Discussion
Apologies for knowing absolutely nothing or nobody. This is an enquiry apropos of nothing.
Been getting a little hankering for a Trans-Am, a black, Smokey one obviously. Doesn't seem to be many around or even much information pertaining to them.
Can somebody tell me the performance figures for this car when it originally came out?
0 - 60, 1/4 mile etc.
Thank you.
Been getting a little hankering for a Trans-Am, a black, Smokey one obviously. Doesn't seem to be many around or even much information pertaining to them.
Can somebody tell me the performance figures for this car when it originally came out?
0 - 60, 1/4 mile etc.
Thank you.
The only Smokey & The Bandit type Trans Ams sold in the UK (1977-79) had the Oldsmobile 6.6 litre (403 cubic inch) and THM 350 GM 3 speed automatic. This was a California spec car with 185 hp. This LHD spec of car was also sold through Europe. Expect 0-60 in 9 seconds, 1/4 mile in the 16s and top speed of a bit over 120 mph.
In 1980/81 the Trans Am sold in Europe/UK was the 4.9 Turbo. This car was in the second Smokey & The Bandit movie and was slightly quicker (210 hp, 0-60 8.2 seconds, high 15s for 1/4 mile) than the Oldsmobile 6.6 litre car. It has the same styling as the 1979 shape Trans Am. All the cars imported to Europe in 1977-81 were automatic only.
Best thing to do is take off all the emmisions rubbish and the car will actually perform.. !
speak to Robin at www.autopontiac.co.uk
What he doesn't know about these cars isn't worth knowing..
speak to Robin at www.autopontiac.co.uk
What he doesn't know about these cars isn't worth knowing..
Thank you for such comprehensive info guys.
Surprisingly slow figures but I presume as with all these high litre American engines you can do an awful lot with some tuning.
I've always owned German and Italian stuff but lately I've been itching for a big, loud, un-pc American muscle car. I had a friend as a teenager who's (slightly mysterious and menacing) older brother had all the classic yank muscle cars. He would arrive infrequently in the small essex town I grew up in and just blow the place away with these huge monsters.
Suddenly, now in my forties, I feel the need to own one!
brad
Surprisingly slow figures but I presume as with all these high litre American engines you can do an awful lot with some tuning.
I've always owned German and Italian stuff but lately I've been itching for a big, loud, un-pc American muscle car. I had a friend as a teenager who's (slightly mysterious and menacing) older brother had all the classic yank muscle cars. He would arrive infrequently in the small essex town I grew up in and just blow the place away with these huge monsters.
Suddenly, now in my forties, I feel the need to own one!
brad
Don't be too fooled by the view that these cars can be made to perform as they are generally not only smog-controlled but also low compression engines requiring new heads and cams to get any decent performance. They are few and far between as they rust a lot, especially behind the rear window. A big carb can only do so much. Besides which, at over 30 years old, you don't really want to be racing anything. Cruising and loud noises and smoky burnouts is where they excel.
The Chevy equivalent is the Camaro Z28.
There is also the 3rd gen Camaro/Firebird which ran from 1982 - 1992. These are mainly 5 litres with the odd 5.7. The ones to go for are later injected cars which are around 205hp with an auto. The fastest 3rd gen was the Firebird Turbo which was very quick but also very rare and tends to be expensive to buy.
The Chevy equivalent is the Camaro Z28.
There is also the 3rd gen Camaro/Firebird which ran from 1982 - 1992. These are mainly 5 litres with the odd 5.7. The ones to go for are later injected cars which are around 205hp with an auto. The fastest 3rd gen was the Firebird Turbo which was very quick but also very rare and tends to be expensive to buy.
axlon said:
The only Smokey & The Bandit type Trans Ams sold in the UK (1977-79) had the Oldsmobile 6.6 litre (403 cubic inch) and THM 350 GM 3 speed automatic. This was a California spec car with 185 hp. This LHD spec of car was also sold through Europe. Expect 0-60 in 9 seconds, 1/4 mile in the 16s and top speed of a bit over 120 mph.
In 1980/81 the Trans Am sold in Europe/UK was the 4.9 Turbo. This car was in the second Smokey & The Bandit movie and was slightly quicker (210 hp, 0-60 8.2 seconds, high 15s for 1/4 mile) than the Oldsmobile 6.6 litre car. It has the same styling as the 1979 shape Trans Am. All the cars imported to Europe in 1977-81 were automatic only.
Speaking as a enthuisast of the model, there is something really depressing about 6.6 litre and 185bhp In 1980/81 the Trans Am sold in Europe/UK was the 4.9 Turbo. This car was in the second Smokey & The Bandit movie and was slightly quicker (210 hp, 0-60 8.2 seconds, high 15s for 1/4 mile) than the Oldsmobile 6.6 litre car. It has the same styling as the 1979 shape Trans Am. All the cars imported to Europe in 1977-81 were automatic only.
