1 2 3
Knurled
Knurled HalfDork
11/19/10 8:35 p.m.

I came to the conclusion that I don't see cars as products, but just something to build upon.

Here's the thought exercise: You can have any GM ever made, within the following constraints: It will never be garage- or ever parking garage-kept, it must have more than two seats, it must have a wheelbase shorter than 100" (so no trucks), and it must have wheels no larger than 14" in diameter (because huge wheels on small cars suck).

Rolling with these constraints, I came to the heady conclusion that the only GM that I'd find remotely acceptable would be a Chevette. Swap in a 3.4 drivetrain from an early 4th-gen F-body - heck, even the torque arm might be made to work right! - some suspension bits cobbled from Fiero parts here, maybe see what Euro-model rally bits can be adapted to our Brazilian-bastard version of the car...

Ah, now the door slams shut: Car must remain 100% stock.

Well, screw that.

On even further thought, though, I can't think of a single car that I would enjoy at all in its completely stock form. Either it'd be too impractical to be enjoyable, or it'd be to mad blinggzz-y0 with huge wheels and general large fatness, or it'd be a turd.

RoosterSauce
RoosterSauce Reader
11/19/10 8:44 p.m.

Your wheelbase constraint pretty much ruins everything, except..... Aveo!

turbojunker
turbojunker HalfDork
11/19/10 8:44 p.m.

RoosterSauce
RoosterSauce Reader
11/19/10 8:48 p.m.

On that note...

Giant Purple Snorklewacker
Giant Purple Snorklewacker SuperDork
11/19/10 8:48 p.m.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker
Giant Purple Snorklewacker SuperDork
11/19/10 8:50 p.m.

Zomby woof
Zomby woof Dork
11/19/10 8:50 p.m.

Get to know your GM's better.

The V8 Sunbird, or Monza (with 350 power) was a pretty cool car at the time, even completely stock.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker
Giant Purple Snorklewacker SuperDork
11/19/10 8:51 p.m.

Cosworth!

turbojunker
turbojunker HalfDork
11/19/10 9:04 p.m.

Can't believe I forgot about Opel. I fail.

Ranger50
Ranger50 Reader
11/19/10 9:07 p.m.
RoosterSauce wrote: Your wheelbase constraint pretty much ruins everything, except..... Aveo!

+1.

Although with a quick Google search, supposedly the 3rd and 4th gen F-body is only 101" wheelbase.......... Close enough for government work.

Brian

Knurled
Knurled HalfDork
11/19/10 9:22 p.m.

The 100" limit was specifically called in to eliminate F-bodies. I dislike them for the same reason I don't like FC RX-7s: way too wide and too low. I'm tall and thin, not short and fat.

I forgot about the Monza and its ilk. Then again, I don't recall ever having seen one before, either.

After some searching, yes, I agree.

With either V6.

The 2+2 just looks ass-ugly to me, sorry.

(And I haven't forgotten Certain Homologation Specials but they'd break the "left outside 24/365" requirement)

turbojunker
turbojunker HalfDork
11/19/10 9:30 p.m.
Knurled wrote: I dislike them for the same reason I don't like FC RX-7s: way too wide and too low. I'm tall and thin, not short and fat.

pres589
pres589 HalfDork
11/19/10 9:30 p.m.

E30.

Ranger50
Ranger50 Reader
11/19/10 9:33 p.m.

Eliminating the F-body just makes the rest of the lineup forgettable rust.

Ranger50
Ranger50 Reader
11/19/10 9:45 p.m.
Knurled wrote: The 100" limit was specifically called in to eliminate F-bodies. I dislike them for the same reason I don't like FC RX-7s: way too wide and too low. I'm tall and thin, not short and fat.

Then clearly you have never driven a Corvette, if you want to talk low and wide. F-bodies aren't that wide, by a wide margin, in comparison.

mw
mw HalfDork
11/19/10 10:21 p.m.

Chevy sprint turbo

Knurled
Knurled HalfDork
11/19/10 10:30 p.m.
Ranger50 wrote: Then clearly you have never driven a Corvette, if you want to talk low and wide. F-bodies aren't that wide, by a wide margin, in comparison.

