Motor

Aron9000

Yeah you can put 2+2's in there as well. There weren't that many STRICTLY 2 seat cars back then.

Oh and no love for the plastic fantastic Corvette??? The 1984 C4 was a pretty revolutionary car when it came out, one of the first mainstream cars to have low profile 16" tires if I recall correctly. I never did like the 80's models though, mainly because in 1992 they received a much more powerful and rev happy V8 and dumped that stupid knight rider dash setup. Wish they were better built, as this car defined the term rattle trap.

I forgot about the CRX. I've never driven one, but I'd imagine the hot Si model was a hoot since it was so light. I can imagine one with a newer engine swap(ie the 200hp 8000rpm screamer out of the Acuara RSX) would just be ridiculous.

jimbosr1

jimbosr1

mmarshall

A close friend of mine had a 1989 CRX Si for quite a few years. It was not as snappy or responsive as you might think, for three reasons. First, the 125 HP engine, like most Honda non-turbo fours, had little torque unless you wound it out to very high RPMs. Second,, the FWD made it nose-heavy. Third, the non-power-assist steering had a rather slow ratio. However, it was extremely well-built, almost bulletproof, and ran for over 200K miles before he sold it.

Joey-E

iTrader: (1)

Lol oh now you say so in that case throw the Porsche 944 and 928 in the mix!!!

Aron9000

Didn't care for the 944.

The 928, now that is an iconic car. When that was introduced in 1978, there wasn't really a nice, powerful, modern, and RELIABLE GT car on the market. The shape, to this day, looks like nothing else made before or since IMO. Love or hate it, you still remember this car 35 years later.

I have a sentimental attachment to that car, because growing up, my best friend's dad had a silver 928, it looked exactly like old Scarface's car. I remember being 8, 9, 10, sitting in the back seat of that car, slightly on edge from the claustraphobia. I literally couldn't move my legs once that front seat went back into position, even with my buddy riding in the front with it all the way slid forward.

Yeah, his Porsche was THAT car from the movie. I hate to think how much he spent to keep it on the road, because it was his daily driver, and this was in the early 90's, so that 928 was getting 12, 13, 14 years old if it was an 80 or 81 model.

Byprodrive

iTrader: (1)

Being a former Pontiac & mid-engine fanatic I started following the Fiero 2 years before it went on sale. GM following it's standard practice, finally got it right in 1988, the final year of Fiero production when GM designed a Fiero specific suspension that transformed the handling. I was a Pontiac salesman in 1987. The 87 Fiero was pretty good, what actually killed the Fiero was insurance costs due to mostly young, inexperienced drivers wrecking them & driving up insurance rates. Often Fiero & TransAm buyers would discover at the last minute their insurance payments would equal or exceed the car payment.

I am a prospect for a decent 1988 Fiero!

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

dseag2

I think one of the late model Fieros (black with the body kit) still looks good today.

Joey-E

iTrader: (1)

Not sure why but CL is not letting me quote you Aron9000 but.....

Those 2 are still on my list of cars to someday own, most likely as a project kinda car.

How can you say no to the 944 tho? especially the turbo 944? Thing is sexy and considered one of the best handling cars of its time.

mmarshall

If you were a Pontiac salesperson at that time, you will probably remember how poorly-built the Fiero was. Though one could argue that the 1988 models, having four years of tweaking and experience, were somewhat better, the 2.5L "Iron Duke" 1984 model that I test-drove was arguably the poorest-assembled new car I ever sampled....worse than the notoriously-bad 1969/70 Chrysler products or even the late-80s Hyundai Excel (fortunately, I never sampled a Yugo, so I can't compare).

So, while I respect the fact that you sold them for a living, what killed the Fiero was not so much insurance (even with young, careless drivers), but the ***-awful way the car was initially designed and built.

Byprodrive

iTrader: (1)

1984 was the 1st year & I'm assuming the Fiero you drove Marshall was a early production Fiero.
The Fiero was designed for a revolutionary new '"Mill & drill spaceframe" assembly.
I explain this as a sort of steel frame that includes a integral roll cage. This frame is milled & drilled in 1 step with a custom fixture that insures all body attachment threaded holes are precisely positioned relative to each other. Plastic body panels are bolted to the frame insuring rigid mounting & uniform alignment. This creates a very strong & safe platform to build a "sporty" car. In addition to the inevitable challenge of designing shift linkage for a mid-engine layout, budget overruns forced Fiero engineers to adapt the Chevy Citation suspension parts to use on Fiero's. Engines were the proven "Iron Duke" 4 cyl 2.5L & later the 2.8L V-6 also from the Citation X-platform. Later the 2.8 grew to 3.1L but I don't recal the Fiero ever recieving it.
I drove a 85 model & hated the shifter. I drove several 87 models, base & GT V-6's. I really liked them just wanted more power. Interiors were really nice with the exception of the awkwardly wide center hump/console. I loved the GT's swede seats. I did not percieve any NVH issues, just shortcomings imposed by parts bin sharing with GM economy cars.

mmarshall

Yes, a 1984 model. That one was far and away the worst. There was also a recall for major engine fires.


Yes, I'm aware of the Fiero's pioneering mill-drill design. I had also (previously) owned a 2.5L Citation, so I'm familiar with the X-Body design and a number of the drivetrain parts that later went into the Fiero.

The way the Fiero executed the space-frame/plastic-body panel design had a lot of problems, but it DID pave the way for a car that, six years later, would get the process RIGHT...the Saturn S-Series. I was a big fan of the S-series, especially the 1999 versions, which I thought were the best of the series.


Probably the same one that was in my 1980 4-speed Citation (I clearly made a mistake by not ordering the 3-speed automatic). Ultra-wide ratios between the four gears, big RPM differences between the gears, lousy synchros/crunching in first and reverse, awkward cable-operated clutch that was difficult to engage smoothly even with slip, and no shift-feel at all in the cable-linkage unless hitting the resistance of the synchros. In all fairness, though, the Chrysler K-Cars, the closest competition to the GM X-Bodies, didn't have a much better 4-speed manual, though the ratios were a little closer and the clutch wasn't quite as awkward.