[Shotimes] Re: OT: Pontiac Fiero or is it Firero? :)

[Ron Nottingham]

Just talked to my cousin (Jack Nottingham, Jr.) that had owned the car.  He
was about 25 at the time and did work for GM as an engineer.  I was 14
(early '83) when I first seen the car and rode in it.

Yes, the car he had DID have twin turbos, no intercoolers, but a single
turbo was considered for production, as the twin turbo would have been
extremely expensive to build (and as he stated,  "you would have had to give
up what little trunk space was available").  He did say the 2.9L was a
development from the 60-degree Chevy, but shared little with it.  It did put
out about 260bhp, and was about 200 pounds lighter than the later V6 Fiero.
A normally aspirated version was tested, but shelved rather quickly, he gave
no reason as to why.  He told me little else, but that the engines were
troubleprone.  He went on to say the Corvettes of that era were over rated,
and all that was needed would have been a Fiero weighing around 2500 (about
300 pounds less than a fastback GT model, or about 200 pounds less than an
85 GT), and about 170/180hp to give better performance than the current
'Vette.  Let's see,  those 'Vettes aren't lightweights by any means, at 3300
pounds, and with only 220-230hp (+/-5hp) available in the early C4 years, an
800 pound lighter car with only 50 less hp could have been pretty
devastating.  The 1.8L N/A had been considered as the base, but was passed
over due to the weight of the Fiero (about 250 pounds heavier than a J-car),
and the need for more torque to push it around (the 2.5L had 22 lb-ft more
torque at a lower rpm than the 1.8L).  Yes, it was bunk about the 1.8L
costing too much to produce.  As my cousin put it to me, if it cost too much
to produce, why put it in an economy car?  The thing was, about the cost
concerns, an OHC engine is a little more expensive to produce than a
comparable OHV design, which worked out to about $100 retail per engine

Yes James, I have driven Fieros before, an 84, an 86 and an 87.  I thought
they handled pretty good.  One could tell the V6 lump was back there.  Yes,
I do feel if the aluminum V6 was used, it would have been a much better
handling car, due to the fact that lighter weight cars handle better.  The
suspension was overworked by the weight of the V6 and the I4 (which weighs
nearly as much as the aluminum headed V6).

OK, about the 1.8L turbo (later the 2.0L turbo).  Yes it was available in
other vehicles besides the Sunbird.  It was available in the Buick Skyhawk
from 84-87 (my bad about the Firenza, I lumped it in with the Buick) in both
1.8L and 2.0L turbo forms and the Pontiac Grand Am from 87 to 89, which used
only the 2.0L turbo variant.  Don't tell me it wasn't, as I one of my best
friends had an 88 Grand Am Turbo with the 2.0L, and I just looked up info
about the Skyhawk T-Type, which did have a 1.8L turbo.

Ron N. - Dalton, GA
90 SHO
89 325i
"It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile"

----- Original Message -----
From: "James F. Ryan III" <av8r567@optonline.net>
To: "'Ron Nottingham'" <nottingham@alltel.net>; "'SHOtimes Mailing List'"
<shotimes@autox.team.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 5:40 PM
Subject: RE: [Shotimes] Re: OT: Pontiac Fiero or is it Firero? :)


