I found my original '86 SE V6 with four speed fine up until it came time to shift to fourth. You could scream it to redline in third but the revs dropped off outside the engine's sweet spot and would bog up shifting to fourth. It seemed to me like there was a huge hole between third & fourth and I didn't like that transmission because of it.
On paper the 85 SE 2M6 manual should be the fastest. It had the highest HP with the lowest weight. But in the end we are only looking at a tenth of a second or two. Under the skin these cars are nearly all the same the body weight was the greatest difference.
When I ran my 85 SE auto I forgot to shut off the AC and it went about a tenth faster. I would have to guess the AC fuel enrichment was still working but the compressor was cut our at WOT. That is all I could guess was in play.
Either way all the V6 cars like almost all 80's cars can not keep up with even some base model 4 cylinders today that have 50-60 HP more. I get out of my HHR Turbo and drive the Fiero it feels like something is wrong with it. LOL!
I think it would be either a low-optioned '85 GT with 4-spd, or an '88 Formula with 5-spd. And between those two, it would probably depend on the type of performance test used. For example, the Formula might fare better in an autocross event or road racing, whereas the '85 GT might have an edge in a drag race.
Most stock Fieros V6 ran 15-17 seconds in the quarter mile back in the day. Automatics would still be in second gear, usually, and manual cars would get to third (85 mph or so). I have only pushed my 87 GT at Gateway Speedway (1998?) racetrack and was shifting at 5000 rpm ~ 90 mph, if I remember.
Using that as a rough guide - I've checked against known weight/e.t./hp times with 12-15% difference, typically wheel vs flywheel hp - I used 3050 as a weight (driver, etc.), and came up with 162hp, mind you that would be wheel hp... pretty good for an old v6, ~1hp/ci.
I found my original '86 SE V6 with four speed fine up until it came time to shift to fourth. You could scream it to redline in third but the revs dropped off outside the engine's sweet spot and would bog up shifting to fourth. It seemed to me like there was a huge hole between third & fourth and I didn't like that transmission because of it.
I agree - the "Short Bus" was a blast from start through 3rd - then felt like you opened a compression release in fourth! Later on, the next owner dropped a nice 3.4 in it - then it ran a lot better clear through 4th. That motor is now in a Mera!
1985 GT with the 4-speed manual, My 1st did back to back 15.2 1/4's completly stock and it was 15 years old at that point.
The 88 formula might be a more fun car to drive, but you need to make one more shift in the 1/4 mile before the finish. Stock Vs Stock 85 GT will beat the 88 Formula by a few tenths.
I think it would be either a low-optioned '85 GT with 4-spd, or an '88 Formula with 5-spd. And between those two, it would probably depend on the type of performance test used. For example, the Formula might fare better in an autocross event or road racing, whereas the '85 GT might have an edge in a drag race.
Keep In mind the 85 2M6 SE has the same engine and everything the GT has less the heavier body parts. I think the GT part add about 75-100 pounds. It is splitting hairs but the 2M6 is the lightest Fiero built with the V6. This has always been a little trivia thing about that model.
It should be noted that at this Very low performance level, cars with the stiffer WS6 suspension SHOULD be faster because wheel spin won't be much of a issue and the stiffer springs would help the car move forward rather than waste energy squatting in the rear & raising the nose.
Keep In mind the 85 2M6 SE has the same engine and everything the GT has less the heavier body parts. I think the GT part add about 75-100 pounds. It is splitting hairs but the 2M6 is the lightest Fiero built with the V6. This has always been a little trivia thing about that model.
Don't keep spreading this old wives tale. There is nothing on the fastback that's going to add 75-100 pounds over the 85 2m6 SE notchback. The whole fastback clip doesn't weigh more than 40 pounds and I doubt there is 2 pounds difference between it and the notchback clip. I've done a fastback conversion and personally picked up every part and I know I did not put on 75-100 pounds.
Don't keep spreading this old wives tale. There is nothing on the fastback that's going to add 75-100 pounds over the 85 2m6 SE notchback. The whole fastback clip doesn't weigh more than 40 pounds and I doubt there is 2 pounds difference between it and the notchback clip. I've done a fastback conversion and personally picked up every part and I know I did not put on 75-100 pounds.
13lbs for the clip but there's more to it than that, the 86gt VS. 85 2m6 the 85 has 14" wheel vs 15" the fastback engine grates are bigger what's the 5 speed weigh VS the4 speed? and I'm sure if someone had the production #'s most of the Fastback cars will be higher optioned (A/C, Cruise control, sunroof, Rear defogger, power mirrors & Power windows) where as your chances of not getting all the bells & whistles go up in the 85 2m6 or even a lower optioned car like the one the OP posted the Ebay link to.
Fastbacks might not be a full 100lbs heaver, but they are a good 80lbs more
[This message has been edited by 1fast2m4 (edited 11-30-2013).]
Don't keep spreading this old wives tale. There is nothing on the fastback that's going to add 75-100 pounds over the 85 2m6 SE notchback. The whole fastback clip doesn't weigh more than 40 pounds and I doubt there is 2 pounds difference between it and the notchback clip. I've done a fastback conversion and personally picked up every part and I know I did not put on 75-100 pounds.
Not wives tales just numbers that I saw from Pontiacs own data. years ago.
Either way the SE is lighter no matter how you slice it and as I have already clearly stated here when you come down to it this is just splitting hairs no matter 13 pounds or 100 pounds.
Also you have to consider when Pontiac did those numbers did they use a SE with no Air and many of the other standard options that the GT had etc? If you have an issue call them as that is where it originally came from.
To be fair the numbers were listed for the 85 back in the day so this did not even include the Fastback as per their numbers.
[This message has been edited by hyperv6 (edited 11-30-2013).]
Not wives tales just numbers that I saw from Pontiacs own data. years ago.
As you have stated many times not even the folks at Pontiac are infallible when it comes to stating bad information. But this weight topic has been debated to death. I'm just saying that if you did an apples to apples comparison the fastback adds negligible weight. Less than 15 pounds to be sure.
Originally posted by jscott1: Don't keep spreading this old wives tale. There is nothing on the fastback that's going to add 75-100 pounds over the 85 2m6 SE notchback. The whole fastback clip doesn't weigh more than 40 pounds and I doubt there is 2 pounds difference between it and the notchback clip. I've done a fastback conversion and personally picked up every part and I know I did not put on 75-100 pounds.
For just the clip, yes. But for the whole cars, as shipped from the factory, not so much. That 200 lb curb weight difference between the lightest and heaviest models has to come from somewhere. The "fastacks" being all GTs, all had heavier suspension, all had 15" wheels instead of 14 or 13, and all had more standard options than were on the notchback cars.
The 85 GT might not have been that much heavier than the 85 2m6, but the 86-88 GT would have been well more than 13 lbs heavier. Especially the 87-88 cars, with the larger fuel capacity. Even an 88 coupe would be ~13 lbs heavier than an 85 coupe, both with the exact same options, and a full tank of gas.
What's the difference in weight for the wheels? Suspension? Brakes? Interior trim? All the other options? Those 200 lbs aren't for marketing.
