Europe's fastest street-legal car is... a 252 MPH Pontiac Trans-Am?!

[Intrepidation]

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/12/22/europes...-pontiac-trans/

"Have fun with KITT," sniffed some AMG engineers when a group of Norwegians showed up at Germany's Papenburg test track with a 1987 Trans Am. The smug smiles were quickly wiped off the faces of the Mercedes tuner crew when the ancient Pontiac's practice laps were as fast as the AMG cars, and the F-Body wasn't even working hard. Once warmed up, the 8.9-liter V8 unleashed all of its 1400 horsepower on the circuit, delivering a startling 407 kph (252 mph) also known as Bugatti Veyron fast. Better still, unlike the Bug, the Pontiac's lap is official.

Needless to say, there's not much stock underneath the skin on this particular Trans Am. The car is the work of Polly Motorsport of Norway, and there's a wealth of top tuner expertise beneath the mostly stock exterior. We're sure even in its heightened state of tune, the Polly Trans Am is infinitely less expensive than the $1.6 million you'd have to cough up for a Veyron, and its creators say it's still street legal. Hit this link for some videos, which would be even more entertaining if we could understand what they were saying. Props to reader Mitka who provided the synopsis that we've posted after the jump!

Subject: Fastest street legal official road car in Europe!

A 1987 Trans Am fastest official street legal road car in Europe!

Paul brought his Pontiac to the Papenburg car testing track, one of the newest and most advanced test tracks in the world. Mercedes where testing their new AMG sports models the same day as Pal was going for his personal speed record. Some engineers from AMG team criticized the optimistic Norwegian team for bringing an 80's trimmed American car to this super test track for the advanced European supercars. But what they didn't quite comprehend is that Pal Arvil Blytt and his Polly motorsport team from Norway works at a motor tuner garage in Godvik Norway and most important of all nothing more than the shell of this car resembles the stock Pontiac. With a brisk 8.9L V8 producing a whopping 1407 HP, Pal was soon doing AMG top speeds of 300km/h in his warming laps. After driving a couple of rounds around the track, Paul felt ready to see what his road machine would do! And after pressing the pedal to the metal the ARP technician Christoph Tharrey came over with his laptop computer with a big grin. Here we have the official numbers: 407.134 km/h

You may say well the 9FF team drove 409km/h in an extremely rebuilt Porsche 911 at the same track; this speed was recorded with their own equipment and therefore can be fixed and therefore is not recorded as an official speed record. Bugatti Veyron 407km/h is also recorded with their own equipment.

As the Papenburg track is to small for the Pontiac to reach its potential top speed of 435km/h and Volkswagen's test track costs 25.000 Euro an hour to rent. Paul is bringing his road legal car to the US in 2009 to challenge Shelby supercars official record of 412km/h.

[Sixty8panther]

Now THAT is a Pontiac.

[Robert Hall]

Cool. This reminds me of a Car & Driver project car from the '80s..they modified a Trans Am to go over 200 at Bonneville.

[balthazar]

The current fastest production-based car in a production class @ Bonneville (not positive how old the info is) is an '89 Turbo Trans Am, which has averaged 297 MPH in the flying mile & hit 303 MPH. There have been numerous top speed builds based around the 3rd gen T/A, as when this car came out in '82 it achieved a .cd of .29.

According to sources that have run them, the T/A has better aerodynamic stability in 'multi-dimensional axis's (it was extensively tuned in GM's wind tunnel) , as opposed to the 'exotics' from ferrari, lambo, etc., which have proven to be relatively less than stellar in top speed runs.

Edited December 24, 2008 by balthazar

[Intrepidation]

I like how it can do more than go fast in a straight line.

[SAmadei]

Cool. This reminds me of a Car & Driver project car from the '80s..they modified a Trans Am to go over 200 at Bonneville.

And IIRC, that car became one of the fastest Trans Am's ever to do 190 mph on it's roof. Oops.

