Fiero Craigslist find: How bad could it be?

crankwalk wrote:

racerfink wrote: There used to be one around my neck of the woods that had a GNX motor in it. If it's a GM motor, chances are, someone, somewhere has swapped one in.

Do you mean generic turbo 3.8 like in a t type or real deal GNX? That would be worth more than the car times 40.

the only thing special about a GNX engine compared to the regular turbocharged 3.8 that they put in the other turbocharged Regals and GN's was the turbo that had an impeller made out of some sort of ceramic unobtanium alloy..

and i can't see why someone would even bother trying to put a GN/T Type/GNX 3.8 in a Fiero when a fwd 3.8 has better heads and bolts right up to the fwd transaxle..

It's a Fiero. How bad do you want it to be?

mr2peak wrote: I'd hold out for a similar priced MR2. $1.2k won't get you one anywhere close to clean any more.

No, it won't. MK1 MR2s were very rust prone, like most Japanese cars of the day. Finding one that's not rusted and/or clapped out is hard, and they're really going up in price.

As for the Fiero, if you're not planning on racing it and were just going to drive it as a beater, why not? You don't see many of them around anymore....yeah, yeah, I know, most of them burned or fell apart. But they're cool looking and would be fun to kick around for cheap.

Aeromoto wrote: Run. Run away. A Fiero is just another front wheel drive GM E36 M3box turned around backwards.

Really? I mean, other than most of them catching on fire, what else can go wrong?

The coolest Fiero I saw was a fastback model with a late 90s firebird dash and interior. It also sported a 5.3.

That said, the 3800SC Series II is a very documented swap.

1988RedT2 wrote:

Aeromoto wrote: Run. Run away. A Fiero is just another front wheel drive GM E36 M3box turned around backwards.

Really? I mean, other than most of them catching on fire, what else can go wrong?

I actually saw one split in two, once. I was driving to work in New Orleans on South Claiborne, and an idiot in an early notchback Fiero was hauling ass, must've been doing at least 80 (speed limit on Claiborne is 45), and when he hit the hump at the intersection of Napoleon, the car went airborne in a wonky way, turned sideways mid air, and took a lightpost right in the drivers door. The car split completely in two through the cabin, with the two halves coming to rest about 20 yards from each other, and leaving most but not all of the driver still wrapped around the light pole. That pretty much cured me of Fiero lust

'84's were the only one that had a problem with fires, and that's because most owners were too STUPID to change the oil.

And aeromoto, have you sworn off Ferrari's as well? I've seen a whole lot more split in two Ferraris than Fieros (zero).

Aeromoto wrote: Run. Run away. A Fiero is just another front wheel drive GM E36 M3box turned around backwards.

That fixes 50% of what was wrong with them in the first place.

Used to DD a C4 Corvette, so I can put up with the typical GM interiors. And while I don't have FWD cars, at least Fieros don't suffer from beam axle rear suspensions and putting 2/3 of the weight on the front axle.

Still not entirely sold on the idea, but I'll probably drop him a line sooner or later.

Aeromoto wrote: I'd hold out for a similar priced MR2.

Forget Miata. THAT is always the answer!

novaderrik wrote:

crankwalk wrote:

racerfink wrote: There used to be one around my neck of the woods that had a GNX motor in it. If it's a GM motor, chances are, someone, somewhere has swapped one in.

Do you mean generic turbo 3.8 like in a t type or real deal GNX? That would be worth more than the car times 40.

the only thing special about a GNX engine compared to the regular turbocharged 3.8 that they put in the other turbocharged Regals and GN's was the turbo that had an impeller made out of some sort of ceramic unobtanium alloy.. and i can't see why someone would even bother trying to put a GN/T Type/GNX 3.8 in a Fiero when a fwd 3.8 has better heads and bolts right up to the fwd transaxle..

I know the differences but my point was the PRICE difference. If some Fiero person wanted to put a turbo 3.8 in it there are WAY cheaper options such as the FWD v6 like you mentioned.

Drive it and keep trucking until the motor blows. Once it does, dip into the GM parts bin for a motor swap of your fancy and go to town. I say doo eet!

Jerry wrote:

Aeromoto wrote: I'd hold out for a similar priced MR2.

Forget Miata. THAT is always the answer!

I agree. Might have to trade my E30 for a V6 mr2

racerfink wrote: '84's were the only one that had a problem with fires, and that's because most owners were too STUPID to change the oil.

GM really screwed up the Fiero Iron Puke engine. First, they used an engine totally devoid of any sporting character (all in by 4500 rpm, just making noise past that). Second, they specified an oil filter without an anti-drain down valve and coupled that with ECM programming that sent the engine up to 2500 rpm or so the instant it fired - way before there was any oil getting to the bottom end.