Maybe OP should oonsider a 4th gen, doesn't look quite the same, but...
balls-out said:
Maybe OP should oonsider a 4th gen, doesn't look quite the same, but...
chevy-stu said:
Best thing to do is take off all the emmisions rubbish and the car will actually perform.. !
speak to Robin at www.autopontiac.co.uk
What he doesn't know about these cars isn't worth knowing..
Totally agree. I used to have a 1982 Corvette with crossfire injection. Standard car did 0 to 60 in 7.9 seconds.speak to Robin at www.autopontiac.co.uk
What he doesn't know about these cars isn't worth knowing..
I still had the standard crossfire injection fitted (that was never great anyway), and with relatively simple mods and some emission crap ripped out, it ran a g-tech verified 6.51 seconds to 60 mph.
Not bad for 'cheap' mods. If I had ripped out the entire injection system and swapped in an Edelbrock inlet and suitable carb, it would have gone even faster... again, for not that much money.
The engines can deliver the performance... they just need to be unrestrained to let the beast within.... out!
Cheers
Dazza
I think the whole point is there isn't much of a beast within, to start with.
Late 70's GM product had primitive emissions control devices (single element catalyst, PCV and a few had simple EGR systems). Most of the effort was directed toward evaporative emissions and almost every 70's American car I ever encountered in the UK had had the charcoal filter removed.
As already pointed-out, a lot of these cars were equipped with 'soft' (i.e. low-compression) engines - not a great starting point in a search for tarmac-tearing hp. Installing a high cfm carb and headers is just going to make it more difficult to get through an exhaust emissions test - without a hefty horsepower pay-back.
Late 70's GM product had primitive emissions control devices (single element catalyst, PCV and a few had simple EGR systems). Most of the effort was directed toward evaporative emissions and almost every 70's American car I ever encountered in the UK had had the charcoal filter removed.
As already pointed-out, a lot of these cars were equipped with 'soft' (i.e. low-compression) engines - not a great starting point in a search for tarmac-tearing hp. Installing a high cfm carb and headers is just going to make it more difficult to get through an exhaust emissions test - without a hefty horsepower pay-back.
Matt Harper said:
I think the whole point is there isn't much of a beast within, to start with.
Late 70's GM product had primitive emissions control devices (single element catalyst, PCV and a few had simple EGR systems). Most of the effort was directed toward evaporative emissions and almost every 70's American car I ever encountered in the UK had had the charcoal filter removed.
As already pointed-out, a lot of these cars were equipped with 'soft' (i.e. low-compression) engines - not a great starting point in a search for tarmac-tearing hp. Installing a high cfm carb and headers is just going to make it more difficult to get through an exhaust emissions test - without a hefty horsepower pay-back.
Not really. High compression isnt everything. A cam and valve job on those engines, togther with adjusted timing etc really helps. Chevy were still getting 450hp out of 454s with 9:1 compression. Compression is not the end of the world.Late 70's GM product had primitive emissions control devices (single element catalyst, PCV and a few had simple EGR systems). Most of the effort was directed toward evaporative emissions and almost every 70's American car I ever encountered in the UK had had the charcoal filter removed.
As already pointed-out, a lot of these cars were equipped with 'soft' (i.e. low-compression) engines - not a great starting point in a search for tarmac-tearing hp. Installing a high cfm carb and headers is just going to make it more difficult to get through an exhaust emissions test - without a hefty horsepower pay-back.
427James said:
Compression is not the end of the world.
True - but it is the more usual starting point when designing/building an engine that will produce power, rather than a compromise of economy and emission friendliness.The point I was trying to make was that removing relatively primative emission control hardware doesn't really free-up dollops of horsepower.
Matt Harper said:
427James said:
Compression is not the end of the world.
True - but it is the more usual starting point when designing/building an engine that will produce power, rather than a compromise of economy and emission friendliness.The point I was trying to make was that removing relatively primative emission control hardware doesn't really free-up dollops of horsepower.
These cars still make good torque even with standard engines and can be made to stop and handle (to a point), so depending on your budget and what you expect it'll still be a nice head-turning classic ride..
Matt Harper said:
I think the whole point is there isn't much of a beast within, to start with.
Late 70's GM product had primitive emissions control devices (single element catalyst, PCV and a few had simple EGR systems). Most of the effort was directed toward evaporative emissions and almost every 70's American car I ever encountered in the UK had had the charcoal filter removed.
As already pointed-out, a lot of these cars were equipped with 'soft' (i.e. low-compression) engines - not a great starting point in a search for tarmac-tearing hp. Installing a high cfm carb and headers is just going to make it more difficult to get through an exhaust emissions test - without a hefty horsepower pay-back.
