The newest Pontiac Firebird to roll off the assembly line is now twenty years old. As I traced this one with my camera as it passed the bus stop where I was waiting, it occurred to me that I will always think of the Firebird as iconic. This penultimate-year example was built over two decades after the Firebird had reached its pinnacle of popularity with an astonishing 211,500 units sold for peak ’79, but I’ll forever think of the Firebird as belonging to the pantheon of memorable American cars. Even if its name recognition was eclipsed by that of its high-performance Trans Am variant for much of its life, it seemed like most people knew what a Firebird was, or at least had heard of one.
By 2001, only about 21,400 Firebirds were sold, of which this base model hatchback was one of about 7,200. This was the sporty Pontiac’s second-to-lowest annual sales figure over its thirty-six model year lifespan, with the redesigned ’93s finding just 14,100 buyers. For final year ’02, sales would rebound by 43% to about 30,700 units. The Maple Red Metallic color of this specimen was one of eight colors available for ’01, with some of the other, more interesting choices including Sunset Orange Metallic and a teal color called “Blue Green Chameleon”. Thinking back to when more fourth-generation Firebirds were on the road, I remember most of them to be red, followed closely by silver and white.
Another latter-day example, appealing in silver. Wednesday, November 14, 2012.
A 3.8 liter V6 with 200 horsepower provides the power in the 3,400-pound, burgundy base car, which is a 2+2 for all intents and purposes. Rear legroom, at 28.9 inches, is not generous, as would be expected for a this type of car. If there’s more than one passenger, one of them had better be quick in calling “shotgun” to ride in the front seat… which still has that intrusive catalytic converter hump built into the floor on the passenger’s side. An ’01 Ford Mustang had just an inch more legroom in the back, which would be a minor improvement, but still very welcome. Compared against the 35.5″ of legroom in the back seat of a same-year Toyota Camry, it’s clear that with this kind of domestic sports / sporty car, the comfort of rear passengers wasn’t even a consideration and not the point of owning a car like this.
Coincidentally, the ’01 Firebird, at 193.4″ from bumper-to-bumper, was almost five inches longer than the Camry (and about ten inches longer than a Mustang). Probably no one, ever, had cross-shopped a new Firebird against a Camry, but on the secondhand market, it’s entirely possible that a graduating high school senior from ten years ago who was presented with a choice of used car as a graduation gift might have gone for the style of the Firebird over the practicality, reliability, and utility of the Camry. I would have been one such individual who would have been completely okay (at least at first) with a sporty Pontiac that could carry one other individual in relative comfort and whatever could fit into that ridiculously shaped and sized trunk (13 cubic feet of cargo capacity with the rear seat up; 34 cubic feet with it down) under that large glass hatch, especially if mine had t-tops like this car.
By 2001, the sales of the related Chevrolet Camaro weren’t exactly setting any charts on fire, with just over 29,000 units sold. This was about 35% over the Firebird’s figure, but far below the 161,000 Ford Mustangs that found favor that year. The base Mustang’s 3.8 liter V6 gave up only 10 horsepower to the Firebird’s 200, and the ‘Stang weighed about 300 pounds less. The Mustang also didn’t have the dramatic exuberance of the Firebird’s exterior styling.
I like both cars, but there’s something really appealing to me about a production model that resembles the show car that inspired it, which in the Firebird’s case was the 1988 Pontiac Banshee IV. For a car with as many sculpted exterior surfaces that suggest a human-like or animalistic physicality, the Firebird’s disappearance after 2002 seemed so inconspicuous, like the flame of its wick had simply gone out with a brief wisp of smoke. This is why I’ll probably always stop to photograph one of these pretty ‘Birds in the wild.
Edgewater, Chicago, Illinois.
Saturday, September 3, 2022.
Labor Day weekend.
I am surprised 1979 was the peak year for Firebird, the 78s were to me much better looking. The 1982s had the looks back but took a few seasons for the engine choices to get interesting again.
Interesting also that base engine in 1979 and 1978 and 2001 was the Buick 3.8 V6. Thanks Joseph.
