G8 GT first drive by Motor Trend.

[mrgto]

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0802_2008_pontiac_g8_gt_first_test

First Test: 2008 Pontiac G8 GT
It's all done with smoke in the mirrors


By Arthur St. Antoine
Photography by Derek Gardner
To those of you who've eagerly awaited the launch of Pontiac's super-hot, Australia-sourced 2008 G8 sport sedan, we're pleased to announce the following: We have liftoff. The test numbers are in.



We were as eager as you to get behind the wheel of this bold new four-door Grand Prix replacement -- bred and built by GM's Holden division in Australia. And that's largely because, first and foremost, the G8 is rear-drive, which immediately gains it admission into a lofty arena occupied by the likes of BMW and Infiniti. The G8 is a genuine, kick-the-tail-out sport sedan, not a front-drive compromise. Let us all pause now and give GM a huge round of applause.

The good stuff isn't limited to the layout. When the G8 goes on sale in a few weeks (target is early March), Pontiac will offer two versions. The base car is powered by a DOHC, 3.6-liter V-6 with variable valve timing that kicks out 256 horses at 6300 rpm and 248 pound-feet of torque at 2100. The engine mates to a five-speed automatic transmission. Eighteen-inch, silver-painted alloy wheels are standard, as are projector-beam headlights, a tilt-telescoping wheel, polished stainless-steel exhaust tips, remote start, and a seven-speaker Blaupunkt audio system with CD player and iPod jack.



Seen here is the up-level G8 GT, which ripples with a 6.0-liter OHV V-8 that booms out 361 horses at 5300 rpm and 385 pound-feet at 4400. The engine features computer-managed cylinder deactivation for enhanced economy. The big mill's output flows through a standard six-speed automatic with Sport mode. No manual is available yet, but when we pressed Pontiac execs, they hinted one may be coming later this year -- perhaps in concert with a higher-tuned engine.

Added GT goodies include quad stainless-steel exhaust tips, a limited-slip diff, dual-zone climate control, a leather-wrapped wheel, a more potent audio system, and machine-faced 18-inch wheels wearing summer performance tires. Leather seats and a power sunroof are available in both G8 models. The GT also offers an optional Sport package (seen on our test car), which adds 19-inch alloys, sport metallic pedals, and a meatier steering wheel. Pricing is aggressive. The base G8 starts at $27,595, while the mighty GT lists at just $29,995-making it, Pontiac points out, the most powerful automobile available in the U.S. for under 30 grand.

And now for the big news: the sound and the fury, the rubber dust and the tire smoke. At the track, the G8 GT nailed the sprint to 60 mph in just 5.3 seconds and charged through the quarter mile in 13.8 seconds at 102.8 mph. Those numbers are on par with the twin-turbo BMW 335i and the Infiniti G37, but the Pontiac's sticker undercuts both by thousands (more than $10 grand in the case of the Bimmer). The G8's engine note is quite reserved at cruise-almost too quiet given the high-flash bodywork-but at WOT it comes alive with a delicious bawl. And once the car is up to speed it really hits its stride, the V-8 pulling particularly hard as the speedo sweeps past the century mark. For relatively modest bucks you get mega straight-line performance.

The 19-inch summer tires and well-tuned suspension combine to wring out 0.88 g of grip-far more than either the 335i or the G37. More important, the GT responds to handling inputs with impressive balance (weight distribution is 51/49 percent front/rear). Braking from 60 mph, aided by vented rotors fore and aft and twin-piston calipers up front, takes just 112 feet (the BMW and Infiniti each do it in 110 feet). While StabiliTrak with all-speed traction control is standard on both G8 models, you can switch it entirely off. So configured, the GT will happily kick out its tail wide under throttle-useful for balancing the car on the track, though for most road driving StabiliTrak is the smarter choice, keeping the torque nicely under rein.



Ride quality is quite good given the G8's athletic abilities; the GT makes an excellent executive's express. The cabin is nicely tailored with a "tech-grain" dash, comfortable and enveloping seats, and simple controls. What's more, though it might not look it, the car is huge inside-particularly in back, which also features what at first sight appears to be the world's largest pass-through. Four adults could happily travel all day in the G8. The trunk serves up a generous 17.5 cubic feet.

Judging by our first drives, the G8 GT is good indeed. Good enough, in fact, to merit BMW, Infiniti, and Lexus intenders dropping by the Pontiac store for a serious look. As for how Pontiac's new Aussie expat compares to perhaps its single biggest American rival...stay tuned to this channel. We've prepared a head-to-head match-up you won't want to miss.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0802_2008_pontiac_g8_gt_first_test/specs_test_data.html

http://images.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0804_37z+2008_pontiac_g8_GT+burnout.jpg

http://images.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0804_06z+2008_pontiac_g8_GT+interior.jpg

http://images.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0804_03z+2008_pontiac_g8_GT+steering_wheel.jpg

http://images.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0804_36z+2008_pontiac_g8_GT+burnout.jpg

[BishopSS]

:drive:


:woot:

[Saiyan Raver]

OK, that's it. I've got to go subscribe to some car magazines or something. I'd heard about this car here and there, but this is something I should have been on top of. Sweet car. :cool:

Is that 6 liter a detuned LS2? :dunno:

[ThumperWS6]

Originally posted by Saiyan Raver
OK, that's it. I've got to go subscribe to some car magazines or something. I'd heard about this car here and there, but this is something I should have been on top of. Sweet car. :cool:

Is that 6 liter a detuned LS2? :dunno:

nope

[Tristan]

sweeeeet :drool:

[Saiyan Raver]

Originally posted by ThumperWS6
nope

I see. Either way, that really takes nothing away from the car.

[mrgto]

The thing with that engine is just a cam/headers and it will be a beast.

