stupid people

Nobody should ever do this to a Trans Am, and if they do they should be shot.

http://www.thebiglot.com/adPicPage.asp?AI=208111&PT=J&;

i dunno, i like the wing but i can't stand the rims.

by the looks of things, someone already did do it.

and who cares, its a TA with a spoiler. sure its not cool at all, but worth a post? no.

it's sad that someone did that to a trans am..... poor car :frown:

Excuse me I have to go barf. :puke:

I don't think it looks overly bad, the spoiler could be smaller, it's a little too big. A big spoiler on a long car like that, doesn't fit right. A smaller spoiler, some neons and a nice body kit would make that car look better :)

I'm sorry but I don't agree.........At All

No one said you had to agree with me :) I personally think they're one of the ugliest cars out there. The only newer TA I liked was the yellow special addition one they mafe before the quit making them. They're too long and short like the Camaros....icky.... not nice...

Everyone has their own opinion i guess...I wouldn't take any other generation TA over my 4th gen. But I still like the older ones too. My dad has a 79 TA Bandit Edition. It's pretty sweet. But I could out run it any day of the week easily.

I have a '79, its okay, I'd still say Trans Am's are probably one of the worst cars out there. They were never a "muscle" car. And never cut it as a "sports" car... they were just...normal.

I'd still say Trans Am's are probably one of the worst cars out there. They were never a "muscle" car. And never cut it as a "sports" car... they were just...normal.

:screwy: :disappoin

I can't believe you said that...more muscle and sport than 80% of ish out there! That crazy stuff, normal, LOL. Normal is anything that comes in two and four door options with a 4 banger... :2cents:

Well compared to the Mustangs, Chevelle's, Chargers, Challengers, Cuda's, etc. Trans Am's were crap. the 79 only pushes out about 185 horses with its 403 while all the other cars pushed out like 250 or more.

The Trans Am was the "low end muscle car" designed for those who couldn't afford to get a super cool one :P

The only good engine they came out with was the 455 Pontiac and even it wasnt all that great in my eyes.

Like I said, I do have a '79 myself, and I think it's really pretty, I love the looks, just the engine is crap.

As for the new ones... I guess the engines are okay, but I hate how they look, both the new TA and Camaro are really flat and long, it's icky...

that's my :2cents: :)

I'm sorry, but that's horribly gaudy.

You people are crazy... :banghead: :banghead: ... But this IS an opinionated thread...so go to town! :smokin:

EDIT: And by the look of your posts, your stuck in the 70's

EDIT (2): And the reason why I jumped your case is because you said "I still say" there crap...(Meaning the newer ones). Back then they weren't the greatest, but were still bad.

That's what I said, they were crap then, and they're crap now ;)

Nobody should ever do this to a Trans Am, and if they do they should be shot.

http://www.thebiglot.com/adPicPage.asp?AI=208111&PT=J&;
That is one sweet looking ride!,Whats wrong with it,different strokes for different folks.

Hmmm....back to the first post, the wing makes the T/A look like a fat Tiberon.

That's what I said, they were crap then, and they're crap now ;)
They came with a 455 and a 455H.O. they did 0-60 in 6.5 and 1/4mile in 15.3, average for 79 was 9.25 and 16.98. Now they do 0-60 in 5.5 and 14/mile in 13.5, average now is 7.62 and 15.70, how are they below average theyre far above par?

What the
crap my stock 350 315hp and it's in a 1968 bird

What the
crap my stock 350 315hp and it's in a 1968 bird

i was talking 79 trans ams not 68 birds

The 455's had real bad crankshafts...

Obviously this is a very widely opinionated thread, so I thought I'd throw in my :2cents:

My car is in the sig below. I love every generation of Firebirds/Trans Ams and am very pleased with the looks and performance of the 2002 WS6. I will say this is definitely not an "everyday" car; tis why mine stays in the garage until the sunny weekends arrive. :)

Well, I don't know what 79's your talking about because not all of them had 455's. Mine's stock with a 403 Olds, pushin out 185 horses. I have the specs book right here, that was the stock engine for all the 79's. I'm pretty sure it was the older ones that came with the 455's. So maybe when they first came out they were good cars, but from 1978-now, they've really been nothing special. The only newer TAs I like were the ones with the Ram Air hood (think thats what they called it, kinda looks like a pig snout lol) The other ones are too long and flat like the new Camaro's... and whoever said it looked like a Tiburon.. I love Tiburons too hah.

