1979 Trans Am

**blackmetal** · 01-02-2009, 04:08 PM

I ran across this the other day asked a friend who had one not unlike this, he said the 301 was turbo charged and if he had $4,500 he buy this in a second, garage, and cover it. I was just wondering some of your opinions are.

http://www.500autosales.com/cpsitefr...f=91993.111215

**predator** · 01-02-2009, 04:25 PM

301's blow... If I remember correctly the turbo injected air in parallel to the carb which made it untuneable... too rich at idle too lean at WOT... Most people just yanked the turbos...

-me

If im wrong and you understand how it works... pleas correct me and explain...

**c5z28** · 01-02-2009, 04:27 PM

ehh, if it was a 454 maybe. Wait.

**Z27** · 01-02-2009, 05:35 PM

The is no mention in the add of the car being a turbo. The 301 turbos were built in 1980 and 81 and were all automatics. Hood hump is off center on the turbo cars.

**xzaero0** · 01-02-2009, 07:51 PM

I've got a friend who has a 80 Turbo Trans Am. Its only got like 20k on it and hes the original owner. Its in pristine shape and if it was for sale for 4,500 I would surely by it. It was a winner at evey car show we went to this year. Its got the turbo and the Screamin Chicken on the hood. I dont think that they had the 301 in 79? I'm not sure tho. Even tho the turbo set up is a little iffy It would kick ass to own one, they are rare.

**blackmetal** · 01-02-2009, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by Z27

The is no mention in the add of the car being a turbo. The 301 turbos were built in 1980 and 81 and were all automatics. Hood hump is off center on the turbo cars.

I was wondering about that too. I figured if it was turbo charged it would have been mentioned in the ad especially as rare as they are.

**9T8W66** · 01-03-2009, 03:57 AM

301's were available in `79 in 4bbl form only 150HP IIRC. They made about 14k cars with the 301 credit option and they could be had with 4spd or auto. The Standard `79 engine was the 403 Olds rated at 185 HP and only available with an Automatic. The other option was the 400 T/A Engine rated at 220 HP 4 speed only.

301's have almost no aftermarket support and it's biggest restriction is the factory intake which there is no afternarket replacement. So in reallity it's easier just to drop a 400/455 in it's place.

**big hammer** · 01-03-2009, 05:33 AM

301's are dogs even with the turbo.

**BirdCountry02** · 01-03-2009, 08:10 PM

yeah 79's had the 455 or the 403 depending on emissions, good call 9T8W66. 80-81 was the turbo trans ams and they were slow, horrible performing, and from what i've read had an extreme lag on the turbos. personally, i'd wait for a better 79 to come across. although if it were me i'd go for the 77-78. those are my favorite 2nd gens.

**blackmetal** · 01-04-2009, 12:05 AM

Originally Posted by BirdCountry02

yeah 79's had the 455 or the 403 depending on emissions, good call 9T8W66. 80-81 was the turbo trans ams and they were slow, horrible performing, and from what i've read had an extreme lag on the turbos. personally, i'd wait for a better 79 to come across. although if it were me i'd go for the 77-78. those are my favorite 2nd gens.

Im not very intrested in the car I was just wondering, my personal favorite second gens are actually 76 and before,I like the round headlights, but I actualy ran across another 79 on craigslist today If I read it correctly it's got a 400 smallblock and a 4 speed.

**9T8W66** · 01-04-2009, 05:31 AM

Originally Posted by blackmetal

Im not very intrested in the car I was just wondering, my personal favorite second gens are actually 76 and before,I like the round headlights, but I actualy ran across another 79 on craigslist today If I read it correctly it's got a 400 smallblock and a 4 speed.

The Factory 400 4speed (T/A 6.6) for 1979 is a Pontiac engine NOT a SBC
There were approx 8,000+ cars built with this engine in 1979 out of 117,000 total T/A's so it is pretty rare. W72 is the RPO code for this combo and the WS6 Pkg was required.

