Talk:Pontiac Fiero

Untitled: Recall
It would be nice to have more detail on the recall issues of the car early on. From what I remember, the 4-cyl engine was from a Pontiac economy car, but when they shoehorned it in, it required a smaller-capacity oil pan. Since a lot of people also drive with an engine that's a quart or so low anyway, that meant the oil would be disastrously low. The recall added an external oil cooler that held another quart or so of oil.

There were also some spectacular engine fires in these cars, plus the fact that they were made from the Enduraflex plastic panels - nice for weight, but not as good when your car's on fire.

--165.254.107.2 16:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Engine fires
Engine fires occurred only in the 1984 4-cylinder Fieros as a result of improperly routed fuel lines and poor choice of fuel line material. The problem was corrected with an engineering design change and a manufacturer's recall, and didn't affect the series for the rest of its production run. The stuff about cheap connecting rods and borrowed parts is pure speculative hogwash, and probably doesn't belong in the article. --QuicksilverT @ 23:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My understanding, and I had a 1984 2M4 before buying a 1988 GT, is that many of the problems were created because the engine was designed to be mounted vertically in the (front) engine compartment of a vehile, but was instead mounted with the top of the engine inclined forward. This supposedly led to the dipstick being miscalibrated by a quart, so when the stick read "full" it was, in fact, a quart low.  It would be nice to get some verifiable information on the exact problem as this is the first I've heard that it was a fuel line problem. -- Tall Girl 01:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Engine fires did in fact mainly occur in the 1984 fiero's and it was in fact, at the factory's own admission due to failing connecting rods. A large percentage of the rods were weakened from improper construction, and some would break. That is why the Recall for that year included the engine rods being replaced.

http://www.internetautoguide.com/auto-recalls/67-int/1984/pontiac/fiero/base/ - Click the Second Recall, this is official

And yes, Fiero's also had low oil-level issues, which if unchecked would accelerate the breaking of the rods. It was due to the redesign of the engine with a lower oil capacity. XanthReturns 13:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Fiero was redesigned in 1987 and canceled the next year amidst the engine fire controversy. I realize this article is most likely being edited by Fiero fans, but it seems to give short-shrift to a major "notable" (as in, widely reported) issue with the car, that many people attributed to it being removed from the market. 71.134.228.37 (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

An additional problem leading to catastrophic engine fires in the 1984 models alone is related to the decklid design and installation of an open magnesium alloy grille directly over the engine and exhaust manifold, which allowed debris (like leaves) to accumulate and encourage fires to start around the exhaust and ignite hot oil that was often splashed or pooled around the valve cover of the Iron Duke (Tech4) engine as they had a natural tendency to leak oil or simply have some oil spilled during routine filling.

Unchecked fires and leaving the decklid closed to burn could lead to the magnesium grille being sufficiently heated to begin melting and then ignite in a far more intense fire than would otherwise be possible. Late 84 models appear to have a solid, covered decklid, but still include the grille underneath as a structural component. (I'm unsure if the alloy composition was changed from the original magnesium casting) Such catastrophic fires may also be related to Pontiac's initial mistaken diagnosis of the engine failure and fires in preproduction testing. (I have not seen documentation of such, but severe fires caused by molten magnesium would certainly explain some of the odd conclusions made where less severe damage should have made correct analysis quite simple)

Additionally, numerous GM products had similar casting flaws during this period, including connecting rods in other Iron Duke powered vehicles as well as the 2.8L V6 (used in the Fiero among many other GM products), however they tended to do so after much heavier abuse, higher mileage, and in less catastrophic fashion unrelated to engine seizure. A worn, stressed rod would tend to snap and subsequently puncture the oil pan, causing the oil to leak out while making very obvious noise and feedback to the driver, making further driving in such condition unlikely (if the engine was even capable of still running, it would eventually seize due to the lack of oil and then likely throw another rod, but such situations would be very unlikely). Additionally, with the oil draining from the punctured pan and not the block, oil would not directly flow onto the exhaust manifold and would simply drain onto the ground, avoiding conditions leading to a fire.

The vulnerable location of fuel lines (and use of flammable, non-metallic fuel line materials) and insufficiently heat shielded wiring harness added to the problems, but themselves were not major problems in starting fires, rather were more often involved in making fires more severe by providing fuel (wire insulation and/or fuel line material and then gasoline) and were also significant factors in turning minor oil fires (unrelated to the connecting rod failures, and simply related to accumulated engine oil and debris near the exhaust manifold) into disasters. Old or damaged spark plug wires are also capable of starting fires and are located directly over the exhaust manifold, but were not common causes of problems for new cars and are a much more common issue for old, particularly very high mileage vehicles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kool kitty89 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

"After Production"
Does this newly added section seem somewhat ad-like? It re-states facts from the top of the article about the formation of clubs and relative popularity, but it seems like the point is to mention the specific die cast model.

