(first posted 1/31/2013) The near-mythical Turbo TA: One of my rarest finds? Undoubtedly. Except that all I have is a couple of crappy shots though a storage yard fence. But let’s give this legend (or Deadly Sin?) its fifteen minutes of CC fame.
The challenges of keeping big-block engines in the late-seventies Firebirds became ever more acute thanks to CAFE regulations. The 455 had its swan song in 1976. By 1977, it was down to the Pontiac 400 and, in California, the Olds 403. And in 1979, except for a few ultra-rare leftover 400 Pontiac engines, the Olds 403 was the last large-displacement motor available in TAs. The Olds engine, while rated at 185 (net) hp, still offered some of that big-block torque-shove off the line–and of course, any of these motors were just a few after-market mods away from restoration to their former tire-melting glory.
The solution: Yes, at the time it was the only turbocharged V8 gasoline engine in the world, but what Pontiac cobbled together was perhaps more worthy of a well-run high-school auto shop.
image: cardomain
Even the first glance under the hood makes that pretty clear. Folks, this is how they turbocharged V8 engine almost twenty years earlier–literally.
Here’s Oldsmobile’s ill-fated 1962 Jetfire V8, which represented the first time GM took a whack at turboing a small V8. It used “Turbo-Rocket Fluid” (an alcohol-water mix) injection to try to keep pre-detonation at bay: That alone wasn’t nearly enough to protect these aluminum-block V8s from various thermal ills, never mind turbo lag. It disappeared after a short two-year appearance, as would the Pontiac 301 turbo.
The Pontiac 301’s turbo plumbing was essentially the same as the old Jetfire’s, and rather primitive for the times, including a “suck through” carburator. Buick used a somewhat similar arrangement for their turbo V6 engines, which were fairly modest affairs until Buick finally got serious, doing a complete redesign for 1984. That redesign, which included computer-controlled sequential fuel injection and distributorless ignition, led to the legendary GN and GNX coupes, and culminated in the 276-hp GNX of 1987. That’s the right way to do it.
The Pontiac 301 engine did receive some upgrades to the block and certain innards; with boost limited to some 9 lbs., it was rated at 210 (net) hp in 1980, and 205 in 1981. Still, its 345 ft/lbs of torque was more than anything that had been produced under the Firebird’s screaming chicken-adorned hood since the last of the 455s.
The Turbo 301 got a bad rep quite quickly. It had a hard act to follow; folks still had visions of SD 455 floating in their heads. The Turbo 301 performance just wasn’t as linear and satisfying. And there were reliability issues. Part of that might have been that folks didn’t take time to cool down the turbos before shutting them off. In any case, it was a bad ending to the TA’s long reign as America’s last real muscle/pony car during the ’70s. The tide was already shifting, as the light, Fox-bodied Mustang showed the way forward in the ’80s, although its first attempts at turbo power weren’t much more successful than the TA’s.
I shot this last summer while on an evening walk. I meant to come back the next day, when the yard was open, to get better shots–and also to shoot that Colonnade LeMans coupe (similar to your mom’s, JPC?). But you know how it goes, and the next time we walked by, all these cars were gone–but hopefully, not to the shredder for the ultimate blow-out.
Wow. All this time, I had assumed the turbo Firebirds used the Buick V6.
Rob,
the 89 Turbo T/A was buick 3.8 powered. Weird combo of 3.8 block, fwd 3.0 heads, GNX intercooler and GN turbo. I have never been able to find one to get to drive..bucket list…
Ah! That’s where I was getting confused, thanks! While I was aware of this generation of Turbo’d Firebirds, I thought they used the earlier, carbed 3.8L turbo, too.
Rob Finfrock,
I am looking for a complete 1980 turbo trans am engine to keep as a spar engine for my pace car – May I ask if you know anyone who may have one for sale, or a 1980 turbo trans am pace car for sale max 10,000 I would rather purchase just the motor for 4,000 Andrew buys howya@sprynet.com
At the time I thought the new “nose” on these looked bad – but now – not so much.
Looks a lot like the turbo setup on my freind’s 79 Regal. As I’ve said before I don’t think the turbo did much more than overcome the inefficiencies in the plumbing.
EFI really made the difference with these.
@Mike I too think these don’t look as bad as I remember, it’s probably because we’re not seeing them every 10 seconds like we used to in the ’80s.
BTW, the Screaming Chicken decal was an option on TA’s. My short-lived (my ownership at least) ’81 California 305 4-speed TA had no such hood decal, and when it needed a warranty replacement of the shaker hood scoop, I asked them to delete the 5.0 (or was it 305?) stickers. Also the 305’s didn’t have the chromed double downturned exhaust tips. Those details made a big difference in toning down the redneck-factor, though I didn’t keep it long enough to wear out the raised white letter tires and replace with blackwalls. If the Turbo had been available with a 4 speed, I wonder if I would have bought one instead, and I’d probably really be kicking myself now for having sold it.
Not even the mullet boys will touch these.
Not funny.
A high school classmate of mine got one of these as an early graduation present. Same color too. I have to admit I was jealous – driving my 74 Gran Torino.
My friend Diane got one for graduation we spent prom in it all night driving to fire island ….we stopped once for Burger King frence fries … loved that car I’m finally getting one almost 40years later…lol
Its not overly clear from the diagram but do both cylinder banks feed the turbo or just the one?
There is a very nice one locally here but I’ve only ever seen it at car shows – hood down always.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveseven/5872719395/
That diagram shows a pipe running from the other bank under the oil pan, and meeting up with the near-side exhaust manifold, where they join to enter the turbo.
A one-bank turbo would have really been Micky-Mouse. I’m trying to remember if anyone ever did that; I would think it could lead to some issues with the different degrees of exhaust back pressure. Maybe not.
Paul, Saab did it fairly recently with their low pressure turbo setup on a V6 (I believe the same V6 found in the Catera and early CTS). I believe only the front cyl’s were connected to the turbo.
Yes, I knew something was niggling at me on one having been built. With its decided low-boost purpose in life, I can see that making sense.
