Seeing that the 305 is like a giant tumor, and most of us get rid of it whenever we can.. Do you think they should of offered more powerful engines?

1. (Engine goes here)
2. (Engine goes here)
3. (Engine goes here)

I don't know of many engines so Let me know, or more powerful versions of the 350 or 305

Well, I got school so cya guys later...

 

THey offered the following IF you were willing to pay:
1) 350 TPI
2) 350 & 383 T-ram F.I. 360 HP, (Firehawk)
3) V6 Turbo TTA...

I think thats a pretty good lineup to me... Heck the Firehawk & TTA are still two of the fastest F-bodies ever made.

JOhn
----------
THey offered some better engines if you wanted to pay for them:

1) 350 TPI
2) V6 Turbo (TTA)
3) 350 & 383 T-ram F.I. (Firehawk)

What else would you want? The 305 was not the top engine in the 3rd gen, Unfortunately TV shows like American Muscle car, state that the 305 was the top engine. I have no idea where they got their information.

John

 

Most of the firehawks got a 355 IIRC... only a couple got the 383 and they only made 25 firehawks total, so it really wasn't available.

I think Chevy should have offered a 305 and 350 for all years, a 396 or 454 SS would have been awesome, but it'd be hard to stuff one under any sort of stock hood, maybe they could do it with a 2" cowl.

I think Pontiac should have offered a 350 and 400 in the bird... 455 if they could get a good looking cowl hood over it.

As it was, you could buy a 2.5 L4, 2.8/3.1/3.8L(turbo) V6, 305 and 350 V8 over the course of the generation, and that's pretty good selection by today's standard. They only ever offered 2-3 V8 options back in the day.

 

I think it's also helpful to consider the times, too. Wasn't there another slight oil embargo in the late 70's? The era of the Muscle car wasn't in vogue when these cars were created. The mass wanted economy, not all out cubes and power, which is why most manufacturers were selling smaller cars with smaller engines were selling. Most people didn't want 454's anymore. (those that did had but one option- the T/A)

There was also the speed limitations in the country, the speedometer limitation (85mph) which set the tone early in the decade.

And, electronic fuel injection was in its infancy for GM (I know they made the mechanical version as far back as '57). Throttle body, tuned port, sequential, etc all relatively new for GM. They have not had the time yet to master this while the "carb" has been pushing for mpg and lower emmisions.

All things considerd the engines of the time were on par for what technology was available through the ever increasingly stricter requirements. (these requirements weren't around in the '60's) As others have pointed out there were numerous engine options.

As technology develops they continue to offer more powerful engines while meeting the ever increasing stricter standards and regulations they must abide by.

Just my 2 cents...

 

3rd Gen Cars were born in the Era of the National 55 MPH speed limit and the start of Emissions and fuel restrictions. Too bad most of you were not even born or to young to remenber. They were big engines for the time.

 

they should have offered the 3.8 turbo in the camaro instead of just the firebird and should of made more than just 1550, but other than that I think we had a good amount of engines options

 

The 3.8 turbo motor was a leftover run from Buicks GNX run. Buick offered them to Pontiac so if you want to be mad at anyone then be mad at buick.

 

Wow, do we ever have a lot of uninformed members... not all of you but some.

1) L695speed is correct, the TTA did get the GN(X) engine, although not identical, the heads were different, some brackets, & I believe turbo but I would have to verify that.

2) 92RS(real slow) Chevrolet as far back as December of 1982 Chevrolet was working on a V6 Turbo Camaro. Ref Dec 1982 Hot Rod. As far as why the Camaro did not get the engine, sorry to tell some of you this but Pontiac is positioned one step above Chevrolet, only if it would have sold well then Chevy might have had the option in 1990. Unfortunately by the time the 1990 cars were hitting the lot they still had several TTA's sitting there because they were expensive, ultimately thats what killed it. GM has a history of doing a small test market on things like this to see how it is recieved, in many cases they continue onto the next year but as a regular option and not a specialty car option. IE, the gournd effects on the 83 Trans Am, the 16" rims on the Anniversary Trans Am etc...

3) Tuske427, you are correct that EFI was in its infancy. But GM was tinkering with Electronic Port fuel injection it back as early as 1976 in the Cadillac. I looked at a 76 Eldorado Convertible, with Port Fuel injection, AND an airbag...

4) Chillphatcat, SLP was set up to actually produce 250 Firehawks, they were very much available, but again price killed the quantity, not many people wanted to shell out 39,995 or 49,995 for a Formula. Even today it would be a tough sell. According to the information I have read they actually had 350's. 2 got a 377, and one got a 383. It was not a quantity or quality issue, but a price issue.

Sincerely,

JOhn

 

Upon more thought you could have gotten a 400 in 82-84 by MSE. So they were available...

