I have a question on the 1976-1981 Trans AM's
#1
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The boondocks, Missouri
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a question on the 1976-1981 Trans AM's
I've always thought these were one of the best looking years for the Pontiac F bodies and I've wanted to own one/build one for awhile now....
But if I'm not mistaken, wern't these years some of the heaviest?
I'm curious what a 1976 to 1981 Trans Am weighs? (roughly) I am guessing over 3500....perhaps closer to 3900? Anyone know for sure?
But if I'm not mistaken, wern't these years some of the heaviest?
I'm curious what a 1976 to 1981 Trans Am weighs? (roughly) I am guessing over 3500....perhaps closer to 3900? Anyone know for sure?
#3
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The boondocks, Missouri
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually the Bandit Trans AM's were my dream car growing up in the 80's. I've always loved the 1977 Black/Gold Trans AM's.
But yes one day I want to do up a Bandit T/A. I am leaning towards a 1976 model since I like the nose a little better than the 1977's, but I'd also consider a 1977-78 or even a 1979-81.
However, I've heard the 400 used in the 1977's was only making like what...220 hp I think? And that was the best engine for the T/A in that day from what I understand....seems there was also a 403 Olds engine and later a 301 turboed Pontiac, which to my understanding were real turds in any type of performance....
But with that said I've had the thought of either cloning up a Bandit T/A or finding /restoring a Bandit T/A but instead of going with the typical Pontiac big block drive train, dropping in an LS1 with a 6 speed....or even better a stroked 6.0 LS engine (would displace 402 cubes....and run 500 hp n/a)
I figure those cars were built to look good and they should have the ***** to back it up....so why not drop in something to make them run as good as they look?
One issue I can see already is if I do the LS1 swap how am I gonna be able to retain the shaker scoop?
But another issue I was curious about was their weight.....if at all possible I'd like to get one to not weigh so damn much so it will run like a raped ape.
But yes one day I want to do up a Bandit T/A. I am leaning towards a 1976 model since I like the nose a little better than the 1977's, but I'd also consider a 1977-78 or even a 1979-81.
However, I've heard the 400 used in the 1977's was only making like what...220 hp I think? And that was the best engine for the T/A in that day from what I understand....seems there was also a 403 Olds engine and later a 301 turboed Pontiac, which to my understanding were real turds in any type of performance....
But with that said I've had the thought of either cloning up a Bandit T/A or finding /restoring a Bandit T/A but instead of going with the typical Pontiac big block drive train, dropping in an LS1 with a 6 speed....or even better a stroked 6.0 LS engine (would displace 402 cubes....and run 500 hp n/a)
I figure those cars were built to look good and they should have the ***** to back it up....so why not drop in something to make them run as good as they look?
One issue I can see already is if I do the LS1 swap how am I gonna be able to retain the shaker scoop?
But another issue I was curious about was their weight.....if at all possible I'd like to get one to not weigh so damn much so it will run like a raped ape.
#4
TECH Addict
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SE VA
Posts: 2,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why bother doing what everyone else is doing, and putting an LS1 into a 2nd gen? go traditional and stay pure pontiac. its cheaper, different then the usual 'gen-x' route of new motor in old iron, and nothing, i repeat nothing, sounds better then a carbed big block. keep in mind i have both old and new school. you can easily make a 400 or 455 just as fast, if not way faster then an LS1 or LS2, cheaper, and have the ability to tinker and play with it without using a laptop.
also, theyre not much heavier then an LS1 Trans Am. around 3600lbs, give or take, depending on options and engine. any properly built old school poncho motor will have mountains of torque, more then enough to make it 'run like a raped ape', as you wanted. to keep a shaker scoop, youd have to attach it to the hood, by some kind of glue, screws, or bolts. most of which will look like ****.
if youre so worried about losing weight, then youre looking in the wrong place. buy a solstice or miata and put a V8 in it if you want power/weight.
also, theyre not much heavier then an LS1 Trans Am. around 3600lbs, give or take, depending on options and engine. any properly built old school poncho motor will have mountains of torque, more then enough to make it 'run like a raped ape', as you wanted. to keep a shaker scoop, youd have to attach it to the hood, by some kind of glue, screws, or bolts. most of which will look like ****.
if youre so worried about losing weight, then youre looking in the wrong place. buy a solstice or miata and put a V8 in it if you want power/weight.