Saab did a one bank turbo V-6 in the late nineties I believe. There were claimed benefits to the design that I don’t recall (low end torque? throttle response?), and for Saab a V-6 was an upgrade even without the added blower.
Obviously, what GM should have done is install TWO turbos, one for each bank. They could have called it, let’s see, the Trans Am Biturbo. What could possibly go wrong?
Yes the driver’s side exhaust flows into where the outlet would normally be on the passenger side exhaust manifold and then a new outlet on the end of the manifold feeds the turbo. Not too much different from the single exhaust versions of the old Ford Y-block.
Seems like an Olds 350-based Turbo might have been a tad easier considering since the RH manifold already has two outlets to begin with.
There is an exhaust pipe from the left side that goes underneath the engine to the right exhaust manifold. My feeling is that great power gains can be made with changes in this area.
Great find and great write up. I would love to see the early Turbo cars like this Trans Am Turbo and the Mustang 2.3 Turbo get their due by saving and restoring them for future generations to appreciate. They may not have been fire breathers but they acted as an important bridge to future EFI Turbo performance.
I can see spark plug wire life was compromised being so close to the turbo exhaust piping!
Again, I’m the outlier here. I loved this revision of the Firebird and Trans Am. This would by very high on my MM garage…
Up until EFI (port) became commonplace, ALL of the domestic turbo cars used “suck through” arrangements with the carb on top. Ask me how well it worked on my 1980 Mercury Capri. They largely sucked. Due to the inability or the unwillingness of these companies to engineer the cars properly, we ended up with the kludged systems.
In hindsight, I wish I would have gotten one of these as compared to my turbo Capri, at least this IS collectable. The turbo Capri, along with the turbo Mustang (exclusive of the 1979 Pace Car turbo model) are mostly forgotten. Of course, with the vast changes in my life in the last 33 years, it’s highly unlikely I would have kept it this long.
I sure hope it didn’t end up as a Chinese washing machine…
“Up until EFI (port) became commonplace, ALL of the domestic turbo cars used “suck through” arrangements with the carb on top. Ask me how well it worked on my 1980 Mercury Capri. They largely sucked. Due to the inability or the unwillingness of these companies to engineer the cars properly, we ended up with the kludged systems.”
Huh? IMO GM had the best carb/turbo combos out there at the time. You do know that you are comparing a torque-less 4 banger to a boosted bent 8. While I have never owned or driven the carb turbo’d Ford I do have some experience with this Poncho and tons of experience with the equally good Buicks. And I’m talking just the carb’d cars here. It would be comparing apples to honey bells by throwing the SFI Buicks into this discussion. The big problem, as Joe pointed out that most of these cars were owned by people who just didn’t understand them, let alone the dumb ass buff book writers who couldn’t drive them, which was why they got a bum rap from the press. I dont know about Ford, but the reason I think GM did it better was because it figured out how to control knock and ignition timing. Remember back in 83. HotRod had an 82 Regal SportCoupe and with some hair-brained mods and good thinking got this car into the high 14’s. The same times a stock hot air 84 GN put out. My memory is a little fuzzy but IIRC companies like H-O and Nunzi made a few go fast goodies for the turbobirds.
Funny how you think these are collectable. I kind of agree but only because a good running example is rare today. Rare yes, collectable…..maybe. On that list I’d also include any carb’d turbo’d Buick. Regal,MonteCarlo,LeSabre and Riviera.
Does anybody here remember the great turbo’d Z/28 conspiracy? I think the only book I’ve read it in, was Michael Lamms TransAm and Firebird book. Seems like GM wanted all F-Bodies to be equall. In content anyway. The 301T was destined for a home in the 81 Z/28. Maybe it was also intended for 80. IDK. Anyway Chevy fought long and hard to nix that idea. Remember I coined the phrase “small block mentality”? Well Chevys excuse was that no one would buy a Z/28 that didn’t have a SBC under the hood so it wasn’t going to loose money by offering that engine. In the end they won. To bad the 4 wheel disc brake rear axle went with it. Now I don’t have any solid proof that this is more than a myth. Why I say this is because I started selling GM parts back in 79. This was before computers and in the case of GM parts catalogs,microfiche. All of the parts catalogs were printed in paper. And they were usually updated twice a year. One unique feature was that all of the newly listed parts were put in the front of these catalogs. If I heard a rumor that a certain car was going to be made all I needed to do was wait for a new parts catalog to show up, usually around June or July. A few weeks or a month before the models hit the showroom. I can recall when the new 81 catalog came I was thumbing through the new parts listings and came across the part numbers for a set of hood and fender decals for the Z/28 that said “Turbo” instead of “Air Induction”. Along with a new hood and a few engine parts for the 301T. I always saved the old catalogs. And this one went into the “collection” when an updated one took it’s place. Well the time came to move into a finer abode and I wasn’t going to haul the ton or so catalogs I had acummulated over the last couple of years so off to the Boy Scouts they went. Years later I relized what an dumb ass mistake that was. I have no proof of how close the 301T Z/28 came to reality. Lucky for me one of the catalogs I use as a reference in the restoration of my Cosworth Vega contains a lot of references to the Wankel powered Monza. And back in 1995 I had heard that Chevy was going to make Marblehead Gray a color for the Impala SS. Well everything had gone to electronic books by than but I did manage to run off a copy of all of the MG moldings and specific parts for my records. I was disappointed when the sales brouchures showed up a few weeks later and only 3 color choices for 96. Black,Dark Cherry and Grey Green. No MG. And the electonic catalogs got updated every month so those part numbers eventually disappeared. All but one. The trunk lid lock cylinder emblem. Part number 12529212. I was quite surprised when GM still had a small stock of these 5 years later. I bought a lot of those and made some decent money on eBay before every other schmuck caught on and ruined the demand for them. Why bring this up? To help eliminate some of the BS that some of you might think I’m spreading. I wish I could find that old paper catalog for sale on the internet or a swap meet. Sometimes owning a book is better than owning the car. Not!
