There’s something to be said for owning a nicely preserved example of a lower-spec version of an iconic car. While there’s often an obsession with finding the most sporting example of a muscle car, it also means there’s a wide array of base- and mid-tier models that sell for far less and feature the same iconic looks as the fire-breathing quarter-mile kings. This 1980 Pontiac Firebird is a perfect example of this theory, as it is a six-cylinder car that the seller purchased with the intent of performing an LS swap but later decided against because, as he puts it, the Pontiac simply drives too well to be cut up. The later up-sized “snowflake” wheels are a great choice, and the only other tweak I’d make it to lower it an inch or two. Find the Firebird here on craigslist with 94,000 original miles and an asking price of $12,500.
This is claimed to be an all-original car, from the paint to the interior. You can see how this was likely a total grandma car, or perhaps the hairdresser’s retirement gift to herself. I’m not being judgemental; hell, I think GM actively marketed their six-cylinder muscle models to those segments. Now, that has clearly changed with the modern entry-level Mustangs and FIrebirds all proving to be quite powerful right out of the box, but back in the 70s and 80s, there was a pretty big gulf separating the lower-tier models from the Trans Ams and GTs of the world. The interior of this Firebird really is as nice as the seller describes it; it’s difficult to find any real flaws.
The clean condition continues to the trunk, where the insides look to be in very clean shape and the factory spare tire and jack remain installed. It looks like there may even be a factory tire repair kit sitting on top of the spare wheel, but I’m not sure. Regardless, it’s hard to deny the seller’s claims about how original this car remains, as the condition is consistently nice all the way through. The seller further notes that the Firebird features cold factory air conditioning, power disc brakes, power steering, and cruise control, making this a very well-equipped Firebird aside from being saddled with the smaller engine.
As the seller notes, however, there are some benefits to the six-cylinder mill. For one, it’s better on gas than a V8 car would be, and it’s also a great entry into classic car ownership for a younger driver who won’t be tempted to mash the go-pedal as much. And, of course, it’s still a great platform for an engine swap if you’re not affected by the car’s highly original condition. Six-cylinder Camaros and Firebirds rarely show up this nice, especially with low miles and original paint, so I’d be hard-pressed to modify this one extensively given how well it’s survived. Like I said, lower it a touch and otherwise leave it alone. What do you think – could you get excited over a survivor six-cylinder?
Refreshing to see this car!
Agree with leiniedude, not everything has to be a fire breathing monster. This looks to be a nice survivor, but I would prefer one a few years older when you could get the inline 6. I’ve had a lot of bad experiences with the 2.8 of this era.
That is probably a Buick 231 V-6, later known as the 3.8. Not smooth, not a fire breather but adequate in its era. No relation to the 60 degree 2.8 V6.
I mis-read the ad, definitely a better motor.
I would have to put a crate 350 in it. It’s beautiful.
I’d take the 250 I6, if it’s the God awful 231 Buick V6 get the LS ready.
Why not have fun with it… if it was born with a 6 cylinder, why not drop in a Buick 3.8 Turbo and make it interesting
I wonder how hard it would be to use a later EFI supercharged 3800 out of a ’90s FWD sedan.
That would be a great choice. You could build a real fire breather that got good mpg and sounds like a grannymobile.
Cool would be the look on the bird drivers face with the wheezing 6 under the hood of a car that from a distance doubles as a beautiful T/A with those fake Snow Flakes. Then getting smoked at a traffic light by a hammered Sienna mini van late for a school ball game with hella kids pointing and laughing! You can bet after that would be a call to Jegs 1-800 hotline for a V8.
I can only imagine how anemic this really is knowing how the 301 V8 was and this is minus 2 cylinders. The exact car teenage girls and their moms would have and look good. The seller knows this and uses the benefit of fuel economy to try to talk someone into this. Truth is the engines offered V8 and six fuel economy would be a wash.
A classic car is only going to driven on the weekends or when nice. Something original and old like this won’t be an everyday driver. For a classic car who cares about fuel economy? No one. Now wouldn’t you rather have a V8?
If you’d really rather have a V8, buy one of the 98% that survive that are V8s and leave this one alone.
That’s a great idea Mitch. Now we wouldn’t want to hurt the collectability with this 90,000 example now would we? Shouldn’t the steel wheels and wire hubcaps be put back on too?
I’m gonna agree with Mitch, here. If you want a V8, why not just find a different car? Also, on the question of mileage, I’m one who does care a little. A car getting 8-10, maybe 12 mpg is not as useful to me as one that is around 20 mpg. I have the latter. I did hot rod the inline six in mine and added front disc brakes to get a better cruiser in today’s traffic. I’ve thought about building a monster but the reality is, I wouldn’t commute in it as much even in the warmer weather. And, truth is, if I get a savings pile built up high enough, I’d probably get something modern to be the monster anyhow. I like my cruiser for fun cruising and a hot inline six getting 20 mpg does it. Save this car for someone who might have similar aspirations.
FWIU after 1977 the F-body was the heaviest car GM made bar the Caddy Series 75 factory limo. Heavier even than the fake-wood-paneled wagons.
I can’t believe no one has suggested this yet. The obvious resto-mod. It takes a wonderful 3.6 L V6 from the current Chevrolet Camaro along, with the six-speed manual put it in this ride ..talk about a sleeper
Seems like a fun driver. I would switch to a slightly thicker tire sidewall and drop the suspension an inch or so to fill up the wheel openings.
@Stan – interesting idea, though if I were a gambler, I’d bet the 3.6 won’t fit. Those DOHC engines are wide and tall.
I’m surprised there are no comments about the rarity of this car. There could not have been many 6 cylinder Firebirds. Anyone have numbers.
Nice looking car. I’ve always loved the 1978-81 Pontiac Firebird. I’ve never seen one with an inline six engine. Sweet! Since when does a car have to have a fire-breathing V8 engine to be fun?
Red interior. For me that’s just not good.
Black with a red gut is the ultimate for me, but to each their own.
Being an old guy, this would be perfect! I’d backflash to earlier days and get into SO much trouble with the opportunity!
Another one gone.
If it is a inline they can make 300+ ponies and be docile enough to drive in traffic. A motor shot would have been good.
This reminds me so much of my first brand new car – an ’81 Camaro with all the showy options but with the V6 engine. Black / Tan, spoiler, rally wheels.
I loved that car and got a lot of compliments on the look.
This would have the even fire 231, not a terrible engine. Better than the odd fire 231. Probably around the same weak power output as the 301 V-8, probably about the same gas mileage too.
I would leave it be until that 231 was ready to bite the bullet. I like the idea of a modern 3.6, I would not have thought of that. Now that someone said it, I think I would eventually try that in this.
Back in high school, I chased the skirt of a chick that had a V-6 Firebird, same body style as this (’79-’81). She hammered on it like a red-headed step child. Whoever suggested this is a good first car for a kid is way off lol. No modern kid wants this…they want a Honda with the big stupid exhaust lol. It would remain parked.