#5
TECH Resident
iTrader: (2)
They weigh between 3600-3900lbs depending on options.
My 1981 ta is a pw/ps car with the ac removed and lightened by alum rad, water pump, intake and heads. Thats it.
It weighs 3525 with half a tank of gas.
For the years you are looking at, the hp levels are low compared to today. Back in the day they were heroes in the smog dog era with Detroit putting out crap.
A well built 455 will make that car haul ***.
My car goes 12.0's all day long on the motor in the hot humid Florida air with a road race suspension and no tuning. If I dial it all in and get good air I am looking at mid 11's on pump gas.
Good Luck
My 1981 ta is a pw/ps car with the ac removed and lightened by alum rad, water pump, intake and heads. Thats it.
It weighs 3525 with half a tank of gas.
For the years you are looking at, the hp levels are low compared to today. Back in the day they were heroes in the smog dog era with Detroit putting out crap.
A well built 455 will make that car haul ***.
My car goes 12.0's all day long on the motor in the hot humid Florida air with a road race suspension and no tuning. If I dial it all in and get good air I am looking at mid 11's on pump gas.
Good Luck
#6
7 Second Club
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Gainesville, Florida # of drag strips runs: ?!?!?
Posts: 8,834
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Year One has started doing "Burt Reynolds" themed 77-81 Trans Ams in 3 levels, with LS-based powerplants involved. Personally I agree that staying with Pontiac power is cooler than the LS-based engines that you are now finding in lots of classic sheetmetal. But the versatility of the Gen III engines is why you see them everywhere, so go with whatever vision you want and enjoy it!
Derek
Derek
#7
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree on the LSx conversion, you are gonna spend a ton of money trying to convert it over, why not stick a 400 or 455 in there, and get a modern EFI unit if you are worried about that.
And about the shaker, no way will it fit.
But I know what you mean about the 74-76 front end, it is pretty nice, but I prefer the four square headlights and the double grill of the 77-78 much better,
but the moral of the story, put a chebby engine in to a tin indian and you make the Pontiac gods angry
And about the shaker, no way will it fit.
But I know what you mean about the 74-76 front end, it is pretty nice, but I prefer the four square headlights and the double grill of the 77-78 much better,
but the moral of the story, put a chebby engine in to a tin indian and you make the Pontiac gods angry
Trending Topics
#8
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (5)
Not trying to hijack or anything but I have a 76 Formula for sale as a parts car Or I might part out the parts u need to convert a front end (all but the hood) I also have a 400 CI Pontiac bored and honed 30 over with forged pistons, 272 comp cam 6X 8 heads, edelbrock aluminum intake. Let me know if you might be interested.
#10
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (5)
The 74-75 front end is identical (with the exception of the grille), 76 is a one year only front end. Header panels and front bumper are different for 76 than 74-75. The front fenders for 76 are also unique (one yr only)in how they mount to the radiator support I believe, but 77-81 fenders can be made to work. The 76 also had the smooth urthane front/rear bumper where the 74-75 did not. 74, 75. 76 all had different grilles. 74 had vertical bars with turn signals in the bumper, 75 had vertical bars with the turn signals in the grill, 76 had a honeycomb grille with the turn signals in the front bumper.
Just a little info to ponder.
Just a little info to ponder.
