race, let me know and I will be there. I imaginge that the people writing their critiques of our cars have never set foot on a race track, driven a real race car or even a street car at a truely fast pace. Without out doing so they have no basis to compare other cars. Personally if I wanted to be competitive in my class, I would be driving a Neon ACR or a Celica GT. The truth is a Contour SVT is an awesome street car probably would make a good road race car, but when autocrossing is concered can be beat, but never by a Pontiac Grand Anything. Not to mention the fact that the Grand Prix with a 3.8 V6 and a Super Charger was not much faster than a Ford 2.5 V6. You put a Super Charger on our cars and all the GTP sees is Tail Lights.

My 2 cents, Havea nice Day.

My mother has a older model GTP and the problems with that car are worse than the ones with either of the V6's I have. Hers only has 38,000 miles too. The accelleration is a bit better then the SVT but not by much and the handle is very loose.

I've driven both and I'd only take the GTP if I didn't have to pay for it.

Not to be devil's advocate here, but I quote the guy in that forum:

"The SVT countor was a joke. Ford tried to make a performance out of a economy car and failed miserably."

I would argue that this statement is subjective to one's terms of "success". If one was to define success as building a car which was fun to drive, and offered performance not commonly found on cars of the same price range, Ford was successful.

However, from the business end of the stick, I think Ford failed miserably. I have a hard time thinking they made any money on the car whatsoever based on the amount of engineering$, the cost to run the SVT ops to support the car, and the $ paid out in warranty claims/TSB's.

Furthermore, I think that it seems like SVT owners fall into one of two camps: they will definately buy another Ford/SVT product, or they will ride the bus before buying another Ford/SVT product.

I personally think that Ford failed when it built the SVT because they didn't build longevity or quality into the product they way they should have. How many Maxima's blew their engines when the SVT was in production, or had their synchros self-destruct. And the whole "bang for buck" is a complete farce because the car depreciates so terribly.

For a failure, it sure is fun to drive though and never ceases to put a smile on my face or garner looks when it is driving down the road. If only it was worth something and I didn't feel lucky because I have 75K and my motor hasn't blown up yet and I am only on my 2nd tranny.

Of course, if one was to define "success" as how it stacks up to a Grand AM when its time to hit the Autocross, that is another story