I hope I posted this in the right topic, anyway..

I want to get your opinion on which car I should get; A 1979 400ci Trans am, in mint condition with 66k original miles or a 1989 350ci Trans Am GTA with a new engine with 50k on it. They are both sweet cars, but I just can't choose.

Anyone know how fast the 400 is? I don't know all that much about the second gen's. (I'm young :-))

Thanks,

 

Test drive them both, see what you like. But the GTA will surely handle better.
Later
Mike

------------------
Check out My Car Pics http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/Albu...667&a=13599419

Gran Turismo Americano "The Ultimate Firebird"
Smokin 1989 GTA- Bone stock except for exhaust. (no catalytic-stainless pipe into Flowmaster 2 chamber) & AC Delco Rapid Fire Plugs

 

Varying results on the 79, theres a slight lack of traction in those... anywhere from 14.6-15.3@97ish stock depending on how bad you smoke the tires. Its a heavier car, but most of it is over the front tires, hence the lack of traction and poorer handling.

What is it you are looking for? If you want a daily driver and arent sure, the 89 is probably the better choice. And then you can leave the 79 for me There were about 10,000 79's built with the 400, and something like 7,500 of those 400's went into the 10th anniversary cars... all IIRC of course. I'm close on the numbers anyway.

[This message has been edited by madmax (edited August 10, 2001).]

 

It'll be a daily driver, raced a little bit. I'm leaning toward the GTA, cause I know more about the third gen's, and isn't it faster? And I can do more stuff with it. But that 79 is really sweet! But it's old and may need more work in the long run.

Any other opinions or helpful facts? Thanks,

 

Didnt the 79's have hardcore emmisions on them? I know the 72's put out 330 hp the 79's 220 i think

 

I wouldnt really say the 89 is faster, and theres a bunch of potential in the 79. Like replacing the stock pellet converter with a newer honeycomb style... thats probably 20hp and about 100lbs right there. You are right in your assumption that the 79 would probably need more since its old, but why was the engine replaced at 50K in the 89?

 

it wasn't replaced at 50k, that's what the new one has on it. The guy bought it after some teen wrecked it, it wasn't that bad. He works a lot on cars, so he restored it. It looks great. But he also said that the trans slips a little when it idles. He stared it up for me, and it didn't seem to be that bad. Would this affect the performance a lot?

 

mid 70's to early 80's for any american car is just junk, but dont get me wrong those are really mean looking cars, like in Rocky 2, that was a sweet 400. I would go for the GTA, more dependable, and those 350's are a dime a dozen

 

A '79 with a 400ci!?!? Then it's a true poncho mill with a 4 speed BorgWarner.

Get the '79, hands down. No comparison. 2 different eras.
Chicks won't dig you for it, but, oh well, find one that does.

I had a '78 400-4spd that had 30,000miles on it back in '98, orginal, no BS, it sat in a shack of some sort in the boonies, hadn't been run in 8 or 9 years. It was the sweetest car I ever owned. Ugly as hell, white with a baby blue vinyl interior. The 8track rocked. I was offered exactly 3 times what I paid for it out of the blue at the mall one day and I took it. The address of the owner is faded off of my copy of the buyers papers, otherwise I would be back at his house right now paying twice what HE paid for it. I can't even believe they built a car like that, WTF were they even thinking?

It laid rubber into 4th gear. SICK. Even so, my buddies '94 LT-1 had at least 1-2 car lengths on it in the 1/4.

Boy, am I feeling nostalgic.
Sorry.

 

From almost any point of view, the 89 is going to be a better car from the word GO!
However, l would probably go with the 79. I like the looks of the 79 better than the 89. The 79 was the first T/A l fell in love with. Also, whats the saying, "No replacement for Displacement"? As far as the handling, it can be improved. You could easily improve most of the other things. l also think the 79 would be more fun to drive.