#12
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Blu99T/A
The 74-75 front end is identical (with the exception of the grille), 76 is a one year only front end. Header panels and front bumper are different for 76 than 74-75. The front fenders for 76 are also unique (one yr only)in how they mount to the radiator support I believe, but 77-81 fenders can be made to work. The 76 also had the smooth urthane front/rear bumper where the 74-75 did not. 74, 75. 76 all had different grilles. 74 had vertical bars with turn signals in the bumper, 75 had vertical bars with the turn signals in the grill, 76 had a honeycomb grille with the turn signals in the front bumper.
Just a little info to ponder.
Just a little info to ponder.
#13
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The boondocks, Missouri
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EchoMirage, the main reason why I'd do an LS1 conversion into a mid 70's Trans AM is because we all know the LS series engines with fuel injection is by far the best thing GM has done in a long time. And IMO the Bandit Trans AM's were made to look fast, so they should have the bark to match the bite.
I could do the 455, but I figure I'd spend about the same to build it up the way I want it plus the overdrive for the long trips and such. But we all know the 455's are gas hogs, plus I would only imagine all they do is make the car nose heavy.
There's an article where they were able to squeeze over 500 hp from a stroked 6.0 liter while maintaining a smooth idle and good road manners. Plus the 6 bolt mains and aluminum blocks/heads would help those tank Trans AM's.
I myself was thinking an aluminum block/headed fuel injected LS engine with overdrive would be more efficient than a cast iron log with a carburetor and a TH400.
I've actually considered a stroked 6.0 liter that would displace 6.6 liters, the same as the 400 T/A's, respectively.
Also Captainofiron, the LS1 engine is not a Chevy engine, or even a Pontiac engine for that matter. It is considered a "corporate GM engine."
And even if it were a Chevy engine, it's not as if GM wasn't doing this back in 1977 and onwards. Chevy, Pontiac, Buick and even Oldsmobile were all sharing engines there from 1977 onwards. Heck even before then Oldsmobiles were being fitted with Chevy inline 6 engines.
The way I look at it....if the general did it that way from the factory, then I am doing it.
I could do the 455, but I figure I'd spend about the same to build it up the way I want it plus the overdrive for the long trips and such. But we all know the 455's are gas hogs, plus I would only imagine all they do is make the car nose heavy.
There's an article where they were able to squeeze over 500 hp from a stroked 6.0 liter while maintaining a smooth idle and good road manners. Plus the 6 bolt mains and aluminum blocks/heads would help those tank Trans AM's.
I myself was thinking an aluminum block/headed fuel injected LS engine with overdrive would be more efficient than a cast iron log with a carburetor and a TH400.
I've actually considered a stroked 6.0 liter that would displace 6.6 liters, the same as the 400 T/A's, respectively.
Also Captainofiron, the LS1 engine is not a Chevy engine, or even a Pontiac engine for that matter. It is considered a "corporate GM engine."
And even if it were a Chevy engine, it's not as if GM wasn't doing this back in 1977 and onwards. Chevy, Pontiac, Buick and even Oldsmobile were all sharing engines there from 1977 onwards. Heck even before then Oldsmobiles were being fitted with Chevy inline 6 engines.
The way I look at it....if the general did it that way from the factory, then I am doing it.
#15
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
trust me you are gonna spend alot more trying to put a LSx in there than building a 600+ horsepower 455
http://www.jbp-pontiac.com/products/...474_cu_in.html
A turn key 455 stroker with 660 HP on pump gas. For 10 grand.
there is alot of little stuff out there that you need to change to run a Chebby engine in that Pontiac. Little stuff adds up really quickly.
Go to Performance years forum
http://forums.performanceyears.com/forums/
Ask a few guys on there how much it cost them to run a LSx in their cars, and I am sure a few know where to get a 600+hp 455 for cheaper than Butler
http://www.jbp-pontiac.com/products/...474_cu_in.html
A turn key 455 stroker with 660 HP on pump gas. For 10 grand.
there is alot of little stuff out there that you need to change to run a Chebby engine in that Pontiac. Little stuff adds up really quickly.
