84 1LE

iTrader: (9)

....according to this article, screw them.
http://jalopnik.com/what-was-the-mos...ion-1741470000

mantaguy

iTrader: (5)

I agree, the article itself is USELESS.That is one Beautiful Car

BrutalGTA

iTrader: (2)

I read that today too! Did you see all the really bad special editions in the comments??

92g92

I saw that today. I frequent Jalopnik quite often, as I do believe it is a site full of truly passion car guys who are into all sorts of vehicles. It's weird then, that while they constantly have highly rated and viewed articles on high horsepower vehicles (the hot one right now being the new Shelby GT350) as well as 1990's JDM's (*** they never shut up about RX-7's) and absolutely blow the E30 M3 like they're getting paid to do it, they do nothing but rag on any American car built between 1974 and about 2010, and only a few outside that year range are spared.


They also never shut up about specific outputs because "power to weight is the most important thing". Okay, great. So that makes the E30 M3 (pretty much the most "Jalop" car of all time) just fine power wise in their heads, all 190 some odd horsepower of it. But the real thing they love about their "gift from God car" is the feel. What it does to the driver, the emotions it elicits and the way it brings about a sensation of a man being one with machine, feeling every quiver of the car and undulation of the road. How it makes them FEEL. And yet, a 1970 Corvette Stingray is a pile of American garbage, even though just the look of the car makes most men weak in the knees, much less the sound, feel, and nostalgia of the thing. And God forbid you mention an American car of the "malaise era", which to them our cars fall under. The see the 1990's as a renaissance of the JDM sports car, but can't see the 1980 as the renaissance of the American performance car, even though the performance figures were right on par. Our cars are just as iconic and powerful and fun and emotional and beautiful (more so) as their precious RX-7's and 300ZX's and Eclipses and ***ed E30 M3, and yet they get torn to shreds in every iteration on that site.


This is what grinds my gears about those asshats sometimes, the massive hypocrisy on that site. I swear on my life, they would prefer a 40hp, manual transmission, manual steering, manual brakes, 1000lb car that sounds like a coffee grinder, rocking 115 sized rubber on all four corners over a snarling, loud, orgasm inducing torque fest of a razor honed vehicle every damned time, because "the feels" and "the purity" and "the connection to the road" and "I'd rather drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow". Well ya know what? Drive a fast car fast and see if you ever go back to your econobox, which because it has a manual is SOOOO much better than an automatic thirdgen Camaro.


These articles cater exactly to these kinds of people, as they should as it is their audience.


Rant done, I've had that bottled up for awhile. Tired of viewing that site every day and seeing every car I like get torn to shreds.

AmorgetRS

iTrader: (6)

How is the Notchback considered a limited edition? It was a style exercise that just didn't catch on so they didn't offer it a second year. As I recall early sales media had it being available for the 89 model year.

okfoz

I pointed out to the author that the Notchback was not only a cosmetic change but it was an attempt to reduce weight. Remember in 1987 that you could not buy (in the US) a 350 powered GTA or Trans Am with the Subwoofer, the rear shade or T-tops. Although you could not get them with the Notchback either, the subwoofer had been dropped, the rear shade was NA with the notchback (what would be the point) and T-tops were still off the list of options.
When you have a government that dings your customer $4000 for a gas-guzzler tax, you try to stay away from that. A Notchback that might cost a couple of hundred dollars would be far more palatable than paying the extra $4000 tax.
By 1989 GM was able to get the TPI engine more fuel efficient, as evidenced by the addition of T-tops to any engine for that one year.

I can only conclude that the Notchback was not solely an attempt to change the cosmetics of the car.

DynoDave43

iTrader: (11)

Never had any use for that site.

RedLeader289

iTrader: (2)

I think their wrong to label it a limited edition as it was never marketed that way, as you all have said.


However. . .I've always thought notchbacks looked ugly though, I'd prefer the regular hatch. I understand what GM was trying to do though.

okfoz

It may not have been labeled it as a "Limited Edition" by GM but it ended up being an edition that was only limited to 700 or so examples. Which by definition would categorize it as a limited production run thing.

With that said and reading 92g92's post it seems that Jalopnik is a site that is dedicated to Japanese cars and anything outside of the realm is junk... I personally do not frequent sites like that, I have seen them, but I have no use for ignorance.

JT

iTrader: (1)

I have never really thought of the Notchback as a "Limited Edition". To me, those are the cheap tricks used by some dealerships to make a car seem better than it is to make a sale or something that is limited in production up front. Like releasing 500 copies. Also, the Notchbacks aren't numbered (7 of 718, etc.)

I don't think GM planned to only release 718 Notchbacks in 1988. The early 1988 Pontiac product book notes that all 1988 GTAs would have the Notchback lid to help distinguish the GTA line. That didn't happen.

okfoz

I can see your point. I never considered it a "Limited Production" thing only either. From what you posted, ALL GTA's were to get the hatch, so it was not intended to be limited to only a few hundred. Kind of like calling the paddle mirrors on some 87 GTA's a Limited Production. Either People did not like it or there was supply issues, or whatever...

JT

iTrader: (1)

In 1988 all GTAs will come standard with a "Notchback" style hatch module. This visual change helps set the GTA apart from the other Firebirds and its competitors.

This was 4/87 print: