Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's my '87 GTA. It looks rough right now. The previous owner let it sit under some oak trees for years and the paint is badly oxidized. Right now I'm working on the interior, once I get that finished I will start on the exterior. This car has the L98 350, and even with 164k miles it still has plenty of muscle.
the thing to do with a third gen is to find a good one and keep it.
Didn't the 89ish Turbo GTA's have the Buick engine from the Grand national? Something like a 3.8 liter turbo?
Yes, it was the same engine as the 86-87 Grand National: the 3.8 liter turbocharged V6, RPO code LC2. Only the 1989 20th anniversary Trans AM's received it, most of them Indy 500 Pace Cars.
Another under-appreciated muscle car was the 1973 Chevelle SS 454.
duh!!! im sorry, bro! you probably were talking about this: the 1989 Trans Am GTA Turbo.
these things arent under-appreciated. they're just friggin' rare. and they dont come cheap either.
Yep, thats the one! When you posted that first pic I was scratching my head and saying to myself "I know I didnt drive one of those". lol Then I saw the second pic you posted and yep! Thats the body style I drove! We had one traded in at the GMC dealer in town, the owner traded in that T/A and bought a Typhoon instead. I got to drive the turbo T/A for a few minutes, it was pretty decent. I liked it more than the V8.
late 70s early 80s camaros and firebirds for sure!
They are overlooked for a good reason... they were much slower than real ('60s/early '70s) Camaros and Firebirds.
A muscle car magazine had a list: The 10 Worst Muscle Cars of All-Time
Two of the picks were:
1980-'81 Pontiac Turbo 301-cu-in Trans Am.
The author said: "They turbocharged a V-8 and still couldn't find any power. A near 4,000-lb curb weight and 3.08:1 rear gears made this vehicle lunch meat for any 318-powered Mopar taxicab."
1976-'81 Chevrolet Camaro Rally Sport:
"Here was a car so slow that a certain magazine brought one back to a local Chevy dealer after drag-testing it-they thought it wasn't running right. Unfortunately, the diagnosis brought out the truth: woof woof woof woof. The 4-bbl small-block under the flat-black hood wheezed out an anemic 155 horses at a mind-warping 3800 rpm. With a hurricane-like tail wind, a 16.8 sec 1/4 mile was within the realm of possibility. Whopee."
Yeah the 80-81 Turbo T/A's were pretty anemic to say the least. Even worse was the fact the blocks were a crappy casting, which meant if you tried to boost them more than 9 PSI (factory setting) you might as well bring a dust pan and broom.
They used a brand new 80 Turbo T/A in Smokey And The Bandit II and were disappointed with the performance, that they ended up running nitrous oxide on the car.
Heck even the 400 Pontiac powered 77-79 models weren't all that but probably the fastest new production car of the day. The 73 SD 455 T/A was the last real muscle car T/A until the 3.8 turbo 89 T/A came out.
Yeah the late 70's Camaros were pretty anemic too. My old Chevelle had one of those 170 hp 350's in it when I bought it, and even with a TH350 and a 4.10 gear it still didn't have the balls to even break a tire loose.
Even the Corvettes and Mustangs of the day back in the dying disco days were slouches. It was truly a dark time in terms of factory performance.
And the '80 Corvette. Funny what they said about the 'Vette:
"God punished Californians for thrusting far-out trends and avocados on the rest of the country by making all Corvette buyers in the Golden State settle for 305-cu-in engine. The other 49 states could still get a decently powered L-82 model, but the 305 represents the definite low point in the marque's 37-year history. In fact, it could very well represent the low point in automotive history of the U.S."
That's pretty sad about your 350 Chevelle... 4.10s and it still couldn't burn rubber!
You could under-appreciate a '73 Vega with a beefy 350 planted under the hood, to the point of handing over your car title, should you be foolish enough.
You could under-appreciate a '73 Vega with a beefy 350 planted under the hood, to the point of handing over your car title, should you be foolish enough.
I actually knew someone who put a 350 engine in a Vega wagon. He was at a parking lot once and was trying to burn some rubber. It woudn't do it, so he took the tools out of the back to remove some weight and it still wouldn't do it! It was like the engine was saying, "I refuse to operate properly in a Vega!"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