IMO the Buick turbos would be the best sorted, followed by the 301 Poncho and the Chevy V6 turbos. I had a couple of friends back in the day with the turbo Monte Carlos, and while you may be right about ignorance surrounding the cars, they still ran poorly. I can remember a few of the Buicks that were less than spectacular, although those cars were usually my friend’s parent’s cars and we didn’t want to prang the motors too badly. The carbed Fords were a whole other beast, and by that I mean a magnitude of an order worse.
I was shy of another turbo car until a friend got one of the first Dodge Shadow ES turbos, with the EFI, it ran like a little beast. It impressed me so much, a couple of years later I got my own Mopar turbo. It ran well for me for 11 years. By the late 80s, EVERYONE had adopted the turbo/EFI setup and eventually even the turbo Trans Am came back.
However, if Detroit had done the hard work and adopted EFI for the turbo cars they were putting out in the late 70’s – early 80’s (GM had EFI on the late 70’s Cadillac Sevilles already anyway), these cars would be collectible.
And yes, there are folks who are interested in collecting these cars. If High Performance Pontiac is claiming it (I would say they are pretty conservative when it comes to the collectible designation-these folks have just recently realized there were other Pontiacs than GTOs and Firebirds!), they must be getting there. If I didn’t have other things chasing my money right now, I would collect one myself. I have always loved the styling on this car and the relative rarity of the engine would be icing on the cake.
Again, I hope this one was saved from the crusher…
It is all moot point and turbo-shmerbo, if you want to make one of these cars go you need a V-8 and since they are bog simple, it is easy as pie to bolt in 300 hp. That have the Z-28 a huge advantage as all you had to do was hop up the existing motor. Bolting on 100 hp was cheap and easy.
F Bodies were never stock for long and doing an engine swap on a Turbo T/A was such a pain that most were scrapped.
why was it such a pain? Any Pontiac engine would bolt right up. Its probably one of the easiest engine swaps out there.
It is all moot point and turbo-shmerbo, if you want to make one of these cars go you need a V-8 and since they are bog simple, it is easy as pie to bolt in 300 hp.
It already is a V8, the turbocharger is connected to a beefed-up Pontiac 301. Everyone knows you can build a fast SBC with a couple of hand tools and a credit card, but all you’d have to show for it is yet another 14-second F-Body. Just what the world needs… I’d rather have the Toyota Camry from the other article.
Any Turbo Trans Am that is still running and driving on this earth either had it’s kinks worked out long ago or is a restoration project/labor of love from someone who appreciates the unique aspects of it’s unreliable orphan timebomb powerplant. No one in 2013 owns a car like this because they want to go fast in a straight line for cheap. Which is not to say these can’t be made fast, and easily – but that’s not the point of them (now) at all.
The Turbo Montes were Buick engines.
Interesting info you posted about the Camaro & 301T. My father had a bunch of those “MOTOR” car repair manuals from the 60’s up through 1980. Great for looking up the bore & stroke, & crankshaft main journal sizes for any American car engine, etc. Whether it was in one of those books or somewhere else, I always wondered why it showed the 301T as an engine for the Camaro. I seem to remember the naturally-aspirated 301 showing up as one of the engines installed in Buicks, Oldsmobiles, & Chevys in 1980 & 1981. I’m not aware of Pontiac 301s actually being installed in those other makes. I could be wrong. I had a 1980 Turbo Trans Am in the early 90’s during high school (for about 4-5 years total), and always had an affinity, okay obsession for Firebirds & Pontiacs in general; trying to learn more & more about the older Pontiacs (55-81) over the years. As far as the 301 Turbo (& 301), it used to kind of bother me how bad a reputation the engine had, until I realized (from reading both Pontiac magazines for years & finding out whatever I could on the internet) the limitations it had. Especially when the ’80 & ’81 is too often compared to the 70’s T/As with 400s and 455s. Back in the ’80s, my father would find a 1970s Bonneville or Grand Ville and put a 301 in it for my mom or sisters to drive (we were not well off). They didn’t leak or burn oil, they’ll run forever, and those huge boats we had then got upper teens for mileage (good enough); considering even when I graduated in ’93 gas was around a buck a gallon. We took apart at least one 301 to rebuild and still have heads laying around somewhere. To say this engine was not designed for performance in an understatement. Pontiac introduced it 1977 (dad still insists there were a few installed in ’76 Pontiacs); everything possible was done to minimize weight & maximize fuel economy. The intake ports on the heads are siamesed, meaning one port to feed two cylinders; and they’re not very big. Same goes for the intake manifold; lightweight, and designed for fuel economy. I think I read one time “Pontiac used the latest in thin-wall casting technology for the 301”; again, lightweight. Rods, crank, same deal. When Pontiac realized they were no longer going to be allowed to build the 400 (and the last year for the 403 Olds was 1979), they tried to do the best they could with what they had available to them, the 301 4bbl. For the 301 Turbo, the block was beefed up a bit. They installed the 800 cfm Quadrajet to make sure they had enough fuel/air to try to make sure it never ran lean. Compression was reduced to 7:5 to 1. Boost was supposed to be about 9 lbs. if memory serves me right. I loved my black & gold ’80, but with the limitations of the 301’s design, the 301 Turbo was never going to be a real screamer. I’ve read before that when the 301 turbo was dyno’ed, the HP & torque looks good around 3800 rpm, and then she’s all out of breath at about 4400 rpm. Sounds about right. Mine was 11 years old with over 100k on it when I got. Was all out of breath at 4,000. It’s been well documented by others who have commented here (and basically every magazine or website I’ve ever read), whether it was the 60’s Olds Jetfire or Chevy Corvair, the 70’s Buick V6, or the variety of turbocharged engines in the 80’s, the lack of intercoolers, fuel-injection, etc., etc., the carbureted turbocharged engines were usually not very good performers (reliability & maintenance also from what I’ve read)…at least, I can say I can’t blame them for trying to get more HP & torque out of a smaller engine. It just worked A LOT better years later (84-87 Buick Grand National). There’s the occasional urban legend about “I knew a guy in high school that had a ’79 Buick Regal Turbo or an ’80 Turbo Trans Am that was real fast!” or maybe one of those cars when it was less than a year old. I’ve just never seen it with my own eyes. It would be nice to have more money than I know what to do with. I’d like to have one of them re-built to factory specs to find out what they were like to drive when brand new.
i seen that your dad has parts for 80 turbo trans am was looking for a pevr valve for a 80 turbo trans am here is a picture of the valve
I have often considered finding a Firebird or non-turbo Trans Am of this generation in need to resto-modding, and install a modern turbo motor along with the classic Turbo T/A graphics. I wouldn’t want to ruin a good classic car, but taking one of the many basketcases available would be cool.