Clayton

 

Get the 79, the 70's were when cars were made to run. I had a 76 TA for a bout a year, that sat for 8 years. The only problem I had out of it was I had a power steering leak in one of the lines. Most reliable car I have ever owned out of 2 Mustangs, and my Camaro. The car was kind of slow but it had really high gears worse than 2:73 and I got crappy gas milage. Those cars were built for safety, look at them they're huge and made of steel. This girl rearended me, I got a few chip marks on the bumper but her front bumper was almost laying on the ground. Besides if you ever decide to rebuild the engine you will have a better block to start with.
Don't get fooled by the chick thing, I know some girls that love those years of TA and Camaros, my girlfriend being one, especially if the car is in mint shape like you say. Plus I believe in a couple of years you will be able to get historic tags for the 79 making your insurance a heck of a lot cheaper.

------------------
'86 IROC
T-TOPS, TINTED WINDOWS, BRAKE LIGHT BLACKOUTS
GM GOODWRENCH 350
EDELBROCK TES HEADERS
FLOWMASTER, NO CAT
EDELBROCK 600CFM CARB.
KN AIRFILTER
ACCEL HEI DISTRIBUTOR
160* Stat
2:73 GEARS
Rebuilt 700R4, with manual valve body
B&M Megashifter, 5" Autometer Tach w/shift lite
Soon to be installed
3:73 Richmond Gears and 3" Hooker Aero Chamber
Corvette Servo & .500 boost valve
15.61@ 95.2mph G-Teched, 1-2 shift slippage, and just replaced a burnt plug wire
"There is nothing more addicting than speed"

 

I might be wrong but I think a lot of later TA's came with 403 Oldsmobile engines in them instead of a real 400 Pontiac engine. But I'm not sure what year that started.

------------------

92 Camaro RS 5.0 5-Speed (Quasar Blue)
T-Tops
14" Open Air Cleaner
3.08 Posi-trac
Edelbrock TBI Intake
Crane cam
Ported & polished stock heads 3 angle valve job
HyperTech Chip
UltraFlo cat-back exhaust

74 Dodge Dart Sport 360 (11.2 1/4 mile)

2000 Dodge 1500 Ram Sport

 

The 403 was first offered in 77 I believe, and it was offered until 79, the last year for the 400 as well. If its a 4speed stick, its a 400. If its an auto, its a 403 or smaller. The engine code is K for the 403 and Z for the 400, easy to verify.

 

It's an auto, so I'm gonna stick with the 89. Thanks guys.

 

Good deal
I personaly dont care for any of the second gen cars 1st, 3rd and 4th are the best looking IMO. I wonder why GM droped the 1st gen body style so early?
But for a daily driver the 89 would be a much better car better milage and it probably puts more to the pavment than the 79.
SSC

 

Good choice Dark-Boba!

Mike

------------------
Check out My Car Pics http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/Albu...667&a=13599419

Gran Turismo Americano "The Ultimate Firebird"
Smokin 1989 GTA- Bone stock except for exhaust. (no catalytic-stainless pipe into Flowmaster 2 chamber) & AC Delco Rapid Fire Plugs

 

For me it would have to be what car would be in better condition. The only 2 things the 89 would have over the 79 would be gas mileage and a little bit in the handling dept. I wouldn't call the 89 more dependable than the 79. I drive a Mustang but I have a few friends that have F-bodies. The 79 actully has a frame in the front end and the nose is bolted on old-school style. I think the 79 would take a LOT more abuse than the 89, got about twice as much metal there. Plus the 79 does not have struts in the front which I think is a big plus. One of my friends had a 79 TA with an Olds 455, that came out of an early/mid 70s Delta 88. He put in a cam, intake, and carb and that thing had some *****. If he ever but headers on it, it would have had no problem with a TPI or even an LT-1. That 79 rode tons better than any 3rd gen I have been in, no sqeaks or rattles and it did not handle that bad either.

Edelbrock makes heads now for the Olds and Poncho engines, so it really does not matter what engine is in it. Get rid of the 7.8 to 1 pistons and throw on their heads and power package with long tube headers and duals and I bet you could hold your own agianst a LS1, for a fraction of the cost it would take you with a TPI.

