|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 85
CEG\'er
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 85 |
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Originally posted by DaJudge:
Originally posted by Phil Rohtla:
Originally posted by myfastse:
Originally posted by Phil Rohtla:
G6 GTP has a 3.9 NA V6 with a six speed.
Fixed
Whoops! Poor typing skills. D'PH!...I mean D'OH!
I was interested in trying (not necessarily buying) the GTP (Hell, I'd take a GTO if it were in Canada, but that's an aside...). But if it costs as much as a Mustang GT, I know which one I'd take. 
Don't know what a new 300hp Mustang GT can be bought for, but I paid $28,355.00 for my 400hp GTO
Mustang (New Technology) GTO aka Camaro (Old Technology). By that, I would think and hope that they would be cheaper...
Don't know much about the Vette powered Aussie GTO do you?
http://www.pontiac.com/gto/index.jsp
2005 RED GTO w/ M6
- Lingenfelter CAI
- Corsa Sport Cat-Back
- SLP LTs
- C5 Pads
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 85
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 85 |
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Mustang (New Technology) GTO aka Camaro (Old Technology). By that, I would think and hope that they would be cheaper...
GTO aka Holden Monaro
Camaro/Firebird aka dead and buried.
Also your logic is anything but. The GTO is one hell of a lot of car for under 30k. Too bad it doesn't come in sedan form or it would be a worthwhile car. It's too fat and heavy to be a good 2 door car. Then again the new Mustang is also fat & heavy as well.
They are both more grand touring coupes then muscle cars and are most DEFINITELY NOT sports cars.
True...I sure do miss my CSVT's 4 doors and bigger trunk. The GTO has about twice as much rear leg room, but getting to the rear is the thing. And it is fat [around 3,900 lbs]...but a '05 and '06 slushboxed GTO is factory rated at 4.6 [0-60] and 13.0 [1/4] and the manual is rated a tad slower at 4.7 [0-60] and 13.1 [1/4]
I doubt that there's much out there that can outrun these tubs, for the money. A few mods [can't wait till I replace the heads and cam] really wake up the LS2. A lot are spraying and supercharging their GTOs, but mine's going to be all-motor. The 3,900lbs is no match for the 6.0 liter V-8 
2005 RED GTO w/ M6
- Lingenfelter CAI
- Corsa Sport Cat-Back
- SLP LTs
- C5 Pads
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
The old standby rule. If you don't want to or can't make it ligher then just throw obscene amounts of power at it. 
I prefer lighter and nimbler myself. 
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 85
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 85 |
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
The old standby rule. If you don't want to or can't make it ligher then just throw obscene amounts of power at it.
I prefer lighter and nimbler myself.
I'm going for at least 450 whp - all motor 
My CSVT did feel more nimble, but I'm guessing that it would weigh in within 100lbs of the Mustang's 3,500lbs and within 500lbs of my GTO.
The GTO doesn't seem to take up anymore room in my garage than my CSVT did.
With DRs, heads, cam and tune, I figure the GTO will be a 11 second car. 
2005 RED GTO w/ M6
- Lingenfelter CAI
- Corsa Sport Cat-Back
- SLP LTs
- C5 Pads
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,978
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,978 |
Originally posted by The EX- Striped SVT:
I guess I did get a "bit" carried away, but I think in the spring I may need to go and rent a Malibu w/ the 3.5L V6(200 hp) and invite someone with a CSVT to Ubly. Kinda like "Pinks" but w/o the pinkslip  I'm sure the "slushbox" robs some power, but I can't come to grips with it robbing THAT much to be even close. I mentioned earlier in the post about the perf world passing the CSVT by, you know what, the SRT-4, ION Redline, Cobalt SS and this new G6 GTP w/ 6 speed runs the same 1/4 mile ET/MPH as a stock 87' GN, man have times changed and changed for the good 
Well I dont know if you're catching what im saying. The GTP took me from a stop, it pulled away due to its low end grunt. On the highway (60-70+) its relativley even field.
Alex
'99 SVT Contour
-=|WANTED: Vortech, working or not |=-
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 9,196
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
OP
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 9,196 |
I hear you, so your saying on a roll the cars are pretty much the same then, right  One thing I know about GM car is the "fun govenor" and thats also holding the G6 GTP back in that area. My thing is this, in the 1/4 mile, the G6 GTP w/ 6 speed beats the CSVT by an acre. I don't know where those stats came from, but my C&D says 14.4 @97 mph for the G6 GTP w/6spd. Also, I can't believe the Malibu weighs 3800  Imagine if that car was on diet, say about 400lbs. Now as far as the GTO, we arent' comparing the GTO and CSVT again are we   Given both cars, I'd take the GTO 100 out of 100 times and twice on Sunday. 400 hp, FOUR HUNDRED foot pounds of torque, 6 spd and RWD, did I miss something....oh yeah, mods, lots of them!
"THEE" Roger R
USMondeo@aol.com
2005 Crossfire Limited coupe'
-FOR SALE @buyout price & I'll...
-throw in my 93' Regal as winter car
*Dragon Run 06'...Oct 12-15th*
Puur-fection Auto Detailing
Complete packages from $140.00
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
The old standby rule. If you don't want to or can't make it ligher then just throw obscene amounts of power at it.
I prefer lighter and nimbler myself.
Somebody mentioned me???
I prefer more boost with moderate weight increase!!
Lots of fatty torque for a 3300 (estimated) lb contour.
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,978
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,978 |
Quote:
I hear you, so your saying on a roll the cars are pretty much the same then, right
Yes. I am.
Alex
'99 SVT Contour
-=|WANTED: Vortech, working or not |=-
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,292
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,292 |
Originally posted by Pudmunkie:
Quote:
I hear you, so your saying on a roll the cars are pretty much the same then, right
Yes. I am.
you guys are insane..your not even comparing apples to apples here..your talking about a car with a 23k dollar,2.5l 200hp..to a 29k dollar,3.9l 245hp..of course its not going to beat it in a straight line...your also over looking what the mission on the csvt was...to make a car that did everything well,get off the straight line bs..show me a car in the csvt's class that can handle like it? certainly not the g6 gt,which would be closer to the tours class.....after all thats the tours strong point,not straight line
"Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but STUPID lasts forever."-Aristophanes.
--93 pgt,headers,intake,borla=14.9 1/4mile
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by DaJudge:
My CSVT did feel more nimble, but I'm guessing that it would weigh in within 100lbs of the Mustang's 3,500lbs and within 500lbs of my GTO.
My SVT weighs about 3000lbs. Not exactly a "lightweight" but it's really tossable with the good suspension bits. FWD does suck though.
Also the lighter weight makes the little 3L feel pretty lively. 
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