1982 Corvette - 9.0:1Late 70's GM product had primitive emissions control devices (single element catalyst, PCV and a few had simple EGR systems). Most of the effort was directed toward evaporative emissions and almost every 70's American car I ever encountered in the UK had had the charcoal filter removed.
As already pointed-out, a lot of these cars were equipped with 'soft' (i.e. low-compression) engines - not a great starting point in a search for tarmac-tearing hp. Installing a high cfm carb and headers is just going to make it more difficult to get through an exhaust emissions test - without a hefty horsepower pay-back.
2005 Mustang - 9.8:1
My old 1984 Corvette (also originally supplied with CrossFire Injection), had all of the injection removed and replaced with an Edelbrock inlet manifold and carb. It went a LOT faster.
I agree, the later engines were focused on torque rather than power... but they can be made to perform very well with relatively simple mods.
br d said:
Apologies for knowing absolutely nothing or nobody. This is an enquiry apropos of nothing.
Been getting a little hankering for a Trans-Am, a black, Smokey one obviously. Doesn't seem to be many around or even much information pertaining to them.
Can somebody tell me the performance figures for this car when it originally came out?
0 - 60, 1/4 mile etc.
Thank you.
Sorry, haven't read all the replies so some of this might have been covered already.Been getting a little hankering for a Trans-Am, a black, Smokey one obviously. Doesn't seem to be many around or even much information pertaining to them.
Can somebody tell me the performance figures for this car when it originally came out?
0 - 60, 1/4 mile etc.
Thank you.
In the original film the car is a 1977/78 Trans Am SE with the T/A 6.6 options pack.
Sadly in stock trim the cars of the mid/late 70's where not that fast or powerful. Not just in USA but here in the UK too.
For the 77-78 model years there where two engines available in the Trans Am. The original Pontiac (Poncho) 400ci badged as 6.6 litre and Olds 403ci also badged as 6.6 litre. HP ranged from 175-185bhp SAE Net and over 300lb ft of torque. The 403 generally made less HP and is a less desirable/tunable motor.
This HP issue is not as bad as it seems. Remember at the same period of time a 2.0 litre car in the UK would only be making 90-100hp and would be a lot slower.
0-60mph was clocked for these Trans Am's at anywhere from 8.4 sec to over 11 sec depending on the exact car and who tested it. 1/4 mile was 16 sec + in all cases.
But don't despair. The Poncho motor is actually very capable, but US emissions, corporate average fuel economy and insurance killed the speed and HP.
The same 400ci engine was used in the 1970-72 models labeled as RAM AIR V or IV these had different cams, higher CR and so on. They where rated at 370hp SAE Gross. The number sounds impressive but note its GROSS and not NET. This means its basically BS. In reality I suspect much nearer to 250-290hp.
But these cars where fast. 6.5 0-60mph and 14 sec 1/4's, quick enough to scare a modern Impreza WRX.
In 1973 there was the 455 SD (Super Duty) this had a claimed 290bhp SAE Net and was clocked at 5.x 0-60mph and would run high 13's in the 1/4
These are fairly rare and more expensive, but it shows that the engine is fully capable.
If you buy a Poncho engined car then with a few £££ you can make it fairly rapid.
In this day and age there is more availability of parts for the Old 403, but I don't know much about it, but it is generally accepted as being less capable.
In 1979 (different front) nearly all Trans Am's are the 403 with only a few manual ones having the 400 Poncho motor in them.
And by 1980 they had gone over to the 4.9 Turbo engine. I don't know so much about these. There should be lots of potential, but I think there are several weak area's that cause problems and can be expensive to overcome.
However, there are other options.
It's pretty common today to see people fitting LS1 engines (the modern all aluminium engine as found in the C5 Corvette). This will give you around 350hp straight off. You can buy all the bits to perform the conversion off the shelf too.
My advice would be, if you want a classics Trans Am for the appeal - buy any in good condition.
If you want one for speed look for anything pre 1974.
If you want to keep the looks of the Smokey and the Bandit one, go for a 1977/78 model but if you want tuning potential try and find one with the Poncho engine.
Most 4 speed manual cars will have the Poncho unit, but some auto's do to. There are either none, or very few 403 manuals.
Also if possible get one that has the optional T/A 6.6 pack on it.
Either that or just look to the aftermarket and modify it to how you want it.
On the suggestion of a 4th Gen Trans Am. If you want a fast, modern capable car then it is a very good bet. But evidently its not quite the same thing.
Poncho pilot said:
I had my Firebird on the rollers recently....
Only 185bhp, But 275lb/ft of torque makes it quite nippy.
Is that in totally stock form, with smog control stuff on it? Also, what is it running?Only 185bhp, But 275lb/ft of torque makes it quite nippy.
I have a 454 with flat tops but running l88 rectangle port heads, a 270h cam and a 750 Holley DP. I haven't dynoed it yet, but I was hoping for over 300hp...
Gassing Station | Yank Motors | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff