Topic: Found '80 turbo pace car with 66k miles (pics added 5/30/12)

[80TAPaceCar]

dont have to own one to read about the quirky nature of the turbo.

As I said above, you have never owned one, so you don't have a clue.  Your basing
your knowledge on statements from biased people that didn't like the 301T from day one.

owners couldnt wait to swap the fragile 301t for a NA400.

Only because they didn't have a clue either on how to work on new technology.

Kev

[NWW-79 T/A]

I say bring it home, give it a restoration, and if the need comes I'm sure you could get back what you paid for it.

[ponchonutty]

Thanks.  That's sort of where I am at.  Obviously buying any old car is a gamble but I am starting to think this may be a better bet than the '79 TA I looked at for $8500 a few weeks ago.  The '79 was mostly redone with a new amature paint job and some minor rust repair but mostly pretty solid.  I don't like the aftermarket rims on it but the 403 sounded great with the mild cam and PYPES full 3" exhaust.

This '80 on the other hand is mostly untouched and certainly would stand out in the crowd.  We'll have to see what transpires.

Now, enough with the 301 Turbo bashing.  We all know that it was untested grounds back in the day.  Most I believe that don't like them just never fully understood the technology.  There are some today running these cars with very respectable times.  I however will never track run it.

Remember Ford did the same thing a few years later with the SVO Mustang with the turbo'd 4 banger.  It was a stout little running car with close to 40mpg if you didn't spool it up all the time.  Again, v8 purest hated it.  Very few embraced it and ran them.  I have a good friend who's son runs the snot out of them racing.  He's well in to the 12's with a '84 SVO.  I believe that's very respectable especially with out a whole lot of work or money invested.

[hada76]

true, i may not have a clue, but how about HPP magazine, HOTROD magazine, EDMUNDS.com and others? why would they be "biased" against this motor?  just for fun check 71 on this list

http://www.insideline.com/features/100-worst-cars-of-all-time.html

once again ill say, they got it right in '89

[ponchonutty]

true, i may not have a clue, but how about HPP magazine, HOTROD magazine, EDMUNDS.com and others? why would they be "biased" against this motor?  just for fun check 71 on this list

http://www.insideline.com/features/100-worst-cars-of-all-time.html

once again ill say, they got it right in '89

Well, again they "didn't get it right in '89 but just stole it from Buick".  I have issues with this list.  #95 was a very fun ride and ran very well in the quarter mile.  #87 was a very sellable car for GM.  Again #70, Pontiac had to come up with something due to tight EPA standards.  They rolled the dice and wasn't a hit with everyone.  #61 my step-sister had one with over 280k miles on it when she sold it.  #58 GM playing the dice again but hit it on the head the year they stopped producing it. #52 hauled a lot of firewood in one with well over 100k miles on it.  #42 one of the most fun cars I've ever had.  Basically stock and ran 11.20's in the quarter and had it running up to 154mph and it was actually still climbing but was starting to get sqirrelly(this was on closed road).  #31 again, EPA woes and GM couldn't answer it.  #11, it was torque GM was after, not over all HP. #6 ugly yes but saturn sold a crap load.  #1, many that owned these loved them

If you take each of these cars in respect of the times, they aren't that bad.  Each of these had a genre to fill.  Some did it, some didn't.  Remember that the '80 Turbo TA was the best of the best out there in 1980.  So much in fact, they had to use it again in 1981 to Pace the race.  No other car at the time could run at that high of speed with very little modifications.  If memory serves me, didn't they just change out the tires and rear gearing??

[jjr]

 They removed the A/C, shaved the tires to half depth, and
switched from 3.08 rear to 2.56. Oh, and they hole drilled
through one of the reverse lights for a camera.

 Joe

[NWW-79 T/A]

The readers rated that list at two stars so...

[NWW-79 T/A]

So when's the pics coming?

[hada76]

i agree the list is silly, my point was that many top auto publications at the time had less than glowing opinions of the motor. i doubt that they all were "biased" and "didnt have a clue".

[80TAPaceCar]

i agree the list is silly, my point was that many top auto publications at the time had less than glowing opinions of the motor. i doubt that they all were "biased" and "didnt have a clue".

They too did not know much about the 301T or even know how to work on them as it was new technology.  The publications gave it a bad grade as it was a change from the imfamous 400 and that makes them biased.  You base your knowledge on publications.  Go to the 301 Garage and do some reading if you want real world knowledge.

Now, enough with the 301 Turbo bashing.  We all know that it was untested grounds back in the day.  Most I believe that don't like them just never fully understood the technology.  There are some today running these cars with very respectable times.  I however will never track run it.

X2, I agree people need to stop the bashing of the 301T. What's so amusing is that the people that bash it, really don't know what they are talking about.  I was taught if I didn't know much about a conversation going on, then sit down and keep my mouth shut.

I find many things on the forums I frequently visit that is just not for me.  But you don't see me bashing them since it does not fit my taste.  If you don't like the 301T that's your business and IMHO, keep it to yourself, build a bridge and get over it.

Kev

[jjr]

 Viewpoints can be both skewed and biased.

 Viewpoints from auto publications can carry the
same issues as individuals.

 The mighty Pontiac 400 didn't have the "right stuff"
to pass the ever increasing EPA and CAFE regs of the
day. Even the very loved Olds 403 fell short.

 The original 301 design wasn't a performance design,
that's obvious. But what so many seem to always miss is
what Pontiac did with it.

 It was actually a classroom excercise to even try to
turbo charge the 301. It was true to the Pontiac tradition
to engineer the best running package they could.

 The design, lost on even the automotive press, was to
encompass many aspects... EPA certification, and what
they needed... power on demand. In simpler terms, the
design was supposed to run exactly like it did. A nice,
smooth running V-8 that passed the EPA, but would show
Pontiac pride when called apon.

 If you put a 400, nose heavy F body next to a 301T, the
400 would of course nose out some early. This was mostly
a case of the need to detune the 301T to meet government
regs AND how they designed it to run.

 The world had changed and Pontiac did what they did best.

 The responce, back in the day, was an engineering marvel.
Perhaps not by todays standards, but well done in the day.

 But truly, what I don't get, is someone who seems to be
a Pontiac person not getting it.

 Maybe it's just me though...

 Joe

[ponchonutty]

So when's the pics coming?

Well, I am trying to get a hold of him and was hoping to go look at it again this morning.  I didn't even run or drive it the last time I saw it because I was in a hurry.  It was at a mom-pop garage getting $1200 worth of maintenance work done to it.

[hada76]

im not personally bashing anything or any one, simply pointing out the general consensus of the automotive community at the time. i find it hard to believe they didnt know what they were talking about, or understand EPA requirements. i still say pontiac made the best of the situation, the technology was still a few years down the road. any bashing seems to be coming from elsewhere. (BTW, what does being a pontiac person have to do with it?)

[80TAPaceCar]

BTW, what does being a pontiac person have to do with it?

Hmm...what's that old saying, if you gotta ask...

[NWW-79 T/A]

Let's not turn this into a fight...