I've probably driven more Corvettes than F-bodies at this point, admittedly mostly C4s and C5s. (I refuse to drive C3s. Absolute pigs, they are)

I really do not like any generation of F-body. I wouldn't mind a '69 Firebird if I could have a statue, but I wouldn't enjoy driving it. 2nd-gen cars are fat heavy turds that rust a lot. 3rd-gen cars are slightly less fat but still too heavy turds that rust a lot. 4th-gen cars are fat heavy turds that rust a lot... but they make up for it with the worst interior ergonomics ever.

For what it's worth, I am starting to not like my FB RX-7 because it's just too damned heavy and wide. I can barely touch the passenger window with my fingers! I might tolerate it if only it weighed closer to 2000lb than 2600lb... but it doesn't. A Series 1 it ain't.

Zomby woof
Zomby woof Dork
11/19/10 10:32 p.m.

nervousdog
nervousdog Reader
11/20/10 12:14 a.m.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Cosworth!

+1

novaderrik
novaderrik HalfDork
11/20/10 12:47 a.m.

a 75 Monza with a 350 backed by a 4 speed is a fun car that meets the criteria. only available in California when new, tho. but really, this whole thought experiment is faulty because stock cars are just a starting point for most people that hang out on car boards. it wouldn't take too much effort to make that 140hp 350 into a 400hp 350 without giving up any fuel economy or driveability with an afternoon of bolting on parts. better front brakes and 5 lug wheels merely requires Gbody/S truck front spindles and 2wd S10 rear axles and brake drums.

as for later model GM cars that fit the criteria- i once almost got a 94 Cavalier with a 3.1 Z24 backed by a 5 speed. that was one quick and nimble little car. plus, it was silver and black- the best color combo ever put on anything. it's only downfall was the fugly wheels GM put on it.

Mikey52_1
Mikey52_1 HalfDork
11/20/10 12:53 a.m.

Man, you set some tough constraints. Left stock? You keed, no? Tell me you keed, pleeeze?

GM hasn't built much that's fun to drive stock, IMHO...and I don't see that changing while the Chinese hold the pursestrings...

Claff
Claff New Reader
11/20/10 3:19 a.m.

If I'm going to be forced to be miserable driving a box-stock GM product, I'm gonna blow right through the 100" wheelbase limitation and get a '95 Fleetwood Brougham. If you can't have fun while driving you might as well be comfortable.

MadScientistMatt
MadScientistMatt Dork
11/20/10 8:08 a.m.

The 14" wheel requirement pretty much rules out any sort of modern performance-oriented GM car; 15" wheels seem to be the starting point at the smallest. So you've pretty much written your requirements to make it an older car. With that in mind, I'd say...

A Corvair!

Oops, that rides on a 108" wheelbase. That 100" wheelbase requirement rules out a lot of things. All of these cars have more than a 100" wheelbase - and, for that matter, have a longer wheelbase than F-bodies.

  • Acheiva SCX (103")
  • Citation X-11 (104")
  • Cavalier (just over 101")

IIRC, the Isuzu Impulse Turbo came with 15" wheels; it is arguably a GM product, but the wheels mean it's definitely out.

If you want to go newer than 1980 and were sold in the US market, you've pared your choices down to these:

  • Metro / Sprint
  • Saturn SC (didn't the SC2 have 15" wheels?)
  • Chevette
  • Aveo
  • Corolla-based Nova
  • Geo / Chevy Tracker

I guess the Tracker wins by default.

Big ego
Big ego SuperDork
11/20/10 8:17 a.m.

can I check the none of the above column?

Platinum90
Platinum90 SuperDork
11/20/10 8:30 a.m.

Good luck finding good tires for 14s.

You are being slightly rediculous. Its all about the Regal T-Type.

1 2 3

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
cYptNrtHf777WmpF9nS0epCwqXxIHCvolLF3TWyz1ynpTCkvsd3egN5LXBnNNkIC