So, I'm looking around net to find answers to my son's 87 GT wont start and floods and I came across this nugget of info. I thought everyone here in our forum would like what this admin had to say about our little car. ENJOY!!
Originally posted by JohnWPB: The "moderator" is an idiot. I so want to join, and post about it, but ya can't do that for every moron that doesn't know his head from his butt
Cut and paste is our friend, . How is this for my first post ?
quote
I bought a 1986 Pontiac Fiero GT for my daughter's first car. It has a 2.8L V6 coupled with a 5-speed transmission. We bought it in March, and we were good at running it at least every month until about September. So it sat outside for the past 3 months without being run.
I charged the battery on Friday and went and started it on Saturday. It started fine and ran for about 4 minutes. I got as far as the bottom of the driveway when it conked out and wouldn't start again. I figured it needed gas, so I put a gallon or so into it. When I turn the ignition, I hear the fuel pump come on, and I proceed to attempt to start it. The starter runs fine, but there's not even a cough from the engine. I don't press the gas pedal (it's fuel injected) and I don't smell gas, so I don't think it's flooded. When I pull a spark plug, it sparks as expected. I haven't gone as far as pulling the air filter or distributor cap.
What's the most likely problem based on these clues? I'm a computer technician, not a mechanic ... I have a basic understanding of car engines, but it's certainly not my day job. I'm good a troubleshooting if someone gives me a direction to take.
He's not that far off if we're honest. His whole rain argument may be off base, but the Fiero wasn't exactly automotive bliss.
They're God awful in snow, inherently unsafe, the handling is downright terrifying, they weigh a good 800lbs more than they should, and the engine choices were, at best, anemic.
Don't get me wrong, I love the car to death, and I've never had more fun driving a car, but it was a great idea ruined by cheap design. I love the way they look and drive, and with significant engine and suspension modifications they can be quite competitive, but as a first car for a 17yo girl, I can't think of much worse.
They're God awful in snow, inherently unsafe, the handling is downright terrifying,
You might want to get the bald tires off your car if your going to drive it around here in the winter, I used to drive mine with the 4.9 in the snow with summer tires and had no trouble at all, in fact one of the better cars for snow (within limits) that I've owned.
Originally posted by RobertGT: He's not that far off if we're honest. His whole rain argument may be off base, but the Fiero wasn't exactly automotive bliss.
They're God awful in snow, inherently unsafe, the handling is downright terrifying, they weigh a good 800lbs more than they should, and the engine choices were, at best, anemic.
Don't get me wrong, I love the car to death, and I've never had more fun driving a car, but it was a great idea ruined by cheap design. I love the way they look and drive, and with significant engine and suspension modifications they can be quite competitive, but as a first car for a 17yo girl, I can't think of much worse.
Any model of car for a first car is a horrible choice, if you buy one that wasn't well maintained, and has all kinds of problems.
They're fine in the snow, as long as you have proper tires and don't have bad suspension/steering components, and don't drive like an idiot. Unsafe? What? They catch on fire? Don't have airbags or ABS? It was the safest car ever tested by the NHTSA, which didn't come with airbags, and had a 5 star safety rating. Go watch one slam into a wall at 35 MPH:
The handling is terrifying? The car handles perfectly fine, and just as well as pretty much any mid-80s production car. And as far as the 800 lbs too heavy, sure it would be nice if they were 800 lbs lighter. But they aren't exactly heavy, either. 2700 lbs isn't exactly heavy for such a car, compared to other cars of the era.
And then there's the engine. Yeah, sure the tired old 2.5 and 2.8 don't measure up to modern standards at all, but they were the right choice for when the car was made, and with where it fit in the product line.
I don't know what you're trying to be "honest" about there, but it's not the Fiero.
And as far as the 800 lbs too heavy, sure it would be nice if they were 800 lbs lighter. But they aren't exactly heavy, either. 2700 lbs isn't exactly heavy for such a car, compared to other cars of the era.
Fiero weight range: 2464 to 2735 Mazda MX5 (Miata): 2400 to 2540 Hyundai Veloster: 2584 to 3005 Subaru BRZ: 2762
RobertGT, we have snow on the ground now, if your not to terrified of driving the car, come on over I'll give you a lesson on how to drive your Fiero in the snow, I'm on the west side of town.