Regardless, it's better than nothing as a starting point to document merchandising and the kit car aftermarket. I'll try to expand somewhat on the latter this weekend. ChrisCostello 20:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

brief history
hey, was there ANY dohc i-4s being produced by GM at all during the fiero production run???RCHM 00:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There was one that ended up overlapping (barely) the time that the Fiero was in production: the GM Quad-4 engine. But I only think they were put into a few N-Cars at that time. I remember having one of those engines in an Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais. I had stopped being a field rep in 1988 and departed the company the following year.  75.166.45.226 (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

repeated spam
anyone able to ban the IPs that keep loading this article up with forum spam? Thanks, Stuph 03:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Fieros in the Media
Why are you keep deleting this section? There is nothing wrong with and every other cult car has section detailing where the vehicle is seen. After all, if you read the top of the article, it says "This article consists mostly of statistical data, and does not contain sufficient information about the subject. Please edit this page reduce the amount of statistics, and introduce more information about the subject." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.234.248.148 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * first off, you should not be putting the request to not delete in the main article. second, this is not the imcdb.com.  it weighs down the article and makes obscure references that do nothing to educate the public on the history of the car.  should I edit this article to include every fiero I see in my hometown?  Stuph 01:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is not solely about the history of the car. I see no reference that the page can only be about the history, it can be about anything about the Fiero. The information under the section contains well-known movies so Fiero fans know where to look to see their favorite car, not pay reference to every Fiero made. You were saying that you could include every Fiero in your hometown, so do you know any famous Fieros around your area? Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.5.62 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * until others weigh in on the issue, it will stay removed from the article. Stuph 03:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No it won't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.234.248.148 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have requested a third opinion Third_opinion on this issue, as recommended for conflict resolution. I welcome valid reasoning to maintain such a list.  (also, please sign your messages)  Stuph 01:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If it's worth a crap, I think it's a very useful section I actually liked seeing in the history. All you other losers that keep saying "this is not whatever spam site.com" can go to hell. I hope that section is added back... it IS relevant to this article - if it were talking about Explorers and Firebirds, THEN we'd have a problem! Meanwhile, bug off and let the section be. 69.227.85.16 10:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the section on famous fieros is useless but could be somewhat entertaining. However, I think this whole argument is petty and ridiculous.  How immature can you get? for god's sake suck it up!!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.201.16 (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
Though I don't have issue with the section in principle, the information inside it is unreferenced. It needs to be verifiable with reliable sources for it to be included. As an aside however, what's the point? I don't see what this adds to the article, and most of these references are trivial. Fagstein 04:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * thank you. now let's hope the unregistered user that keeps adding it, stops until it is either improved or severely edited to make relevant. Stuph 21:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced
Large parts of this article contain unreferenced statements that could be considered original research. If the article remains as such for longer than a week I'm going to start pruning it down considerably. Fagstein 04:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Untitled: Stroke
There are repeated references to the long-stroke design of the Iron Duke on this page which are WHOLLY inaccurate. The stroke of the engine is 3.0", tied with several engines for the second smallest stroke (with the 301 Pontiac, 302/283/265 Chev 2.8 V6 etc).

The shortest stroke GM (as far as I know) goes to Buick's 82-87 3.0 V6, a severely destroked relative of the 3.8 at 2.66" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.137.220 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Statistical, what?
by what standard is this 'mostly statistical?' what part is that flag even talking about?12.6.40.2 02:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

External links?
Would it be permitted to add links for technical info under an "external links" section, as in the MR2 article? Ajfiero 23:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Responses to other comments:
1. When the Fiero was in production, GM was producing an early version of the Oldsmobile-designed 2.3L Quad 4 which was a DOHC 4-cylinder engine. It was widely speculated to be offered in the Fiero in 1989 or 1990 if the car had not been cancelled.

2. The Fiero 2.5L 4-cylinder engine was mounted vertically in the engine bay, not inclined.

3. The fuel lines were not implicated as a initial cause of fires in the Fiero. It was mainly the connecting rods, and lesser suspicions of the valve-cover gasket, and the computer wiring harness was thought to be too close to the catalytic converter or exhaust manifold. Both of these hypothetical problems were addressed by the recall, even if they hadn't been proven to have caused any fires.

