A 70s review of the '79 Trans Am 400 4-speed

Kinja'd!!! "Bandit" (2bandit)
02/09/2014 at 18:03 • Filed to: Trans Am

Kinja'd!!!0 Kinja'd!!! 4
Kinja'd!!! Kinja'd!!! Kinja'd!!! Kinja'd!!! Kinja'd!!! Kinja'd!!! Kinja'd!!!

The only things bad they have to say is it gets 12mpg, has no back seats, and has a pitiful trunk. I agree.

http://transamcountry.com/community/inde…


DISCUSSION (4)


Kinja'd!!! PS9 > Bandit
02/09/2014 at 18:13

Kinja'd!!!6

1)

Kinja'd!!!

Oh, the other car get's better MPG? That's nice.

2) I use condoms, so fuck back seats, never gonna need 'em

3) If all your shit can't fit in there, you have too much shit anyway. 'murican V8 > Whatever else you own.


Kinja'd!!! desertdog5051 > Bandit
02/09/2014 at 19:22

Kinja'd!!!0

I had an 82 or 84 (not sure) Olds 98 Regency with the 403. Not a true performance engine, but the torque moved that sled down the road nicely. That was GM's heyday of taking engines from other divisions and substituting them to save $$. Then they decided that all divisions could share the same cars and just change the grille and ass end. How do you spell Malaise?


Kinja'd!!! tzx4 > Bandit
02/09/2014 at 19:45

Kinja'd!!!1

Every time I dig out my old car mags, I marvel at the abundance of text. Few current write ups are so comprehensive.


Kinja'd!!! jdrgoat - Ponticrack? > Bandit
02/10/2014 at 02:09

Kinja'd!!!0

Our WS6 runner came through gold in color, and that's the way it drove, all sparkle and shine.

'Nuff said.