1999 Pontiac Firebird on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Steve McQueen barn find: Movie Trans Am surfaces after almost 40 years

An important Steve McQueen film car has emerged from barn storage. No, it's not yet another " Bullitt" Mustang, quite the contrary: The car in question is a 1980 Pontiac Trans Am, and it starred in McQueen's final film, " The Hunter." In the movie, McQueen plays a bounty hunter, and while in " Bullitt" he's quite the wheelman, that's not the case in this one. McQueen's character, "Papa" Thorson, is a horrible driver, and the Trans Am is far too much car for him. A chase sequence sees McQueen driving a combine harvester to catch the perps who are driving his stolen rental Pontiac, and the Trans Am ends up blown in half with dynamite, then returned to the airport on a trailer. The driver of said GMC truck and trailer combination, Harold McQueen (no relation), received the title of the first car used in filming, and for the following decades planned to fix the now-ruined car, but never got around to it. Instead, the 1,300-mile Pontiac wreck sat on a farm for nearly 40 years, until Harold decided to sell it to an enthusiast. There's studio documentation proving the car's pedigree, and stunt modifications can be seen in the Pontiac's floor and dash. While it's obviously in dreadful condition, the car remained more intact than the other stunt car the film crew blew up even more spectacularly — that car ended up as the pile of parts in the airport scene, and those bits and pieces were eventually dropped off at a junkyard after a Pontiac dealer refused them. McQueen did also drive a 1951 Chevrolet in the film, and kept that yellow convertible after filming was wrapped up. Sadly, he was diagnosed with cancer just a month later, after reportedly being in poor health during the shooting, and passed away in December 1980. The yellow Chevy stayed with his estate for some years, later getting restored and auctioned. Right now, it's not clear what the Trans Am's fate will be. The car's current owner, Calvin Riggs from Carlyle Motors in Katy, Texas, wants to know more about the Trans Am and the film shoot: His post on Hemmings includes a lot of information, but more would be useful. Related Video:

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...

Question of the Day: Most degraded car name?

When Ford came up with a not-so-sporty version of the Pinto and slapped Mustang badges on it in 1974, that was a low point for the Mustang name. When Chrysler applied the venerable Town & Country name on perfectly functional but unglamorous minivans, it saddened many of us. But perhaps the biggest demotion for a once-proud model came when, in 1988, General Motors imported a misery-enhancing Daewoo from Korea and called it the Pontiac LeMans. The original Pontiac LeMans was a great-looking midsize car with fairly advanced (for the time) suspension design and engine options including potent V8s and a screaming overhead-cam straight-six. The Daewoo-based Pontiac LeMans was a cramped, shoddy hooptie that served only to ruin the LeMans name forever, while stealing sales from the Suzuki-based Chevrolet Sprint. Sure, using the once-respected Monterey name on the Mercurized Ford Freestar was bad, but Mercury didn't have long to live at that point. I say the downward spiral of the LeMans name was the most agonizing in automotive history. What do you think? Related Video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. Auto News Ford Mercury Pontiac Automotive History Classics questions ford pinto names