Between 1982 and 1985, more than 80,000 people bought a third-gen Pontiac Firebird or Chevrolet Camaro with the much-maligned 2.5-liter LQ9 “Iron Duke” four — a gruff and underpowered engine that sold for a low, low price, but endowed these sleek sporty coupes with sluggish performance and an unpleasant paint-mixer soundtrack. Not many are left, but this four-cylinder 1982 Firebird popped up on Facebook Marketplace in 2023 and miraculously sold for a reported $6,500.
The red Firebird pictured here was offered on Facebook Marketplace in May 2023 by someone who said they were listing the car on behalf of a relative, presumably older, who “doesn’t like the online thing very much.” It had around 43,100 miles, “a few rust spots,” and some minor mechanical issues (nonfunctional horn and windshield washers, sticky door locks, air conditioning not blowing cold). The car has the four-cylinder Iron Duke engine and automatic transmission, although for whatever reason, the seller didn’t include any engine photos. They originally wanted a delusional $12,000 for it, but by July 2023, they apparently settled for a little over half that — still an exceptional price for any four-cylinder Firebird, even a reasonably well-preserved and original first-year model.
Even with the base engine, there was no question that the new-for-1982 third-gen Firebird was a great-looking car. The normally sober Consumer Guide proclaimed the new F-bodies “genuine date bait.” They still weren’t very refined, their live-axle RWD chassis could be a handful on wet or bumpy roads, and they had cheap-looking interiors with dismaying “Body by Fisher-Price” build quality, but sex sells, and sales were robust.
Modern fans sometimes seem to have a hard time getting their heads around the fact that cars like these were often sold with underpowered four- or six-cylinder engines. While looking for photos for this post, I happened upon an old online forum argument involving a couple of younger fans who were apparently convinced that the third-gen F-bodies had NEVER offered anything but V-8 engines! In fact, nearly half of all 1982 Camaro and Firebird buyers ordered fours or sixes. For the Camaro, 1982 sales were 36.8 percent V-6, 11.5 percent four-cylinder. The figures for the 1982 Firebird were 29.6 percent V-6 and 15.3 percent four-cylinder.
While it was the hotter models that got all the buff book ink, quite a few buyers were more interested in sporty looks than maximum performance, and some people who lusted after a Trans Am or Z28 just couldn’t afford one. In 1982, a new Firebird Trans Am had a base price of $9,658, and would quickly top $10,000 with a few options; it could also be punishingly expensive to insure, especially if you were under 25. A four-cylinder base Firebird started at a more attainable $7,996, which wasn’t dirt cheap, but was in the same ballpark as the far less sexy Pontiac Phoenix X-body sedan. Pontiac actually sold more 1982 Firebirds with the LQ9 “Iron Duke” four (17,746) than with the hottest LU5 Cross-Fire Injection V-8 (13,037), which was an extra-cost Trans Am option.
Neither Chevrolet nor Pontiac actually called the 2.5-liter four the Iron Duke in these years, but that’s the name that’s stuck for these frequently reviled engines. (In other models, they were sometimes called the Tech IV.) In the early ’80s, GM had invested very heavily in this engine, terminating the production of Pontiac V-8s in March 1981 to devote more production capacity to the big four, which was used very extensively in smaller GM cars of the time.
Since the new F-bodies were up to 522 lb lighter than their predecessors, they now qualified as “smaller GM cars,” and Chevrolet and Pontiac decided the 2.5-liter four would provide adequate power for the base models. Unlike all the other 1982 F-body engines except the LU5 V-8, the LQ9 four used in the Camaro and Firebird had electronic fuel injection for better driveability and fuel economy. In the Firebird, it initially had 90 hp and 134 lb-ft of torque. (It gained 2 hp for 1984 and then lost 4 hp for 1985, to no great effect.)
