When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
History / OriginalityGot a question about 1982-1992 Camaro or Firebird history? Have a question about original parts, options, RPO codes, when something was available, or how to document your car? Those questions, answers, and much more!
Love it, Love it! I don't see the Firebird Sprint Turismo here. This was the original prototype that morphed into the Trans Am prototype. John Delorean designed the overhead cam 6 and was dedicated to a "gentleman's road racing car". If he had HIS way, the original Trans Am would have been a SIXBANGER from the get go. Read more here (lots more pictures): How the Pontiac Trans Am Was Born-part-1/
Last edited by TRANSSPORT; 03-23-2015 at 01:53 AM.
Reason: Shortened url for readability
Wow. I love all the articles. This is the history of our Firebirds and I've really enjoyed all the references. The Burris Superteen Firebird in the article above is interesting. All the entertainment equipment in the back is funny. To think all that fits into dashes and can be ordered from the factory now!
the 1st gen concept "prelude" to the trans am is a great story! Pontiac never seem to not amaze me for it history and dedication to performance. I mean with guys like, DeLorean, Adams, Knudson, and Wagners, they always want to raise the bar with their own cars instead of being corporate GM. I got a few books of my own like Smokey Yunick's "Best damn garage" book set and "Glory Days," and many cross references do show what i'm seeing from HPP's story. The use of a factory tach housing for the air intake cooling system for the rear brakes was pretty ingenious. The adjustable rear spoiler, i've never seen that version before! In my mind I have felt like these stock F-bodys as true race cars in stock production form. They were built for the track but ended up on the road instead. I even feel this way with our thirdgens, from the iroc series, to the Players Challenge, to the SCCA, IMSA, etc.
So anyone got any 70s hot rod mags, that would show preproduction 3rd gens? I think i'm going to start looking for these magazine at local swap meets, maybe able to find some gold....
thats for posting that Transsport. That was a fantastic post.
Anyone got any more mechanical info from this time period? I'd like to hear the story of why the turbo 301 wasn't used, why the crossfire was below performance targets, why CFI had no 4spd manual, etc.
thats for posting that Transsport. That was a fantastic post.
Anyone got any more mechanical info from this time period? I'd like to hear the story of why the turbo 301 wasn't used, why the crossfire was below performance targets, why CFI had no 4spd manual, etc.
The 301 turbo was planned in the '82 Trans Am, according to all the mags of the time, but Pontiac ceased V8 production in '81 and that was that.
A 4 speed was also planned for the CFI, at launch initially planned and then as a mid year addition, but the CFI/manual trans combo could never meet emissions. At a certain point GM knew that they were simply going to move on to the L69 and TPI and no further effort was put into it.
thats for posting that Transsport. That was a fantastic post.
Anyone got any more mechanical info from this time period? I'd like to hear the story of why the turbo 301 wasn't used, why the crossfire was below performance targets, why CFI had no 4spd manual, etc.
Although I do not know the exact reason why the Turbo was not used in the Firebird, as it is pretty obvious it was originally intended to be an option, It probably boiled down to GM wanting to go more and more with corporate engines. By the time you get to the late 80's to the early 90's they no longer called it the Buick 231 it is the "3800". They had some specialty engines for some cars, but that pretty much is long gone, even today you look at a 2006 Buick Rendezvous and you could get the same V6 engine they installed in the Cadillac STS the 3.6VVT.
The more common parts you use, the less expensive it became because you have less tooling investment, less engineering investment, etc.
As for why the CFI had no manual shift... That is a hard one to understand, it seemed pretty common with the F-body line from 1982-1992 for the top engine for any particular year not to get the manual... The only exception was the HO in 1984 was available with both Auto and Manual. The only reason might have been because it was a carryover from 1983, when they dropped the CFI... Of course the lack of CFI may have had to do with the new Corvette, and in order to keep up with production on that line...
82 & 83 The top engine was the CFI - No Manual
85 & 86 the top engine was the LB9 - No Manual
87 - 92 The top engine was the L98, No manual (But the LB9 Did get it)
The 301 turbo was planned in the '82 Trans Am, according to all the mags of the time, but Pontiac ceased V8 production in '81 and that was that.
A 4 speed was also planned for the CFI, at launch initially planned and then as a mid year addition, but the CFI/manual trans combo could never meet emissions. At a certain point GM knew that they were simply going to move on to the L69 and TPI and no further effort was put into it.
