I'd argue that the vast majority of that historical sample is useless for evaluating present day circumstances, because most of it was on uncovered wickets, deteriorating surfaces and the like. Moreover, batsmen then didn't have the experience of chasing in ODI's etc often for a good benchmark comparison.
Fundamentals matter more than abstract factors like 'pressure' though the latter obviously matters hugely. More importantly, batsmen nowadays have a good reference point from ODI chases, which is why if it becomes 230 (70 overs) with 8 or 9 wickets left and the pitch is objectively good, the batsmen will literally know they have an excellent chance (the number won't be a monkey like in the past). It's the same reason why for the first time in history teams are chasing 350+ in ODI's regularly, 220+ can look vulnerable in a T20, and even ridiculous targets like 190 in 14 overs are getting achieved more ofen then they are failed.
I understand the ability to cop-out of a chase makes a huge difference, but there's a very clear point where these guys will realize that the chase is objectively easy and 'pressure' won't stop that realization. In fact, it's more likely England will feel pressure if India start well.
As for England winning 80% your reasoning is somewhat contradictory. If this is a team of newbies, why would the past performance of other Indians be relevant? This makes as much sense as guys saying Brazil was favorite because they won WC in the past. Players play the game, not countries (which are abstractions). When the personnel are different there's no reason to expect the old trend to continue, especially when the modern game is so different from the sample size you are reasoning from.
India may well lose, especially if they follow on, but otherwise, India winning is actually at least half as likely as India saving the test.
mode
- England need to bat quick here and get lead up to 400! they will need atleast 4 session to bowl India out i reckon. 
