A hangover from the Saturnalian revelry of the 1959 models, the facelifted 1960 full-size General Motors line seems to inhabit a peculiar place. More subdued than their immediate counterparts, but still in some ways a product of the 1950s, these toned-down, handsome cars paved the way for a truly successful decade of full-sized products, especially at Pontiac. In years hence, luxury cars such as this Bonneville didn’t have to prove their value by adding inches, but in 1960, if a customer was willing to spend the extra money, s/he wanted something to show for it. In the Bonneville, s/he got it.
Pontiac’s upward trajectory, of course, truly began in 1959 with the “Wide-Track” advertising theme and the introduction of the split grille; the 1960 model, however, is noticeable for being the only Pontiac of the 1960s without it. According to Norbye and Dunne’s Pontiac 1946-1978, the 1960 models were already finalized when designers realized how popular and successful the split grille was. According to Pontiac chief stylist Jack Humbert, “We recognized it was such a strong mark that we took it again for 1961.” They obviously stuck with it for decades on various models after that.
The 1960 Bonneville was differentiated from the lowlier Catalina, however, from the rear of the car. In the 1960s, General Motors wanted the extra money spent on a Bonneville, Olds 98, or Buick Electra to be overtly tangible to not only the buyer, but also the buyer’s neighbors and friends. The easiest way to accomplish this was to add length to the wheelbase and trunk; therefore, Bonnevilles and the like always tended to appear a little tail heavy. In 1960, the Bonneville’s wheelbase was one inch longer than the Catalina’s (124″ compared to 123″), and the Bonneville was seven inches longer (220.7″ compared to 213.7). In the decade of ostentatious rear overhangs, however, this was no demerit at all.
By the 1970s, treating additional size as a symbol for additional luxury was no longer as fashionable, as evidenced by the just-as-expensive-if-not-more-so Seville. Ford had already set that tone in 1958 with the Thunderbird (a tone they ignored as the 1970s approached), and Buick would famously dabble with “downsized” luxury with the Riviera, but for the most part, road-hugging weight ruled the day in 1960.
A styling characteristic Pontiac shared with the other GM brands in 1960 was the “flying wing.” Mostly used on four-door models, the wraparound rear window was one of those unique styling touches that GM did so well. One could argue that wraparound rear glass was nothing new (think Studebaker Starlight coupe), but the overhanging roof made it truly stand out, and General Motors’ popularity ensured that it was accepted as a mainstream feature, at least for a few years.
The money spent on a Bonneville was also reflected in a more opulent interior with showier upholstery patterns. The ample room for both leg and hip was standard on all Pontiacs in 1960, no extra charge.
The dashboard of this 1960 Catalina looks plain indeed when compared to the swankier Bonneville. The extra-cost Ventura option on the Catalina would even the score to some extent.
The wood and aluminum trim and upgraded steering wheel on the Bonneville reminded the driver every day that s/he had spent Bonneville money on this thing.
Under the hood, the Bonneville also earned a four-barrel carburetor over the Catalina’s standard two-barrel Rochester. A heavier car needs more power to pull it around, and no self-respecting Bonneville owner wanted to be out-dragged by a mere Catalina (Super-Duty models notwithstanding). With Hydra-Matic, an option that was almost universally chosen, the Bonneville’s standard 389 was rated at 303 horsepower. Tri-Power was optional. This Bonneville also has power steering and power brakes ($108 and $43 options, respectively).
The factory price for a Catalina Vista was $2842. The Bonneville Vista actually outsold it in 1960, with a base price of $3333. Surprisingly, the weight penalty for the Bonneville was a mere 80 pounds. Perhaps less surprisingly, the Bonneville Vista was the best selling model in that line, over the two-door hardtop and convertible. *All statistics from Gunnell and Kowalke’s Standard Catalog of Pontiac 1926-1995.
Although the downsized 1961 GM full-sized cars were probably the first models that ushered in a true 1960s design ethos, the 1960 models offered a stylish and appropriate transition into the new decade. Pontiac was on to something great, split grille or no, with its facelifted Bonneville.