Go to Performance years forum
http://forums.performanceyears.com/forums/
Ask a few guys on there how much it cost them to run a LSx in their cars, and I am sure a few know where to get a 600+hp 455 for cheaper than Butler
Last edited by Captainofiron; 06-14-2007 at 08:11 PM.
#16
TECH Addict
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SE VA
Posts: 2,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GM wasnt sharing motors till 1980. 80 was the last real pontiac motor.....counting the 301 turbo which was a boat anchor, but still was the very first american production V8 to come turbocharged. 79 was the last year you could get true poncho 400s and 403s. in 1980 you got the 301 from pontiac, but the only other V8 was the 305.
+1 for Cpt. iron. a nice built 400 or 455 is way, way cheaper then building a comparable LSx. not to mention ALOT easier to do. find any motor you want, and 99% chance of it bolting right in, without changing a single thing other then the mounts. try doing that with an LS1. think about all the wiring, hook ups, air conditioning (if wanted), gauges, all the things youll have to screw with to do a swap. keep it old school, you just shove it in, turn key & go. if you want to save weight, get an aluminum 400/455 block. or just find a 400, and make it a 455. if youre worried about mileage.....then building a 600hp motor is the wrong thing to do. yeah, you still MIGHT get low-mid 20mpg on the highway with an LSx/6spd, but why worry so much about mileage? youre not daily driving it or taking it across country monthly, are you? you can easily get a 5sp overdrive, or a gear venders overdrive unit for the TH400. that will cut your revs way down, and if you keep the Q-jet, youll be cruising effeciantly on the smaller primaries then you would on a holley.
+1 for Cpt. iron. a nice built 400 or 455 is way, way cheaper then building a comparable LSx. not to mention ALOT easier to do. find any motor you want, and 99% chance of it bolting right in, without changing a single thing other then the mounts. try doing that with an LS1. think about all the wiring, hook ups, air conditioning (if wanted), gauges, all the things youll have to screw with to do a swap. keep it old school, you just shove it in, turn key & go. if you want to save weight, get an aluminum 400/455 block. or just find a 400, and make it a 455. if youre worried about mileage.....then building a 600hp motor is the wrong thing to do. yeah, you still MIGHT get low-mid 20mpg on the highway with an LSx/6spd, but why worry so much about mileage? youre not daily driving it or taking it across country monthly, are you? you can easily get a 5sp overdrive, or a gear venders overdrive unit for the TH400. that will cut your revs way down, and if you keep the Q-jet, youll be cruising effeciantly on the smaller primaries then you would on a holley.
#17
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
haha 301 boat anchor hahaha yep,
only comment is 403 was an Olds engine, and the only reason in my mind that they put them in the Birds instead of the Poncho 400 is because they werent producing as many 400s as the demand was requiring, remember those years were the height of the Bandit Trans Am craze
only comment is 403 was an Olds engine, and the only reason in my mind that they put them in the Birds instead of the Poncho 400 is because they werent producing as many 400s as the demand was requiring, remember those years were the height of the Bandit Trans Am craze
#19
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: LITH, IL.
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by EchoMirage
GM wasnt sharing motors till 1980. 80 was the last real pontiac motor.....counting the 301 turbo which was a boat anchor, but still was the very first american production V8 to come turbocharged. 79 was the last year you could get true poncho 400s and 403s. in 1980 you got the 301 from pontiac, but the only other V8 was the 305.
and the first production American turbo V8 being the 301? News to the 1962 Oldsmobile Jetfire owners with the aluminum block 215 cubic inch factory turbocharged engines (215 horse)
#20
TECH Addict
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SE VA
Posts: 2,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i know the 403 was an olds.....but so many people think they were pontiac, and so many came in firebirds/TAs, you might as well welcome them into the family. and yeah i also know the 305 was chevy.....thats what i meant by saying 'the other engine'