I was happy enough with the non-turbo 301 motor in my 1980 Formula for the most part. With the high (around 2.5) rear end ratio it tended to be doggy on upgrades and of course was no drag champ but it excelled on relatively fast twisty roads, which abound in the part of western WA where I live.
This was on my wish list as a 23 year old along with a white flying V guitar.It displaced my longing for a Bullit Mustang
Not my cup of tea (as everyone knows), but certainly cool for its rarity if for no other reason. As for Mom’s Luxury LeMans, it was a 4 door.
JP, does this recent find by our comrade Murilee Martin over at TTAC seem more like your mom’s Lemans:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/02/junkyard-find-1976-pontiac-grand-lemans/
Quite close, actually. The Honduras Maroon paint of the 74 was a slightly different shade, and ours was the 74 with the round headlights, but doggonnit, I have not seen a LeMans sedan with fender skirts in a long, long time. I always thought the skirted LeMans sedan was the best looking of the Colonnade sedans, and this shot from the brochure shows its shapeliness quite nicely. Nice find!
If you want it, contact TTAC’s Murilee Martin for the location of the pick-n-pull the car is at!
P.S. it looks to have the Grand Prix dash, which I don’t know if your mom’s Lemans had.
I still have my 1981 TA Nascar with the original 301T engine intact and it runs better than ever. Running non ethanol high octane gas and removing heat sources near the intake plenum such as the hot EGR and coolant line bypass trick have given this engine a feel like it never had before. Eliminating heat also got rid of engine knock/ping so that I could dial up the boost back to it’s intended 9 PSI like the factory originally specified. It was found that many turbo 301 equipped cars were running as little as 5 PSI of boost when combined with 87 octane gas conspired to make these feel rather sluggish. A little know how and some easy tricks can wake these up making them feel like a strong 350 4BBL engine of that era.
Too bad there are so few unmolested examples left. I know little-to-nothing about turbo ownership and probably wouldn’t take on one of these personally, but I sure like’em anyway. If your car is original I’d enjoy seeing some shots of it.
My 81 turbo TA. All original minus new paint. Was my Father in law’s baby until he passed. Runs great.
Lovely. Nice color and kudos for keeping it original.
Well tell me some tricks to do to my 1980 pace car its already has the smog pump off and the computer controlled distributor out now it has a manual one out of a plain 301 runs much better my numbers 1-229-740-8466 Mark Cook
A nice tip, there Joe. Of course, at least in California, 1980-81 were especially dark days of the Malaise Era. At least by 1980, you could get the T-10 four speed in a Z-28 or Trans-Am, but with a Chevy four pot 305 which I think was rated around 150 net hp. 1980 for Corvette in California was a dark year indeed with only the 305 four barrel and THM only. So bad, that Chevy didn’t list a horsepower rating for it. Dman is right; the California T/A’s, Formulas with the Chevy 305 had the Camaro Z-28 exhaust tips,
California never got the Pontiac Turbo 301 (or any other Pontiac V-8 after 1976 for that matter). I knew of a couple of guys who had ’80-’81 T/A Turbos (in Hawaii and Virginia); both of them had their Turbo units crap out and not because of pre-mature shutting down after hard use.
I vividly remember Car and Driver’s review of the 1980 Corvette with the 305. Instead of the suck-holing industry mouthpiece they are now, they absolutely ripped GM a new one about a 305 Corvette.
“So, should we go the the trouble of certifying the 350 for California or stick’em with a 305 chuffer out of a Bisquayne?
“Stick it to ’em!”
So funny I remember it to this day!
The T/A’s were such a successful car for GM in the late 1970’s, too bad they had to ruin the ruin with the terrible Turbo 301 powertrain. Typical GM of this era, good idea, bad execution.
I absolutely lusted over the Turbo Trans Am middle school. I was always big into Muscle cars and the second gen T/As at that age, my Dad had blue 78 several years before I was born and I must have seen Smokey And The Bandit 50 times. By the time I was 12 or 13 I had pictures of them cluttered throughout my school binder. One day a friend and I got to talking about our mutual appreciation for them during lunch and told me about his dads 1980 he still owned. When he said “factory turbo” I thought he was just pulling my chain.
After school one day I decided to call his bluff. I considered myself a car expert by then, there’s NO WAY I didn’t know of a version of my favorite car ever. So we walked the 3 blocks over to his house and to my amazement there it was, in a garage, under several boxes, peeping it’s dusty ass ever so slightly out to the neighborhood: “TURBO TRANS AM” in gold letters against black paint. My jaw dropped. I immediately darted through the cluttered garage, up to the front and there it was: the offset power bulge hood with the belching screaming chicken(at the time, that seemed awesome). When he popped the hood my grin went down a bit since it didn’t really “look” like a turbo engine(I was very much expecting a GN style layout), what I saw didn’t look much different from typical early 80s emissions junk. When his Dad came home he actually had to point the turbo out. He also educated me on its history and all the problems it has. We later got a ride in it the following spring, which may have been the zenith of my Trans Am lust. It certainly declined from there…
Until then I always looked at the Gen II Trans Am as the car that could do no wrong. It was muscle car rebel of the 70s, where cars were either Broughammobiles or small 4 banger Jap crap(Not to offend, this was the zenith of the Fast and Furious era, Japanese cars were blasphemy at that age). From a purely visual and marketing standpoint the T/A was like a Ferrari for a non driving me. It seemed like, despite the emissions era power loss, a car that only got better to its end and everything to follow was inferior. That Turbo T/A single handedly erased all of that mythical greatness I had built up around T/A throughout my childhood. My loss of automotive innocence really lol
“301…no drag champ but it excelled on relatively fast twisty roads,”
There are some Trans Am owners who take a 301 turbo block, that is beefier than normal 301, and build it up instead of a heavy 400-455. They like how the light weight improves handling. If GM allowed, Pontiac could have developed a better non-Turbo 301 for 1982 forward.
