Only the 90 fastback that I'm aware of. The notchbacks are thought to have been crushed and the 2+2 was sold at auction a couple years back along with several others (convertible, ppg, I think the bumble bee).
Only the 90 fastback that I'm aware of. The notchbacks are thought to have been crushed and the 2+2 was sold at auction a couple years back along with several others (convertible, ppg, I think the bumble bee).
I love the 90.
Actually emailed someone from GM heritage the other day hoping for some pictures but apparently no pics, in deep storage and they have 4.
They have the 1990, The Indy Pace Car, Turbo Porsche eater and the First one built. Someone correct me if I am wrong here. GM placed the most value in these as they were the most significant.
There is a story on Autoblog on how it cost them $1.8 million to preserve the cars they have even after they pared the collection down.
You can kind of consider the first Fiero made a "prototype" of sorts; it doesn't have any sort of air intake on the sides of the car. They may count that as one & GM still has it.
They did crush a lot of Fiero test cars. They actually had at least four of the 89/90 prototypes, the GT that survived, a base coupe that was destroyed, and two Formulas that were destroyed. At one point they were all painted silver, and eventually the GT prototype was painted red as it remains today. Some actual amateur photos exist of the other prototypes but they are poor quality.
[This message has been edited by Fiero84Freak (edited 01-30-2014).]
the prototype that rare66 picked up was on loan to the peterson museum in Los Angelos. There is some interesting lawsuits that have come of that auction but when it came to the fiero since it had no major value like the dusenburg that was sold i think GM just took the loss.
The reality is part of this design was lifted for the 68 Stingray. This car was designed in and around 1962 and while GM shut Delorean down on building it they used some of the design in the Manta Ray and it lead to the Stingray. Or so some of the Corvette insiders claim.
This car sold a few years ago for not a lot of money and now someone is asking big money for it.
There were two one a convertible and the other a removable top coupe. One was V8 and the other was a DOHC inline 6. It is a shame they did no use it as it was a much lighter car then the Corvette.
Also when this car was stopped at Pontiac they had to go back to the Panther program the first gen Firebird and some of the styling was applied to the Firebird. Delorean wanted the Firebird to be as different as they could and to be a better car than the Camaro since they were forced to use it.
[This message has been edited by hyperv6 (edited 01-31-2014).]
What happened to the Gen IV Banshee? I know the styling cues made their way to the 4th gen firebird, but I would have liked to see the Banshee IV go into production as-is. Seems like car design has stalled since the 90s. Not much has changed at all. That's the reason an 88 Fiero doesn't look out of place on the streets today. A 50s car in the 80s doesn't look like it belongs at all.
The disappearance of the notchback in the 90s was the last major styling change. The disappearing trunk lid of the 2000s is hardly noticeable, and styling has really reached a dead end in my opinion. This was the first year I didn't even want to go to the Auto show in Houston. Same ole same ole. Not worth paying to see the same tired designs.
What happened to the Gen IV Banshee? I know the styling cues made their way to the 4th gen firebird, but I would have liked to see the Banshee IV go into production as-is. Seems like car design has stalled since the 90s. Not much has changed at all. That's the reason an 88 Fiero doesn't look out of place on the streets today. A 50s car in the 80s doesn't look like it belongs at all.
The disappearance of the notchback in the 90s was the last major styling change. The disappearing trunk lid of the 2000s is hardly noticeable, and styling has really reached a dead end in my opinion. This was the first year I didn't even want to go to the Auto show in Houston. Same ole same ole. Not worth paying to see the same tired designs.
GM still has the Last Banshee. It was and could never had made production as it was too low and the glass roof would have killed people in AZ and anywhere there is much sun. Also the styling was not too production friendly.
As for styling a lot has to do with aero dynamics as it has put them into a box to work in. Also with cars getting smaller and smaller there is less detail they can do. Lets face it you can paint a more detailed picture on a large canvas vs. a postage stamp. Just look at the new CTS and how dramatic the styling is but on the Chevy Spark there is only so much you can do.
As some styling GM had some good advanced designs in the 80's in some cars that just held up well. Then they had bad like so many others like the Grand Am and Sunbird that look so dated today. Note the GM examples are the best of the era and the others were even worse.
The Corvette has moved the stick in styling and is very interesting to see in person. The CTS is so much better in person as you do not get the depth of the styling in a photo. I am not a Mustang guy but the new Mustang has done a very good job of moving the mark forward but not being mistaken for anything but a Mustang.
As for most of the market the CUV has dominated and only GM with the Nox and Terrain have made it interesting. They are going to be replaced soon and I am interested in how they will keep the Two appealing to two totally different segments. The new Colorado and Canyon are a interest to me as I miss my small truck. I have no need for a full size and would like to get another truck. I just could not buy the last model as they were so crappy feeling.
In this form it was not bad but the first version in he coupe body it was scary ugly. I was shocked how little leg room there was in the back. I guess they were not kidding when they said it was only a design study.
In this form it was not bad but the first version in he coupe body it was scary ugly. I was shocked how little leg room there was in the back. I guess they were not kidding when they said it was only a design study.
That's not too different from most two door 4 seaters of that era. My 88 Trans Am had a back seat but in order to create any legroom at all for the back passengers I had to pull the seat up and drive with my knees on the steering wheel. Tough to do with a 5 speed. The Fiero is a little worse because the seats are on the floor, but a 4 seater might have been useful to people with small children still in rear facing car seats, (if they had such a thing in the 80s not sure as I didn't have kids back then).