I have a '79, its okay, I'd still say Trans Am's are probably one of the worst cars out there. They were never a "muscle" car. And never cut it as a "sports" car... they were just...normal.

dang where have you been? in a hole?! in the 60's they destroyed many mustangs, in a muscle car book i have they said that in a test done by car and driver the firebird won! 0-60 in 5.5 seconds, thought it was not a trans am it was a 400 or 400HO heres a quote "for sheer enjoyment and confidence behind the wheel the firebird was almost in a class by itself." but the comaro was "built to be all things to all ppl." oh and i dont like that wing in the pic. how were they just "normal"? how come it was not a muscle car? now i dislike the 80's and most of the 90's trans am's but the 02 is the most beautiful car in its time, comparing it to a late gen. comaro, it not only looks better but performs the same with a cheaper price. Thats just my .02 sence this is a opinion thread i thought id do that.

I state again, I'm talking about '79s not 60's. There is no way any stock TA from 79 could do 0-60 in 6 seconds because they all came stock with 403 OLDS engines, not 455 Pontiacs. The people with FAST TAs are the people who chose to make them that way by putting a better engine in. The TA I as, is a restored, stock TA with the 403, and 185hp.

I think you really need to define stock.. ALL TAs built in 79 or whatever didnt have 403s... most people define stock as the way it comes from the factory, so essentially a 455 coming from the factory is stock.. and those were some pretty good motors. You keep streesing this "stock thing" whenever there is nothing to stress. You say how the they didnt stack up to most of the chevells/mustangs etc blah blah. If you look at the stock engines on all these cars, none of them are overly impressive.(by stock i mean the bottom of the line engine, as you are doing with the TA) 302s in a mustang, i believe 318s in challengers and chargers, and NONE of them near the 250 mark you said.. all around 205. I dont wanna sound like a mean ass or anything, and I understand that this is an opiniated forum, but why come to the FIREBIRD forums and say "I basically dont like any firebird ever built" since it seems to be so popular... this is just MY :2cents:

What is with men and not listening... geez lol. I'm trying to tell you that the 79's did NOT come standard from the factory with the 455! They came with 403s! 1979 was used to try out the OLDS engine instead of the PONTIAC, and the OLDS engine was probably the crappiest V8 ever. That's what I'm trying to say. I didn't say I dont like Trans Ams, If I hated them I wouldn't have one! yes, there are better cars out there then them. But I like my car. It's pretty... just gutless. Anyway, I'm done trying to get you guys to listen and understand... go buy the damn specs book for the '79 and you'll know what I'm talking about. Prove me wrong children, prove me wrong! :) lol (I love that episode)

You really need to define "stock" and "standard" before you go off making all these statements. Your making all these generalizations about all 79 trans ams that just arent true. THEY CAME FROM THE FACTORY WITH OTHER ENGINES BESISED 403S. yes they did come with 403s, but they also came with other engines, and anything from the factory is stock. Your lumping everything together in one big category which is unreasonable. I am basically done with thie "argument" because you seem to be one of those thickheaded individuals that fails to see both points of view. I understand you say they came stock with 403s, but they also came STOCK FROM THE FACTORY with other engines. This is a moot point and not worth argueing over anymore. Thanks and have a nice day

Rob :banghead: :banghead:

I'm sorry, I forgot to mention that the '79 TA also came with the 403 T/A 6.6 L engine... which is just a little better then the regular 403... I actually have the T/A one... yay... it gives an extra... 20 horses I think... :P you guys get too stressed out up in here.... calm yourself! :)

Ok ok i get it all now. Aight dawgs?

I have a '79, its okay, I'd still say Trans Am's are probably one of the worst cars out there. They were never a "muscle" car. And never cut it as a "sports" car... they were just...normal.
:rolleyes:

and whoever said it looked like a Tiburon.. I love Tiburons too hah.

