Wow, that Riviera cockpit looks like it was taken straight out of Airwolf 😀 Very cool, you should buy it!

I still think what people have done to fiero's is cooler

Yeah, except the Fiero had such a reputation for problems. Better off with an Japan spec MR2 Turbo GT-S!

Witch are all lies. There a very reliable car, the first two years have oil pan problems that cases them to run low on oil a lot. Other then that there not a bad car. The MR-2 on the other hand... how much rust is on yours? 🤣 in fact around here, if you lucky to even see a MR-2, you only find them with odd problems and rusted out. Fiero's on the other hand tend to just be worn out at most. Keep in mind there both over 30 years old. But its still not uncommon to see what Fiero's are left driven daily, MR-2 not so much.

That all aside, the Fiero has had about every engine out there crammed into it, 3800sc 😎 or a 383sc or even a BMW v12. heck I seen a TDI in one. There so much out there for them there is no point in a MR-2 unless if you only keep a car stock.

I'm in Canada. No vehicle here stands up to our level of salt corrosion without proper care from the owner. That really has a lot more to do with how it survives up here than the thickness and galvanization treatment of the sheet metal.

I don't have an MR2. No discretionary budget for toys like that. Nor do I have a Fiero (they're fairly rare in Canada, anyway). As for the problems that I referred to, yes, the reputation for engine fires and coolant problems might have been blown out of proportion, but GM definitely began to sacrifice quality during Ignaki Lopez' reign at GM purchasing. They were just too aggressive in pressuring suppliers and subcontractors to reduce their costs. Whether fair or not, I don't have a lot of trust in GM vehicles of that period.

Having said that, any MR2 or Fiero from that period is a mid-engined sporter, so it's something special in my book. On top of that, any survivors are likely to be so worked over as to be almost a completely different vehicle than stock.

The engine fire and coolant problems was part of a smear campaign. Less then 1% of all Fieros had that problem. As for quality, they only got better with every model year as they stoped using more and more chevette parts. in fact the last year (88) was seen as the best any way you look at it and pre 85 are seen to be the worst.

As for survivors, here state side the Fiero survivors your see are mostly true survivors that no one has gotten too yet. You tend to only see true untouched survivors or fully restored Fiero with a engine swap here.

EDIT:
I think 88 had no chevett parts.

Not sure what you mean by civet parts. Vivisecting tropical cats would be unusual even for GM!

I think the main problem of the 80's cars in the US was the lackluster performance. I mean they had the nerve to offer a Vette with a 200hp engine and a TB with inline-four generating, brace yourself, 90hp! Really?! The problem persisted up untill the mid 90's when they started to introduce more hp / liter than before. Let's face it, you'd be pretty pissed in your Pontiac when a 2 liter Toyota ricer smokes you. I know I would be.

Yeah, a four banger in a Mustang? Bah!

It would not have been half bad if they used a good strong straight 4 like the 944 and evo's have.
Newer evo's have like 300hp stock if I recall and 944's had 150-200 stock. I even seen the later turbo 944 with mods push 400hp although 300-350hp is more common.

Got this thing a couple of months ago:

It's great fun and an awesome way to get around. Too bad it's too cold and wet to ride now...

sf78 wrote:

I think the main problem of the 80's cars in the US was the lackluster performance. I mean they had the nerve to offer a Vette with a 200hp engine and a TB with inline-four generating, brace yourself, 90hp! Really?! The problem persisted up untill the mid 90's when they started to introduce more hp / liter than before. Let's face it, you'd be pretty pissed in your Pontiac when a 2 liter Toyota ricer smokes you. I know I would be.

HP/L is a popular metric which favors small and complex engines, but I think it's not of actual importance by itself and distracts from more direct concerns. Among those I would include real world performance (not just peak hp) and responsiveness, cost, durability, serviceability, and typical cruising fuel mileage. Whether peak horsepower divided by displacement goes up or down doesn't matter as long as you're getting the set of results that you're after.

Cheap and simple sub-100hp 4cyl engines were pretty commonplace up until the 90s with most manufacturers. They had their place in what I consider to truly be economy cars (as opposed to 4cyl sports cars, where there is a different set of priorities). But if by TB you mean Thunderbird then yeah, for that car 90hp sounds hard to tolerate.

