In an effort to mix things up and feature as many different types of cheap vehicles as possible, we move from yesterday’s land yachts to a couple of tiny two-seaters that were originally marketed as economy cars, but weren’t fooling anyone. One of them is, however, also a Pontiac. Maybe I can make that the theme for the week: every matchup is a Pontiac versus something else.
Yesterday’s Pontiac choice went over like a lead balloon, I’m afraid. Its smog-era carburetor and lack of an overdrive gear counted against it, but I think its main flaw was that its competitor was a woody wagon. I tried to find a Roadmaster Estate or something to put up against that Colony Park, but came up empty-handed in the time I had to look. Maybe I’ll try to make that matchup happen someday soon.
I’m of two minds about this one. I like the Catalina a lot better, but the Mercury wagon would be a lot easier to live with. I guess I’ll take the wagon as well. But in reality, I’d go for a Chrysler Newport, sedan or wagon, over either of them.
For those of you who prefer zippy, good-handling little cars with manual transmissions, yesterday’s vote was a tough one, I know. Maybe you’ll prefer one of these two. Let’s check them out.
1986 Pontiac Fiero SE – $3,000
Engine/drivetrain: 2.8-liter OHV V6, four-speed manual, RWD
Location: Oregon City, OR
Odometer reading: 105,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
By now, you know the story: Pontiac sold the Fiero concept to the GM brass as an economy car that just happened to be mid-engined and wedge-shaped. It was cobbled together from GM’s parts bin, sold just well enough, and showed just enough promise to warrant some improvements, then was unceremoniously killed off just as Pontiac finally started to get it right. This SE model, from smack-dab in the middle of the production run, has some noticeable improvements over the original, but doesn’t command the high price of the coveted 1988 models.
The standard Fiero engine was Pontiac’s low-revving Iron Duke four-cylinder, which was a respectable enough engine for a family car, but had no business being in a sports coupe. It seemed to realize that, and had a tendency to protest being shoved into the Fiero’s cramped engine bay by catching fire. The later optional 2.8 liter V6, which this car has, is more powerful and less prone to self-immolation, making it a logical choice. Halfway through the 1986 model year, V6 Fieros switched from a four-speed manual to a five-speed; this one is an earlier car with the four-speed. Hey, at least it’s a stickshift. The seller says it runs great, and has a smattering of new parts.
The interior needs a little help: the upholstery is torn up on both seats, the carpet is a mess, and it looks like the headliner might be falling down. I’ve seen a lot worse, though. The seller is tight-lipped about the condition of things in here, but I would expect a few electrical items not to work, and I’m certain that the dash rattles over bumps. They all do.
1986 was the first year that the Fiero GT received the new rear body style, with the long flying buttresses alongside the engine cover. Base models, and SEs like this one, kept the original rear styling, which personally I like better. This one is in good shape, and if it has been an Oregon car all along, it’s unlikely to have any worrisome rust under the plastic body panels.
1989 Honda CRX Si – $4,000
Engine/drivetrain: 1.8-liter DOHC inline 4 (swapped), five-speed manual, FWD
Location: Oregon City, OR
Odometer reading: 93,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Like the Fiero, the Honda Civic CRX was meant as a commuter car, especially the frugal HF model. But the go-kart handling and easy modifiability of the second generation in particular made it a favorite among enthusiasts. The side effect of that, of course, is that it’s now hard to find a stock CRX for any sort of reasonable price. The price of this one is reasonable, but it is by no means a stock CRX.
The CRX Si originally came with a 1.6-liter engine making 108 horsepower, plenty to toss around such a lightweight car, but this one has something considerably more potent: a 1.8-liter B18C1 from an Integra. The seller says it’s “fully built,” which could mean a lot of things, but hopefully it means it was overhauled by someone who knows what they’re doing. It reportedly runs and drives very well. I’m not against engine swaps in general, but one thing I cannot abide is repainting a car that was originally yellow in primer gray. What were they thinking?
I have to be honest: When I first clicked on this ad, I expected the interior of this car to be a lot worse than it is. I mean, yeah, there’s a huge gaudy subwoofer in the back, and some non-hidden wires running to it, but it’s mostly intact inside. The driver’s seat looks pretty worn, which makes me question the odometer reading; I have a feeling that the gauge cluster may have been changed out at some point and that it has more miles on it than are being reported. Still, for a car like this, it’s pretty nice inside. Clean it up a bit, and you could conceivably take this car on a date, which is a good benchmark for interior condition.
Apart from the fact that it’s no longer that glorious Honda yellow, it looks decent outside. It has been lowered, but that’s no surprise. The seller says it comes with “racing slicks,” by which I hope they don’t just mean bald front tires. Regardless, you should probably count on putting some decent rolling stock on it if you intend to drive it regularly.
So we have a stock Fiero in okay condition and better-than-it-could-be specification, and a CRX that has been, I won’t say ruined, but significantly altered. They both run and drive great, if the sellers are to be believed, and neither one of them seems like an outrageous price. Which way are you leaning?
While I love the idea of a CRX, this one’s not for me. Mismatched wheels, “fully built” engine, racing slicks, etc. Maybe if I was in the mood for a track car, but not today. Besides, I have always thought the Fiero was cool.