In retrospect, you might ask why Pontiac and Chevrolet didn’t just standardize the LC1 2.8-liter V-6, which was the standard engine for the fancier Firebird S/E and Camaro Berlinetta and a $125 option on base models. The answer was that the V-6 was significantly thirstier than the four, and its performance initially wasn’t a lot better. 1982 was the first time GM had adapted the 2.8-liter V-6 for longitudinal RWD applications, and they had a surprising number of early problems with it, including powertrain mount issues and a more restrictive exhaust system that trimmed its output to only 102 hp, just 12 hp more than the LQ9 four. Pontiac’s claimed performance figures for the 1982 Firebird are revealing:
- 2.5L four, 4-speed manual/3.42 axle: 0 to 60 in 14.5 seconds, 24 mpg EPA city
- 2.5L four, 3-speed auto/3.08 axle: 0 to 60 in 16.0 seconds, 23 mpg EPA city
- 2.8L V-6, 4-speed manual/3.23 axle: 0 to 60 in 13.5 seconds, 20 mpg EPA city
- 2.8L V-6, 3-speed auto/3.08 axle: 0 to 60 in 14.5 seconds, 20 mpg EPA city
On paper, at least, the four-cylinder Firebird didn’t seem THAT bad: With the 4-speed, it wasn’t much slower than the V-6, it got 20 percent better gas mileage, and it was your cheapest route to Firebird ownership. (Buyers interested in maximum fuel economy could also have the four-cylinder engine as a credit option on the pricier Firebird S/E, although I don’t know how many people actually did that.)
The red Firebird pictured here has the TH200C automatic, which cost about 1 mpg and 1.5 seconds in the 0 to 60 sprint compared to the 4-speed. For a sporty car, the four-cylinder/auto Firebird’s 16-second 0 to 60 time was positively shameful, even for the Malaise Era, but the sales numbers make clear that some buyers were more interested in looking good than going fast, especially if the price was right. Even with automatic, air conditioning, and radio, this car’s original sticker price was probably at least $1,400 less than a basic Trans Am.
What’s earned the Iron Duke a lasting place in various “worst engines of all time” lists was not just its lack of power, but its lack of manners. The big four shook, groaned, and made uncouth truck-like noises even when starting or idling — not exactly the way to impress your date, even if you didn’t care about 0 to 60 times or quarter-mile ETs. Road & Track editor Ron Wakefield described the LQ9-powered F-bodies like this:
The 2.5-liter fuel-injection engine, quite large for a four and thus somewhat rough-running, has been given a bleating exhaust system meant to convey European-style sportiness; to me it seems incompatible with the Camaro-Firebird image, but maybe I’m just being inflexible in my associations.
The engine, however, is plenty flexible, as you’d expect with fuel injection, and what comes through in other cars powered by the Iron Duke as an overdose of induction noise is covered up by the loud exhaust. Aside from this, the four is tolerably quiet inside as long as you don’t push it. Try to drive hard, take it past 4000 rpm, and it goes absoutely [sic] wild with booming engine noise and a vibrating shift lever. This is a tractor engine and should be treated as such.
F-body buyers’ interest in this miserable engine dropped off very quickly. Part of the reason was that GM quickly addressed the shortcomings of the V-6: For 1983, the 2.8-liter V-6 was up to 112 hp, 22 hp more than the rough, asthmatic four, making the V-6 engine’s $150 higher price seem like a bargain. The 1983 Firebird S/E now used the H.O. version of the V-6, which had 135 hp, making it a much more credible compromise for buyers whose budget wouldn’t stretch to a V-8. 1983 four-cylinder sales sank by more than half. For 1984, only 5.9 percent of Firebird buyers and 4.1 percent of Camaro buyers bought the four.
