[Shotimes] Re: OT: Pontiac Fiero or is it Firero? :)
Mike.Wojton@us.o-i.com
Mike.Wojton@us.o-i.com
Fri, 4 Apr 2003 09:31:27 -0500
I thought I had read somewhere way back that the Fiero was originally
designed as an economical "city type" car, not a sports car. But with
it's sporty looks, people began thinking of it that way, and Pontiac made
changes to accomodate that thinking.
Incidentally, a guy here at work has an older V6. He took it to some
guru up in Michigan (not Porter ; ) ) and had them hop it up. Bigger
cam,
better heads, bigger carb and such. Makes 250 hp now. Hauls ass too.
Quite the sleeper. The only telltale sign it's been modified, other than
the exhaust, is a little Holley intake scoop on the drivers quarter panel.
He's trying to decide what to do with it now. I'm trying to talk him into
the Northstar conversion. Yee-ha!
Mike Wojton
Toledo, Ohio
-'95 Green MTX 3/01-1/03
ShoShop y-pipe
-'95 White MTX
'96 Brake Upgrade
None of us is as dumb as all of us.
shotimes-admin@autox.team.net wrote on 04/04/2003 08:51:57 AM:
> First off, no stock Fiero was ever faster/quicker/better handling than
the
> same year stock Corvette.
>
> Second, yes, Chevrolet, in a way, did kill the Fiero. There were
several
> engines that were planned to go into the Fiero, but never made it due to
the
> fact that the Fiero's performance would have equaled, bettered, or come
> close to the Corvette for WAY less money. One engine that was
considered
> was an all-aluminum 2.9L V6 (no relation to the 60-degree Chevy V6) with
> twin turbos. The Fiero with this powerplant was considerably faster and
> handled much better than the Corvette. Remember, this was 1984, and the
C4
> was all new, Chevy couldn't have it's 30 year old sportscar nameplate
> humiliated by a new upstart. Twin turbos were canned, but even the
normally
> aspirated version was just as quick as the 'Vette, and still handled
much
> better. This engine was sadly scrapped. The next engine scheduled for
the
> Fiero was the 1.8L SOHC I4 Turbo (as seen in the Sunbird GT, Olds
Firenza,
> and I think Buick's iteration of the J-body). This engine gave the
Fiero
> performance very close to the Corvette, for WAY less money. The last
engine
> was the 2.8L Chevy 60-degree V6 with cast iron block and aluminum heads.
> This engine made the Fiero slow enough that it wouldn't embarass the
'Vette,
> and with the extra weight, it wouldn't out-handle the 'Vette either. The
> 2.5L I4 "Tech-IV" or "Iron Duke" was always going to be the base engine.
>
> Since the HO version of the 2.8L V6 wouldn't be ready for full
production
> until the '85 model year, the only version of the Fiero for it's debut
year
> would be the 4-cylinder. This really did more to hurt the Fiero's sales
> than anything. Extreme sporty looks, but econocar performance. Then
the
> fire fiasco (which only affected the 4-cylinders and not the V6 models)
gave
> the Fiero a bad name. The original Fiero suspension wasn't the best
> sounding on paper, and was used to get the car to market quickly and at
a
> cheap price. The Fiero used a modified Chevette front suspension up
front,
> and a modified Citation X-11 in the rear.
>
> As far as horsepower, the 85 V6 model had 135hp, where as other GM's
used a
> 125hp version. 86, 87 and 88 used a 140hp version of the engine, but the
> most hp other GM cars got was 135hp in 88, most were still the 125hp or
> 130hp version. The 5-speed wasn't available with the V6 until '87, 85
and
> 86 got by with 4-speeds.
>
> By the time the 88 Fiero came around with it's much improved suspension,
GM
> decided that there was not enough profit in a 30k-40k a year vehicle
(first
> year sales were above 100,000, but kept getting lower every year). Even
> though "Chevy Brass" didn't kill the car after the 88 model year, they
did
> have a big hand in the whole deal. Who knows, if the Fiero would have
had
> one of the original scheduled V6's or even the turbo-4 it's first year,
> maybe we would still have a Fiero, or maybe it would have lasted a
little
> longer than it did. It's all speculation, though.
>
> OK, the 350Z hasn't died... It's sales are better than Nissan had
hoped.
> Now, what killed the RX7, MR2, and 300ZX (Supra, Stealth, and 3000GT
came
> later) in the 95/96 model years were several things. One was a weak
dollar
> and a strong yen. Another was OBD-II and stronger emissions regs in 96
(the
> RX7 could not meet emissions). The 300ZX could not meet Federal side
impact
> standards for the 97 model year. The Supra stayed until '98 and the
3000GT
> until '99 (I think the Stealth died around 96/97). The redesigned
Eclipse
> was supposed to be a replacement for both the turbo Eclipse and the
3000GT
> (hence the V6 in the new Eclipse). The Supra was killed by higher
prices
> each year.
>
> DOH! didn't mean to write a book :-)
>
> Ron N. - Dalton, GA
> 90 SHO
> 89 325i
> "It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile"
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Donald Mallinson" <dmall@mwonline.net>
>
>
> > I don't think there is much truth to the rumor that the
> > Fiero got "too close" to the vette, and was killed by Chevy
> > lobbying. The last year Fiero, WAS the best one ever, much
> > better suspension (earlier ones had CHEVETTE suspension for
> > God's sake) and more HP, better styling and it was finally
> > the car it really should have been from year one.
> >
> > If that is the case (Killed by Chevy brass), then the Chevy
> > guys also killed the RX7, MR2, 350Z and the Supra. All
> > specialty cars that died about the same time. It was just a
> > horrible time for expensive (or even affordable) toys.
> >
> > Yes, GM wants to keep the Vette the top dog, that is why you
> > didn't see the new GTO get the 400 hp motor that Bob Lutz
> > kicked around. I am sure he got the "word". But awful
> > sales killed the Fiero, not Chevy.
> >
> > I believe Ron Porter can back me up on this, he owns or has
> > owned a Fiero, and knows more about them than me. How
> > about it Ron?
> >
> > Ian Macoomb wrote:
> > > Any truth to these quotes:
> > >
> > >
> > > "The 1988's had superior suspension, superior engines, brakes, and
> wiring,
> > > so much so that they killed the line. Rumours are because it
> outpreformed
> > > the corvette of the same year in everything but top speed. Hmm 13G
or
> 53G
> > > (I'm guessing, I have no idea what corvettes went for back then). "
> > >
> > > "Yes this is accurate.
> > >
> > > I have this article in Road and Track Magazine. The car didn't
> outhandle
> > > the vette, but was more nimble because of its size. Additionally,
they
> > > reduced the output of the engine, and put a governer becasue it had
a
> higher
> > > top speed - bahaha - and also used half of the gas. Out accelerated
the
> car
> > > in 1/4 times. Not rocket science, car weighs almost nothing, RWD
with
> > > R-engine setup = good weight distribution. Becasue of this many
people
> have
> > > opted to go with an engine conversion, which makes these cars
> dengerously
> > > quick.
> > >
> > > THis same issue happened with the Grand National, Cyclone and
Typhoon,
> and
> > > Camaro All detuned to not beat the flagship car - Corvette. "
> _______________________________________________
> Shotimes mailing list
> Shotimes@autox.team.net
> http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes