Our Cars--1983 Pontiac Trans-Am
by Chris Hafner
on April 01, 2008
Submitted by Tass Sontag
I love the Trans-Am's looks, and now with a stroked 383 cubic-inch V-8 and other goodies, my Garmin GPS system clocked it doing 161 MPH before I got afraid to do more. It's a real testament to the body design.
Most of the interior pieces came from junkyard Camaros. Yes, it's badly in need of a paint job. It's all go, no show!
--Tass Sontag
Bullet on April 01, 2008 at 05:07 PM
I loved the firebird. It was a great car with a lot of personality. I think I fell for it in Smokey and the Bandit, and never got over it even when it changed. Your car looks really nice.
Cookie the Dog's Owner on April 02, 2008 at 06:34 AM
I always thought this generation of Firebird was a nice-looking car. Too often, it was ruined with that goofy "flaming chicken" hood decal and various gaudy tape/stripe treatments.
You've got the engine and drive train in good shape. Getting a GM interior from that era to hold together without rattling is a challenge, but it's worth the effort. Paint it a nice low-signature color, and you'll have the perfect sleeper. The only thing they'll notice is your tail-lights after you've blown past them.
Mochi Mochi on April 02, 2008 at 08:26 AM
Cookie the Dog's Owner is dead on. Low profile paint job is the way to go. Let the performance speak for itself.
on April 02, 2008 at 01:07 PM
ha ha ha....
on April 02, 2008 at 01:14 PM
I was 6 or 7 when my goofy-ass next door neighbor pulled up w/ his new Trans-Am. I think his purchasing impulse and my first initial impression were inspired by the graphic on the hood. it was a matter of keen existencial insight that we both latched on to the most distinguishing attribute of that worthless peice of crap. and a matter of idoicy that we were both impressed.
Pro Cynic on April 02, 2008 at 01:22 PM
1:14,
The Firebird is the best car ever made, not a "worthless piece of crap." I have two of them, a 1981 and a 2001, both of which are tougher and better looking than any of of today's SUV's and enviro-cars. Save your description for them.
Henry Ford on April 02, 2008 at 01:34 PM
Now children, play nice. No flaming other people's beloved old cars. It's not polite and does not reflect well on anyone. If you want to flame a car take a can of gasoline, some matches, and that bad attitude out to the parking lot where you can put them to good use on some new beemer or SUV.
Obijohn on April 02, 2008 at 01:55 PM
I had a '71 Pontiac Firebird, that I swapped a 389 out of a '68 GTO into. I couldn't afford the gas (at 50 cents/gallon!) with the triple-deuce setup (3 2-barrel carbs), so I threw an Edelbrock 4-barrel manifold and a honkin' Holley carb with vacuum secondaries on it.
I blew the original TH350 tranny in it shortly thereafter, but then replaced it with a B&H parts-equipped, race-prepped TH350 and it held together for several years (although the transmission shop would not warranty it, after seeing the engine!). That was one fast car, off the line, but I might as well have poured gas out on the ground. It would pass everything but a gas station.
I finally traded it in on a new '82 Honda Prelude. Nowhere near as fast, but more acceptable to chicks... and I didn't have to pull the manifold off every week or so to get to the hydraulic lifters that would occasionally get thrown out on top of the valley cover due to overrevving the engine.
But the '71 to '81 Firebird, and IMO the '75-'79 models, were the ultimate muscle cars at the end of the era, especially the '79 Formulas and Trans-Ams with the TH400 engine and 4-speed. However, my '91 Corvette L98 was an eye-opener... everything the Firebird was, yet much quicker, with great brakes and suspension, and creature comforts, too. Of course, the Firebird cost me $500 plus a lot of labor, while the Corvette was $46k....
on April 02, 2008 at 02:13 PM
no offence, obijohn.
on April 02, 2008 at 02:18 PM
"tougher AND better" ... how could it be one and not the other?!
on April 02, 2008 at 02:27 PM
i remember when i was buying my second car--from a lemon lot on a military base. i didn't and still don't know much about cars except what i most decidedly will stay away from! nobody would give me an honest opinion about the '79 Lebaron i ended up paying too much for. I'm sorry, but this discussion reminds me of that ill-fated decision.
seguin on April 02, 2008 at 02:29 PM
if tougher means adding 2000 pounds worth of bracing, then it could be worse.
seguin on April 02, 2008 at 02:29 PM
if tougher means adding 2000 pounds worth of bracing, then it could be worse.