[Tristan]

:nilly: but it doesn't have nav! :nilly:

[IBJanky]

great power, but looks fugly

[MapleRed]

Very nice. It sounds like a winner. :cool:

[Rich97 W68]

Originally posted by mrgto
The thing with that engine is just a cam/headers and it will be a beast.

No doubt. :eek:

God, I'm on the fence about keeping and modifying the GTO, or going with a G8...damnit!

[Edit]:
The base car is powered by a DOHC, 3.6-liter V-6 with variable valve timing that kicks out 256 horses at 6300 rpm and 248 pound-feet of torque at 2100.

How is it making peak torque that low in the RPM range? That's rather impressive in and of itself, even if the 6-cylinder isn't even on my RADAR. Guess that's a kick in the nads for the "DOHC engines make no torque/make no torque at low RPM" crew. :eek:

[Jeffro]

Originally posted by 92LT1RS
:nilly: but it doesn't have nav! :nilly:

There's a reason the car doesn't have it too. I'm sure the haters will still hate on though.

[tater]

Interior looks cheap, you have to admit it. Why does Pontiac still use the dated amber lights for the interior?

[mrgto]

Originally posted by pre
Interior looks cheap, you have to admit it. Why does Pontiac still use the dated amber lights for the interior?


Because BMW still does.

TQ is right on. Here is the dyno sheet.

http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2008/HPT%20Library/HFV6/2008_36L_LY7_G8.pdf

[carpenter]

Originally posted by 92LT1RS
:nilly: but it doesn't have nav! :nilly:

meh.. I think you missed the point of the argument.. I LOVE the car, but still see absolutely no reason that GM wouldn't have allowed for a nav option especially with a giant double din radio display in it already.

[carpenter]

Originally posted by pre
Interior looks cheap, you have to admit it. Why does Pontiac still use the dated amber lights for the interior?

amber???? they are red not amber.

[LS2iwish]

The quality of the malibu's interior does make that one seem disappointing. :\

But the numbers are great, and I like the overall car. :cool:

[Sir Ringo]

Originally posted by pre
Interior looks cheap, you have to admit it. Why does Pontiac still use the dated amber lights for the interior?

For a starting price of $27k, I don't understand how you can begin to call that interior cheap when it offers the performance it does.

Sounds like this car is everything I was expecting. Awesome :woot:

[kasim]

Originally posted by carpenter
meh.. I think you missed the point of the argument.. I LOVE the car, but still see absolutely no reason that GM wouldn't have allowed for a nav option especially with a giant double din radio display in it already.

:werd: its absolutely ricidulous not to have contained it as an option.

HOWEVER, i imagine like the GTO, since its shipped from Australia they were probably looking at keeping the customizations down as much as possible.

[tater]

Originally posted by Sir Ringo
For a starting price of $27k, I don't understand how you can begin to call that interior cheap when it offers the performance it does.

Sounds like this car is everything I was expecting. Awesome :woot:

GTO was faster and that was 3 years ago. To me, this is a 4 door, slower version of the GTO.

[1badls2goat]

Originally posted by pre
GTO was faster and that was 3 years ago. To me, this is a 4 door, slower version of the GTO. Of course the GTO was faster (for obvious technical reasons)...

if one wants a G8 GT that's faster than a GTO by a long shot, all he has to do is purchase headers and a cam kit; he'll make ASSLOADS of horsepower with those l76 heads. :yup:

The G8 kicks serious ass, and I absolutely can't wait to see the GXP. That thing will own M3s all day long :yup:

[mrgto]

Not so sure a LS3 @ 425hp is going to own a 500hp M5...

[mrgto]

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=124876?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..1.*&imw=Y

[1badls2goat]

Originally posted by mrgto
Not so sure a LS3 @ 425hp is going to own a 500hp M5...

Is it going to be NA LS3? I thought it would have some power adder, too (maybe I was just dreaming) haha

[Jeffro]

Originally posted by carpenter
meh.. I think you missed the point of the argument.. I LOVE the car, but still see absolutely no reason that GM wouldn't have allowed for a nav option especially with a giant double din radio display in it already.

I've already stated why GM didn't put NAV in this car. The radio is too low for Federal requirements when it comes to NAV units.

[ramairetransam]

nice , im surprised by the price too , i musta heard about a gxp price when i first heard about pricing because it was over 30k . But not bad. Very nice. That staright on angle isnt the most flattering but it looks good .

[Jeffro]

Originally posted by ramairetransam
nice , im surprised by the price too , i musta heard about a gxp price when i first heard about pricing because it was over 30k . But not bad. Very nice. That staright on angle isnt the most flattering but it looks good .

Loaded GTs will sticker for around $33k and should start hitting showrooms in the next 2 weeks.

The GXP, which hasn't been officially confirmed by GM, will likely sticker around $36-38k.

[Sir Ringo]

Originally posted by mrgto
Not so sure a LS3 @ 425hp is going to own a 500hp M5...

And why would it? The CTS-V is aimed at the M5. No one would ever cross-shop an E90 M5 and a G8 GT.

[1badls2goat]

Originally posted by Sir Ringo
And why would it? The CTS-V is aimed at the M5. No one would ever cross-shop an E90 M5 and a G8 GT.

his post was aimed at my post before I edited it to say M3 instead of M5.

[Sir Ringo]

Originally posted by 1badls2goat
his post was aimed at my post before I edited it to say M3 instead of M5.

Yeah, I realized that after I posted :o

[ChillPhatCat]

Originally posted by pre
GTO was faster and that was 3 years ago. To me, this is a 4 door, slower version of the GTO.

You're basing this on Motor Trend's numbers... it's well known that these mags know jack shit about a good launch. 13.8 @ 102 will probably drop to a low 13 @ 103-104 when we get some actual drivers behind the wheel.

