GM Selling off part of car collection...yes Fiero's included

THE PUNISHER · Post by **THE PUNISHER** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:12 pm

2 of them,

1984 Fiero GT 2+2
1987 Fiero GT Convertible

http://jalopnik.com/5113113/gm-to-aucti ... ate-museum

p8ntman442 · Post by **p8ntman442** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:24 am

Let me know when the turbo goes up next.

Or a 0 mile W41.

Look whats also there.

Fiero Goodwrench Race!!!!

whipped · Post by **whipped** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 9:49 pm

There are some lame cars on there. That said, dibs on the popemobile.

Series8217 · Post by **Series8217** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:56 am

Fiero Goodwrench Race??!??!?! As in the black and white huffaker car??? :love10: :love10:

Fastback86 · Post by **Fastback86** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 1:04 pm

Yeah that's the one.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 1:11 pm

p8ntman442 wrote:Let me know when the turbo goes up next.

Or a 0 mile W41.

Look whats also there.

Fiero Goodwrench Race!!!!

Why would you want that stuff?

I don't know why people got all ball hungry over the W41. It really isn't that spectacular. There are plenty of better engines.

befarrer · Post by **befarrer** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 10:07 pm

For the year it was introduced, it had more horsepower than all of GM's V6 offerings, and alot of the SBC's. Heck, the top of the line 89 corvette had 245HP, only 55hp more out of 3.4L of extra displacement and 4 more cylinders.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 10:18 pm

befarrer wrote:For the year it was introduced, it had more horsepower than all of GM's V6 offerings

Incorrect. The W41 was introduced the same year as the 210hp 3.4 DOHC (1991).

For it's year it was a good engine, despite it's smoothness and reliability issues. But the past 17-18 years have presented far more superior powerplants.

The Dark Side of Will · Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:18 am

If he's referring to the HO Quad4, I think he's right. I believe that the turbo Regals went away after 87 and the HO was introduced in '88. This made it GM's highest output engine short of the TPI V8's.

p8ntman442 · Post by **p8ntman442** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:04 pm

why because a w41 calais will whoop a dohc fiero on the autox track any day of the year. PERIOD.

why.. because 190/4 > 210/6

AAron this is a challange, find me another 4 cyl engine 1991 or earlier making 190 hp NA less than 2.5L.

I will Wait.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:11 pm

How is 190 split between 4 cylinders better than 210 between 6? The 6 cylinder makes much more low, and mid-range torque. It'd be far better on the AutoX track from a pure drivetrain standpoint. I can't say for the entire car, but we aren't talking about cars, we're talking engines.

Why does it have to be earlier than 1991? We're not in 1991. We're in 2008. S2000 bitch.

p8ntman442 · Post by **p8ntman442** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:25 pm

Aaron wrote:How is 190 split between 4 cylinders better than 210 between 6? The 6 cylinder makes much more low, and mid-range torque. It'd be far better on the AutoX track from a pure drivetrain standpoint. I can't say for the entire car, but we aren't talking about cars, we're talking engines.

Why does it have to be earlier than 1991? We're not in 1991. We're in 2008. S2000 bitch.

specific output is greater therefore its a better engineered system. Thats why 190/4 is important.

We are talking cars, I said give me a 0 mile w41, you said why and I said a stock 91 w41 would beat a engine swapped fiero in an autox any day.

why earlier than 1991, because asshat, thats when the engine was released. how many years later did the s2000 come out?

now go fine a 4 cyl NA motor made before 1995 (last year the quad 4 was made) that made more than 190 in less than 2.5l.

we'll all be getting dumber as you respond, so please just post the answer not some bullshit like your previous post.

crzyone · Post by **crzyone** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:35 pm

Any guesses to how much the Huffaker IMSA will cost?

Damn, I'd sell my GTR to buy that car, but I bet it will be $60-80k?

p8ntman442 · Post by **p8ntman442** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:40 pm

crzyone wrote:Any guesses to how much the Huffaker IMSA will cost?

Damn, I'd sell my GTR to buy that car, but I bet it will be $60-80k?

smoke crack lately?

20k tops!

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:16 pm

p8ntman442 wrote: specific output is greater therefore its a better engineered system. Thats why 190/4 is important.

We are talking cars, I said give me a 0 mile w41, you said why and I said a stock 91 w41 would beat a engine swapped fiero in an autox any day.

why earlier than 1991, because asshat, thats when the engine was released. how many years later did the s2000 come out?

now go fine a 4 cyl NA motor made before 1995 (last year the quad 4 was made) that made more than 190 in less than 2.5l.

So it's better engineered. That doesn't matter. So you have a quick 2.3l car. A fast 7.0l car is still faster. Talk specific output all day long, the only time it matters is in displacement limited classes. I could find you a better engineered engine in a heartbeat. But if it doesn't have a better power curve, then it's useless. All specific output does, is increase octane demand, reduce reliability, and reduce durability.

So since you're talking enigne-swapped Fieros, what about a purpose built, tube frame, 3.4 DOHC car. Now your calais isn't so fast. The same car, and the 3.4 is the better engine. Although the added weight would hurt it, the 100lbs isn't anything compared to the huge midrange advantage. I didn't used to agree. After driving AutoX, with an engine not optimized for it in the least, though still a shitload better than the W41, I realize. A 3800 would have whipped my ass hard. But my specific output is higher OMGZ!!!!

Why do you want a 17, 18 year old engine? Why use old technology, when current technology is better? You're ragging on the Fiero, well, in 1988, it wasn't all that bad. But we're not in 1988, so why use 1988 technology?

Why limit me to 1995? And why does it have to be N/A? You're imposing restrictions just to try and make the W41 look halfway decent. Sure, nearly 20 years ago it was. But today, it's fucking ancient, unreliable, and under-performing. It would get destroyed in any competitive racing class, unless the limitations were before 1991, N/A, under 2.5l, and God knows whatever else you have to dream of.

crzyone · Post by **crzyone** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:50 am

p8ntman442 wrote:
crzyone wrote:Any guesses to how much the Huffaker IMSA will cost?

Damn, I'd sell my GTR to buy that car, but I bet it will be $60-80k?
smoke crack lately?

20k tops!

I dunno man, it's a car with history.

What does it have for an engine? Super Duty?

The Dark Side of Will · Mon Dec 22, 2008 8:17 am

Aaron wrote: It would get destroyed in any competitive racing class, unless the limitations were before 1991, N/A, under 2.5l, and God knows whatever else you have to dream of.

Actually, in the classes in which it competes, the Achieva still cleans up.

p8ntman442 · Post by **p8ntman442** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 11:33 am

Will, Championships mean nothing, I mean the 91 W41 only took 6 of the 9 firehawk championship races that year. Stupid POS.

how many did the fiero take in 1988?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:19 pm

The Dark Side of Will wrote: Actually, in the classes in which it competes, the Achieva still cleans up.

Not AutoX. There are plenty of better cars. I'd go class it out, but I'm too lazy.

p8ntman442 wrote:Will, Championships mean nothing, I mean the 91 W41 only took 6 of the 9 firehawk championship races that year. Stupid POS.

how many did the fiero take in 1988?

We're not in "That year."

The Dark Side of Will · Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:58 pm

Aaron wrote:
The Dark Side of Will wrote: Actually, in the classes in which it competes, the Achieva still cleans up.
Not AutoX.

Don't count on it.

You're too lazy to use your head, from which stems being too lazy to look up what the car's competition is. Old =/= slow. The principles that make a chassis handle well or poorly haven't changed.

By your reasoning, a Ferrari 250 is a really shitty car.