Ok, so ignore the BMW hood ornament........
I saw this on the cover of a magazine at work and thought the General was going to have some fun bringing back name plates....only to find out its a Beemer concept.
Oh well.
I still think that a mid engine powered fiero-type car would only help the pontiac brand. Maybe after the Solstice has ended its run.
I love Fieros, but there's a -3.3% chance that GM will ever resurrect that marque. Too much PR damage done the first go-round.
Now as for resurrecting the Opel Speedster in the US under a Pontiac badge....bring it on.
1989 Z24 Convertible - Dust Covered
2006 tC - Dust Covered, but driven more
Ahhh... so that's the next M1. Nice.
Quote:
Too much PR damage done the first go-round.
More like them sinking their own ships. The fiero's were extremely popular but they refused to give it power worth anything.
-Chris
My first thought was, M1.
Supposedly GM made 400 turbo fieros. They let them sit in a warehouse for some time.
They even built a prototype 1989 Fiero. Supposedly the base engine would have been the 190hp Quad 4 (The ones they made eventually went to the Quad 442 Oldsmobile) and the optional V6 would have been the 210hp 3.4 DOHC. What a waste.
Quote:
The fiero's were extremely popular but they refused to give it power worth anything.
Actually, the death of the Fiero was it's popularity. It was popular because it was cheap. Because it was cheap, GM didn't make any money on them, so they got the ax.
Power was average, but not bad for its time period. Remember, in '85, first year for the V6 Fiero, Z28s only made around ~165 HP; the Fiero's 140 wasn't half bad.
1989 Z24 Convertible - Dust Covered
2006 tC - Dust Covered, but driven more
They weren't "cheap," but they were pretty competitive with the MR2's (which had less power even with a turbo, higher base price, poorer handling).
As far as that goes, GM made money on them. They may have cost $22 million to develop in the early 80's, but there was nothing to base the design off of. If the Fiero had been given a better engine (like a series 1 S/C 3800) they'd have been monsters on the track and strip. A lot of people in the auto industry at the time said that the Fiero would have been a great GT car had it recieved development.
My thoughts, if it actually DID make it back,
- There would be no "Fiero" it'd be a Saturn first,
- The interior would have to NOT SUCK, and there would be TRUNK SPACE up front.
- If it made it to Pontiac, it'd get a new nameplate more than likely... I'm thinking the G2.
- If it made it to Chevy, it'd be the Corvair, no matter how messed up the past was with that name.
GAM, better handling I highly doubt... Maybe I'm wrong, but I have a very hard time believing the Fiero out handled the MR2 of the same years.
On the other hand....you have other fingers.
In my family we teach that boys have a God-stick and girls have a Shame Cave. -John Stewart
ZlineDavid wrote:Quote:
The fiero's were extremely popular but they refused to give it power worth anything.
Actually, the death of the Fiero was it's popularity. It was popular because it was cheap. Because it was cheap, GM didn't make any money on them, so they got the ax.
Power was average, but not bad for its time period. Remember, in '85, first year for the V6 Fiero, Z28s only made around ~165 HP; the Fiero's 140 wasn't half bad.
Your statement there is halfway completely the opposite of reality.
This is how it was explained to me by the top guy in the fiero platform management, I can't recall his exact name right now...
-GM kind of made a ton of money on the Fiero. Projected sales for the project were 35,000 units per year. In 84, GM sold 250,000 fieros. The number dropped each year after, but halfway through 88 when they cancelled it, they still sold over 38,000 units. Selling more than projected = made money. Selling 6x projections = made big money.
-The success of the car caused other divisions (namely Cadillac) to move there people under the fiero umbrella for cost. This was how it worked at GM back then. Your costs were billed to the building you were in, not the project you were working on. The swelling cost of the extra manpower (overhead) pushed the # of units that needed to be sold per year to 150,000+ to support the division.