Related reading from the CC Archives:
CC 1959 Pontiac Catalina Vista Sedan: Wide-Tracking to Success PN
I have grown to admire these 4 door “flat top” 4 door hardtops.
The 2 and 4 door post sedans not so much.
A high school friend of mine had the 1959 Chevy Impala version of this body.
6 cylinder engine, Powerglide, factory air conditioning (this IS hot & humid New Orleans!), power steering, a pleasing to the eyes cloth/brocade vinyl interior, copper exterior with a white top.
That 13 year old hardtop didn’t have one squeak or rattle in that I can recall!
It drove well, if a bit leisurely. It made my 4 speed Corvair Monza feel like a tiny pocket rocket! Even with all that non-tinted window area the A/C still made my ear lobes turn numb in August.
He traded it in on a new Vega in 1974; before giving me a chance to somehow scrape together the $150.00 he received for trading it in!
Less than a year later he was expressing rueful regret over the trade.
Nice article. I chuckled when I saw the engine bay pics – the brake booster and master cylinder looks downright nasty, but the owner has a period-correct battery and otherwise, the engine bay looks very nice. It may not be practical to replace the booster/master cylinder, but a coat of paint would go a long way towards making it presentable.
That’s the problem with old cars (like houses), once you start fixing/improving things, where do you stop?
Would be a good time to upgrade to a dual circuit M/C and modern booster. Maybe thats the plan and it just hasn’t happened yet.
Spent a good amount of time with my new boxed master cylinder cleaning it with brake clean, allowing it to dry and painting it with high temp clear per the directions. Still developed rust streaking. Brake fluid eats everything. I would shoot the booster though.
“That’s the problem with old cars (like houses), once you start fixing/improving things, where do you stop?”
Yes, mission creep. We’ve all been there, and it takes years of practice to know when to leave well enough alone. Sometimes, you still jump the fence anyway.
It’s a toss-up between the Pontiac and Buick for 1960. I love the Poncho’s front end but the designers dropped the ball at the rear with those small, high-mounted, quad, round taillights in a horizontal themed design. The Buick, while not as good in the front, has a more cohesive rear. Regardless, either is a whole lot better than anything from Ford or Chrysler.
Likewise, the other GM divisions aren’t so terrific. The Caddy still with big fins is okay, but the Olds and, particularly, the batwing Chevy just don’t cut it.
I’m not a fan of the “Dulled Down” 1960 GM line.
The more audacious, “in-your-face” 1959 split grille Pontiac and cats eyes/angel wings Chevy models have finally grown on me after all these years/decades.
I would still prefer a 1959/1960 Plymouth over all of these GM cars.
A 1959 Plymouth, okay. But a 1960? It goes on my list as one of the worst looking Plymouths, worse than even 1961 and 1962, both of which I kind of like, just because they’re both so outrageous. The 1960 just seems like a whole lot of mediocre.
Looks like 1960 was a blahhhh, mediocre year for all of the “Big 3”.
For 1960, the action was in the compact field. The Chevrolet Corvair was the trend-setter of the year (particularly in other countries).
GM’s 1959 models had carried the themes of high fins and low height as far as they could go, so, for “standard-size” cars, 1960 was anticlimactic.
Regarding the taillight treatment of the 1960 Pontiacs – in its “Owners Report” on the 1964 Pontiac, Popular Mechanics noted that the 1960 Pontiacs were aging more gracefully than their contemporary competition, and a big reason was because Pontiac didn’t feature tailfins. The 1960 treatment moved away from tailfins while maintaining a stylistic link to the 1959 models.
For a few years in the early 2000s, someone was showing a perfectly restored Bonneville Vista four-door (black with a red interior) at local car shows. It was a stunning car.
When I was attending County College of Morris in the mid-80s, there was this white 1960 Bonneville Vista hardtop that I would regularly see in the parking lot or driving on the way to campus. It was rusty, dented, with cracked windows and a trashed interior. It looked much like this picture, but even worse. It stuck out like a sore thumb among the various ’70s and ’80s compact, boxy cars in the lot, with its long rear sticking way out. It was the kind of car that would make you wonder, “Does that thing even RUN?” But it showed up at school reliably, week after week.
