2015 Grand national

xflowgolf wrote: Funny. That was my favorite detail on it.

The new flavour of the past couple years for "hate" on new cars has been anything "aggressive" or "boy racer", because we all totally aren't grown up man-children or anything who laugh at fart jokes and have a thread dedicated to near-porn (insert rolling of eyes here)

That car looks awesome. ZW is just an old fart (like, literally )

Seriously? What's with all the animosity towards four doors? Since when did GRM become Hot Rod? Let's hope you guys don't remember the Charger now has four doors.

I won't buy another GM car until after they give me one to replace the one they ruined with Dexcool.

DrBoost wrote: ...no V8... Looks like GM is bastardizing another great name from their history.

Uhhh, hello? The GNs and GNXs were all 6-cylinder cars, and I don't see many people calling them Bob Costas cars.

[edit] Several days late, several dollars short. As you were.

bmw88rider wrote: The problem I have with this is not that they are making it but they are making it and not making it special. The original GN was a special car. This is really looking like an ATS with a buick nameplate. That is not special.

Compared to a regular Buick Regal, what was so special about the Grand National aside from the badges, interior trim and it being blacked out? You could get the engine in a regular Regal, hell, you could even get a lightweight Regal with the turbo engine that was quicker than the Grand National. As far as I know, there were no special suspension or brake changes for the Grand National, aside from maybe shocks and springs. The GNX was special, with extensive suspension and engine changes, but it also cost $30,000 in 1987, more than a Corvette and 2.5X the cost of a V8 Mustang (~$12,500).

The Grand National was and is a great car, but I think people are putting way too much "history" into a car that was only made for about 5 years and wasn't really anything "special".

DrBoost wrote: 4-door only, no V8, ugly as sin. Looks like GM is bastardizing another great name from their history.

The original GN had no V8 either.

Heck, it was named after a race series that was for V6 powered stock cars...

Fobroader wrote: I was looking for a GTO when I was car shopping back in 2005......moron dealers told me flat out I couldn't even order a manual, but they had a few autos they could give me a "great deal". When the G8 came out in 06-07, I was ready to trade in my new car for it.....again, manual was the equivalent of a unicorn or bigfoot. Hopefully this idiocy doesn't happen for this.

Every 2.0 turbo GS that I have ever seen was manual transmission.

Sadly, the drivetrain really wants an automatic.

alfadriver wrote:

Zomby Woof wrote: Don't hate GM at all, but fail to see why they would even bother doing this to a 4 door sedan. There is a good reason that the original, the Camaro, the Vette, Mustang, etc. are all 2 dr cars. This car will be a total non-event from a sales standpoint because of it.

So all of the 4 door performance BMW's mean nothing? They seem to sell a lot of 4 door RWD performance based cars.... Or perhaps Mercedes- they, too, sell RWD 4 door performance-ish cars. Both sell many fewer coupes. This car does not need to be a Camaro or Mustang, it needs to be a 3 or 5 door competitor.

Maybe it's that some people think that if a car company is going to use a name from the past, they should as much as possible build the new car using the same concept as the original. In this case that would be 2 door, RWD, and a turbo six. This makes a lot of sense to me. If they aren't going to do that, then why give it the same name?

Schmidlap wrote:

bmw88rider wrote: The problem I have with this is not that they are making it but they are making it and not making it special. The original GN was a special car. This is really looking like an ATS with a buick nameplate. That is not special.

Compared to a regular Buick Regal, what was so special about the Grand National aside from the badges, interior trim and it being blacked out? You could get the engine in a regular Regal, hell, you could even get a lightweight Regal with the turbo engine that was quicker than the Grand National. As far as I know, there were no special suspension or brake changes for the Grand National, aside from maybe shocks and springs. The GNX was special, with extensive suspension and engine changes, but it also cost $30,000 in 1987, more than a Corvette and 2.5X the cost of a V8 Mustang (~$12,500). The Grand National was and is a great car, but I think people are putting way too much "history" into a car that was only made for about 5 years and wasn't really anything "special".

IIRC you could only get the turbo engine in the T-Type or GN, not the base Regals. Turbo engine required certain options including the funky electric/hydraulic power brakes.

If you don't understand that the higher quality interior and the utter lack of chrome made the GN something special, then you don't remember what was normal for American cars in general and GM in particular in the 80s.

Also, it was the giant slayer. It was GM's quickest car, allowed to be better than the Corvette. There's a lot of cachet in that.

The GNX WAS special and was a handbuilt very low production car, and it kills me when people mention the GNX and GN in the same breath. Or when they see one of the GNs at work (we circulate through a lot of 'em) and ask about the GNX. I've seen literally hundreds of GNs and never have seen a GNX...

Schmidlap wrote:

bmw88rider wrote: The problem I have with this is not that they are making it but they are making it and not making it special. The original GN was a special car. This is really looking like an ATS with a buick nameplate. That is not special.

