I came to the conclusion that I don't see cars as products, but just something to build upon.
Here's the thought exercise: You can have any GM ever made, within the following constraints: It will never be garage- or ever parking garage-kept, it must have more than two seats, it must have a wheelbase shorter than 100" (so no trucks), and it must have wheels no larger than 14" in diameter (because huge wheels on small cars suck).
Rolling with these constraints, I came to the heady conclusion that the only GM that I'd find remotely acceptable would be a Chevette. Swap in a 3.4 drivetrain from an early 4th-gen F-body - heck, even the torque arm might be made to work right! - some suspension bits cobbled from Fiero parts here, maybe see what Euro-model rally bits can be adapted to our Brazilian-bastard version of the car...
Ah, now the door slams shut: Car must remain 100% stock.
Well, screw that.
On even further thought, though, I can't think of a single car that I would enjoy at all in its completely stock form. Either it'd be too impractical to be enjoyable, or it'd be to mad blinggzz-y0 with huge wheels and general large fatness, or it'd be a turd.
Your wheelbase constraint pretty much ruins everything, except..... Aveo!
Get to know your GM's better.
The V8 Sunbird, or Monza (with 350 power) was a pretty cool car at the time, even completely stock.
Can't believe I forgot about Opel. I fail.
RoosterSauce wrote:
Your wheelbase constraint pretty much ruins everything, except..... Aveo!
+1.
Although with a quick Google search, supposedly the 3rd and 4th gen F-body is only 101" wheelbase.......... 
Close enough for government work. 
Brian
The 100" limit was specifically called in to eliminate F-bodies. 
I dislike them for the same reason I don't like FC RX-7s: way too wide and too low. I'm tall and thin, not short and fat.
I forgot about the Monza and its ilk. Then again, I don't recall ever having seen one before, either.
After some searching, yes, I agree.
With either V6.
The 2+2 just looks ass-ugly to me, sorry.
(And I haven't forgotten Certain Homologation Specials but they'd break the "left outside 24/365" requirement)
Eliminating the F-body just makes the rest of the lineup forgettable rust. 
Knurled wrote:
The 100" limit was specifically called in to eliminate F-bodies. I dislike them for the same reason I don't like FC RX-7s: way too wide and too low. I'm tall and thin, not short and fat.
Then clearly you have never driven a Corvette, if you want to talk low and wide. F-bodies aren't that wide, by a wide margin, in comparison.
Ranger50 wrote:
Then clearly you have never driven a Corvette, if you want to talk low and wide. F-bodies aren't that wide, by a wide margin, in comparison.
I've probably driven more Corvettes than F-bodies at this point, admittedly mostly C4s and C5s. (I refuse to drive C3s. Absolute pigs, they are)
I really do not like any generation of F-body. I wouldn't mind a '69 Firebird if I could have a statue, but I wouldn't enjoy driving it. 2nd-gen cars are fat heavy turds that rust a lot. 3rd-gen cars are slightly less fat but still too heavy turds that rust a lot. 4th-gen cars are fat heavy turds that rust a lot... but they make up for it with the worst interior ergonomics ever.
For what it's worth, I am starting to not like my FB RX-7 because it's just too damned heavy and wide. I can barely touch the passenger window with my fingers! I might tolerate it if only it weighed closer to 2000lb than 2600lb... but it doesn't. A Series 1 it ain't.
a 75 Monza with a 350 backed by a 4 speed is a fun car that meets the criteria. only available in California when new, tho.
but really, this whole thought experiment is faulty because stock cars are just a starting point for most people that hang out on car boards. it wouldn't take too much effort to make that 140hp 350 into a 400hp 350 without giving up any fuel economy or driveability with an afternoon of bolting on parts. better front brakes and 5 lug wheels merely requires Gbody/S truck front spindles and 2wd S10 rear axles and brake drums.
as for later model GM cars that fit the criteria- i once almost got a 94 Cavalier with a 3.1 Z24 backed by a 5 speed. that was one quick and nimble little car. plus, it was silver and black- the best color combo ever put on anything. it's only downfall was the fugly wheels GM put on it.
Man, you set some tough constraints. Left stock? You keed, no? Tell me you keed, pleeeze?
GM hasn't built much that's fun to drive stock, IMHO...and I don't see that changing while the Chinese hold the pursestrings...
Claff
New Reader
11/20/10 3:19 a.m.
If I'm going to be forced to be miserable driving a box-stock GM product, I'm gonna blow right through the 100" wheelbase limitation and get a '95 Fleetwood Brougham. If you can't have fun while driving you might as well be comfortable.
The 14" wheel requirement pretty much rules out any sort of modern performance-oriented GM car; 15" wheels seem to be the starting point at the smallest. So you've pretty much written your requirements to make it an older car. With that in mind, I'd say...
A Corvair!
Oops, that rides on a 108" wheelbase. That 100" wheelbase requirement rules out a lot of things. All of these cars have more than a 100" wheelbase - and, for that matter, have a longer wheelbase than F-bodies.
- Acheiva SCX (103")
- Citation X-11 (104")
- Cavalier (just over 101")
IIRC, the Isuzu Impulse Turbo came with 15" wheels; it is arguably a GM product, but the wheels mean it's definitely out.
If you want to go newer than 1980 and were sold in the US market, you've pared your choices down to these:
- Metro / Sprint
- Saturn SC (didn't the SC2 have 15" wheels?)
- Chevette
- Aveo
- Corolla-based Nova
- Geo / Chevy Tracker
I guess the Tracker wins by default.
Big ego
SuperDork
11/20/10 8:17 a.m.
can I check the none of the above column?
Good luck finding good tires for 14s.
You are being slightly rediculous. Its all about the Regal T-Type.
.JPG)
