Chevrolet Speed

[dwightlooi]

Chevrolet Speed -- a Car GM Should Build

The Chevy Speed is a mid-engined, RWD, 2-seat sports coupe built on the aluminum monocoque μ (“Myu”) Platform. The vehicle features scissor doors and a very low slung styling with wheels pushed out to the extreme corners. Power comes from a turbocharged 3-cylinder engine developed from the High Feature V6 family. Combined with a low curb weight of 2,500 lbs and a highway fuel economy rating of 42 mpg, the Speed is marketed as a trendy, agile sports car for the New Generation.

Standard Features ($22,950)

• Power Locks / Windows / Mirrors / Remote Entry

• Halogen Projector Headlights with Amber Fog Lights

• ABS Brakes / Stability Control / Traction Control (all user defeatable)

• Manual Climate Control

• Fabric Upholstery

• 4-way manually Adjustable Bucket Seats

• 4-Speaker AM / FM / CD Stereo

• 5-year 100,000 miles warranty

• Cast Aluminum Alloy Wheels

• Goodyear Eagle GT Tires

• No Power Steering

Premium Equipment Package ($3,950)

• HID Projector Headlights with Amber Fog Lights

• Touch Screen GPS Nav

• Electronic Climate Control

• Rain Sensing Wipers

• Auto-dimming rear/side mirrors

• Magnetorheologic shocks (Comfort / Sport / Auto modes)

• Helical Limited Slip Differential

• 5-speaker BOSE AM / FM / Satelite Stereo w/iPod Integration

• Leather and Suede Upholstery with 6-way manually adjustable Recaro Buckets w/ Seat Heaters

• Lightweight Forged Aluminum Alloy Wheels

• Michelin Pilot Super Sport Tires

• No Power Steering

Manual Transmission Package (no cost)

• Getrag F28/6 6-speed Manual Transmission

Body / Chassis

• Configuration: 2-seat Hardtop Coupe; Transverse Mid-Engine, Rear-Drive

• Curb Weight: 2,495 lbs (2,550 lbs with Premium Equipment Package)

• Construction: Aluminum Monocoque with composite & steel body panels

• Wheel base: 100”

• Length x Width x Height: 155” x 67” x 46”

• Suspension: Macpherson Struts (Front), Chapman Struts (Rear)

• Brakes: Brembo 4-piston floating calipers; 12.3” x 1.1” vented discs

• Wheels: Cast or Forged Aluminum Alloy Wheels; 17” x 7” (Front), 17” x 8.5” (Rear)

• Tires: Goodyear Eagle GT or Michelin Pilot Super Sport; 215/45 R17 (Front); 245/40 R17 (Rear)

Engine

• RPO Code: LFS

• Type: 1.6 liter Inline-3 w/ balance shaft

• Construction: Aluminum Block & Heads

• Valvetrain: Chain Driven DOHC-12v w/ Intake & Exhaust VVT

• Bore x Stroke: 89 mm x 85.6 mm

• Displacement: 1598 cc

• Compression Ratio: 10.7 : 1

• Aspiration: Turbocharged and Intercooled; Honeywell-Garrett MGT2052 Turbocharger @ 11.8 psi

• 210 bhp @ 6200 rpm

• 178 lb-ft @ 2200 ~ 6200 rpm

• Redline @ 6200 rpm / Rev limit @ 7000 rpm

• 91 Octane Recommended (87 Octane Required)

• Transmissions: Hydramatic 6T45 6-speed Automatic (Standard); Getrag F28/6 6-speed Manual (No Cost Option)

Performance Estimates

• 0-60 mph: 5.5 secs

• 60-0 mph: 108 ft

• Skidpad Roadholding: 1.02 G

• Fuel Economy: 30 / 42 mpg

Edited April 17, 2011 by dwightlooi

[hyperv6]

How many units would they sell per year and how much profit would the see per unit. Then how many years could this be sold with no major updates and still sell in profitable numbers. Who is the target market for this car?

2 seat cars have a limited market add mid engine to it and it becomes even more limited. This make it all the harder to keep in production at a low price. Most sports cars are limited volume and they make it up with higher prices. Through out history there have been few low price sports car and even less that last more than 5-7 years. Even the very good ones have a limited life. This was pointed out to me by a GM marketing manager that loves sports cars Alfa owner and even had a wife involved in the Corvette program.

