I have the base model of the 1991 Pontiac firebird convertible with a v6. The ragtop was apart of the 1500 and Everything is original and cherry, is it rare? If so is it worth a lot?
Beautiful car. I mean, in those days it seemed a bit too crazy of a shape. But compared with today's cars caricatures, this Trans Am is prenaturally beautiful.
They titled this segment, "Ageless Wonder." To be honest they were predicting the future there because that statement is so true. This will alway sbe a beautiful car I think. It's just such an timeless design and in the same vein of the Mclaren F1 and Dodge Viper GTS in my book. I prefer the T-Top version and Formula trim to this but still. Now it's quite obvious that it could do more as far as build quality and power from the motor but the body is a work of art.
Hey y'all remember the 90s when everything was pretty okay and you know women were like nice to you and not all crazy and we had cool cars yeah I miss those days
Probably could have knocked 1.5 seconds off the acceleration times had they figured out how to launch it without blowing the tires off. Looked good walking sideways though. 😉
For whatever reason, Motorweek testdrivers are notoriously crappy at launching cars. They always manage to add about a full second to most vehicles 0-60 times, esp. when they attempt to use a manual tran.
It might of had a 2.73 or 3.08 rear gear as well. Most 3rd Gen F-body Pontiacs had that Australian built 9-bolt rear end. Maybe that's the reason they added a HO version of the 305 V8 that made 230hp because 205 just wasn't getting it done. Either way I love the F-body cars.
@@BDBBailey Wrong. The real “H.O.” 305 was the L69, produced from 1983-1986 for the F-body. The LB9 was never referred to as an “H.O.” The MXO equipped LB9 cars were equipped with the peanut cam. The MM5 equipped LB9s and G92 spec/N10 cars used the L98 cam.
For a 28 year old car it was fast for its time... Motor Week times are usually slow most road tests in 91 had TAs running mid 15s , it had roughly 300 lbs of torque. They should get a new track or better drivers lol.
So pretty. And the lack of power means you can really get every bit of enjoyment out of the rest of the car. Also that dash is so cool. One of the things i miss about sporting vehicles is the 'long' gauge clusters, where you practically need a co driver to monitor the other things.
@@jkeelsnc Theres something to be said about american cars from this era. Not as fast as german cars, or as sharp to corner, but every bit as enjoyable and liveable.
@@dragonbuttcomfort was prioritized over absolute precision handling. Just part of the American driving heritage when you consider the long stretches of flat long roads/highways in much of the country. Topography and demographics
OMG! That car ran 16's in the quarter!!! Man, it felt SO much faster back then. Today's Camaro's are super cars by comparison. Too bad we don't have Trans Am's any more. 😪
Flossie tube, You're right, the car runs low to mid 15s.They were testing on a hot day and those Chevy 305s seemed to have a heat soak problem.Driving them hard when the outside temp was anything above 70-75 degrees out you had to turn on your heater full blast to bring down the engine temp.
I never bought a Firebird, but I did test drive a few Iroc-Z's back in the day and the thing I remember most is how incredibly poor the front vision on the car is. I currently have an 82 Corvette, which I think has an even longer front hood, but somehow you can just see everything better. Anywho I always wanted a Firebird GTA, still do.
@@Stephen-br6il yeah people keep calling my Formula 350 a Trans Am. The guy I bought her from had her repainted and didn't put the decals back on. She's a 89 jet black with ttops.
@@Stephen-br6il not going to lie, until I rediscovered my love for all things Pontiac this year, I had no idea the Firebird Formula even existed. And I still remember the 2002 models for my childhood, I guess I just thought everything was a Trans Am! LOL.
I owned one of these for 20 years. Fun ride and sharp looking. Performance was awful because the chassis was a wet noodle. The extra bracing did not do much for stiffness once the original top was cutoff in California to make a convertible. Not sure what the commentators were talking about when they said no body flex 😂 you could not latch the top unless you were parked on a flat surface. GM engineers knew this hence no 5.7L engine option like the regular GTA. I sold mine with 50k miles on it and occasionally miss it.
Interesting.. Every T/A I've ever worked on from 89 on had 4 wheel discs. Apparently, Pontiac was doing things a bit differently in the engine compartment as well, as apart from the base V6, 1 could get the 5.0 TBI in both manual and automatic, 2 versions of the 5.0 TPI, including the rare 1LE 235hp version, and the 245hp 5.7 mated to the 4 speed auto only. Though the video didn't say the car tested had ALL of the top available items offered, what it did have was kind of an enigma. WS6 suspension and tire group, but rear drum brakes, mid of the group 5.0 TPI but mated to the std 5 speed, not the HO version, or the 5.7. I like the sudo Banshee styling.