That's not too different from most two door 4 seaters of that era. My 88 Trans Am had a back seat but in order to create any legroom at all for the back passengers I had to pull the seat up and drive with my knees on the steering wheel. Tough to do with a 5 speed. The Fiero is a little worse because the seats are on the floor, but a 4 seater might have been useful to people with small children still in rear facing car seats, (if they had such a thing in the 80s not sure as I didn't have kids back then).
No you really need to see the inside of this car as there is no leg room. Keep in mind this was not a real show car. This car was built really as a proof of concept that a larger car could be built on a space frame. Remember GM was looking into doing more cars like Saturn and the Dust Buster vans to be larger plastic bodies vehicles. There was no real plan for a 4 seat Fiero. So needless to day the back seat was more for show and not really intended for real use.
So when I say no leg room I really mean no leg room not TA or Z28 room or 911 leg room.
Note too they are not Fiero seats so there is even less room than normal. This was never a car intended for production or living people in the back. If you saw it in person you would really understand as the photos just do not show it well.
Note too they are not Fiero seats so there is even less room than normal. This was never a car intended for production or living people in the back. If you saw it in person you would really understand as the photos just do not show it well.
I understand what you are saying about this not being a real car but I've owned at least 3 cars where unless you slide the front seat all the way forward the back of the front seat is touching the front of the back seat resulting in zero leg room. I don't see this car being any worse than actual production cars out there. Unless that Fiero seat front seat had to be pushed all the way forward and there was still zero leg room in the back. Then I would agree 100% that it would never work.
Still I wish they had given the stock Fiero just a measly 6 to 10 inches behind the seat to store junk.
No you really need to see the inside of this car as there is no leg room. Keep in mind this was not a real show car. This car was built really as a proof of concept that a larger car could be built on a space frame. Remember GM was looking into doing more cars like Saturn and the Dust Buster vans to be larger plastic bodies vehicles. There was no real plan for a 4 seat Fiero. So needless to day the back seat was more for show and not really intended for real use.
So when I say no leg room I really mean no leg room not TA or Z28 room or 911 leg room.
Note too they are not Fiero seats so there is even less room than normal. This was never a car intended for production or living people in the back. If you saw it in person you would really understand as the photos just do not show it well.
I"ve sat in the back of it with another person and I can definitely attest, there is no leg room. I'm not sure if the picture will post but we'll give it a shot!
(Anyone know how to actually get this to post?)
[This message has been edited by Fierochic88 (edited 02-05-2014).]
I"ve sat in the back of it with another person and I can definitely attest, there is no leg room. I'm not sure if the picture will post but we'll give it a shot!
89 Notchies Not the best pictures, copy of a copy.
Those pics are ones I posted years ago. A friend took them during a rare tour of GM development when they took 65 Aussies through who were visiting the USA on a Pontiac trip. I should have went. They had a ball and even ended up on TV. GM gave them about 30 new TA convertibles to cruise Woodward during the trip.
I"ve sat in the back of it with another person and I can definitely attest, there is no leg room. I'm not sure if the picture will post but we'll give it a shot!
I never disagreed with you, but I still fail to see how this is different from any other car of similar dimensions. None of them have any legroom in the rear seat.
from a mustang forum
quote
I have a 2012 Mustang GT and the back seat is useless. But it is only two of us and nobody will ever be riding in the back. If they made the Mustang a two seat it would be considered a sports car rather than a sporty car and the insurance would be much higher.
If you need a car with a back seat don't buy a Mustang.
[This message has been edited by jscott1 (edited 02-07-2014).]
The reason I do not think it to be like a Mustang, Camaro or 911 is because at least in them you can create some room buy moving the seat forward in the front. While it is not a lot of room at least my feet face forward. In this car eve with the seat forward it still has no leg or foot room. Note in the photo the seat if forward because they can not even lean it back.
Also I read a long time ago an interview with a GM Designer that talked about the car and stated it was never intended to be production or for anyone to really sit there. The car was only a design study for the to see if a long space frame car was possible and how stiff the chassis would be. The key here is they only filled the back in with seat to give it a finished look only.
The worst production back seat I have ever seen is a 911 but it could be moved to give you more room to at least squeeze in and still get a driver in a seat up front. This car you can not really do that. Note too if I recall the front seats and back were modified GP seats that are much bigger than the Fiero seats.
The real question if you really want to argue about this is have you seen this car in person let alone even tried to sit in it? If you have then you would understand were my and her comments are coming from on room.
Those pics are ones I posted years ago. A friend took them during a rare tour of GM development when they took 65 Aussies through who were visiting the USA on a Pontiac trip. I should have went. They had a ball and even ended up on TV. GM gave them about 30 new TA convertibles to cruise Woodward during the trip.
I dont know about the camaro or mustang, but i surely tell you the 911 has no room what so ever!! My 97 Z24 can seat 3 in the rear with leg room. the 911 2 Duffel bags only! The housing that covers the Aluminum rack for the top takes up the rest.
[This message has been edited by dematrix86gt (edited 02-09-2014).]
I dont know about the camaro or mustang, but i surely tell you the 911 has no room what so ever!! My 97 Z24 can seat 3 in the rear with leg room. the 911 2 Duffel bags only!
sorry large pic didnt resize it.