Don't get me wrong as what you have down is a modern day Fiero for the most part and I like it all but the 3 cylinder. A 4 cylinder Turbo would be much better for marketing and public preception. You and I know a 3 can be done well but the unwashed public think differently. Too much Geo flashback here.

The long and short of this is I feel it is better to term this as a car I would love to see GM build someday but not one that they really should build right now.

Note that this perspective from being a mid engine sports car owner for going on 26 years now. I have see a lot of them come and go over the years and the 2 seater line is one of the most difficult to do at a low cost and make it last.

I am going pass on voting here as I like the idea but don't feel GM should do this kind of car right now. There is too many other things they need and should do before they play with a car like this. Once they get their ducks in a row then lets revisit this.

Note too the more parts this car could share the better the odds you could make a buisness case for it. It is nice to dream about cars like this but to be realistic you have to make a real world buisness case for them. Even the Solstice was a difficult one to get pass even with the heavy Lutz support.

Note a front engine car with 50/50 balance would handle just as well and could provide a better trunk that would appeal to more females. They hate to pack for a trip in Hefty Bags. They would account for a large sales target group and should be considered. This has been key to the Miata sales for many years and has kept the car alive. Also the lack of power steering would kill you in this demo. Yes I know it would not be that heavy but in a parking lot a female will diagree with you.

There are a lot more thing to consider than engine numbers and options.

[smk4565]

Sounds like a Fiero, so no, bad idea. And you have to have power steering, and I doubt a car with an aluminum chassis could be sold in the $20s. Cadillac can't even use aluminum at their price point.

[balthazar]

sounds like a miata. mazda somehow managed to move over 400,000 units over 8 years with relatively no updates. 2nd gen is running on 13 years currently, and tho sales have not matched the early car's, there seems to be a real market there. 30/42 mpg is going to pull in some buyers who'd rather not be stuck in a pedestrian penalty pod. Still, not sure this is where the money should go right now...

[dwightlooi]

A trend we see with 2-seat sports coupes is that each subsequent generation sell worse and worse compared to the previous. Part of the reason, I believe, is that they get more and more sophisticated and expensive. The profile of a customer for a car like is a young person in his 20s. A young person in his twenties really can't afford 30, 40, 50 thousand dollar cars. So the first priority is to keep the entry price under $25K, preferably closer to $20K.

You also need to load up with differentiating characteristics to broaden the appeal. Here we put forth two... When is the last time you can buy a car with Lamborgini style scissor doors for $23,000? And, when has a car with a 5.5 sec 0-60 time even been able to deliver 42 mpg? Here we are able to do both. Scissor doors are fancy, but they are not really expensive -- beyond the cost of a pair pair of gas struts it's just a door. 42 mpg is made possible by the 2500 lbs weight of the vehicle and a 3-cylinder powerplant with (relatively high compression). A three cylinder power plant has less frictional elements and surfaces than a 4-cylinder of equivalent displacement, the combination of relatively low boost with modestly high revolutions makes possible higher than typical compression ratios (for a turbo engine).

The appeal of such a car is five fold...

• It's fast... pretty darn fast
  
• It really handles... 2,500 lbs, really fat tires, low polar moments
  
• It's really cool... it looks like a McLaren
  
• It's Efficient, 42 MPG is practically Hybrid Teritory
  
• It's cheap... you can buy one for the price of a loaded Cruze LTZ
  

And, no, it's not a Fiero... more like an AW11 MR2, except it's a lot faster and a lot cooler.

Edited April 17, 2011 by dwightlooi

[Satty]

By the time the imaginary engine and platform are a reality, $23k will be the average price of a new subcompact.

[regfootball]

lmao, before i even saw your post, the first thing i said, "how many will they sell"

Love the concept. the market is just so programmed these days though

How many units would they sell per year and how much profit would the see per unit. Then how many years could this be sold with no major updates and still sell in profitable numbers. Who is the target market for this car?