I think that one may be a bit off speed wise or the chassis bracing was more than 100 lbs. This one is a TPI engine so it will make loads or torque and GM had to keep the power down on the manual transmission cars because the transmission wasn't rated for anything higher. That's why the 350CI F body's had the auto. The TPI Vette by this time had the ZF 6 speed rated higher. Still an old F body with a tired engine is a great excuse for an unbelievable build since 383 strokers drop in and are very inexpensive.
I've seen a few comments about reliability. I've had 5 3rd gen Trans ams and 4 4th gen trans ams. All were extremely reliable. I currently drive a 96 ws6 that I've put 40k miles on with no problems. Most people's problems are self inflicted due to stupidity.
My uncle had one of these back in the day. While the horsepower really isn't that much it felt really fast back in the day. There were no other really fast cars back then. The mustang was only slightly faster. The main thing is that it was a really fun car to drive. A V8+manual+convertible will always be a fun combination. You want to talk about slow cars, my wife had a 1982 mustang, back then the 5.0 was only putting out 130 horsepower, so by that standard they had come a long way. No wonder the 4th generation was such an amazing car in 1993. 275 horsepower was quite a bit
Damn nice car. I had a beautiful 1992 white Formula. It may have been slow as a boat with its 305 TBI and automatic but was still a very nice car. I always dug the gauge layout.
The 89 Turbo Trans Am was the shit. Back then it was a scalded dog compared to other cars. Turbo 3.8 that ran its ass off. It was underrated and bs ing the insurance hp. They were some very cool cars to own but rare and high dollar for an old used car.
Everybody likes to give Ford credit for ushering in the "aerodynamic" era back in the 80's, ie getting rid of the sharp edge boxy styling. I think Pontiac was the real innovator here with the 1982 Trans Am, it had a very sleek, revolutionary look. And it wasn't just a look, the coefficient of drag was .29 on certain models, which even today is impressive. Alas, the convertible in the test video shows that you need to know how to work the option sheet on GM cars to get a good one. The L98 350 TPI/Automatic combo would have dropped about 2 seconds off the quarter mile et.
@@jkeelsnc Ah yes, the '87 Bonneville. Lovely car, it really caught my attention when I saw the episode of Motorweek featuring the car. I really like the formal roofline and amber turn signals out front, the classic mixed with the new age. Pontiac was always forward-thinking. Oddly enough, I have yet to see one in person, and I don't even remember them from growing up with 80s 90s and 00s GM cars, here in the Ohio Valley. Grand Am, Grand Prix, Firebird/Trans Am, Sunfish, Sunbird, Aztek, but no '87 Bonnie. A shame. Gosh, I miss Pontiac.
I loved these. I especially loved them when they were next to me while I was in my 1991 Grand AM with the 2.3 Quad-4 HO LG0 & 5-speed Getrag. Pontiac made a nice little V8-killer, and as a 16 year old in that car, I sure made all that I could out of it.
On the third gens it was the suspension and brake package, not like the 4th gen where it was a standalone model. The sub frame braces are added to the droptop 3rd gens for rigidity. The WS6 cars had bigger front sway bars, stiffer springs and shocks and a 9 bolt Borg Warner limited slip rear (3.45). Those rears only came with discs, no drums, especially in the 91/92 model years.
I had a 90 5.7 WS-6..Thats the thing I remember most was the handling,the beefed up suspension & wide tires..it was quick, not fast..reasonable but behind the times acceleration..but it handled great..it stuck to the ground tight,great cornering & recovery..off ramps at 70 easy & comfortable.the first time I drove it the handling was the thing that struck me.
Wrong! On the early cars, that is correct. A drum equipped “WS6” car carried RPO WS7. However, toward the later part of the thirdgen run, WS6 was available without J65. My 91 CC1 Formula was an LB9/MM5 car, N10, WS6, and no J65....verified by the build sheet.
Insert standard teenage kid comment about low hp in regards to displacement, despite making 290 ft lbs of tq at likely 2000rpm, pretty much the same as a 3.2 Porsche that makes all its hp in 1500rpm of range over 6500, literally the same. I giggled at the big burnout off the line! Suprising the chassis is so stiff, must be lots of metal in there to make it non jiggly.
Yeah most of these kids here don't understand. I have a '91 GTA with the 350 L98 and 350 ft lbs of tq stock and that can rip out a mid to low 14sec quarter mile run and trap at about 100mph, Now that is the trans am you wanted and should have reviewed out of the '91 line up. If this 305 was burning out like that just imagine what the 350 would do.