For 1985, combined Camaro/Firebird four-cylinder sales totaled only 6,413 cars, so it was obvious that buyers were no longer interested. Both Pontiac and Chevrolet still listed the 2.5-liter four as standard on the base Firebird and Camaro for 1986, now available only with the 5-speed manual transmission (first offered as an option for 1983), but it appears no four-cylinder 1986 F-bodies were actually built. The Camaro White Book claims that Chevrolet dropped the LQ9 engine early in the model year and made the V-6 a mandatory option on the base Camaro. Pontiac may have done the same, as Automotive News reported a year later that no 1986 Camaros or Firebirds had four-cylinder engines. The 2.5-liter four was no longer catalogued for 1987, so the F-bodies never got the balance shafts fitted to later versions of this engine, which also found its way into quite a few of the familiar Grumman LLV mail trucks used for many years by USPS.
Total four-cylinder F-body production was 81,741 cars in four model years, almost half of those in the first year. After that, whatever sense the four had seemed to make at the outset was gone: By the mid-’80s, gas was cheap again, so if you were buying a Firebird or Camaro, there was little reason not to at least order the V-6, which was better able to get out of its own way and less tractor-like. If you really wanted a four-cylinder coupe, there were various other alternatives that offered better performance.
Most four-cylinder 1982 Firebirds have probably long since gone to the junkyard, so it’s remarkable that the red car still survives and apparently still has its original engine (even if the seller didn’t bother to show it). However, $6,500 would seem like a lot even if it were pristine. The Iron Duke was like a boat anchor in these cars, it just wasn’t a pleasant engine, and its tendency to eventually strip its plastic timing gears drags down what was otherwise a better-than-usual reputation for durability. Also, while most sporty coupes of this era weren’t very fast by today’s standards (even a V-8 Trans-Am needed around 9 seconds to hit 60 mph), could your ego stand having a car that looks like this and yet sounds like a mail truck?
Related Reading
1982 Pontiac Firebird V6: A Big Brown Bird, But Is It A Turkey? (by William Stopford)
Curbside Classic: 1983 Camaro Berlinetta – The Last One Of Its Kind Left With Its Original 14″ Wheels? (by Paul N)
Curbside Classic: 1983 Pontiac Firebird 25th Anniversary Daytona 500 Limited Edition Trans Am – Fake It ‘Til You Make It (by Perry Shoar)
Curbside Musings: 1985 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am – Nevermore (by Joseph Dennis)
These underpowered 4 cylinder cars were called Secretary cars.
Look great, but underpowered and cheap which a secretary could afford.
I am not sure if Shelby’s oft quoted “secretary’s car” is real or apocryphal, but the L4 pony cars of the 1980s would definitely fall under this category. The Iron Duke has a bad reputation and the performance is abysmal, but the Mustang was hardly a screamer with the 2.3 Lima.
Still, they represented an affordable choice for those who wanted sporty looks, and their existence does not detract from the bang-for-your-buck of the performance versions
The Firebird was definitely a looker and in my mind it is one of the iconic cars of the 1980s. I would not mind a black on gold Trans Am in my garage!
Whether he actually said that to Lee Iacocca or not in the 60s is a question, but Carol Shelby himself is the source for that story, he’s repeated it verbatim in numerous interviews and documentaries he appeared in.
I know the four cylinder Iron Duke engine in the F-bodies was dropped due to its very low take rate (compared to the 2.3 litre Lima four used in the then-current Ford Mustang and Mercury Capri, which accounted for a good percentage of their sales), but I think production capacity constraints (since the Iron Duke was used in so many GM products) also played a role as well.
A Camaro or Firebird with the four was a textbook example of a price leader, a car that solely existed to advertise a low base price. In the end, many buyers probably went and bought something else after test driving one of those.
I cannot stand any 3rd gen F-body’s. Ugly, build quality below horrible, and the severe cowl shake on the ’82 Camaro I test drove for a friend as she was thinking about buying it proves indeed “body by Fisher-Price” I spit on your 3rd gen F-body.
When I moved into my first on-my-own-adult apartment, there was a young woman who lived in that building for a brief time. She had a dark blue Camaro, and I imagined her as someone who maybe liked some performance in her cars. Then one day I heard her start it and drive out – the Iron Duke sounded even worse coming out of a car like that Camaro.