EEWW, And your talking shit on F-Bodies... :disappoin :nono: . That's soooo wrong man...

I'm not talking shit on FBodies, I clearly stated that I love the looks of my Trans Am, it's actually one of the more rare ones, even more so then the Bandit or SE of '79. I was just trying to get acrossed that the 403 OLDS V8 the '79's came with, is probably the crappiest engine ever built!

I'd still say Trans Am's are probably one of the worst cars out there. They were never a "muscle" car. And never cut it as a "sports" car... they were just...normal.



I'm not talking shit on FBodies, I clearly stated that I love the looks of my Trans Am, it's actually one of the more rare ones, even more so then the Bandit or SE of '79. I was just trying to get acrossed that the 403 OLDS V8 the '79's came with, is probably the crappiest engine ever built!

WAAYYY 2 different things...it's funny how you switched from bashing the whole car...to just the """"403 OLDS"""" (WE. GET. IT. 403 OLDS!) engine out of your '79...get real. :loser:

im confused about what the argument is about. :confused:

Yeah, I still do think they're not the greatest cars BECAUSE of the engines they came with. the 403's are CRAP! Get it?! They didn't come with the factory 455. Who ever said the 79 Trans Am can do 0-60 in 6 seconds.. I dunno what car they're talking about because I own one, and I know what it can and can't do.

Obviously you guys can't get it through your big ugly thick skulls what I'm talking about here... so I give up. I know my cars engine sucks ass, all of them do unless yes, someone decides to put a better engine in that didn't come with it (ie the Pontiac 455)

So, you guys win... let's just go with what you're saying..

1979 Trans Ams can in fact go over 200kph and can in fact do 0-60 in 6 seconds.... alrighty.... they suddenly became superbirds...

LOLOL! Your saying your giving up like your acually arguing about something mechanically. The only thing that's pissing you off is me saying F-Bodies are cool. And your saying they're not...it opinionated...debatable...chill.... :smokin:

And the other thing that is pissing you off is that one guy saying that the Trans Am came with a 455. I was told they did too, and the same guy said they have a history of bad crankshafts...NO need to get disgruntled. Again take a :smokin: break. :sunglasse

EDIT: And my skull is NOT big and ugly... ;)

I'm not pissed off because you like F Bodies... if I hated Trans Ams I wouldn't have put so much money and effot into my own. I think you guys are skipping everything I say.... for real...

All I'm trying to say is that 1979 Trans Ams DID NOT come with 455's, they stopped making them in I think 74 because of emissions problems. The 1979 came with the 400 Pontiac and the 403 OLDS... that's it.. no 455! And thats why they are gutless! If they did come with 455's, yes they would be much better! But they didn't, so the car has no power.

Get it yet? Or do I have to keep repeating myself... lol

I LIKE TRANS AMS (not the new ones) but NOT THE CRAPPY ENGINES OF 79!!!

That should be clear enough.... god.... lol

I guess you will have to keep repeating yourself, JUST because I think it's lame for people to get soo pissed off about NOTHING. Anyway I never said the 455's came in 79, and as I read through my post it says Trans Am...BUT I can see how it may have been misleading...so I appologize for that. And you are right about the 74 being the last 455...because that's the latest I've ever seen them in. So sorry for the misleading, F-Bodies are cool, ALL SLOW ENGINES SUCK, and I guess we agree and let's do this :cheers: and not this... :biggrin2: ..... :smokin:

haha alright then.... I'm just mad because I know I'm right and most guys wont let a chick be right... so... yeah lol.... :cheers: and lets just move on...

And just for the record...

http://www.iwaynet.net/~gl&lisk/1979ta.html

there you go... :)

I an earlier post you said since 78 trans ams just keep going downhill but the new WS6's are faster than vettes stock, where do oyu figure that the new ones suck?

All That Car Needs Is Lowered A Little And The Rest Of The Kit But Its Not That Bad Looking Believe Me Ive Seen Worse! Atleast It Doesnt Have A Rice Wing On It. And Some Hoopy Fuckin Neons ( That I Can See Atleast)

The new ones suck because I think they're ugly. (except the 2002 it looks nice) I just dont like the style of the newer Trans Ams or Camaros, I think they're too long looking.