It made for some entertaining reading, though.

[Camino LS6]

No surprise.

The third gen Firebird has been a top speed car of choice for a very long time.

[Robert Hall]

No surprise.

The third gen Firebird has been a top speed car of choice for a very long time.

Yes...IIRC, they were the or one of the most aerodynamic cars on the market at the time.

[Camino LS6]

Yes...IIRC, they were the or one of the most aerodynamic cars on the market at the time.

One of the most aerodynamic ever, actually.

[Z-06]

Yes...IIRC, they were the or one of the most aerodynamic cars on the market at the time.

What made it click so much aerodynamically? If you look at the new 0.001 CD humping modern car designs, this Trans AM looks like a Brick wall in a hurricane, yet people say that this car was aerodynamic and the records do prove that.

[balthazar]

You canNOT judge aerodynamics visually.

I don't see the T/A as being anything close to a "brick wall", either.

Gale Banks, the turbo aftermarket tuner, ran one on Bonne too (same car as referenced above) ?

[Z-06]

You canNOT judge aerodynamics visually.

I don't see the T/A as being anything close to a "brick wall", either.

Gale Banks, the turbo aftermarket tuner, ran one on Bonne too (same car as referenced above) ?

What meant was when you look at the bulbous shapes of the F430 or wind tunnel love child the Prius, this vehicle certainly has more sharp crests and creases. Modern wind tunneling is better advanced than 20+ years ago, unless GM knew something that Ferrari with its F1 experience does not. And I will not be surprised if they did, given their prowess. What does surprise me is if they could use these French curve defying lines to make a vehicle aerodynamic, they could have taken some cues to the Volt and made it a little less anonymous.

[Robert Hall]

What made it click so much aerodynamically? If you look at the new 0.001 CD humping modern car designs, this Trans AM looks like a Brick wall in a hurricane, yet people say that this car was aerodynamic and the records do prove that.

Well, the Firebird is very low in the front end (lower than most of today's cars), not remotely a brick... low nose, sloping hood and fenders, windshield laid back, very sleek wedge shape.....relatively wide and long, and with a sleek rear window, it would stable at speed, I would think..

[Robert Hall]

Funny thing I've always liked the 3rd gen Firebirds and Camaro, yet the 4th gen styling has zero appeal to me...

Edited December 24, 2008 by moltar

[Camino LS6]

Funny thing I've always liked the 3rd gen Firebirds and Camaro, yet the 4th gen styling has zero appeal to me...

That's why a 4th gen driveline has become a popular swap into 3rd gen cars lately.

[Robert Hall]

That's why a 4th gen driveline has become a popular swap into 3rd gen cars lately.

Yes.. a 3rd gen w/ a 4th gen engine would rock. A dark blue '87 IROC-Z would be nice to go with my red '87 Mustang GT.

Several buddies in high school had '86-88 Z/28s/IROC-Zs/Trans Ams/GTAs....alas, at our 20th reunion this summer, I don't think any of them still have those cars...most are mainstreamed into Camrys/minivans/SUVs etc now it seems. Myself and one other guy (who has a '75 Duster) still have our HS rides....

Edited December 24, 2008 by moltar

[Camino LS6]

These guys can hook you up with all you need for the conversion, Moltar:

http://www.hawksthirdgenparts.com/

[Z-06]

Well, the Firebird is very low in the front end (lower than most of today's cars), not remotely a brick... low nose, sloping hood and fenders, windshield laid back, very sleek wedge shape.....relatively wide and long, and with a sleek rear window, it would stable at speed, I would think..

Again I am COMPARING the Trans AM with more aerodynamic cars of today, and am not calling it by itself a brick. Look at the cars below:

Pontiac has the straightest face (horizontally), most upright windshield, and least curves on its sides. None of that are signs of good aerodynamics. Those straight edges on its face lead directly to creation of vortices around them leading to a increase in drag. An upright windshield makes the trans am more on the slab sided than the other three hence my brickwall comment. Notice that despite Ferrari has more upright windshield than the Prius, it is more curved than the Pontiac's which is almost flat. Even the tucked in headlights lead to increased resistence. So my engineering question is how in the heck GM got that design right? I want to know how they achieved it. And if they did such a marvelous job, they could have certainly kept the original Volt design, which would not have been hard.