Generally speaking, although many 1980s engines had low peak hp figures, they're often not really as bad as they sound. With a decent amount of displacement they still had good torque in low-mid RPMs and the cars they were used in were typically a lot lighter than cars today. The cars were still slow by modern standards, but to be honest I think cars today are faster (and more complex) than they need to be. I enjoy the simplicity of older cars, and as far as competition goes it was just as fun to race between stoplights in any decade as long as the car you're up against is in the same league as you are.

As an example of hp not giving a complete picture, a few years ago while driving a 2.8L Fiero I got into a good race with a recent model Miata. I think the Miatas are rated around 170hp, the Fiero is 140. I had an early advantage due to more low/midrange torque, but he made up ground at the higher revs of each gear. He overtook me when I was at about 60mph, by which time I was ready to drop out anyway because the speed limit was 55. Over a traditional 1/4 mile he would be the clear winner but in street driving you're usually not going that far or up to that much speed.

Jade Falcon wrote:

I think 88 had no chevett parts.

True, but that wasn't really such a problem. The only Chevette derived parts on the older Fieros were in the front suspension, and really the Fiero's main flaw was the rear suspension, not the front. The entire suspension was changed on the 88. It's popular among some of the enthusiasts to combine an 88 rear with the 84-87 front, because that combo supposedly handles as well or even better than the pure 88s do (opinions vary on that).
The 84-87 rear has a couple of key flaws. One can be solved but it requires dropping the engine cradle. The other can't easily be solved but it can be minimized with stiffer bushings/sway bar.

shamino wrote:

HP/L is a popular metric which favors small and complex engines, but I think it's not of actual importance by itself and distracts from more direct concerns. Among those I would include real world performance (not just peak hp) and responsiveness, cost, durability, serviceability, and typical cruising fuel mileage. Whether peak horsepower divided by displacement goes up or down doesn't matter as long as you're getting the set of results that you're after.

I had an Olds Alero with a quad-4 that managed a meager 16 mpg/city compared to a 90's Mitsubishi with a 3.0 V6 that had 60 more hp and I could easily get 18 mpg/city. Oh, and the 140 hp output from the Q-4 was just laughable when you were trying to pick up speed on a highway ramp. 😁 I also drove a -94 Bonneville that had the Buick 3.8, but the 170 hp is only adequate as a daily body mover to those who aren't in a hurry. You couldn't really speak about performance in the same sentence with that car.

But if by TB you mean Thunderbird then yeah, for that car 90hp sounds hard to tolerate.

That was my typo, I meant (Pontiac) FB, but pretty much the same thing as the early 90's TB with the dreadful Essex 3.8! 😀 Someone must have thought it as a good joke to put a 140 hp engine to a sports coupe. 0-60 in 11 seconds, that's a Toyota Corrolla for you right there. The other problem was the 4-speed automatic everyone used throughout the 80's and 90's. Even a 300 hp Northstar Caddy suffered from it.

Don't forget the steering was out of the chevett, and the god offal damper they put on it.
I guess the steering was not too bad after the damper is removed.

Have I answered this thread all ready? Is there a quick way (a search) to determine if I have? I must be getting old. I sorta vaguely recall posting what I drive at some point on this forum, but not sure if it was here.

I drive a 1979 Mercedes Benz. I've had his car forever. My wife would like to see it gone. I threatened to give it a 10K paint job restoration. We only have a 2 car garage. I guess the ultimate solution would be to build a larger garage or buy a new house, although our garage is already quite large at 24.5' x 22.5' (51 m^2)

With the Mercedes diesel inline 6?

No, more like a 4 cylinder diesel. A 240D to be exact. It has all of 62 horse power but has the weight of a truck. If going up a hill, look for me driving on the shoulder with my emergency flashers on.

The only vehicle that I might be able to overtake is a 1st/2nd generation Volkswagen bus.

The full line of Mercedes diesels are supposed to be built like tanks, but 62 horsepower is Trabant territory with that curb weight. What would the wife say to an inline 5 TD upgrade?

She would say not waste any more money; sell the car, buy a new one.

I guess it's not worth trying to explain how you're better with the devil you know?