2 seat cars have a limited market add mid engine to it and it becomes even more limited. This make it all the harder to keep in production at a low price. Most sports cars are limited volume and they make it up with higher prices. Through out history there have been few low price sports car and even less that last more than 5-7 years. Even the very good ones have a limited life. This was pointed out to me by a GM marketing manager that loves sports cars Alfa owner and even had a wife involved in the Corvette program.

Don't get me wrong as what you have down is a modern day Fiero for the most part and I like it all but the 3 cylinder. A 4 cylinder Turbo would be much better for marketing and public preception. You and I know a 3 can be done well but the unwashed public think differently. Too much Geo flashback here.

The long and short of this is I feel it is better to term this as a car I would love to see GM build someday but not one that they really should build right now.

Note that this perspective from being a mid engine sports car owner for going on 26 years now. I have see a lot of them come and go over the years and the 2 seater line is one of the most difficult to do at a low cost and make it last.

I am going pass on voting here as I like the idea but don't feel GM should do this kind of car right now. There is too many other things they need and should do before they play with a car like this. Once they get their ducks in a row then lets revisit this.

Note too the more parts this car could share the better the odds you could make a buisness case for it. It is nice to dream about cars like this but to be realistic you have to make a real world buisness case for them. Even the Solstice was a difficult one to get pass even with the heavy Lutz support.

Note a front engine car with 50/50 balance would handle just as well and could provide a better trunk that would appeal to more females. They hate to pack for a trip in Hefty Bags. They would account for a large sales target group and should be considered. This has been key to the Miata sales for many years and has kept the car alive. Also the lack of power steering would kill you in this demo. Yes I know it would not be that heavy but in a parking lot a female will diagree with you.

There are a lot more thing to consider than engine numbers and options.

[PurdueGuy]

Sounds like a Fiero, so no, bad idea.

What is bad about the Fiero that isn't easily addressed in a new design?

[dwightlooi]

Sounds like a Fiero, so no, bad idea.

What is bad about the Fiero that isn't easily addressed in a new design?

Weight, generally lousy handling, uninspiring power train... I had owned both a 1988 Supercharged AW11 MR2 and a 1985 Fiero GT 2.8 V6. It's night an day. The MR2's transmission and shifter was nearly perfect, suspension is tight and balance is superb (good enough to do a controlled slide around a corner with two fingers on the steering wheel). The Fiero feel lose and scary decelerating onto an off-ramp at 60 mph. The shifter is notchy and imprecise. The car is also seriously underbraked and feels heavy both in transitions and when slowing down. The engine was actually smooth, quiet and the least objectionable part of the car.

The AW11 MR2 is a much better repesentation of the small, well-sorted-out, affordable, mid-engined sports car.

Funny thing is... I knew all that before I bought the Fiero. But I thought a composite bodied, V6 powered, mid-engine car with four exhaust pipes was kinda cool... so I bought it anyway. If four exhaust pipes could have that much effect on a 20-something year old yours truly, imagine what scissor doors would do.

Edited April 17, 2011 by dwightlooi

[ocnblu]

Dwight, it sounds like a recipe for ice. I'd love to see it.

[hyperv6]

sounds like a miata. mazda somehow managed to move over 400,000 units over 8 years with relatively no updates. 2nd gen is running on 13 years currently, and tho sales have not matched the early car's, there seems to be a real market there. 30/42 mpg is going to pull in some buyers who'd rather not be stuck in a pedestrian penalty pod. Still, not sure this is where the money should go right now...

Those numbers are wrold wide. THe US market averages right around 18,000 units over the time. The Miata is the rare acception in the 2 seat class. It has a little for everyone and with it being sold world wide it helps justify the buisness end.

There is a market for this kind of car and Mazda has the formula to own it. To take it away from Mazda would be diffcult and near impossible with midengine.

[hyperv6]

Sounds like a Fiero, so no, bad idea.

What is bad about the Fiero that isn't easily addressed in a new design?

Weight, generally lousy handling, uninspiring power train... I had owned both a 1988 Supercharged AW11 MR2 and a 1985 Fiero GT 2.8 V6. It's night an day. The MR2's transmission and shifter was nearly perfect, suspension is tight and balance is superb (good enough to do a controlled slide around a corner with two fingers on the steering wheel). The Fiero feel lose and scary decelerating onto an off-ramp at 60 mph. The shifter is notchy and imprecise. The car is also seriously underbraked and feels heavy both in transitions and when slowing down. The engine was actually smooth, quiet and the least objectionable part of the car.