I wish GM would have equipped the f-bodies with a 5.7 ltr, and a five speed. That would have been awesome! Love the retro firebirds, although I am kosher to a 1990 IROC-Z, red 5.7, T-Tops, and some 80's music in the tape deck...yes I said tape deck. #mygeneration
Thank you for finding and sharing more GM videos. I look forward to more. Do you have the 1985 Oldsmobile 98 and the 1987-1990 Oldsmobile 98 Touring Sedan ? There are others I would like to see.
Pretty much every car used to have a lot of ground clearance as there used to be a lot more unpaved roads around. Go look at muscle cars from the 70s, they sat even higher.
We all know you're 2014 Camry is faster, heck it's faster than 95% of the cheap sports car and muscle cars from before 1995. Yet your Camry is boring as hell.
firstmusic00 "But the Camry will start every day and does not require a mullet to drive." Ah, another person who bought into the "superior Toyota quality" myth.... GM cars are known for starting every day too. The mullet is optional, not mandatory. And the Camry's accelerator will stick every other day.... Several years ago, a neighbor of mine had so many problems with his new Tacoma that he threatened to pour gasoline all over it, set it on fire, and send it crashing into the dealership showroom if they couldnt fix it.
Thanks for all the great retro videos MotorWeek. If possible, could you could upload a retro review of an 88-90 Buick Electra Park Avenue or a 95-96 Oldsmobile 98?
Ya, these cars were definitely faster than what they ran here! And the only place anyone seen the back of these F bodies was on a road race track. Anywhere else they were always looking at the rear of mustangs!!!
my mom had a 91 taurus sho that was faster with a V6, and better on gas, and not much difference in weight lol...and those cast iron log exhaust manifolds held back a shit load of horsepower
This is sort of accurate. ASC was building these for Pontiac dealers a few years before this 1991... upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/20th_Anniversary_Turbo_TransAm_Convertible_august_2009_9,000_original_miles.png
This quarter mile time seem much slower than what I've seen for the 305 TPI 5 speed. They should be in the low 15s. Would the 100 additional pounds make it lose a second ?
Motorweek is always slow, generally because they drive the cars as people actually drive them - not doing burnouts for 10 minutes to heat up tires and going 100 takes to shave time off it. These are the results your standard guy off the street is going to get at a red light - and that's why they're almost always slower than everyone else.
0 to 60 in 7.8 seconds! WTH! Really? My 1988 White Formula T Top car ran 6.8 completely stock! I think you may have the numbers wrong, Tho I do understand that they re enforced the frames on the ASC convertibles making them a lot heavier but still... I wud imagine a time of 7.2 to 7.4...
Whoever is driving really sucked at launching a car off the line. Something typical of most MotorWeek tests from what I’ve seen watching these retro reviews. Their 0-60 times are always slower than other tests.
1993 Firebird? I think the uploader is a bit tired. At 0:45 John even says "all that changes for *1991* with the Firebird convertible." And obviously it's a 3rd gen, not 4th.
The L98 series of V8s were a failure. The Lt1 was good, with the LT4 being great. When the LS1 and Ls6 arrived. They were beating many cars costing two times the price of a trans am. I remember a Pontiac sales man telling me Lt1 corvettes were getting beat by ls1 trans ams. So guys were trading them in. Sad for GM to end a legend.
should have tested the 5.7, instead of the standard 5.0...the 350 put out 240hp and the optional 305 had 230hp...this was the base motor...the '91 5.7 ran mid to high 14's stock
Yep, I lived through those times as an early 20 something. From what we knew, and were told the manual trans used in the F-bodies wasn't designed to handle the 5.7's significant torque, it was rated for smaller V8s and V6s.
16.2s...what a dog. They should have stuck with the turbo V6 if they didn't have the guts to sell the 5.7 with the 6 speed from the Vette in the Fbodys. At least if it was geared well having 6 gears to pull through it may have had a prayer of hitting in the 14s.
"We could hardly detect hardly any structural difference between our Trans Am convertible and the hard top Firebird..." ...But how hard did they push it? Did the driver get an apex right *anywhere* on that road course? The one I could see clearly, he was so far out from the apex he could have mailed it a post card.