Apparently the inevitable results were not foreseeable to the GM engineers. The fires happened when the tortured worn out bottom ends cuased a rod to go and punch out the side of the block, spraying oil on the hot exhaust.

I wouldn't own an Iron Puke to run a golf cart. All the character of a pithed frog.

First off, the Fiero was built as a commuter car. It never had intentions as a performance car while it was in the planning stages. People who first bought the dirt cheap commuter car were the kind who didn't like to make oil changes (why do you think there are idiot lights for oil changes now?).

I've NEVER had a problem with an Iron Duke motor, and the one I built for my ITB car is STILL running, ten years later.

the Duke is a decent motor if taken care of. The rattle, leak, and don't make much power but as long as it has gas and oil it will run.

Putting it in the Fiero was a bad idea though. Should have used the 2.0 Chevy 4.

even the 1.8 OHC motor may have been more fun even though it was truly a lump of E36M3

I've emailed the seller and will see if it's still available, and asked a couple other questions. No point on trying to sell Mrs. Mad Scientist on the idea if the seller's responses give me any red flags.

Actually, they intended to do a performance Fiero right from the start, but knew they couldn't sell the idea of the new car to GM except as a commuter car, intended to pioneer the new plastic body tooling. They got it into production using the Iron Duke - who cares if the commuter version engine lacked sporting capability - that was intended to come later.

They then went to a V6 as soon as they could get it approved, and finally managed to get the special design suspension not scavenged from the parts bin, that they had been waiting with for several years into production in 1988, the last year.

The Fiero started out intentionally as the basis for a sports car, but in commuter car camouflage.

wspohn wrote: Actually, they intended to do a performance Fiero right from the start, but knew they couldn't sell the idea of the new car to GM except as a commuter car, intended to pioneer the new plastic body tooling. They got it into production using the Iron Duke - who cares if the commuter version engine lacked sporting capability - that was intended to come later. They then went to a V6 as soon as they could get it approved, and finally managed to get the special design suspension not scavenged from the parts bin, that they had been waiting with for several years into production in 1988, the last year. The Fiero started out intentionally as the basis for a sports car, but in commuter car camouflage.

This is the difference between having been there and reading about something on Wikipedia. Being a sports-car worshipping teen in the 80's when all this was happening, this is exactly how it went down.

(althought I had a 1st gen MR2 and never had a Fiero)

I guarantee you I was there, and I had the AutoWeeks (back when it was almost newspaper size). It was meant to be a commuter car first and foremost.

And I've owned four of them.

Suggest you read the accounts by the developers - they were sports car fans that wanted a sports car from the beginning. This obviously wasn't common knowlegde for the automotive tabloids at the time, as it would have defeated the purpose of heading toward a sports car if GM had known what they were doing and refused approval.

New general manager Robert Stempel and chief engineer Robert Dorn, an ex-racer, both liked the idea, but they were not confident about its prospects. The corporation had previously rejected proposals for a mid-engine Corvette, and with ever-increasing federal emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, new sports cars were not on the menu. Bob Dorn pointed out, however, that if the two-seater could be built cheaply, with a fuel-efficient four-cylinder engine, it could help Pontiac meet its CAFE targets. Late that year, Stempel and Dorn presented the idea to senior management, presenting it not as a sports car, but as a cheap, two-seat commuter vehicle capable of up to 50 miles to the gallon (4.7 L/100 km). The stratagem worked, and the project, known as the P-car, received preliminary approval

http://jalopnik.com/5501545/pontiac-fiero-the-definitive-history

Having read the whole account, that part that you posted is a little out of context. It makes it sound like they were looking for a Corvette-type performance car, when this paragraph is a little further down the page.

"As if to provide a case in point, Honda introduced its Civic CRX around the time the Fiero went on sale. The CRX was a two-seat commuter car of precisely the sort Bob Stempel and Bob Dorn had once convinced GM management the Fiero would be. On paper, the CRX was far less sophisticated: its 1.5 L (91 cu. in.) engine was mounted in front, driving the front wheels; it had neither independent rear suspension nor four-wheel disc brakes; and it used modest 13-inch wheels, far skinnier than the Fiero's fat Goodyear GTs. Despite that, and despite spotting the Pontiac 16 horsepower (12 kW), the CRX was quicker than the Fiero, matched its top speed, and nearly matched its cornering grip, while being considerably more pleasant to drive. To add insult to injury, the comparatively boxy, upright CRX had a drag coefficient of only 0.33, more than 10% slipperier than the low-slung Fiero. The main reason for the CRX's performance edge was simple: it weighed some 760 lb (345 kg) less than the Fiero.

I've got a 88 fiero gt that I was in the process of a v6/v8 swap that is available. I also have a 86 gt parts car to go with it. Several engine options available also from stock 2.8 to lt1 and three good 5speeds.