I was looking at these two rather dissimilar cars trying to find some common ground. Hmmm…Four wheels…Steering wheel…And then it occurred to me: they were priced about the same. A base 1980 Firebird listed for $5948 ($16k, adjusted). Throw in an automatic and radio, and hitting a $17,500 (adjusted) price comes up pretty quickly. Which is what a new Cube goes for. Let’s see; what else do they have in common…
Not a whole lot, except for the obvious things all cars share. And if the Firebird came with the base 110hp 231inch Buick V6, there’s no doubt the Cube could walk away from it quite readily. Anything else?
No doubt the Cube has far more interior room as well, despite giving up several feet of length. Fuel efficiency is better by far, I would guess–but I would say they’re closer in curb weight than you’d think.
The Cube is a far better vehicle than the Firebird. A/C, power windows and seats, stereo, and other goodies adorn the Cube. The Firebird could only wish for the niceties.
But I’d still rather drive the base Firebird, even a 32 year old version.
Personally, given this choice I would reach for my Trek and pocket the insurance costs.
that 3.8 v6 buick engine is far more reliable than what you think you can drive it without coolant&only one quart of motor oil in it all day long without causing any damage to the engine.my uncle drives a 1977 skylark which he bought new and the meter had rolled over 3 times now has 389kmiles &still stock engine&trans(v6 231).not to mention if you hit something with cube in any speed more than 30 the possibility of death or becoming paralized from waste down is very likely,but skylark is the ultimate tank not like late model cars thin&made off pepsi cans.
That thing is almost identical to the one my Grandma had. Hers had the 305, Dog Dishes and thanks to spending it’s entire life in Northwestern Il a Subframe that was dangerously close to separating from the rest of the vehicle.
Mmmm… with air bags galore, the equivalent of a roll cage around the passenger compartment, and a crushable front clip, I’ll take a ’12 pretty much anything over an ’80 pretty much anything as far as survivability in a crash. The 80s may look stout, but in a 40-50 mph crash any sheet metal will bend. The difference is these days the bending and crushing is in the front clip. In ’80, it might be at the A-pillar, or it might be in the middle of the front passenger compartment. And if there’s no bending or crushing, that means the driver’s body is absorbing all of the forces of the crash, rather than the body of the car.
Face facts: vehicle fatalities are lower than they were in ’80, and on a per vehicle-mile basis, they’re down even more. A lot of that is because the structures of cars are safer than they were 33 years ago.
A 1980 Firebird was on my wishlist as a 23 year old, make it a black one with the firebird in gold.I wouldn’t have cared what was under the hood but a V8 would be nice I don’t remember those wheels though!
I’m sorry my poor bird that your owner sprayed over your original color & marker light with nasty primer, stripped you of your emblems, replaced your wheels & mirror with aftermarket junk & left you on the street like that. Try to focus on the flowers & beautiful landscaping and not worry about that thing behind you.
I’d stick around but I smell F-body hatred ’round the bend…. Bye. 🙁
F-Body hate? You mean like this? https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1970-camaro-gms-greatest-hit-1-even-pininfarina-praised-it/
Uh yeah, THAT, lol. I was thinking of a few resident haters here when I typed that, not you, SILLY! 🙂 Not to blow smoke up your lower end but I really can’t argue with your arguments on the vehicles you “are rather not fond of”.
I think JB is talking about me, perhaps? https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/curbside-curmudgeon-the-cars-we-love-to-hate/
Don’t worry Junqueboi, I’m with you on this one. Sometimes its fun to be “profiled” by the haters, we all know they are smarter and more sophisticated than us mullet wearing F-body loving redknecks…
🙂
I don’t care who ya are, that’s funny right there! 😀
I own a 2nd gen F-body but I dont follow the stereotype of a F-body owner, I’ve never beat my wife, shown up on COPS, lived in a trailer, murdered anyone or robbed a 7/11. Go Figure.
You haven’t been driving the car often enough .
I’ll admit it does bring out a darker side when you drive it….