So there was this ’60 Pontiac, my ’62 Comet, a black ’62 Valiant, and a dark red ’53 Chevy 2-door sedan (driven by a girl, no less) among the “antiques”. And about every 10th car was a mid-70s Dart/Valiant with the same rusted out rear fenders. This was the classic “cheap college student car” at the time.
In recent years, the student parking lot is not such an interesting place for car spotting anymore. In fact, the lot is now empty because the college has been shut down due to covid.
Interesting period observations. Around the same timeframe it seemed like about 80% of my graduating class took at least a few classes at CCM, commuting up and down Route 15 from Sussex County. Maybe it was the distance or the concerns about foul weather days, but I seem to remember tons of Horizons and Omnis, with more than a few Monzas and Sunbirds thrown in. I graduated High School in ’86, and it seemed at that time like the biggest cars anyone drove were post-downsized GM A Bodies. Even the Collonades were usually phased out after a year or so of automotive purgatory in favor of usually a front-drive, 4 cylinder replacement.
I prefer the 59s to the 60s, although they’re all very attractive. Such a far cry from the dull, body, bland, unadorned 61s and 62s!
I’d have a hard time picking a favourite 59. I’d end up as one of these old coots who buys a 59, then when it comes time for a replacement, insists on another well kept used 59 something.
Cars of that era drew inspiration from jets and space travel. What do modern cars draw inspiration from? Where do the tortured, hideous creases and plastic vents on the odyssey and civic and camry originate?
I too, prefer the look of the ’59-’60 GM models. And the flat top 4 doors have been growing on me.
To me, the most uninteresting looking GM models were the ’62-’64s.
The bland boxy styling was uninspired.
Maybe after their “experimental phase” with styling and engineering (the small GM cars, Corvair, Tempest, etc.) they just decided to tone things down for a couple years.
As for the tortured sheet metal look, it only lasted a few years in Detroit.
But it shows no signs of stopping today.
While snoozing in front of the TV, I awoke to a program about dragons.
It explained while Europeans viewed them as creatures from hell, the Chinese
saw them as benevolent beings, a symbol of good luck.
Perhaps this is an explanation of why these “ugly to some” vehicles will be with us for awhile yet.
The ’59 squared-off top was a bad idea in ’59 and it looked even worse with this moderated ’60 body. GM got their shapes back in harmony in ’61.
Actually the split radiator was an Oakland styling cue before Oakland morphed into Pontiac. It didn’t return till ’59.
The ’59–’60 flat top GM cars always reminded me of the men’s flat top hair style of the day (similarly the ’59 Chevrolet taillights were an obvious takeoff on women’s then-fashionable cat glasses.) Unfortunately the first gen Corvair sedan was stuck with that roof line for another four years.
Very nice! I wonder about that representative Catalina interior you show – I had an aunt and uncle who had a 60 Catalina sedan that didn’t even have a radio, but the dash and steering wheel were much nicer than this. This picture is a lot closer to their car. Either there was an interior dress-up package that got ordered on most of them, or your sample had some delete options chosen. Or possibly a Canadian car that someone put Catalina badges on? I remember the P-O-N-T-I-A-C in the chrome in front of the passenger quite clearly.
The Catalina two and four door sedans had a simpler interior as shown in Aaron’s post, while the hardtops and convertible had a nicer interior as you show here.
If your relatives had a sedan, they must have gotten it with the optional interior.
The base Pontiac sedans were quite plain, in order to compete mre closely with the low-end Chevy, Ford and Plymouth.
I just peeked at the brochure – there was a “Decor Group” offered only on Catalina, which included wheel covers, the deluxe steering wheel and other trim moldings. Their car (a sedan) had the wheelcovers and the nice steering wheel so it probably had that option group. I would wager that it was an inexpensive upgrade and that most dealers probably ordered most of their cars with it, with only a couple of skinflint specials around for cheapskates and for upselling.
And wow, that basic interior was really, really plain. I have never seen one that looked like that before.