He's not that far off if we're honest. His whole rain argument may be off base, but the Fiero wasn't exactly automotive bliss.
They're God awful in snow, inherently unsafe, the handling is downright terrifying, they weigh a good 800lbs more than they should, and the engine choices were, at best, anemic.
Don't get me wrong, I love the car to death, and I've never had more fun driving a car, but it was a great idea ruined by cheap design. I love the way they look and drive, and with significant engine and suspension modifications they can be quite competitive, but as a first car for a 17yo girl, I can't think of much worse.
Well, the snow thing is wrong. They are little beasts in the snow with proper tires for the season. Sure, my low profile summer tires cant get me out of the drive, but my old 84 with all seasons pounded through multiple inches of the white stuff.
Not being rude, but you are incorrect in your statement.
He's not that far off if we're honest. His whole rain argument may be off base, but the Fiero wasn't exactly automotive bliss.
They're God awful in snow, inherently unsafe, the handling is downright terrifying, they weigh a good 800lbs more than they should, and the engine choices were, at best, anemic.
Don't get me wrong, I love the car to death, and I've never had more fun driving a car, but it was a great idea ruined by cheap design. I love the way they look and drive, and with significant engine and suspension modifications they can be quite competitive, but as a first car for a 17yo girl, I can't think of much worse.
Did you join this month just to post this?
Many owners find them great in the snow. If yours isn't, either you have a poorly maintained car, crap tires or are trying to drive in 12 foot snow drifts.
"Inherently unsafe"? Could you be specific? The Fiero when new was only bested by the Volvo 740DL station wagon in crash test safety.
Terrifying handling? Again, your car is poorly maintained or you don't know how to drive. A mid engined, rear wheel drive car will not handle like a front wheel drive Honda. I'm not saying it's the best handling car out there, but it was good for it's time.
The Fiero is slightly heavier than other cars in it's class. It was also built out of steel, not aluminum or composites because the technology was still new at the time. That weight is also part of why got such high safety ratings.
Engine choices. The V6 should have come out in 84, but when it was released in 85 it was the highest output small V6 GM had. It had a larger cam and heads than the 2.8 V6 used in other GM applications. Keep in mind a 5.0L V8 in a 1985 Firebird only had 155HP, compared to the Fiero 2.8 V6 with about 140HP.
Compare it against what was available at the time and it compares very well. Compare it against modern tech and anything made back then will look archaic by comparison.
Manufactured by Maserati in Modena to be sold through Maserati dealers in the U.S., the new 4C is principally light, though not quite as light as Alfa is claiming. Italian carmakers have this horrible habit of weighing cars without certain fluids—oil, gas, coolant, transmission and brake. They also tend to leave out airbags. The result is a meaningless number they call “dry weight.” Alfa claims the U.S.-spec 4C will weigh 2083 pounds (the Euro version will weigh about 100 pounds less because of no side or knee airbags, no A/C, and a fixed, non-sliding passenger seat). I’m here to tell you that the 4C’s actual weight is going to be closer to 2500 pounds, if not more. Alfa’s number is pure fantasy, and besides, 2500 pounds is really light these days. That’s about what a Fiat 500 weighs. Why so light? Materials. The entire body is made from SMC (sheet-molded compounds, the new way to say fiberglass) and the use of steel has been kept to an absolute minimum. There’s also heavy use of carbon fiber, no pun intended. Alfa says that 25 percent of the vehicle consists of carbon fiber but that the ultra-strong, light composite material only accounts for 10 percent of the vehicle’s weight. The entire monocoque is said to weigh just 143 pounds.
It appears that Alfa Romeo has utilized some pretty fancy technology to achieve the Fiero's light weight.
Yes, the guy in thay thread was an anus face... I have had 0 problems (besides the clutch slave I just rebuilt with Rodney's rebuild kit, a whole $25 in parts), coming up on about 19,000 miles since I bought it. I've done typical stuff (tune up, alignment, etc.), but that's all normal anyway.
quote
Originally posted by BrittB:
What are the best tire choices on stock rims for the Fiero in the winter?
Never mind, I'm going to start a fresh thread so as not to hijack this one!
Stick with a narrower tire. Mine drives quite well with 195/65/15s on the stock lace 15x7s, but I also don't get hardly any snow here in my part of AZ.
