# 2005 Pontiac GTO Sport Appearance Package
**URL:** https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2005-pontiac-gto-sport-appearance-package/171548
**Category:** PittSpeed Automotive
**Created:** [January 6, 2005, 4:19pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2005-pontiac-gto-sport-appearance-package/171548 "2005-01-06T16:19:27Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Gray05](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Gray05)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2005, 4:19pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2005-pontiac-gto-sport-appearance-package/171548/1 "2005-01-06T16:19:27Z")
Looks like GM is offering additional body enhancement packages to spice up the looks of the 2005 GTO.
2005 GTO Without Sport Appearance Package:
GTO Sport Appearance Package comes with the following:
Front fascia extension
Side rockers
Rear fascia
Deep-sounding performance exhaust system
Two chrome exhaust tips
Optional equipment available:
Rear spoiler
Grille inserts
Part Description - Color - Part # - Install Hrs - Suggested MSRP
Sport Appearance Package - Primed - 17801013 - 5.0 Hours - $2142.85
Sport Appearance Package - Torrid Red - 17801014 - 3.5 Hours - $2371.42
Sport Appearance Package - Phantom Black - 17801015 - 3.5 Hours - $2371.42
Sport Appearance Package - Quicksilver Metallic - 17801016 - 3.5 Hours - $2371.42
Rear Spoiler - Primed - 12499666 - 1.3 Hours - $431.43
Rear Spoiler - Torrid Red - 12499667 - 0.7 Hours - $550.00
Rear Spoiler - Phantom Black - 12499668 - 0.7 Hours - $550.00
Rear Spoiler - Quicksilver Metallic - 12499668 - 0.7 Hours - $550.00
Grille Inserts - Black w/ Silver Accents - 12499616 - 0.7 Hours - $268.57
2005 GTO with Sport Appearance Package
---
### Author:  [@Jeff95TA](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Jeff95TA)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2005, 6:32pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2005-pontiac-gto-sport-appearance-package/171548/2 "2005-01-06T18:32:50Z")
It’s looking better.
---
### Author:  [@eurodad](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/eurodad)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2005, 6:35pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2005-pontiac-gto-sport-appearance-package/171548/3 "2005-01-06T18:35:45Z")
> [@Jeff95TA](#):
>
> It’s looking better.
sure is
---
### Author:  [@whitey](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/whitey)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2005, 8:42pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2005-pontiac-gto-sport-appearance-package/171548/4 "2005-01-06T20:42:21Z")
definitely looking better, the interior is very nice on the 04… but the exterior is just soooooooo plain
---
### Author:  [@Shaggy](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Shaggy)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2005, 8:47pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2005-pontiac-gto-sport-appearance-package/171548/5 "2005-01-06T20:47:02Z")
still too high in the backend, i give it a 4/ 10 🙂
---
### Author:  [@Fiji\_Mazda3](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Fiji_Mazda3)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2005, 9:37pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2005-pontiac-gto-sport-appearance-package/171548/6 "2005-01-06T21:37:08Z")
That front bumper is definitely an improvement.
---
### Author:  [@dappie99](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/dappie99)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2005, 10:16pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2005-pontiac-gto-sport-appearance-package/171548/7 "2005-01-06T22:16:25Z")
looks like rice
---
### Author:  [@grandamld9](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/grandamld9)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2005, 10:16pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2005-pontiac-gto-sport-appearance-package/171548/8 "2005-01-06T22:16:58Z")
i like the way it looks with out the package, but what do i know i drive a grand am
---
### Author:  [@BlkP42E](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/BlkP42E)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2005, 10:31pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2005-pontiac-gto-sport-appearance-package/171548/9 "2005-01-06T22:31:46Z")
> [@dappie99](#):
>
> looks like rice
---
### Author:  [@Pewter](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Pewter)
#### Post date: [January 7, 2005, 4:45am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2005-pontiac-gto-sport-appearance-package/171548/10 "2005-01-07T04:45:58Z")
looking better!
---
### Author:  [@tjZ28](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/tjZ28)
#### Post date: [January 7, 2005, 5:18am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2005-pontiac-gto-sport-appearance-package/171548/11 "2005-01-07T05:18:09Z")
Looks good w/ the SAP but it’d be better w/ a '04 style flat hood.
-TJ
---
### Author:  [@smokeyburnouts](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/smokeyburnouts)
#### Post date: [January 7, 2005, 5:23am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2005-pontiac-gto-sport-appearance-package/171548/12 "2005-01-07T05:23:05Z")
definatley lookin better…but still not as cool as it should be.the front still looks like a grandprix and from that rear shot it sorta reminds me of the Cobalt SS :hsugh:
---
### Author:  [@77rednecktruck](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/77rednecktruck)
#### Post date: [January 7, 2005, 5:57am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2005-pontiac-gto-sport-appearance-package/171548/13 "2005-01-07T05:57:35Z")
Still sucks, IMHO.