I could buy the emissions argument, but a manual transmission is typically more efficient, you can actually get a lot better economy. I would think it would have lower emissions... But I have been known to be wrong.
The reason I believe this is look at the gear they put in an LB9/M5 vs the LB9/A4.. The top gear for the M5 was the 3.45, whereas the A4 only got up to 3.27...
I might be more inclined to buy that they did not want to put in the extra effort for testing... Knowing that they were going to the TPI in a few years, and they had the HO in the works, it was not worth the cost of certification.
I could buy the emissions argument, but a manual transmission is typically more efficient, you can actually get a lot better economy. I would think it would have lower emissions... But I have been known to be wrong.
The reason I believe this is look at the gear they put in an LB9/M5 vs the LB9/A4.. The top gear for the M5 was the 3.45, whereas the A4 only got up to 3.27...
I might be more inclined to buy that they did not want to put in the extra effort for testing... Knowing that they were going to the TPI in a few years, and they had the HO in the works, it was not worth the cost of certification.
If I remember correctly, there was an emission issue between manual shifts which became a problem to deal with. BTW, I also believe that the LU5 was targeted to hit 190 horsepower. The prospect of a "fuelie", 190 horsepower motor, with a Crossram intake and a 4 speed was pretty exciting stuff circa 1980-81.
All of the CFI's issues could have been worked through. But as has been stated, at a certain point GM simply moved on to TPI.
The 301 turbo was planned in the '82 Trans Am, according to all the mags of the time, but Pontiac ceased V8 production in '81 and that was that.
Refining the rear spoiler. Note the "Turbo" on the plate, indicating the abandoned Turbo engine.
Early 1982 Firebird instrument panel with aircraft style instruments.
Proposed and abandoned 1982 Turbo TA power/performance chart. Was going to use a revised Pontiac 4.9 301 with a GM turbo and FI (according to the original poster of this pic).
The following on topic quotes are taken from a good read found here:http://www.oldcarmemories.com/content/view/49/113/
"The 1982 Trans Am was to be a much lighter car, weighing at least 500 lbs lighter than the husky second generation Trans Am. With Pontiac engineers having planned the carryover of the 200 horsepower 4.9 liter turbo (4 bbl.) V8 for the top-of-the-line 1982 Trans Am, the performance future of the Trans Am seemed bright. With the massive weight loss for 1982 it was expected that the 4.9 turbo powered 1982 Trans Am would hit the quarter-mile in the low-15 second range and perform 0-60 mph in around 7.0 seconds which would have made the 1982 Trans Am the fastest U.S. production car in 1982. Unfortunately this was not to be, GM put a wrench in Pontiac’s plan and cancelled Pontiac’s 4.3 and 4.9 liter V8s making 1981 their last year of production.
Worth noting is that Pontiac toyed with the idea of using Buick’s turbo 3.8 liter (4 bbl.) V6 in the 1982 Trans Am, but decided against doing so. Ironically a slightly modified version of the SFI (Sequental Fuel Injected) and intercooled version of the turbo 3.8 V6 was the standard engine in the limited edition 1989 20th Anniversary Trans Am. As luck would have it this Trans Am would be the fastest Trans Am of the 1980s...
Optional was a Cross-Fire fuel-injected variant of the 5.0 liter V8 which produced 165 horsepower and 245 lbs/ft of torque... During this time the EPA’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (C.A.F.E.) standards were ever tightening and US automakers which at the time all had policies of 100 percent compliance since not doing so meant very expensive gas guzzler taxes. Foreign automakers like Porsche and Ferrari just passed the gas guzzler taxes to its customers who could easily afford the added sticker price. With the U.S. in a bad recession back in 1982, a car with too high a sticker price was the equivalent of a death warrant. So GM was walking a very thin tight rope trying to meet the stringent EPA standards while keeping its customers happy. So the LU5 was a compromise, a V8 with enough power to please performance buyers and yet efficient enough to keep the death yielding 82 gas guzzler taxes away."
Last edited by TRANSSPORT; 03-28-2015 at 12:03 AM.
Reason: added additional info on topic
With the massive weight loss for 1982 it was expected that the 4.9 turbo powered 1982 Trans Am would hit the quarter-mile in the low-15 second range and perform 0-60 mph in around 7.0 seconds which would have made the 1982 Trans Am the fastest U.S. production car in 1982. Unfortunately this was not to be, GM put a wrench in Pontiac’s plan and cancelled Pontiac’s 4.3 and 4.9 liter V8s making 1981 their last year of production"
I think this might be the reason... Why would GM want to have the fastest Production car be the Trans Am, and not the Corvette... more projects have been killed because of a lackluster Corvette...