Hmmmm... this is making me think about selling my Stang and getting a 2nd gen TA.

 

I fully agree with Brian (5.0). I love my 3rd gen, but if I were shopping right now, I would get a 2nd gen. Brian is right that the 2nd feels far more solid and less (no) rattles. It's made of USA Beef; our cars are made of Spam. LOL. Plus the bang for the buck factor is really impossible to beat. I would LOVE a 400 or 455 70's TA with bushings, brakes, T-56, headers, duals, Edel pwr package, and 16" rims. What a car.

Lastly, and this is total speculation here, is that the 2nd gen's have some what of a "white trash" stigma. However as an owner of a clean 3rd gen, I feel that these cars are starting to get that image too. I feel that it won't be too long before the 2nd gens emerge from there poor image and become recognized as "classics". Certainly this cycle will occur with the 2nd gen before it does with the 3rd. Opinion though.

 

i woulda gone with the 79!!

no matter how much i love my 84 TA i would rather have the 79....they look awesome and the shaker hoods are the BEST!!!....and u could really get that engine runnin FAST!!!

oh well......GTA's are sweet too

just dont get a 305 if you want performance!! hahaha

------------------
84TA T-tops L-69 305HO TH-700R4 stock 190hp and 240 ft-lbs.
new best E.T. (dont laugh) 15.986 @84.93mph
old best E.T 15.997@86.04
http://www.geocities.com/K_towngangsta

 

I just recently bought a 1987 T/A that needs work and am selling a 1981 Turbo T/A(see elibourie.att.home.net/transam.htm)so I have researched a bit about 2nd gens. An interesting fact that applied to 1979 T/A's was that if you wanted the poncho 400 you had to get the manual tranny. The automatic cars had an Oldsmobile 403. Of the 7500 10th Anniversary cars only around 1500 came with the manual tranny and the Pontiac 400.

 

I would have gone with the 79 as well. That car is a great platform and easy to work on. Plus all parts for that car are over the counter if you know what I mean. If you can't find parts for that baby you're just screwed. Another plus is that 400 455 ponchos as well as 283-454 chevy's fit in the hole easy as pie. Exhaust systems for that car are also easy to fab up. As far as emissions go, that car is so old that the degredation factor used at the dmv has to be huge. I bet that if you had a good running engine, you could almost run without cats and still make emissions.

Just my .02

 

I own a 78 Z28 with a 4 spd stick.

I own a 89 Formula with a 5 spd stick.

The formula is around 410hp or so. The Z28
around 350. I think the formula handles a million times better than the Z ever could. I like the way the Z looks, but its got too much rollover.

-- Joe

 

I agree with most of the people on here, go for the '79. 2nd gens just have a totally incredible look to them that the 3rd gens just can't compete with. I've never owned a 2nd gen but a kid in my neighborhood has a 78 with the Olds 403. The thing is sorta beatup and needs restoration, and the 403 is slow as ***** (my LG4 took it).

------------------
1984 Trans Am, Goodwrench 350, TES Headers, Performer RPM Intake, Flowmaster 80 Series, Holley 600 cfm & vacuum advance, and T5 with short shift

 

I had lots of 2nd gen Z28s... when the thirdgens came out, I bailed out of them and never looked back. I was so sick of crappy leaf springs that sagged, heavy doors, uncomfortable seats that made my right leg go numb, a trunk that you couldn't even put a single suitcase in if there was a full-size spare in it, an exhaust system with no hanger possibilty anywhere between the engine and the tailpipes so the mufflers always scraped, and about a thousand other things that were improved on in the 3rds, I can't tell you how much better all around of a car the 3rd gen is. I couldn't care less what it looks like (within reason), if it doesn't work as good then it's not as good of a car. Plus, like several of the other posts have pointed out, the 3rd gen handles far better; gets better gas mileage; is faster (I'm comparing my stock 83 HO Z28 to the car I had immediately before it, which was a 79 Z28 4-speed with 4.10s and a 268 cam); and a whole list of other things that are just plain better about the newer car.

