1969 Gto Judge Convertible Replica on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Fiero-based Zimmer Quicksilver was objectively terrible, but we'd totally drive it

Now here's something you don't see everyday. It's listed in our classified ads as a 1986 Pontiac Fiero, but as you can see, that description is a bit misleading. In fact, it's a Zimmer Quicksilver, which was indeed built atop the guts of a mid-engine Fiero coupe but was heavily modified by the Zimmer Motorcars Corporation at a facility in Pompano Beach, Florida. And the one you see here actually seems to be a pretty decent deal for a highly unusual car. We're not sure what was a more popular starting point for kit and custom cars in the 1980s and 1990s, but it would have to be either the Fiero or the vintage air-cooled Volkswagen Beetle. Fiero-based machines usually mimicked the design direction of any number of highly desirable Italian stallions, most commonly, we'd guess, the Lamborghini Countach. The Quicksilver is an altogether different animal, with over a foot of extra wheelbase added in front of the A-pillar to make for a dramatic, long and low silhouette that somehow still only has barely enough room for two passengers in its leather- and wood-lined interior. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. A stock 2.8-liter V6 engine from General Motors is mated to a three-speed automatic transmission that sends 140 horsepower and 170 pound-feet of torque to the rear wheels. Period road tests found the 0-60 run took a little over 10 seconds, which is terrible today but wasn't all that bad for the mid '80s. Best we can tell, only around 170 Quicksilvers were made between 1984 and 1988, which are, not coincidentally, the same years that Pontiac produced the Fiero. The 1986 Zimmer Quicksilver you see here is priced at $18,495 and shows well under 30,000 miles on the odometer. There aren't a lot of Zimmer Quicksilvers currently for sale for us to compare, but the ones we did find that had sold within the last few years suggest a little under $20,000 is a reasonable asking price. It could be a fun and offbeat addition to the garage, and if nothing else, you're not likely to see another one at your local car show. 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...

GM reintroduces Tripower name in the worst way possible

The story of General Motors' use of the Tripower moniker begins way back in 1957, when Semon E. "Bunkie" Knudsen, then General Manager of GM's Pontiac division, directed his engineers to inject more performance into his brand's line of V8-powered automobiles. Fuel injection was an option, but hot rodders flocked instead to Tri-Power (marketed way back when with a hyphen), which grafted a trio of two-barrel Rochester carburetors onto a single intake manifold. A legend was born. And that legend was born of performance. At idle and when full power wasn't required, Pontiac's Tri-Power system used just the middle carburetor, which helped make the setup easier to tune. Depending on the year and model, either a vacuum system or a mechanical linkage opened up the two outer carbs, thereby switching from two barrels to six, and allowing the engine to take in more fuel and air. And it was an easy marketing win – six barrels is better than four barrels, right? Because performance! So, when news filtered in that GM has resurrected the Tripower name, those of us who grew up attending classic car shows and wrenching on old Pontiacs did a double-take. And then we all collectively sighed. Turns out that today's Tripower refers to a trio of fuel-saving measures that include cylinder deactivation, active thermal management, and intake valve lift control, according to Automotive News. And, at least for now, it applies to GM's line of fullsize trucks powered by a 2.7-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine. We're all for saving fuel whenever possible. And we have zero say in how any automaker chooses to market its products and technologies. But, we'll offer our two cents anyway: Relaunching a storied name from the past is fine. Relaunching a storied name from the past while completely overlooking the reasons the name got famous in the first place is only going to irritate the people who remember the name in the first place. Couldn't they just call this new technology package something else? Related Video: News Source: Automotive NewsImage Credit: Getty Green Marketing/Advertising Chevrolet GM Pontiac Automotive History Truck chevrolet silverado