This made sense to GM management as it was par for the course for them. It has been said that GM could not make money on any vehicle line unless it sold over 125,000 units per year. They were simply too bloated to deal with less than that. In the 80's, Cadillac was a big loser for GM (no line sold more than 30,000/yr) and the Vette was always considered a necessary evil to the accountants.
sig not found
Also, let's keep in mind that the Fiero's rear suspension was basically a FWD X-body front suspension and that it's front suspension was from the Chevette. Hardly super expensive hardware.
looks a lot like the original M1 very nice I'm a fan
protomec wrote:ZlineDavid wrote:Quote:
The fiero's were extremely popular but they refused to give it power worth anything.
Actually, the death of the Fiero was it's popularity. It was popular because it was cheap. Because it was cheap, GM didn't make any money on them, so they got the ax.
Power was average, but not bad for its time period. Remember, in '85, first year for the V6 Fiero, Z28s only made around ~165 HP; the Fiero's 140 wasn't half bad.
Your statement there is halfway completely the opposite of reality.
This is how it was explained to me by the top guy in the fiero platform management, I can't recall his exact name right now...
-GM kind of made a ton of money on the Fiero. Projected sales for the project were 35,000 units per year. In 84, GM sold 250,000 fieros. The number dropped each year after, but halfway through 88 when they cancelled it, they still sold over 38,000 units. Selling more than projected = made money. Selling 6x projections = made big money.
-The success of the car caused other divisions (namely Cadillac) to move there people under the fiero umbrella for cost. This was how it worked at GM back then. Your costs were billed to the building you were in, not the project you were working on. The swelling cost of the extra manpower (overhead) pushed the # of units that needed to be sold per year to 150,000+ to support the division.
This made sense to GM management as it was par for the course for them. It has been said that GM could not make money on any vehicle line unless it sold over 125,000 units per year. They were simply too bloated to deal with less than that. In the 80's, Cadillac was a big loser for GM (no line sold more than 30,000/yr) and the Vette was always considered a necessary evil to the accountants.
Interesting. So basically, the car in and of itself was profitable, but because of GM's bastardized cost accounting, made it look like a loss on paper.
1989 Z24 Convertible - Dust Covered
2006 tC - Dust Covered, but driven more
Knoxfire wrote:They even built a prototype 1989 Fiero. Supposedly the base engine would have been the 190hp Quad 4 (The ones they made eventually went to the Quad 442 Oldsmobile) and the optional V6 would have been the 210hp 3.4 DOHC. What a waste.
Is it just me or does this look like a Camaro to anyone else?
*****************************************************
*
* Student of the University of Oklahoma. Go Sooners!
*
*****************************************************
Next Cadillac will bring back the Cimmaron...
JLAudioCavalier wrote:GAM, better handling I highly doubt... Maybe I'm wrong, but I have a very hard time believing the Fiero out handled the MR2 of the same years.
I forget which magazine but there was a shootout between the 2, and MR2 lost out on handling, mainly because the Fiero had gigantic (at the time) rear tires, and a decently sorted suspension. The margin was minimal, but still, it lost... and even better, the MR2 had a higher sticker price with lower HP (as I remember).
1988 Toyota MR2
1988 Pontiac Fiero GT
Okay, so the GT was 10HP less than the S/C MR2.... and it was $3000 cheaper. *shrug* Same money in the MR2 will get you 20 hp/50 tq less.
They still make decent auto-X cars (V6 + Turbo =
), and were fairly good rally cars once upon a time (pre-awd).
I think the MR2/Fiero battle is interesting, but realistically, how many MR2 owners clubs are there? What maybe 10-15?
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:JLAudioCavalier wrote:GAM, better handling I highly doubt... Maybe I'm wrong, but I have a very hard time believing the Fiero out handled the MR2 of the same years.
I forget which magazine but there was a shootout between the 2, and MR2 lost out on handling, mainly because the Fiero had gigantic (at the time) rear tires, and a decently sorted suspension. The margin was minimal, but still, it lost... and even better, the MR2 had a higher sticker price with lower HP (as I remember). 1988 Toyota MR2
1988 Pontiac Fiero GT
Okay, so the GT was 10HP less than the S/C MR2.... and it was $3000 cheaper. *shrug* Same money in the MR2 will get you 20 hp/50 tq less.