Transsport, again, thanks for the info. This has been an awesome thread. You posted exactly what I wanted to know, although I am still curious about why the Super T10 wasn't offered behind the LU5.
Also a shame that a fuel injected Turbo 301 wasn't offered. It likely would have been a disaster, similar to Cadillac's first attempt at displacement on demand. However it could have had the potential to turn the pony car market upside down, and could have kept the incredible momentum going that the late 2nd gen T/As generated by countering it's understated external appearance with legit performance that was in painfully short supply back then. In the end I think they got a bit too watered down. Although it likely would have been a fast and fantastic handling combination, the turbo buick 3.8 would likely not have been a good move. I'm not sure that customers would have been open to that much change all at once. Besides, I don't think the turbo 3.8 was really taken seriously by performance minded customers until '86 when the GN got an intercooler and SFI.
It's fun to learn about this stuff. I'm not the resto guy most of you are, but I really enjoy learning the hows and whys of each drivetrain combination and why they were offered. How cool would it be to put a turbo 301 from an '81 TA into an '82 TA with a 4spd and build the car they should have offered? Or maybe get outside the box and do the old early 3.8 turbo from a regal?
1 Mean Z you might have hit on the reason. I'm not an engine guy myself, but most of my friends were. I seem to remember at that time a lot of talk of how unreliable "Turbo's" were. I don't know if that was reality, but the perception was poor reliability.
1 Mean Z you might have hit on the reason. I'm not an engine guy myself, but most of my friends were. I seem to remember at that time a lot of talk of how unreliable "Turbo's" were. I don't know if that was reality, but the perception was poor reliability.
I had a 3800SC in my 1995 Buick Riviera, and in the owners manual there was a section to why Buick switched from Turbo to SC, and the reason was the reliability issues of a Turbo...
The nice thing about Turbo is it is almost like having free boost power, without the loss of fuel mileage... The Super charger in contrast you lose a lot in MPG to get that kind of power...
I know that Turbos back in the day would wear out, probably due to inexpensive materials...
Did I ever tell you about when my dad sat in on a meeting for a part at GM... He said it went down something like this ( I do not remember the exact particulars)... They had this part they wanted to implement in the transmission, it would save .20 / vehicle, the transmission would be installed in 1.5 million vehicles, but they estimated that because of the new cheaper design would have 35,000 service calls within the warranty period.
and here we are in 2015 when more and more cars get turbos.
if Pontiac would have used that in 82 by the end of the 3rd generation in 92 it would have probably been the fastest car on the planet ...Im pretty sure the TTA beat Testarossa in 0 to 60.
I had a 3800SC in my 1995 Buick Riviera, and in the owners manual there was a section to why Buick switched from Turbo to SC, and the reason was the reliability issues of a Turbo...
The nice thing about Turbo is it is almost like having free boost power, without the loss of fuel mileage... The Super charger in contrast you lose a lot in MPG to get that kind of power...
I know that Turbos back in the day would wear out, probably due to inexpensive materials...
Did I ever tell you about when my dad sat in on a meeting for a part at GM... He said it went down something like this ( I do not remember the exact particulars)... They had this part they wanted to implement in the transmission, it would save .20 / vehicle, the transmission would be installed in 1.5 million vehicles, but they estimated that because of the new cheaper design would have 35,000 service calls within the warranty period.
The rudimentary fuel injection systems combined with oil technology at the time is why early turbo systems were problematic. Synthetic oil technology has done a lot for turbocharger durability and modern EFI systems are much better at controlling timing and fuel precisely to preserve engine life.
On your transmission part story, that sounds to me like the cost vs risk analysis that any OEM goes through on any product change. I don't think thats nefarious, its just a cost analysis thing.
the red car towards the top looks like an 88 Grand prix, its a shame that GM coveted the corvette so much, imagine the cars we have missed out on because of Gm's love of a car that is simply just not all that great. not only has the corvette held back pontiac,gmc,and buick but even chevrolet themselves, as the camaro could easily have been doing what it is doing now. pushing the limits of a low price sports car, just imagine if GM had given the green light to let them make a track ready z/28 years ago and forced the corvette to make a drastic change instead of killing any in house competition(cough* fiero*cough).