The 301 Turbo was supposed to be on the books for the new 1982 Trans Am, but it was killed and the Chevrolet 305 was left as the top engine choice for all F-bodies.
That explains the offset power bulged hoods in the early 3rd gens. I always wondered if that was the case.
It had hokey little lights on the back of the bulge to show how much boost there was. Cool, Star Wars stuff!
Yes, they really gave you no indication of what was going on, other than “moar or less”
all off-no boost,
one light-some boost?
2 lights-more boost?
3-most boostiest?
Back in 1980, a white one like that lived across the street from me in Timmins, Ontario.
Never did get to meet, or even see, the owner. But I always remember that car.
A buddy of mine had one of these, except it was a Formula and not a Trans Am. It was not new when he got it, so I don’t know if it was factory or not. It had definitely been wrecked, so maybe it was a rebuild. I’ve never seen or heard of a turbo Formula since.
He decided that if a turbo 301 was good (apparently he missed the fact that they weren’t), a turbo 455 would be great. A late model lo-comp 455 was purchased, some plumbing modifications done which involved cutting up exhaust manifolds and welding them back together, fabricating adapter plates etc. and the whole assembly was installed. I went out of my way to avoid involvement and thus blame, but was assured that my well sorted out V-8 Vega would soon be embarassed by the turbo ‘bird. We’ll never know. He said it felt “real strong” when suddenly flames erupted from under the offset scoop. At 100 mph. By the time he got it hauled down and jumped out it was all over. Years later he admitted that he thinks he failed to tighten up a fuel line. There wasn’t much left of it. I’ve often wondered if he incinerated a super rare car, anyone know if they actually built a Turbo Formula?
Yes, a few Turbo Formulas were built but they are quite rare. Probably not as rare as a 3.8V6 Formula….but rare 🙂
JB is right, I believe something under 1000 Formula turbos were built. Pretty cool find for a car that got the tar kicked out of it by the average owner from day 1.
They built either 1,245 or 1,250 Turbo Formulas in 1980 depending on what you’re reading.
A technology bridge too far. Just good fuel injection away from being ready for prime time.
Had a 77 olds starfire catch on fire with me driving. No fun at city speeds. I can only imagine 100mph.
I’m glad I wasn’t in the car when this happened. The driver went on to a career in commercial aviation, including flying water bombers and northern cargo flights in old DC-6s and such. He still says that run in the firebird was the hairiest 15 seconds of his life.
Starfire…
how appropriate!
With thousands upon thousands on the line whilst cruising one of these beauties, I’m still amazed at car shows and cruises at the amount of guys who don’t have a fire extinguisher within reach.
Cars get old, and when things which carry high heat and gasoline get old they sometimes can hand over unintended consequences.
Always have an ABC rated Fire extinguisher in your car. The cheapest $20 you’ll ever spend.
I remember looking at 100’s Early 80’s GM “Downsized” barges, when it was time for my First Car…and literally 100’s had burn spots on the hoods… It signifies that a QuadraJunk lived there, as per my Father… They always had more power than the 2bbl FoMoCo vehicles they compared to… But the 2bbls were not as trouble prone at least until the Corn Gas came along!
My turbo Trans Am (bought new, 2/3rds of the 18 months I owned it were spent back at the dealer) was strike 1. My 80 Mustang V-6 was strike 2. I didn’t bother with a strike 3….
my first Japanese car was in ’81….have bought nothing but Japanese since.
Doesn’t bother me if they’re made here or over there….I’ve seen no difference in their quality.
May try Korean next….
If one wants Kias over old Pontics, some would say that person has little to no taste.
sitting in my yard is an 80 firebird,turbo 301,stock exceot for repaint,brown with dual 4 tip exhaust outlets.as mopar guy know little about this car,formula or TA? decodeing help would be appreciated.drivers door hinge reminds me of “E” body mopars!
If the second digit of the VIN is a W then it is a Trans Am, if the second digit is a V then it is a Formula.
so a T/A will read 2W87TA ….A is for 1980
a Formula will read 2V87TA …. the T is for the 301 turbo engine
FWIW if it reads 2X87T then it was a pace car edition, but brown wasn’t the pace car color so I doubt it was a repainted pace car.
Your missing a few digits.
The first few digits are 1G2AW. You left out the A after the 2
I had a 1981 Turbo TA and I loved it, it was a bit slow getting to 20 mph but after that it was a rocket. It was the 301 Turbo, had to modify the inner fender wells to fit P295/50’s on the rear, the 265/60’s on the front were no problem. The car would not do a burnout but it would chirp second gear with no problem. It had the automatic with the slap shifter. After I sold it in 88′ I found out it was 1 of 7 configured the way it was. From the factory it was white with red interior, no T tops and no markings, only the firebird emblem on the gas cap and turbo wheel center caps. I purchased it used in 82′ Not sure why 7 were built that way. I have always regretted selling it.
I know how you must fell, I had a ONE OF A KIND 1966 BONNEVILLE. It was a Sport Coupe with high back bucket seats, wonder touch brakes ( this gave you aluminum brake drums that everyone thought was the wheel and 1/2 inch wider brake shoes front and rear. 3 1/2″ front, 3″ in the rear. And the ” piece de resistance`” It was a COPO, which back then I had no idea what that was. This car had 4 way power seats both driver and passenger and they were the same seats that came in the 1968 GTO. YES, a 1966 Bonneville with hard back buckets with head rests that were built into the seat. To this day I have not seen another 1966 Pontiac with hard back high back buckets. Oh, and the seat backs reclined too
Hey Paul. It sounds like someone set the timing without unpluging the distributor connector which means the timing was way too low. I set mine 4°’s higher an stock , run 93 octane, not the 87 it was built to run on and it smokes the tires from a dead stop. No power braking.
