Rules, for the most part, are made to broken, or at least bent. In auto racing, there are plenty of instances where regulations are circumvented in, well, interesting ways.
Earlier this month, Matt showed us how Alfa Romeo made a sneaky move with the homologated 155 touring car, demonstrating how even when manufacturers follow the rules, the results can sometimes be less than ideal for consumers.
Another case in point: the 1983 Ford Thunderbird. When Ford introduced the lovely “aero” T-bird, the sleek coupe offered a far lower drag coefficient than the competing models at General Motors. Many buyers didn’t care that their Pontiac Grand Prixs and Chevy Monte Carlos looked like bricks by comparison (some probably preferred it) but the NASCAR teams forced to drive GM’s offerings certainly did.
Needless to say, The General had to do something for the teams running their now-obsolete cars. The answer was a homologation special; something akin to the Dodge Daytona Superbird with a giant wing and pointy nose. Actually, there were two special low-production offerings. General Motors made homologation versions of the Monte and the Grand Prix, both with large “fastback” glass rear windows. The Monte Carlo Aerodeck already had a revised, smoother nose from the production car to go with its new backlight:
For the Grand Prix version, called the “2+2”, Pontiac got much more extreme with by adding a rounded nose and an even larger backlight that seemed to go all the way to the back of the car:
It looked a bit like the rear glass on a Firebird, and to many observers it seemed like Pontiac had made a giant hatchback in the vein of a big Saab 900. However, things were not all that they seemed to be: that glass didn’t move.
This wouldn’t be the first time that General Motors made a fake hatchback. Earlier versions of the Grand Prix’s stablemate G-Bodies were fastbacks that simply had normal trunks. Attempting a “European” look, these bodystyles of the Oldsmobile Cutlass and Buick Century stayed glued to showroom floors, and GM dropped them rather quickly.
However, at least those fastback cars had reasonable sized trunk lids; how the hell did people put stuff into the Pontiac 2+2’s trunk? With great difficulty, apparently.
Feast your eyes on this mail slot-sized trunk opening. I’m not making this up. Amazing how they even get the spare tire donut into that opening and move it around to fit. That trunk is actually nicely sized, but what’s the point if nothing can get in?
True, to make a hatchback arrangement for a car that would see production numbered in mere hundreds of units would be cost prohibitive, but come on Pontiac! At least the Monte Carlo version had a slot big enough to pass a carry-on case through.
But none if this mattered. The point was to “win on Sunday, sell on Monday”, and the aerodynamic improvements reportedly dropped the drag coefficient of 0.453 to 0.368. This did the trick to make the cars competitive on the track. Consumers were not really the target anyway. Besides, the overall look was a bit polarizing, and many could see that Pontiac was trying to turn an ostrich into an eagle.
Still, dealers were somehow able to find buyers for 1,225 of these things. We can assume that they had very, very skinny luggage.
Top image credit: ClassicCars.com
I’ve always loved the silliness of the 2+2 aero cars. I used to imagine making a pro-touring style build with one using a GN turbo motor before prices started rising on them.
FWIU that rear glass is not only fixed but unobtainable. If your Pontiac 2+2 gets a broken rear window the approved repair procedure is to find a ’78-83 A/G body wagon or ’78-87 El Camino and graft all the other 2+2-unique parts onto it.
Which also solves the cargo-access problem nicely.
Now that I wanna see… a Pontiac 2+2 El Camino!!
Perhaps if manufacturers thought about having the back end fold down instead of just having a lid for the trunk more stuff would fit?
That would have been the logical approach, but the fuel filler’s behind the license plate.
Well at least then you don’t have to worry about which side of the pump to pull up on. I still occasionally pull a blank sometimes
There should be a little arrow on your gas gauge in the dash pointing to the side where the filler is.
Yes I have seen that on other cars but my 2001 Isuzu Vehicross does not have this feature
That’s too bad.
IIRC my 1988 MB has one, but the 1978 doesn’t. Makes me wonder when it was invented.
I’ve always loved the vehicross, especially in yellow. What color is yours?
The only color Proton Yellow. I knew it came out before 2001 but not sure when it became a universal feature.
Nice.
Thanks my DD since June 2002.
