1976 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am Coupe 2-door 6.6l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Junkyard Gem: 1989 Pontiac Sunbird SE Coupe

General Motors built the fantastically successful J-Body cars starting at the dawn of the 1980s and continuing well into our current century, on five continents. The Pontiac Division's version of the J started out being called the J2000 and the 2000, then got the Sunbird name originally used on the Pontiac-ized Chevy Monza starting in 1983. Here's a once-slick-looking 1989 Sunbird SE Coupe, found at a Minneapolis-area boneyard way back in 2016. The best-known of all the J-Body cars, here, was the Chevrolet Cavalier, but Pontiac far outdid even the most blinged-up Cavalier Z24 when it came to elaborate taillights. Because this is Minnesota, the car is a patchwork of various layers of junkyard-obtained rusty body parts. One fender has TURBO badges from a Sunbird GT. The other side has the correct engine badges for this model. That engine is a 2.0-liter, single-overhead-cam straight-four from an engine family originally developed for the Opel Kadett D. This one was rated at 96 horsepower when new. This one has the automatic transmission, so it wouldn't have been very much fun to drive. Check out that cool parking brake handle, though! And, hey, is that a full can of Colorado Cool-Aid in the foot well? You'd think a proper Minnesota Pontiac would at least be full of Grain Belt cans. It appears that Higley Ford in Windom, Minn., had this car on the lot at some point. Windom is closer to Sioux Falls than to Minneapolis. This final mileage total looks good for a car living in Tinworm Country. Pontiac built this generation of Sunbird from the 1988 through 1994 model years, though it was really just a facelift of the first-generation cars. Starting in 1995, the Pontiac J-Body became the Sunfire, and production continued until the J platform itself got the axe in 2005. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. In the 90s, fun will become the exclusive province of the rich. To which the Sunbird driver replies, "Bullish!" 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 doing fine at retaining Pontiac owners

This isn't the first time we've reported positive news about General Motors retaining former Pontiac owners. Get a few more stories like this latest report from Edmund's Auto Observer, and it will mark an ongoing positive trend for GM. Edmunds.com crunched the numbers to see how well the General is hanging on to customers after shutting out the lights at Pontiac, and it found that nearly 40 percent of Pontiac owners stayed with a vehicle from a General Motors brand.
The numbers are a little lower than an earlier R.L. Polk & Company study, but Edmunds says General Motors is keeping more former Pontiac buyers than it has since 2007. Most are turning to vehicles from Chevrolet, especially during January and February of 2011, when GM incentivized Pontiac owners to stay under the umbrella. Those moves seem to have worked, and 28.1 percent of Pontiac owners trading up made the jump into a Bowtie.
Buyers that have gone elsewhere have largely stayed loyal to Domestic automakers, with Ford picking up the most conquests from Pontiac, with 9.4 percent switching. Toyota and Honda picked up 7.4 percent of the pool of former Pontiac drivers. The numbers are defying any predictions that Pontiac buyers would completely exit the General Motors fold, and have climbed up closer to parity with the retention figures of other GM brands from a 2009 low of only 16 percent retention.