1965 Gto Original Owner on 2040-cars

Auto blog

'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.

Remember when Pontiac made a Trans Am Kammback grocery getter?

Despite muscle cars having strong reputations as some of the most impractical cars one can buy, they've occasionally had one of the most useful and practical features a car can sport: a hatchback. In the 1980s, General Motors' Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac Firebird had one, and it added respectable utility to the sports cars. But the people at GM thought they could make the F-Body cars even more useful. So, after a few clay-model experiments, Pontiac built three examples of an extended-roof 1985 Pontiac Trans Am Kammback concept. Spotted by GM Authority, one of these Trans Am Kammbacks (although "shooting brake" seems like the more apt descriptor) is going on the block at the Mecum Kissimmee auction in early January 2019. Reportedly only three of these prototypes/experiments/test mules were built to driveable specs, and this example, VIN No. EX4796, has additional history that might make it the ultimate example. According to Mecum, the show car, which has made appearances at numerous auto shows, also spent some time at the race track — just not as a participant. It was used as a pace car for PPG and IMSA racing and temporarily had a light bar and "two-way communications equipment." Following its pace duty, and after GM stopped the project from going any further, it was put into Pontiac Engineering's private collection for 13 years. Famous Michigan car collector and Pontiac dealership owner John McMullen then bought the car. He eventually sent it to Pontiac specialist Scott Tiemann for a full restoration to the gorgeous condition it is in today. As seen in the photos, the Trans Am features white paint over a gray leather interior. It houses a 5.0-liter V8 under the hood and has a five-speed manual transmission. The wild concept is rare enough to be super cool, but we can't help but think of an infinitely more practical, more modern, more powerful, and arguably more interesting car we'd rather have. Manual Cadillac CTS-V Sport Wagon in Black Diamond anybody? Or, if you don't care about the extra doors, perhaps the Callaway's Corvette AeroWagen is more applicable. Either way, we're in full support of any shooting brakes we can find. Related Video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.

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...