The AW11 MR2 is a much better repesentation of the small, well-sorted-out, affordable, mid-engined sports car.

Funny thing is... I knew all that before I bought the Fiero. But I thought a composite bodied, V6 powered, mid-engine car with four exhaust pipes was kinda cool... so I bought it anyway. If four exhaust pipes could have that much effect on a 20-something year old yours truly, imagine what scissor doors would do.

The Fiero had a lot of flaws just based on how it had to be built. When most at GM worked hard to stop the car it really effected the money that was put into the program. For the most the 1988 was suspension that Pontiac wanted in the first place. The engines were not what they wanted either but were all they were offered.

Weight was fine at 2600 pounds for a cast iron V6 and would have been better with the engines they really wanted. For the most it was just lucky to have been built and even stay around for 5 years it lived. Today there are still some in GM that will not speak openly about the car due to the internal fighting.

Note much on the car can be addressed easy. Mine is a very good handling car due to the addition of a 1.25 inch rear bar and a 1 inch front bar with solid rear bushings. It is amazing that just a few simple things thanks to Herb Adams could make it all work so much better.

But even the MR2 was short lived and died twice. Even if the Fiero had been done right I don't think it would have made 10 years. The fact is mid engine cars are great for very low volume exotic cars but make for poor selling low priced sports cars as once the people who buy one get theirs the market drys up fast.

It also did not help as Pontiac over sold the Fiero in the first two years. But I think they knew going in they were not going to last. Also the killing of the FWD F body program left a large planr with only a low volume sports car that gave them the final excuse for the ememies to kill the car. There was so much wrong with the Fiero program and what happened that it could make a very interesting book. It would give a good idea of how disfunctional GM was internally even in the 80's.

[Satty]

The Miata has something other cheap roadsters have lacked: a trunk.

[dwightlooi]

Sounds like a Fiero, so no, bad idea.

What is bad about the Fiero that isn't easily addressed in a new design?

Weight, generally lousy handling, uninspiring power train... I had owned both a 1988 Supercharged AW11 MR2 and a 1985 Fiero GT 2.8 V6. It's night an day. The MR2's transmission and shifter was nearly perfect, suspension is tight and balance is superb (good enough to do a controlled slide around a corner with two fingers on the steering wheel). The Fiero feel lose and scary decelerating onto an off-ramp at 60 mph. The shifter is notchy and imprecise. The car is also seriously underbraked and feels heavy both in transitions and when slowing down. The engine was actually smooth, quiet and the least objectionable part of the car.

The AW11 MR2 is a much better repesentation of the small, well-sorted-out, affordable, mid-engined sports car.

Funny thing is... I knew all that before I bought the Fiero. But I thought a composite bodied, V6 powered, mid-engine car with four exhaust pipes was kinda cool... so I bought it anyway. If four exhaust pipes could have that much effect on a 20-something year old yours truly, imagine what scissor doors would do.

The Fiero had a lot of flaws just based on how it had to be built. When most at GM worked hard to stop the car it really effected the money that was put into the program. For the most the 1988 was suspension that Pontiac wanted in the first place. The engines were not what they wanted either but were all they were offered.

Weight was fine at 2600 pounds for a cast iron V6 and would have been better with the engines they really wanted. For the most it was just lucky to have been built and even stay around for 5 years it lived. Today there are still some in GM that will not speak openly about the car due to the internal fighting.

Note much on the car can be addressed easy. Mine is a very good handling car due to the addition of a 1.25 inch rear bar and a 1 inch front bar with solid rear bushings. It is amazing that just a few simple things thanks to Herb Adams could make it all work so much better.

But even the MR2 was short lived and died twice. Even if the Fiero had been done right I don't think it would have made 10 years. The fact is mid engine cars are great for very low volume exotic cars but make for poor selling low priced sports cars as once the people who buy one get theirs the market drys up fast.

It also did not help as Pontiac over sold the Fiero in the first two years. But I think they knew going in they were not going to last. Also the killing of the FWD F body program left a large planr with only a low volume sports car that gave them the final excuse for the ememies to kill the car. There was so much wrong with the Fiero program and what happened that it could make a very interesting book. It would give a good idea of how disfunctional GM was internally even in the 80's.