The recall included many fixes which proactively fireproofed materials which were not known to be the intial cause of fire but which could burn if a fire had already started. To this end, fireproof insulation was wrapped around wires and the rubber rain gutter was removed from the forward edge of the trunk lid. It is obvious a rubber rain gutter could not ignite itself, and could not be the cause of a fire, but like tires, it could start burning in the presence of an open flame and maybe help a fire spread. The fireproofing efforts were largely successful; yet it is interesting to note that the Saturn SL used a body structure similar to the Fiero, but GM made used of a steel hood over the engine on the Saturn instead of fiberglass. The Corvette continues to this day with a fiberglass hood, which is what the Fiero trunk was made of.

4. The recall didn't add an oil cooler, rather it included switching to a larger oil filter (PF51) which held an extra 1/5 quart or so. The existing oil pan was able to hold the remainder of the extra quart of oil. The allowed the engine to tolerate being a quart low and still have three quarts in the pan. The PF51 has been superceded now by the PF52. The original dipstick was not miscalibrated, but the recall replaced the dipstick with one that would read FULL on 4 quarts instead of three, because the goal was to increase the oil reserve in the oil pan, since some owners were not checking the oil very often. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.9.107.176 (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

The Fiero was tested with a V8 in it at test tracks, however due to the car's design and weight with the V8 installed, it beat the crap out of the corvette at the time which was GM's flagship sports car and GM couldn't have the entry level inexpensive fiero doing this so it was never officially released with a V8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.73.139.193 (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed 'horny' Edit
In the edit 14:19, 27 May 2009 63.174.27.7, 'Wild' was changed to horny. I've changed this back because it looked like vandalism to me and every dictionary I checked listed 'Fiero' as 'Wild' or sometimes 'savage'. Posting this in Talk because I wasn't sure why it hadn't already been fixed. Aspengrey (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely not
"Not keeping the modern, space-saving doughnut-type spare could also result in a mismatched balance of Front:Rear weight ratio (OEM was 49%F:51%R), whether by omitting the tire or keeping a full-size spare instead."

And having passengers or luggage, or even a full fuel tank could have the same effect! Removing as unsourced. Rich Farmbrough, 03:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

Major improvements necessary.
Most of this article is not remotely encyclopedic in tone, and parts of it are nearly incomprehensible. I'm tempted to start some major rewrites for form and clarity, so if I inadvertently render something inaccurate, please step in and fix my fixes (but please don't just revert)! --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 14:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's an example: "Three times he was told by counterparts at other GM divisions that his car had been killed by the corporate bean-counters. However, these messages proved to be accurate except the survival of the car depended on the finger-tips of high ranked defenders [...]" I'm twisting my head around how to read this, since "These people said the car had been killed, however, they were correct" doesn't seem to make much sense, grammatically or logically. I'm going to assume that what the writer meant was "however, certain high-ranked defenders within the corporation actually kept the Fiero production alive." --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 15:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree major improvements required. While internal GM politics were rampant in the '80s, lots of the article sounds like office gossip and not cited reporting. One of the central innovations only briefly mentioned was the space frame technology. Sadly this died at GM with the Fiero. This structural design was not only behind the crash-worthiness of the Fiero, it is the reason it takes so well to after market modifications. GM even referred to the easy update nature of the design, as the body panels were not required for structural integrity, but merely cosmetic 'fascia' panels easily modified for multiple variations or model year updates. The wide range of body styles during the short 5 year run of the car as well as wide range of kit car adaptations demonstrates principle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.200.3 (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Unit conversion?
Why are the units of measure in the infobox in Metric converting into US Customary? If this is a US car, built only in the US by a US company, why wouldn't US Customary measurements be the standard? Magus732 (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The Fiero was made a time when GM was transitioning to metric measurements and a number of dimensions were specified as both metric and American Standard while components themselves were a mixture of metric and standard measures, including bolt pattern and sizes used. (bolts and nuts were predominantly metric sized by this point, and the exceptions to this can make things somewhat confusing, particularly for maintenance: it's one reason having both metric and standard tools on-hand is important)

Additionally, the V6 used in the Fiero was metric at 89 by 76 mm bore and stroke (hence the somewhat odd, fractional bore and stroke sizes when converted to standard) while the Tech4 (Iron Duke) 4 cylinder was originally Standard and also converted fairly easily to Metric given the 4.0 by 3.0 inch bore and stroke (exactly 101.6 and 72.6 mm) and 150.8 ci or 2471 cc volume (rounded to 2.5L). As I recall, the car was mostly metric in is actual assembled parts and fasteners, at least as far as most commonly serviced parts went. (at least the bolt and nut head patterns were nearly all metric, though torque specifications for bolts and nuts are generally given in American Standard foot-pounds) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kool kitty89 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

2.5L L4 Oil Pan Capacity
From what I can tell from searching around actual GM literature, there were never any model-specific changes made to the oil pan of the Fiero's Iron Duke (Tech4) engine. The configuration and capacity were similar to the same basic Tech4 engines being used in various transverse and longitudinal mounts of Pontiac and other GM cars and trucks at the time and later.