Transsport, again, thanks for the info. This has been an awesome thread. You posted exactly what I wanted to know, although I am still curious about why the Super T10 wasn't offered behind the LU5.
Another excellent read on this topic had this to say about why the Gen 2 301 turbo did not have a manual trans.
"The turbocharged Trans Am suffered another handicap, too. It was not offered with a manual transmission – whereas the ’79 400 had only been sold with a 4-speed manual. The reason? Pontiac, despite its best efforts, could not “emissions certify” the 301 with a manual transmission. (In the days before engine management controls and especially, electronic fuel injection, getting a manual-equipped car through the certification process was very difficult.)
The best Pontiac could do was fit a “performance calibrated” three-speed Turbohydramatic automatic to the car." the-last-real-trans-am-and-the-end-for-pontiac/
Without "certifying" the transmission you were hit with the gas - guzzler tax mentioned in the last article I posted. I suspect the same demon came between the LU5 and the Super T10.
I find it funny that some of those concept ideas came to light, and very thankful that other ideas were sent to the scrap heap of broken nightmares.
Mostly what I see is they had an idea and they went for it wholeheartedly... The cars with the big round rear windows are hideous... Glad we ended up with what we got.
Other concepts look like they ended up being part of the Fiero
Thanks again for the info Transsport! But I gotta say, you crossed the line with that very last picture. We'll have no more of that around here! I wish I could un-see that! :-)
Much of what we see above will never happen again. With today's Cad cam programs with computer graphics, they may never see this kind of concept development. Deleted on the hard drive, never to be seen again.
There really is something about having a physical model to really appreciate what the end result will look like. 3d printing is interesting in this respect. It may be the way cars like this are built in the future. I saw recently where someone has built a working car with this method. It looked like a Lego car, but it worked.
I remember reading somewhere that the 3rd gen was actually one of the first if not the first car to actually be designed completely on computers... Not sure if it was true, but it would be about right for when they started going that direction. They still do concepts and clay models, just how they get there is completely different. Before they did everything by hand, now they have a CNC that mills the clay out to see what it would look like, then they finish it off by hand...
That would have been around the right time. John Deere experimental factory was in the town I grew up in (Cedar Falls Ia). I remember seeing very simple cad programs back in the late 70's. Back then the screens were still B+W and small. They were 3D but made of simple lines. I could see them making basic designs on them but not fully developed mock ups.
That would have been around the right time.... I could see them making basic designs on them but not fully developed mock ups.
"By 1974, designers begin using computer-aided design to create illustrations." http://www.carbodydesign.com/2012/06...-the-timeline/
I worked as an in-house, On-Staff professional Graphic Artist when the gen 3 was introduced. Everything I did was done by HAND! The receptionist had a computer, I DID NOT! Certainly whatever they started in 1974 must have been very basic stuff. The proliferation of actual hand drawn rendering of ideas proves that to my satisfaction. Speaking of the f-cars introduction, here's a pre -release spy report:
Autoweek 1980 Spy Photos
Let me off the hook for the mag cover that shall remain nameless?
I really like the way this thread has turned out. I started it mainly to share some of the odd concepts I had found. Now its turned into so much more thanks to the contributions by you (Transsport) and all the others. Stick anything you want on here, I've loved everything you and everyone else has added.
As for early Cad systems, I remember JD having these big plotter printers. They would recreate the image on paper and people would hand color the result. This would have been around 78 or 79.
TRANSSPORT, thanks for posting all of this. It brings back great memories. I still have every single magazine issue which ever talked about the 3rd gens, before and during production. You are obviously MUCH more organized than me, to be able to find and post them all!
So how well do the TTA's Turbocharger hold up? I have no experience with them or any Turbocharged engine.
bj....to give just a tad of info regarding the turbo on the TTA..
In stock trim, it has the Garrett T-3 turbocharger with a ceramic-impeller blowing through a more efficient and significantly larger capacity intercooler with a "CERMATEL (Ceramic/Aluminum) coated" pipe connecting the intercooler to the engine. This all helped out the turbo's life expectancy. Back in the day, a lot of the turbo's never had the intercooler and such to help them COOL. The would actually glow red after "spirited runs. If not properly idled after the runs to help the cool off, they would pretty much fail.
