[nygoat]

Anyone check out GM blog website where people ask questions about their cars including the GTO? I have not seen many responses about the GTO but yet I see on other websites that supposedly GM is listening about design changes from GTO owners. Has anyone actually contacted GM and if so what kind of feedback did they get and is the GTO really dead? I would love to have a next generation GTO with the Camaro LS2 engine that supposedly shuts down to 4 cylinders when driving slow which improves gas mileage. Hope this generates some interesting responses. If they took the time to put together a awesome engine, ride, interior then why not build it on a new platform, continue the production? Heck Cadillac CTS's are ok and they keep building them but are they really generating that much revenue for example as compared to the GTO? I do know that the Dodge Challenger was based on customer suggestions and is retro yet modern. Where is our advocate for the goat?

 

[PEARL JAM]

As a long time fan and purchaser of GM products, my HONEST opinion is that they have their head in their ass. (for an example of this, look at the next Aztek you see on the road):cool

 

[noz34me]

As a total non-fan of GM, I have no idea what they listen to. Even their good ideas suffer from poor execution. I would have loved to buy an Equinox, it drove well, but the interior looked like it would fall apart or break. Don't forget, Pontiac is the division that brought us the Aztec. :rofl:

Truth is, if the GTO were built here, don't know if I would have bought it. The hope that Australians can build goo cars, quality of interior and power were what sold it to me.

I know there's probably a lot of GM fans on this forum, but you can not believe the problems I've encountered with their cars. 20 years ago, I would have never bought Japanese; was one of the most "Buy American" people on the planet. GM and Ford cured me of that.

 

[1BadGoat]

As a long time fan and purchaser of GM products, my HONEST opinion is that they have their head in their ass. (for an example of this, look at the next Aztek you see on the road):cool

:agree

 

[fergyflyer]

I think Lutz and company do listen. They then tell the engineers and designers what they hear. The design team does it's best to come up with a decent concept. They know the bean counters are going to go no way to lots of stuff so they cut what they know won't fly at all. The bean counters go look this thing is great, but if we don't cut stuff there won't be any reason for there to be bean counters. So they knock a bunch of stuff off and say there needs to be cost changes to bring the car to market. The design team is left with about 75% of their original idea and they piece together the next round that goes to the bean counters. They trim a little more and then the car goes to production, but it's no where near the original idea. Then it fails because costs were cut and GM says we have to do that because of the pensions and union and shareholders. Meanwhile if they would have built the original no excuses idea without the cuts, people would pay more for it and tons would sell. Because they sold more at a higher price and profit they would be able to afford the pensions and salaries ETC....

just my .02

 

[b_a_betterperson]

Fergy, you hit the nail on the head. If GM were to simply focus on building great cars -- the rest would take care of itself. But the "car guys" are outnumbered by the beancounters -- and the marketing people are nit-wits who don't know a great car from a box of laundry detergent -- because, to them, it's the same thing.

 

[GOATGIRL]

Fergy, you hit the nail on the head. If GM were to simply focus on building great cars -- the rest would take care of itself. But the "car guys" are outnumbered by the beancounters -- and the marketing people are nit-wits who don't know a great car from a box of laundry detergent -- because, to them, it's the same thing.

:agree