Various articles online (and news reports from the 1980s) erroneously cite that a smaller than normal oil pan was fitted to the Fiero, which is incorrect. The only oddity of the Fiero's oil pan was a misprint in the manual and on the dipstick of the early 1984 model year production cars that gave only 3 quarts (typical manuals from the period and later seem to list 3.5 or 4 quarts depending on configuration and oil filter used, and the S-10 truck line appears to list 3.5 quarts for oil changes).

The mid-model-year recall following engine fire issues changed the oil fill instructions and dipstick, and recommended a larger oil filter, but didn't change the oil pan dimensions or design at all. The existing 1984 engine was already capable of being filled to 4 quarts of oil without problems and could comfortably hold 4.5 quarts with the larger filter fitted. The Iron Duke engine itself also appears to tolerate overfilling of oil to 5 quarts without noticeable problems, but this seems to be limited to anecdotal reports and not specific to any GM literature.

Additionally, the recall and change were made mid-way or late in the 1984 model year (during 1984, prior to the start of 1985 production) but confusion seems to arise due to the manner in which GM performed the recall on a case by case basis for existing end-users and with limited publicity rather than a comprehensive recall notification. This seems to have resulted in the lingering controversy and scandal and consumer lawsuits drawing out to 1987 even though the actual problems had been realized and addressed on the production line back in 1984. (the recall also included a much more extensive set of detail modifications to the engine bay and replacement of poor quality connecting rods in the engines, but the oil fill issue didn't involve any physical modifications to the engine itself and was also extremely simple and inexpensive to change at the dealer or end user level)

Extremely poor public relations and user informational material following the discovery of the oil fill level and routine maintenance instruction problems seems to be the main cause of all that confusion and much of the negative PR the car received. The lighter, thinner 5w30 oil specified for the engine (mainly for lower friction and better fuel economy) also exacerbated the issue by allowing oil to evaporate or burn more readily as well as escape from minor leaks more easily. (using heavier 10w30 or 10w40 rated oil is one consumer level improvement not specified by GM's own service manuals; though is not recommended in extreme cold conditions)

Further, there seems to be generally inconsistent and poor information from news reports dating back to the period, citing erroneous figures and information related to both the cause and number of engine fires as well as confusing other maintenance issues with fires and giving the same false information regarding how (and sometimes when) the problems were addressed. (again all apparently related to GM's own lack of transparency on the issue earlier on)

Further recalls in the late 80s and an apparent total recall on all 4-cylinder models in 1990 seem to be related to all the confusion over the actual problems and a resulting perception of the problem still existing. Actual, documented engine fire incidents from cars in the 1985 model year onward don't appear to have unusual incidences of fire or other maintenance problems compared to comparable GM cars of the period being operated in a similar manner. Additionally, the quality control of castings used in the 1984 model year (affecting both the connecting rods and engine block) were common across all GM products using the same manufacturing facilities and it seems only the difference in Fiero owner behavior combined with the oil fill instructions led to significant increases in failure with that model over others at the time. (this would include both the tendency to be more abusive with the cars and the somewhat unusual maintenance procedures specific to the mid-engine transverse mounting, including proper detection and response to minor engine bay fires unrelated to any serious failure: minor oil leaks typical of the Iron Duke engine could result in relatively small fires that could be easily extinguished by immediate driver action, but could become serious if ignored or allowed to burn: this includes contradicting the conventional wisdom of leaving the engine lid closed and instead directly inspecting and addressing the fire; further such minor oil fires would tend to burn themselves out with the engine off and decklid open even without further intervention, but could cause serious damage of the loss of the vehicle if left to smolder with the lid closed and especially with the engine running)

The current wikipedia article also cites the change in oil fill instruction and the fact the actual capacity did not change, but this is later in the article and contradicts the statement made near the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kool kitty89 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Claimed fuel economy
Total bullshit, which doesn't reflect the 2016 "revision" (READ: mea culpa) of the EPA's mileage ratings going back to 1984. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:70F1:59B7:41EF:8EAF (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * And do you have any proof backing up this claim? U1 quattro   TALK  07:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

POV
This article is clearly the "baby" of a Fierophile, and is infused with POV in every section. It needs dispassionate editing. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:70F1:59B7:41EF:8EAF (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)