[Robert Hall]

So my engineering question is how in the heck GM got that design right? I want to know how they achieved it.

Extensive time in the wind tunnel, I assume. The '84 Corvette was quite aerodynamic for the time also..

[Z-06]

Extensive time in the wind tunnel, I assume. The '84 Corvette was quite aerodynamic for the time also..

Then why the heck the production Volt is a bubble trying to beat the Prius in being a bulb? Couldn't GM apply a little bit from this extensive knowledge they gained from the Trans AM to keep the original concept?

Why did Pontiac's slab sided aerodynamics die to give way to these French curves we are looking at?

The more I look at the car the more it seems like an engineering miracle, I mean look at the car, the front lower diffusers and lower intakes are almost non existent compared to those huge ones in Ferrari.

Edited December 24, 2008 by smallchevy

[Robert Hall]

Then why the heck the production Volt is a bubble trying to beat the Prius in being a bulb? Couldn't GM apply a little bit from this extensive knowledge to keep the original concept?

Probably since the Volt is sharing a platform with the Cruze, etc they have to deal with shared production hard points, pedestrian law hood heights, bumper and light height laws, etc..so the car is going to have generic FWD proportions...and I'm sure the Volt is quite aerodynamic as it is.

Edited December 24, 2008 by moltar

[Z-06]

Probably since the Volt is sharing a platform with the Cruze, etc they have to deal with shared production hard points, pedestrian law hood heights, bumper and light height laws, etc..so the car is going to have generic FWD proportions...and I'm sure the Volt is quite aerodynamic as it is.

That would make some sense. But remember Lutz said that GM was surprised when they put the original design in the wind tunnel considering how bad it was. He went a step farther saying that it fared well from the rear than from the front.

[§carlet §wordfish]

The Firebird was shorter (vertically) than the Volt and Prius, giving it less frontal area to create resistance. This is the biggest factor i can think of. Of course this is to the great detriment to interior space and passenger room.

The Firebird's nose may be flat but it is still lower and thinner than all the other cars'.

Judging just by looks, though, I'd say the Volt looks more like a brick, at least in profile. The Prius at least has that nice fastback.

Edit: Just did some quick research, found a something on http://fbodyreport.com/wiki/Firebird_1982:

The Firebird had been completely restyled for 1982, with the windshield slope set at 60 degrees, and for the first time a large glass hatchback. The new design made the Firebird about 500lb lighter than its 2nd Gen predecessor, and the Third Generation Firebird was the most aerodynamic GM production car ever. Drag of only .29 could have been achieved if they could have lowered the Trans Am by 1", unfortunately ground clearance ruled and the final drag coefficient was about .32. Every aero detail was looked at, even the small highlight indent in the front fascia was an aerodynamic feature that was intended to form the air envelope as they desired. Aero developments extended even to the wheels with optional finned aluminum wheels with smooth caps and a functional spoiler that produced about 100# at 100Mph and lowered the Drag Coefficient.

.32. That's the same as the Scion xB.

The Volt concept had a Cd of .42, and I never liked it anyway.

The F430 has a Cd of .34 (probably from those enormous intakes)

The Prius has a Cd of .26

The production Volt will probably be down around Prius-land.

So the Firebird was really aerodynamically unextraordinary by today's standards.

Edited December 24, 2008 by §carlet §wordfish

[Z-06]

The Firebird was shorter (vertically) than the Volt and Prius, giving it less frontal area to create resistance. This is the biggest factor i can think of. Of course this is to the great detriment to interior space and passenger room.

The Firebird's nose may be flat but it is still lower and thinner than all the other cars'.