Mine all outhandled my Corvettes stock...no complaints at all. I thought they did great in the snow as long as it wasnt so deep the belly pan hit. I NEVER let a drivable car sit for months...his first problem. They crash test as great as a Volvo. My buddy at a local junk yard says there a pita to try and crush. If im in a bad wreck, id like to be in a Fiero or a 1966 Buick.
Originally posted by rogergarrison: They crash test as great as a Volvo. My buddy at a local junk yard says there a pita to try and crush.
This. And the production company that does the effects and such for CSI had a horrible time with a Fiero, as the script had a hummer running on top of one right over the hood, and the roof wouldn't cave in, like they expected.
Engine choices. The V6 should have come out in 84, but when it was released in 85 it was the highest output small V6 GM had. It had a larger cam and heads than the 2.8 V6 used in other GM applications. Keep in mind a 5.0L V8 in a 1985 Firebird only had 155HP, compared to the Fiero 2.8 V6 with about 140HP.
Compare it against what was available at the time and it compares very well. Compare it against modern tech and anything made back then will look archaic by comparison.
This is the problem with 80s cars in general...small v6 were not making much power and v8 were making almost the same. Not until the early 90s with the old LT1 did power start to come back to the V8. The V6 didn't get decent until the 3800. Yeah a swap can fix that, but swapping engines is not for the average person looking for a first car for their child.
I was not able to read the threads on that other forum, but if it involved buying an 86 Fiero for their 17 year old daughter I would have to agree that's a bad idea. Basically any old poorly maintained car is a bad idea as a first car for a teenager. Not a problem specific to Fieros.
Fiero weight range: 2464 to 2735 Mazda MX5 (Miata): 2400 to 2540 Hyundai Veloster: 2584 to 3005 Subaru BRZ: 2762
'nuff said.
That Miata weight is a little excessive for the early years. The newer ones might be heavier, but my 90 was stock at 2250 lbs with A/C and power steering.
That Miata weight is a little excessive for the early years. The newer ones might be heavier, but my 90 was stock at 2250 lbs with A/C and power steering.
Yeah; that's 2005 & later per Wikipedia. The intent was to compare 'modern' cars to the 'old' Fiero.
Yeah; that's 2005 & later per Wikipedia. The intent was to compare 'modern' cars to the 'old' Fiero.
Except those modern cars are safer, use more soundproofing materials and have more of those functions old people need.
compare the fiero to these instead: Fiat X1/9 1940-2121 lbs MR2 1st gen 2350-2493 lbs MR2 2nd gen 2599-2782 lbs MR2 3rd gen 2195 lbs lotus esprit <2205 lbs
Yes, the fiero is heavy. Heavier than it should be. We're not getting around that. We're also not getting around the flawed rear suspension and the engines being underpowered (the V6 should have been in from the start with more powerful options later, but that's not how GM wanted it). Or the front suspension (imagine if it had shared components with the corvette instead of the chevette).
Most of these issues could be dealt with. It requires a lot of work and quite a bit of money and in the end you probably have a very good sportscar. But in standard form the fiero does not impress. and that's how you need to compare it to other cars. Look at where it is and where you can take it. Can you turn a 2m4 into a better sportscar than one of the cheaper 4th gen corvette? sure. Could that amount of money and work be put towards making that cheap C4 into something spectacular? sure. Just decide on what car you want to start with and what car you want to end up with and follow your ideas.
oh, and saying something is as safe as a volvo 740... come on, that was good in the 80´s but crash safety has progressed quite a bit since then.
[This message has been edited by PerKr (edited 12-24-2013).]
Originally posted by PerKr: Except those modern cars are safer, use more soundproofing materials and have more of those functions old people need.
We're also not getting around the flawed rear suspension and the engines being underpowered (the V6 should have been in from the start with more powerful options later, but that's not how GM wanted it). Or the front suspension (imagine if it had shared components with the corvette instead of the chevette).
oh, and saying something is as safe as a volvo 740... come on, that was good in the 80´s but crash safety has progressed quite a bit since then.
No. They aren't safer. They are more comfortable and have newer technology, but "safer" at least in terms of NHTSA crash rating is BS. A 5 star crash safety rating means exactly the same thing today, as it did in 1979.