Also realize that the 361 Hp it's rated at is a result of designing the car to get good economy for it's size... it should not be hard to push a gen III 6.0L V8 to 450+ Hp with a few simple mods and still keep all of it's streetability.

[IMPOSTER]

I'm not crazy about the looks but still, that is a nice package for the money.

[Coach Brady Hoke]

Late 2009 I will be buying one.

This car has everything I need and want.

[Scotty]

:drool: Looks amazing, inside and out.

[Checkmate]

gas mileage estimate for the v6 and v8?

[Got Me SOM]

This is a good indication for Camaro pricing. ;)

[Last of a Breed]

These really need to start showing up in showrooms as I want to check out how the interior stacks up. Depending on finances, it's going to be between the G8, CTS and Camaro coming buying time for me.

[Hillbilly Deluxe]

Im actually really excited about this car...

I cant wait to see one in person :cool:

However I have no idea why Im soo excited about a 4 door car :boggled:

[Big_Red_1]

The one thing I don't really care for is the tail lights. I wonder if they are redesigning them since they don't have any pictures in the Moter Trend article or even on the Pontiac website ??

Why no LS2? And what is the difference between the L76 and LS2 anyway?

[CT Morgan]

Kudos to GM. I personally think the car needs a couple minor tweaks, but even as it stands I think it will be a hit. Impressive numbers considering we're not seeing the top tier performance model yet too. :cool:

I'm so glad to see something like this!

[CT Morgan]

Originally posted by Big_Red_1
The one thing I don't really care for is the tail lights. I wonder if they are redesigning them since they don't have any pictures in the Moter Trend article or even on the Pontiac website ??

Why no LS2? And what is the difference between the L76 and LS2 anyway?

Better heads, but less aggressive cam on the L76 from my understanding. It's also a variable displacement engine, right?

[Robs98SS]

I'm confused, this is an article from Motor Trend talking about how an american car is on par quality and performance wise with its european and japanese rivals? I didn't think such things would actually happen.


On a more serious note, I will definately be getting one of these.

Also, will the active fuel management (or cylinder deactivation as they call it) have any effect on the ability to add a cam? I thought that the cylinder deactivation has something to do with the design of the lifter and a bleed valve to prevent them from moving the pushrod while the cam is spinning. Any thoughts on this? personally, I would love to have high HP car with cylinder deactivation. This could add a tremendous effeciency to our engines.

[Hillbilly Deluxe]

Originally posted by CT Morgan
Better heads, but less aggressive cam on the L76 from my understanding. It's also a variable displacement engine, right?

:werd:

Im pretty sure it makes 361hp on 87 octane...I dont think it require premium.

So I'd imagine with tuning, better air intake and a full exhaust that would put it well over 400hp :drool:

[1badls2goat]

Originally posted by Robs98SS
I'm confused, this is an article from Motor Trend talking about how an american car is on par quality and performance wise with its european and japanese rivals? I didn't think such things would actually happen.


On a more serious note, I will definately be getting one of these.

Also, will the active fuel management (or cylinder deactivation as they call it) have any effect on the ability to add a cam? I thought that the cylinder deactivation has something to do with the design of the lifter and a bleed valve to prevent them from moving the pushrod while the cam is spinning. Any thoughts on this? personally, I would love to have high HP car with cylinder deactivation. This could add a tremendous effeciency to our engines. That's a good question

[CT Morgan]

Originally posted by El Kabong
:werd:

Im pretty sure it makes 361hp on 87 octane...I dont think it require premium.

So I'd imagine with tuning, better air intake and a full exhaust that would put it well over 400hp :drool:

I agree. A tune for higher octane fuel alone may pick up a lot of power.

[Topsy Kretz]

I don't know why but Blaupunkt stuff looks like the cheapest shit ever.

[Roush97]

no NAV no care. My lease is up next year on my car and I still don't have a replacement in mind yet.

[Jeffro]

Originally posted by 1badls2goat
That's a good question

I've heard that the lifters are a completely different design than a non DoD engine. Supposedly they are a lot longer and lock in place when it goes to 4 cyl mode so they don't contact the cam. I haven't seen one opened up and I'm just repeating what I was told.

Here's the lifter.
http://images.popularhotrodding.com/features/0405phr_gmdod_03_z.jpg

And a diagram.
http://images.popularhotrodding.com/features/0405phr_gmdod_02_z.jpg

I dunno how this would effect a cam install but I'd like to find out.

[fivaxis]

102 is alright, but nothing crazy. Overall I like it, except like the new BMWs the front speaker placement is really bad.

[Larry 02TA]

I really like the car, it just needs to come with Navigation for me to almost love it

Great job by GM though, looks like a winner

[Hack Job]

I wonder how a cam would do in a DOD engine like that. If a big cam is rough running on 8cyl, what would it be like with half the cylinders dead? I wonder if you would just delete the DOD for a big cam? anyone know?

[5.0THIS]

Originally posted by Hack Job
I wonder if you would just delete the DOD for a big cam? anyone know?

That would be my guess. And it looks like the Aussies are already camming these motors up, so somebody's figured it out :shrug:

[jeeplaw]

Although the looks are an improvement, it's just not there yet for me. Love the power output though, welcome to the club Pontiac ;)

[Checkmate]

So let's do some bench racing.

g8 gt - 4100 13.8 @ 103

a guess on the camaro:
3800 13.5

I guess that would be a good starting point for a base v8 camaro.

Originally posted by Hack Job
I wonder how a cam would do in a DOD engine like that. If a big cam is rough running on 8cyl, what would it be like with half the cylinders dead? I wonder if you would just delete the DOD for a big cam? anyone know?

You can turn of DOD very easily with HPTuners. :)

[MapleRed]

Originally posted by Checkmate
So let's do some bench racing.

g8 gt - 4100 13.8 @ 103

a guess on the camaro:
3800 13.5

I guess that would be a good starting point for a base v8 camaro.



