My Uncle had a 1980 Turbo Trans Am Pace Car Edition, god I loved that car. We didn't know it was slow, it was just the coolest thing on the block. Even new with the T-roof that thing shook like a bowl of jelly over expansion joints and railroad tracks. I imagine the convertible is like a grouping of parts vaguely moving in in the same direction. Love these cars though, but they are unfortunately moving beyond my price range for clean examples, and the tinworm makes them cost-prohibitive to restore. Most cheap ones don't have any sheet metal left around the backlight and on the rear quarters.
They are floppier than over cooked spaghetti with out a tin top even with sub frame connectors. (Yes we cut the roof off one many years ago).
Even the T top cars were bad. For anything other than boulevard cruising you want a tin top.
sjd
New Reader
1/11/22 11:10 a.m.
My first car at the age of 18 back in the early 90's was a 1981 "Bandit" Y84 code Turbo Trans Am that I paid $1500 for and sank another $1500 into to get on the road. The previous owner gave me the turbocharger in a box with the car as he had converted it to a 4 barrel due to reliability issues. It was slow but an amazing car to have fun in as a teenager. I got into a minor collision with it and then stupidly disassembled it thinking I could restore it but of course I lacked the money to do so. After a couple of years, rather than let it rot into the ground with the plan of "fixing it up some day" I sold it. I still have a soft spot for these cars.
Somehow the 2nd gen bodystyle just never looks good as a convertible. Also, not to be "that guy" but there were 3 engine options in 1980, there was also a normally aspirated 301 which was the base engine and most 1980 Trans Ams came that way.
Gen 2 cars don't look right topless.
I think it's because you never see them so when you do they look odd. There is a 80 or so Z28 around here that's a convertible, doesn't look good at all. I've seen a few 80's Monte Carlo SS drop tops, again it doesn't look right.
I also think that 2nd Gen cars look odd without the roof. Most of the drop-top conversions I've seen look like backyard hacks at best. They are leaky rattletraps as hardtops (looks out at the one in my driveway), so having one without a roof is a big no for me. That said, a stock hardtop car will surprise you with how well it handles for what it is. The 1979-81 cars were some of the best handling cars on the road at the time.
On the Turbo 301... every time I think about them, I think about what could've been. The 3rd Gen cars were supposed to have a fuel injected version of the Turbo 301, much like the Turbo EFI 3.8 V6 that ended up in the later Regal T-Type and Grand National. GM pulled the plug on this late into development, as they typically do, and robbed us all of affordable turbo V8 cars long before people were throwing cheap aftermarket turbos at LS engines. At least they threw people a bone by dropping the GN Turbo V6 in some GTA's in 1989 for a while. But man, what could've been....
Tom1200
UltraDork
1/11/22 1:52 p.m.
I like the 2gen car better with a roof.
Tony Sestito said:
On the Turbo 301... every time I think about them, I think about what could've been. The 3rd Gen cars were supposed to have a fuel injected version of the Turbo 301, much like the Turbo EFI 3.8 V6 that ended up in the later Regal T-Type and Grand National. GM pulled the plug on this late into development, as they typically do, and robbed us all of affordable turbo V8 cars long before people were throwing cheap aftermarket turbos at LS engines. At least they threw people a bone by dropping the GN Turbo V6 in some GTA's in 1989 for a while. But man, what could've been....
3rdgens could've been powerhouses if GM had kept on that train. The Sy/Ty and GN were great exercises in what could have been a long lineage.
I have the turbocharge and carburetor adaptor for one of those on the shelf in my shop. I ran it on a 250 I6 in a Chevelle for a couple of years. Fun times.
Edit to say: I have no use for a convertible. I don't even like sunroofs.
