[unruhjonny]

@ 68ragtop;

Thanks for your post, and your memories

[72projectbird]

I think cars from the 90's will catch on, but not in the way cars from the 50s thru early 80s have. I think it'll be most people wanting their first car back, or possibly just for that 90s nostalgia, but I don't think they'll ever be viewed the same way the older cars are.

There were a bunch of cool cars in the 90s and early 2000s, but most were not American. Aside from the Iroc/GTA, 5.0 foxes, and the sport trucks like the SS454 and Lightning, theres really not many American cars I would group as valuable.

The LS1 Trans Am and Camaro seem to be rising in value slightly, as well as clean examples of SN95 Cobras.

I think Japanese and German cars from that era are gonna explode. R32-R34 Skylines, MkIV Supras, and FD RX7's are already worth really good money. E30 M3 BMWs are outta sight, and classic Porsche 911s are taking off like rockets.

[PMDJIM]

Current 80's ride.

[unruhjonny]

those are great little cars... even if they are under powered.

IIRC we found a (factory 110hp?) chip from a Grand Am which was a direct swap into my brother's (former) 1987 Fiero base model (2.5l/5spd) - that chip all by itself woke up the engine a noticable amount...
I just could never wrap my head around how the Fieros, as great as they looked were so lacking in performance...
I had understood that the Fiero was planned to have the Quad4HO as the standard drivetrain for 1990 - that would have been spectacular!

and about this:

Originally Posted by 68ragtop

... Also had a GTZ with the Quad 4 / 5 speed. say what you want, but that was a quick 4 cylinder in 1990. Slow off the line, But I surprised a few 3rd generation F bodies with that car. ...

1989-1991.5 Quad4HO cars had getrag transmissions with a final drive ratio of 3.61:1;
the "soggy" bottom end was fixed by phasing in a gertrag with a 3.94:1 FDR.
THis is common place now - peppy four cylinder cars are given a low three-series, or high four-series FDR...

[Chief of the 60's]

Originally Posted by 68ragtop

The thread wasn't started to compare cars from a different time period. There isn't a comparison. It was just a statement that the cars of the 90's are getting close to 30 years old & are of an age that brings them to collector age by registration status. That's how I took it anyway, even reading it a second time. I think its cool thread & enjoyed reading the first handful of posts & pictures.

With a few exceptions, I have come to a point now where I appreciate seeing almost any model car that shows extremely well for its age. For us to bash the cars & say they are crap is really just a jab at guys who like them, & is off topic.

In Wisconsin a vehicle just needs to be 20 years old & an unaltered body to qualify for collector plates. I often see them on cars that I personally don't consider a collector car, but that doesn't make the guy driving it wrong, he's just in the minority. If I would see them on a nice 90's Pontiac GP, or Bonneville I would have no issue with that at all.

Back in response to the earlier posts, I had an early 90's GP with the V6 with the overhead cam, was sorta spunky, But It never ran very well. I didn't keep that one long. Also had a GTZ with the Quad 4 / 5 speed. say what you want, but that was a quick 4 cylinder in 1990. Slow off the line, But I surprised a few 3rd generation F bodies with that car. Great memories.

Thanks 68rt, your post is exactly what this thread is all about. Some people just don't get the fact that this hobby is dying and trying to get new blood into this hobby by getting them to spend money they don't have on a well overpriced 60's - 70's GTO, Firebird, etc. is not going to do it. However, give them an affordable sporty model like a GP Coupe, Fiero GT, Formula Firebird or Bonneville SSE at price points of under 12 grand just might get a few newcomers interested.

[unruhjonny]

/\ I agree with this.
This is also why so many kids buy civics - they are plentiful and cheap... and because of the overseas aftermarket support, parts are cheap.

I'd way rather see a kid playing with a 'Twin Dual Cam' five speed GP, or Calais 442 over a civic or tercel...

[Chief of the 60's]

Originally Posted by unruhjonny

/\ I agree with this.
This is also why so many kids buy civics - they are plentiful and cheap... and because of the overseas aftermarket support, parts are cheap.

I'd way rather see a kid playing with a 'Twin Dual Cam' five speed GP, or Calais 442 over a civic or tercel...

It's not just kids. I know some people in their late 30's to mid 40's that would love to own a car they can take to a cruise or a weekend drive but cannot or will not spend 30+ grand on a car. A couple in my club has a $7500.00 budget and the best they have come up with were '56 4 door rot-boxes.

[Simple Man]

Originally Posted by 68ragtop

The thread wasn't started to compare cars from a different time period. There isn't a comparison. It was just a statement that the cars of the 90's are getting close to 30 years old & are of an age that brings them to collector age by registration status. That's how I took it anyway, even reading it a second time. I think its cool thread & enjoyed reading the first handful of posts & pictures.

With a few exceptions, I have come to a point now where I appreciate seeing almost any model car that shows extremely well for its age. For us to bash the cars & say they are crap is really just a jab at guys who like them, & is off topic.