On a side note, the 4.9 turbo TA could not even pull its own hat off its head, so to speak compared to the Buick 3.8 GNX and the 89 TTA.
Performance figures were published at a VERY MODEST 250 hp, for GM to warranty the 200R4 transmission, (which by the way is its weak link).
In reality, the TTA hp #s are well over 310 and 340 lbft torque, which is just cwazy fast!
I never imagined driving a 3200lb plus car, with a V-6 Turbo Charged engine, to be able to nail the throttle at 40 mph, and light the tires up! It's a feeling that you can never forget OR understand!
bj....to give just a tad of info regarding the turbo on the TTA..
In stock trim, it has the Garrett T-3 turbocharger with a ceramic-impeller blowing through a more efficient and significantly larger capacity intercooler with a "CERMATEL (Ceramic/Aluminum) coated" pipe connecting the intercooler to the engine. This all helped out the turbo's life expectancy. Back in the day, a lot of the turbo's never had the intercooler and such to help them COOL. The would actually glow red after "spirited runs. If not properly idled after the runs to help the cool off, they would pretty much fail.
You are describing the GNX Turbo and GNX Up Pipe, not the TTA's.
Watching Americarna and saw/heard that the NASCAR trophy has the Firebird one on it! Wiki: The Harley J. Earl Trophy is named after http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors car designer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harley_Earl. Earl, the second http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASCAR_National_Commissioner, was the designer of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Corvette;[1] his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Firebird http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept_car provides the basis of the automobile that sits atop the trophy;[2] the car is often misidentified as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Malcolm_Campbell's "Blue Bird" land speed record car.[3] Earl was a friend of NASCAR founder Bill France, Sr., who named the trophy after him as a sign of respect.[4]
They called it a "Firebird" because it was shaped like a plane (Technically a Delta wing), and the turbine engine could melt the car behind you. However I guess it drove just fine. I remember seeing some TV show where someone got a ride in one of The Firebirds
Thanks to all for the kind words! I'm back with some more goodies I thought might interest.
First Off, the Buick engine IS awesome. The '89 TA a magnificent auto. The main reason Pontiac did not release it in '82 was, it just plain wouldn't fit. They had to wait until a narrower head was developed for the transverse engine mount application, then take THAT head, port it and create new pistons and exhaust manifolds before it fit in the F-Body chassis.
This car will be practically IMPOSSIBLE to CLONE!
Last edited by TRANSSPORT; 04-04-2015 at 01:50 AM.
Reason: Downsized images
The Firebird I car is often misidentified as Sir Malcolm Campbell's Blue Bird land speed record car.
Interesting you should go back to the Firebird I and the land speed record. I believe that the record has been 1 of Pontiac's goals since at least the mid 50's when these cars were designed.
"In the early 1950s, GM was desperate to portray its Pontiac brand as sporty and exciting, in order to attract a younger demographic to showrooms. Reportedly inspired by the cars he saw vying for speed records on Utah’s Bonneville Salt Flats, Harley Earl tasked designers Homer LaGasse and Paul Gilland with building a car worthy of the Bonneville name, one that would give the rival Chevrolet Corvette a run for its money. The result was the Pontiac Bonneville Special concept, of which only two were ever built.
1954 Pontiac Bonneville concept
Like the production Chevrolet Corvette on which it was based, the Pontiac Bonneville Special concept was a low-slung sports car with a fiberglass body. Unlike the original Corvette, however, the Pontiac concept featured an enclosed bubble cockpit with flip-up side windows, along with eight cylinders beneath its long hood."
See more at: http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/tag/joe-bortz/#sthash.UtGUp5lO.dpuf
Yes kids, If there was a trophy or record at stake, Pontiac wanted it's name on it. Bonneville records were high on the "wish" list.Take the story of Ab Jenkins for example.
" In 1956 GM’s Pontiac executives hired Jenkins and his son Marvin to drive its stock-model Series 860 Pontiac around the famous 10-mile salt circle track. The pair recorded an average speed of 118.375 mph shattering all existing American unlimited and class C stock-car racing records in the process.
Ab drove almost two-thirds of the 2,841 miles himself gulping down milk and orange juice handed to him by his wife or daughter during his 30-second fueling pit stops. Father-and-son dominated the record book claiming a total of 28 records.
