70's Pontiac Engine shoe-horned into a 98' Trans Am...
07-11-2006, 09:45 AM
#43
Turbo 400 with 4.10 gears, I'm sure its a great highway car. 
I don't get it. You lose a lot of streetability and reliablity with the old Poncho motor, and an LS1 with a converter, headers, and sticky tires would defintely keep up with that combo, if it doesn't rip it a new one(which is more likely IMO). All the while you get to keep your A/C, the LS1 will be more reliable, and better on gas.
I don't get it. You lose a lot of streetability and reliablity with the old Poncho motor, and an LS1 with a converter, headers, and sticky tires would defintely keep up with that combo, if it doesn't rip it a new one(which is more likely IMO). All the while you get to keep your A/C, the LS1 will be more reliable, and better on gas.
07-11-2006, 11:58 AM
#44
While I like the concept (shaker hood) I can't imagine taking backwards steps with the engine. Engine technology has drastically improved from the 70's. The LS1 is so much more efficient and easier to drive. I have a 400 in my T/A and would love to swap it out with a LS1 if I could afford to do so. Modern engines are way better than the older ones. While the basic design has stayed the same, small details like combustion chamber design and intake air flow have been optimized for better and more efficient combustion.
Hell my T/A has 3.73's with the 4-speed and can't really run on the highway. It is screaming just trying to drive at 65-70mph in 4th gear! I am always nervous something is going to blow when I am driving at those speeds.
Originally Posted by AronZ28
Turbo 400 with 4.10 gears, I'm sure its a great highway car.
07-12-2006, 12:21 PM
#45
Staging Lane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah interesting but I think it must have been a 6 before otherwise why would you do it. The 4.10's are totally the wrong gear for a streetable pontiac. Pontiac motors don't like rpm that much.
It would definitely get worse mileage. Reliability should be fine. As far as how fast I would think getting it to hook would be the problem. Assuming he could get traction I would think it would be about the same as stock ls1. But who knows. I do know that the 400 is coming out of my 72 this year and a 6.0 is going in. Can't beat efi.
It would definitely get worse mileage. Reliability should be fine. As far as how fast I would think getting it to hook would be the problem. Assuming he could get traction I would think it would be about the same as stock ls1. But who knows. I do know that the 400 is coming out of my 72 this year and a 6.0 is going in. Can't beat efi.
07-12-2006, 12:44 PM
#46
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Old Bridge "Raceway Park" N.J.
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Hugger Z
Engine technology has drastically improved from the 70's. The LS1 is so much more efficient and easier to drive.
Originally Posted by Hugger Z
I have a 400 in my T/A and would love to swap it out with a LS1 if I could afford to do so. Modern engines are way better than the older ones. While the basic design has stayed the same, small details like combustion chamber design and intake air flow have been optimized for better and more efficient combustion.
07-12-2006, 03:28 PM
#47
Originally Posted by Street Lethal
In reference to head design, there are many companies out there that offer incredible heads for the Poncho engine. Even Edelbrock's version is pretty sweet. As for tossing your 400 in favor for an LS1, I highly recommend that you reconsider;
07-12-2006, 03:59 PM
#48
On The Tree
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrong. In 1969 and 1970 both the 400 and Trans Am had options for the Ram Air III and Ram Air IV. The factory horsepower ratings were about 30 hp less than the same engine in the GTO, but the actual output was the same. The RA III was lots better daily driving (I had one, new '69) because of the less radical cam and slightly smaller heads. The IV had a pretty rough idle and lots less low end. Both of them would run with or better than the 396 high perf engines, depending on tuning and driver.
Originally Posted by Project GatTagO
There was never such a thing as a Ram Air IV Firebird or Trans Am. The RA IV engines were in GTOs. Perhaps you are talking about the Super Duty 455 engines that were in Firebirds and Trans Ams in 73 and 74.
Andrew
Andrew
01-08-2016, 01:53 PM
#50
Teching In
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Iowa
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=zigroid;5140572]maybe he wanted to be original? how do you know its slower than a stock LS1? these engines are NOT TURDS. my uncle had a heavy *** 4200 lb grand prix with a mild 400 that ran 14 flats. this guy has more done and weighs less.
I Agree. a pontiac 400 has to be my favorite motor ever built. there are other motors faster than an LS in this world
I Agree. a pontiac 400 has to be my favorite motor ever built. there are other motors faster than an LS in this world
01-08-2016, 02:18 PM
#51
[QUOTE=1995Formula400Pont;19103765] I opened this thread, looked at the last relevant posting date of 2006..
Then wondered...
What in the world are you responding to?
All the links in this post are dead and this was buried, rightly so, in a time capsule for 10 years.
Nothing to see here folks.. Move on..
maybe he wanted to be original? how do you know its slower than a stock LS1? these engines are NOT TURDS. my uncle had a heavy *** 4200 lb grand prix with a mild 400 that ran 14 flats. this guy has more done and weighs less.
I Agree. a pontiac 400 has to be my favorite motor ever built. there are other motors faster than an LS in this world
I Agree. a pontiac 400 has to be my favorite motor ever built. there are other motors faster than an LS in this world
Then wondered...
What in the world are you responding to?
All the links in this post are dead and this was buried, rightly so, in a time capsule for 10 years.
Nothing to see here folks.. Move on..
