Our Cars--1990 Pontiac Firefly
Never heard of the Firefly? It was the Pontiac version of the Suzuki-built, three-cylinder-engined Chevrolet Sprint, sold only in Canada.
Strictly speaking, it was my parents' car. But by the time we sold the Firefly in 1998, there was no doubt who'd racked up the most miles on it. I learned to drive on my parents' other car--a 1984 Plymouth Reliant wagon with fake wood panelling on the sides--before moving over to the Firefly when I'd figured out how to drive a five-speed. I'm not sure whether it was a step up, down or sideways.
The Firefly only had 55 horsepower and never even came with a radio (my father installed the AM radio he'd salvaged from his old 1972 Datsun 510!), but it was my first car, for all intents and purposes, and I loved it. I took that thing on some long road trips around Newfoundland, and squeezed a dozen people into it on more than one occasion.
The three-cylinder powerplant suffered a cracked engine block a couple of years after purchase, but the whole thing was replaced under warranty. Aside from that, the thing was indestructible. The guy who bought it worked not far from me, and I saw it for quite a long time after it left our house. I hope it served him as well as it did me.
The top photo is the Firefly; the second photo is of the old Reliant. I just threw it in to show how geeky it was. That said, it was the car on which I learned to drive, so I guess that counts for something.
--Damian Penny
Chris Hafner on March 26, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Two notes here, one on the name, one on the car.
Name: I've always thought Pontiac Firefly was a cool name. In junior high I used to plan out the model range I'd debut once I took over GM*, and one car that was always on the list was a compact turbocharged sports car or hot hatchback (I'd always go back and forth) in the Pontiac line called the Firefly. The name must have oozed into my subconscious at some point, because when I found out later there actually *was* a Pontiac Firefly in Canada, I was both gratified and a bit disappointed.
* I used to update my plan every six months or so during junior high, high school, and college. Since that took a fair amount of work, it did my grades no particular favors.
Car: I've always had a soft spot for the Swift and Sprint. The previous generation Sprint Turbo will get the Car Lust treatment here at some point. But this generation had its charms as well, one of them being completely flabbergasting fuel economy.
A college buddy of mine had a Suzuki Swift in which he installed a stereo system worth roughly twice the value of the car. The power of that system combined with the tiny interior dimensions made for a pretty intense experience. I'm guessing I lost roughly half of my hearing inside the Swifty.
I don't believe we had anything other than three-door variants in the States; was the five-door specific to Canada?
Chris Hafner on March 26, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Oh, and did the Reliant actually tow that camper? I can imagine that camper might be a pretty heavy load for the 2.2-liter four-cylinder and the Chrysler three-speed auto.
Mochi Mochi on March 26, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Not that it's going to surprise anyone, but I want to go on record as being strongly in favor of small cars with less than 60hp engines. A sufficiently light vehicle does not require much more power to get the job done. And honestly the lessons you learn about how to carry speed through a curve can be really valuable. Put some sticky tires on, pop in some good shocks, sway bars, and a set of Brembo or Ferodo brake pads... Oh ! I forgot this is not supposed to be about racing or speed... well um. From experience you can have a lot of high speed fun in a car with a small engine and not too much power. But aside from that tiny cars are just plain good. The firefly - love the name - is a great little car. We need more small cars. We need fun and tiny cars.
My "first" car was the inherited family wagon - the 1966 Falcon with a 289V8. It was a great car. It was my first car. It will always have a special place in my heart.
David Drucker on March 26, 2008 at 12:17 PM
I can vouch for the 2.2-liter's surprising towing ability. For two years my buddies and I used an '84 Plymouth Voyager 2.2 automatic to haul a 4,000+ pound trailer from upstate NY to Daytona Beach and back for Bike Week. In '92, we made it both ways; in '93 we only got as far as Hackensack on the way back. Still, given that the trailer outweighed the van, it wasn't a bad showing!
Steaming Pile on March 26, 2008 at 12:38 PM
@Mochi - Gee, you'd think Sears or somebody would have figured out how to sell tiny high mileage/low HP cars to Americans by now. Not everybody needs to haul a bigass trailer or a whole baseball team. Most of the time you just need a basic beater (with a decent radio) to go to work in and not have to pump $80-$100 worth of gas into it every week.
Like Chris mentioned yesterday with his V6 Honda, they can make cars with more power than Burt Reynolds' Trans Am from Smokey And The Bandit and still get 30+ MPG on the highway. Why can't they make the same cars with only "adequate" power that get 50 MPG, besides that they don't want to?
Chris Hafner on March 26, 2008 at 01:17 PM
Steaming Pile: "Why can't they make the same cars with only "adequate" power that get 50 MPG, besides that they don't want to?"
At leat part of the problem is weight. Some of it is mandatory weight, some of it is optional.
- More and more cars are platform sharing now - since the platforms are often shared between bigger and smaller cars, the smaller cars weigh more than they need to.
- Steadily increasing crash-worthiness requirements keep adding structural weight.
- Chassis rigidity has become a bit of an arms race between manufacturers; car magazines comment on it, and it's a big factor in perceived quality issues such as squeaks, rattles, and cowl shake. People like rigid cars, and rigid cars tend to be heavier.
- Similarly, fewer automakers sell stripper cars nowadays. Even base models tend to make standard, or at least offer, nice-ish stereos, thick carpet, A/C, power everything, and beefier suspension and brakes than in the past.