Compared to a regular Buick Regal, what was so special about the Grand National aside from the badges, interior trim and it being blacked out? You could get the engine in a regular Regal, hell, you could even get a lightweight Regal with the turbo engine that was quicker than the Grand National. As far as I know, there were no special suspension or brake changes for the Grand National, aside from maybe shocks and springs. The GNX was special, with extensive suspension and engine changes, but it also cost $30,000 in 1987, more than a Corvette and 2.5X the cost of a V8 Mustang (~$12,500). The Grand National was and is a great car, but I think people are putting way too much "history" into a car that was only made for about 5 years and wasn't really anything "special".

:hateboi:

listen, GM blows goats. Everyone here knows it. Dont spam up this thread with your logic and perspective, the hive will not be upset by your petty attempt at rational thinking.

/hateboi

I grew up in a BOP (Buick-Olds-Pontiac) loving GM family. Although I have no real brand loyalty these days, and neither does my family anymore, I want to see them succeed. But I know better. They axed my favorite brand (Pontiac) and aside from Cadillac, the Camaro, and the new Corvette, the rest of their line-up is full of also-rans that are mostly behind the times or just aren't as good as other cars in their respective segments. I'm not saying they build turds, but I'm saying that they could do better, and they don't because they just get in their own way.

Also, they have a history of doing exactly what I said: they will come out with a car concept that enthusiasts ask for,the bean counters get involved, and they release a car that just isn't the same or kill the thing in it's prime. Look at the Fiero. They release a sweet car in 1988 with revised suspension and great looks, and they axe the thing. Also see the new Buick GS. Europe gets the Opel Insignia OPC with a twin-turbo V6 and AWD, and we (up until this year) got a FWD turbo four. The new AWD variant is actually down on power, and only comes with an automatic. I actually like the GS, but it could have been so much better!

Look at Pontiac. At the end, they were slated to become a performance-oriented powerhouse. They were offering a decent roadster (the Solstice) with competitive handling and performance packages, the cool Solstice Coupe, and a gnarly V8 sport sedan (the G8/ G8 GXP). The Cobalt SS should have been a G5 GXP instead. Saturn was even starting to become an American Opel, which had lots of potential. Then poof: they were gone. They kept the brand that was most popular in China.

I have no problems with four door cars, especially new ones (I covet a new Charger R/T), but they will be stepping on Cadillac's toes with this car, and that's just not a good idea considering the present health of the company in whole. They need to make it different somehow, or not waste the R/D time and money on the project at all.

And for the last time, there were no V8 powered GN's or GNX's! They ALL had a variant of the 3.8L V6. The GSX, based on the Skylark/GS of the early 70's, had the Stage 1 455 V8, and were torque monsters on par with the Chrysler Hemi. In the 80's, they DID offer a T-Type with the anemic carbed Olds 307 V8.

4cylndrfury wrote:

Schmidlap wrote:

bmw88rider wrote: The problem I have with this is not that they are making it but they are making it and not making it special. The original GN was a special car. This is really looking like an ATS with a buick nameplate. That is not special.

Compared to a regular Buick Regal, what was so special about the Grand National aside from the badges, interior trim and it being blacked out? You could get the engine in a regular Regal, hell, you could even get a lightweight Regal with the turbo engine that was quicker than the Grand National. As far as I know, there were no special suspension or brake changes for the Grand National, aside from maybe shocks and springs. The GNX was special, with extensive suspension and engine changes, but it also cost $30,000 in 1987, more than a Corvette and 2.5X the cost of a V8 Mustang (~$12,500). The Grand National was and is a great car, but I think people are putting way too much "history" into a car that was only made for about 5 years and wasn't really anything "special".

:hateboi: *listen, GM blows goats. Everyone here knows it. Dont spam up this thread with your logic and perspective, the hive will not be upset by your petty attempt at rational thinking.* /hateboi

Sorry, but IMO overly sensitive or sarcastic comments like this are no better than what really is just an occasional comment by a true GM hater. Unless GM is perfect, then they are not above criticism. And criticism and hate are neither the same nor mutually exclusive.

I am far from a GM guy, but seeing as Ford will not release a new "Falcon/Torino" Coyote powered, RWD, manual, sedan, I will have to add this to my short list for my next work car.

Not the kind of car I would buy but the specs seem decent. 4 doors aren't the end of the world. Most GC Imprezas have 4 doors and it didn't hurt them much.

2 door, RWD, normal trunk. That's what I want. No 3 or 5 doors, no AWD, no wagon. That's what a Grand National should be. And yes even though I like the new Charger, I will never buy one because it has two stupid extra doors.

Is there medium sized car available new that is not a "sports car/pony car", is RWD, has two doors with a normal trunk, has decent power with a nice interior besides BMW?

bravenrace wrote:

alfadriver wrote:

Zomby Woof wrote: Don't hate GM at all, but fail to see why they would even bother doing this to a 4 door sedan. There is a good reason that the original, the Camaro, the Vette, Mustang, etc. are all 2 dr cars. This car will be a total non-event from a sales standpoint because of it.

So all of the 4 door performance BMW's mean nothing? They seem to sell a lot of 4 door RWD performance based cars.... Or perhaps Mercedes- they, too, sell RWD 4 door performance-ish cars. Both sell many fewer coupes. This car does not need to be a Camaro or Mustang, it needs to be a 3 or 5 door competitor.

Maybe it's that some people think that if a car company is going to use a name from the past, they should as much as possible build the new car using the same concept as the original. In this case that would be 2 door, RWD, and a turbo six. This makes a lot of sense to me. If they aren't going to do that, then why give it the same name?

One could think that, sure.

But RWD Turbo engine with 4 doors is 1) cheaper to make, and 2) probably more appealing to more people.

Being that many, many old names have come and gone on totally different cars, this isn't a big deal.

My first car was an Alfa Romeo Alfetta. Which bore absolutely no resemblance to an actual Alfetta. So having a turbo v6 RWD with a manual in 4 doors vs. 2 does seen acceptable at this point. Especially since the Vette and Camaro do exist.

But then again, the car guys who insist on 2 doors would have never bought one had it came in 2 doors anyway. This just becomes the excuse.

In reply to alfadriver:

I had serious discussion with a good custom body man I know about turning my 96 Impala SS into coupe. I would have had to max out a couple credit cards to do it so in the end I chickened out. But yes, I will never buy another 4 door again.

SVO Mustang scoop and just as ground breaking........

nicksta43 wrote: In reply to alfadriver: I had serious discussion with a good custom body man I know about turning my 96 Impala SS into coupe. I would have had to max out a couple credit cards to do it so in the end I chickened out. But yes, I will never buy another 4 door again.

So it looses appeal to a handful of people...

ok.

If 2 door RWD performance cars were that high of demand, BMW would make a whole lot more of them. Instead, most of the 3 series and 5 series cars have 4 doors. Amazing.

bravenrace wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote:

Schmidlap wrote:

bmw88rider wrote: The problem I have with this is not that they are making it but they are making it and not making it special. The original GN was a special car. This is really looking like an ATS with a buick nameplate. That is not special.

Compared to a regular Buick Regal, what was so special about the Grand National aside from the badges, interior trim and it being blacked out? You could get the engine in a regular Regal, hell, you could even get a lightweight Regal with the turbo engine that was quicker than the Grand National. As far as I know, there were no special suspension or brake changes for the Grand National, aside from maybe shocks and springs. The GNX was special, with extensive suspension and engine changes, but it also cost $30,000 in 1987, more than a Corvette and 2.5X the cost of a V8 Mustang (~$12,500). The Grand National was and is a great car, but I think people are putting way too much "history" into a car that was only made for about 5 years and wasn't really anything "special".

:hateboi: *listen, GM blows goats. Everyone here knows it. Dont spam up this thread with your logic and perspective, the hive will not be upset by your petty attempt at rational thinking.* /hateboi

Sorry, but IMO overly sensitive or sarcastic comments like this are no better than what really is just an occasional comment by a true GM hater. Unless GM is perfect, then they are not above criticism. And criticism and hate are neither the same nor mutually exclusive.

Fair enough, I wasnt intending to sound sensitive, I guess Im just chumming the waters with stuff like that...so here is a real statement of my displeasure.

Lets look for progress, and not perfection from Detroit. We have mustanfs whose claim to fame is being smaller and lighter, and everyone holds them up as holy grails. When GM moves power to the rear wheels, adds boost, and a truly sport tuned suspension and brakes, people trounce them over the peel and stick applique letters on the trunk? No one says "FINALLY!!! GM is back to making cars for car lovers...cars that perform!" People are saying "WHAT? That car has too many doors and they shouldn't use that name. The extra doors and crappy name mean it probably sucks, so Im not gonna buy one". Seriously? Thats a pretty weak argument...

In reply to 4cylndrfury:

A good argument is they are a decade or so late to the party. And aside from the Corvette and trucks, that does seem to be a trend with them. Just sayin'.

In reply to bravenrace:

better late than never.

I don't think anyone has a problem with the car. There are just some of us who would like it to be called something else.

Say Acura launched a new 4-door high performance sedan and revived the Integra Type R moniker. Don't you think the Honda guys would have an issue with that?

Or let's say Ford created a 4-door Mustang--- regardless of how good a car the new one would be--- folks would have a problem with the name.

A name is just a name, but if you want to conjure up past glory--- producing a car who's mission is similar and who's configuration is similar to the original car makes sense.

I love the fact that GM is making this, and also that GM is making many damn good machines currently. I don't like them reviving the GN name--- or especially the GNX name---not for this car at least.

4cylndrfury wrote: In reply to bravenrace: better late than never.

I agree, but don't expect a lot of cheering.

Does anyone remember what the primary complaint about the GTO was? Power was great. Handling was good. Styling was a bit bla, but it wasn't offensive. The complaint I read over and over and over about the car was access to the back seat. This had at least as much to do with how they chose the seat as the two doors, but all I can remember about the car is how people complained about what a huge pain in the ass getting into the back seat was. I still think they should have ignored the four door haters and brought it over from Aussieland as a four door and sold more of them.