What did Pontiac call that version?
That’s really cool, I’ve never heard of it.
Great reading from all of you guys regarding Turbo Firebirds. I live in Canada and have a 1980 Turbo Formula that has only 25,000 original kilometers (17,000 miles) on the odometer. The car has been painted to freshen it up but otherwise is completely original. All options work (AC, PW, PL, PT, Cruise, has WS6 upgrade with four wheel disc).
It does chirp in second and is fun to drive on weekends…
See the pics
The WS6 is a suspention package with higher rate springs all around, a thicker rear sway bar and 4 wheel disc, if it had the WS7 option you would have the same springs and larger rear sway bar, but you would have rear drums. FYI
Going by the photo yours is a turbo but (obviously) not a trans am and not a formula??
That seems REALLY rare, I wasn’t aware they made any Esprits or Base models with the turbo??
Thats a Formula.
My wife had a ’75 TransAm when we met. She really loved that car. however her dad give it to her younger sister after we got married. I told my wife that I would some day get her another T/A. Well a few months ago I got her a 1981 Turbo Trans Am. It is numbers matching and the engine has never been worked on. With a little over 116, 000 miles it still smokes the tires and more than churps the tire when it shifts into second.
People that say the 301 is a crap engine just don’t know the little Poncho. It is the first small block V8 Pontiac made, the 326 is the same block as the 389, 400 and 455, there was no small/big block Pontiac engines. The whole purpose is the 301 was the other engine in thePontiac stable would not meet the new EPA and CAFE standards so Pontiac made the 301 to keep their cars ” ALL PONTIAC” The 301T had 215HP in 1980 and 205HP in 1981. It was the same exact engine, the horse power difference was due to 2 thinks ( or 1 if you consider them to be one and the same).
Let me explain. The 1980 has a timing setting of 8º BTDC with a total of 12º range, the 1981 has a timing of 6º BTDC with a total of only 7º range. That is where the 10HP went. Plus the 1981 was not vacuum advance ignition system, it is computer controled. It has an Electric Spark Timing module that works with the knock sensor and ECM, an O2 sensor with a throttle position sensor and mixture control solenoid in the carb again controlled by the ECM. All Turbo 301’s have an 800 CFM Rochester quadrajet, all other 4bbl engines came with the 750CFM version. For some reason people think Rochester made a 600, 650, 700, 725 cfm versions of the Quadrajet 4 barrel. They only have the 2, 750 and 800CFM.
It’s easy to tell which one is on your engine of any GM vehicle. Look into the primary bores, thee 750cfm Q jet has a thicker booster (verturi) ring and a smooth bore while the 800 has a thinner booster ring and has a lump in the bore wall. Of course you can use the numbers on the drivers side to be sure, but if you don’t had access to the numbers chart it’s an easy and quick way to know which Qjet you have.
I know I hated the lost of the heavy hitter, every Pontiac I had over the years had a 400cu in it, however it doesn’t mean you bad mouth it’s little brother. Do you hear Chevy people talking bad about the 305 or 350 when the 454 was no longer available in tbey cars and truck? NO, that is wby I call them “400 snobs”. I miss the 400 and 455 just as much as the next guy and Pontiac did what they had to. The turbo 301 was made to have tn e same power fell as the 400 plus it made the car handle so much better because of the drop in weight up front. My WS6 handles as good or better tham my 1998 SVT Cobra with Steeda spring, Koni struts and shocks and bigger (wider) tires front and back.
SO WHATS NOT TO LIKE?
“But it doesn’t have a 400. That’s why I don’t like it.” -dumb people.
ok i have been looking forever and i need help now. i have an 84 oldsmobile cutlass supreme 3.8 v6. i have a preformance cam, heads,intake ect. im looking to throw a turbo in it but i have no idea where to pick up the oil from. where is the sending unit on this block. please help
Hey 84Olds, Most Gm engines of that era put the oil sensor behind the intake next to the distributor. Just remove the sensor put a brass tee and you have your turbo oil feed. Just don’t forget to put a self tapping bung in the oil pan below the oil level for the return line..
Hey 84Olds, Most Gm engines of that era put the oil sensor behind the intake next to the distributor. Just remove the sensor put a brass tee and you have your turbo oil feed. Just don’t forget to put a self tapping bung in the oil pan below the oil level for the return line.
Also go with a T4 turbo and run no more than 4-6psi with a stock bottm end.
You can get one with oil and water feeds on the center section which is better for the bushing an d don’t let them talk you into ceramic ball bearings. Ask if a center section with bushings not bearings. They last longer and don’t COKE UP as fast as ball bearings if you shut down without cool down.
My 81 turbo trans am.
Matching numbers.
Queensland, Australia
I always wondered about the possibility of building up one of these old 301 turbos like they do with the modern turbo motors. For instance, the 1.8 and 2.0 turbos made by VW/Audi, some guys do whatever to crank the boost and whatever else they mod on those motors and they can pull HUNDREDS of extra horsepower out of them. Who knows how long they will last, but I always wondered how many hp you could pull out of a boosted up 301?
Hey Biff, the only problem is they don’t make a forged crank or rods is the 301
You can have Scat make you a forged crank for about $1500.That is why mine is staying stock. The head are 301 ONLY head. Not like previous Pontiac’s which use the same block and heads for all V8 engines. That is why most people pulled the 301 and turbo 350 and put a 400/455 backed with a turbo400 or 700R4 trans.
I’m going to keep mine the way it left the factory. There are sooooooo few of them. When I take my turbo T/A to the cruize-in people literally scratch their heads and think I’m full of it when I tell them it the way it left the factory. I have to show tjem photos on the web to convince them. Oh and changing the cam will only slows down the car.
This little Pontic has a stronger block than the n/a 301 and the perfect can and size turbo. All you need to do is put a straight pipe on the turbo, no muffler is needed just a 3″ pipe to the rear bumper. Also most of these came with a non-adjustable waste gate rod and never made the 9 lbs of boost. Kust lean on the actuator bracket a little and recheck the boost. 10 or 11 psi is ok.