A lot of kinda butthurt older guys here. Im a bit older (36) and remember these old cars and how it was back then. These cars were pretty gutless. Thats just the truth. Family sedans now days can outpace our sports cars of then. Just how things go. It hurts. I have my old 1992 5.0 Mustang setting in my yard waiting to be built up, but its harder to compete now days. You cant just bolt on a decent HCI setup and blow the doors off everything. You might outpace a newer pickup with a decent set of heads/cam/and intake, but its iffy. The new Ford econo pickup has a supercharged v-6 with 300+ HP. Thats the small engine. Don't even get me started on cars. Jesus. My little stang needs rebuilt from the ground up with forced induction and N02 to keep up with stock hellcats. lol
Burt Sampson but what did a 1992 Toyota Previa do in 1992? About 0-60 in 12.0 seconds. Since we're comparing a 20 plus year old car to a Toyota of today! Now let's compare a 2014 Camaro SS to a 2014 Sienna? Not much to compare huh.
ricorob100 I was just commenting on how much quicker cars have become in the past 20 years or so. So much quicker that a minivan of today is faster than a muscle car from 20 years ago.
i agree, I have two of em. I love the style but they needed some gains in the hp area. Torque was good. It didnt take much effort to make it run well. 14s were right there but 13s were not difficult to obtain with little changes
The GTA was available with a 5-speed, but it's hard to find any for sale. I suspect the dealers must have kept automatics on the lot, and customers that wanted a 5-speed GTA had to order it.
![1991 Pontiac Firebird Convertible Test Drive Review [Collector Car Guru Seat of The Pants Videos]](/img/1.gif)
R.I.P Pontiac, you had such great looking cars like this Firebird.
This test car was actually pretty rare. Just 104 of these were made in a ragtop with the 5 speed. I wonder how many are left out there 30 years later?
Believe it or not, Firebirds hold their value. If its in good condition. Even 3rd gens.
I have the base model of the 1991 Pontiac firebird convertible with a v6. The ragtop was apart of the 1500 and Everything is original and cherry, is it rare? If so is it worth a lot?
Beautiful car. I mean, in those days it seemed a bit too crazy of a shape. But compared with today's cars caricatures, this Trans Am is prenaturally beautiful.
I was not quite a teen yet and thought it was pretty sleek and futuristic but always liked this style
I love Retro motor week lol
Still looks bad ass.
My favorite Firebird/Camaro Body style by far
Yep, 3rd gen F bodies for the win! Gorgeous cars!
@@hakeemsd70m third gen F bodies is my favorite of Camaro/Firebird
@@fernandorocha8459 It's easy to see why you love these cars as much as I do. KITT from Night Rider made the 82 Firebird even cooler!
They titled this segment, "Ageless Wonder." To be honest they were predicting the future there because that statement is so true. This will alway sbe a beautiful car I think. It's just such an timeless design and in the same vein of the Mclaren F1 and Dodge Viper GTS in my book. I prefer the T-Top version and Formula trim to this but still. Now it's quite obvious that it could do more as far as build quality and power from the motor but the body is a work of art.
Love that 82 to 92 Firebird body style.
It's my favorite of all four generations.
The '82 Firebird is the best looking one since the '67 to my eyes. Simply beautiful car.
@@backyardbuck6362 my generation favorite of Firebird and Camaro, best body style
Such a fantastic looking car!
Mark Byrge and the kids wishes they ever had something this hot
I remember when these were new. I still prefer T-tops but that is a good looking car! And such fun to drive
Hey y'all remember the 90s when everything was pretty okay and you know women were like nice to you and not all crazy and we had cool cars yeah I miss those days
Probably could have knocked 1.5 seconds off the acceleration times had they figured out how to launch it without blowing the tires off. Looked good walking sideways though. 😉
Thought the same. Has the same drive drain as the Formula version and those did mid 5 seconds. Thogth those are 100-200 pounds lighter.
For whatever reason, Motorweek testdrivers are notoriously crappy at launching cars. They always manage to add about a full second to most vehicles 0-60 times, esp. when they attempt to use a manual tran.
It might of had a 2.73 or 3.08 rear gear as well. Most 3rd Gen F-body Pontiacs had that Australian built 9-bolt rear end.
Maybe that's the reason they added a HO version of the 305 V8 that made 230hp because 205 just wasn't getting it done. Either way I love the F-body cars.
The HO version 305 came out in 1992 btw.
@@BDBBailey Wrong. The real “H.O.” 305 was the L69, produced from 1983-1986 for the F-body. The LB9 was never referred to as an “H.O.” The MXO equipped LB9 cars were equipped with the peanut cam. The MM5 equipped LB9s and G92 spec/N10 cars used the L98 cam.
For a 28 year old car it was fast for its time... Motor Week times are usually slow most road tests in 91 had TAs running mid 15s , it had roughly 300 lbs of torque. They should get a new track or better drivers lol.
Beautiful looking car
So pretty. And the lack of power means you can really get every bit of enjoyment out of the rest of the car.
Also that dash is so cool. One of the things i miss about sporting vehicles is the 'long' gauge clusters, where you practically need a co driver to monitor the other things.
@@jkeelsnc Theres something to be said about american cars from this era. Not as fast as german cars, or as sharp to corner, but every bit as enjoyable and liveable.