And as for the "underpowered" V6, it was the most powerful V6 that GM had at the time in passenger cars. The only V6 they had that had more power in 1985, was the 4.3 that just came out, and was only in trucks/vans. And the front suspension? I don't know what you expect would change things, if the parts came from the Corvette bin instead of the Chevette bin. The suspension is basically the same on both of them. The major difference in steering is the Corvette had a faster ratio. Yeah, a better ratio would have helped the Fiero, but the stock steering isn't that bad.
[This message has been edited by dobey (edited 12-24-2013).]
He's not that far off if we're honest. His whole rain argument may be off base, but the Fiero wasn't exactly automotive bliss.
They're God awful in snow, inherently unsafe, the handling is downright terrifying, they weigh a good 800lbs more than they should, and the engine choices were, at best, anemic.
Don't get me wrong, I love the car to death, and I've never had more fun driving a car, but it was a great idea ruined by cheap design. I love the way they look and drive, and with significant engine and suspension modifications they can be quite competitive, but as a first car for a 17yo girl, I can't think of much worse.
I lived in Black Forest, south of Denver, for nearly 20 years and had much more snow on the Palmer Divide than Denver. I had no problem driving my Fiero in the snow. I had new tires, suspension, a 3800SC/4t65eHD combo and the only problem I ever had was dodging idiots on 105 East and Walker Road who don't know how to drive in snow. I have had few driving or other problems with my car since I bought it and Mike Gonzalez did my conversion.
Please elucidate on the "...inherently unsafe..." comment. Oh, I forgot. Fieros spontaneously combust!!!
[This message has been edited by starlightcoupe (edited 12-24-2013).]
These type of threads are ignorant. The Fiero is what it is, flaws and all. I don't know about you, but I love mine just the same. I don't care what others think, I bought it for me, not them. Besides, if you don't like it, dont buy it or, mod it to suit your tastes/needs. Very few cars can be as radically altered as the Fiero (from its time).
No. They aren't safer. They are more comfortable and have newer technology, but "safer" at least in terms of NHTSA crash rating is BS. A 5 star crash safety rating means exactly the same thing today, as it did in 1979.
I would have to disagree with this... there are an infinite number of ways a car can crash. They only test a few of those. The tests they do today are far more severe than the 80s. An 80s car would fail miserably if they tested it to today's standards. You pretty much need to have 10 airbags to pass today's test.
It's simple physics. The bigger car always wins. There's no way you will ever convince me the Fiero is the safer car when T-boning, or being T-boned by, a Suburban. The Fiero is safe for what it is, a small car, the same thing that's make it inherently less safe than bigger cars.
Same with the handling. The weight bias is terrible for handling, and terrible in the snow. And if you're seriously convinced the Fiero handles like a Corvette, you're dillusional. Try Autocross. The Fiero oversteers horribly if you dare close the throttle and brake hard, then pushes all through the corner, and the second you go wide open you lose all control of direction. It's terrifyingly bad.
Explain to me how a car with this weight distribution can effectively control direction in the snow. It's the same reason people put sandbags over truck's rear axles. Traction. The Fiero has very little on the front end, where you want it to steer.
[This message has been edited by RobertGT (edited 12-25-2013).]
And before you guys have me banned, please consider this. I love the car, really do. After 8 years of owning one I still haven't felt the same way in any other car. I spend my free time and money trying to make it better, and I help others do the same. I just understand it's shortcomings, and work hard to fix those.
The Fiero is a VERY flawed vehicle. It was axed right when they started to fix it. That said, my 85 GT was excellent in the snow.
As for the snap oversteer you mentioned... Yes, another "flaw" of the Fiero. But that is a trait of rear mid rear cars. You have to know how to drive them. If you hopped in a track prepped NSX and mid turn went from part throttle to no throttle or heavy braking, that ass end is coming around in a hurry (btw, I would give up a fiero for an NSX any day). Longitudinal RMR's can be a bit more stable as the weight is spread a little bit more, but they are still twitchier than FR setups. The very thing that gives them the agility makes them a little more of a handful. Picture a bar bell with a 45 pound weight at each end with a perfect 50/50 balance and you want it to oscillate quickly. It's going to fight you. If you move those some weights inboard to the center of the same bar, you'll still have that 50/50 balance, but now the bar is a LOT easier to move around. You can't drive a RMR car the way you drive a traditional FR car. If you do, it's on YOU when you spin. Stock for stock, a Corvette would DESTROY a Fiero. As a blank canvas. the Fiero wins.