I think today is the first time I ever knew that there were Firebird-specific dog dish hubcaps for these cars. And I had forgotten how horrid GM’s interiors were on these.
If I had to guess, somebody probably bought this as raw material for “a build” (a term I despise). I am no fan of these, but it is a shame if we lose a clean original near-strippo like this.
My sister bought a new ’85 Mustang LX, 2.3L/auto. Even carbureted, it was light years ahead of these EFI Iron Dukes in terms of refinement. She was not a secretary, but a intern at a radio station. Close enough. She sold the car when she got married, almost 200K on it with nothing more than regular maintenance performed by me.
Excellent. My 2.3L ’88 Mustang was dead reliable. It was slow, but it liked to rev and the five-speed made it fun. That engine wasn’t close to being Japanese-smooth, but it wasn’t as thrashy as this article makes the Tech IV sound.
This reminds me of a scene from Gung Ho, 1986.
Four Japanese Engineers looked over a model of the F Camero and a rear wheel fell off. After a bit of silence one engineer states “American Car” and they all laughed.
The US auto industry was in quite a state then…
Back in the mid-80’s, one of my (female) clerical employees drove an ’82 or ’83 Camaro with the 2.5 liter Iron Duke and automatic transmission. It was a strikingly pretty car — dark blue, with factory and aftermarket stripes and other exterior accessories.
One day, she drove a group of us to lunch, and I was shocked at how badly it rode for a 2-3 year old car. The plastic interior parts squeaked and rattled with every pothole and imperfection in the road. It seemed to strain to keep up with traffic, and the automatic transmission repeatedly downshifted – with the engine roaring – to maintain speed on slight grades.
In 1982 one of my high school friends came from a wealthy, yet environmentally concerned family. He had a choice of any new domestic car as long as it was a 4 cylinder engine. He got a loaded, black 4 cylinder Firebird. I was shocked that they put a 4 cylinder in such a large car. I lost track of him after high school, I have no idea as to reliability. I had a 305V8 79 Nova. That was no speed demon itself.
Eh, the four doesn’t bother me cause how fast would you want to go in that wet noodle handlin’ shitbox anyway.
What’s more egregious are those VA historical plates. What era plate are they trying to replicate? The 1930s??
As a Virginia resident, I can help with this one. The plate is made to look like a 1905-09 Virginia plate (an original is below).
As far as I know, Virginia first offered “Antique Vehicle” plates in the 1950s, and reached back to this old-timer design – which wasn’t a bad idea. Sometime much later (1990s, possibly?), the State began offering an alternative design for Antique plates, which looks more like a modern license plate, and looks more natural on post-WWII cars. However, a lot of buyers still like the old-timey plate, and owners can choose either one. I think I see more cars with the black-and-white Antique plates, than with the other design.
This is the alternative Virginia Antique Vehicle plate design:
Wow, thanks. Glad my state allows folks to run YOM plates on anything older than 25 years. At least we can get a period-correct look.
Virginia allows YOM plates too, but just on vehicles made before 1973 – so yet another plate option.
I find myself loving this featured car… as much as it’s possible to love something that I absolutely wouldn’t want to own.
A friend of mine had a car very similar to this in the early 1990s – an ’82 or ’83 4-cyl. automatic Firebird. He was originally from Kenya, and got the car cheaply after he moved here, so he thought it was awesome to have a Firebird. Incredibly slow, but actually reliable for him. Except when it snowed. The combination of him being from an equatorial climate, and driving a Firebird was a bad one in the winter.
A cousin of mine had an ’84 (or so) Firebird, but with a V-6. Still pretty slow. She got hers when she was in her early 20s. And it’s so true that modern folks have trouble wrapping their heads around the fact that cars like Firebirds were often bought by ordinary people to do ordinary things.