You can turn of DOD very easily with HPTuners. :)

I'm pretty sure the G8 weighs in under 4k lbs. :think:

[triggerjerk]

That interior puts the Camaro's to shame:o

[Checkmate]

Originally posted by MapleRed
I'm pretty sure the G8 weighs in under 4k lbs. :think:

Honestly, we're not really sure. At first we figured the Pontiac was just lighter. It sure feels that way from behind the wheel. But it isn't. At 4,106 pounds , the 2008 Pontiac G8 GT weighs only 56 pounds fewer than that Bee we tested. Transmission? Maybe. The Pontiac's six-speed automatic is an absolute performance advantage over the Bee's sluggish five-speed. We also have to consider the Mopar's heavy 20-inch rims and rubber, which don't do it any favors on the dragstrip. The Pontiac's optional 19-inch wheels and summer tires are certainly lighter, which makes it easier for the car to accelerate. These things matter, but don't fully explain how the G8 keeps up. Or why the Bee isn't quicker.


http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=124876/pageId=136042

[MapleRed]

Originally posted by Checkmate
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=124876/pageId=136042

Interesting. Maybe the numbers I saw were for the V6.

[Rich97 W68]

Originally posted by Hack Job
I wonder how a cam would do in a DOD engine like that. If a big cam is rough running on 8cyl, what would it be like with half the cylinders dead? I wonder if you would just delete the DOD for a big cam? anyone know?

Cam install would require LS2 lifters to replace the DOD lifters, a cam, springs, and a tune, IIRC? It was mentioned on LS1GTO.com and G8Board.com.

[NHRATA01]

All due respect what's the hangup on Navi with some of you guys? I've had a car with Navi for a little bit, sure it's nice but maybe once a year could I even use that feature. 99% of the time when I'm driving somewhere I know where I'm going. If I don't, fuck it, I'm a man and I'll make my own directions. :D

Is it a negative, sure, but I don't see how that could be a determining factor in going with something else being cross-shopped.

[5.0THIS]

Originally posted by NHRATA01
All due respect what's the hangup on Navi with some of you guys? I've had a car with Navi for a little bit, sure it's nice but maybe once a year could I even use that feature. 99% of the time when I'm driving somewhere I know where I'm going. If I don't, fuck it, I'm a man and I'll make my own directions. :D

Is it a negative, sure, but I don't see how that could be a determining factor in going with something else being cross-shopped.


It's because people in this country are becoming lazy navigation-dependent pussies. :yup: :D

[WCFields]

Originally posted by ChillPhatCat
You're basing this on Motor Trend's numbers... it's well known that these mags know jack shit about a good launch. 13.8 @ 102 will probably drop to a low 13 @ 103-104 when we get some actual drivers behind the wheel.
. There's no way in hell that car will see a low 13 bone stock, that weight/HP will not support it.

[CT Morgan]

Originally posted by NHRATA01
All due respect what's the hangup on Navi with some of you guys? I've had a car with Navi for a little bit, sure it's nice but maybe once a year could I even use that feature. 99% of the time when I'm driving somewhere I know where I'm going. If I don't, fuck it, I'm a man and I'll make my own directions. :D

Is it a negative, sure, but I don't see how that could be a determining factor in going with something else being cross-shopped.

Many disagree with you. :dunno: When performance starts getting close in competitive models people start looking at the available features. GM has put a direction system in this car, but it's not quite a navigation system.

[CT Morgan]

Originally posted by 5.0THIS
It's because people in this country are becoming lazy navigation-dependent pussies. :yup: :D

LMAO! You think navigation is only popular in the US?? :spit: :lol:

I first got hooked on navigation in London.

The system in my Jeep can tell me if there is an accident, road construction, street light problems, etc and plan an alternative... good luck getting that from a paper map while you're driving.

[cm_ls1]

Originally posted by mrgto
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=124876?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..1.*&imw=Y

nice video review ;)

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//media/roadtests/roadtest/08.pontiac.g8.gt/08.pontiac.g8.act.f34.2.500.jpg

[Got Me SOM]

Since it has a 6 sp double od tranny, you can run a stall like a 3500 and put gears in the rear like a 3.73 and still get decent gas mileage. :)

It can be made to accelerate very hard and work a M5.
;)

[WCFields]

I fail to see the excitement in what is basically a slower, heavier, 4 door GTO. :think:

[CT Morgan]

Originally posted by WhiteLightn
I fail to see the excitement in what is basically a slower, heavier, 4 door GTO. :think:

Barely slower, much better looks, and we still haven't seen the top tier performance model.

[Harmon Rabb]

is it just me or does that interior not look as good as the previous teaser pics we saw? :think:

still, $30k for a v8, rwd, 13 sec 4-door is pretty nice.

[WCFields]

Originally posted by CT Morgan
Barely slower, much better looks, and we still haven't seen the top tier performance model. Barely? Huh, 6.0 GTO's have seen 12's, this car is way slower than an LS2 GTO.

[Harmon Rabb]

Originally posted by 5.0THIS
It's because people in this country are becoming lazy navigation-dependent pussies. :yup: :D

a honda civic offers nav
a mustang offers nav
a camry offers nav
an accord offers nav

all can be purchased, with nav, for cheaper than this car. exactly why does it not offer nav? :Picard:

people's issue is with gm not offering a feature that every other car in its price range, same class or not, offers.

[kasim]

Originally posted by Berman
a honda civic offers nav
a mustang offers nav
a camry offers nav
an accord offers nav

all can be purchased, with nav, for cheaper than this car. exactly why does it not offer nav? :Picard:

people's issue is with gm not offering a feature that every other car in its price range, same class or not, offers.