The trunk on a 2nd gen is too small for bodies anway…..
you need to sell it, or at least put it up in the front yard on cement blocks.
I own a 2nd gen and 4th gen.
I even have short hair (front, sides AND BACK).
Never raised a hand to my wife, never stolen anything, college education (though I admit state school if you consider massachusetts a state). Excuse me, I think I need to drive down to my local Toyondaru dealer and follow my calling
Amazingly you could do ALL of those items within a 30-minute span. Assuming the car starts of course.
yet.
I live in a Trailer but don’t currently own an F body. And if I could I’d be sporting a mullet right now.. Man I miss having hair!
I’m truly doing it wrong.. 😀
(The Lake in my back yard used to be a 1/4 mile oval track in the 30s and 40s too!)
Hey if I didn’t have a ’57 Handyman or ’68 C-10, I could totally see myself owning a ’70-’73 Camaro.
If the passenger side of the Cube matched the driver side I might like it.
I wouldn’t mind that Bird but I’m not much a fan of the 79-81 nose. If it were a Z28 I’d be hugging it right now.
We could wonder what if Pontiac had improved the 1979-81 nose with hidden headlights foreshadowing the 1982 ‘Bird?
Car designer Keith Kaucher made a interesting drawing of the 1970-81 Firebird with a front inspired from the A-body 1968-69 GTO http://www.hubgarage.com/mygarage/BLKGT350/vehicles/30253/photos/1106562
The grille treatment disagrees with me worse than the separated headlights do. It’s a shame because Pontiac really beautified the taillamp treatment in ’79, especially the Formulas and Trans Ams.
I know very many folks dislike the 79-81 ‘birds nose, but I looove it.
I have no idea why.
If I had to have one of these, an 80 turbo would be the one.
Again, I have no idea why.
Here’s a quick digital edit with hidden headlights. I kind of like it.
I have a few old 1980 Road & Tracks where they were predicting what the new 82 Firebird would look like and they dont include hidden headlights, but a front end like this car, with the body of 2nd gen, hatch and all. Strange.
I like to see some scans of that Road & Track prediction just to compare with Kaucher’s design ideas.
I am getting a new scanner soon, let me see if I can dig it out of “the archives”
The deliberate asymmetry of the Cube is a telltale sign of what my girlfriend and I call “the Asshole School of Design.”
Awww; I rather like the Cube’s design; although I liked the prior generation quite a bit more (not available in US). Beats all the little CUVs that are almost impossible to tell apart.
I used a Cube once a week for over a year as a work delivery vehicle. You simply could not beat it for versatility. I do not think that they look too bad at all either. I grew to love it.
@Paul
When the Xterra first came out here I wasn’t a fan. If someone told me back in 2000 that I’d not only own one but that it would be one of the best 4x4s I’ve ever owned I’d have died laughing.
A few years down the road I may like the Cube’s styling, I already like 3/4 of it.
There’s not a day that goes by that I don’t want to wail on a Nissan product with a shovel until it stops moving as I would if I found a rabid weasel in my back yard. Mother Fugly design seems to be the key with the Cube at the center of this fresh design hell. Are we such geezers that we talk about a cars versitility over its appeal to, oh I don’t know, people with sight? The Cube is pure ick.
Dolorean: Please publicize your choice of best car ever so that I can trash it and make you sound like a fool. I am pretty sure that if I think back I can remember when I knew everything and nobody else did. btw, you are right about one thing. I wouldn’t own the cvt either.
I don’t think I have had a more versatile car and probably use it about as much as Paul does his scion. And yes, how a car works has become more important to me than how it looks.
Thanks for sharing all your extremely valuable advice.
I kind of like the Cube, though it’s a little too “cute” for me. Can’t deny their versatility, though.
I spotted this root beer-colored one at the local dealer a few months ago. I haven’t sat in one but they look to have a ton of interior room.
Thanks for coining a term for it!
I’ll be using that.