They still make decent auto-X cars (V6 + Turbo = ), and were fairly good rally cars once upon a time (pre-awd).
I think the MR2/Fiero battle is interesting, but realistically, how many MR2 owners clubs are there? What maybe 10-15?
The 88 was a completely different car suspension wise. Anything PRE 88 = had its ass handed to it by the mr2.
My Cav
I give up...
i'm buying a VW those people love trees, so they should love eachother too... "Andy"
Short Hand wrote:GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:JLAudioCavalier wrote:GAM, better handling I highly doubt... Maybe I'm wrong, but I have a very hard time believing the Fiero out handled the MR2 of the same years.
I forget which magazine but there was a shootout between the 2, and MR2 lost out on handling, mainly because the Fiero had gigantic (at the time) rear tires, and a decently sorted suspension. The margin was minimal, but still, it lost... and even better, the MR2 had a higher sticker price with lower HP (as I remember). 1988 Toyota MR2
1988 Pontiac Fiero GT
Okay, so the GT was 10HP less than the S/C MR2.... and it was $3000 cheaper. *shrug* Same money in the MR2 will get you 20 hp/50 tq less.
They still make decent auto-X cars (V6 + Turbo = ), and were fairly good rally cars once upon a time (pre-awd).
I think the MR2/Fiero battle is interesting, but realistically, how many MR2 owners clubs are there? What maybe 10-15?
The 88 was a completely different car suspension wise. Anything PRE 88 = had its ass handed to it by the mr2.
Yeah yeah yeah... And you paid 20% more for marginal handling differenced... po-tay-toe, po-tah-tow. There was suspension Conversion kits from West Coast Fiero for about $1500 (last I checked..
).
You could take the money that you saved on the outset, and invest it in a new suspension, and take the other $1500 and toss an era correct twin turbo kit on it, and show the MR2 owners of the world what tail-lights look like
Either way, Toyota's becoming an old man's car company. With the exception of the XRS Bore-olla and maybe the Snoreara, there's nothing interesting going on there now.
I much prefer the looks of the MR2, but an LS1 in a Fiero... Yum!
--------------------------------------------------------
2002 Sunfire -->
- Ractive steering wheel
- ASA 17" EM9 + Nexen N5000 215/45/17 (steelies for winter)
- D-Spec Lowering kit @ 1.4" (issues currently
)
- Rockford P250.1 + MTX MZS1004 + Panasonic CQ-C8313U head unit
- Barely legal tint.
Quote:
As far as that goes, GM made money on them. They may have cost $22 million to develop in the early 80's, but there was nothing to base the design off of. If the Fiero had been given a better engine (like a series 1 S/C 3800) they'd have been monsters on the track and strip. A lot of people in the auto industry at the time said that the Fiero would have been a great GT car had it recieved development.
sadly the fiero was designed around a smallblock v8
"I did it because I wanted to see what it would look like. You should be greatful that I even told you that it would look good. If your to dumb to use photoshop and change the color of your own car then you don't need to see it changed. I'm not going to give my work away. I'll sell the pic to you though for $15."-Adam Kalin
^^JBO is about not being that guy
True... True... but the V6 was a better fit as far as power to weight.
Actually,
The car was 1st designed as a 50+mpg commuter car with a 1.6lt version of the 2.5lt iron duke.
Then when the purpose shifted to sports car, a v8 idea was designed.
Not a Chevy V8 as "smallblock" would infer, but rather an all new aluminum pontiac V8.
Unfortunately this was around 1980 and the Corvette team got wind of it.
So using their pull in the company, they demanded a comparison test with the vette. Rememner that this was 1980, the year of the famed 145hp, 3500lb, 305cid vette.
The V8 fiero devastated it in all benchmarks. The vette guys cried to management, and the fiero was decreed to only be designed as a 4cyl from that point on.
sig not found
