Just saying, there must be some age difference between us, because I never got the whole attraction to '70's Trans Ams. When I was growing up and getting into cars at around age 10(~1994), the only '70's Trans Ams were in trailer parks(even '80's Trans Ams by then), and they were by no means 'desirable.'
I undertand this, and it is the main reason(besides looks) that I don't understand the attraction.
In terms of performance and being behind the 5.0 Mustang but being a 400 ( or in my cars case, the 403ci). In a short period of time the factories didn't know how to cope very well with new CAFE standards, low octane unleaded fuel, and extreme emissions controls (Basically a HUGE terribly RESTRICTIVE Catalytic converter and exhaust system, among other things). Ever been really constipated? You begin to understand why my car was the way it was. Fast forward 10 years.. 1989 was a great year for Mustang 5.0 performance right? Thats because they had 10 years of development, engineering advancements and technology.
Stuff the exhaust that my '79 had with the huge choked CAT under your average 5.0 and they would not be all too powerful either. Remember my car did have a 100ci advantage to push through all that stuff.
Rewind 10 years to put them apples to apples. In the 70's there was really only 1 car that could give the "old feeling". Pontiac Trans Am. my '79 had a very torqy 403ci auto but a guy could still have gotten a w72 T/A (Hi-Po 400) These cars were far ahead of the 145hp 302 Mustang with single exhaust and 2-bbl carb.
'80 was even worse, no 5.0 302 at all. Only the Turbo I4, T/A did suffer also in 1980 since there were no more 400's. They did try to keep the performance with the 210hp Turbo 4.9.
Its just all in what you like and everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but calling me white trash because I like T/A's is not intelligent in todays world. Its easy to distinguish the difference in ownership between redneck white trash and educated, intelligent car guy.
Besides if a person wanted to turn the tables on you, they could run you down for owning a really common car that everyone owns. The 64.5-66 Mustang isn't really rare you know, nor is the "Run of the mill" 289 a fast car. Comments like "Thats a grandma's Mustang", "Everyone and their dog owns one of those" or "Those are so slow, early Mustangs suck"
*Those are all phrases I've actually heard at car shows regarding early Mustangs, none have ever been uttered by me, they are simply being used for examples and are not endorsed by this station or its management....! And you don't want to know what I've heard uttered about a Fox Mustang
Had to throw a "disclaimer" in there.
Fact is, I don't really have to explain myself or what I like, but in this case since 2nd Gen T/A's hit very close to home with me, I wanted to show that not just "Rednecks" like T/A's... They've moved on to Dodge Cummins
For their decade, the T/A was a seriously performing car. The Pontiac people kept with as much performance as possible in a bad era and you have to give them credit for making it as potent as possible amid all the Gloom.
Liters! 