@@dragonbuttcomfort was prioritized over absolute precision handling. Just part of the American driving heritage when you consider the long stretches of flat long roads/highways in much of the country. Topography and demographics
@@jeremyb4493 And yet you had cars like this which genuinely handled well.
OMG! That car ran 16's in the quarter!!! Man, it felt SO much faster back then. Today's Camaro's are super cars by comparison. Too bad we don't have Trans Am's any more. 😪
Flossie tube, You're right, the car runs low to mid 15s.They were testing on a hot day and those Chevy 305s seemed to have a heat soak problem.Driving them hard when the outside temp was anything above 70-75 degrees out you had to turn on your heater full blast to bring down the engine temp.
ohhh sweet baby jesus i want that car!!!
Mr. Davis can really enunciate… Anyone ever noticed that? Great video though!
Wow is that a good looking car.
loves my 91 formula, if you never drove or owned one you wouldnt understand. yall can keep the kia optimas
Demetrius Barnes yep, just got an 88 t/a, gta..
I never bought a Firebird, but I did test drive a few Iroc-Z's back in the day and the thing I remember most is how incredibly poor the front vision on the car is. I currently have an 82 Corvette, which I think has an even longer front hood, but somehow you can just see everything better. Anywho I always wanted a Firebird GTA, still do.
Formulas are rare. I doubt many even know that Pontiac made a v8 alternative to the trans am.
@@Stephen-br6il yeah people keep calling my Formula 350 a Trans Am. The guy I bought her from had her repainted and didn't put the decals back on. She's a 89 jet black with ttops.
@@Stephen-br6il not going to lie, until I rediscovered my love for all things Pontiac this year, I had no idea the Firebird Formula even existed. And I still remember the 2002 models for my childhood, I guess I just thought everything was a Trans Am! LOL.
I owned one of these for 20 years. Fun ride and sharp looking. Performance was awful because the chassis was a wet noodle. The extra bracing did not do much for stiffness once the original top was cutoff in California to make a convertible.
Not sure what the commentators were talking about when they said no body flex 😂 you could not latch the top unless you were parked on a flat surface. GM engineers knew this hence no 5.7L engine option like the regular GTA.
I sold mine with 50k miles on it and occasionally miss it.
My dream car!!!!
Interesting.. Every T/A I've ever worked on from 89 on had 4 wheel discs. Apparently, Pontiac was doing things a bit differently in the engine compartment as well, as apart from the base V6, 1 could get the 5.0 TBI in both manual and automatic, 2 versions of the 5.0 TPI, including the rare 1LE 235hp version, and the 245hp 5.7 mated to the 4 speed auto only. Though the video didn't say the car tested had ALL of the top available items offered, what it did have was kind of an enigma. WS6 suspension and tire group, but rear drum brakes, mid of the group 5.0 TPI but mated to the std 5 speed, not the HO version, or the 5.7. I like the sudo Banshee styling.
I still think they are good lookn ride...
1991/92 are the best looking years for the Firebird
The Wheel hop at launch makes me laugh but was quite Nice at the Time and definitely better with the Manual Transmission
I think that one may be a bit off speed wise or the chassis bracing was more than 100 lbs. This one is a TPI engine so it will make loads or torque and GM had to keep the power down on the manual transmission cars because the transmission wasn't rated for anything higher. That's why the 350CI F body's had the auto. The TPI Vette by this time had the ZF 6 speed rated higher. Still an old F body with a tired engine is a great excuse for an unbelievable build since 383 strokers drop in and are very inexpensive.
I've seen a few comments about reliability. I've had 5 3rd gen Trans ams and 4 4th gen trans ams. All were extremely reliable. I currently drive a 96 ws6 that I've put 40k miles on with no problems. Most people's problems are self inflicted due to stupidity.
Take that Tokyo
My uncle had one of these back in the day. While the horsepower really isn't that much it felt really fast back in the day. There were no other really fast cars back then. The mustang was only slightly faster. The main thing is that it was a really fun car to drive. A V8+manual+convertible will always be a fun combination. You want to talk about slow cars, my wife had a 1982 mustang, back then the 5.0 was only putting out 130 horsepower, so by that standard they had come a long way. No wonder the 4th generation was such an amazing car in 1993. 275 horsepower was quite a bit
bring back that 2002 Firehawk WS6!!!
Damn nice car. I had a beautiful 1992 white Formula. It may have been slow as a boat with its 305 TBI and automatic but was still a very nice car. I always dug the gauge layout.
The 89 Turbo Trans Am was the shit. Back then it was a scalded dog compared to other cars. Turbo 3.8 that ran its ass off. It was underrated and bs ing the insurance hp. They were some very cool cars to own but rare and high dollar for an old used car.
