One last thing on the Trans Ams before I get to work. The performance.

In 1975, the quickest Camaro (the 350 & 4 speed) took about 11 seconds to get to 60 mph. 2nd gen Z28s ranged from about 7 flat (1972) to about 8 flat (1974). Save for the L98 Z28s of post 1990, IROCs and Zs from the 1980s generally took from about 10 seconds (twin throttle injected) down to about upper 6s for the 5 speed TPI & auto 350s.

T/A 6.6 Trans Ams ('78 & '79) typically did mid 6 second runs to 60 & 15 second quarters just under 95 mph. Despite smaller displacement, these cars posted some of the quickest times in TA's history up to that time (455 H.O.s were quicker)

With the WS6/W72 combo, they typically stopped from 60 mph in just under 150 feet, & generated grip in excess of .80gs (Z28s were about .75 at the time).

The cost of the optional WS6 T/A 6.6 high performance engine? $75!

 

When you do the inflationary funny money math...that's still gotta be a sub $300 engine option

 

The handling package was not the W72. The handling package was WS6. It was not introduced until 1978. W72 is the "Special Performance Package" for the Pontiac 400. It included the 6X4 heads to boost compression, special cam, special oil pump, special main caps, 800 cfm Rochester Quadrajet, special torque converter for automatics, special exhaust, chrome valve covers and 3.23 rear gears. Details changed somewhat from year to year from 1977-79. See John Witzke's page for the best info on the package: http://www.78ta.com/w72.htm

Cars with the W72 Special Performance package are the cars that says "T/A 6.6" on the scoop. W72 was introduced in 1977 - the year before the WS6 handling package. In 1978 you had to purchase W72 and WS6 separately for at least part of the year - but there's some speculation they were combined later on. In 1979 W72 and WS6 had to be purchased together - and ALL Pontiac engined cars with manual transmissions were W72/WS6 cars. (You could get an automatic W72 in 77 and 78). I believe you could get WS6 without W72, but not the other way around.

Production of Pontiac 400s actually ended in 1978 but enough W72 motors were stockpiled so that they could be used in 1979 (with Tenth Anniversary Trans Am getting "priority" on W72s)

In 1977-78 the "Regular" 6.6 Liter could either be the base Pontiac 400 (180 horsepower) or The Olds 403 185 Horsepower. Pontiac engined cars have Z in the VIN. Olds motored cars have K. Both base (L78) and W72 cars have "Z" so you have to check for the special W72 features to differentiate.

In 1977 and 1978 cars, the Olds is MUCH rarer than the Pontiac motors, actually. That "most" were Olds powered is a myth. It wasn't until 1979, after the Pontiac 400 had ended production the Olds rose to the top. Olds was for California and high altitudes only in 1977 and 1978.

1977:
Trans Am Pontiac 400 L78 Z (auto) 29,313
Trans Am Pontiac T/A 6.6 W72 Z (Manual) 8,319
Trans Am Pontiac T/A 6.6 W72 Z (auto) 10,466
Trans Am Oldsmobile 403 L80 K (auto) 5,079

1978:

Trans Am Pontiac 400 L78 Z (Manual) 6,777
Trans Am Pontiac 400 L78 Z (Auto) 57,035
Trans Am Pontiac T/A 6.6 W72 (manual) 4,112
Trans Am Pontiac T/A 6.6 W72 Z (auto) 4,139
Trans Am Oldsmobile 403 L80 K (auto) 8,969

1979:

Trans Am Pontiac 301 L37 W (manual) 3,120 (auto) 10,316
Trans Am Pontiac 400 T/A 6.6 W72 Z (Manual) 5402 (auto) 0
Trans Am Oldsmobile 403 L80 K (auto) 79,216

My car is a PHS documented 1977 Automatic W72 (no WS6, since it didn't exist yet)

 

Apples and oranges.... my friend.

Like Guy said, you had to be there.

If you had your silk shirt, your BeeGee's 8 track, and your gold chains.....driving any Treeaaanzzz Aaaaeem simply completely the package. (Or should I say "Paekij").

There were lots and lots of these "disco" guys buying lower performance versions of the Trans Am. As long as it was called Trans Am and had a big bird on the hood...they were happy.

These were the guys that were Z/28 fodder. They couldn't understand why their Trans Am wasn't as fast as other Trans Ams (like T/A 6.6 W72 was).

 

Would these guys be considerd the precursor to the 'sticker racers' or 'ricers'? Is this why when a girl goes through my CD collection she's perplexed not to find any 'Night Ranger'?

 

Well, if that is the case, you'd have to say that every person who bought a Camaro of any kind during that time falls into the same catagory since they didn't buy a T/A 6.6...

I don't see how it's apples and oranges... again, let's use the modern Mustang... If you bought a GT, or a Mach 1, you are not into performance, because you didnt opt for a Cobra?!?

 

And what, precisely, is wrong with having Night Ranger in your CD collection???

 

Uh Oh, Darth........this isn't going to turn into one these threads that you and I simply talk in circles?

The Mustang GT analogy is flawed. A more appropriate one would be like buying a Navigator with 24" spinner wheels today.

The guys buying GT's today were the same people buying 301 or 350 Formulas back then.

It was a different time.

 

Ok, maybe this is a circle thing, but now you've boggled me even further.

I know I am not quite as old as you! , but at 32 years old, I did live through this era, though I couldn't drive a car.

I remember Trans Ams as being "cool" and all, but I just don't see how you can write off "most" of the people who didn't opt to buy the 6.6 as image-only people.

Let me take things back a ways... back in 1989, I bought my 1989 Camaro RS 5.0... I didn't get an IROC-Z, not because I wasn't a "car guy" or was just in it for the image, but because it was the best I could do at the time.

Also, another big thing ot consider about the 70's time frame is that the 6.6 was a pretty good gas hog, wasn't it? This was right in the middle of the Gas Crisis... a big, thirsty big block might not have been managable for a lot of people.

I guess it boils down to this: Ya, I am sure there were a lot of folks who bought the non-6.6 T/A as image cars, but to say MOST of them did... well, I think that is a real reach.


And, again, by this logic, every single Camaro sale during this time frame would have to be "image sales" too....

 

Absolutely nothing. I was making a play on the perception alot of people have when they think of owners of T/As and Camaro's (trailer parks, mullets or 'Kentucky Waterfalls', AC/DC sleeve-less shirts, etc.). I actaully like some Night Ranger.

Granted I have to play Sinatra kinda loud on the way home to drown out the Borla (it's supposed to be ambience), but they seem to get over the appearent 'culture clash' eventually.

 

The gas mileage difference between the T/A 6.6 and base Pontiac 6.6 and Olds is probably not all that great of a difference. My car (with 106,000 miles on it) gets about 14 in the city and 18 on the highway. I don't think that's too bad for a vehicle from that time period, actually.

And there's no such thing as a Pontiac "big block"

 

And yet another thread is hijacked!

 

HEHEHEHE....

Sinatra....

 

Yea, like HE said!

I do recall the T/A getting the same mileage as 350 Camaros of the time.

Yep, there's no Pontiac "big" block. The engine is the same dimensions, regardless as to if you had a 301, 350, 400, or 455 cubic inches.

 

Awesome rundown Eric!

The WS6 could be had on any TA or Formula. I remember seeing lots of WS6 403 cars and even 301 cars.

Now the '79 W72/ WS6 gets aliitle blurry for me.
While most W72 cars that I remember had the WS6....I have distinct recollection of at least one or two new T/A 6.6 cars without the WS6 wheels.