In Wisconsin a vehicle just needs to be 20 years old & an unaltered body to qualify for collector plates. I often see them on cars that I personally don't consider a collector car, but that doesn't make the guy driving it wrong, he's just in the minority. If I would see them on a nice 90's Pontiac GP, or Bonneville I would have no issue with that at all.

Back in response to the earlier posts, I had an early 90's GP with the V6 with the overhead cam, was sorta spunky, But It never ran very well. I didn't keep that one long. Also had a GTZ with the Quad 4 / 5 speed. say what you want, but that was a quick 4 cylinder in 1990. Slow off the line, But I surprised a few 3rd generation F bodies with that car. Great memories.

^^what he said^^

[GT182]

Originally Posted by Chief of the 60's

I used to have a 1990 6000 SE All Wheel Drive. Very rare and odd car.

My mom had one that you could select all wheel drive, but I believe it was an '89 6000 STE or SSE, but blue on blue. Great car in the snow, but a little short on interior room. It was the only one on the Kern's Pontiac lot in Winchester, VA when it was bought new.

[necdb3]

Time will tell on 90's cars. What's different from the 50's thru 70's is, we didn't have many foreign cars. Seems everyone wants what they wish they could've had when younger. Many now want that car they wish they had, but it's foreign, not domestic. Hence the value increase in foreign cars.

[PMDJIM]

I find that part of the problem is....seems like anyone with a car over 15 years old thinks that it's collectible and if they take it to Barrett Jackson, they'll get top dollar for it. Just like looking for "early" cars. You really have to search for cars to find the best deals. They are still out there.

[TAKerry]

PMDJIM,
Nice Fiero (even if it is from the 80- 90's) My old neighbor has one just like it in their garage. I cant imagine that car has more than 5k miles on it. In the 10 years I lived beside them it never moved. The lady bought it new and doubt she would ever sell it. My wifes first "new" car was an '85 fiero. Base model but I loved that car.

[Chief of the 60's]

Originally Posted by GT182

My mom had one that you could select all wheel drive, but I believe it was an '89 6000 STE or SSE, but blue on blue. Great car in the snow, but a little short on interior room. It was the only one on the Kern's Pontiac lot in Winchester, VA when it was bought new.

In 1989 they were STE, in 1990 they were SE. They were only made for 2 years and like mentioned, only came in red or blue. The '90 I had was blue.

The cars were loaded with technology, some of it was cobbled together from the parts bin and some of it totally new. The rear axle assembly, was an S-10 4x4 front axle flipped over and put in the back making not only the rear drive but also giving the car independent rear suspension. These cars originally came with a solid beam rear axle. The rear axle was suspended by ride-height adjusting air struts. These struts were exclusive to this car and no aftermarket strut was available due to it being a 1-off item. The transfercase was basically a modified version of the stock FWD transmission. That "switch" you referred to was not to select AWD as AWD was full-time. The switch (located in the console glovebox if I recall) was to fully lock-in AWD so that power went to all 4 wheels equally in an emergency and was only to be used in an emergency. These cars were also the first use of a mechanical ABS system. You could only buy these cars one way, LOADED. Probably the main reason why they are/were so rare is that they were within $1000.00 of the top-of-the-line Bonneville SSE of the day.

Now, the pitfalls. The car's driveshaft going to the rear has a carrier bearing. Back then, that carrier bearing was non-servicable. A new driveshaft in 1992 was $1200.00. The rear air struts, as mentioned, were not available aftermarket and to my knowledge, still are not. Back in 1992 the rear air struts were $461.00 each and only through GM. Another issue, although a minor one, is that with the low ground clearance and all the ground effects you could not take advantage of the AWD system in deep snow without ripping something off or getting hung up.

Now, for the worst and the reason why I got rid of mine at the time. You could not get a flat tire with the car or you basically will be walking. Follow me on this. When a normal 6000 was built it was designed so that the spare tire fit in a well in the trunk floor like so many cars do. Well those great engineers decided to take away 1/3rd of that well so that they can run the exhaust system through the middle of that part of the car. The well was still there but now was in the shape of a "D". No longer able to hold a spare tire. So the only place for a spare tire now was on top of the trunk floor. Well, these cars did not have a huge trunk so GM mounted a "Space Saver" spare on the trunk floor. The space saver spare was considerably smaller in diameter than the tires on the car. AWD vehicles must run the same diameter tires on all 4 corners at all times or you will have a problem and I did. I got a flat, in the middle of nowhere, and it took me over 2 hours to go about 30 miles because you could not drive above 20 mph without the car shaking like a leaf.

With all the bad I learned about these cars by owning one, I still would not mind owning another. I just would not rely on it as a daily driver but as an interesting piece of Pontiac history..

[Chief of the 60's]

Originally Posted by TAKerry

PMDJIM,
Nice Fiero (even if it is from the 80- 90's) My old neighbor has one just like it in their garage. I cant imagine that car has more than 5k miles on it. In the 10 years I lived beside them it never moved. The lady bought it new and doubt she would ever sell it. My wifes first "new" car was an '85 fiero. Base model but I loved that car.