I liked your comment for the mere fact that you drive a Vehicross.
I’ll take like anyway I can get it. I am surprised they haven’t become a true classic. The frigging cash for clunkers program did us no favors.
Whenever I look at older cars’ trunks (even the ones with decently sized openings), I am reminded how much easier we have it nowadays. My TSX isn’t huge, but the trunk opening that goes to the bumper and fold-down seats mean that it has a ton more usable space than larger old cars
I never knew that there was different rear glass on the Monte Carlo Aerocoupe vs. the Pontiac 2+2. I’ve seen a couple Aerocoupes in the flesh, never a 2+2.
That trunk opening is, wow, that’s crazy. But they just needed to make enough, so yeah, they probably didn’t give a shit.
I may be wrong about this, but I believe it is called the Monte Carlo Aerocoupe, and not Aerodeck
That matches my recollection, as well.
Yes.
The Aerodeck was an Accord shooting brake of the same era
You are correct.
I have the same problem with my BRZ, the trunk is smallish but with the seat folded down I could fit things in there if the opening were larger. I’d kill for an actual hatchback (and T-tops and a turbo) on the BRZ.
Still better than pre-C4 Vettes with no way to access the cargo area expect from the front.
That was one of the biggest disappointments when I learned that. Growing up I always assumed they were hatches like every other sportscar on the road in the 70s and 80s.
Me too! I never really even thought to look closely enough to notice no handle/keyhole, etc.
Can confirm sometimes the front is the way to go.
Things I have fit in my BRZ over the years:
• 6’ ladder (trunk entry, seats folded)
• My 61 frame gravel bike (trunk entry, seats folded, wheel removed, seat removed)
• JBL 10” studio monitor sub in its original box (front access, back seat as a parcel shelf)
• 4 people and their carryon luggage
• 55” TV. Just kidding it didn’t fit through the opening even though the inside was big enough and I had to go back and borrow my friend’s car.
Was about to reply to another post about the GR86. It can hold a surprising amount of stuff, it just isn’t always going through the trunk opening. I feel similarly about a hatch and one of my first thoughts when I got it was that the double bubble roof would be cool as a T-top. Too bad there isn’t the volume to offer a version like that, like Mazda manages with the overpriced RF Miata (which is the only one I like, but I think should have been a hatchback with a manually removable roof panel—maybe 2-piece for easier movement and storage. Not only do I prefer a manual panel as it lends a sense of occasion and fits better with the idea of a basic sports car, but the whole electric mechanism, its weight, and cost could be ditched in exchange for a hatch that would make it a far more usable vehicle and the vacated area for the pocket for the top could allow the seats to actually recline enough to be comfortable for someone with moderately long legs).
I just want to be able to fit my bike in the back of my BRZ. I mean, it fits in that space but the problem is the trunk opening is about 3mm wider than my pedals. So while technically I can get it in/out of the car it’s just a matter of time before I scratch the begeebus out of the rear bumper while trying.
I have no chance of that with my weird bikes. I use a hidden hitch rack, but I got one for the 1st gen as there wasn’t one for the 2nd at the time. Had to modify a few things a little, but I’m glad I did it as the 2nd gen they came out with requires cutting a big hole in the bumper cover behind the license plate, which means that has to be dealt with for every use. Don’t know why they did that as it wouldn’t have required much change on their part and I’d rather cut the bottom of the bumper cover where it can’t be seen than deal with moving the plate.
I saw those online, do they work well? I was worried they’d be too (technical term) wobbly and the bike would rub against the car while going down the road. Instead I ended up with one of the Saris Bones trunk mounted racks, which works well enough but it’s a pain to put on and take off.
The hitch is solidly mounted to the chassis behind the bumper beam. The cheesy racks do wobble, but none of the racks I’ve seen leave the bike anywhere near the car. I use the platform style as I can’t hang a couple of the bikes from the top bars and don’t want the racks rubbing on the paint on the antique. I don’t know how well the hanging ones work. There’s a big difference between 1.25 and 2″ receivers. I had 1.25 on my ST and the same rack rotated a little. With the 2″, there’s almost no movement at all. There’s another style (Slambert?) that uses the tow hook mounts, but the weight limit on that is only 100 lbs. Say about 30 for the rack and add two bikes there’s not much overhead and I think the receiver is 1.25, but if you’ve got lightweight stuff and only a single bike, they look like a good option. There’s a suction cup rack for the roof, too. They’re supposed to work fine.