Oh check and make sure some dum-dum didn’t chamge the carb and replaced it with a 750 cfm instead of the 800 cfm carb that belongs on this engine. YES Rochester made only two 4 bbl carbs750 and 800 cfm 4bbl carbs.
The 1980 had 215 HP, by todays HP measurement standards that is closer to 260 HP. Setup right with a new self tune fuel Injection system I think you can get around 270 to 330 rwhp
Automan, a 215hp rating in 1980 does NOT equal 260hp today! You’re completely confusing hp rating changes.
You might be mistaken. In 1972 they switched from flywheel to rear wheel hp ratings. 1980-81 would still be the same rear wheel ratings as all other cars.
That car was one of only around 13,000 Turbo Trans Ams made in 1980 and 1981. It was the world first turbocharger V8’s plus it is a PONTIAC engine, not a Chevy or Buick. Plus it was Pontiac’s last V8 engine. After this all V8’s were GM corp engines which were all painted GM Corp Blue.
It was truly the last Ponco. 100% PONTIAC
That car was one of only around 13,000 Turbo Trans Ams made in 1980 and 1981. It was the world first turbocharger V8’s plus it is a PONTIAC engine, not a Chevy or Buick. Plus it was Pontiac’s last V8 engine. After this all V8’s were GM corp engines which were all painted GM Corp Blue.
It was truly the last Ponco. 100% PONTIAC
I have an ‘8, originally vibrant blue, but someone painted it pearl white
It looks awesome with gold 8″ turbine wheels wraped in 266/60R15 BFG Radial T/A’s
TYPO…..
Mine is an ’81
I’m surprised no one has mentioned this but everytime I see a 1980-81 Trans Am I immediately think of the Trans Am Burt Reynolds drove in Smokey And The Bandit II (which I thought was a disappointment compared to the original which I loved)
I think that the Turbo T/A could have been a lot more than it is because had GM put Buick and Pontiac to work together plus had people to shop around and get advise from the people that made the Greenwood Turbo and Duntov Turbo Vettes. Plus Bring in Zora Arkus Duntov in the project since he had ideas for a Turbo V8. GM would have dominated the market with both a turbo 6 and 8 engines and dominated on the race tracks. Also GM should have let Pontiac keep it’s own V8 and let it progress the way Buick did with it’s 3.8 V6 that way the 301 would have reached it’s true potential. Though what it even more odd is way did Pontiac not use the Turbo system that was on the 1979 Turbo Corvette “Idea Car” that had what looks a larger Turbo suited to V-8’s and fuel injection to the 301 Trans Am that way it could have better operation on the Turbos. Also they should have included low restriction mufflers like they did on both the Corvette and Grand National for even better performance.
i bought a 1981 nascar edition turbo trans am new and discovered a couple of tricks to help it along. but the first thing i did was change the tires and shocks. I added bilsteins and at that time goodyear NCT radials. still remember the size 245/60 front and 255/60 rear.
Now to the engine! I removed the converter which was not illegal here, yet and bought
a dual snorkel air cleaner, still connected the cold air hose to the fender but the other
snorkel faced the windshield. further adding a small valve to the vacuum line limiting the wastegate from opening to quick. That and synthetic oils in the engine and tranny, best gas, which here is 94 octane and you had something. traded it in for a 1984 Z28 HO
Looking back the car needed stout gears with some sort of overdrive….
All great ideas. Makes me wish I still had mine (but with more cubes!). I always felt the same way, too bad they didn’t have the overdrives that weren’t far away (time-wise), with 3.42 or 3.73 gears. All ’80 Turbo T/As had 3.08; from what I’ve read, 1981 is one of those forever questionable things. 3.08, and then 3.23 gears as an option. I read somewhere that the 3.23 gears were an option; whoever the Pontiac expert that was writing the article claimed that at the last minute there was a change, and he believes there weren’t any built in ’81 with the 3.23 gears, but it often shows up in literature that it was an option. After I sold mine, I found out some guys disconnect the coolant line that runs to the “plenum” between the carb & intake. It’s for warming it up in cold/winter weather. Otherwise, once it’s warmed up, it’s not good for performance to be circulating hot coolant into that thing.
The 3.23:1 gears would have pushed the engine to too high a cruising RPM and they would have blown more engines. Don’t forget, the OEMs have to build something that will outlast the warranty.
Plus, they could also make the engine shift at TOO high an RPM, an RPM outside it’s torque range. Don’t forget, the 301T was only made to go to about 4,400 RPMs and that’s it.
In actuality, beginning in 1980 you could get a 250-C and a 350-C transmission in Pontiacs, but no Firebirds were ever equipped with them.
A friend of mine had a -C swapped into an early Malibu once, it was really a cool idea, one I often think about doing with my 80 Turbo.
Wasn’t there another small displacement V8 intended to be raced in the first 1969 Firebird Trans Am? I’m guessing they went with a new engine for the turbo due to emissions reasons.
There was and though displacement was the same the engine itself is very different.
Nine years ago, I was celebrating “Friendsgiving” with folks in Tampa, when my friends’ neighbor, who was moving, had one of these in his garage…for sale…with under 15,000 miles on the clock…and he was asking $10,000. I seriously thought about it.
I really hope these cars in this feature didn’t meet the crusher…
The guys with ones like that are asking 20-25K now. Not that they’re getting that price, but to give you an idea. Those prices are most likely coming but in some more years. However, there just isn’t the same love at all for the 80 & 81’s even though they have the same hp and more torque than most 76-79’s. Us car lovers are a finicky bunch.
Ive driven 400 and 455 Firebirds and Turbo 301s and I don’t care what the posted HP and torque ratings were, the 301Ts felt nowhere near as strong as the big engines
Meh. I’ve owned seven 2nd gens over the years including an ’80 that was originally a T car and had a 400 retrofitted into it. My current ride is an ’80 T with very low miles. My current car indeed doesn’t have that big-car-heavy feel to it (because it’s lighter). It definitely doesn’t rumble the same (having effectively single exhaust). And ot doesn’t vibrate as much (with the 301’s low shift points).