JOhn

 

They did change and or tweaked some pieces as the engine produced more horses than GM was willing to admit. but the basic engine and compoents was a GNX engine. I was just pointing out to the chevy folks as to why the camaro didn't get it. (no pun intended) Now only if they made it with a five speed or a six now that would be heaven. But if they were so worried about that car out running the corvette it did. See Motor Trends super test from sometime in 89 it blew the vette out of the water in a straight line and kept up with it in the corners. I love pontiacs sneaky history GTO, SD-455 and kinked throttle cables on the 400s.

 

Short block was the same as GNX/GN/T-type, except TTA had diff. pistons and crank. GNX had ceramic turbo, TTA was same as GN/T-type. GNX and TTA shared the same intercooler.

Dealer mark-ups killed the TTA as well, mine had a $5k mark up and I heard of people paying $10k and up.

 

3) Tuske427, you are correct that EFI was in its infancy. But GM was tinkering with Electronic Port fuel injection it back as early as 1976 in the Cadillac. I looked at a 76 Eldorado Convertible, with Port Fuel injection, AND an airbag...

JOhn[/QUOTE]

Good to know about the FI.

Wasn't Cadillac also tinkering with the 8-6-4 engine in the late 70's also? Didn't work well then. Nowadays seems like everyone is playing with shutting down cylinders for fuel economy...

Truth be told a lot of ideas that people see as "new" have been around for a long, long time. (gotta love aggressive marketing for that)

There was a Rambler wagon in the early 60's with a partial retractable roof, as well as the Kaiser Manhatten had a lift up back/ fold down area to create large access opening/ storage in back. Those ideas have been on concept cars in recent years. and I remember hearing an ad recently about turning headlights.- Preston Tucker had that on his car in '48.

 

As I mentioned before I think the TTA was killed also because of internal competition with the corvette. It blows the Stock vette out of the water and if it had a stick I think would have given the ZR-1 a run for its money and knowing GM's history of The Vette MUST BE NUMBER ONE in performance chevy might have had a hand in killing it. They killed the original ponitac sports car in the mid 60s for this same reason.

Also I think they used up all or almost all the remaining surplus GNX engines as a one year deal. Though I agree about the fact that if it sold well it may have been a RPO I think the competition with the corvette would have been too intense for GM to justify building more of them as a RPO

 

Granted, looking back we all wish they were more powerful/better engine choices but seriously these cars were pretty fast for the 80's. I'm sure many people in 1985 thought the LB9 was damn fast.

Again, this is all speculation and opinion, but just think it through and it makes sense. Its relative; coming from the late 70's where a "fast car" might be able to pull off a 8 second 0-60 run, the early third gens probably seemed like normal sports cars(and i use that term loosely). Upon introduction of the TPI setup, these cars were probably some of the fastest mass produced cars to hit the streets since the muscle car era. My dad was a mechanic at a Pontiac/Chevy dealer from 79ish-88ish and having owned numerous Camaro/Chevelle/Nova SS's i am surprised that he thinks my car is fast.

Anyway, my point is these cars were pretty fast for their day.
(Not trying to start anything, and i'm sure someone who could actually drive in the 80's will come and either confirm or reject my statements).

 

Between the carburetors, crossfire, TBI and TPI setups, there was a pretty good selection. Auto or manual for most combinations. Gear ratios from 2.77 to 3.73 (I'm guessing at those)

 

I was driving in the 80s and these cars were fast compared to most. I had a friend with an 84 GT that seemed quicker than my 82 Z28 CFI. Unless you had a Vette, there wasn't much on the road that the younger crowd could afford, that could outrun us.

 

Could of been worse look what the monte SS got. You guys are right about price. When i was looking for my TA back inthe fall of 89 i could barely swing the almost 20 grand never mind 30 grand.

 

90tararebird what do you mean by that statement.The '84-'88 Monte SS used the same L69 as the '83-'85 Z28.I drove a new one in '83 but couldn't afford the payments at the time.But I agree with you on the price problem.I too looked at a '89 TTA and there was this additional dealer market adjustment of $5K to $10K(depending on the dealer)and then you had the speculators driving prices up even further.
Scottmoyer I too was driving in the early '80s(my first car was a '70 Ranchero GT with a 351W 4bbl).The factory offerings up to '83 were very few then things starting looking up from everyone as they got a handle on the emissions/MPG/peformance balance.

 

I am pretty sure the Firehawks with the T-Ram intake was a 350 ci with 350 hp. Everything I have read says so. A 355 would be bored, why would a brand new engine be bored out ? Don't think there was ever a 383 version from SLP either ? Talk to me on this ?

Personally if we are all dreaming here I'll take a LS2
in my 89 GTA /bright red, grey leather with tops. To me that would be the best looking and power combo you could wish for. I hate the 98 up Birds but love the LS1 also.
----------
I agree the Monte got screwed only being offered a 305, no 350. I like the looks of those and have my eye on a low mileage SS but the gal won't let loose of it.