Well made hitch racks are solid and hold the bikes clear of the car but you sometimes need an anti-rattle device to take up tolerances between the rack and receiver. My Kuat is slightly loose in my Mazda hitch but a $10 Boone Outdoor The Wedge device solves that.
This isn’t that much worse than a recent Mustang, I used to have to fold the back seat down and go through the door to get anything large in there, like a lawnmower. Trunk itself is reasonably sized, but, again, Ford insists on using a conventional trunk lid on a fastback shaped body that could easily be a hatchback, so you get a tiny opening
I was about to say that in the post. Most super fastback sedans today (new Accord) are quite similar; no wonder people are moving away from sedans.
Are we just going to gloss over the fact this guy is transporting a lawnmower in a Mustang
For several years, it was my only car. What was I supposed to do, buy a $40,000 truck because I pick stuff up at Home Depot 6 times a year? It fit, it was fine
Nah, I’m with you, just making a funny.
People have convinced themselves they need way more vehicle than they actually do. When we became parents some folks asked us if we were going to get an SUV. I said why, it’s only one kid. We managed in the G6 just fine, and now that she’s out of the car seat it doesn’t even matter anymore.
SN95 owner, got her new and for 10 years, she was my daily. I hauled furniture, party food trays, athletic equipment, you name it. Sure, it required some thinking and bungee cords at times, but it worked. Had to borrow an SUV and trailer when I bought my first motorcycle though, but otherwise…
For most ‘Muricans the answer is Fuck YEAH! even if the truck costs double that and you never go to Home Depot.
FWIW I use my Mazda 5 to do all kinds of “truck things”:
Move major appliances? Check!
Haul a buttload of construction scrap? You betcha!
Transport 6 full 15.5 gal beer kegs at 165 lbs each? No problem!
Take the family and four bikes plus stuff ‘n crap out for a weekend of fun? Yep!
Tow a big ass heavy trailer? Well no. I’ve not yet had the need to tow and if I did I’d rent or borrow a truck. There are limits to what a car can do but those limits are a lot higher than most folks think.
I believe that Jason mentioned a guy that he say rent a truck at Depot even though he pulled up in a full size truck – didn’t want to get it dirty hauling things
Awesome!
The HD trucks are good if you’re returning it quick, but if you have a real lot of stuff (like clearing tons of debris from fallen trees or such) or need it for longer than a few hours, a Budget or whoever moving truck is a better deal, plus the local HDs won’t allow reservations, so you need to get there first thing. For everyday stuff, I’ve never needed a PU and when I needed a truck, I needed a lot more than a PU or a PU would have been a lot more trouble (way too many loads and a PITA to secure).
Yup. My dad used to have a 2 door VW polo estate. That little fucker was amazing. You could transport huge things in it. I brought home (granted, in 3 trips) a washing machine, a 4 burner cooker with oven and grill and a 6’high fridge freezer in that car with no extra equipment other than bungee cords.
I loved the Polo I rented. IIRC I got 4.9L/100km overall on regular gas on a weeklong roadtrip with enough room for the family and a weeks worth of crap.
Why not? I bought the wood to build 18′ of cabinets in my GR86. Also 8 tires with 4 mounted one time (swapping the garbage stock rubber out for winters). That wasn’t something I’d recommend, though. If it fits, it ships. I love seeing guys who think they need a truck to move a couple boards stop and watch me load stuff into smaller cars (like a yard of soil in those 40lbs bags in a Focus hatchback). I guess they didn’t play Tetris.
I transported a lawnmower in a Ford Probe once, what’s the big deal? That was easy, though, because the Probe was a hatch.
Stapleton42 had a good video of how the 33 car changed from a normal Notchback Monte Carlo to an “aerocoupe”. It shows all the tricks that the shop used on an old decklid.
My 2011 Civic Coupe had a good sized trunk but surprisingly small opening, as I discovered when trying to load large box of something. The box ended up riding shotgun instead.
