ADMIN NOTE:  A new-to-me test and brought to my attention by Lou Wassel, I have posted this one in spite of the results of the review. LOL  Besides, the photography is quite striking....

    In most comparison tests, a car from "Manufacturer A" is pitted against one from "Manufacturer B" and the result comes out to be something on the order of "the Wildfire was clearly the better performing car, but the Jet has a lot going for it, so the final choice is up to you...."  After putting the two Firebirds head-to-head, we're going to take a somewhat different approach:  both the yellow Formula and the white GTA DO have a lot going for them, but picking a clear winner was easy.  The only surprise was that two versions of the same car built by the same company in the same plant, can have such wildly differing personalities.

Delivering more bang for the buck is what these cars are designed to do.  The Formula package takes the more direct approach to the goal; it's so unobtrusive as to be anonymous among the zillions of Camarobirds out there on the road already.  On the other hand, the GTA is more assertive visually.  In appearance, at least, it's a choice between Superman and Clark Kent.

To duplicate either (or both) Firebirds requires only a steady hand when checking off boxes on the order form.  The Formula's build sheet was remarkably free of options, reflecting a "better idea" (sorry!) at Pontiac:  offer a modestly-priced hot-rod with no frills.  Thus, no air conditioning, no electrically operated doo-dads, not even an automatic day/night rear-view mirror; just a basic Firebird body into which the Van Nuys assembly plant stuffed the fuel-injected 5.0-liter V8, five-speed manual transmission, "performance" suspension, and wide 16-inch alloy wheels with Goodyear Gatorbacks wrapped around them.  Performance before comfort - the old sports car formula (no pun intended).  Thank you, Pontiac.

    The GTA was a different kettle of fish.  Its ticket included the good suspension pieces and a great deal more: A/C, electric everything, extra sound insulation, zoomy body pieces (quite a few, including a completely different front skin back to the doors and racy "ground-effects" side panels), a different steering wheel, the list could.... and does.... go on and on.  Under the hood is an injected 5.7-liter V8, which looks just like a 5.0, which looks very much like the Corvette 5.7 (remember, "Pontiacs are equipped with engines produced by GM car groups. subsidiaries, or affiliated companies....").  Wherever the 5.7-liter came from, it's attached to a four-speed automatic transmission equipped with a lock-up torque converter.

Having dismissed GM's "F body" cars as being a poor choice for in-town use already (Camaro IROC-Z test, April SCI) we didn't bother spending much time in the city with the Firebirds.  Open highways and the back twisties are where they perform to best advantage; knowing that in front gave us a head start in playtime.  Going around corners is something both Firebirds do well; the differences between them are the products of weight and bulk.  The yellow 'Bird was more responsive simply because it was lighter and, with less sheet metal in the front to look over, easier to place on a line through tight corners.  The choice of transmissions had little effect, leaving the manual box in second or third and the auto in second and letting the engines' prodigious torque outputs do all the work put them on near-equal footing.

Now that the Japanese are about to give us cars with four-wheel steering, it's worth noting that Detroit musclecars have been offering the same thing for years.  A big difference, of course, is that two controls -- steering wheel and accelerator pedal -- are used to control the amount of rear-wheel steer instead of relying on some anonymous microprocessor to make the decision.  Which is just another way of saying that bringing the 'Birds out of a corner with your right foot is bags of fun and, with some practice (in an area with run-offs on both sides of the road, please) a very fast way of getting things done.  Pushing too hard is not recommended; excess or premature power application will leave you staring at the inside of the turn through the windshield.  At least the GTA's automatic won't stall the engine when you spin.

Brakes are another vital part of this kind of driving.  Pontiac didn't cut corners in that department, installing four-wheel-discs on both cars.  No fade, no pull, just good stopping power.  We'll give the nod to the Formula in braking, because the GTA's extra weight takes a little more effort to bring to a halt.  As usual, we'd like to see ABS made available, though we had no problems with early lockup from any of the eight wheels under test here.

A summation of test drivers' comments indicates that the Formula was easier to drive quickly during this part of the evaluation.  Steering effort was near-identical and both cars' suspensions responded to input in the same manner, but subjectively the GTA demonstrated less grace under pressure.

    Out on the open road, the GTA's comfort options made it a winner for long-distance use.  It's hard to find fault with A/C and a good automatic transmission when the goal is to cover maximum miles in minimum time.  The Formula's major failure in this arena were its seats, which were both most unsupportive and barely habitable.  When the Pontiac salesman says these are the "base" seats, he's not kidding.  Spend a little more and get the fancy chairs.  Or, better still, install a set of five-point belts; they'll keep a driver in place more precisely than anybody's best "sport seat".  One interior demerit was give equally to both cars: the instruments are stretched out across the dashboard, making quick monitoring difficult.  We'll take the Camaro's gauge cluster.

Two instruments were completely obstructed when the seats (and the GTA's adjustable steering column) were adjusted to suit our drivers: the voltmeter (who cares?) and the fuel gauge.  In the latter's case, it wasn't a readout we wanted to spend much time looking at.  Our two cars recorded the same mileage figure, and it won't put either in line for a fuel economy award.  In all fairness, we have to collectively assume some of the guilt for the 'Birds' thirst; the temptation to use all that horsepower and make noises like Dale Earnhardt duking it out with Darrell Waltrip (minus the rending of sheet metal) was just too much to resist.  To our surprise, the bigger engine/automatic transmission in the GTA was no handicap when we totaled the fuel bills for the test.  Your mileage will vary.

    In virtually every respect, these cars were excellent performers.  The GTA was fast, the Formula was FAST.  So much so, in fact, that a suspicion that the Formula was a little too good to be true grew in several minds.  The nice Pontiac P. R. lady had obviously heard this one before, and referred us to the dealer who services the L.A. press fleet for her.  "Old Yaller....?  That's no cheater....  It's straight from Van Nuys.... didn't get any special massaging."  But doesn't it seem better than average to you?  "Oh yeah.... but it's just an exceptionally good car."  We apologize for thinking it was a "ringer", but if GM put Aston-Martin-style "Engine Built By" plates on its motors, we'd ask for "Old Yaller's" assembly team every time.

The winner of this contest?  If you haven't guessed, it was the Formula by a country mile.  Sure, the GTA would do everything the Formula would do, albeit with a little less finesse', and was quieter and more comfortable to boot, but there's just no substitute for the direct approach to high performance.  Especially when it represents a substantial cost savings.  All agreed: we could cheerfully live with the GTA, but the Formula was the one we liked best.  It wasn't even close.

Who would you choose to win a footrace.... Mikhail Baryshnikov, or Hulk Hogan?