|
|
|
|
|
Go back and vote on this image.
|
Picture
Information
|
| URL:
http://riceornot.ricecop.com/?auto=3100 |
|
| Comments: 21 (Read/Post) Favorites: 0 (View) |
Submitted
on: 04-04-2002
|
 View Stats |
Category:
Car |
|
|
Description:
89' Indy Pace Car Edition Turbo Trans Am, nice if I do say so myself |
Showing page: 1 of 2
[ 1 2 ]
 |
| #2 |
4-04-2002 @ 08:05:45 PM |
| Posted By : Low-Tech Redneck |
Reply | Edit | Del |
In 1989, Pontiac released the 20th Anniversary Trans Am. It was a GTA model powered by the conservatively rated 245 hp Buick built 3.8 liter turbo V6 with special Pontiac heads and tuning, mated to a 4 speed overdrive automatic. Capable of 150 mph from the factory, this special T/A was the first production auto to pace the Indy 500 that was not modified to meet the rigors of bringing the Indy racers up to speed. The car was white with gold GTA wheels and gold Turbo Trans Am fender insignia.
|
|
| #4 |
9-08-2002 @ 04:03:26 PM |
| Posted By : Low-Tech Redneck |
Reply | Edit | Del |
I've always thought that except for maybe the 74' - 76' model years, the Pontiacs were always the better looking of the F-Bodies
|
|
| #5 |
9-08-2002 @ 04:06:23 PM |
| Posted By : TinIndian |
Reply | Edit | Del |
I want a third-gen. just to drop a Poncho 400 in. Maybe even a blown 400. >:)
|
|
| #6 |
9-08-2002 @ 04:08:52 PM |
| Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
why screw up the handling/weight distribution on it...its a turbo...keep it a turbo
|
|
| #7 |
9-08-2002 @ 04:10:25 PM |
| Posted By : Low-Tech Redneck |
Reply | Edit | Del |
I think he was talking about a n/a 3rd gen , Turboed engines were Pontiac specialties, but most (301, 305) were not as spectacular as these ones
[Edited by Low-Tech Redneck on 9-08-2002 @ 04:12:00 PM]
|
|
| #8 |
9-08-2002 @ 04:10:45 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
To me, Camaros always looked better except for '69 and '74-'78.
|
|
| #9 |
10-24-2002 @ 05:35:00 PM |
| Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#2 how hard is it to bring the indy racers up to speed...what has to be modified on a car?
|
|
| #11 |
10-24-2002 @ 05:40:21 PM |
| Posted By : TinIndian |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#10 Hey, there, spanky. It's a 301ci (Ford and Chevy make 302s) and I had a non-turbo that was pretty damn cool, thank you. And quick.
|
|
| #13 |
10-24-2002 @ 05:45:29 PM |
| Posted By : TinIndian |
Reply | Edit | Del |
It wasn't a rocketship, from what I hear, but it was okay. I know mine was pretty bad-ass for what she was.
[Edited by TinIndian on 10-24-2002 @ 05:45:46 PM]
|
|
| #14 |
10-24-2002 @ 05:47:17 PM |
| Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
the turbo ones made what, around 190-200hp, right, my friend had some experience with one, he said everything sucked on that engine, the heads, the valves, plus the turbo took away almost as much power as it made
|
|
| #15 |
10-24-2002 @ 05:48:15 PM |
| Posted By : TinIndian |
Reply | Edit | Del |
301's biggest problem was how bad they sacrificed power for weight loss. But mine felt pretty damn powerful, for bein' a small V8.
|
|
| #17 |
11-18-2002 @ 07:35:40 PM |
| Posted By : Low-Tech Redneck |
Reply | Edit | Del |
I think the 301 had a shitty intake design that only got worse when they tried to incorporate a trubo, I've heard nothing but nightmares from the turbo 301
|
|
| #18 |
11-18-2002 @ 07:38:43 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
Nice. The third-gen Firebird/TA and Camaro are easily among my favorite bodystyles.
|
|
| #19 |
11-18-2002 @ 07:39:04 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
I thought the turbo 301s only made like 130 hp. I've heard the LG4 305s (150 hp) could outrun the 301 turbo.
|
|
| #20 |
11-18-2002 @ 07:41:07 PM |
| Posted By : Low-Tech Redneck |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#19, And had more torque too, the 301 turbo was a poorly designed trubo strapped to a weak engine, just bad in every possible way
|
Showing page: 1 of 2
[ 1 2 ]
Login to leave a comment
|
|
|
|
|
