1981 4WD Trans Am

[Andy]

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1981-Pontiac-Trans-Am-/250660402661?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Automobiles_UK&hash=item3a5c8635e5#ht_500wt_1154\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\">Linky!

Never heard of one of these before!

Interesting fault to, stalling under heavy load.

Anyone got any info on the 4WD system on these, did a google search which didn't return much.

[HardRockCamaro]

I'm no expert on 2nd gen f-bodies but I have certainly never heard of a 4wd option on them.

I stand to be corrected but I find it highly unlikely there was ever such a thing...

[ianjpage]

erm never heard of 4wd option on them!!!

[Jamieg285]

No way.  There's never been a 4wd option.

[Shifty]

Looks like he purchased it Nov last year.

Should ask him to put up a picture of one the front drive shafts or at least a picture of the underside from the front.

[Rob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=ETnm8ic1Mzc&feature=related\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\">http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=ETnm8ic1Mzc&feature=related

Must be in deepest darkest Buckinghamshire

[a91_formula]

Thought I recognised his username - he's a poc member

[nick69]

Doesnt mean 4 wheel discs does he????

[Jamieg285]

Quoting: nick69

Doesnt mean 4 wheel discs does he????

Could be - the late Trans Ams were the only 2nd Gens to have rear wheel discs on them.

[a91_formula]

Yes he does - he is changing it :)

[FUBAR]

Quoting: a91_formula

Yes he does - he is changing it :)

for People Power

[Andy]

Quoting: FUBAR

for People Power

Now if we can just get him to change it from disk to disc...

[Rocky]

I know the car I fitted the decals and new fuel sender. He was supposed to bring it in when the other probs started but I think its a fuel blockage as the lines were quite rusty but it wont drive far, I think he paid £4500 a little while ago for it.

[Andy]

Is that a big job? Just out of curiosity more than anything.

Heard on some cars it requires the tank out.

[Rocky]

No I had the tank out to do the sender. I think its the rear to front pipe is collapsing.

[Jamieg285]

You might need to drop the tank to get to the rear most section of line, it depends if anything has changed from original.

Even then, there's only 2 bolts to get the tank out.

[philoldsmobile]

ooh, 4.9, thats the 301 isn't it.. nasty nasty nasty engine..

I remember Nathan saying the best thing he ever did for his Trans am was putting a 327 chevy in it.

his was originally 4.9 turbo, then 400, then 455, eventually 327 chev.

was considerably quicker, more reliable and far better handling with the chev, the big block was just too heavy, causing the car to understeer badly, then to snap oversteer as the torque broke the rear end away.  the 4.9 turbo was both gutless and unreliable, the 400 was gutless unreliable and heavy, but the 327 made the whole package work

I've also long been of the belief that F bodies should be small block, its what the platform was designed for, and its what works best. As the chev was by far the best small block, it makes perfect sense..

[Andy]

Thought the f-bodies (albeit third gens) were designed for V6 blocks. Thus the distributor being half way under the bulkhead.

What sort of turbos did these come with, much lag or is that only diesels?

[Rocky]

Erm this is a 4.9 with the turbo taken off so even worse, You can tune up the Turbos to go as quick as a small block chevy but takes alot of money.
The 6.6 Pontiac big block is one of the better options to give you a bit more power and torque.

[philoldsmobile]

yah, even with the turbo it was only 200 BHP!

the big block might have more power but its too heavy, makes the car clumsy, not always quicker either, as excessive torque just spins the rear tyres. the F body chassis really isn't happy with massive power, 400 BHP is about the limit before you have to make very substantial changes.

small chev is exactly right, and I reckon 383 is the sweet spot, or a blown 350

in fact, over here, powermites trans am was a perfect example of a completely sorted F body.

[philoldsmobile]

Quoting: Andy

Thought the f-bodies (albeit third gens) were designed for V6 blocks. Thus the distributor being half way under the bulkhead.

not especially, but the 89 TTA is quite a superb car, its no coincidence the best handling stock F body was a V6 the V6's sat just as far back, the extra room was in the front of the engine bay.

F bodies are nose heavy anyway, and the cast iron lump really hurts turn in and change of direction, so the lighter the front end the better the car responds - this is why the big block really wasn't that good. its almost the exact opposite to the porsche 911

[Rocky]

Putting a 572 chevy big block in a 2nd gen at the moment. Setting the suspension up for perfect handling with tubular front end and air suspension. Putting 335 tyres on the back to try and stop him tearing the tarmac up but the way he drives I dont think its going to help much.

[EDGE]

Pics !!!!!!

[Rocky]

No pics for this one im afraid. Top secret

[Jamieg285]

Quoting: philoldsmobile

small chev is exactly right, and I reckon 383 is the sweet spot,

Or even a 400 sbc

I'm dying to get my one put back in.  The 305 just doesn't compare.