Christ almighty, that trunk lid fits like a saddle on a chicken.
Totally going to steal that phrase.
I used to install stereos back then. That trunk was a total bitch to crawl into, or out of.
Always made certain to have EVERYTHING needed to do the job in the trunk before becoming a human pretzel to enter.
You could do the install of speaker upgrades from the rear seat if you removed the seat and reached under the package shelf. But was usually too stoned to remember that…
What a turn of phrase. Consider it stolen.
“Christ almighty, that trunk lid fits like a saddle on a chicken.”
Well actually…
https://www.chickenfans.com/chicken-saddles-101/
That trunk looks just fine, as long as you only carry ping pong balls or limes.. You’d probably need a shop vac to get all of them back out.
I forgot to mention that the trunk lid hinges also take up a bunch of space as well, so it’s even worse than it looks.
Makes one wish we could go back to the days when NASCAR rules made it necessary to produce homologation specials.
Oh, wait. Manufacturers would have to build cars again….
Yeah, what’s Chase Elliott and Kyle Busch gonna drive after the Camaro is axed? An Equinox?
Bolts.
Are you implying that NAPCAR can’t come up with stickers that make it look like an Equinox?
I really hope we get a NASCAR special edition Equinox out of this like they used to have with the Monte Carlo.
The same exact car they have now, just with a different lights & grille decal set to represent whatever crossover GM feels is most important to advertise at the time
The real NASCAR versions were great.
The street versions were just typical GM marketing crap though.
They had the resources and ability to make these something special.
But as usual, GM half assed the entire thing.
At least the Chevrolets looked good. The Pontiacs looked like the work of a addled crack head, and functioned about as well.
Again, I’m sure they had no interest really in making these street versions other than homologation. The execution certainly shows it.
BTW, really like the updated styling you did on the mythical Omni.
Looks excellent, and if they made it today I would love one, just not the shit build quality that would be mandatory.
Happy Holidays to you, and thanks.
thanks! Hapy Holidays to you as well!
Also, this general setup was most Mustang for many years.
As a Gen-Xer, given the Mustangs I knew from my formative years, I’d always assumed the older ones were hatchbacks as they sure looked the same. Wow was I wrong.
Yeah, only the Mustang II and Fox bodies were available as true hatchbacks. Even then, the notchback versions had trunks. The SN95s easily could have been hatch’s, but I believe the drag racing community put a lot of pressure to go with a lighter and stiffer trunk.
The Grand Prix were the only G-bodies of this era that I didn’t like and these were the ugliest (as well as useless with that trunk opening—at that point, get an F body). When I was in high school, most standard Gs were readily affordable to kids and a few of the more higher performance ones weren’t a far reach, but even first time drivers needing almost any set of wheels who generally leaped at a Cutlass would turn down a GP at half the price. Even the 2+2s were pretty cheap considering their rarity and ownership by the never-drive-them fools who equate low production numbers and stripes with collectibility and were too dumb to have gotten the T-Type or GN (I stopped checking on these a while ago, but I assume they went up by now, like everything). I might not be remembering right, but I think the rear seats were the same as the regular GP, making 2+2 a dumb underselling name as the standard rear seats were definitely real seats, not the optimistically styled parcel shelves only acceptable in emergencies that usually come with 2+2s.
Also, this solves a mystery screw up that annoyed me as a kid! I won a go-cat with a fiberglass body of the Wrangler AeroBird, but it was #3 (it was a Wrangler jeans promotion raffle). I thought they screwed up the body by not making it a Monte Carlo SS, but it was the number they got wrong. I guess the T-Bird was just a year or two before I became aware of these things and there wasn’t the internet to look it up with.
The G-Body (formerly A-body) was one of the most durable cars ever made by GM (as seen with the infamous Chicago Cutlass) and reasonably sized for the time (and even today), It’s just so obvious that they had a means to an end with this 2+2 and as a street proposition it was compromised.