Judging just by looks, though, I'd say the Volt looks more like a brick, at least in profile. The Prius at least has that nice fastback.

Drag coefficient and hence the resistance has nothing to do with height of vehicle it is a function of the area of foot print that is projected perpendicular to the flow of the fluid which in this case is air. Therefore, a 100x1 sq.inch board will have the same drag as an area of 10x10 sq.inch board.

[§carlet §wordfish]

That is true. But please see my edit.

[Camino LS6]

So the Firebird was really aerodynamically unextraordinary by today's standards.

But pretty damn remarkable in 1982.

[§carlet §wordfish]

Yes indeed. But small was comparing it to today's cars, which on average have lower drag than the Firebird. I personally think the Prius and Volt, an in fact a lot of current cars look more like bricks compared to the Firebird, not vice-versa, but as balthazar said, you can't judge aerodynamics by looks.

[Camino LS6]

Scroll down after the link for one of the Bonneville cars:

http://www.rawhorsepower.com/carrollracing.htm

[Camino LS6]

Ton of good info here:

http://www.kugelkomponents.com/bonneville/bonneville.html

[balthazar]

The lowness of a vehicle to the ground absolutely will affect the .cd number, as the 'greasy side' is far less aerodynamic than the 'shiny side'; so the less of the air stream going underneath, the better.

I would doubt real advances in aerodynamic tuning have been made since the '80s- it's merely a matter of trial & error with the results calculated. But 2 vehciles with vastly different shapes can still come out with the same .cd.

BTW, the '48 Tucker had a calculated cd of .27. That car had a very fluid taper front-to-rear, plus less air flow resistance due to being rear engined. Also, longer shapes work better at 're-pasting' air flow than shorter ones.

But one still cannot judge a vehicle visually.

>>"The Volt concept had a Cd of .42"<<

A '60 Cadillac coupe is .45. I for one would not think them that close.

Edited December 24, 2008 by balthazar

[balthazar]

>>"Ton of good info here:"<<

>>""If you’re going to go 300 mph in a stock-bodied production car at Bonneville, the car of choice is a Pontiac Firebird," said Joe Kugel. "Out of all the production cars, it probably has the lowest drag as far as aerodynamics are concerned, and at 300 mph, this Firebird has to be the most stable vehicle that’s ever been built."<<

[§carlet §wordfish]

Anyway, the whole point is, the Firebird was fast and pretty.

[Camino LS6]

Anyway, the whole point is, the Firebird was fast and pretty.

...and quite aerodynamic.

The question is, why can't that combination be repeated these days?

Ticks me off.

I'm sick of cars that look like giant speedbumps (Prius), and cars that look like everything else (nearly all sedans).

It bores me to tears.

[Z-06]

The Firebird had been completely restyled for 1982, with the windshield slope set at 60 degrees, and for the first time a large glass hatchback. The new design made the Firebird about 500lb lighter than its 2nd Gen predecessor, and the Third Generation Firebird was the most aerodynamic GM production car ever. Drag of only .29 could have been achieved if they could have lowered the Trans Am by 1", unfortunately ground clearance ruled and the final drag coefficient was about .32. Every aero detail was looked at, even the small highlight indent in the front fascia was an aerodynamic feature that was intended to form the air envelope as they desired. Aero developments extended even to the wheels with optional finned aluminum wheels with smooth caps and a functional spoiler that produced about 100# at 100Mph and lowered the Drag Coefficient.

That explains most of my questions.

...and quite aerodynamic.

The question is, why can't that combination be repeated these days?

Ticks me off.

I'm sick of cars that look like giant speedbumps (Prius), and cars that look like everything else (nearly all sedans).

It bores me to tears.

That is my gripe. GM could have certainly kept the original shape of the Volt, and made it better in the wind tunnel. The production version looks lot less inspirational than the concept.

[Camino LS6]

Well, the production Volt is worlds better looking than the Prius.