:werd: ... eh i dont use mine OFTEN .... but when i need it its great.

its particularly great when you want to look up the closest location to a place. Or heck even if you need the phone for a place.

Whats WORSE about this ... if you notice the HVAC display is integrated into the radio, meaning you CANT even replace this unit with an aftermarket nav.

[CT Morgan]

Originally posted by WhiteLightn
Barely? Huh, 6.0 GTO's have seen 12's, this car is way slower than an LS2 GTO.

When the LS2 powered GTO's hit the streets they were not running 12's in any magazine. Don't go around quoting some "excellent" one-off results generated years later like they are common. The G8 GT should be slower since it's lower on power, but it's not drastic and AGAIN we have not seen the top power level car yet. :boggled:

[WCFields]

Originally posted by CT Morgan
When the LS2 powered GTO's hit the streets they were not running 12's in any magazine. Don't go around quoting some "excellent" one-off results generated years later like they are common. The G8 GT should be slower since it's lower on power, but it's not drastic and AGAIN we have not seen the top power level car yet. :boggled: Nor have we seen TOP PRICE then either.

Fact is it's got less power and more weight than an LS2 GTO, it will be slower, and not just barely.

[CT Morgan]

Originally posted by WhiteLightn
Nor have we seen TOP PRICE then either.


Duh. Your point? :boggled:

[dave1w41]

Originally posted by Berman
a honda civic offers nav
a mustang offers nav
a camry offers nav
an accord offers nav

all can be purchased, with nav, for cheaper than this car. exactly why does it not offer nav? :Picard:

people's issue is with gm not offering a feature that every other car in its price range, same class or not, offers.

And all of them have a take rate of less than 2%. :woot: When it comes right down to it; 98% of the buyers of all of those cars are not getting nav - because for most people it's overpriced and useless.

[Harmon Rabb]

Originally posted by dave1w41
And all of them have a take rate of less than 2%. :woot: When it comes right down to it; 98% of the buyers of all of those cars are not getting nav - because for most people it's overpriced and useless.

odd. most of my friends would not buy a car without nav :think: :shrug: i guess we're all snobs? :lol:

[dave1w41]

Originally posted by Berman
odd. most of my friends would not buy a car without nav :think: :shrug: i guess we're all snobs? :lol:

Aren't you a lawyer? Lawyers tend to be in a much higher socioeconomic bracket than people who buy Honda Civics. To them $2000 for something that they might use twice a year (if they maintain the updates) is a little steep.

[Harmon Rabb]

Originally posted by dave1w41
Aren't you a lawyer? Lawyers tend to be in a much higher socioeconomic bracket than people who buy Honda Civics. To them $2000 for something that they might use twice a year (if they maintain the updates) is a little steep.

yes, i am a lawyer. most of my friends are lawyers too :o

anyway, i use my nav WAY more than twice a year. i probably use it 25 times a year. :shrug:

[dave1w41]

Originally posted by Berman
yes, i am a lawyer. most of my friends are lawyers too :o

anyway, i use my nav WAY more than twice a year. i probably use it 25 times a year. :shrug:

Bully for you! Bottom line is that GM is going to sell every one of these cars navigation or not.

[Got Me SOM]

so lemme get this straight some of you schmucks wouldn't buy the car because it doesn't have navi huh.

And stop comparing to a goddamn gto, its not a fucken GTO. The car wasn't designed to be the fastest thing on Earth for the love of god stop fucken magazine racing you ricers..

Its a 4 dr car that haul groceries and take the family around that gets the wife's approval for the guy that still wants rwd and some performance.

my god i swear some of you are the biggest assclowns out there. :Picard:

I hate the front end on the car it sucks. And the interior is meh.

[cm_ls1]

still hung up on the nav issue are we :D , morpheous explained why they couldnt add it ... some technicality about the screen height.

the GTO was good in its time but its chassis is falling a bit behind , not to mention its steering handling braking

[kasim]

Originally posted by dave1w41
Bully for you! Bottom line is that GM is going to sell every one of these cars navigation or not.

That is such a stupid thing to say.

They are going to sell EVERY car they sell unless it has some mysterious flaw. I am sure they sold every single aztek.

Its funny how you wonder why people don't buy american all the time, then justify when they don't put common items in the car that are available in most of their competition.

[dave1w41]

Originally posted by kasim
That is such a stupid thing to say.

They are going to sell EVERY car they sell unless it has some mysterious flaw. I am sure they sold every single aztek.

Its funny how you wonder why people don't buy american all the time, then justify when they don't put common items in the car that are available in most of their competition.

Because GM is hardly the only one who does this and for 2% of the people considering the car it's probably not worth it. A lot of Japanese products have it because Nav is at a 40% take rate in Japan but here it's really tough to make a business case. If you add it; the investment for adding it will never be made up by the 4000 people that will buy out of 200,000 units.
If you have already made the investment for another market then it's pretty simple. If you haven't it's hard to justify the $10,000,000 it takes to get something like that into a car that won't meet MVSS with the only available NAV system.

This car is limited to about 45,000 units a year so if 2% of the people buy it at $2000 (about 900 units a year). And the unit profit on the system is maybe $200.00 it's going to take 55 years to break even on installing the Nav system. If GM made decisions like that it would very soon cease to be in business.

And as for Berman's examples; three of them don't have any kind of performance model at all and no V8 so I guess they aren't competitive. :shrug: The Mustang has NAV but it lacks a state of the art 6-speed Automatic or 6-speed manual. I guess Ford thought it was better to sink the $10,000,000 into NAV instead of a competitive powertrain package.

[Harmon Rabb]

Originally posted by Got Me SOM
so lemme get this straight some of you schmucks wouldn't buy the car because it doesn't have navi huh.