Pound for pound, late seventies onward.. The T cars were just a different car. Kind of like going from a Mustang to a Lincoln.. Powerwise they just don’t feel the same at all. Maybe that helps put it into perspective.
http://ateupwithmotor.com/model-histories/pontiac-trans-am-turbo/
Here’s a good article about these cars. Turbo cars were pretty much as welcome a substitute for the naturally aspirated cars they replaced as they are today.
I knew someone who got an ’81 Turbo T/A from their parents as a HS graduation present. It was disappointing, to put it mildly. I drove it a couple of times and it had no real low end at all, even if you power braked it. I didn’t want anything to do with one. When I decided to buy a T/A, I wanted a ’77-78 due to the better looking front end, and the 400 motor, but every one I looked at was pretty much junked out. I talked to the local Olds guru, and called Mondello too, and asked about making the 403 run decently. Both of them assured me it could be done and it wouldn’t be all that much to get it into the middle 14’s, and 13’s was easily done. I bought a ’79, red without T-Tops. It had 24K miles on it, and when I got it, the converter was so plugged up the car could not spin the tires. The insane 2.41 rear sure didn’t help. I ran it at the Las Vegas Speedrome and it turned a best of 16.2. The first thing I did was cut the converter off, and the car was able to spin the tires quite nicely. I had a custom dual exhaust made and I cracked a 15.80. Then came the Mondello plate to strengthen the windowed mains on the 403’s block (One of the dopiest ideas GM ever had), along with an intake manifold, ported to match the intake gaskets, and some mod that Mondello advised me to do to the plenum. The manifold change helped the low end a lot. Next came the $$$ stuff. First was 3.21 gears and a new carrier. Then it was ported heads, headers, a Mondello cam lifters, etc. At that point the car, if driven just right, ran it’s first 13,80 at 101, and a trip to a carb tuning guy got the car into the 13.50’s at 104 (It was super rich on the primary side, and lean on the secondaries), with launches being almost impossible unless it was driven like there was an egg under your foot until you got out about 50-60 feet. New, bigger, tires got the car, on a cool day, to a best of 13.35@105 something. At that point, I won some money at a casino and I had 3.42 gears installed, which made the traction issue come back again and it didn’t seem to really do much else. My best was still the 13.35 I had run with the 3.42 gears. I put the 3.21 gears back in,and left the car like that until I got stupid and sold it in late 1986. It was a very good car, the only real problems were the inside left door handle broke a couple of times, and the A/C was weak. The trans died at 50K, but I was happy it did as it had been slipping for some time anyway. Being bought used made we wonder when it would fail. The rebuilt trans had a shift kit and it would bark the tires nicely at the 1-2 shift. But the best thing was the neck snapping throttle response it had. I loved the way it drove, it had the best throttle response of any car I have ever driven. After I sold it, it sat dead for a long time, but about a year ago, I saw it driving around with the guy I sold it to behind the wheel. It will soon be painted (red), which it needed, and I intended to do, before I got “Iroc fever” and sold it.
My 1981 Nascar still runs out well and has only 29K on the clock. Tricks to keeping these alive and well are keeping the engine in proper tune, especially the carb with no vacuum leaks, running good oil with zinc and of course letting the engine sit and idle for a good 30-40 seconds to cool the oil as it circulates. By today’s standards it’s slow with a 6.8-7 second 0-60 time running 93 or higher octane but for its time that was considered quite a fast car. Today 4 cylinder turbo Camaro’s and Stangs are running 5.5-6 second 0-60 times for comparison sakes but it’s interesting to note that these 301T motors still make more actual torque numbers than even the 3.6 Gm or Ford 3.7V6 engines today at 340-345 LBS FT.
I am having a problem with my 1981 trans am turbo,I need to bypass the esc, if someone can help me it would be so much appreciated, I restored the car and now it’s running off time until I disconnect the esc,thank you
Ttaperformance.com
The guy is very nice and makes the board to bypass I believe. He’s on Facebook. Ttaperformance
It is difficult not to compare the 200-210 hp Pontiac V8 Turbo with the 165-276/300 hp Buick V6 Turbo, surely the former with proper development was theoretically capable of up to 360-390 hp or around 300-350 hp at minimum?
I own an 81 Turbo Nascar. The truth is the 301T was rushed into action to keep a Pontiac engine between the fenders. I have modified and beat 12 second 455 powered Trans Ams years ago. Long story short performance parts are made for this engine now. A recent build up by T/A Performance netted 345 horses and 510 lbs of torque. That build is relatively small compared to my very own. Point is horsepower potential is here now. It wasn’t years ago. The little 301 deserves it’s props because it was about 6 years ahead of it’s time.
The word “Turbo”, in 1980, was not just a way to get more power out of a smaller engine, and meet emissions/fuel economy regs. It was also a great marketing word.
Almost as ubiquitous as Countach and Farrah Fawcett posters on the bedroom walls of a teenage boy in 1980 was the Porsche 930 Turbo. You could sell a Pontiac by saying it had a turbocharger, “just like a Porsche 930”.
All the complexity of a turbo charger but very little benefit. No intercooler and heat soak galore. This must have cooked engine oil faster than a short order cook.
It’s easy to look back on these as a very primitive turbocharger installation, and one which doesn’t seem to have advanced at all since the days of the Oldsmobile Jetfire. But from what I remember reading about aftermarket turbo installations in those days, I’m not sure the technology existed yet for them to have done much better. I assume GM had reliability standards Pontiac had to meet, and that would have hobbled things. I recall numerous aftermarket turbo jobs Car and Driver tested that had reliability/durability issues. Intercooling existed at Porsche, of course, but I’m guessing GM’s beancounters would have nixed that.
CC-in-scale has a Trans-Am Turbo in 1/16 scale, from MPC. Sorry it’s the ‘boring’ black with gold bird; I thought it was cool back in ’80. 🙂
What a horrible engine.
Though…I sometimes wonder how close to stock a turbocharged 455 could be done…