 

Cool i mean that they never evolved like our cars. No TPI or no 350 which you would of thought would be a no brainer.

 

[quote=Jetmeck;3230457]I am pretty sure the Firehawks with the T-Ram intake was a 350 ci with 350 hp. Everything I have read says so. A 355 would be bored, why would a brand new engine be bored out ? Don't think there was ever a 383 version from SLP either ? Talk to me on this ?

Yes they came with 350s and one came with a 383 i beileve but i think that was a customer special order through SLP. Otherwise they all came with 350s and 350+ hp depending on who you talk to.

 

From a EC point of view i think the engine options are definitely up to the standards of a fast car compared to the cars manufactured in EC at the time.
If you compare my 89 Irocs 230hp to the performance sedans manufactured at the time you have Volvo 740 turbos made some 180hp,Saab Turbos also in those numbers and BMW hade the 535 model which made something like 210hp but at least as heawy maybe even more,for sure you could get a M5 with 315hp but the price difference must have been huge,Mercedes hade the 190 evo 16v model also made some 190-200hp but significantly lighter.
Also i must say i dont consider the Camaro/Bird a "sportscar" i think of it as a GT car and in that case it maybe should be compared to cars like the BMW635or Mercedes SL cars and compared to those at the time i think the later 80s Camaros/Birds came out on top performance wise compared to those.
Offcourse you could compare the Camaro/Birds to carmakers of true GT performance cars like Ferrari/Porsche/Maserati and so on and compared to those it was inferior but all in all i think the engine options was fully acceptable.
Sorry any spelling mistakes.

Regards Mats

 

As for the Firehawks, 2 came with a 377, and one came with a 383 (#26)

One thing to consider is that from the beginning in '67 Chevrolet was more targeted at the "Pony" car market, whereas Pontiac has always thought of their car and designed in such a way to be more of a "Sports" car. Thats a quote from "American Muscle Car". In reality that tends to be true, the firebird has a more sporty feel in many aspects than the Camaro. I am not saying that the camaro is not a sporty car, I am trying to say that the Firebird was an attempt to make a more sporty F-body.

However because it basically shares the underpinnings of the Camaro it still falls into the "Pony" car classificaion like the Mustang, 70's & 80's Capri, late 60's Cougar, Javilin, Cuda and Challenger.

JOhn

 

Badcam70 has a good point from a european perspective. But Ferraris and etc were in an entirely different price range as for MB and BMW its the same thing. Where else in europe do you find performance for so little money.

Werent the 377 and 383 firehawks special order to get those engines and not the 350?

As for Okfoz I agree that the Firebirds tended to lean towards the sports car end of the spectrum. This all started when DeLoren got his sports car nixed. when this happened he took the camaro and made a sports car out of it. The fact is every magazine reveiw that i know of has stated that the Firebird and TA has had stiffer suspension and more sports car feel to it than the camaro. But both cars may look and seem the same but when one rides and drives both of them they have a different driving feel. The Firebirds always seem to handle better especially in TA guise. This is my opinion so feel free to fire back.

 

I think they should have only been available in either
1. v6
2. 350

Why? Because maybe they would have out sold the mustang many people say that the reason why mustang did so good is because you could get the best or the worst not like thirdgens who had like 5 different 305 combos 4 cylinders, v6, and 350.

 

What is a "GNX motor"? Every GNX ever built started life off as a ordinary Buick Grand National. ASC got stock GNs and made them GNXs. It simply went a second faster in the quarter mile with bolt ons/suspension. There was no special engine, it was the same one Buick sent them. It was just special components or bolt ons. So, any motors left over were just the plain GN motors. And the Buick 3.8 Turbo would have been slower with a stick shift!!! Tubo lag sucks with a stick. It was tested by Buick.
As for the 3rd gens............they had a ton of options. Convertible, T-top, or Hardtop. 4, 6, and 8 cylinder motors. 9 or 10 bolt rears with gears from 2.73 to ??. Leather or cloth. 4 speakers up to 8 speakers. Analog dash or digital. Power everything or not. Rear window louvers from the factory. Different spoilers, ground effects, hoods, etc. 15 and 16 inch rims from the factory. Different suspension packages. Lots of colors to pick from. Different exhaust, cams, injection systems, transmissions............hell everything was an option sometime through out the run of the 3rd gens!! Thrid Gens rule for options hands down!! Not to mention thee best styling ever!!!

 

without turning this into a grand national forum ill talk about the real topic. Pontiac had the 3.8 turbo and firehawk. They were set, GM should have given the camaro a 454 TBI with a modified hood, 5 speed, and lower gears. Simple as that. Everybody knows that there is plenty of space for more cubic inches under our bid @ss hoods.