And stop comparing to a goddamn gto, its not a fucken GTO. The car wasn't designed to be the fastest thing on Earth for the love of god stop fucken magazine racing you ricers..


the GTO wasn't designed to be the fastest thing on earth either ;)

and yes, i wouldn't buy it because it doesn't have nav. shoot me. :shrug:

i still :love: you though :kiss:

[kasim]

dave>

your numbers dont really add up imho.

you want to state it costs THIS much money to put a nav in for research, etc.

As far as i can tell in at least things like honda,s its the same bloody nav in each. So yes there would be research cost in getting it to fit into the dash, but i think you are grossly over exagurating it.

Not to mention you are wrong in that its Holden version COMES with nav. However when they designed it they didnt make it dual enough to allow the nav to be usable in the states being that its too low(according to another poster)

[dave1w41]

Originally posted by kasim
dave>

your numbers dont really add up imho.

you want to state it costs THIS much money to put a nav in for research, etc.

As far as i can tell in at least things like honda,s its the same bloody nav in each. So yes there would be research cost in getting it to fit into the dash, but i think you are grossly over exagurating it.

Not to mention you are wrong in that its Holden version COMES with nav. However when they designed it they didnt make it dual enough to allow the nav to be usable in the states being that its too low(according to another poster)

So in order to do it they would have to invest in a new IP structure; about $10,000,000. Most people really don't know how much it costs to engineer a car. It would be the same as putting Nav in a car that does not have it.

The Honda sells in Japan so does the Toyota. The have a MUCH HIGHER take rate on navigation than the US. With the typical take rate of NAV in North America (about 2%); a car like the G8 (starting from scratch to install Nav based on the previous post) it would take 5 decades to make the money back on the NAV system at the current take rate. It's a complete waste unless they can find a way to leverage some other market where there might be real sales of the NAV system to cover the investment.

Some figures to ponder......
A major interior tear up is about $10,000,000. A minor "refresh" with new fascias, headlights, hood, fenders, rear fascia and taillights is about $10,000,000. A new body on the same chassis; about $600,000,000. An all new car; $5 billion.

[79 Bird of Prey]

Originally posted by dave1w41

Some figures to ponder......
A major interior tear up is about $10,000,000. A minor "refresh" with new fascias, headlights, hood, fenders, rear fascia and taillights is about $10,000,000. A new body on the same chassis; about $600,000,000. An all new car; $5 billion.

So GM spent 10 million to change the little things around? Why the hell didn't they just slap a Pontiac emblem on it, sheesh.

[dave1w41]

Originally posted by 79 Bird of Prey
So GM spent 10 million to change the little things around? Why the hell didn't they just slap a Pontiac emblem on it, sheesh.

Well; for one.. the car as it was in the Commodore is designed for Australia and markets outside of the US. In order to put US bumpers and lighting on the car; everything has to be changed anyway.. You might as well make it look like a Pontiac. If you are going to spend the 10mil you should get something for it. The vast majority of the car is carried over so there's substantial savings there. GM used to have unique chassis for Australia and the US sharing essentially nothing. Ford has a car in Australia that is 100% unique to that market with no counterpart here.

[Cerwin Vega Fan]

I love navi but as of right now I do not see the point in it (for me anyway) I can drop $600 and buy a top of the line TomTom that can be moved from vehicle to vehicle.

[dave1w41]

Originally posted by Cerwin Vega Fan
I love navi but as of right now I do not see the point in it (for me anyway) I can drop $600 and buy a top of the line TomTom that can be moved from vehicle to vehicle.

If you really NEED Nav; that's really the best deal.

[1badls2goat]

Originally posted by Berman
a honda civic offers nav
a mustang offers nav
a camry offers nav
an accord offers nav

all can be purchased, with nav, for cheaper than this car. exactly why does it not offer nav? :Picard:

people's issue is with gm not offering a feature that every other car in its price range, same class or not, offers. After thinking a bit, I realized they didn't offer nav in the G8 for most likely the same reason for which they did not do so in the GTO: they did not want to reprogram their Australian navigation system to contain U.S. maps and meet other U.S. requirements.

[Cobra Commander]

Dave owns this thread. I figured it was low, but not 2% low.

[PacerX]

Originally posted by Berman
yes, i am a lawyer. most of my friends are lawyers too :o

anyway, i use my nav WAY more than twice a year. i probably use it 25 times a year. :shrug:

If you own the car, over three years this feature is costing you nearly $27 a use.

Pretty damned inefficient from a cost standpoint.

[PacerX]

Originally posted by Cerwin Vega Fan
I love navi but as of right now I do not see the point in it (for me anyway) I can drop $600 and buy a top of the line TomTom that can be moved from vehicle to vehicle.

Smart man.

$600 divided by 25 uses per year over 3 years = $8 per use...

But you can take it with you and use it in another car too...

[CT Morgan]

Weird on the 2%. In the used car market, which I've been watching a lot lately, it seems of vehicles that were available with navigation the number of units that do well exceed 2%. More like 30%+. Granted I'm talking about SUV's and luxury sedans rather than mid-sized or smaller sedans, but still.

How is the 2% computed? It's not something like total vehicles purchased with navigation divided by total vehicles sold is it?

[Macky Sasser]

I like it. Some of the major flaws of the GTO are no longer flaws with this car. It has a huge trunk and the back seat access won't be an issue.

I'd like to drive one.

[cm_ls1]

Originally posted by Macky Sasser
I like it. Some of the major flaws of the GTO are no longer flaws with this car. It has a huge trunk and the back seat access won't be an issue.

:haha:

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezwebin_site/storage/images/reviews/hot_lists/car_shopping/family_four_doors/2008_pontiac_g8_gt_road_test/2008_pontiac_g8_gt/2008_pontiac_g8_gt_16/1174032-1-eng-US/2008_pontiac_g8_gt_16_gallery_image_large.jpg

[habib]

13.8?

lol

[cm_ls1]

Originally posted by habib
13.8?

lol

habib ?

lol

[GMRL]

Cam/headers/tune, that thing will make loads of power:cool:

Maybe I missed it, did it say what trans/gears it has?