That turn in is actually not bad.
cars now a days all look the same however older cars are all uniqe
They ran out of ideas also why they keep making movie remakes.
0-60 is actually 2 seconds faster than it was performed here. they added an extra 2 seconds to it by spinning the tires at launch....
Everybody likes to give Ford credit for ushering in the "aerodynamic" era back in the 80's, ie getting rid of the sharp edge boxy styling. I think Pontiac was the real innovator here with the 1982 Trans Am, it had a very sleek, revolutionary look. And it wasn't just a look, the coefficient of drag was .29 on certain models, which even today is impressive. Alas, the convertible in the test video shows that you need to know how to work the option sheet on GM cars to get a good one. The L98 350 TPI/Automatic combo would have dropped about 2 seconds off the quarter mile et.
@@jkeelsnc Best TV/movie car ever!!
@@jkeelsnc Ah yes, the '87 Bonneville. Lovely car, it really caught my attention when I saw the episode of Motorweek featuring the car. I really like the formal roofline and amber turn signals out front, the classic mixed with the new age. Pontiac was always forward-thinking. Oddly enough, I have yet to see one in person, and I don't even remember them from growing up with 80s 90s and 00s GM cars, here in the Ohio Valley. Grand Am, Grand Prix, Firebird/Trans Am, Sunfish, Sunbird, Aztek, but no '87 Bonnie. A shame. Gosh, I miss Pontiac.
I loved these. I especially loved them when they were next to me while I was in my 1991 Grand AM with the 2.3 Quad-4 HO LG0 & 5-speed Getrag. Pontiac made a nice little V8-killer, and as a 16 year old in that car, I sure made all that I could out of it.
Love it. But the intro sequence has the left and right channels reversed....weird phase issues when listening in stereo. Keep up the retro reviews!!!!
man i love this spec, the red with the beige ragtop is so nice imo
WS6 cars all came with 4 wheel disc, not rear drum.
On the third gens it was the suspension and brake package, not like the 4th gen where it was a standalone model. The sub frame braces are added to the droptop 3rd gens for rigidity. The WS6 cars had bigger front sway bars, stiffer springs and shocks and a 9 bolt Borg Warner limited slip rear (3.45). Those rears only came with discs, no drums, especially in the 91/92 model years.
I had a 90 5.7 WS-6..Thats the thing I remember most was the handling,the beefed up suspension & wide tires..it was quick, not fast..reasonable but behind the times acceleration..but it handled great..it stuck to the ground tight,great cornering & recovery..off ramps at 70 easy & comfortable.the first time I drove it the handling was the thing that struck me.
You are correct they were all "supposed" to but some came with rear drums due to shortages. Happened with the Z28 as well
Wrong! On the early cars, that is correct. A drum equipped “WS6” car carried RPO WS7. However, toward the later part of the thirdgen run, WS6 was available without J65. My 91 CC1 Formula was an LB9/MM5 car, N10, WS6, and no J65....verified by the build sheet.
Insert standard teenage kid comment about low hp in regards to displacement, despite making 290 ft lbs of tq at likely 2000rpm, pretty much the same as a 3.2 Porsche that makes all its hp in 1500rpm of range over 6500, literally the same. I giggled at the big burnout off the line! Suprising the chassis is so stiff, must be lots of metal in there to make it non jiggly.
Yeah most of these kids here don't understand. I have a '91 GTA with the 350 L98 and 350 ft lbs of tq stock and that can rip out a mid to low 14sec quarter mile run and trap at about 100mph, Now that is the trans am you wanted and should have reviewed out of the '91 line up. If this 305 was burning out like that just imagine what the 350 would do.
I wonder how many of those 305 cars were ordered with a manual trans? not many I bet!
Not many with the convertible...most were deff ordered as autos
the 350 of the era was auto only, so many.
the gta and regular trans am were slower than the 5.0. the big 5.0 was hard to beat in the late to very early 90s
The 5.7 would bust it though
Classic machinery.
Motorweek is made possible by Rock Aut... Tire Rack.
I wish GM would have equipped the f-bodies with a 5.7 ltr, and a five speed. That would have been awesome! Love the retro firebirds, although I am kosher to a 1990 IROC-Z, red 5.7, T-Tops, and some 80's music in the tape deck...yes I said tape deck. #mygeneration
ricorob100 the t-5s in them weren't ready for all that lol
Thank you for finding and sharing more GM videos. I look forward to more. Do you have the 1985 Oldsmobile 98 and the 1987-1990 Oldsmobile 98 Touring Sedan ? There are others I would like to see.
It's lighter than your new Camry, handles better, sounds better (reference 2:42) , and is much better looking
Most importantly it's not gay.
