GTP Cool Wall - Pontiac Fiero
- Thread starter Tornado
- 70 comments
- 17,673 views
- 23,968
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
Like an MR2, but worse in every respect. It also launched a million kit-car abominations. Uncool.
- 6,977
- old-guy64
Except for not being thought all the way thru the Fiero was a neat little experiment.
Mid-engine--cool, but a little lite on power.
Plastic body panels--probably a precursor to the original Saturn, and weight saving to go with the anemic engine choices.
Standard Pontiac "reliability" and an inability to be towed--probably not too bad with "Iron Duke" cars, but with the v-6...
That said, on the cool side if you hit one with a motorcycle as it turns left in front of you, you are pretty likely to clear the whole car on your way to the pavement if you are traveling at least 30 MPH.
Mid-engine--cool, but a little lite on power.
Plastic body panels--probably a precursor to the original Saturn, and weight saving to go with the anemic engine choices.
Standard Pontiac "reliability" and an inability to be towed--probably not too bad with "Iron Duke" cars, but with the v-6...
That said, on the cool side if you hit one with a motorcycle as it turns left in front of you, you are pretty likely to clear the whole car on your way to the pavement if you are traveling at least 30 MPH.
Rotary Junkie
Premium
- 9,810
- Canton, MI
- RJs_RX-7
Does this mean I have a rotary by default as well? Awesome, where is it?
- 681
- California
Heres some pretty sweet replicas... The revention, even tho a WIP, looks awesome!
!
- 27,210
- United Kingdom
And then you start the engine, and everyone laughs.
- 4,741
- Bogota,Colombia
- GTP_ARP93
Exactly my point!!! 👍
Rotary Junkie
Premium
- 9,810
- Canton, MI
- RJs_RX-7
Except there's the bit about a Fiero being capable of taking a boosted LSx. So it could in theory outrun the real Reventon.
- 3,008
- You're crazy if you think
- I can afford either of these.
Nah man, that's a extremely rare IDM exhaust meant to conform to Italian standards. That way everything thinks you have a replica, then you go to race, and then you... Oh wait
- 3,202
- Murcie LP710
- 1,759
A mid-engined GM, we won't see that again so cool for me. It would have been so awesome with a corvette engine.
They exist. Saw a build thread of one getting an LS7 in it. Kind of useless though because you can't put a strong enough transmission behind it.
- 3,008
- You're crazy if you think
- I can afford either of these.
That just adds to the fun!
- 1,397
This article clearly explains my revulsion for American cars (with precious few exceptions) from the mid sixties to now.
There are very few American cars that I can recommend to my friends and family, of late; notably, the CTS, current Malibu, the 3 pony cars and the Fusion.
The first CTS was a good warning shot. The current one is a homerun (IMO)
Any thoughts?
There are very few American cars that I can recommend to my friends and family, of late; notably, the CTS, current Malibu, the 3 pony cars and the Fusion.
The first CTS was a good warning shot. The current one is a homerun (IMO)
Any thoughts?
- 40,804
I'd say that GM (in particular) of the 70s is what caused the problems of the American motor industry of today. That was when the real problems started. Not in the 60s.
I also resent the accusation leveled by the article that it is GMs fault that, despite having massive horsepower and being performance cars, the cars weren't particularly fast by today's standards. That is such a hilarious double standard as well as completely misunderstanding the problem that it is hard to really even take any of the rest of the article seriously. The bit about disc brakes is almost as bad.
I also resent the accusation leveled by the article that it is GMs fault that, despite having massive horsepower and being performance cars, the cars weren't particularly fast by today's standards. That is such a hilarious double standard as well as completely misunderstanding the problem that it is hard to really even take any of the rest of the article seriously. The bit about disc brakes is almost as bad.
- 1,397
I'm not so sure about the disc brake thing.
My BMW 2002s have standard front disc brakes. (The 02 was produced from 1962- 1977 if you count the original Neue Klasse) and from 69 they were dual circuit. And the 1500 Neue Klasse sedan had a tarmac tearing 80hp. And they were just barely a ton in weight. Compare that to the GTO.