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ron Nottingham
>
> > 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.
>
> Wrong.  It WAS based on the 2.8, it did NOT have twin-turbos (it was a
> single), and it was NOT shelved because it was faster than the 'Vette.
>
> All "quotes" from 'Fiero - Pontiac's Potent Mid-Engine Sports Car' by Gary
> Witzenburg.
>
> ---"Then came a wild fire-breathing aluminum 2.9 V-6 turbo...  This was a
> special development project based on the Chevy-built 2.8 V-6, but with the
> block cast in aluminum and punched out to 2.9 liters.  That engine could
> deliver around 220 bhp."
>
> ---"Pontiac built two Fieros with the 2.9 in them.  ...the very first time
> down the track, 0-60 was something like 6.2 seconds.  We were trying to
> decide whether we had the possibility of developing this 2.9 into the
> quickest production car in the world."
>
> ---"The project withered for a number of reasons.  ...the aluminum 2.9
turbo
> just had too much power.  (A Pontiac 6000-STE with an identical 2.9
> installed broke its crankshaft one evening.)  ...there were serious
> misgivings about marketing a car this hot.  When you get to a 6-second
0-60
> car...there are a lot of people out there I'd rather didn't drive it."
>
>
>
> > The Fiero with this powerplant was considerably faster and
> > handled much better than the Corvette.  Twin turbos were
> > canned, but even the normally aspirated version was just
> > as quick as the 'Vette, and still handled much better.
>
> It may have been faster then the 'Vette but it certainly didn't handle any
> better because they didn't change the suspension - it was still
> Chevette/Citation.
>
> I've never read about a twin turbo or a normally aspirated version of the
> 2.9 V-6.  There's barely enough room for one turbo, never mind two, in the
> Fiero engine compartment.  I seriously doubt that the n/a version would
have
> been just as quick as a 'Vette which has an engine twice its size.
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Actually, the 1.8 turbo was considered BEFORE the aluminum 2.9 V-6 was
even
> designed.  AND, the 1.8 turbo was only used in the Sunbird GT.  The Chevy
> Cavalier, Buick Skyhawk, Olds Firenza, and Sunbird (non-GT) all got the
n/a
> 1.8L or the Chevy 2.0L.  The Cadillac Cimarron, which was a late addition
to
> the J-car lineup, only came with the 2.8L V-6.
>
> ---"...(Pontiac) engineers tossed turbocharged 1.8-liter fours (150-bhp)
> into three different experimental Fieros, trying to find a possible
> alternative to the 2.8 V-6."
>
> ---"...if Pontiac chose the 1.8 turbo it would be too expensive for the
base
> econo/commuter car.  More important, there really wasn't enough production
> capacity in the Brazilian plant, where the 1.8 is built, to provide
engines
> for both the Sunbird and the Fiero."
>
>
> Remember, the 2.8 is a 'Chebby' and Pontiac wanted Pontiac power for their
> new 2-seater.  The 1.8L, the 2.5L, and the aluminum 2.9L are all Pontiac
> engines, but ultimately GM said they wanted Pontiac to only use the
> designated "corporate" engines which pointed to the 2.5L I-4 and 2.8L V-6
> rather than an expensive all new design.
>
>
>
> > 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 Fiero 2.8L came with cast iron heads in 1985-86 and aluminum heads in
> 87-88.  The engine had nothing to do with its handling.  It didn't matter
if
> the Fiero had a 4, 6, or 8 cyl engine, the hodge-podge parts-bin
suspension
> would never let the Fiero out handle the 'Vette.  Have you ever driven a
> Fiero, Ron?  I have owned two ('85 & '86) and I'm currently looking for
> another (an '84 SE).
>
>
>
> > The 2.5L I4 "Tech-IV" or "Iron Duke" was always going to be the
> > base engine.
>
> The 2.5L was NOT always going to be the base engine.
>
> ---"Original plans called for an even smaller engine than finally
appeared.
> Pontiac's first specs included a base 1.8-liter Four (non-turbo) for the
> best possible fuel economy.  The faithful 2.5-liter Four, straight from
the
> X-car, would have been an option under that plan.  But as development
money
> tightened and mpg pressures eased somewhat, Pontiac dropped the 1.8 and
made
> the 2.5 standard and the only engine available at intro."
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> I disagree.  The lack of a V-6 did not hurt sales, rather it was the
sporty
> looks that hurt sales.  The sporty looks led the press and the public to
> view the car as a 'sports car' instead of the 'good-looking econo/commuter
> car' that it really was.  As a 2-seat sports car it was horrible because
> that's not what it was, but as a 2-seat commuter car it was excellent
> because that's what it was.
>
> I had my first Fiero while I was in college and I was proud to drive it,
and
> my friends were all envious because they drove crap.
>
> ---"People have to commute, but a lot of them don't want to drive a potato
> on wheels.  It seemed to us that there were plenty of commuters who wanted
> to be proud of their cars.  These cars didn't have to be the fastest
things
> in the world, but they needed to get good gas mileage, ...  So, we got
this
> idea of a small, sporty, 2-place commuter car."
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Get the car to market quickly?!?!?!?  It was in development since 1978.
It
> was in fact done to help keep the price under $10,000.  The reason there
was
> no 1.8 turbo, or aluminum 2.9, or sports-car suspension was because all of
> that would have increased the price of the car and moved it away from its
> intended mission of a 2-seat commuter car.
>
> Obviously Pontiac had ulterior motives for making the Fiero into a sports
> car.  Case in point - why did they develop the SD-4 engine parts, the Pace
> car, and the race car program if it was only supposed to be an
> econo/commuter car???  Did Chevy do the same thing with the Chevette or
Ford
> with the Pinto?  They never even made a 'Chevette GT' or 'Pinto GT', so
why
> was there a Fiero GT?
>
>
>
> Jim Ryan
> Wayne, NJ
> '91 Plus - all white/mocha with fiberglass hood, rod shifter, & rear
spoiler
>
> 255 Lph fuel pump, SHO Shop can & horn, 80mm MAF, S&B cone filter, SHO
Shop
> HiFlow Y-pipe & cat-back exhaust, SHO Shop LPM, SHO Shop underdrive
pulleys,
> SHO Shop HiRevs Jr clutch & steel billet LiteWeight flywheel, reinforced
> engine & trans mounts, SHO Shop TQ limiters, SHO NUT aluminum SFBs, FPS
'96
> SHO front brakes, Carbotech F brake pads, Nook's full-body SFCs, Koni adj
> struts, SHO Shop linear springs, 24mm FSB, 26mm RSB, SHO Shop steel f&r
> STBs, Bridgestone Potenza RE-730 225/55-16, CATZ MSP fog lights, police
> grille