This was fascinating and a great read. The four-cylinder Firebird with the Tech IV “tractor engine” (wow!).
I was always curious about how many of these were sold, and where exactly the market was for them. I had owned a 4-cylinder ’88 Mustang and had often wished Ford had kept the 3.8L and dropped the 2.3L for ’87, but looking at the performance and EPA figures for similarly-equipped 4- and 6-cyl. Firebirds, Ford had probably come to the conclusion that, “Let’s just go for max efficiently, since there isn’t that big of a difference in performance between the 4 and the 6”.
I certainly would have been tempted by an ’82 four-cylinder Firebird (if not an early Fox-body), especially give the price difference between it and a Phoenix, which you had mentioned. If I’m going to go slow and can afford insurance on only a four-equipped car, I want to look good doing it.
I also found it interesting that the estimated 0-60 times between the four with a manual and the six with an auto were basically the same. I like(d) to shift, so again, I might have been tempted.
The difference between a Mustang four and a Camaro/Firebird four is…the styling. The Mustang didn’t try to look like it was going 200 mph even when standing still; it had a jaunty, practical look that worked a lot better as an economy car with a four than these swoopy F-Bodies.
My thing is the Mustang already went through its nadir by this point, 1982 was the return of the GT and a higher output 302 for the first time in a decade, coming off the 80-81 years of the awful 255 V8. Pontiac spent the years the Mustang was a lame duck being the jock with its big 400(and 403) rocking its whopping 200-220 horsepower to East Bound And Down being the flame holder of the all but dead muscle car era… but now it was at best 305 Chevy powered and at worse….and so much worst… iron duke powered!
I’m kind of with you Joseph, even though I’m critical of these I can’t say I hate it. It largely reminds me of the red slant 6 68 Dodge Charger featured here years ago when in that it’s about the uncoolest optioned cool car in existence.
With the way things are in the automotive market today and for my needs a fuel efficient stylish two door coupe hatchback in about this size is the type of vehicle I dare say yearn for in a daily driver. If the quality and interior wasn’t so bad in these I think they’d be more redeeming…. Course Toyota had the ideal answer in the Celica in 1982 but I do like the firebirds styling a little bit more!
Great point about the interior, Matt – I had sat in an early 3rd-generation Firebird as a teenager and noticed, even then, that (sheesh) the apparent quality of the interior did not match the coolness of the exterior. It was still a Firebird, though, so I was just fine with it. The ’84 Celica notchback that I had test driven in the early ’90s, though, that car’s interior, smoothness, and quality seemed otherworldly. I passed on it because the styling didn’t quite do it for me. That was me at that stage of my life.
In 1982 I was a youngish-CG Petty Officer with not alot of spending money. I owned a 1980 Mustang with the 2.3/4 speed. Removed the engine and trans (added factory bigger radiator) from a junked 2.3 Mustang Cobra Turbo.
The name of the game for young people like me in that era was owning a sharp looking car with a history of performance. With decent fuel economy. I think looking back in retrospection, we need to consider where we were on the financial ladder of life at that moment in time. I love this car and think it’d be great at the local car shows, all cleaned up and detailed. To remind those of us to remember what it was like, and to show the folks today, that the horsepower they now enjoy, was done on the backs of these entry level pony cars.
As a side note, I have a friend who, with her dad owned a used car lot, drove a ’86 IROC-Z for a while. I drove it a couple of times. The 305/5speed powertrain was lively and fun, they fixed the cowl shake, but the same cheap plastic squeaks and overall rattles unchanged from that ’82 I drove. And It rode like a Hino 268 box truck.
For something posted on an online classified, vs an auction, you have to account for in person negotiating on the final price. I very much doubt this sold for $6500. People are not shy about throwing lowballs, even in person, and the seller may have finally just accepted whatever the best they got. In my experience buying and selling cars this way, the actual sale price has never been the last listing price
That’s certainly possible, but there’s no way of knowing unless the buyer sees this and decides to share.