I prefer the Firebird to the shoe same under pinnings as a 79 Holden but with a V6 motor this is a common swap here and although noone here knows Firebirds & Camaros had 6 cylinder engines these are still popular cars to import used,
At least I can understand the intent of the Firebird, the Cube on the other hand defies explanation
The car makes perfect sense – if you’re native born Japanese.
Neat comparison, but what stands out to me is that in 1980, even the base model Firebird was a fairly expensive car that people aspired to own. The Cube today is a fairly low-end car in the scheme of things, certainly not aspirational. This is why people today think cars cost way too much.
Hardly. About the same as a Toyota Corolla DeLuxe, except in 1980, Corollas were being sold with big price mark-ups. The base Firebird and Camaro were very affordable; downright cheap, actually. There weren’t all that many cars in 1980 available for less than $6000, at least ones that one would want to have. The very cheapest Pontiac Sunbird started at $4800.
Firebirds were not that expensive at all, especially the lower models ones. This alone made them dear to gomers and goobers all over, since there were plenty of cheap used ones around and any GM high performance stuff would bolt on. Back in those days where I grew up, farm boys loved the T/A since on the farm there is always a fully equipped shop.
The 1971-1985 model was all over when I was a kid and it was almost impossible to find one that hadn’t been really changed. They were indeed ubiquitous but many met violent deaths. Teenagers drove those cars hard.
And of course, we can never forget ” the big boots!”
The Firebird came standard with load of style and street presence.
The Cube…not so much.
These vehicles have one other thing in common: In their time, young kids of the day think they look cool.
If the Barbapapa family drove a car (or one of them turned into a car) it would look like the Cube. I know I wouldn’t want to buy a car that looks like a real-life Barbapapa.
If you’re old enough to know who the Barbapapas are without asking Google, you probably thought the 2nd gen Camaro and Firebird were cool as a kid. 🙂
Do young people actually think the Cube looks cool? It smacks more of what 40something product planners assume young people would find cool. (See also the Honda Element, which was intended as an edgy youth-centric product that ended up mainly selling to over-40 empty-nesters who needed to haul home improvement stuff and didn’t want a pickup truck.)
My 25 year old wife certainly seems to like hers.
The origins of the Cube (and the original Xb, then Bb) was of course in Japan. They were JDM vehicles, designed specifically because hip young buyers did like them there, as rolling little club-houses, or something like that, since entertaining friends in their tiny apartments is just not done. Older Japanese did not buy them, generally.
Given that they were successful with young buyers there, it certainly made sense for Toyota to assume that the same thing might happen in the US. The Xb pioneered that, and it did do reasonably well with a younger demographic. But older folks discovered it too, for its obvious practical advantages. And the average age soon moved up well into the forties.
Who would have predicted that? It probably has nothing (or little) to do with product planners; big Americans like roomy cars. And as long as they sell, who cares who they’re targeted to.
Manufacturers are always going to spend disproportionate efforts to market to younger buyers, because they’re easier to turn into a conquest sale, and then hopefully stay with the brand. That goes for most advertising. That, and a youthful image is always better than not, regardless of whether it reflects the actual buyer demo.
If Nissan showed seniors in Cube ads, you know that no one under 35 would then ever touch one. And maybe not even the oldsters either. Everyone wants to appear youthful nowadays.
I agree completely, and there’s nothing new about that reasoning in the auto business.
“You can sell an old man a young man’s car, but you can’t sell a young man an old man’s car.” — Semon E. “Bunkie” Knudsen, when he was Pontiac Division General Manager (from 1956-61)
AUWM:When I said “Young kids… think they look cool” I was referring to elementary school age kids, as in 6-12 years old or so.
In 1984, when I bought my base Camaro, the starting price was $ 7,700 or around that. The 6 cyl, automatic, radio, ralley wheels with whitewalls, tax,title, etc brought it up to $9,600 drive out, cashier’s check. I can recall the salesman urging me towards a “loaded” Cavalier. The finance lady argued with me to finance the car.