[Bob Rutledge]

Originally Posted by unruhjonny

I never understood that engine;
it leaked from the valve cover gaskets quite badly....
but there is a small following for them - mostly in the Sunbirds - which is hte platform that turbocharged engine was put in for the longest;
IIRC the "Pontiac" (read: Brazillian sourced GM subsidiary engine) 2.0L OHC engine was only offered in the Grand Am from 1987-1989 - but was available before, and after those years in the Sunbird.



I get it...
For me, it was around '00 when I was earning about $350/week before taxes, and spending about $200 after taxes per week just to drive to work and back in the Firebird;
It was then that I doubled over on my prior statement of "I will never drive a computerized car!"... at the time I was working in a little private shop, so I was in a great spot to see all different kinds of cars;
I was able to have fun, maybe too much fun with my Grand Am while being able to afford living expenses, and start saving up money and parts to eventually give my Firebird the restoration I wanted to give it...

I am seeing 1980's turbo Shelby's getting a fair share of press/ink these days, but rarely do the Quad4 cars get similar time - even though you'ld be VERY hard pressed to find a FWD-Shelby which can keep up to one.
(I can really only think of one)...

The 92 Daytona IROC R/T would probably be the one you were thinking of. But it wouldn't be that hard to find others to keep up with and outrun the Quad4 HO. My 1984 Chrysler Laser was fairly quick with just an addition of an extra fuel injector and a couple of solenoids that upped my boost so that turbo 1 car was pretty quick.

This guy had minivans outrunning V8's. http://www.gusmahon.org/html/Mini.htm

[Chief of the 60's]

Originally Posted by Bob Rutledge

The 92 Daytona IROC R/T would probably be the one you were thinking of. But it wouldn't be that hard to find others to keep up with and outrun the Quad4 HO. My 1984 Chrysler Laser was fairly quick with just an addition of an extra fuel injector and a couple of solenoids that upped my boost so that turbo 1 car was pretty quick.

This guy had minivans outrunning V8's. http://www.gusmahon.org/html/Mini.htm

I had a '92 Dodge Spirit R/T that had so much torque-steer it was insane to drive. I also had an IROC Daytona. If I recall I think they both had the same driveline.

[unruhjonny]

Originally Posted by Bob Rutledge

The 92 Daytona IROC R/T would probably be the one you were thinking of.

you absolutely nailed it!

Originally Posted by Bob Rutledge

But it wouldn't be that hard to find others to keep up with and outrun the Quad4 HO. My 1984 Chrysler Laser was fairly quick with just an addition of an extra fuel injector and a couple of solenoids that upped my boost so that turbo 1 car was pretty quick.

This guy had minivans outrunning V8's. http://www.gusmahon.org/html/Mini.htm

I see what you did there

I'm not talking about modified - just bone stock, as built.

If my memory serves me, a GLH was right about 150hp - which for it's time was seriously awesome - most early-mid 80's V8's were right about 150hp...

As a counter-point, the "regular" Quad4 was 150hp for 1988-1989, and 160hp for 1990-1992.

I am in no way mocking FWD SHelby's, I had understood that right till his end, his regular personal driver was a GLH (or was it a GLHS?)... that really does say something about the fun factor of those cars

They're all neat little cars, and in my opinion Carroll really should be credited with what became the domestic sport compact scene...
About the minivan link - There used to be a local who was playing with one of the boosted minivans here too(!)...

Turbocharged cars can be pushed alot further than the way they are built - a properly setup Neon SRT4 is not a car to take lightly... and I have read of many Cobalt SS turbocharged cars running ALOT more hp than me...
and speaking of modified, the few who have showed persistance to do a low boost (7-9lbs) turbocharged setup on Quad4's have all (to the best of my knowledge) dynoed north of 500hp.
... and then there's the matter of GM nearly creating a turbocharged Quad4 back in the late 1980's - the one which was built, and apparently certifiable/emissions compliant was 250hp... yup, it was making MORE horsepower than period V8's(!)

But in my opinion for a mild daily driver, horsepower being equal, n/a is more ideal than turbocharged, regardless to number of cylinders.

[unruhjonny]

Originally Posted by Chief of the 60's

I had a '92 Dodge Spirit R/T that had so much torque-steer it was insane to drive. I also had an IROC Daytona. If I recall I think they both had the same driveline.

I have a review on the Iroc Daytona - iirc the torque steer was mentioned...
it was quite an entertaining (to me) article to find - and add to my collection

[Chief of the 60's]

Originally Posted by unruhjonny

I have a review on the Iroc Daytona - iirc the torque steer was mentioned...
it was quite an entertaining (to me) article to find - and add to my collection

The Spirit R/T only came as a stick. Now tell me all about that torque-steer? When you took off the car would shoot one way, push in on the clutch to grab the next gear and it would shoot off the other way, let out on the clutch and the car shot back in the other direction again. You had your hands full driving one of those and if you were driving it hard you looked like you were driving drunk. It was a fun and hairy car though.

[unruhjonny]

/\ sounds like fun!

too bad that doesn't have Carroll's name on it - just that name guarantees value.

I put a 'Rocketparts' torsen differential in my Grand Am - the first time I took a corner with the "fun pedal" on, I nearly biffed it!!
Probably much like what you're talking about.