Cheapest looking dashboard ever, pure junk.
If GM (post 1980) actually made decent engines maybe they wouldn’t have to resort to stupid names for them like “Tech IV”, “High Feature V-6”, “Vortex” and the like. Given their current 6.2L V8 debacle they’ve learned nothing. If the all new upcoming V8 isn’t damn near perfect they’re in real trouble being their dependence on big trucks and subs. How far they’ve fallen from the great SBC and Olds Rocket V8s.
Very convenient to ignore the fact that GM also sold millions of LS V8s and 3800 V6s, two of the most reliable engine families ever produced, not to mention they were still selling actual SBCs until the late 90s.
And let’s not pretend that only GM has produced some bad engines. Ford 6.4 diesels were a complete disaster, and even Ford’s mainline truck engines all seem to have at least one glaring flaw dating back to the 1990s.
As far as “stupid” engine names go, I can think of 10 examples off the top of my head that are worse than GM’s naming conventions.
Post-1980 they made more bad ones than good ones imo, GM loved to do their beta testing on their customers and spent too much time trying to push that junk than get it right the first time: Olds diesel, HT4100, V8,6,4, Tech IV, Northstar, Quad4, 1 million 6.2s… shall I go on? Not to mention all the failing transmissions from the maker of the THM400, best ever a long time ago. Even some SBCs (cams), 3800s (intake manifolds after taking 40 years to finally get that engine right). BTW I own a GMC with a 5.7 SBC/THM400, yes, the older ones were great, but the bean counters have killed GM. Every manufacturer has some clunkers but since 1980 GM has had more than their share.
An interesting survivor .
I think it looks nice in red .
-Nate
Few people remember that there was a 3.0 liter version of this engine. However, it wasn’t sold in any GM car. It was built and sold by Mercury Marine for use in boats (obviously). Some years ago, a fellow on YouTube got his hands on that engine and built the heck out of it, including a turbocharger. He then installed that engine in an early S-10, and it was quite the screamer, but I forget what the dyno said.
That engine was actually based off of the old Chevy II 153 CID engine, not the Iron Duke.
They were also used in other industrial applications. And they are still available new today!
https://chicagoengines.com/industrial/gm30l-industrial-engine.aspx
Whoops! Thanks for the correction!
Well, they are related, and pretty closely at that. Their block architecture is quite similar, and a Chevy 153 crankshaft will drop tight into a 151 block. Pontiac essentially did a significant update on the 153, using aspects of the Brazilian Chevy 151 and a new head to optimize emission reduction. They are kissing cousins.
Very true, and the early ’78 and ’79 ‘Iron Duke’ with the original non-cross flow head looks very similar to the old Chevy II 153. The cross flow Pontiac designed head that debuted in 1980 changed the look of the engine considerably. Interesting that the early 2.5’s even retained the standard Chevy RWD bell housing bolt pattern, but most the the later versions used the FWD bolt pattern, even in RWD applications.
One thing that used to drive me nuts when I was in the boat business? Customers telling ME their boat had the Iron Duke engine, like it was something to be proud of. I had to explain, time after time, your engine is not a Iron Duke. Here are some tissues. It’s OK to cry a little.
Re: Iron Duke or Tech IV Per Google (always correct) it would have cost GM about $30 to have balance shafts in the engine if they had been designed in from the start and the horsepower penalty would have been maybe 10 HP. GM could have easily gotten that HP back and plenty more with slight adjustment to cam, combustion chamber, etc. They could have had a sweet engine instead of a tractor engine. Sad that they did not choose to do this.
Back when I turned a wrench, I did some work on a Camaro with a 2.5.
Man, that engine looked almost lost in that engine bay.