That base Camaro (or as the brochure called it,aesthetically pure) was a sweet car. It was virtually trouble free for the 9 years I owned it. Slow by any standards, it got you to your destination with style. Park it next to a 928 or 944, it would humbly fit in. The Cube would not.
Actually, even though quite different, they share the same greenhouse styling — rounded corners on every DLO (daylight opening). I think the Cube is sort of neo-70s in that way — both also bring to mind cars like the AMC Pacer. Another thing is that both have rather upright windshields compared to their contemporaries.
Funny you mention AMC…the first time I saw a Hyundai Veloster on the road, my first thought was “new Pacer.”
What a hard choice. One resembles an iconic sporty coupe from TV and film in 1980, the other resembles a mail truck from 1980, only more disposable…. Hmmm
Yeah, Firebird. As a side note I used to think the 79-81s only looked good in T/A form but looking at it shorn of everything but the duck tail spoiler actually looks much cleaner.
If I was a kid today and had never experienced F-body Euphoria, I’d probably go for the Cube. Despite my intense hatred for all the current nissan bubblemobiles, I still maintain a sort of closet attraction toward the Cube. I even considered checking one out last year, but I think that was the week I quit sniffing GM Glue.
You considered checking out a Cube?
Thats going on the list…….
” …there’s no doubt the Cube could walk away from it quite readily.” That’s really one of the major differences between modern cars and “Classics”. (Personally I don’t really think of 1980 as a long time ago)
1980 wassn’t that long ago? No it wasn’t. Except it was 33 years ago. Back in 1980, when I was 17; 33 years prior was 1947. That was prehistoric! LOL! It’s all relative!
And if the Firebird came with the base 110hp 231inch Buick V6, there’s no doubt the Cube could walk away from it quite readily.
No need to be in such a hurry.
Well I owned a 68 firebird with the 350. I also own a 2010 Nissan cube. The cube is a better car. It now has almost 70k with zero problems. I might suggest that badmouthing something you don’t know about just marks you as haters. That’s ok. All of you are going on the list and I won’t respond for fear that Paul will 86 me.
Seriously, it’s a great car. At almost 70 I am not a kid and we just get all over the place in our little puddle jumper. We remain oblivious and apathetic as to the opinions of others. I just must add that I am a retired special ed teacher so I have dealt with ignorance before. Happy trails.
Wow, you’re defensive about the Cube.
You should also learn about different opinions too, it maybe very usefull, but pretty its not.
Actually am not crazy about the looks but the wife is. I like the mechanics really well and would like a versa just as well. It’s just the haters badmouthing the design and wanting to beat it with a shovel that make me jump in.
Great little car. Wife likes it. Gets good but not great mileage. Strong. Hard for me to speak badly of it. When looks become more important than the important stuff most of us will throw away our mirrors.
You sound like me when I get on my high horse defending the Pontiac Aztek. Another car that was castigated for it’s unconventional looks, but owners were generally crazy about them. Now, 12+ years later, all the cars look like Azteks…
Unfortunately, I leased mine, but there’s nothing that doesn’t say another one won’t find it’s way into my fleet again someday.
In April of 1981, at the age of 24, after owning a Volvo 122S, Vega GT, Alfetta Berlina, Ford Fiesta and a Scirocco, I traded in the unreliable Scirocco on my first new car: a 1981 Firebird TransAm WS6, the California model with Chevy 305 and a 4 speed. Same powertrain as a Z28, but the Pontiac WS6 package had wider wheels (8″ vs 7″), bigger sway bars with harder bushings, and higher effort steering. In brief, it was not very fast, not very well screwed together, handled very well on smooth pavement, and compared to what I had owned before, was quiet and comfortable, and a gas hog. Mine was maroon, with no “Screaming Chicken” hood decal, and the 305 had dual tailpipes, not the downturned quad tips used on other TransAms. I think the sticker price was about $11K. About 8 months later, when gas hit $1.20, I traded it in for $8000 and bought a new 1982 Honda Civic 1500DX hatchback. I think the Civic listed for $5K and I may have paid a slight markup …. I really wanted an Accord hatch, but the higher list plus outrageous markups on Accords steered me to the Civic. Honestly, over a real road AND on an autocross course, the Civic was about as quick and got 3x the gas mileage. The Firebird was the last GM car and last US passenger car I’ve owned. Today, I don’t miss the Civic (it was a fine car), but wouldn’t mind still owning the F-body. I’ve never seen an SBC/4-speed Firebird for sale on EBay or local Craigslist. When I opened up the attached picture (taken at nearly 10000 feet elevation in Yosemite, where it had zero power) I was shocked to see the size of the panel gaps! Cars have gotten better in many ways ….