JEM on April 02, 2008 at 02:41 PM
I'll admit the third-gen Camarobird was a pretty decent platform, the third- and fourth-gen cars arguably have the best stick-axle suspensions anyone's ever done in the US (Volvo, Alfa Romeo, and Ford Australia might have dibs worldwide) but the awkward, excessive nose overhang and the rather tacky interiors always put me off a bit, and far too many went out the door with rattly, creaky, cheap-looking T-tops.
The earlier cars were pretty awful structurally but the '69s and the first couple years of the second-gen cars were just flat gorgeous.
Anthony Cagle on April 02, 2008 at 02:52 PM
I really like the 2nd gen myself. I thought those were just beautifully designed cars, lookswise. When this generation came out I was initially wowed, but I don't think they've aged very well. Again, that refers to styling, not performance.
I like the color in that photo. I tend to encourage people to keep the stock color because it evokes the era the car came from. Unless it's something hideous. That seems a nice color very evocative of the '80s.
DensityDuck on April 02, 2008 at 03:35 PM
It's an American car from the 1980s; small surprised that there's a lot of "HURF DURF MERKIN CAR" going on.
on April 02, 2008 at 04:27 PM
Density Duck?!
LOL
what is "Hurf Durf Merkin Car"?!? it's gotta be the most interesting thing said in this whole conversation--certainly more interesting then that rediculous car. please explain.
on April 02, 2008 at 04:30 PM
oh, i get it. LOL
on April 02, 2008 at 04:33 PM
has anyone seen a '71 Monteray, you could rent the trunk out to a whole family of migratory workers. ya just couldn't drive it across town on a single tank of gas.
ObiJohn on April 02, 2008 at 05:01 PM
One more comment... 161 mph with a 383 stroker? What transmission and rear end are you running in your car? Not worried about throwing a rod?
The nice thing about the C4 was its Getrag 6-speed double-overdrive transmission. That car would be running around 1500 rpm at 60 mph. I know people knock the L98 ("it's only 250 horses!") but 0-60 in 5.4 seconds was pretty darn quick, and its 60-125 mph time was under 10 seconds (don't ask me how I know).
Personally, if I was in the market for an inexpensive fast car, I'd pick up a C4 from the early '90s.
C C on April 02, 2008 at 05:07 PM
The first generation Firebird and Camaro were the cleanest from a styling perspective. The Camaro edged out the Firebird with its unadorned grill and crisp hood design.
Christian on April 02, 2008 at 06:14 PM
Mmmmm, 3rd gen F-body....I bought a new Formula TPI 5.0 5-speed in 1989, kept it for 13 years until I replaced it with a 2002 Z28. Black, plain, and de-badged, it constantly received compliments. It was beautiful, reliable, fast, nimble, affordable, held its value, and had room for my kids.
It was a wonderful car.
Rod on April 02, 2008 at 07:35 PM
My neighbor had one of these when I was a kid. If I recall correctly there were two V8 engines and a 6 cylinder available. He started by putting the biggest and most loaded version into the trees while taking an off ramp at a wee bit more than the speed limit. A few weeks later he had the small V8 version and ended up crashing it into someone’s living room, late at night. The last thing I remember was watching him with the 6 cylinder version. By this time he had lost his license and was reduced to smoking the tires in his driveway. The guy really liked the Trans Am.
Mike on April 02, 2008 at 07:46 PM
Geez,
Are you people idiots?
The last Trans-Am worth owning was a 1970 model!
All later one's were Jimmy Carter pieces of shit.
Max HP 1970, 500 http://www.musclecardrive.com/specs/pontiac/1970-pontiac-firebird.php
Max HP 1982, 165 http://www.thirdgen.org/1982-pontiac-firebird
Saving the Planet 335 HP at a time even in the 80’s.
Styling changes would seem to be fairly minimal to my untrained eye, both then and now. Of course the wind tunnel said the ’82 was much better, what difference does that make with only 165HP available?
on April 02, 2008 at 08:10 PM
where did you grow up rod?