quote Originally posted by hyperv6: You can't compare a 1984 crash standard car to today as the air bags alone give it more passenger protection than any other car. Have walked way from a hard crash. Well I drove away from a hard crash I can say the Fiero was one if not the best back in the day. But compared to some of todays tanks I will take todays car over the Fiero. Keep in mind todays cars are built much like the Fiero and have many more safety features. That is why many sedans are near or over 4000 pounds. TOdays standards are just so much higher todays cars are just better. I blaime airbags alone as to why we have so many stupid people today. We used to thin the heard out of the hey watch this kind of people. Ha ha!

Having been in a pretty bad accident in a Fiero I can tell you it held its own, it did what it was suppose to do. Tanks transfer the crash energy to you, the Fiero will crumple up and absorb the energy of a crash. Sure it doesn't have an air bag but its a very solid car and theres lots of space between the dash and your head. I would rather be in a Fiero then an SUV and get hit from behind and then pushed into an obstacle in front of me.

The Fiero is so safe because it has a lot of crush space in the front and rear. This allows the car to crumple and slow down instead of stopping suddenly (the fast deceleration is what hurts you).

quote Originally posted by hyperv6: You can't compare a 1984 crash standard car to today as the air bags alone give it more passenger protection than any other car.

This is all true, of course. A Fiero would fail miserably in today's crash tests. But not just because they are harder to pass, but because they are different.

There is an infinite number of ways that a car can crash...and the car manufacturers can't protect you from every conceivable crash. So they design a point solution around the crash tests.

It is virtually impossible for a car today to pass side impact without side airbags. Because the test is designed to test the effectiveness of side airbags. Does that make today's cars safer? Of course it does, but the difference is not as dramatic as the test results alone might dictate.

Many car crashes are still fatal because of the energy involved. The best way to survive a crash is to avoid it in the first place. I'm really looking forward to Vehicle to vehicle communication being mandatory. That way the car will be alerted if another vehicle is on a collision course and take evasive action.

quote Originally posted by jscott1: That way the car will be alerted if another vehicle is on a collision course and take evasive action.

Danger Will Robinson, Danger

Look, all kidding aside, if you are looking for reliable performance you cannot compare a 20+ year old sports car to the new Solstice/Sky, regardless of the trunk.

The advances in suspension, engine, interior refinements, not to speak of OnStar, make it almost like comparing a P51 Mustang to an F18. The P51 was perhaps the greatest fighter of its day but it is and entirely different horse than a modern F18.

On the practical side, you have to trade luggage for cup holders, but, that isn't a huge difference IMHO.

Now I'll get back to pulling their chains.

Arn

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: make it almost like comparing a P51 Mustang to an F18. The P51 was perhaps the greatest fighter of its day but it is and entirely different horse than a modern F18. Arn

Different but both are still cool... BTW - I can't find a pic of them flying together since the P51 would be considered an Air Force Plane today and the F/A 18 is Navy.

[This message has been edited by jscott1 (edited 03-07-2008).]

quote Originally posted by jscott1: Here's a comparison... The Fiero was on Car and Driver magazine's Ten Best list for 1984. The 2007 Solstice is voted least reliable sporty car by Consumer Reports.

Here is a comaprison. After making that 10 best list, a good number of those 84's burnt to the ground. The Solstice has rear differential issues... but they aren't causing the car to torch itself!

quote Originally posted by jscott1: Different but both are still cool... BTW - I can't find a pic of them flying together since the P51 would be considered an Air Force Plane today and the F/A 18 is Navy.

Good example!! You could bump the other plane that represent the Fiero up to a Phantom something a little newer. The Mustang is like a MG.

The new ZR-1 is the F-22 Raptor.

As for the crash standards they are not just different but they are much more stricter.

The Fiero was at the top of the class in its day and the space frame is some what what the new cars employ today to encapsulate the passenger compartment.

I drove away from hitting a van in the side at 40-45 MPH. I had almost $6,000 dollars of damage and a steering wheel bent to the dash. The Fiero did well. Now Side impact it did not so near as well as the car has a tendency to break right behind the seats. I lost a friend in such a crash.

The side impact standards really were not much in 1984 compared to what is required now, That is the one area todays cars have stepped it up. But the law are what require it.

