The unique thing about the f-body was getting overall performance for cheap. I fear with a more "civil" version coming out, it's just going to compromise it's performance only to be more expensive and still seen as low quality compared to imports (sort of like Mustang's change from fox->pre 99). With the 4th gen everyone knows it doesn't have the greatest interior or ergonomics, but almost everone respects how fast it is. It was less about image and name and more about real world numbers.

I just have this feeling that the loss in performance will be greater than the gain in quality and the car will loose it's only edge.

 

78 & 79 had 220HP 400's (77 had two 400 versions 180 & 200, I think), the 79 400's could only be had with a 4spd, all autos got the Olds 403 or Pontiac 301 (301 could be had with an auto or 4spd). In their day the 78 or 79 W72 & WS6 equipped TA's would smack down even the vaunted Vette. The 2nd gen TA's held on to the muscle era better than any of the competition. A 455/4spd could be had up until 76, from 77-79 the high output 400 (W72) filled the performance role. Finally, 80-81 saw the much maligned 301 turbo, which put out 210 in 80 and 200 in 81.

I think most of those facts are right, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

As for GTO sales, I think they may be picking up a bit. Most if not all of the ones at a local dealer are gone and they had five about a month ago.

 

So basically I was right, even if the differences are extremely slight. It's longer, wider, and lower. But then compare the 69.

LENGTH: 186.0
HEIGHT: 51.1 (50.9 for convertable)
WIDTH: 74.0

 

TA76...tks for the info. I can't say that your 100% correct, but I'm sure you're real close regardless.

About that 301....one of the most useless motors ever dropped between the fenders of an F-body, IMHO. Sister had an 81 Formula with it. Couldn't hardly get out of its own way, but then again, 81 wasn't exactly a banner year for performance.

Though I never had one, I do remember the 80/81 Turbo 301's very well. Those were all the rage at that time (I was in high school), as the word "turbo" meant it HAD to be fast. Even if it wasn't.

 

Thanks Bob, I double checked my HP numbers after I posted and it looks like I got'em all right. The 301 4bbl's were not too bad, I had one in a 79 with a 3.42 rear. I was able to handle a number of LG4 3rd gens at the stoplights. The L69 and TPI cars, no way!

 

You know I've heard the 301 was available with a 4 speed, from several sources....but I've never been able to verify that. I've never seen one, nor seen the option in any "official" Pontiac literature.....and in fact the only 4 speed T/A of the era I've ever seen (other than 6.6)...had 5.0 liter (Chevy 305) badging on the shaker.

Can anyone shed some light?

 

If you want to consider 0.4" in length, 1.2" in width, 0.4" in height, 0.9" & 0.8" of front & rear track bigger and wider than Mustangs, I suppose I can throw a drowning man about to go under a life preserver.

BTW, Mustangs were also bigger in 1969 too.

 

I never get tired of hearing about or talking about 70s era Trans Ams.

The T/A 4.9 was infact available with the 4 speed... in 1979! Only about 3,300 were made (of a total of 116,000 Trans Ams)

In 1980, Trans Ams lost manual transmissions all together. This was also the 1st year Chevy 305s were available... better yet, mandatory in all Trans Ams sold in California.

The turbo 301s were torque factories, putting out even more torque that the T/A 6.6 (345 lbs/ft). It's that the engine computer continually screwed with timing and the transmission was made to compensate.

The computer would be constantly on the lookout for detonation (this was before modern fuels with better lead subsitute) and at the slightest sign of vibration, it would tone down things quite a bit.

Also, GM kept the turbo pressure pretty low. This was in the pre-injection days, and we are talking about gasoline being sucked through a carb and being pressurized through a hot turbo and alot of tubing. Very bad if it leaked.

Word is that these engines were extremely durable, and with today's fuels and changes in the cumputer, they do pretty well performance wise.

 

Yeah G, I could talk about 2nd gens all day! I think the turbo 301 got a raw deal, sheesh it had forged internals (not sure about the crank but I know it was better than a stock cast unit). It was an engine that could have really been a beast if it had continued to evolve. It was supposed to carry over to the 3rd gen TA's but got axed somewhere along the line. Imagine that sucker in an 85 TA with fuel injection, decent computer tuning and an intercooler!

"Is that a GN or Corvette I see in my rear view mirror? Hard to tell, it's so far back!" would have been uttered by many a 301 Turbo equipped 3rd gen owners.

 

Funny, I looked at a few 301 turbo's a few years ago. The turbo housing's themselves seem to have a rust issue. Also, it seems they are getting hard to find becasue people were swapping them out because they were so hard to maintain. At least that was what I found about 5 years ago in the MD, Va, and PA area.

 

I could talk about them all day too. The turbo 301, BTW, was developed by the very same people who developed the turbo 3.8...using identical technology. Had the 301 made it to the 3rd gen......it would have been the V8 equivalent of the turbo 3.8 GN motor.... .....WOW!

 

Actually, in 1969, the Mustang was 0.8" LOWER and 1.4" LONGER. And given that you could get the Mustang in a fastback, the Camaro was the most upright of the two. So much for that theory.

 

That's a standard Garrett Turbocharger issue.

It's the identical blower that was used in Ford's turbo 4, Buick's turbo V6, and if I'm not mistaken, Chrysler's early turbo 4s as well.

They are being swapped out because they are expensive & difficult (if not nearly impossible) to modify next to a 400 or 455.

A good site for just about everything you'd want to know about the 301 is: http://publish.uwo.ca/~agrehorn/301shrine.html#history
If you want to hear about turbo 4.9 mods: http://publish.uwo.ca/~agrehorn/mods.htm

Proof positive there's a site for anything nowadays.

 

Every little bit counts. Post numbers!

Like I said though, 1st Gens were rushed and the true vision was not seen until the 2nd Gen. (even if there were hints in the 1sts) It was always intended to be a little different or sportier than its competition. Camaros and M*stangs had similar dimensions for only 3 years. As soon as they could change it, they did.