One thing I did like about the Fiero was the engine compartment lid. Its simple, one piece design covering both the trunk and the engine bay is a better idea than the MR2's. Firstly, the spring loaded lid pops up conveniently and offers lots of working space (for a mid-engined car). And, then of course, it forces you to look at the engine every time you access the trunk which is actually decently sized.

The Suspension though is horrendous... feels like the camber and toes are all wrong (an unadjustable), feels lose, imprecise and unstable. The steering too felt lose -- almost like the ball joints have 1/4 an inch of play even though I replaced the bushings (albiet with stock ones). The Brakes are also really, really bad. Again, imprecise, unprogressive and underpowered. The car, while small, felt big as a result. You are always looking for more room on the road while driving that thing -- run off room, braking room, room to recover from an unintended slide.

I didn't do much to the car. Somehow, I felt like it was a lost cause and did only the necessary maintenance. I did try to tame it with sticker tires in the back.

[PurdueGuy]

dwightlooi, you apparently missed the second part of my statement:

What is bad about the Fiero that isn't easily addressed in a new design?

Handling, weight, drivetrain offerings, would all be addressed in a new design, and aren't inherent issues with the mid-engine RWD layout. Considering how good GM's recent turbo 4's have been, and how much work they've put into suspension of recent SS vehicles, I would think they would at least get the handling and drivetrain pretty darn good. Weight could be an issue, simply because of all the safety equipment that is now standard on vehicles, and making up for that weight by using large amounts of special materials could easily drive the price beyond what would work for this kind of vehicle.

[hyperv6]

Sounds like a Fiero, so no, bad idea.

What is bad about the Fiero that isn't easily addressed in a new design?

Weight, generally lousy handling, uninspiring power train... I had owned both a 1988 Supercharged AW11 MR2 and a 1985 Fiero GT 2.8 V6. It's night an day. The MR2's transmission and shifter was nearly perfect, suspension is tight and balance is superb (good enough to do a controlled slide around a corner with two fingers on the steering wheel). The Fiero feel lose and scary decelerating onto an off-ramp at 60 mph. The shifter is notchy and imprecise. The car is also seriously underbraked and feels heavy both in transitions and when slowing down. The engine was actually smooth, quiet and the least objectionable part of the car.

The AW11 MR2 is a much better repesentation of the small, well-sorted-out, affordable, mid-engined sports car.

Funny thing is... I knew all that before I bought the Fiero. But I thought a composite bodied, V6 powered, mid-engine car with four exhaust pipes was kinda cool... so I bought it anyway. If four exhaust pipes could have that much effect on a 20-something year old yours truly, imagine what scissor doors would do.

The Fiero had a lot of flaws just based on how it had to be built. When most at GM worked hard to stop the car it really effected the money that was put into the program. For the most the 1988 was suspension that Pontiac wanted in the first place. The engines were not what they wanted either but were all they were offered.

Weight was fine at 2600 pounds for a cast iron V6 and would have been better with the engines they really wanted. For the most it was just lucky to have been built and even stay around for 5 years it lived. Today there are still some in GM that will not speak openly about the car due to the internal fighting.

Note much on the car can be addressed easy. Mine is a very good handling car due to the addition of a 1.25 inch rear bar and a 1 inch front bar with solid rear bushings. It is amazing that just a few simple things thanks to Herb Adams could make it all work so much better.

But even the MR2 was short lived and died twice. Even if the Fiero had been done right I don't think it would have made 10 years. The fact is mid engine cars are great for very low volume exotic cars but make for poor selling low priced sports cars as once the people who buy one get theirs the market drys up fast.

It also did not help as Pontiac over sold the Fiero in the first two years. But I think they knew going in they were not going to last. Also the killing of the FWD F body program left a large planr with only a low volume sports car that gave them the final excuse for the ememies to kill the car. There was so much wrong with the Fiero program and what happened that it could make a very interesting book. It would give a good idea of how disfunctional GM was internally even in the 80's.