These cars have one other thing in common. Neither one really speaks to me. I am making progress in my 12-step program for F body hatred, I really am. I read through the entire Rockford Files Firebird post, and looked at all of the pictures, too. I have read enough positive comments on these that I could actually see myself owning one of these under the right circumstances (it would, of course, involve an inheritance of a perfectly preserved early 70s Firebird that after maybe 30 days I could sell and buy something else, but hey – isn’t this some progress?)
I do not hate the Cube, either. I actually kind of like the asymmetrical thing. But I would either keep my Honda Fit or try an Element first. The more I think about it, the problem with these cars is that (at 53) I am too old for the Firebird and not old enough for the Cube. 🙂
Never say you’re too old. My Dad drove my Camaro a great deal well into his seventies. He loved that little car. Other old guys used to remark he was too old for the car, too. Kids used to ask him about the engine, etc.
He loved the attention. In our 75 Eldorado, he was just another old guy in a Cadillac.
I agree with Dave, JP. My Dad turned 61 last October and guess what his daily driver is? A 2001 Porsche 911. He drives it in the winter, too!
You should never get too old to not drive what you love.
My dad is 80 or 81 and drives a red 5th generation Corvette. He and I are total opposites.
“A base 1980 Firebird listed for $5948 ($16k, adjusted). Throw in an automatic and radio, and hitting a $17,500 (adjusted) price…”
Really? You would waste your hard earned Burger King money to check the box at the Pontiac dealer for a 3 spd slusher attached to an anemic 110HP V6? Can’t think of a worse hell than trying to merge that heavy car onto the freeway and hearing the engine try to throttle itself to death. At least with a 4 spd it would give me the illusion of power and control of my destiny.
Same goes for the Cube. I don’t care how wonderful Nissan touts its rubber-band tranny, gimme a 5 or 6 spd please. I want to row it myself and don’t need the added weight or expense of an automatic. Save the money for what was really important at that age; a bitchin’ stereo!
According to the Kelley Blue Book, even a base 2013 Chevrolet Camaro has an MSRP price of a little over $24,000. So it definitely would cost more than a base 1980 Pontiac Firebird with a 2013 price adjustment of $16,000 ($5948 in 1980 USD). For $16,000 plus $2,000 in additional payment charges you can probably get a 2013 Chevrolet Cruze 4 Door Sedan instead which according to KBB has a MSRP of a little over $18,000.
The only Pontiac I ever owned was a 1980 Firebird Formula, red on red, with the small V8 and automatic. I had it for about a year, iirc in the early 90’s. I enjoyed it quite a bit and liked the way it handled, especially after I put a set of Michelins on it. For a while I had a WINNERS vanity plate on it, but took it off because guys were always wanting to street-race.
Personally give me the Pontiac every time, like most old cars when you look at them now they do have a style to them, and they are not as bad as we all think, and the fact you can work on them and still get your hands dirty without a laptop or the latest :”plug in connector” is the way it should have stayed.
I really struggle when I look at modern metal to see people in say 35 years pulling them out of garages and taking them to shows but i could be wrong?
The perfect solution: have both! The Cube as your daily commuter / grocery getter, and the ‘Bird as your weekend cruiser / date car.
A big-inch small block Chevy or larger Poncho V8 neatly makes up the horsepower deficit, while lightweight aluminum heads, intake, and water pump lighten things up. A few carefully selected fiberglass body panel lop off extra flab as well.