In August that same year, Ab went to drive a Pontiac pace car at the Road America in Elkhart Lake, Wisconsin. Returning to his hotel from a baseball game with Pontiac executives George Bourke and Robert Emerick on August 9, Jenkins noticed a billboard with a farm tractor on it and started telling the men about his 1935 wild ride when he suddenly grabbed his chest and died of a heart attack.
The next year, General Motors introduced the 1957 Pontiac “Bonneville” in honor of Ab and Marv’s achievements making it the first, and perhaps the only car to ever “earn” its name and not simply be “given” its name by an automaker.(Of the 630 limited production run, each dealer got only one, making it the rarest of all Pontiacs ever produced). A natural born superb mechanic, Jenkins lived his entire life with unwavering honesty and enviable common sense that generated numerous successful promotions for sponsors because he was held in such high esteem by the general public. Certainly the first person to catch "salt fever”, Jenkins passed on the speed affliction to succeeding generations and racing continues to this day out on Utah’s Bonneville Salt Flats."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ab_JenkinsIn those days absolute land speed records were held by cars with Jet engines. I have always believed the Firebird concepts were built towards that end. They were supposed to be a serious attempt to build a street car with turbine power, BUT, if GM HAD built such a car, don't you think it would have ended up at Bonneville?
A few years later, a young mechanic by the name of Mickey Thompson set a one mile record on the salt. The "1960 Challenger I that achieved a one-mile speed of 406 mph was equipped with four supercharged Pontiac engines." gms-role-history-land-speed-record-cars/
http://www.machine-history.com/Chall...%20Streamliner
This accomplishment did not go unnoticed by the preess, and garnered huge interest in Pontiac. For the first time, automobile engines proved they could supply the power. The race to crown the fastest production car began in earnest and Pontiac wanted that crown. Could this secret desire to break this record using a Pontiac designed and powered car be behind Deloreans McPherson strut equipped XP (Banshee) sports cars? Could this be the reason he wanted nothing to do with the Chevy designed Panther?
One thing is clear, by the time the 3rd gen was on the drawing boards, Pontiac had much greater creative input and, as a result, it appears that every effort was made for this to be THE CAR that could and would break the record. Even journalists recognized it in 1982.
McPherson Struts adjustability important for land speed record attempt.
By mid decade, Pontiac was fielding legitimate attempts. Like the introduction of 1LE for Showroom Stock, could the body reinforcement and new nose design actually have come about in response to needed stability at 300 MPH? One wonders.
It took 17 years after Pontiac moved on to actually break the record in a 1992, but it WAS the car to do it in... "Out of all the production cars, it probably has the lowest drag as far as aerodynamics are concerned, and at 300 mph, this Firebird has to be the most stable vehicle that's ever been built." http://www.motorsport.com/general/news/mph-at-bonneville/
Once the cars "High Speed Stability" had been proven and publicized to an astonished world other teams saw them as worthy platforms for extreme experimentation...
Europe's fastest street-legal car is... a 252 MPH Pontiac Trans-Am?!
""Have fun with KITT," sniffed some AMG engineers when a group of Norwegians showed up at Germany's Papenburg test track with a 1987 Trans Am. The smug smiles were quickly wiped off the faces of the Mercedes tuner crew when the ancient Pontiac's practice laps were as fast as the AMG cars, and the F-Body wasn't even working hard. Once warmed up, the 8.9-liter V8 unleashed all of its 1400 horsepower on the circuit, delivering a startling 407 kph (252 mph) also known as Bugatti Veyron fast. Better still, unlike the Bug, the Pontiac's lap is official. europes-fastest-street-legal-car-is-a-252-mph-pontiac-trans/
Needless to say, there's not much stock underneath the skin on this particular Trans Am. The car is the work of Polly Motorsport of Norway, and there's a wealth of top tuner expertise beneath the mostly stock exterior. We're sure even in its heightened state of tune, the Polly Trans Am is infinitely less expensive than the $1.6 million you'd have to cough up for a Veyron, and its creators say it's still street legal."
The "NEW" Worlds fastest street legal Firebird (407 kph !!)
Last edited by TRANSSPORT; 04-04-2015 at 04:39 AM.
Reason: typo
Aerodynamics have always been a hallmark of Pontiac. Their design teams all the way to the beginning were some of the best in GM in my opinion. I like the mid to late fifties Chevy's, but I like the Pontiac's better. The rocket going down the side is one of my favorite designs of that entire era.
03-22-2015, 09:38 AM
...Im pretty sure the TTA beat Testarossa in 0 to 60. 