The 79s look good but the engines are crap. Therefore in their own ways, they both suck somehow :)

The new ones suck because I think they're ugly. (except the 2002 it looks nice) I just dont like the style of the newer Trans Ams or Camaros, I think they're too long looking.

The 79s look good but the engines are crap. Therefore in their own ways, they both suck somehow :)

what do you mean 2002 looks nice, it looks same in 2002 2001 2000 1999 and 1998, how can you not like new ones when all those years they were the same.

I only like that yellow Special Edition one they released before they stopped making them. It seems to have a shorter nose on it. It's more rounded on the front while the others are longer.

Dude All The Styles Since 1993 Have Been The Same Length. The Only Things That Hcanged Between Them Were The Bumpers. The 1998-2002 Nothing Changed On Them Body Structure Wise. The Bumpers Are The Same, Hood Lines, Fenders For The Last 9 Years Have Been The Same. Your Style Is Probably Longer Than A Newer F- Body. The Newer Ones Are Only Like 16 Some Feet Long.

That picture that was posted in the first place on this thread looks a lot different then the Trans Am I'm thinking about. Take a look at it and see how it looks really long, while this one:

http://www.extreme-z.com/appearance/gallery/albums/fpaint/2002_Trans_Am_WS6_Collector_s_Edition_1.jpg

Looks like it has a shorter front end. Does it not?

Maybe its just the angles of pictures I've seen.

I don't think that it looks that bad, but it looks better with out the mods. Second thought just shoot the guy

ok DUKEGIRL,
Ok the olds 403 was not tested in 79 cuz 78 came with them too, Listen I bought a 78/ta from a guy in new mexico H was running 13's with a olds 403, it wasnt stock but its not crap,

1st of all because of emmissions the air flow and fuel delivery were greatly restricted so just throwing on a 650 cfm or 750 cfm holley, New edelbrock intake, and throw off that exhaust manifold that massively restricted the exhaust and throw on some headers and a descent exhaust system and daaaam you'll see some major improvement in power. He ended up having a rod knocking in the motor when i bought it so since then i threw a pontiac 400 in it from 1969. I'm selling it its on a thread here somewhere

If you want a car that looks like rice, then buy one! You shouldn't take a perfectly good american made MUSCLE car and turn it into a rice-wanna-be. Cheese and Rice!!!!! I've seen many of MOPAR (Move Over Pontiac Approaching Rapidly) get beet down by the T/A. It just depends on how you build(Stroke) it and how you drive it. Obviously there is a few people out there that can't handle american muscle. F!%k that rice sh*#!!!!!

Very well put peps Keep that shit off of american muscle

i like that wing but thier are better ones out thier

as for the newer cars being crap .... whats wrong with them they are rediculous fast get good gas milage handle fairly well and have alot of options. whats so bad about that.

Hey Sweety All The Styles Are The Same Length. They Just Have A Differnt Bumper On Siixers And Formulas Than The Trans Am. All The Same Though.

this chick knows her stuff, i have bought a 95
firebird, its had work done on it, swapped the 3.4 v6 for a 350 lt1 and a 6 spd. suspension upgrades
and we put the trans am body kit on it. its a
fast car. 310 horse power.

get rid of everything that they did and make it look back to normal and it would be ok
a trans am has its own cool look. don't change it to look like something it wasnt made to look like.

:puke: well the last time i checked the firebird wasnt from japan. hope it doesnt have a 6" bolt on exhaust tip. what the hell was that person thinking. o well. that huge wing will only slow that loser down and make it easier for the rest of us to blow it away.
:ylsuper:

i personally like the wing, but the rims, hell no , and the gold, come on wut were they thinking, i guess, it was someone into rap music.

I hate the wing, rims aren't too bad. Also, I have a 2002 collector edition T/A, the body is no different than the 98-01 WS6's. When I was growing up my uncle had a 79 T/A with the 403 and I thought it was pretty fast then. But, it is nowwhere near as quick as an LS1 equiped f-body. Also, the best package to get in 79 was the 400 pontiac with the 4-speed.

one quick note Women dont know cars.PERIOD.