She’d do 90 on the freeway, though! =)
Early 90s, a guy in high school had an Iron Duke Camaro. He was smart, clean cut, friendly, popular, and had a pretty well off family. Pretty sure the car was originally white, but I remember when he had it repainted electric blue. He brought it into shop class one day to thaw it out, as the engine bay was plugged with snow from the drive in. That was when I noticed it was a 4 cylinder, and that he went all out to have it repainted right, as the engine bay was also electric blue. Had a pretty nice Alpine stereo system and subwoofer box in it too.
‘Iron Duke’? That name conjures up images of characters from ‘Conan the Barbarian’ stories and iron handed, brutal leaders in medieval times. But that engine? Hell NO.
I dunno. The whole bone-headed, uncivilised, brutal, disregard of the less fortunate from Conan the Barbarian seems to sum up GM manangement’s attitude toward the less well-heeled customer during this period. (I could maybe say this about the others too, but GM’s the subject we’re dissing here.)
I mean, compare this engine to a concurrent Nissan, Toyota, or Mazda four. Even Mitsubishi. And Honda – they were like something from another universe.
Why couldn’t GM come out with a decent modern four? My guess is that they could, but the accountants had the ‘punish the cheapskates’ mindset and hoped if they made a bad enough four you’d move up to a six. It never seemed to occur to them that you might move sideways – out the door and into another brand’s dealership.
As a GM-centric “car guy”, it pains me to say that the 2.3L Lima was about four times the engine the Iron Duke ever was; at least in OEM trim. The 151 had over 200 changes made to it during it’s production life, including stuff as stupid as putting the oil filter INSIDE the oil pan. The earliest 151s were so strongly related to the 153 Chevy four-popper that the 153 crankshaft would fit the 151 engine block.
The Iron Turd was among GM’s worst engines…ever. And then Pontiac tried to steal credit for work done by GM of Brazil. Pontiac did some detail “improvements” but the overall concept was South American.
The way I remember it, the [LOW-] Tech 4 was only offered as a transverse engine. If it was a front-to-back engine, it wasn’t called “Tech 4”.
Based on the air-cleaner snorkel decal, I thought they were “4 Tech” engines.
While shopping for my first car, and driving a lot of cars with this engine, I also called it a 4 Tech. It was a car magazine where I learned it was known as the Iron Duke. But I’ve never owned one. Nothing against it. Only by coincidence that I ended up with V6 cars.
The oil filter in the pan, I’m guessing that was for improved access, at least on some cars. My buddy had a 1987 Calais. He used to take it to the quick lube just for the amusement. One guy on top, one on the bottom, swearing up a storm trying to get at the oil filter. I believe the filter was relocated to the pan for 1988.
And the car in that ad has those dog dish hubcaps as well – I don’t remember those at all.
As a GM-centric “car guy”, it pains me to say that the 2.3L Lima was about four times the engine the Iron Duke ever was; at least in OEM trim. The 151 had over 200 changes made to it during it’s production life, including stuff as stupid as putting the oil filter INSIDE the oil pan. The earliest 151s were so strongly related to the 153 Chevy four-popper that the 153 crankshaft would fit the 151 engine block.
The Iron Turd was among GM’s worst engines…ever. And then Pontiac tried to steal credit for work done by GM of Brazil. Pontiac did some detail “improvements” but the overall concept was South American.
The way I remember it, the [LOW-] Tech 4 was only offered as a transverse engine. If it was a front-to-back engine, it wasn’t called “Tech 4”.
Based on the air-cleaner snorkel decal, I thought they were “4 Tech” engines.
That was my impression, but I didn’t make a detailed survey of the advertising materials and brochures.
Good looking car and an interesting read. I will add to the license plate comments. I also live in Virginia and besides the above mentioned plates you can register your antique / vintage car with year correct license plates if that plate number is no longer in the system (old plates that were never issued or old plates restored). I found never issued Virginia plates at an AACA event for my 1966 T-Bird and registered those with my car a few years ago. One form and a trip to the DMV I switched out my standard issue plates to these year correct plates. It is a black plate w/white letters/numbers and the year it was issued is at the top of the plate, mine being 1966. This is exactly how the plate was made in 1966. It doesn’t indicate ‘antique’ nor does it have a big VA for the state. I always use the option to renew my plates every two years instead of one year so my T-Bird plates should be up for renewal in the next few months. As I understand it my renewal fee will be much less because I have had these plates on my car for more than a year, less expense then if I had standard issue plates. Plus I don’t have to have those little stickers on the plates indicating renewal month/year.