I'm also Partial to the early round headlight cars `70-73's are my favorite but `76 is a close second. I owned a `79 for 7 yrs and it was a great car.

**big hammer** · 01-04-2009, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by 9T8W66

The Factory 400 4speed (T/A 6.6) for 1979 is a Pontiac engine NOT a SBC
There were approx 8,000+ cars built with this engine in 1979 out of 117,000 total T/A's so it is pretty rare. W72 is the RPO code for this combo and the WS6 Pkg was required.

I'm also Partial to the early round headlight cars `70-73's are my favorite but `76 is a close second. I owned a `79 for 7 yrs and it was a great car.

didnt many 79's have a 403 olds? they sucked too...

**Too Fast** · 01-04-2009, 06:15 AM

In 1979 the only way to get the 400 Pontiac engine was with a 4 speed manual trans. All other 6.6s were the 403 Olds engine in 1979. And the Pontiac engine was a 455, not a 454 (Chevy motor), last available in the Trans Am in 1976 but not 1975. This was definitely not the SD 455 that was an option in '73-'74.

**9T8W66** · 01-04-2009, 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by Too Fast

In 1979 the only way to get the 400 Pontiac engine was with a 4 speed manual trans. All other 6.6s were the 403 Olds engine in 1979. And the Pontiac engine was a 455, not a 454 (Chevy motor), last available in the Trans Am in 1976 but not 1975. This was definitely not the SD 455 that was an option in '73-'74.

Actually there were a limited amount of 455 T/A's built in `75. It was a mid year option with 4 speed only and was given the HO designation even though it was the regular L75 200HP engine. The `76 455's are the same setup but lost the HO

**muteki** · 01-04-2009, 01:51 PM

Funny thing, I was watching Smokey and the Bandit II last night....they wouldn't show the shaker hood upclose so you couldn't read it, but there was 2 good shots in the movie where you got a great shot of the duck tail and they read 'TURBO TRANS AM'...hahaa, I almost fell off my chair.

**qwk93ta** · 01-04-2009, 02:29 PM

I remember reading something in Road & Track back when the 1980 turbo T/A came out. The car could not even light the tires up, they had to put water down to get a good picture for the article.

**BirdCountry02** · 01-04-2009, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by qwk93ta

I remember reading an something in Road & Track back when the 1980 turbo T/A came out. The car could not even light the tires up, they had to put water down to get a good picture for the article.

yeah they sucked. i heard that in smokey and the bandit 2 they had to add nitrous to the car just to get it to spin the tires for the movie since all that the 77 in the last one did was smoke its tires. shows you how bad the 80-81 turbos blow. and the round headlights on the earlier 2nds are nice, but i'm partial to the quad rectangles imo. i think i like every year of the firebirds and ta's with the exception of the turbos

**big hammer** · 01-05-2009, 05:08 AM

Originally Posted by BirdCountry02

yeah they sucked. i heard that in smokey and the bandit 2 they had to add nitrous to the car just to get it to spin the tires for the movie since all that the 77 in the last one did was smoke its tires. shows you how bad the 80-81 turbos blow. and the round headlights on the earlier 2nds are nice, but i'm partial to the quad rectangles imo. i think i like every year of the firebirds and ta's with the exception of the turbos

i dunno... the early 3rd gen birds were pretty nasty... lol!

i have my favorite t\a, a close second would be a 1970!

**IronBird** · 01-08-2009, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by big hammer

didnt many 79's have a 403 olds? they sucked too...

I had a '79 SE T/A with a stock (except for opening up the "shaker") 403 for 19yrs....and it DEFINITELY didn't "blow"....I beat EVERY stock late 70's 400 motor I ever ran, and it was quite a few (they wouldn't leave me alone) and could even run dead even with late 70's Corvettes. Nothing sounds like a rear facing "shaker" with a 800cfm Quadra-jet at full throttle!!!!