I've always thought there would be a market for both a small and a large basic car - stripped down, no computers, dog-simple for easy maintenance and cheap parts. Just cheap, rugged transportation. Think VW Beetle and Citroen 2CV for the small cars, or a stripper '75 Impala for the large car.
I'd still love to see it, but it might be too late. More and more stringent regulations for safety, emissions, etc. would prevent something quite as simple as those cars.
Cookie the Dog's Owner on March 26, 2008 at 01:20 PM
The one problem with trying to make a light, low-powered, low-priced car these days is the higher crash-safety standards, especially the mandatory airbags. Airbags add weight and complexity and cost, and I'm not at all convinced they have any practical safety value over and above a good set of seatbelts.
Mochi Mochi on March 26, 2008 at 03:02 PM
I'm glad we are having this discussion. It's very informative, as honestly I've been a little out of touch with the trends of contemporary auto news and regulations. Think of me as a motorhead who for some odd reason was frozen for a few years and now has suddenly been reanimated - that's what grad school and a busy work life can do to you.
Cookie the Dog's Owner: re-airbags "I'm not at all convinced they have any practical safety value over and above a good set of seat belts."
Airbags were implemented in cars because people just would not wear their seat belts. The 80's were full of some odd inventions to get seat belts automatically on people. I agree with your questioning of air bags. I'm sure they do help under certain conditions - side impact being one of them. Brain injuries for side impact are much worse than head-on impacts. But my preference would be a solid set of belts with an option for a safety harness and roll cage. Seriously I want this..
Chris: re - shared platforms.
Makes sense, but they are all still too big.
Chris: re - "I've always thought there would be a market for both a small and a large basic car... Think VW Beetle and Citroen 2CV for the small cars, or a stripper '75 Impala for the large car."
You get my vote. And that of a number of my friends. Accessory bloat is really not appreciated. I know a ton of people who want hand crank windows - and consider them a safety issue - yet hard to find today.
I'm not going to attempt to get into my wish for a return to a smaller lighter universe. I know it's out there. I think they call in Japan and Europe, and sometimes Canada.
But there is another answer. Just buy used cars and old cars. Buy them before you need them if you can. Fix them up. Strip them down. Buy them knowing you are going to need to put a few bucks into them. Want a stiffer chassis, brace it up, drop in a cage and a harness. if safety is a huge concern. You see these things in jeeps all the time.
A few days ago Rob the SVX guy talked about over production and over consumption. I agree with him. I also think that for those out there who want something special the lure of a used car with some level of customization is not only ecologically greener (if a car can be green) but it offers quirky interesting cars to quirky interesting people.
Oatworm on March 27, 2008 at 12:05 AM
You want to know what killed the "stripper" car? Transferable warranties. Think about it for a sec - you have $10,000. You can...
1. Buy a brand new stripped down Kia/Aveo/whatever with a warranty that, depending on the manufacturer, will last between 5-10 years...
OR...
2. Buy a two year old car that's full sized, has most every option you could want, plenty of power, and still has a good 3-8 years left on the warranty, depending on the manufacturer.
Guess what? Most people are going to go with #2, and why not? A two year old car these days is just getting broken in. You get more power, you get more space, you get all the fancy, shiny options, you get the exact same financing package, the leftovers on the warranty are almost identical to what you would've received on a new car 5-10 years ago... well, you get the idea. Why settle for the stripped down model anymore?
Steaming Pile on March 27, 2008 at 07:25 AM
Window cranks? I think the base Toyota Yaris has those.
As for structural requirements making cars heavier, for most of the 80's there was still this requirement for 5 MPH bumpers. Most of the time, these took the form of a big piece of iron on either end of the car with shocks mounted behind them that would absorb the impact. I actually liked those; I got rear-ended while driving a '86 Dodge Omni once. It was quite a jolt, but when I got out of the car to assess the damage, amazingly there wasn't any.
Later, this requirement got downgraded to 3 MPH, and nowadays you have "why bother" bumpers that are basically plastic covered Styrofoam (think bicycle helmet) painted the same color as the car, even on base models. Just look at them wrong, and you have scratches, dings, gouges, you name it. This is the part of the car that takes by far the most abuse, yet it is the weakest part of the car's body and the most expensive to fix. A body mechanic's dream come true. At least the Firefly pictured above has a sturdier black plastic where the most abuse happens.
My guess is, sooner or later they're going to figure out how to meet structural requirements while saving weight at the same time. They have to; gas costs $3.50 a gallon, and the better mousetrap is going to win. I can dream, right?
Anthony Cagle on March 27, 2008 at 08:26 AM
"sooner or later they're going to figure out how to meet structural requirements while saving weight at the same time. "
They can do that now. But then cost becomes an issue. "They" can do virtually anything now, for a price.
Anthony Cagle on March 27, 2008 at 08:26 AM
"sooner or later they're going to figure out how to meet structural requirements while saving weight at the same time. "
They can do that now. But then cost becomes an issue. "They" can do virtually anything now, for a price.
Sigivald on April 02, 2008 at 03:32 PM
Ah, memories of my '89 Metro.
Good car, for what it was.
Indeed, 55hp in 1,700 pounds is zippier than the 77hp in 3,500 that my '76 300D has.