and a fixed “Vista” roof.  Nod to the Vista Cruisers of years gone by.

My first new car: 1990 GTi. I’d already gone through 4-5 cars since getting my license in 83. My GTi replaced my high mileage 81 Audi Coupe GT, a car I loved but was starting to cost me in repairs. The GTi was super fun, very practical being a hatch and economical on gas even when whipped. Got a set of steelies and…

I’ve had my motorcycle license for nearly 40yrs now but have always wanted to take the courses to see just where I can improve. I’ve watched a lot of DanDantheFireman videos too because you can never stop learning and honing your skills.

Nissan 300zx, Toyota MR2, Toyota Supra, Dodge Stealth/Mitsubishi 3000GT, Mazda RX, Subaru Imprezza. Some might be higher cost depending upon how they were equipped but all are far more refined and generally better, again in my opinion.

hmmm, I’d like to crunch numbers on that. Most “performance” cars of the 80's were heavily castrated by emissions but could at least turn and stop far better than the majority of any 60's cars.

That’s light years apart! Most 60's cars I drove in the 80's were beaters and POS even in good shape and some of them were true halo muscle cars.  The 80's cars felt new and refined by comparison but if we jumped into an 80's car today they’d feel like a 60's car by comparison.

One man’s opinion seeming to be partly echo’d by other’s.  Agree to disagree with you.

Maybe right now, but back then in the 90's, again my opinion, it was one of the worst. Sure top of the range had all the pawr but it was ugly, big, a rattle can from new and uncomfortable to be in.  No apologies.

nope, even without the nose on the lesser models, it never impressed me as a goer, more a poser.

It is one of the worst performance cars of the 90's. Given the right engine it can surely perform, but my opinion is just that it is one of the worst because of its looks, interior, build quality, handling, etc... Again, its not the worst performing just one of the worst performance cars.

This occurs in Sicily (or any similar climate). They go for most of the summer without any rain and around September the rain will start showing up. Most drivers are aware of this phenomenon and know to be cautious those first couple of hours or so.

That’s the height/depth of the overwrought design in my eyes. Yes you could get some without the nostrils but again, just not my idea of a good performance car. Performance means all attributes: aesthetic, power, handling, braking, etc...

They are retro cool today, but back in the day they were just over done.  Especially Pontiac which was on a plastic tack on acid trip.

I love me some Skynyrd but I always think it should be cranking in these cars. Fits the cocaine beak, mullet sporting driver image.

Sure the LT was a good motor and of course the LS even better, but I still think overall they were just not that great.  Chassis was aging and flexible so handling was buckboard like with the better suspension.

The earlier and maybe more base versions looked better but I’m still of the opinion that this is Joe Dirt’s wet dream of a car.

But you had to get the WS for that, the rest of the lot was meh... How old was this chassis at this point?

My feelings exactly and as a passenger my legs were straight out but not supported.

In fully kitted WS package I’m sure they went, but overall they were show ponies in my opinion.  And the V6 is the ubiquitous flatulent GM V6 no?

Camaro/Firebird’s of the era. Plastic fantastic mostly all show and not too much go. Buddy had a Camaro that was nearly new and shake, rattled and rolled almost off the showroom floor.  Just no.