5:55 John: You'd better be tiny to try the backseat for more than a few miles! LOL
David Aubin memories of weed and naked chicks. Loved these cars
Love the 4x4 ground clearance.
Pretty much every car used to have a lot of ground clearance as there used to be a lot more unpaved roads around. Go look at muscle cars from the 70s, they sat even higher.
We all know you're 2014 Camry is faster, heck it's faster than 95% of the cheap sports car and muscle cars from before 1995.
Yet your Camry is boring as hell.
But the Camry will start every day and does not require a mullet to drive.
But it will kill you if you don't pray to the Emperor...
firstmusic00
Anonymous Actually I drive a Tacoma
firstmusic00
"But the Camry will start every day and does not require a mullet to drive."
Ah, another person who bought into the "superior Toyota quality" myth....
GM cars are known for starting every day too.
The mullet is optional, not mandatory.
And the Camry's accelerator will stick every other day....
Several years ago, a neighbor of mine had so many problems with his new Tacoma that he threatened to pour gasoline all over it, set it on fire, and send it crashing into the dealership showroom if they couldnt fix it.
Wow so good looking a car. Looks like it was created by Da Vinci - Work Of Art.
Thanks for all the great retro videos MotorWeek. If possible, could you could upload a retro review of an 88-90 Buick Electra Park Avenue or a 95-96 Oldsmobile 98?
Sure, it's 1990 or 1991, but that's the most 80s jacket ever...with the possible exception of those acid-washed denim ones.
Ya, these cars were definitely faster than what they ran here! And the only place anyone seen the back of these F bodies was on a road race track. Anywhere else they were always looking at the rear of mustangs!!!
If you watch closely, when they launch the car in a drag race, you can see the back of the flex quite a bit.
my mom had a 91 taurus sho that was faster with a V6, and better on gas, and not much difference in weight lol...and those cast iron log exhaust manifolds held back a shit load of horsepower
It's nice, but I prefer my T-tops. However I wish the T-top models were more rigid.
This is sort of accurate. ASC was building these for Pontiac dealers a few years before this 1991...
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/20th_Anniversary_Turbo_TransAm_Convertible_august_2009_9,000_original_miles.png
I owned a 1991 Formula L98. Miss that car...
not bad for 91
This quarter mile time seem much slower than what I've seen for the 305 TPI 5 speed. They should be in the low 15s.
Would the 100 additional pounds make it lose a second ?
Looks like it has an open diff. It's spinning on the line for the better part of a second.
Motorweek is always slow, generally because they drive the cars as people actually drive them - not doing burnouts for 10 minutes to heat up tires and going 100 takes to shave time off it. These are the results your standard guy off the street is going to get at a red light - and that's why they're almost always slower than everyone else.
Naw it's because they let the camera man drive it. 100 lbs would only add about 1/10 of a sec in the quarter mile.
It made sweet sounds.
0 to 60 in 7.8 seconds! WTH! Really? My 1988 White Formula T Top car ran 6.8 completely stock! I think you may have the numbers wrong, Tho I do understand that they re enforced the frames on the ASC convertibles making them a lot heavier but still... I wud imagine a time of 7.2 to 7.4...
Whoever is driving really sucked at launching a car off the line. Something typical of most MotorWeek tests from what I’ve seen watching these retro reviews. Their 0-60 times are always slower than other tests.
He sucked at the road course, too: Couldn't hit an apex. At least not while the camera was on him.
A diamond plate over night bag? Nice!!!!
I Highly Doubt That 0-60mph Time 7.8secs? Probably More Like 6.8secs and 15.2secs in the 1/4mile not the 16.2secs Time Motorweek Claimed...
1993 Firebird? I think the uploader is a bit tired. At 0:45 John even says "all that changes for *1991* with the Firebird convertible." And obviously it's a 3rd gen, not 4th.
The dark ages of the automotive world. Glad I survived it.
no the 1990's is golden age
The L98 series of V8s were a failure. The Lt1 was good, with the LT4 being great. When the LS1 and Ls6 arrived. They were beating many cars costing two times the price of a trans am. I remember a Pontiac sales man telling me Lt1 corvettes were getting beat by ls1 trans ams. So guys were trading them in. Sad for GM to end a legend.
should have tested the 5.7, instead of the standard 5.0...the 350 put out 240hp and the optional 305 had 230hp...this was the base motor...the '91 5.7 ran mid to high 14's stock
brian centi I thought that myself. Strange they used a 5.0, it was the mid range motor. I think the 3100 was base
No 5.7 came in convertibles. No 5.7 came with manual trans in the third gen either. Wierd times.
Yep, I lived through those times as an early 20 something. From what we knew, and were told the manual trans used in the F-bodies wasn't designed to handle the 5.7's significant torque, it was rated for smaller V8s and V6s.