Now, if they sold the disc brakes as an option, it makes you wonder what sort of performace credentials the car was supposed to have. It immediately reinforces the main crux of the article, that GM was driven by primarily by profit. Yes, I know any company should have a bottom line focus on profit.
My BMW 2002s have standard front disc brakes. (The 02 was produced from 1962- 1977 if you count the original Neue Klasse) and from 69 they were dual circuit. And the 1500 Neue Klasse sedan had a tarmac tearing 80hp. And they were just barely a ton in weight. Compare that to the GTO.
Now, if they sold the disc brakes as an option, it makes you wonder what sort of performace credentials the car was supposed to have. It immediately reinforces the main crux of the article, that GM was driven by primarily by profit. Yes, I know any company should have a bottom line focus on profit.
- 10,620
- gtp_jimprower
Eh, It's really the same philosophy of the GTO. BMW took a Neue Klasse, Put a bigger engine, high-performance suspension, and got the 2002tii. You can compare weights, fuel economy, etc, but the end result is the same in this way: the car has significantly improved performance over the standard version. They may perform in different ways compared directly, but a tii is faster than a 1500, and a GTO is faster than an 6-cyl Le Mans.
I feel that digging around for performance cars is a misguided way to make a case for GM's slippery slope. Instead, they should look at the car's full refresh cycles, the sheer number of carryover components, etcetera, that really started taking hold in the '70s, when GM was in "let's save money" mode.
I agree with Toronado, here...pointing fingers at a performance version of a standard car is barking up the wrong tree. Everyone has had them since not long after the dawn of the car. Even Toyota now, although, it's hard to call the Camry SE a sporting car, it is appreciably faster than other models, and looks sportier, thus, to them, performance version.
I feel that digging around for performance cars is a misguided way to make a case for GM's slippery slope. Instead, they should look at the car's full refresh cycles, the sheer number of carryover components, etcetera, that really started taking hold in the '70s, when GM was in "let's save money" mode.
I agree with Toronado, here...pointing fingers at a performance version of a standard car is barking up the wrong tree. Everyone has had them since not long after the dawn of the car. Even Toyota now, although, it's hard to call the Camry SE a sporting car, it is appreciably faster than other models, and looks sportier, thus, to them, performance version.
- 1,397
The Camry SE is NOT appreciably faster. Same engine, transmission, brakes, slightly stiffer suspension, more "sporty" interior than the "luxury" XLE and a slight bodykit. Otherwise exactly the same.
The point, is that GM and the big 3 for that matter, started chasing the quick dollar, rather than offering a sound product. You could get the sound product, if you started checking off options boxes like mad, but who did that as a percentage of buyers? Which begets reputations. Which begets quality questions. The general public doesn't know the difference between disc and drum brakes. They know when a "performance car" won't stop. Etc. Downward spiral initiated.
The point, is that GM and the big 3 for that matter, started chasing the quick dollar, rather than offering a sound product. You could get the sound product, if you started checking off options boxes like mad, but who did that as a percentage of buyers? Which begets reputations. Which begets quality questions. The general public doesn't know the difference between disc and drum brakes. They know when a "performance car" won't stop. Etc. Downward spiral initiated.
- 10,620
- gtp_jimprower
waiiiitwaitwait. In those days, people LIKED the long option lists. Especially the enthusiasts who typically bought the GTO. as well, not as many people had cars, or needed them: it's not like now, when people drive everywhere (a trend that started in the '70s,) and people who bought cars tended to know more about them. Yet, as social changes in the '60s took hold, their children didn't make the effort to know about cars.
These days, people dont' even look at option lists - good for the dealers. they can tack on a bunch of nifty features that the buyer doesn't even use, and sell it to someone because it's on the lot and they can drive it hope that day. In fact, I've oft noticed that if you want something (Japanese manufacturers are notorious for this,) you have to get a bunch of stuff you don't want.
As for quality...well, in the '60s, if you bought a performance car, you knew you were in for some extra maintenance. In fact, some period ads use this as a selling point. The big dump in quality came with the '70s American compacts: the awful Vega and Pinto, the ugly (but bulletproof) Gremlin and Pacer, and...well, Chrysler didn't make a subcompact until the Omni. They sold rebadged Mitsubishis as the Colt. And, all three continued to make big, slow, lazily engineered "Personal Luxury Coupes" even after the gas crunch hit, because they didn't want to spend the money to make a decent subcompact car.
