2002 Pontiac Grand Prix on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Pontiac and McLaren once hooked up, and it was rad

Most of us would bend over backwards to have a chance to own a McLaren car, but few can afford such extravagance. That said, there’s a way you can get behind the wheel of a legitimate McLaren without breaking the bank. For 1989 and 1990, the Pontiac Grand Prix was offered in a limited-edition ASC-McLaren variant that featured tuning and updates from the iconic British automaker. Examples of this rare coupe rarely surface for sale, so itÂ’s surprising to see this low-mile 1990 Pontiac Grand Prix ASC-McLaren on eBay. The car is the result of a partnership between American Specialty Cars-McLaren (ASC-McLaren) and Pontiac. WeÂ’re not talking about the McLaren Formula 1 team or even the iconic McLaren road cars here. The McLaren connection comes from an arm of the automakerÂ’s powertrain engineering department. The Grand PrixÂ’s standard 3,1-liter V6 got a massage and a turbocharger, adding 65 horsepower for a total of 205 ponies and 225 pound-feet of torque. A four-speed automatic transmission sends power to the front wheels. That output is modest by todayÂ’s standards, and it wasnÂ’t outrageous even by 1990 standards, but the car returned a decent 0-60 mph time of around 7 seconds. The $5,000 ASC-McLaren package added a load of cool 1980s tech to the Grand PrixÂ’s interior, some of which is surprisingly advanced for the time. The car got a head-up display and a digital display on the dash. The steering wheel should be delightfully familiar to anyone who remembers a top-end Pontiac of the era, with the entire center of the wheel filled with buttons instead of the airbags we see today. The car had insanely padded bucket seats front and rear(!) with a distinctive pear shape.  Many sources peg production numbers between 2,500 and 3,500 units, so the car is relatively rare compared to its mass-produced Pontiac counterparts. This oneÂ’s got just 17,746 miles on the clock, too, and appears to be in excellent condition. ItÂ’s had just two owners and no reported accidents. The seller notes a little surface rust from the car being in storage so long. This era of GM cars tended to deteriorate quickly, so a bit of surface rust shouldnÂ’t be a huge issue. Related video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.

'67 Chevy Corvair convertible vs. '86 Pontiac Fiero in cult classic showdown

Every few a decades, the folks running General Motors lose their minds briefly try to market a car that public doesn't see coming and often aren't ready for. In the '60s there was the rear-engine, air-cooled Chevrolet Corvair, then the mid-engine Pontiac Fiero in the '80s and the completely bizarre Chevy SSR in the 2000s. What all of these had in common was that they bucked the trend for American models of their era, for better or worse. The latest episode of Generation Gap tasked the hosts with finding two cult classic vehicles to choose between; they came come up with two of these quirky products from The General.
On the classic side, there's a 1967 Chevy Corvair Monza convertible. Being from later in the production run, it wears slightly more aerodynamic styling than the earlier, boxier examples. Hanging out back is an air-cooled, 2.7-liter flat-six pumping out a robust 95 horsepower. In the other corner is the somewhat more modern 1986 Pontiac Fiero SE with a mid-mounted, 2.5-liter "Iron Duke" four-cylinder, an engine nearly ubiquitous in GM cars of the '80s.
Judging by when they were new, the Corvair was far more successful than the Fiero with over 1.8 million sold. Of course, Ralph Nader's book Unsafe at Any Speed kind of poisoned the well, even if the poor safety reputation wasn't entirely deserved. The Fiero on the other hand only lasted for a few model years before shuffling off, but it eventually got its own performance boost with the V6 version and rather attractive GT models. Check them both out in the video and tell us in Comments which you want in your garage.

This or That: 2005 Chrysler Crossfire SRT6 vs. 1984 Pontiac Fiero

Welcome to another round of This or That, where two Autoblog editors pick a topic, pick a side and pull no punches. Last round pitted yours truly against Associate Editor Brandon Turkus, and my chosen VW Vanagon Syncro narrowly defeated Brandon's 1987 Land Rover. In fact, it was, by far, the closest round we've seen, with 1,907 voters seeing things my way (for 50.8 percent of the vote) versus 1,848 votes for Brandon's Rover (49.2 percent). Sweet, sweet victory! For this latest round of This or That, I've roped Editor Greg Migliore into what I think is a rather fun debate. We've each chosen our favorite terrible cars, setting a price limit of $10,000 to make sure neither of us went too crazy with our automotive atrocities. I think we've both chosen terribly... and I mean that in the best way possible. 2005 Chrysler Crossfire SRT6 Jeremy Korzeniewski: Why It's Terrible: Taken in isolation, the Chrysler Crossfire isn't necessarily a terrible car. In fact, it drives pretty darn well, and there's a lot of solid engineering under its slinky shape. Problem is, that engineering was already rather long in the tooth well before Chrysler ever got its hands on it, having come from Mercedes-Benz, which used the basic chassis and drivetrain in a previous version of its SLK coupe and roadster. Granted, the SLK was an okay car, too, but even when new, it hardly set the world on fire with sporty driving dynamics. Chrysler took these decent-but-no-more bits and pieces from the Mercedes parts bin – remember, this car was conceived in the disastrous Merger Of Equals days – and covered them with a rather attractive hard-candy shell. Unfortunately, the super sporty shape wrote checks in the minds of buyers that its well-worn mechanicals were simply unable to cash, though an injection of power courtesy of a supercharged V6 engine in the SRT6 model, as seen here, certainly helped ease some of those woes. In the end, Chrysler was left with a so-called halo car that looked the part but never quite performed the part. It was almost universally panned by critics as an overpriced parts-bin special, which, I must add, was damningly accurate. As a result, sales were very slow, and within the first few months, dealers were clearancing the car at cut-rate prices, just to keep them from taking up too much of the showroom floor. Why It's Not That Terrible, After All: I can speak from personal experience when discussing the Chrysler Crossfire. You see, I owned one. Well, sort of...