Call Ronny At 318-629-1269 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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

Junkyard Gem: 1987 Pontiac Firebird

From 1967 through 2002, the Pontiac Division offered the Firebird, close sibling to the Chevrolet Camaro. By the third generation, which debuted for the 1982 model year, it became more difficult to tell the two F-body cars apart at a glance and the Pontiac-exclusive engines of the earlier years disappeared, but the Firebird still retained its own personality and its own position in the GM marketing hierarchy. I still find the occasional 1982-1992 Camaro as I search car graveyards for interesting stuff, but the corresponding Firebirds have become scarce in recent years. Here's a base-engine-equipped '87, its Bright Red paint (yes, that was the official name for the color) faded by the Colorado sun as it awaits the crusher. Firebird shoppers had their choice of three engines in 1987: A 5.7-liter Chevy V8 (210 hp), a 5.0-liter Chevy V8 (205 hp) and the same 2.8-liter 60° V6 that went into the Fiero and countless front-drive GM sedans (135 hp). This car has the base engine. The third-gen F-body didn't weigh much (3,105 pounds for the '87 with six-banger, about what a 2020 Corolla weighs), so 135 horses was tolerable. Plenty of these cars got T-5 5-speed manual transmissions, but this one got the two-pedal setup. Camaro wheels, of course. Our Friend the Carburetor didn't disappear from new cars until the early 1990s in the United States, though electronic fuel injection had become very commonplace by 1987. Still, GM considered this car's EFI worth a door-handle brag. It's not worth fixing up a mashed six-cylinder third-gen Firebird, so we can see the route this car took to its final parking space. This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. When you're about to be beaten to a pulp by catcalling, Olds-driving thugs, run to the Firebird! This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings. So much big hair in these late-1980s Pontiac ads! Featured Gallery Junked 1987 Pontiac Firebird View 24 Photos Auto News Pontiac Automotive History Coupe Firebird pontiac firebird Junkyard Gems

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...