A lot of people had them back in high school and I’m a fan (and these are not my typical kind of thing). My GF had a Monte Carlo SS she had me drive a lot, and the guy who ruled the local “race track” was an insufferable guy with a modded Grand National that could readily smoke my friend’s big block Chevelle. Running in the 12s back then was pretty damn fast (really, it’s still fast, just a lot more common and from more pedestrian stuff). I liked them a lot more than the contemporary F-bodies and Mustangs even if the ones that weren’t turbo Buicks were a little slower (they were all pretty slow, anyway). They were more solidly built than the latter two, were comfortable, rode well, rust protection was really good for the era, the V8s felt quicker than they were thanks to good low end torque, looked decent with the right options and wheels (no damn vinyl landau roof!), and anyone could fix them. Way too easy for people to break into, though.
I got my license in ’86 and around that time it seemed like half the guys in school had G-bodies. They’re durable and parts will be available until the sun consumes the earth.
Easy to break into, but you still couldn’t open the rear windows. Sorry to keep harping on that, but if you were a kid riding in back of one of these in the summer you will not soon forget, or forgive.
I didn’t know anyone who had families with these—they all had minivans, wagons, or sedans, maybe the odd pre-SUV. These cars were lacking in torsional rigidity as it was, noticeable with the T-tops or with a big bump in power, so I’m not sure it would have been a good idea to have that small window go down. I was mostly only ever driving around in the back in my friend’s larger B-body coupe, but that had plenty of air getting back there, not like those earlier sedans GM made with fixed rear windows. Plus, the A/C also worked well, even if it wasn’t needed so much then. But thinking of that in regards to the 2+2, I wouldn’t doubt the solar gain from this and the aero SS would have had a negative impact on comfort.
I was actually referring to the four door versions. Most seventies/eighties two doors had fixed back windows, but GM extended that policy to A/G body sedans as well.
I didn’t know anyone with a G-body sedan, so I didn’t realize the windows didn’t go down on those. Yeah, that sucks. Damn, my Subaru GLs not only had rear windows that retracted (that I could reach the manual winders for from the driver’s seat!), but the coupe version was a pillarless hardtop. Some company (ASC?) used it as the basis for a convertible. I can’t imagine how floppy that must have been to drive. (I looked at buying one, but the undercarriage was all rust covered in fresh undercoating, plus it was a bad color and an automatic and they priced it as if that undercoat wasn’t covering rust.)
And the Cutlass Supreme was the best selling car in the US for several years in the late ’70s/early ’80s (imagine a personal luxury coupe as the best seller, very different times) – to the point GM struggled to build enough of them, resulting in effectively zero depreciation for the first year. For awhile there, you could sell a 12 month old Cutlass Supreme with 15,000 miles for the same price as a new one, just because it existed already and was available.
Caused a bit of a scandal though, as demand continued to exceed supply, GM decided to start using various equivalent engines from other divisions in place of unique Oldsmobile ones just to get more cars out the factory gates, but their decades of marketing had so convinced buyers of the superiority of Oldsmobile engineering that people got pissed off to find a Chevy 350 under the hood of their new Olds. Lead to GM introducing fine print disclaimers on ads to the effect of “Oldsmobiles feature Oldsmobile and other quality General Motors engines”
It’s Dodge Charger Daytona and Plymouth Superbird, nearly identical twins , but still different cars. But, we get your point.
Typing too fast- left a few words like “Plymouth” out there. And “get your point” is right- that nose cone must have added a foot or more to the length of an already long car.
Yeah, I didn’t think I was telling you anything you didn’t know. I’m a master of omitting words myself.
That aero nose added nearly two feet to the length. If I remember correctly – and that’s no certainty – the Daytona came first, barely, and, while radical, wasn’t quite as radical as the Superbird which used lessons learned from the Daytona to fine tune the concept. Small differences to be certain, but meaningful. Kind of like the differences between Buddy Baker (Daytona driver) and Richard Petty (Superbird driver).
Used to love seeing those things driving in a parking lot. From a couple rows over, you couldn’t see the car, just the top of the wing. Looked like sharks prowling for a parking spot.
Only ever saw one in the wild and it was as awesome you might imagine. The Daytona actually had the better aero numbers (.29 vs. .31) and top speed, though the Superbird won two more races (8 vs. 6) between the ‘69 and ‘70 seasons. I think they only ran these on the super speedway tracks like Daytona and Talledega. Fun cars.