As with anything else everything gets better with technology and time.

[This message has been edited by hyperv6 (edited 03-07-2008).]

Interesting discussion.

I have a Fiero 88 GT 5speed and a 07 base Sky 5 speed. They are 2 different cars. The first impression is that the Fiero handles better then the Sky. However after driving the Sky for a year the Sky actually handles better. I needed to get use to the Sky. The Fiero manual steering provide more feedback then the Sky. That is the part that takes getting use to.

The top is not as bad as everyone makes out, however you do need to get out of the car to put it up and down. Big deal, when leaving work I pop the top before I get in the car and once home I put it up. The trunk space is poor with the top up worst with the top down. But I use the car to commute to work so trunk space is not a huge concern.

For my commute the Sky does better then the Fiero. Fiero gets about 24.5, the Sky better then 28. The Sky does not have the same torque band as the Fiero and requires more RPM. The Sky engine does like to rev compared to the Fiero V6.

When I bought the Sky my plans were to drive it during good weather. I found it much nicer to drive then the Fiero and it became the daily driver, even in the winter. Go figure.

BTW my Fiero GT has less then 60K on it so it is fairly tight.

Thanks ILVMYGT for posting. You have the outside perspective that I was hoping would be added to the thread, that of someone with both an '88 V6 and the base 4-cylinder Sky or Solstice.

I drove the my '88 4-cylinder this morning to Cars and Coffee at the Ford/PAG HQ in Irvine; it was British car day and the place was packed by 7:20 with 400+ cars; had to park all the way in the back. As I drove in I overheard a little boy pointing to my car saying "what a funny looking car." Made me smile.

On driving the car back I noticed a new noise up front on the passenger side and it looks like a bushing is shot. Because the car is so tight (turned 70,000 miles on the way back) I noticed it immediately so it's added to my to do list. As I haven't driven the car in a while I realized that even though it's underpowered, I still really enjoy driving it. It is easily the best 4-cylinder stock Fiero I've ever driven. Just wish that it was better optioned out.

I can't say the same thing for the Sky Redline. Yes, it's better than the '88 Fiero in almost every tangible way but it's simply not as engaging to drive as the Fiero. If feels bigger and heavier than it is and I really can't get over how cramped it is and I'm just 5'8" tall. I wonder how Bob Lutz fits in it?

Just so I wanted to make sure it wasn't me, I picked up a friend who drove with me to the big car show in Temecula. He's a car guy (worked for Boston Acoustics and was responsible for getting BA gear in all of the big Chrysler LX cars) and asked for his impressions. His was much the same as mine...neither of us would go out and spend $30K for one. There's just too many really great one and two-year old cars out there, that both of us would go for something that was more usable everyday. Actually it got me to start thinking seriously about looking for a well sorted-out 3800 supercharged Fiero.

Having lived with the car for a week I still can't get over how poorly the top is engineered and whether you use the car just to commute, it still should have six cubic feet of usable luggage capacity. The car has less than 2,000 mile and there's a rattle behind me, must be the door latch. And the radio, while it has XM, won't play any of my MP3 discs and the display is hard to read even with the top up. Top down, it's illegible.

I'm sorry guys I just don't see 20 years of progress here. Save for the lack modern safety equipment, I'd rather drive a low mileage '88 GT every day. Seems far less compromised to me.

After this experience I'm seriously thinking of installing the EHPS unit I bought last fall on eBay from Todd in the '88 and not wait to find one of the original N41 cars. The heavy steering at low speeds is one thing that I never liked in any of my Fieros, 4- or 6-cylinder.

Anyone on the West Coast have a nice, tight 3800 Supercharged '88 Fiero GT for sale? If so, contact me at richt at automotivetraveler dot com.

In the next couple of days I'm going to start a blog/thread over on my web site automotivetraveler.com on great $3,000 cars for the era of $4.00/gallon gas. Needless to say the first car I'll suggest is a low mileage '88 4-cylinder Fiero. There's plenty of them around.

Richard Truesdell
Editorial Director, Automotive Traveler
www.automotivetraveler.com/magazine
Contributing Editor, Pontiac Enthusiast
www.pontiacenthusiast.com
Contributing Editor, cardomain.com
http://blog.cardomain.com