Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
MMMM, Not much is going to change anyone's mind about the looks of the GTO vs. Tempest except pictures. Notice the GTO was easy to ID from the backend, as that was the part of the car the competition seen!
While we remember Novas as musclecars, the reality is, the Nova was Chevy's base economy car in teh '60s. So making a base economy car with that name wasn't THAT far off the amrk.
And the complaints about the GTO looking like any other generic car of its era COMPLETELY forget that the original GTO was only a couple badges away from being a Tempest economy car that looked like any other car of ITS era.
'64 GTO:
1964 Tempest:
The original GTO "stood out" from the Tempest due to a badge that said GTO and a couple small fake hood scoops. Wow. Big difference. ONLY people who know the cars can tell if it's a Tempest, a LeMans, or a GTO. And not even then from across a parking lot.
There's less difference between them than between the modern GTO and any domestic GM product. Unlike the modern GTO, which shares not a single body panel with any domestic sedan, the Tempest/LeMans/GTO used the same EXACT body. And hell, as you can see, even the same hubcaps! They were merely trim levels of the SAME CAR. LeMans wasn't even the top trim level, either. By the end of the '60s, it had replaced Tempest as the bottom trim level on the Pontiac version of the A body.
Except the holden (mistakenly called GTO)looks like a swollen up cavalier!
So you faked a photo of a GTO to make it look like a Tempest to fool me? Do you realize what a loser that makes you to be?
what a 64 GTO is a Tempest with a 389 stuffed under the hood he tried to make a point on how they look pretty much the same besides a few badges and hood scoops. he was showing that with out the badges it was hard to tell a GTO from a base model tempest unless you popped the hood.
what a 64 GTO is a Tempest with a 389 stuffed under the hood he tried to make a point on how they look pretty much the same besides a few badges and hood scoops. he was showing that with out the badges it was hard to tell a GTO from a base model tempest unless you popped the hood.
man when does school get back in
I agree...that's why he's a loser. My point is that I was a teenager when they were new and I drove one. He was born in 1963 and says he was reading car magazines in the late 60s. Must have been a boy genius. We NEVER confused GTOs with Tempests. Within a few weeks of the GTO's appearance everyone forgot about Tempests. First, there weren't that many of them. Second, the GTOs had red-line tires and hood scoops and dual exhausts among other things. Last, look at the photo he sent of the cream and black vinyl roof model. Would YOU confuse it with a plain Tempest, even from "across the parking lot"? I appreciate that he figured this out while reading car magazines at the age of 4-5 but c'mon!
There were very few cars in the '60s that caused me any trouble identifying, even with all the similar GM and Chrysler brands. Either they were considerably more distinctive than today or I'm not as observant as when younger. Probably both. So many of them look like jelly beans to me now.
There were very few cars in the '60s that caused me any trouble identifying, even with all the similar GM and Chrysler brands. Either they were considerably more distinctive than today or I'm not as observant as when younger. Probably both. So many of them look like jelly beans to me now.
I agree. The '60s cars were easy to identify; modern cars? Forget it!
So you faked a photo of a GTO to make it look like a Tempest to fool me? Do you realize what a loser that makes you to be?
Listen, I asked what the car was without badges, to prove that the car is the SAME other than the badges from the outside. It was to prove a point that you obviously don't want to get. Now you want to get into name calling because it was proven that without badges, they are visually the same car. All I ddi was color out 2 small badges. I didn't have to redo the entire car to look like a Tempest, BECAUSE IT IS A GODDAMN TEMPEST!
The GTO was a Tempest economy car with a big V8 (that you couldn't see from the outside) and a couple small badges. PERIOD. It was not some separate car that looked completely different and was easily distingushable from the basic economy car from across a parking lot UNTIL you saw the badges. And for the average person, the car did NOT stand out from the rest of the cars of the era.
Just like for the average person the new one did not. But unlike the ORIGINAL, the new GTO was NOT based on an economy car, so even if it had superficial resemblance to a much smaller economy car from another division, it was NOT merely that same econo0my car with a big engine and some badges. the original GTO was.
There were very few cars in the '60s that caused me any trouble identifying, even with all the similar GM and Chrysler brands. Either they were considerably more distinctive than today or I'm not as observant as when younger. Probably both. So many of them look like jelly beans to me now.
All cars look the same as other cars of theie era, and it's easy to tell what era they are from from the shared styling. What you find easy to distinguish is based on YOUR era when you statrted paying attention, and what cars you are interested in. Notice that these guys can easily tell differnt trim levels of the same car apart, but canmt' tell teh differnce between two entirely differnt newr cars that share no body panels or lines.
New cars look like jellybeans? Yeah, a few '90s cars do, definitley. But look at a CTS and tell me that's a jellybean.
All cars look the same as other cars of theie era, and it's easy to tell what era they are from from the shared styling. What you find easy to distinguish is based on YOUR era when you statrted paying attention, and what cars you are interested in. Notice that these guys can easily tell differnt trim levels of the same car apart, but canmt' tell teh differnce between two entirely differnt newr cars that share no body panels or lines.
Der.
..and by the way, my "era" didn't stop in the '60s. My family and dog will be disappointed to know my "era" has ended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc63
New cars look like jellybeans? Yeah, a few '90s cars do, definitley. But look at a CTS and tell me that's a jellybean.
If you'll note what you quoted of mine, I didn't say all new cars. I said "so many of them"...and not just a few of the '90s cars looked like jellybeans, and the look didn't stop in the '90s.
I do like the looks of the CTS (even if it does have a big butt)...nice to see a crease on some sheetmetal.
Last edited by skinem; 08-19-2010 at 11:53 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.