The Imports, for the most part. (there's always an exception), didn't make anything bigger than that which would be considered "compact" at the time in this country. They didn't feel the need to produce a big car for one country when they didn't have factories over here, and europeans didn't like big cars, because they were hard to use on small european roads. When the gas crunch hit, people in the U.S. looked for more fuel efficient offerings, and found that cars like those in Europe or Japan were actually not too bad. Especially compared to the cut-rate efforts from GM and Ford (which Chrysler didn't even bother competing with.)
The fact is, the GTO wasn't even produced in large enough numbers to have a huge effect on GM's profits. The engine package was expensive to produce, what with multiple carburetors, Heavy-duty components required all around...Chevrolet and common cars, not performance models, were the big driving force behind G.M.'s profits.
These days, people dont' even look at option lists - good for the dealers. they can tack on a bunch of nifty features that the buyer doesn't even use, and sell it to someone because it's on the lot and they can drive it hope that day. In fact, I've oft noticed that if you want something (Japanese manufacturers are notorious for this,) you have to get a bunch of stuff you don't want.
As for quality...well, in the '60s, if you bought a performance car, you knew you were in for some extra maintenance. In fact, some period ads use this as a selling point. The big dump in quality came with the '70s American compacts: the awful Vega and Pinto, the ugly (but bulletproof) Gremlin and Pacer, and...well, Chrysler didn't make a subcompact until the Omni. They sold rebadged Mitsubishis as the Colt. And, all three continued to make big, slow, lazily engineered "Personal Luxury Coupes" even after the gas crunch hit, because they didn't want to spend the money to make a decent subcompact car.
The Imports, for the most part. (there's always an exception), didn't make anything bigger than that which would be considered "compact" at the time in this country. They didn't feel the need to produce a big car for one country when they didn't have factories over here, and europeans didn't like big cars, because they were hard to use on small european roads. When the gas crunch hit, people in the U.S. looked for more fuel efficient offerings, and found that cars like those in Europe or Japan were actually not too bad. Especially compared to the cut-rate efforts from GM and Ford (which Chrysler didn't even bother competing with.)
The fact is, the GTO wasn't even produced in large enough numbers to have a huge effect on GM's profits. The engine package was expensive to produce, what with multiple carburetors, Heavy-duty components required all around...Chevrolet and common cars, not performance models, were the big driving force behind G.M.'s profits.
- 1,397
In those days people probably didn't know better. I will give you that. The standards were appreciably lower as a result.
But to say that the quality only went down in the 70s is really a misnomer. The quality really never improved much after the 50s. When the war ended, cars were still mostly body on frame. I can excuse that for most of the 50s. But by the 60s the Germans had already started to use monocoques and go away from the frame and body design. The reason was simple; stiffer, better handling, better crash protection etc. Meanwhile here in the states the big 3 continued to do what they always did; reskin the car, maybe change the bumpers and send it out basically unchanged. Every year brought new changes, but nothing substantial. While the Germans and Japanese, whose industry was decimated by the war, made leaps and bounds.
And yet, to use the same BMW model, the Neue Klasse, came with a host of things that were not all standard on any American car. Stuff as simple as radial tires.
Perhaps the fault lay in the regulations; autobahn speeds wrought autobahn collisions, which wrought autobahn capable safety measures (like disc brakes, stiffer monocoques etc) which essentially brought the lead in safety to the Germans and somehow, the Swedes. We had the DOT, and only Montana had no speed limit. But who lived in Montana in the 60s?
Perhaps the fault lay in arrogance. It's the way we have always done things. Why should we change. It certainly explains to me how GM could have brought that last Chevy Malibu to market when it was woefully outclassed by every single competitor. (the last bodystyle, prior to the current one.) And yet they still came out with the damn thing and had the nerve to sell it. Same with the current Chrysler Sebring and Dodge Avenger. You and I both know that when those cars came to market they were awful. But no one had either GM or Chrysler had the sack to just say "this is crap, don't bother."