[1badls2goat]

Originally posted by cm_ls1
habib ?

lol

:rimshot: :stay:

[WCFields]

Too heavy. 13.8, hell a Camry V6 runs 14.0's. This is 2008 folks, why is everyone excited about a RWD V8 running high 13.8 & weighing in around 4000 pounds? :think:

I wonder how mod friendly this will be, the new ECU's don't seem too mod friendly these days.

[1badls2goat]

Originally posted by WhiteLightn
Too heavy. 13.8, hell a Camry V6 runs 14.0's. This is 2008 folks, why is everyone excited about a RWD V8 running high 13.8 & weighing in around 4000 pounds? :think:

I wonder how mod friendly this will be, the new ECU's don't seem too mod friendly these days.

:Picard: The 13.8 is a time that most people will accomplish or beat during their first evAr 1/4 mile run in this car. Take it with a large chunk of salt.

[DrFrag]

Originally posted by cm_ls1
habib ?

lol

poast of the day :spit:

[WCFields]

Originally posted by 1badls2goat
:Picard: The 13.8 is a time that most people will accomplish or beat during their first evAr 1/4 mile run in this car. Take it with a large chunk of salt. I don't think so, given the weight and HP a 13.8 is actually pretty good. This thing is a boat anchor.

[tater]

Some of you guys are just GM nutswingers.

Yes, the car is cheap, but you get what you pay for.

It's a 4-door GTO and it will sell just like one.

[Sir Ringo]

:rotfl: @ thinking MT's time is actually representative of what it will do in real life. They ran a 13.8 in a 98 T/A too :dunce:

Not to mention that this car has precisely zero of the problems that the GTO did.

[WCFields]

Originally posted by Sir Ringo
:rotfl: @ thinking MT's time is actually representative of what it will do in real life. They ran a 13.8 in a 98 T/A too :dunce:

Not to mention that this car has precisely zero of the problems that the GTO did. It's not too hard to figure what a typical 4000 pound vehicle with 360~ HP and typical nowdays GM torque managment will run. I'd be surprised if it can muster anything better than a 13.7ish, and it will probably heat soak like hell and run even slower after 2 passes.

[TOPPED_OUT]

If Morpheus' reason behind why NAV isn't offered is true, then it is an open and shut case. It doesn't meet Fed regs......so that's that. Some of you act as if GM is saving MILLIONS of dollars by cheating you out of NAV.

I had the opportunity to sit in one at the Chicago Auto Show and take a close look all the way around. I actually liked the interior....didn't fall in LOVE with it, but it's nice. What I didn't like are the tail lights. Too 'ricey' and doesn't work with every exterior color IMO.

I'm definately going to drive one when they hit dealer lots....but wouldn't consider buying one with the possibility of a GXP model coming out.

[Kman]

I thought with a mild cam and bolt-ons, one ran 11.8?

[mrgto]

Originally posted by WhiteLightn
It's not too hard to figure what a typical 4000 pound vehicle with 360~ HP and typical nowdays GM torque managment will run. I'd be surprised if it can muster anything better than a 13.7ish, and it will probably heat soak like hell and run even slower after 2 passes.


I didn't realize it was supposed to be a race car. I thought it was supposed to be a nice powerful sedan and compete with the Charger, which it does very nicely.

[kasim]

Originally posted by mrgto
I didn't realize it was supposed to be a race car. I thought it was supposed to be a nice powerful sedan and compete with the Charger, which it does very nicely.

:lol: :werd: I mean come on ... people here do realize that VERY few people ever take their cars to the track.

heck i had a TA and a z28 and never took it to the track.

I quite honestly didn't race too much .... i just loved it when i needed to get around someone at a light and only had a short period of time to do it in :drive:

[dave1w41]

Originally posted by CT Morgan
Weird on the 2%. In the used car market, which I've been watching a lot lately, it seems of vehicles that were available with navigation the number of units that do well exceed 2%. More like 30%+. Granted I'm talking about SUV's and luxury sedans rather than mid-sized or smaller sedans, but still.

How is the 2% computed? It's not something like total vehicles purchased with navigation divided by total vehicles sold is it?

That's because dealers tend to stock higher priced vehicles in their used car inventories that have high priced options to drive up the transaction price. Try the same thing at a generic used car lot (where the less-desireable used cars end up) and you will find that there are almost no vehicles with navigation.

[dave1w41]

Originally posted by TOPPED_OUT
If Morpheus' reason behind why NAV isn't offered is true, then it is an open and shut case. It doesn't meet Fed regs......so that's that. Some of you act as if GM is saving MILLIONS of dollars by cheating you out of NAV.

I had the opportunity to sit in one at the Chicago Auto Show and take a close look all the way around. I actually liked the interior....didn't fall in LOVE with it, but it's nice. What I didn't like are the tail lights. Too 'ricey' and doesn't work with every exterior color IMO.

I'm definately going to drive one when they hit dealer lots....but wouldn't consider buying one with the possibility of a GXP model coming out.

They had a red one and a dark silver one in Detroit. Red just does not work on this car. I much prefer the colors leaning toward black, silver, gray.

[dave1w41]

Originally posted by pre
Some of you guys are just GM nutswingers.

Yes, the car is cheap, but you get what you pay for.



Apparently you didn't read the review. It's the equal of cars that are $10,000 more.

[kasim]

Originally posted by dave1w41
Apparently you didn't read the review. It's the equal of cars that are $10,000 more.

In PERFORMANCE ... that isnt the ONLY aspect to a car.