One thing I did like about the Fiero was the engine compartment lid. Its simple, one piece design covering both the trunk and the engine bay is a better idea than the MR2's. Firstly, the spring loaded lid pops up conveniently and offers lots of working space (for a mid-engined car). And, then of course, it forces you to look at the engine every time you access the trunk which is actually decently sized.

The Suspension though is horrendous... feels like the camber and toes are all wrong (an unadjustable), feels lose, imprecise and unstable. The steering too felt lose -- almost like the ball joints have 1/4 an inch of play even though I replaced the bushings (albiet with stock ones). The Brakes are also really, really bad. Again, imprecise, unprogressive and underpowered. The car, while small, felt big as a result. You are always looking for more room on the road while driving that thing -- run off room, braking room, room to recover from an unintended slide.

I didn't do much to the car. Somehow, I felt like it was a lost cause and did only the necessary maintenance. I did try to tame it with sticker tires in the back.

What was wrong with the Fiero suspension was the rear for one had no rear sway bar till 1988. The A body FWD unit was mostly used but they left the bar off. Too many at GM remembered the oversteer issues from the Corvair and no one was brave enough to take the change. The rear contol arms were also mounted with rubber bushings that deflected this in turn would change the toe in with the tie rods tied off. So in effect every time the control arm hit a bump it deflected and changed the toe in the rear. This gave the car a major bump steer issue on anything but smooth roads.

Note all of this was changed on the 88 with the new suspension. It had no deflection and handled great. GM designed the suspension and Porsche Engineering was called in to help tune the front scrub radius.

If you never drove a 1988 Fiero you would have no idea how much better it is.

As for looking at the engine in the Fiero that was not a bad thing as it was one of the best dressed GM engine in history....at least the V6 was. The real issue was heat in the trunk. I can tell you that you don't want to carry anything that heat would damage in the trunk. On long trips in the summer it get pretty warm in there.

I do have the rare factory fitted soft luggage GM offered for the Fiero for mine. It helped make it so you could take a trip but few people knew of it and less ever purchased it.

Note my 85 V6 with the Herb Adams changes handles much like the 1988. The large bar did a lot to make the car neutral and the solid bushing while a race item removes the bump steer. Note my steering is still a little heavy as I never addressed it. Note that the Fiero stock had so much understeer it was crazy. It really takes the 1.25 inch bar to fix it. The neat thing is Adams used the stock holes in the A body contol arms to mount the bar.

The Crawford Museum in Cleveland had a preproduction Fiero that I got to play around with. In the trunk it has several sway bars that GM had used and the tires with only a few hundred miles has a lot of side wear. GM was looking into doing the bar and should have. This car was proof they wanted it but someone pulled the plug.

[hyperv6]

dwightlooi, you apparently missed the second part of my statement:

What is bad about the Fiero that isn't easily addressed in a new design?

Handling, weight, drivetrain offerings, would all be addressed in a new design, and aren't inherent issues with the mid-engine RWD layout. Considering how good GM's recent turbo 4's have been, and how much work they've put into suspension of recent SS vehicles, I would think they would at least get the handling and drivetrain pretty darn good. Weight could be an issue, simply because of all the safety equipment that is now standard on vehicles, and making up for that weight by using large amounts of special materials could easily drive the price beyond what would work for this kind of vehicle.

My V6 Fiero comes in at 2600 pounds and if it were built today it would be a little heavier. Engine weight would come down but sub stucture would be more for crash testing and the added equipment would also add weight. I agree to remove weight would cost alot of money as the material to do it would not come cheap.

Note if GM were to do one today I would love the LNF 2.0 Turbo in the car. The only real issue would be heat as I have friends with Turbo V6 Fiero's and the heat takes a toll on the engine and electronics. Little air in the engine compartment is a problem vs a front engine car.

The only way to do a cheap sports car today is to keep it simple.

The only real advantage to mid engine anymore is aerodynamics. You can place the driver lower in the car. If the weight is 50/50 it works just as well. The car has no idea where the engine is just the weight.

If anything the engine in back often has created drop trottle oversteer. I have had this happen to me in the Fiero. You have to be quick enough to understand you need to get back on the gas to pull it in like a 911. People who don't know this spin out.

[dwightlooi]

The only real advantage to mid engine anymore is aerodynamics. You can place the driver lower in the car. If the weight is 50/50 it works just as well. The car has no idea where the engine is just the weight.