That said, it doesn't approach the level of cool that the concept had in droves.

All manufacturers are guilty of this horrible "one-shape-fits-all" design rut.

I get why GM did what they did with Volt (and its not bad considering) but I still hate the aero-boredom of current car design.

[Z-06]

Well, the production Volt is worlds better looking than the Prius.

That said, it doesn't approach the level of cool that the concept had in droves.

All manufacturers are guilty of this horrible "one-shape-fits-all" design rut.

I get why GM did what they did with Volt (and its not bad considering) but I still hate the aero-boredom of current car design.

I concur with you about not being bad at all. But given the uniqueness of the vehicle they could have had a bolder design than the production version.

Volt was dumbed down to take the middle of the road approach so that all consumers do not hate the design.

[§carlet §wordfish]

Of course. It's far far easier to design a car that's universally inoffensive than one that's universally gorgeous. The Volt was redesigned for people like me.

[Camino LS6]

Part of the reason for the redesign was simply to get the mileage numbers as high as possible, and I can't blame GM for that.

But I really do miss the visual impact of the concept. I look forward to future E-flex cars with more of that spirit.

[prinzSD]

They must have had to beef up the chasis and body to eliminate all the flex that was inherent in the third gen f-bodies if my 85 is any indication. Still, I enjoy taking out the 85, removing the t-tops and going for a cruise. Despite the car being 23 years old, it still gets attention and comments from people. My 93 handles better and is faster than the 85, I still enjoy the 85, and stylistically the third gen Trans Am has withstood the test of time better then third gen Camaros with their more angular surface treatment.

[§carlet §wordfish]

What about that DISGUSTINGLY long front overhang? I'm surprised no one is APPALLED at how OBSCENELY long it is!

[Robert Hall]

What about that DISGUSTINGLY long front overhang? I'm surprised no one is APPALLED at how OBSCENELY long it is!

It looks good, though...it still has RWD proportions and a long hood...the front would look wierd if it the nose were chopped off.

[Intrepidation]

I never got how/why no one bitched about the overhang...it's longer than a W-Body!

Still, I like the way this generation looks, the Camaro more so.

[balthazar]

>>"What about that DISGUSTINGLY long front overhang? I'm surprised no one is APPALLED at how OBSCENELY long it is!"<<

Perception colors so much; like dodgefan mentioned- most of the derogatory comment toward FWD cars has been the "huge front overhang", when the reality is numerous sports cars have a far longer overhangs. Therefore I submit- it's not the frontal overhang itself that's the problem, the complaint about it is merely a stretch to associate some physical characteristic to FWD to give it a more tangibile 'hate factor'.

Frankly, overhangs, period, have been the target of undue criticism, IMO. It seems the end goal of some is to push the wheels beyond the bumpers, ala:

[Robert Hall]

>>"What about that DISGUSTINGLY long front overhang? I'm surprised no one is APPALLED at how OBSCENELY long it is!"<<

Perception colors so much; like dodgefan mentioned- most of the derogatory comment toward FWD cars has been the "huge front overhang", when the reality is numerous sports cars have a far longer overhangs. Therefore I submit- it's not the frontal overhang itself that's the problem, the complaint about it is merely a stretch to associate some physical characteristic to FWD to give it a more tangibile 'hate factor'.

It's not the long overhang I find unpleasant about most FWD cars, it's the absurdly short wheel to front door length that makes many FWD cars look awkward, IMHO.

Of course, most mid engined sports cars have that same short wheel-to-door length + long front overhang, but somehow those proportions look good on a sleek 2 seat sports car, yet those aspects look ugly on a vanilla FWD 4dr.

Edited December 30, 2008 by moltar

[balthazar]

moltar :: Obviously you're talking about proportionally, otherwise I'm going to point out a larger dimension there on a FWD car as opposed to a RWD car.