Perhaps the fault lay in the ease of information. Today you can pick up your laptop and use a search engine to research just about anything before you buy it. You didn't have legions of fans and commentators poring over a product and nit picking its every nut and bolt, then sharing with the whole word what they found. (See Engadget whenever a new product comes out) But neither did they in Europe or Japan.
Perhaps it was just that there they chose to improve the product, while here they chose to embellish the product.
Be that as it may, in the 50s most cars were a chassis with a body bolted on top. Quite a few American cars were still made this way in the 90s, and I cant think of a single European car that was. In the 80s!!!!! (I'm not as well versed on the Japanese cars so I can't speak as authoratively.)
In the 50s most cars were rear wheel drive. The big three were behind the ball again when there was a almost universal switch to FWD by the industry. Starting in the 70s with the gas crunch and the switch to smaller cars.
Overhead cam engines? More power per cubic inch meant smaller engines could drive bigger cars. Which meant better fuel economy.
And while we are talking about fuel economy, overdriven transmission ratios? Multiple gears to keep the engine in its power band. GM and Ford have only just started using a 6 speed transmission they co developed in pretty much all their cars. Sure the Vette had one, but how many vettes did they sell compared to the malibu?
It boils down to being cheap, in order to make profits IMO. The tech and knowledge was always there. The desire was there, but never the execution.
And Toyota is right now finding out that that is not how to make your cars
But to say that the quality only went down in the 70s is really a misnomer. The quality really never improved much after the 50s. When the war ended, cars were still mostly body on frame. I can excuse that for most of the 50s. But by the 60s the Germans had already started to use monocoques and go away from the frame and body design. The reason was simple; stiffer, better handling, better crash protection etc. Meanwhile here in the states the big 3 continued to do what they always did; reskin the car, maybe change the bumpers and send it out basically unchanged. Every year brought new changes, but nothing substantial. While the Germans and Japanese, whose industry was decimated by the war, made leaps and bounds.
And yet, to use the same BMW model, the Neue Klasse, came with a host of things that were not all standard on any American car. Stuff as simple as radial tires.
Perhaps the fault lay in the regulations; autobahn speeds wrought autobahn collisions, which wrought autobahn capable safety measures (like disc brakes, stiffer monocoques etc) which essentially brought the lead in safety to the Germans and somehow, the Swedes. We had the DOT, and only Montana had no speed limit. But who lived in Montana in the 60s?
Perhaps the fault lay in arrogance. It's the way we have always done things. Why should we change. It certainly explains to me how GM could have brought that last Chevy Malibu to market when it was woefully outclassed by every single competitor. (the last bodystyle, prior to the current one.) And yet they still came out with the damn thing and had the nerve to sell it. Same with the current Chrysler Sebring and Dodge Avenger. You and I both know that when those cars came to market they were awful. But no one had either GM or Chrysler had the sack to just say "this is crap, don't bother."
Perhaps the fault lay in the ease of information. Today you can pick up your laptop and use a search engine to research just about anything before you buy it. You didn't have legions of fans and commentators poring over a product and nit picking its every nut and bolt, then sharing with the whole word what they found. (See Engadget whenever a new product comes out) But neither did they in Europe or Japan.
Perhaps it was just that there they chose to improve the product, while here they chose to embellish the product.
Be that as it may, in the 50s most cars were a chassis with a body bolted on top. Quite a few American cars were still made this way in the 90s, and I cant think of a single European car that was. In the 80s!!!!! (I'm not as well versed on the Japanese cars so I can't speak as authoratively.)
In the 50s most cars were rear wheel drive. The big three were behind the ball again when there was a almost universal switch to FWD by the industry. Starting in the 70s with the gas crunch and the switch to smaller cars.
Overhead cam engines? More power per cubic inch meant smaller engines could drive bigger cars. Which meant better fuel economy.
And while we are talking about fuel economy, overdriven transmission ratios? Multiple gears to keep the engine in its power band. GM and Ford have only just started using a 6 speed transmission they co developed in pretty much all their cars. Sure the Vette had one, but how many vettes did they sell compared to the malibu?
It boils down to being cheap, in order to make profits IMO. The tech and knowledge was always there. The desire was there, but never the execution.