 

I guess a 454 TBI would have been an interesting installation...

HOWEVER, we are talking about a time when Fuel efficency far outweighed the desire to go-fast & the desire to spend the extra monies on Insurance... I would imagine even if Chevy went that route they would have never sold more than a handful each year, and it would not have offset the monies paid to have them EPA certified, or crash tested, the car would have lost a lot of its cornering performance as the BB chevy is heavier than the SB. When you consider that the Skidpad was .89g - .92g by the time they got good rubber under the cars thats really respectable, very few cars of the day could boast that, even now very few cars can corner that hard. It would also have made changed the CAFE ratings for the fleet of cars. I am hoping that the gov decides to go with the new plan for having Fuel efficency ratings for certain sized cars and not have the broad CAFE requirements that they have now, it will definately make more sence.

Chevy was playing with a 4.3L Turbo FI car back around 84. Pontiac wanted to put the 4.9L Turbo in the 82 but that did not happen either... Heignsight is always 20/20, but reality is the technology was not there to make it feasable. In so many ways it made more sence for GM to allow the 3.8 Turbo and the Firehawk to be based upon the Firebird rather than Camaro. If they opted to go with the camaro they would have definately sold more of them BUT it would have changed their cafe ratings again... Its the way it is (was)... It should have been otherwise, but it was not.

When we consider that magazines of the day were all over the superior style of the 3rd gens over the 1st & 2nd gens, AND we can always upgrade engines we have the best of all worlds in my opinion... I do not think we needed more engine options, I think we could have done without some of the 305's & such but we are talking about a time when GM was trying to make a car for everybody, not what they are doing now by only making family 4 door cruisers.

sorry got distracted by my brain.

John

John

 

There are two motors that gm built that I am supised didn't make it into the Thrid Gen F body in one way or another. First is a realistic option of the simple 4.3 V6. They Put them in the S-10 and blazers to replace the 2.8 and not the camaro\firebird. There has been a lot of people on the V6 board talking about it most are given the simple responce of "It just as much work to put a V8 in and don't do it unless you are doing it to be difrent". I personaly thing that the V6 camaro owner of today wouldn't be so willing to swap in a V8 if they had a 4.3 v6 to play with. The 4.3 aftermarket would defiatly be more active today if it aperend in both the s10's and the fbody.

If they had the 4.3 why not also the 4.3 turbo from the Syclone and Typoon, Sure it was a low production motor but so was the LT5. I could of seen it as a one or two year run. that would of been uber exspensive.

Here would be a crazy idea, if they took the turbo 4.3 and AWD from the syclone and droped it in the Fbody but then it would of easly cost more then the corvette but I bet people whouldn't be so willing to import skylines.

 

I think the base V8 should have been the L69. I just don't see the reason for the lg4 and l69 to coexist. save the lg4 for the g-bodys, the camaro is a sports car

 

I think we loose sight that GM was trying to make every car a car for everyone. With the multiple engine possabilities they could get more people in the door, and when you show them a V8 it really did not matter to alot of people if it was a LG4, LO3 or L69.

When the TPI was introduced for the 1985 model year it was not just a step it was a huge leap forward in the development of the SBC. The L69 had its issues with vapor lock, which was quickly corred with a secondary in tank fuel pump. The LG4 in 1987 was in many ways similar to the L69 of the year before. It had the 9.3:1 compression, the same heads, crank, block as the LB9, and it had the same Cam as the A4 LB9 cars. If you install a better cam into the engine it really wakes it up... I did it. Basically you turn a 16 second car into a low 15 second car just by installing the same cam that came with the L98 (350) cars.

The problem with only offering the L69 and not the LG4 was it challenged the CAFE requirements forced upon the big 3 by the govt. The problem is that many forign car companies have smaller cars, they used a simple platform to make virtually everything. For example the VW JEtta, Pasat, Golf from a single year all use the same or very similar platform, the only differences is more or less cosmetic, the Golf is shorter, The Passat is wider slightly by body panels only. But in the end they are all the same SMALL car. GM on the other hand has a huge selection of cars in the 80's. You have the F-body, the G-body, the Riviera, Toronado, Eldo/Seville platform, the big car Park Ave & LeSabre, Cadillac Broughm, Chevy Caprice, Olds 98 & 88 platform. Add to that the small/mid sized Pontiac 6000 sized cars... Then you have the small Chevette & Pontiac 1000 which were about the size of many Forign cars of the day. The big three cannot compete with the forign automakers with the wide array of vehicles without offering detuned economy engines, it was not feasable.

By the time the 90's came technology had caught up with performance, the LT1 in my mothers Roadmaster got an HONEST 33 mpg. The CAFE requirements were becoming less important. BUT in the 80's Technology was still in Carburators, and FI was really in its infancy. Ultimately thats the likely reason why we had the engines we had.

JOhn