They went for a turbo V6 Trans Am & sat pat when Firebirds started looking like 4 passenger Corvettes.

I know what you're saying Branden. But consider that while Camaro went through a coupe then a low slung phase, it always had a V8 as top power & didn't resemble something else. Again, no so with Firebird.



You speaka my language.


There has never been a 4 door GTOs, however there has been 4 cylinder Firebirds.

All things aside, GM made a Trans Am concept car out of one of the last 4th gens they had around. I don't have time to look for it (I'm sure someone else does ), but it had the shaker hoodscoop, the ducktail spoiler, fender heat extractors, and call to mind the Trans Ams of the 70s. In my minds eye, THAT is a Firebird.

For the record, TOP Firebirds have traditionally been above top Camaros. either in engine size, performance, handling, looks, or a combination of, or all the above. While Camaro was about budget performance, Firebird was more for the showoffs.... and the reason why Firebird fans (though not great in numbers) are extremely enthusiastic about their car.

That said, I think if we stop & think about this for a second, we all know GM isn't going to turn a Kappa-like chassis and make it LS2 capable, let alone the "next gen", more powerful V8. Sure, you can physically fit the engine into any compartment that can handle an I4 or a V6. But the rest of the Kappa will need work, and by the end of the day, you'll wind up with another Corvette chassis.

GM is "rumored" (winkie included) to be working on a V6 engine that has over 300 horses. I don't see any problem whatsoever having this engine, backed by a 6 speed, in a 3200 pound car (about as light as the old LX 5.0 Mustang notchback), that carries an evolution of the 4th gen body wearing the Firebird name if it performed on par or better than the 400+ horse Camaro. Especially if it's top model carried a turbocharger which would send it to at least 400.

(Disclaimer: I'm not making any hints about any potential car, so please, no one read it that way. )

 

But I think there is a difference in perception between a 300HP V6 and a 300HP I4. The feeling seems to be 6 > 4, so the 6 would be the more desirable motor.

I'm not the greatest expert on Firebird history, although I consider myself an enthusiast, but the only time I can recall that the Firebird did not have a V8 as top power was for the 1989 TTA. But V8s, even though crappy in comparison, were still available. I do agree that Firebird has always been 'better' than Camaro though

Personally, I would withold judgment on a Kappa derived Firebird until I actually say the performance data. I would however be slightly more skeptical of the vehicle's success if it was slated to be Ecotec only than if it was to recieve a Nissan-ish V6 as the top powerplant.

 

That was my reaction too. Unless I'm overlooking something, the '89 TTAs were the only exception to not having a top engine option as a V8. One year supercedes what was established by the other 34?

 

It sure would be great to have a traditional Firebird again. In fact, personally, I wish they could’ve kept updating the Pontiac V8. A T/A 6.6 or Turbo T/A 4.9, with fuel injection, modern computer controls and other updates, would be so cool for a modern Firebird. I don’t know how they would fit a shaker hoodscoop to such updated engines, but if they wanted a REAL Trans Am....they’d just HAVE to do it.

Unfortunately, that’s just fantasy. GM couldn’t justify Firebird being this unique, (as in having unique engines, etc.), even when it sold 200,000 units per year.

So, where are we now? We’re at a point, where there is a possibility that Pontiac could perhaps have access to a new and exciting line of relatively compact, RWD cars. What we’re talking about here is a “game changer”. A rare opportunity for a division to remake itself, and to do it successfully.

IF as part of this program, Pontiac has access to a 2+2 coupe/hatchback, and doesn’t dip into the Firebird’s rich heritage - in some way or form - to promote it, well....that’s just plain stupid. An opportunity wasted to reignite a unique personality for this car, which it hasn’t had since 1981.

That's where I stand. If somehow that makes some of you feel that this makes me a non-enthusiast, well so be it.

 

Seems to me folks are forgetting that somebody has already proved the LS7 fits in a Solstice.

 

why does it have to be called firebird? can it not get a new name and succeed?

 

Being 36, and having been "into" cars since I could hold a Hot Wheel ... it seems to me "Firebird" enthusiasts are actually "Trans Am" enthusiasts for the most part (maybe some "Formula" enthusiasts out there). I don't recall anyone referring to their cars as "Firebird Trans Ams." It was always just "Trans Am" or "TA", and everyone knew exactly what "muscle car" you drove.

The name Firebird did not denote "muscle car" similar to Camaro in my experience, TA did however. Maybe Firebird did when it first hit the scene (still in diapers then), but it certainly did not from Smokey & the Bandit until the present.

Sounds like a good plan to me, using Firebird that is on a Kappa 2+2. Little bit of heritage, and a true RWD alternative to the Camaro and Monte Carlo.