And Toyota is right now finding out that that is not how to make your cars
- 10,620
- gtp_jimprower
Hang on, You're saying that the U.S. hadn't adopted unibodies by then? What a misnomer: by 1970, Chrysler had them across the lineup, and GM and Ford had them for everything except the full-size cars. GM Adopted unibody construction in the early '60s with the compact lineup...they also had rope-shaft driveshafts in Pontiacs and Buicks for a flat floor, and the Tempest had Independent rear suspension. They got rid of these, because people wouldn't buy them strictly because of this. They didn't care about a flat floor or IRS in those days.
And then there was the Corvair. Wasn't appreciably less safe than any other Six-Cylinder, Rear-Engined car. G.M. tried to innovate and got chopped down by an overzealous lawyer who still wants to be president.
Name three. Three '90s, body-on-frame passenger cars from American Manufacturers. No SUVs or Trucks.
RWD to FWD? The Europeans stayed with RWD longer than anyone else. Especially BMW. It's probably VW's Rabbit and Honda's CVCC cars that got the big three developing FWD platforms, but these showed up, with a vengance, in the late '70s and early '80s, starting with the Omni/Horizon...and then we got ahead, by introducing the K-car, a FWD MIDSIZE! Euro manufacturers didn't have these, other than VW/Audi. Ford Europe's next in this size class, in fact, was the RWD Sierra.
I'll admit, the reason OHC engines weren't developed in the U.S. was likely that U.S. auto racing regulations outlawed them, or didnt' provide space. Ford's 427 Cammer being the primary reason. Also had Pontiac's OHC6, which couldn't make the power of big V8s in Pontiac's lineup: which, by the way, were developed independently of other G.M. divisions
and overdrives? You say this as if the Europeans and Japanese had enough power to make use of them. Fact was, we had overdrive trannies in the '50s, and people stopped buying them because they didn't accelerate as quickly. then the gas crunch hit, the manufacturers had to put them in again, or use super-tall final drives. Furthermore, Six-speeds are a recent innovation...there weren't any road vehicles other than heavy trucks available with more than five until the '80s. Save for, perhaps, some obscure auto they made something like 1,000 of.
Maybe. but you're still using the wrong argument if you're using the GTO.
Actually, I'm gonna make an assertion here. It's not Lazy engineering, it's RUSHED engineering that caused the American manufacturers to lose their foothold.
I say this because of two small cars rushed to market: the Pinto and Vega. The Pinto had the advantage of using an engine developed with the European arm, and in fact the little Pinto engine eventually became the turbo monsters used in the Sierra Cosworth, the RS200, and the Escort Cosworth. But the chassis was the problem; specifically, a poorly thought-out filler neck that could easily break and cause a fire, causing another rout of consumer pundit bashing.
The VEGA was even WORSE. GM was so intent on getting this car to market that they were HORRIBLY built. the all new all-aluminum engine...including the cylinder sleeves...lasted about a year before it threw up all of it's oil. sometimes less. As well, the cars used poor-quality steel (here's probably a true example of being "cheap") and rusted almost as soon as it went off the lot. especially if it was winter.
You keep quoting BMW, but their prices then and now were so high, and their dealer network so thin, that it was irrelevant. You want the big killers? Honda, Toyota, Datsun, and VW. The latter of which was using a car developed originally in the '30s, until the very end of the '70s, when they introduced their Golf as the Rabbit to the U.S. The reason these are more representative than BMW? Simple. Price. You could get a Japanese car or Beetle very inexpensively. BMW, at the time, was a premium brand, like they are now. They catered to upper-middle-class "sports car enthusiasts."
Last edited:
- 2,529
- G-D Luxembourg
- GTP_Vince_Fiero
Sorry saw this so late, can you see my avatar?
The "Champagne / Gray" Pontiac with the wedding decoration, is mine.
A the moment I'm not driving it a lot and did not take pictures recently.
Still want to have some work done on it, change the rims, etc...
In the last years:
* changed the hydraulic cluch tubing, had a leak
* changed the oil pump (broke down)
* had a full check up on leaks on the engine (remark from technical inspection)
* changed the exhaust system (catalyst broken and holes in it)
I also added this:
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3733601&postcount=3042
Ill try to add some more pictures there in the future.
- 1,397
Chevy Caprice
Ford Crown Vic
Lincoln Towncar
Buick Roadmaster.