On the other hand, some RWD cars take this to an awkward extreme. The 3-series for one- the front wheels there are disproportionally far forward. Maybe it's a modern over-exposure to FWD, but I still prefer proportions here much more evenly balanced in the front clip rather than shoved either forward or rearward. It looks broken when viewed dead-on from the side.

[Robert Hall]

moltar :: Obviously you're talking about proportionally, otherwise I'm going to point out a larger dimension there on a FWD car as opposed to a RWD car.

On the other hand, some RWD cars take this to an awkward extreme. The 3-series for one- the front wheels there are disproportionally far forward. Maybe it's a modern over-exposure to FWD, but I still prefer proportions here much more evenly balanced in the front clip rather than shoved either forward or rearward. It looks broken when viewed dead-on from the side.

Personally, I love the proportions of the 3 series... relatively long hood and short deck, with the wheels close to the front giving a long wheel-to-door length. The '05-09 Mustang has a similar proportion that I like also. Such proportions emphasizes their RWD-ness in a world of bland, conformist FWD genericism.

Edited December 30, 2008 by moltar

[balthazar]

It's not the hood/decklid proportion, which frankly is rather plebian, it's the location of the front wheels within that shell, IMO. The Mustang has more visually to occupy the eye, but with the homogenized shape of the 3, my eye tends to see that yanked-forward front wheel all the sooner. It could move back a good 4" and look a lot less strange.

As if you couldn't predict it- I prefer the short hood/ long deck look, one that has been missing for decades. The back-ends of modern cars are all the same, and bland at that. With the front ends rigidly locked into corporate masks (esp the euro brands), it'd be nice for a change to get back to some style in the rear ends... but they are generally, woefully short.

[Robert Hall]

It's not the hood/decklid proportion, which frankly is rather plebian, it's the location of the front wheels within that shell, IMO. The Mustang has more visually to occupy the eye, but with the homogenized shape of the 3, my eye tends to see that yanked-forward front wheel all the sooner. It could move back a good 4" and look a lot less strange.

As if you couldn't predict it- I prefer the short hood/ long deck look, one that has been missing for decades. The back-ends of modern cars are all the same, and bland at that. With the front ends rigidly locked into corporate masks (esp the euro brands), it'd be nice for a change to get back to some style in the rear ends... but they are generally, woefully short.

I like how the 'yanked forward front wheel' emphasizes the RWD ness....the 3 series will never be confused for a FWD generic. And having the front axle line ahead of the engine gives better weight balance. The G8 and new Camaro do the 'forward wheel placement' quite well also, IMHO.

The short hood/long deck look has been gone for many decades...can't think right off of the last car to use it, maybe the 2nd gen Corvairs? For me, I've always liked the long hood/short deck look, but also like the balanced look where the hood and deck were of similar length, like on the '77-up B-bodies.

The short rear deck look has been taken to extremes in recent years..

Edited December 30, 2008 by moltar

[balthazar]

>>"the 3 series will never be confused for a FWD generic"<<

Twilight- the great equalizer... :wink:

Seriously, unless one were to get a clear profile view of the 3-series and study it, that feature is talking in a whisper.

And I think we'd be surprised at the great quantity of consumers who have no earthly idea WHAT a 3-series may be.

>>"The short hood/long deck look has been gone for many decades...can't think right off of the last car to use it, maybe the 2nd gen Corvairs?"<<

Those 'vairs are actually about equal, but they do give the short hood/long deck impression.

'Long hood/short deck' dates back to the first Mustang domestically- it's an oo-old & common proportion. One might call it.... dare I say... generic? It's time to move on....

When I use 'short hood/long deck' I'm being loosely literal: many I like are more equal, and true SH/LD cars are few & far between, but like the 'vair, some give that impression.

>>"The short rear deck look has been taken to extremes in recent years.. "<<

It absolutely has. When the horizontal plane of the decklid is even close in dimension to the vertical plane, we're already past 'wrong'.

[Sixty8panther]

IMHO the front wheels can never be too far forward.