 

I agree with Charlie, and I am not an old fart like he is.

 

Im all for that. That sounds like what should be on the lot as apposed to the rebadged Cobalt.

I just dont think that follows. You're telling me that something completely NEW should be equated with something very OLD when its a rather questionable fit.

Then we'll wind up with something that isnt what it was nor what it could have been. Yes similiar things have happened in the past with varying results... and perhaps this is one of those cases where the strength of product will negate all that, but if the product is so strong why do we need to hack up another one?

Add to that how much equity does Firebird have without Trans Am? You get the good you get all that baggage with it, doesent seem worth it.

When it was suggested that Firebird be a definitively upscale Camaro, perhaps with AWD or FIV6 it was scoffed at. I distinctly remember being told that even IF cost was no object it made no sense to use a name that brought to mind mullets in order to move a brand in a different direction. How is this different?

 

In reply to your post Guy, yes a 4cyl. was the standard engine for the base model of BOTH the Firebird AND Camaro at the beginning of the 3rd gens. run. BUT it proved so unpopular with the buyers of BOTH cars that G.M. dropped it from the f-body lineup after 3 years. How many 4 cyl. f-bods do you see anywhere today? Even at the f-bod meets? BTW, I hear you about the 4 seat Corvette argument & I agree that G.M. won't go that route. Oh, and not all of us "enthusiasts" are strictly T/A fans. The Trans Am sales didn't start taking off until the '73 model year when performance was already into a rapid decline & everyone was getting into the "If you can't BE fast , then at least LOOK like you can." mindset. (Hmmm, ricer mentality in the '70's?) Prior to that, the performance banner was being waved, (either exclusively or primarily) by the 400, H.O., & Formula. But, in any event, I think this is a moot point. The name is dead, & if it can't be brought back right, then let it rest in it's grave. JMO.

 

I think it has plenty of equity. Certainly more than, oh say, G7.

 

Why not use 2 + 2? another name that would have plenty of credibility with old school Pontiac geeks like myself, old sports car fans, and would probably get the attention of the targeted buyers.

 

Today's award for "Hitting the nail squarely on the head from 50 paces" goes to.......

jwade95Z, IMO, you hit a bullseye. When you look at the breakdown of Firdbird sales (and I'm betting, the cars owned Firebird's greatest fans) you're dead on the money I'd say.

 

What do you call this uplevel Firebird's uplevel model then? You can't half dip into the heritage pot.

Regardless of of what some people say here....a four cylinder only Firebird is a mistake waiting to happen. It is a way to take a what could be a great car and strap some baggage on it that will cause it to get bad mounthed by old Firebird enthusiasts, and the press.

Let me ask this question in closing. Assuming price is equal....who would buy this four banger Firebird over a Camaro? Making a car different for the sake of it makes no sense.

 

Again, I understand what you're saying, and to be perfectly honest, I really don't believe for a moment we'll see a turbo-Ecotec-as-top-power Firebird. But I don't believe we'll see an LSx powered Kappa as a Firebird either.

There are two things that have been said that I feel is worth noting:

1st, there was Bob Lutz saying that "We're not going to do that car" in answering a question about a Camaro based Firebird after saying it was looked at. Why did he feel the need to say "that" car?

It may sound like nothing, but Bob Lutz (like Fbodfather) is very good with "word-dance". When something isn't in the cards, Lutz will say "it's not planned" or, as he said back in 2003: "Firebird's day is over".


The other thing worth noting is an interview Dennis Mooney gave in which he essentially spilled the beans that GM is currently planning a small RWD chassis that will serve as a basis of a sports sedan targeted for 2010 calendar year. Something due out that soon & Holden already campaigning to make this car means it's pretty well along. He mentioned that this car wouldn't have a V8, but rather a (HF) V6, and a structure that targets BMW's 3 series.


Now think about this possibility (and aside of a Kappa based RWD coupe, this is pure speculation):

A small 4 cylinder Solstice coupe.
A midsized (G6 sized) V6 coupe, called Firebird.
A large V8 powered coupe called "GTO"

meanwhile, over at Chevy........

A Camaro that fits in between Pontiac's V6 coupe & GTO, and...
A FWD Cobalt that fits in between the Solstice and Pontiac's V6 coupe.

and finally....
An "Arts & Science" styled, Northstar powered "GTO" luxury coupe for Cadillac.
A drop top, "Velite" styled "GTO" for Buick.
And finally, a "GTO" for Chevrolet.



(Though it may seem like alot of "GTO" coupes, if GM found a way to make each profitable at 12-30K annually depending on price... pretty likely IMO... it would be pretty straightforward to do)