Come on son. Lets not hide our heads in the sand.
Poor execution was the reason why so many technologies were "rejected" by the market. Olds diesel?!?!?
I'm late to work otherwise I would respond more.
Ford Crown Vic
Lincoln Towncar
Buick Roadmaster.
Come on son. Lets not hide our heads in the sand.
Poor execution was the reason why so many technologies were "rejected" by the market. Olds diesel?!?!?
I'm late to work otherwise I would respond more.
- 6,977
- old-guy64
One of the things both of you ( Jim Prower & Neanderthal) are missing is the shortsightedness of the American auto industry.
You see the lack of development, and rushed development.
The US auto "machine" has pretty much done as little as it could for as long as possible to keep the big profits coming.
Add to that the gouging that the UAW has given the Automakers that has been passed on to us.
There is NO other industry that pays as well for FACTORY work.
There is NO other industry that insures and pensions it's retirees as well.
The Health insurance benefits alone, make me wish I'd worked for the automakers starting from the age of 18, retired with my pension and the BEST medical insurance in the country at 38, and started my nursing career at 40 or 41.
That's why poorly developed, American cars cost so damn much money.
That's why I have 2 $20,000 Mazdas, instead of similarly equipped $30,000 Tauruses, or Malibus. We'll not even talk of Mopars.
My uncle drove a 1978 Corolla for 20 years +! You don't see too many 20 year old American economy class cars rolling in any neighborhood. Let's face it, Cavaliers, Neons, Escorts, and Foci are pretty much designed to be "disposable" cars. Those with over 125,000 miles on them and in decent shape are the exception, not the rule.
Whereas Corollas, Sentras, Jettas, 3-series, Civics, et al are pulling down multiple hundreds of thousands of miles.
And admit it or not, this is the range of car that most manufacturers are selling loads of.
Granted if I buy American for my next car, it'll likely be a Ford.
I'll give them the props for not taking any bailout money.
I'll give them the props for putting the quality into thier cars and trucks for the last 15 years or more.
I'll give them the props for partnering with IMHO the Euro and Japenese carmakers that make the most reliable and safest cars on the market in their class.
You see the lack of development, and rushed development.
The US auto "machine" has pretty much done as little as it could for as long as possible to keep the big profits coming.
Add to that the gouging that the UAW has given the Automakers that has been passed on to us.
There is NO other industry that pays as well for FACTORY work.
There is NO other industry that insures and pensions it's retirees as well.
The Health insurance benefits alone, make me wish I'd worked for the automakers starting from the age of 18, retired with my pension and the BEST medical insurance in the country at 38, and started my nursing career at 40 or 41.
That's why poorly developed, American cars cost so damn much money.
That's why I have 2 $20,000 Mazdas, instead of similarly equipped $30,000 Tauruses, or Malibus. We'll not even talk of Mopars.
My uncle drove a 1978 Corolla for 20 years +! You don't see too many 20 year old American economy class cars rolling in any neighborhood. Let's face it, Cavaliers, Neons, Escorts, and Foci are pretty much designed to be "disposable" cars. Those with over 125,000 miles on them and in decent shape are the exception, not the rule.
Whereas Corollas, Sentras, Jettas, 3-series, Civics, et al are pulling down multiple hundreds of thousands of miles.
And admit it or not, this is the range of car that most manufacturers are selling loads of.
Granted if I buy American for my next car, it'll likely be a Ford.
I'll give them the props for not taking any bailout money.
I'll give them the props for putting the quality into thier cars and trucks for the last 15 years or more.
I'll give them the props for partnering with IMHO the Euro and Japenese carmakers that make the most reliable and safest cars on the market in their class.
Last edited:
- 10,620
- gtp_jimprower
Chevy Caprice/Buick Roadmaster/Impala SS - Same car
Ford Crown Vic/Lincoln Town Car/Mercury Grand Marquis - same car
Basically, two cars. Rather, two platforms, if you wanna call it that. I don't call that almost all of them, like you seem to think.
Again, my beef isn't that America has made bad cars or decisions: they have. But I think the GTO is a very poor example compared to what came later. People wanted to go fast, cheap. The GTO went fast, fairly inexpensively.