I have an 85 trans am with a 350 on the borg warner t5. The 5.0 was about the decades before epa garbage.
That T5 won't last long behind a 350, that's why they never put it behind it at the factory.
"Take That Tokyo!" 😄
Yeah take that Tokyo!
Next retro review: 2002 Nissan Sentra SE-R spec V please
Robert McCann big question why? Pathetic slow rice burning shit. Sounded like a hamstermobile
It's RETRO reviews you fruit, nothing from the 2000s is retro.
this is definitely a 91-92 model not 93. please fix the title.
Bill Dunn im pretty sure its actually its a 93. as they changed the design 1 year late with the convertible.
RUclips crazy if it was a real 93 4th gen then it would've had the LT1 in it.
Bill Dunn again it was a year behind the coupe
Bill Dunn well they must have been correct, they changed the title to '91
Actually, it's F-bodies are a year behind 'Vettes in getting new engines...
TTop cars were quite sufficient and cool looking. I dont know why they made convertibles.
The Driver's haircut runs the 1/4mi in low 13's!
lol
before you say its the wrong year ( ...its a 91/92....)its a 93, the convertible got changed one year later than the coupe.
16.2s...what a dog. They should have stuck with the turbo V6 if they didn't have the guts to sell the 5.7 with the 6 speed from the Vette in the Fbodys. At least if it was geared well having 6 gears to pull through it may have had a prayer of hitting in the 14s.
5.0L/305" with twin cats and 5 speed manual was actually around 14.5 secs @ 95 MPH in the 1/4... in Hot Rod magazine tests...
I like the notchback roof line so much better
I WANT ONE FOR CHRISTMAS!!!!
I could never get past the register/vent cover looking hood venting on these ..
If it were me and I'd have known a close up of my shoes was coming @3:15.... I probably woulda worn something nicer! 😂
Great early 90s design cues . beautiful now as well!!
Hi motorweek, can you upload nissan maxima SE 1992 or 1993 videos, you are the best!!
this is a 91 model not a 93..typo..
One sexy car
Somebody pressed the 'C' button on that Firebird!
jeez jon levity really let himself go back there in the 90s..
not sure Lee Stewart jokes work on this channel here ...
1993 you say...
Take that Tokyo!!
"We could hardly detect hardly any structural difference between our Trans Am convertible and the hard top Firebird..."
...But how hard did they push it? Did the driver get an apex right *anywhere* on that road course?
The one I could see clearly, he was so far out from the apex he could have mailed it a post card.
I'd rather have the sunbird turbo or v6 for about the same price as the v6 firebird
A lot of kinda butthurt older guys here. Im a bit older (36) and remember these old cars and how it was back then. These cars were pretty gutless. Thats just the truth. Family sedans now days can outpace our sports cars of then. Just how things go. It hurts. I have my old 1992 5.0 Mustang setting in my yard waiting to be built up, but its harder to compete now days. You cant just bolt on a decent HCI setup and blow the doors off everything. You might outpace a newer pickup with a decent set of heads/cam/and intake, but its iffy. The new Ford econo pickup has a supercharged v-6 with 300+ HP. Thats the small engine. Don't even get me started on cars. Jesus. My little stang needs rebuilt from the ground up with forced induction and N02 to keep up with stock hellcats. lol
This "muscle car" would get beat by a 2014 Toyota Sienna minivan. What a world we now live in. It would still be a fun car to drive though.
rather drive it over a minivan
Burt Sampson but what did a 1992 Toyota Previa do in 1992? About 0-60 in 12.0 seconds. Since we're comparing a 20 plus year old car to a Toyota of today! Now let's compare a 2014 Camaro SS to a 2014 Sienna? Not much to compare huh.
ricorob100 I was just commenting on how much quicker cars have become in the past 20 years or so. So much quicker that a minivan of today is faster than a muscle car from 20 years ago.
i agree, I have two of em. I love the style but they needed some gains in the hp area. Torque was good. It didnt take much effort to make it run well. 14s were right there but 13s were not difficult to obtain with little changes
And of course the new cars have lighter weight and more power but not this awesome TA style!
Its a great looking car in need of a modern LS engine swap
A 2 inch drop in ride hight is needed in the worst way
Soooo you could get a convertible with a 5spd but the GTA was only available with a 4spd auto..........WTH Pontiac?
The GTA was available with a 5-speed, but it's hard to find any for sale. I suspect the dealers must have kept automatics on the lot, and customers that wanted a 5-speed GTA had to order it.
Ive heard if your early, MotorTrend might reply.
Ah crap wrong video.
it appears that it's too high off the ground