------------------
"So many Mustangs, so little time..."
ICON Motorsports

 

Overall, I personally feel 3rd gens are better, and I'd definitely say get the GTA, but I'm admittedly a little biased owning one myself. Stock for stock, I think the GTA will take the cake as far as performance. I believe all the GTAs had the WS6 performance package, and if it has the 36mm/24mm swaybars that's the best base to build on.
There are plenty of options for upgrading the 3rd gens as well, and I think dollar for dollar a 3rd gen can still stay ahead of the game against a 2nd gen, but again, just my opinion. Not to mention I'll never own a carbed vehicle again (Ok, my ZX-9R is still carb, but I'm trading that in next year)


------------------
88 5.7L GTA
K&N, airfoil, 3" flowmaster, modified MAF
Hotchkiss strut tower brace (bought it second hand but never used for 30 bucks)

 

I haven't read this hole thread but I have to say this. People who say second gens can't handle obviously have been in one. I had a plain-jane 79 camaro that would sqeal turning in my track. My friend had an 80 Z28 that drove on rails. I mean on rails, just as good if not better than my 85 Z28. He could also put on a lot wider rims. I think he ran 275/50R15 at one time. That thing just handled.


James

------------------
1985 Z-28, 350 TPI, T-Tops, edelbrock 6085 heads, ZZ4 cam, accel base/runners & 24 lb/hr inj., ported plenum, everything gasket matched, crane AFPR, SLP 1 5/8 headers, single 3" flowmaster catback, 3" Catco cat, modified tranny, 165 ECM & ARAP code, MSD 6AL/wires, edelbrock STB, Spohn SFC, GW "wonderbar"

 

There's a 78 T/A 400 4-speed here in town, that isn't beat up, but it's been sitting for like 3 years. I think he is selling it for 1200 bucks. I wouldn't mind it, the seats aren't torn up or anything. It has a hurst shifter, and it has air-ride in the back. I have been looking at it on and off, and was thinking to restore it.

Does anyone know of any good 2nd gen sites? Or a great tech forum?

The only thing wrong with it is that the driver's door handle is broken in half. I will try to get pictures, but I might be to lazy to so don't expect them. I will dedicate a whole new post for it if I do.

It is indeed a 400 4-speed. How rare were those in 78? Any help would be appreciated.

-ws6formula-

 

I would have gone with both . Actually I did go with both cuz I have a thirdgen and I just recently bought a 78 Z28. We just finished stuffing in a 454 BBC along with a beefed up 700r4 and 3.90 gears out back. My poor Nova was the donor of all those goodies. My first drive will be tomorrow. I can't wait!!

------------------
383 86 Camaro Z28
10.5:1compression Dart Pro 1 Aluminum heads 215cc>2.05/1.60 valves,400 steel crank,cam specs:224/234 at 050 525/525 lift,3500 stall converter,shift kit,3.42 gears,770 Holley Avenger,Victor Jr. Intake,true dual exh,Hooker headers with 40 series Flowmasters,MSD Coil and Module.ALSO SECOND GEN Z28---mods:454 BBC,.546 max lift(doug herbert cam ) 750 Holley vac sec. ,Edelbrock Performer manifold,Holley electric fuel pump,Hooker headers,Flowmaster mufflers,beefed up 700r4 tranny, 3.90 gears, powertrax unit, B&M console shifter.

 

no one has mentioned this but what about the T/A in Smokey and the Bandit? Has anyone actually seen this movie? I would trade my 89 Camaro. car instantly for a 77-79 T/A, although I am more of a Pontiac guy...

------------------
Under Restoration:
1989 Camaro RS
350 Carbed engine
Turbo 350 tranny
3.73 gear
and other stuff

Daily Driver (till Camaro is done)
1972 Pontiac LeMans 2Door
350 V-8
Turbo 350 tranny
red with tan top