I voted for the CRX. I suspect by “fully built” seller means it has a lot of bolt-on crap I can remove. My only concern is that the engine swap was done correctly. However, if it drives fine and doesn’t have any glaring flaws on inspection, that is good enough for me in this price range.
As for the rest of the car, this thing is fine. The body looks presentable and it doesn’t have any stupid body kits. It is primer grey, but the whole point of primer is that you can paint it. Yeah, I would prefer this car to be completely stock, but for $4k I have limited expectations. If you want a perfect CRX and have $4,000, get a job – these things aren’t cheap used cars anymore.
The Fiero is fine, but I’m just not a fan of Fieros. It may very well be the better choice, but Fieros aren’t for me so I would pass.
I spent most of the 90s driving CRXs (an ’86 Si, and a ’90 DX). For me, it was the perfect car, and I would really like another one. Even that one. If the body is actually solid (bring a magnet), the rest can be fixed.
The Honda is the winner by default, even though someone stupid replaced the yellow with boring gray 😛
I had a Fiero for a few years and really liked it. I ran it in the 2004 Grassroots Challenge. A lot of fun
Ironically saw one of each during a drive yesterday. The CRX was fart canned and visibly burning oil, while the Fiero was a red GT (which I think are still awesome looking cars).
For today it’s got to be the Fiero. The CRX looks like its been used and abused, with the cheapest mismatched wheels and paint you can get.
I really wanted to pick the CRX, but there are too many red flags/poor choices. Weird, bad paint work, mismatched wheels, cobbled together bits and pieces.
So a reluctant vote for the Fiero.
I’m as torn as the Fiero’s front seats between these two.
The CR-X is a better original car but that one has a few question marks and I’m not a fan of the mods. Why would you lower and complicate a car as tidy, lightweight, and simple as a CR-X? Racing slicks, coilovers, bad repaint, wires running everywhere, unknown quality of work with the engine swap.
The Fiero is unmolested but also unloved. If we think the CR-X has more than 100K on it due to the seat condition, the Fiero looks like it has 300K. Couldn’t even be bothered to shake out the floormats for the photos.
If I could talk the Fiero guy down to $2500 and buy some decent seat covers, I’d probably do that. Hard to beat that low, on-the-tarmac view out the windshield with the pop-ups.
Fiero has always been on my own it list and is priced reasonably. A couple of seat covers and a good scrubbing and it’s ready to go.
Went with Fiero b/c not esp interested in other people’s projects, but what I’d really want is the un-offered Ford EXP. But bet Mark couldn’t find one at this point…sigh.
Challenge accepted. I’ll keep an eye out.
Be ready for it to lose bigly, as few people here but me like ’em!
If the CRX had been stock – I’d go for that.
But…. Nah – I’m good.
Pass. No way either car is worth half what they’re asking.
Both, both is good.gif
This could be a both day. Fiero becomes a cheap rallycross car when I gut the interior. CRX isn’t terribly priced and could be a fun autocross toy. I got $7K, let’s go.
(But I voted Fiero.)
Ditto.
Honda offered a CRX with this engine in Europe. I drove one, and it was a great piece, making a good car both faster and better. A repaint, return to stock ride height and wheels/tires, and some detailing would make this CRX a sweet little machine.
It the Fiero was an ’88 with updated suspension and five-speed, the choice would be much, much harder.
But I’ll take the CRX.
I’d rather have a later model fast back Fiero than this one, so I’ll go with the Honda, since I’ve never had one.
The Fiero. Because even if mid-engined cars can be a bit tricky sometimes. It’s like my A110 GT with half the power and the gear ratios.
Also if you are serious about driving, front wheel drive is the work of Satan (and yes I know there are brilliant front drive drivers cars, but still).
Any other day and I’d say both, but dicking around with the CRX is not going to win me over. I’ve been wanting a Fiero to cross this stage for a while, and I’m not about to let it down.
FIEROOOOOOOO
That CRX is clean.
This is super-hard
Both. Where’s the Both button?
If I have to pick one: I’m voting Fiero. And this is not at all a reflection of the Honda.
Yellow CRX Si is one of the greatest cars of its era! That said, with not matching rims, lowered, engine swap, and primer paint, I can almost hear the fart can muffler from TX. Fiero!
Nothing that some effort, time and money can’t fix on the CRX. The CRX handles great and I can fit neither attribute applies to the Fiero.
Having owned a CRX many years ago and driven an Iron Duke Fiero, I’ll take my chances with the engine swap and questionable mods to the Honda.
Because anything is better than that wheezing POS engine.
This Fiero has the V6
I love a good CRX. I even love a bad one.
Honda Hatch for me!
Me pantalones en fuego! I’ll take the stock Fiero today over a modded CRX. If the CRX was still stock and yellow, that would have been my choice, but primered and questionably modified? No.
Exactly. This is a perfect example of subtraction by addition. It’d be worth more to me if they hadn’t screwed around with it.
If I wasn’t a firebirdman I probably would have been Fireoman and this is the 6 cylinder sucks not a GT but to me much cooler and better shape then the civic.