A side note: Good thing I found these plates and went to change the plate registration with the DMV. When I retired and moved from Canada to Virginia of course I had my 1966 T-Bird conv. shipped and imported back to the States. Arrived in VA, went to register both my Camaro daily driver and the T-Bird only to realize the transport company shipping my T-Bird left critical paperwork at the US border crossing. Many weeks later the US border crossing sent me the paperwork so I could register the T-Bird in VA. My fault, I did not pay attention to how VA registered the T-Bird until a few years later I went to the DMV to change license plates. Virginia DMV had registered my 1966 T-Bird conv. as a 1996 T-Bird convertible and I had not noticed it for a few years (typo). No 1996 T-Bird convertibles are in the system but at least they got the 1966 T-Bird VIN correct. Virginia taxes your rides each year so I was being taxed yearly for a non-existent 1996 T-Bird conv. Switching out my plates to my vintage 1966 plates was simple. Switching out the registration from 1996 to 1966 took hours, and multiple DMV personal. One typo, OH the drama.
Stylistically I think the third gen Firebird looked better and dare I say aged better than the C4 Corvette. There’s really not a bad angle. I like second gen Trans Ams more but only in that form, standard Firebirds look naked without at least the rear ductail, but the third gen base Firebird even with this LLV mail truck powerplant they still are eye catching.
But it really is dorky pairing that design with that powerplant, this is a CAFE compliance car if there ever was one. 4 cyl Fox Mustangs can get away with it as there’s a certain practicalness to the style but also the performance cred of the Mustang post Mustang II was at its rock bottom, prior to that F bodies and especially the Firebird were the hottest cars this side of the Atlantic while Ford was shamelessly painting Shelby stripes on 3 cyl Cobra IIs, but suddenly with the third gen the tables completely turned over. Ford had nowhere to go but up. Plus the Fox chassis was a little lighter than the F bodies so I imagine they’re a little spunkier
Interesting that the often maligned Chevrolet Chevette of the same era had a better power to weight ratio.
Around that year, one of the vintage car magazines, Car Exchange(?) road tested a 1959 Silver Hawk equipped with the standard 170 cubic inch flathead six. The author compared its availability to the then-brand new F-body cars being available with a 4-cylinder.
Much more interesting then all the V8 fake Trans Am “tributes and other butchered cars. These are the sort of survivirs that will be desirable in a few years. I think 6500 is a steal.
I think the ultimate sheep in wolves clothing would have been an RS with an Iron Duke, since the RS used the IROC body kit. Fortunately they don’t overlap and the wimpiest RS engine was a 2.8 V6. I still like the looks of these third generation cars, but probably wouldn’t buy one. Where I grew up they had a certain image, and I was the wrong ethnic group, plus I really liked my VW Scirocco.
Regarding “secretary cars” the one secretary I knew in the late 80s drove a Toyota Corolla FX hatchback.
The Iron Duke was very reliable, I had a couple in S10s including a Cameo. Around 1990 when my Quad4 Grand Am was wrecked I had a 2.5L loaner and was shocked how they had added smoothness and power compared to the one in my mom’s 86 6000LE. THAT was a tractor engine but the 90 had I think 116hp vs her 92hp and much smoother. Still sounds weak but it would actually peel out. I’d drive a Firechicken with that final gen Tech IV. Also I love those base wheels! Never seen in person.
The biggest abomination with this red car here is those “gauges”. Shameful sorry attempt. They already made the full gauges for every other version so the cost woulda been LESS to just put em in all of em.