GTP Cool Wall: 1969 Pontiac Trans-Am. Voting Closed

  • Thread starter Joey D
  • 44 comments
  • 4,653 views

1969 Pontiac Trans-Am

  • Total voters
    80
  • Poll closed .
Joey D

Joey D

Premium
46,710
United States
Boyne Falls, MI
GTP_Joey
GTP Joey
.: 1969 Pontiac Trans-Am suggest by JCE :.

0309pon_01z+1969_Pontiac_Trans_Am+front_View_Passengers_Side.jpg


Specs:
Specifications
Wheelbase, inches: 108.1
Weight, lbs: 3,700
Number built: 697
Base price: $3,600

Top Available Engine
Type: ohv V-8
Displacement, cid: 400
Fuel system: 1 x 4bbl.
Compression ratio: 10.75:1
Horsepower @ rpm: 345 @ 5500
Torque @ rpm: 440 @ 3400

Representative Performance
0-60 mph, sec: 6.5
1/4 mile, sec. @ mph: 14.3 @ 101​
 
I want to say cool because it's a muscle car, but it's so ugly i can't bring myself to do so. Uncool.
 
The First Trans Am, very limited, you dont see it often, good suspensión for its time but with big-block power, uncommon stripe treatment, and its a Pontiac. Sub-effing-zero.
 
Uncool. It's a muscle car and I don't think it's terribly fast either. I mean a car with that much horsepower and torque should be quicker, little FWD hot hatchbacks could beat it today. Also I am really not a fan of anything Pontiac. What saves this car from going seriously uncool though is that it's rare, and rarity always helps with the coolness factor.
 
Not as intimidating as the '70 Chevelle but it's still a great car. It is a little bit on the ugly side though.

COOL
 
Uncool - It doesn't have any really appealing features to me - although I like how rare it is - but it doesn't save it.
 
Toronado
To be fair, period tests were done with period tires.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but really how much faster would it be on a modern equivalent of the tires it came with? I can't imagine much more then a second, and that might be too generous.
 
It would likely be no slower than a 2002 Trans Am WS6 is. The single largest reason that muscle cars needed so much power to go fast is because of period tires being outright junk compared to tires of today, so they had to make up for wheel spin.
 
Last edited:
Subzero.

My old neighbor had one of these bad boys, and I remember cruising with him in it.
 
Toronado
It would likely be no slower than a 2002 Trans Am WS6 is. The single largest reason that muscle cars needed so much power to go fast is because of period tires being outright junk compared to tires of today, so they had to make up for wheel spin.
Click to expand...

That's put it at 13.5 in the quarter mile, which still doesn't seem all that fast for a car with 350hp and 400lb.ft. of torque. There is even some question about how accurate that is, at least according to some of the hot rodder guys here at work who say the engine was way under rated. I don't know how sound that information is since I don't study or follow muscle cars.

For the time those numbers were probably pretty good, but in modern times they don't really impress me much.
 
Well, again, they were on (likely by then) char-grilled bias-plies. yum.

It'd be interesting to put a modern car on 14x5 bias-plies and see what happens.

There are some guys on radials who're claiming times dipping into the 11s without many other mods.
 
Subzero. Ticks all the good boxes for me. Style, engine, paint/stripes, Trans-Am name and it being manufactured before 1973 (in terms of the musclecar). :D

And with modern tires this car would easily keep up with a 2002 Trans-Am WS6. Also lets not forget these power ratings underrated or not back then were still not calculated with the modern S.A.E. calculation methods.
 
Typically the Gross power ratings were fairly accurate for Net ratings...In reality, on the Gross scale, they were a bit...underrated.
 
In Gross they could say it produced whatever the hell power they wanted to say (ie. Camaro Z28 makes 290 HP), but that went both ways, so its a crapshoot.

Jim Prower
Well, again, they were on (likely by then) char-grilled bias-plies. yum.
Click to expand...
I once read about a Trans Am that someone put an IROC-Z engine into (for the fuel injection) tuned to about 250 HP, and the numbers it posted weren't any slower than it was with the 400. So traction clearly was quite the issue.

Oh, BTW:
Sub-Zero, 81.7%
 
Last edited:
cool

Never liked the '69 front end (70-73's were MUCH better looking cars IMO) but it's still a Trans-Am.
 
Kid at school had a convertable one as his first car because his dad owned a scrap yard and someone had brought it in a long time ago. That car was so cool, but he was kind of a douche so I only picture people like him driving it now. Plus the front is really on/off for me sometimes.

Uncool.
 
I voted Cool, since it's a muscle car, and muscle cars are Sub-Zero for me. However, I don't like the looks of this one so much. Granted, muscle cars are not about looking pretty, but it is something I take in account when voting.
 
Joey D
That's put it at 13.5 in the quarter mile, which still doesn't seem all that fast for a car with 350hp and 400lb.ft. of torque. There is even some question about how accurate that is, at least according to some of the hot rodder guys here at work who say the engine was way under rated. I don't know how sound that information is since I don't study or follow muscle cars.

For the time those numbers were probably pretty good, but in modern times they don't really impress me much.
Click to expand...

FYI fastest 4th Gen F-Body was 12.98. Englishtown PA by Evan Smith? The driver could swing it either way though, they consistently will pull mid to low 13's with an M6. Either way, with proper modern tires, expect that car to make the launch to 60 much quicker. But whatever, none of that 12.98 stuff is important really, all I'm getting at is that it would be much faster and better all around car with modern tires and stuff. BUT that's not how the car was tested, so I guess it's pointless to point out, it's like saying "Well if I lost weight I could have ran faster!"

👍👍👍 :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: 👍👍👍
This is another Sub-Zero vote for me, that's three in a row, whats with all these great car nominations. :D

The color scheme pictured is one of my favorites of all time, it's what I think of when I think Gen 1 T/A. The 30th Anniversary 1999 Trans-Am is a throwback to the '69, which I absolutely love, I seriously love these colors.
3030.jpg



Why name a car for a series in which the US version can't even compete due to 5.0L displacement limit? Who knows, but there are always loop holes ;D.
wc040575.jpg

T/G Racing 1969 T/A race car driven by 1967 Champion Jerry Titus. This car in 1969 Won the 24 Hours of Daytona. 1st in class and third overall. Then went on to compete in Mexican T/A championship beating out the factory teams for wins and and the Mexican Trans-Am championship. It was originally a Camaro, but was converted to a Trans-Am. Complete with a 5.0 Chevy motor, a loophole let this car compete, they were sold in Canada with a 5.0L Chervrolet motor. So that was good enough to let the cars race in T/A. Did I mention It looks good too? I really love the Trans-Am, in later models the GTA and Formulas. If I ever had to pick just one car it probably would be a Trans-Am. I've even got a T/A phoenix tattoo, smokey and the bandit style, just in red and black.

Great in a straight line, could be massaged to grip around corners quite well. 👍
 

Latest Posts

Back