[CT Morgan]

Originally posted by dave1w41
That's because dealers tend to stock higher priced vehicles in their used car inventories that have high priced options to drive up the transaction price. Try the same thing at a generic used car lot (where the less-desireable used cars end up) and you will find that there are almost no vehicles with navigation.

Fair enough. I'm just trying to understand the metric. :)

[ChillPhatCat]

Originally posted by WhiteLightn
I don't think so, given the weight and HP a 13.8 is actually pretty good. This thing is a boat anchor.

Look at the trap speed... 103 is good for low to mid 13's.

[kasim]

Originally posted by CT Morgan
Fair enough. I'm just trying to understand the metric. :)

Not to agree with dave (which i try to avoid doing :) )

.. i was talking to my brother when he bought his Used accord.

And according to him, and the dealers he was shopping at the Navigation option on used cars really didn't change the price all that much. Maybe $500.

[TOPPED_OUT]

Originally posted by dave1w41
They had a red one and a dark silver one in Detroit. Red just does not work on this car. I much prefer the colors leaning toward black, silver, gray.

:yup: That red was awful IMO.....gimme a black GXP with some tinted windows :drive:

[dave1w41]

Originally posted by kasim
Not to agree with dave (which i try to avoid doing :) )

.. i was talking to my brother when he bought his Used accord.

And according to him, and the dealers he was shopping at the Navigation option on used cars really didn't change the price all that much. Maybe $500.

$500 is significant if they paid the equivalent of $50.00 for it at auction.

[kasim]

Originally posted by dave1w41
$500 is significant if they paid the equivalent of $50.00 for it at auction.

Maybe, but car negotiations range in the $500 .... we are talkign for a $20/21k car.

So its what 2.5% of the cost?

[Rob Almighty]

Originally posted by NHRATA01
All due respect what's the hangup on Navi with some of you guys? I've had a car with Navi for a little bit, sure it's nice but maybe once a year could I even use that feature. 99% of the time when I'm driving somewhere I know where I'm going. If I don't, fuck it, I'm a man and I'll make my own directions. :D

Is it a negative, sure, but I don't see how that could be a determining factor in going with something else being cross-shopped.

Uh, it's a big deal. People dealt without power steering for a long time. Saying you can just "use a map" or "make your own directions" is ridiculous. Navigation is a must-have in newer vehicles with luxurious appointments.

[NHRATA01]

Originally posted by Rob Almighty
Uh, it's a big deal. People dealt without power steering for a long time. Saying you can just "use a map" or "make your own directions" is ridiculous. Navigation is a must-have in newer vehicles with luxurious appointments.

Power steering is used every time you drive your car. Navigation, not so much. Much like Lexus' parallel park system, it's a nice feature, but not often needed by someone who actually knows how to drive. My preference would be more for the heated and cooled seats and a console-located humidor for luxurious appointments.

[Speedfreak]

Originally posted by Morpheus
I've already stated why GM didn't put NAV in this car. The radio is too low for Federal requirements when it comes to NAV units. I find this extremely disturbing that there are "Federal requirements" for NAV units. Is there anything these meddling fucking wastes of life do not get into.

On another note, for the love of GOD, can somebody make an interior that is not Grey? I guess this is a federal requirement too:rolleyes:

Do have to say this is the best thing to come out of Pontiac in years and am looking forward to seeing in person.

[dave1w41]

Originally posted by Speedfreak
I find this extremely disturbing that there are "Federal requirements" for NAV units. Is there anything these meddling fucking wastes of life do not get into.

On another note, for the love of GOD, can somebody make an interior that is not Grey? I guess this is a federal requirement too:rolleyes:

Do have to say this is the best thing to come out of Pontiac in years and am looking forward to seeing in person.

There are Federal MVSS (Motor Vehicle Safety Standard) for nearly every part on a car. Door latches, tires, braking, glass, headlamps, taillamps, exterior chrome and ornamentation, trunk locks, fuel fillers, roof structure, visors, mirrors, the list is endless.

BTW; there are regulations regarding dashboards; in the areas of padding/occupant protection and surface reflectivity to name a couple. Name a part and I can tell you if there's a regulation for it.

[Gravy Train]

Originally posted by Morpheus
I've already stated why GM didn't put NAV in this car. The radio is too low for Federal requirements when it comes to NAV units.


I don't know the legitimacy of that claim; I hope its false, as M-B seemed to get away with similar placement on their C, CLK, E, CL models. :think:

[Speedfreak]

Originally posted by dave1w41
There are Federal MVSS (Motor Vehicle Safety Standard) for nearly every part on a car. Door latches, tires, braking, glass, headlamps, taillamps, exterior chrome and ornamentation, trunk locks, fuel fillers, roof structure, visors, mirrors, the list is endless.

BTW; there are regulations regarding dashboards; in the areas of padding/occupant protection and surface reflectivity to name a couple. Name a part and I can tell you if there's a regulation for it. I don't doubt you I just find it offensive........my gut tells me that probably 40% of R&D cost on a new car goes to meeting all the government bullshit.:mad: that is probably a low estimate.

[kasim]

Originally posted by Speedfreak
I don't doubt you I just find it offensive........my gut tells me that probably 40% of R&D cost on a new car goes to meeting all the government bullshit.:mad: that is probably a low estimate.

yes because making sure a Nav screen is at a height that is NOT distracting to drivers, or that cars can handle certain impacts is a bad thing??? :confused:

[Speedfreak]

Originally posted by kasim
yes because making sure a Nav screen is at a height that is NOT distracting to drivers, or that cars can handle certain impacts is a bad thing??? :confused: yes fuk them. you can buy an afermarket one and mount it on the floor if you want. I see people driving every day reading papers, txt messaging and countless other things. Fact is it is a waste of time and money to regulate this shit and it benefits noone.