It’s pretty simple, the Trans Am was still THE muscle car of 1979, still with 400(mostly 403) power and represented the vast majority of production that year over the base Firebird variants. People weren’t buying it for the nose, they were buying it for the speed and brand image, and also it being the last of its kind. Sales tanked for the Trans Am in 1980 with the 301 and turbo 301, halving total Firebird sales from 79
Thanks, John. I am in the camp of liking the ’79 restyle. I found it interesting that it was the redesigned ’82 Camaro and not the Firebird that ended up getting the same basic front set up of quad rectangular headlights and air intake below the grille.
I don’t know if the 4th gen was a complete redesign from the 3rd gen (Wikipedia says it was) but it looked to my eye like they simply ironed out the creases from the 82-92 models.
Ford was still selling Fox Mustangs when the 4th gen Firebird came out, and the Fox-based cars were getting pretty old. But when the SN-95 came out for ’94, suddenly the Firebird (and Camaro) looked outdated.
The 4th gen was a heavily revamped 3rd generation, but then again the SN95 was also a heavily (albeit more so than the F-body) revamped Fox body. The 4th gen cars had all new control arm vs McPherson strut suspension at the front and also switched to a rack and pinion setup from recirculating ball.
Saying the ’94 Mustang instantly dated the ’93 F-body is subjective. I was really into the pony cars when these came out, and for performance enthusiast, the F-body was the generally considered the better overall performance car. I was super disappointed when I first drove a 5.0L SN95, it was a step backwards performance wise from the Fox 5.0L. That said, the Mustang was definitely the far more practical car with better ergonomics and made a better “sporty V6” coupe.
I drove a dark green metallic 4th gen Firebird for a few days. It was a nice car to be in, it had the 3.4 v6 with a 5 speed and posi rear end which was standard equipment in European spec 4th gen f-body cars. Gas mileage wasn’t bad either, I had to drive it cross country for work and it was a great highway cruiser. Only thing I didnt like was my head being against the roof because of the T-tops.
I currently own a black 1992 Firebird, the 3rd gen. Originally a 3.1, it just got a 3.4 from a 4th gen. It’s a daily driver and its much better than the miserable Golf 3 I previously had in every way except for gas mileage. The trunk with liftback isn’t bad for a sporty car and even the rear seats aren’t terrible. I highly recommend 3rd / 4th gen f-bodies to anyone who likes their cars sporty and doesn’t need seats for 5 or more.
I always appreciate positive, first-person experiences shared about cars I like. I now feel like looking up the trunk / hatch area of the third-gen cars, and I think I’ve forgotten what they looked like.
The trunk has an odd shape but I can’t complain about it. It’s no match for earlier cars I had like a ’79 Fairmont Futura and ’74 Chevelle but its very acceptable. It has a screen that can be rolled out to protect things in the trunk from sun if needed, a useful feature in the summer.
Joseph you’ve hit on the basic appeal of these cars. They were like a Personal Luxury Car for the sporty personality. They could comfortably hold a couple, and even accommodate two extra young kids when necessary.
Yeah, they weren’t up to a Camry, or even a Civic in basic utility.
They may not seem very practical, but they were much better than the motorcycles that I rode for most of my youth. A warm, dry, or air conditioned spot for the driver and we’ll stereotypically say “his lady.”
The level of performance was up to the buyer, but they were all fun to drive, and were fun to be seen in. What more could a young person want?
For the record, I’m still rockin’ my ’96 mustang GT!
Thanks, Jose. Reading this makes me want one of these types of cars. A 4th generation Firebird or ’96 SN-95 Mustang would do very nicely!
There was some recycling of parts with 93-02 from previous, per ”Buff Books” of the time. Was GM’s way.
And, agree that the non-muscle versions off all the Pony cars were essentially smaller PLC’s. Bought for stylish commuting.
