"Michael Maskalans" <dml@tepidcola.com> wrote in message
>
> the current Ponti Goat isn't trying to be retro at all. it's got
> almost the same lines as the previous generation Monte Carlo (how's
> that for another bastardized name plate? Where's my '89 GNX
> anyway...). That's lifting the name for a similar principle as the
> original - not the same thing as the Charger seems to be trying and
> that the Mustang is doing and that the Thunderbird utterly failed at
> (my opinion isn't quite that simple on the Tbird, but I do hate it).
I agree, it's just another pontiac looking thing like everything else
they've got out now. IIRC, one of their sedans is now RWD though. The
T-Bird IMO is like the prowler and PT in that respect. All looks and no go.
It's pretty retro and you can definately see the cues from the T-Birds of
yesteryear though. I think I like Ford's take on retro better because it
reminds me of the old vehicle yet at the same time is something completely
different.
> The Holden Monaro [sic]/ Pontiac GTO is a rather pedestrian looking
> coupe with a corvette engine and handling to match it. I haven't
> driven one, but I don't dislike the look personally, and if it can make
> Jeremey on Top Gear* understand the appeal of the Colonial versions of
> raw horsepower (an M5 or SL55 or 575 is rather a completely different
> take on power than a GTO or Mustang or Corvette), it's something
> special enough to take note of.
They drive really fantastic, one of the best handling cars I've ever driven
in stock form. I think it handles much better than the F-body it replaces.
> The GTO is definitely a car I'd look at now if I was interested in
> blending in with the crowd, and having fun on the side. Sorta like a
> stealthy 'Vette that you might have a chance of actually getting more
> than a toothbrush and change of clothes in the trunk. Oh yeah, and it
> seats four. Charger competition, anyone? Oh, but it's a coupe, not a
> sedan. Sorry Dodge, I guess that might be why I like it better than
> the Charger (conceptually speaking since I haven't driven either). As
> the twentysomething I am, I like two doors better than four because I'm
> still flexible enough to care more about the look of the car than the
> ease of in/egress of the back seats.
Most definately. It's individual enough to get a little notice, but not
enough to stick out in traffic. I stand with you on the opinion of looks
over function. I'm a twentysomething as well, have no kids, and could care
less about back seat passengers. I've always liked 2 door vehicles better
than 4 door ones anyway. Plus, I hate having to chaffeur people around and
the smaller the rear seat the less people will actually want to try and sit
in it. We all know it's really just there for insurance purposes anyway.
-- - Josh Lowered 2000 Dakota CC 3.9L Above Statement Not True ^^^^^ www.omg-stfu.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 01 2005 - 00:18:31 EST