---
### Author:  [@tjZ28](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/tjZ28)
#### Post date: [January 7, 2005, 6:13am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2005-pontiac-gto-sport-appearance-package/171548/14 "2005-01-07T06:13:58Z")
> [@77rednecktruck](#):
>
> Still sucks, IMHO.
Wow, there’s a big shock. It’s a good thing you’re not predictable. You hate everything GM… we know.
-TJ
---
### Author:  [@77rednecktruck](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/77rednecktruck)
#### Post date: [January 7, 2005, 6:25am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2005-pontiac-gto-sport-appearance-package/171548/15 "2005-01-07T06:25:25Z")
> [@tjZ28](#):
>
> Wow, there’s a big shock. It’s a good thing you’re not predictable. You hate everything GM… we know.
>
> -TJ
I don’t just hate everything GM, I hate the vast majority of new cars. There are only a couple of cars out right nor that look good to me.
But I never liked GM, their cars/trucks feel cheap to me and I just don’t like them. I was raised a Ford guy by my dad and now I have switched to like liking mostly foreign cars. I was never or will ever be a fan of GM or Dodge.
---
### Author:  [@smokeyburnouts](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/smokeyburnouts)
#### Post date: [January 7, 2005, 8:49am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2005-pontiac-gto-sport-appearance-package/171548/16 "2005-01-07T08:49:16Z")
> [@77rednecktruck](#):
>
> I don’t just hate everything GM, I hate the vast majority of new cars. There are only a couple of cars out right nor that look good to me.
>
> But I never liked GM, their cars/trucks feel cheap to me and I just don’t like them. I was raised a Ford guy by my dad and now I have switched to like liking mostly foreign cars. I was never or will ever be a fan of GM or Dodge.
well what was the cut-off year when cars went from cool looking to not??? i give all respect to old / muscle cars, but i dont understand when ppl refuse to give props to new-age sportscars. i can see your point on certain models (example:i think late 60s style Stangs r the coolest looking, but i really like the 99+ also. or the GTO can be another good example) but to say that about all cars in general is hard for me to understand. i am in no position to judge you (which im not), just trying to understand.
---
### Author:  [@Quik](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Quik)
#### Post date: [January 7, 2005, 9:10am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2005-pontiac-gto-sport-appearance-package/171548/17 "2005-01-07T09:10:11Z")
> [@77rednecktruck](#):
>
> I don’t just hate everything GM, I hate the vast majority of new cars. There are only a couple of cars out right nor that look good to me.
>
> But I never liked GM, their cars/trucks feel cheap to me and I just don’t like them. I was raised a Ford guy by my dad and now I have switched to like liking mostly foreign cars. I was never or will ever be a fan of GM or Dodge.
you have an old beat ass ford truck. and dont like a GM truck :bowrofl: thats some funny as shit. ive been around both and GM are alot better for the interior
---
### Author:  [@77rednecktruck](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/77rednecktruck)
#### Post date: [January 7, 2005, 9:13am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2005-pontiac-gto-sport-appearance-package/171548/18 "2005-01-07T09:13:26Z")
> [@smokeyburnouts](#):
>
> well what was the cut-off year when cars went from cool looking to not??? i give all respect to old / muscle cars, but i dont understand when ppl refuse to give props to new-age sportscars. i can see your point on certain models (example:i think late 60s style Stangs r the coolest looking, but i really like the 99+ also. or the GTO can be another good example) but to say that about all cars in general is hard for me to understand. i am in no position to judge you (which im not), just trying to understand.
I really don’t like anything stylewise after the mid 60’s. I like the speed, handling, drivalility of the new cars but as far as looks go I hate most of them.
And Quik - what does what I drive have anything to do with anything? Because you do not have a Ferrari are you not allowed to have an opinion about them?
---
### Author:  [@Quik](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Quik)
#### Post date: [January 7, 2005, 9:18am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2005-pontiac-gto-sport-appearance-package/171548/19 "2005-01-07T09:18:21Z")
so you hate anything after the 60s then why you driving an altima and a 77 pickup
---
### Author:  [@smokeyburnouts](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/smokeyburnouts)
#### Post date: [January 7, 2005, 9:19am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2005-pontiac-gto-sport-appearance-package/171548/20 "2005-01-07T09:19:42Z")
thats cool. everyone has different tastes. for me, if i see a Gen 1 F-body, i think they r one of the coolest looking cars ive ever seen…and for guys that r stuck in the muscle car era, i can see why they love them too…but then i look at a Gen 4 ws6 or SS and wonder how the guys that love the Gen 1s cant appreciate the styling (and sometimes performance) of the new one. and although i cant say that for all car models, for the most part i think alot of the new cars r sweet looking.
[Next page](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/2005-pontiac-gto-sport-appearance-package/171548.md?page=2)