Not that the Firebird was ever the paragon of practicality but at least the first and second generations had a normal trunk compared to the little bottomless little pit of these. I am a person who will gladly trade off packaging for style in a car but even I have my limits. Ford by contrast had a conventional trunk with a flat floor with fold down seats if you needed extra space for big things, that kind of kept its “secretary car” spirit that made the nameplate appealing in the first place, and it certainly didn’t give up much in style to the F bodies. F bodies in this generation only had the upper hand in the V8 power department with the LT1 and LS1 that only ever represented a fraction of the market for these kinds of cars, but if you just want a cheap sporty coupe you could drive everyday the 3.8 Mustang was a pretty obvious choice over a 3.4 or 3800 F body, in fact late SN95s still are kind of common sights compared to these which I almost only ever see in its batmobile Trans Am WS6 form
With full size spares, those “normal” trunks were tiny–about 6 cu ft, as I recall.
Most trunks get their cargo capacity killed by a full sized spare, even most modern vehicles would lose a huge amount of volume if you wanted one since the dedicated tire wells are only large enough to accommodate space savers. With the factory space saver the second gens aren’t nearly as bad and without it(eg Goop and inflator) you’ve got space from fender to fender, and taillight panel to back seat.
Not great, but I’d rather that space than the third and fourth gen, it’s spare is wedged vertically into the side panel with an intrusive decorative panel covering it and the other side matches for symmetry but without any function (at least I don’t think it does). It’s a hatchback so access is great but it has a really high liftover so putting something large or heavy into the rearmost trunk well is awkward, and putting stuff on the axle hump is a bit of a reach(and you’re very height limited in what you can put up there).
My Fox Mustang hatch had surprisingly great utility, especially with the rear seats folded down. There’s no way one of these F-bodies could have helped me move between home and college during those years.
The thing is, is these pics remind me of this timeless classic from earlier in the internet’s life:
Oh, no! This is showing as scrambled on my phone. I’ll have to find another way to view.
I’ll be listening for the cackle from your direction.
That’s pretty depressing and funny at the same time. Like something that would have happened to someone I knew from high school.
Didn’t we all know that guy in high school?
I saw this happen in high school, and it was a retired instructor from the tech center visiting in his brand new Vette who thought he’d show off to the new students! Oopsie!
Our current instructor almost immediately yelled to the class with a wide grin to “take it in, that’s what a bad clutch smells like and that’s how to burn one up!”
Oh wow. 4th generation GM F-bodies hold a lot of memories for me. I bought a black 1995 Firebird Formula shortly after I graduated high school… The insurance far exceeded the car payment, even with a clean driving record. It was plenty practical for 19-22 year old me… It looked great, had more than enough performance, got surprisingly good fuel economy for what it was. Most of my friends at the time could fit into the dishpan sized rear seats with dishpan shaped footwells. The passenger front with the intruding catalytic converter lump on the floor was awkward, but I only sat there once or twice.
The only time it was challenging to haul stuff was when there were four of us onboard for a day-trip or something, and sometimes the T-tops had to be left on so that we could stuff our stuff in that trunk well. Packing it in soft bags helped. I knew the seat folded down, but I don’t think I ever found it useful for anything.
Other highlights: I liked the design of the interior, and the instrument panel was especially cool at night. Fun fact: all of the gauges were real, so no faked oil pressure or voltage readings like Ford. Many interior and exterior materials weren’t particularly robust. The car was very reliable under my ownership, though plastic bits began to start aging and getting creaky at 50k miles or so. The water pump, which was driven off the nose of the camshaft, was a 50k mile component, too, and was a biotch to replace. The similarly located Opti-Spark(less) disappointment distributor was slightly stouter, but not much. The original one lived until the second water pump took its turn pissing on it at 100k. The rest of the powertrain was pretty bulletproof.
My friend had a black 1996 Z28 with a 6 speed. It was a bit more fun to drive, but my 1/4mi times were consistently a bit faster with my car. My last serious Firebird craving was when I looked at a brand new 2002 WS6 Trans Am for sale at a small-town dealer in Montana. I liked the 1998-02 style back then, but they’re looking a bit over-the-top now. Still wouldn’t kick one out of bed for burning clutch, though.
Loved reading this. Totally bringing back the appeal in my mind. The one I wrote about had out-of-state plates, so someone apparently had no issues with traveling in one and carrying whatever luggage.
I recently purchased a ’00 WS6 bird and I love it. Big V8 and six speed manual shift is fun. It has enough rumble when idling and still turns heas at 22 years old!