Actually, where the engine is makes a notable difference. Take ruler and tape two same sized lead weights near each end. Rotate it about the middle. Now move the weights equidistant close to center and rotate it. You'll notice that while the total weights are identical and balance about the center point are also identical, the setup where the weights are closer to the center of the ruler rotated with a lot less effort. That's polar moments. Even when two objects weigh exactly the same and center of gravity is exactly the same, the one whose dense material is concentrated near the center is more easily rotated than the one whose dense material is spread out near its rim.

Low polar moments is a unique advantage of the MR layout.

[hyperv6]

The only real advantage to mid engine anymore is aerodynamics. You can place the driver lower in the car. If the weight is 50/50 it works just as well. The car has no idea where the engine is just the weight.

Actually, where the engine is makes a notable difference. Take ruler and tape two same sized lead weights near each end. Rotate it about the middle. Now move the weights equidistant close to center and rotate it. You'll notice that while the total weights are identical and balance about the center point are also identical, the setup where the weights are closer to the center of the ruler rotated with a lot less effort. That's polar moments. Even when two objects weigh exactly the same and center of gravity is exactly the same, the one whose dense material is concentrated near the center is more easily rotated than the one whose dense material is spread out near its rim.

Low polar moments is a unique advantage of the MR layout.

That is true to a point but in the case of the Fiero wight placment was not the real issue. The facted the stock 84-87 suspension could not deal with it.

If you compare the reviews of the 88 Fiero to the non turbo MR2 the suspension put them on equal terms.

Your polar movement thing is more for cars like the 911 where they hang most the weight out back. These cars have Drop Throttle oversteer because of the polar movmeent not the must the poor suspension.

This has been an argument for years on the two different schools of thought. Mid engine makes sense but on the other hand there are some really great front mid engine layout beating some really good rear mid engine cars.

As one race designer said the advantage with the mid set up any more is the ability to keep the driver lower in the car. The rest mostly comes down to how you set the car up to deal with the balance. Tuning is what makes it all work.

The real avantage is the MR2 got the suspension tuned correct right out of the box where Pontiac failed to tame the car. A well tuned car should be able to be drive fast easily. The Fiero can be driven fast but not very easily. Many other Fiero owners get mad at me because I will not say the Fiero is a great handling car. Their problem is they never drove a great handling car before. I may be a Fiero owner but I don't have rose colored glasses on.

If GM had just gone with the 3 link rear suspension in 1984 there would have been little to complain about suspension wise. The Iron Duke in the car is another long GM story.

[dwightlooi]

That is true to a point but in the case of the Fiero wight placment was not the real issue. The facted the stock 84-87 suspension could not deal with it.

If you compare the reviews of the 88 Fiero to the non turbo MR2 the suspension put them on equal terms.

Your polar movement thing is more for cars like the 911 where they hang most the weight out back. These cars have Drop Throttle oversteer because of the polar movmeent not the must the poor suspension.

This has been an argument for years on the two different schools of thought. Mid engine makes sense but on the other hand there are some really great front mid engine layout beating some really good rear mid engine cars.

As one race designer said the advantage with the mid set up any more is the ability to keep the driver lower in the car. The rest mostly comes down to how you set the car up to deal with the balance. Tuning is what makes it all work.

The real avantage is the MR2 got the suspension tuned correct right out of the box where Pontiac failed to tame the car. A well tuned car should be able to be drive fast easily. The Fiero can be driven fast but not very easily. Many other Fiero owners get mad at me because I will not say the Fiero is a great handling car. Their problem is they never drove a great handling car before. I may be a Fiero owner but I don't have rose colored glasses on.

If GM had just gone with the 3 link rear suspension in 1984 there would have been little to complain about suspension wise. The Iron Duke in the car is another long GM story.

The Fiero is also not that fast. A GT gets to 60 mph in about 8.5 secs. A Supercharged AW11 MR2 gets there in 7 secs flat. Not that much difference in power 140 hp vs 145 hp, not that much difference in weight either ~2800 lbs vs ~2600 lbs -- not enough to account for 1.5 secs. What really hurt was that 4-speed Manual which was difficult to drive fast. That and the relatively lethargic response of the engine.