I’m glad you asked the question and did the research as I too did not remember the 1959-1960 Catalinas having such a plain interior. I recall a neighbor’s new (factory-ordered) 1959 Catalina four-door sedan with a very nice interior. Although it had blackwall tires it did have full wheel covers. It probably had a similar Decor Group upgrade for 1959.
I recall disliking this flat top on the 1959 GM cars. Actually, at the time, I thought pretty much all the 1958 and 1959 cars were pretty ugly with a few exceptions: 1958 Impala and 1959 Stude Lark. One thought: most of the high level GM people had started with the company in the 1920s and 30s. I have seen publicity photos of some old GM guy standing next to what is really an automotive cartoon (e.g. 1959 GM anything). Here is a guy who started out in the age of the Model A standing next to a… space ship? However, as much as I disliked the roof on the ’59-’60 hardtops, I thought the roof looked pretty good on the Corvair Monza.
One detail of the ‘flat-top’ four door Vista models not generally recognized is they stand the same overall height as the two door hardtop coupes. The six window models, either as sedan or hardtop are taller with a higher domed roofs.
We were a bit confused why the ’60 Pontiac didn’t have the split grille compared to all the other Pontiacs during the ’60’. As kids, didn’t understand how the styling was locked in before the realization hit that them they had a styling hallmark to run with.
The extended deck was a styling/marketing device Misterl had introduced with the 1948-’49 Cadillac 60 Special and 1950 Coupe de Ville, capitalized on throughout the ’50’s, first Olds 98, next Pontiac Star Chief-Bonneville, then Buick Roadmaster- Limited-Electra. A few extra inches of wheelbase, several inches extra trunk overhang: middle-class prestige by the acre of sheet metal…GM smiled all the way to the bank!
I have a special rapport with the 1960 Pontiacs. The first car I noticed as we walked out of the terminal at New York International Airport upon arriving from Austria was a 1960 Pontiac. And when we arrived in Iowa City a few days later, the neighbors directly across the street had a matching brace of 1960 Pontiacs side-by-side in the driveway: a black Bonneville Vista four door hardtop for him (and attorney) and a dark blue Safari wagon for her. Wow! I’m not in Austria anymore!
I rode in that wagon several times, piloted by their hot-rodder son, who was building a ’53 Ford coupe and a ’33 Ford coupe, both with flatheads, and which never seemed to run. But that wagon with the 389 moved right along. It was probably my first really fast car ride.
The non-running cars remind me of my Bug owning high school cohorts. Their Bugs never seemed to run and they were constantly fixing them and talking about fixing them.
I was not as cool as them with my Toyota Corolla but there was not one day that car didn’t start and drive in the entire time it was in our family.
I too have a special connection to blue 1960 Pontiac, I came home from the hospital in one after I was born.
Although ours was a Canadian Cheviac and I think it was a Laurentian trim level with a straight six.
I have long seen a lot of similarity between the grille, headlamp bezels, bumper, and fender/hood contours of the ’60 Pontiac and ’61 Dodge Lancer/DeSoto Rebel.
It makes you think about the amount of employee cross-pollination and bush league espionage that must have been taking place at the time. I can’t imagine a low-level designer had to sign a non-compete clause upon leaving a job or anything like that, so how many people took their mental notes across town with them?
It’s also quite possible that the ’60 Pontiac was out by the time the ’61 Lancer got its front end. I’m not sure about the Lancer’s timeline. We’ve never had a proper article on it here.
There’s no reason to think that it couldn’t have been styled in the fall of 1960, as it certainly wasn’t an all-new car, but just a face lift of the Valiant.
DeSoto Rebel??????
South African model name, same car.
DeSoto Rebel: a ’61 Lancer sold in South Africa with different badging, the 1961 Valiant dashboard to accommodate the right-hand drive, and the RSA-mandated white front retroreflectors (above/between the headlamps).
Front retroreflectors in lieu of the later US-mandated solution of having the parking lamps illuminate with the headlamps?
Front position (“parking”) lamps lit with headlights came in for ’68 in the US; a year or two earlier in Europe. The RSA requirement for front retroreflectors dates back much earlier. These two things don’t address the same safety need. Parkers-lit-with-headlamps is so oncoming drivers still see a car with a burned-out headlamp as a double-track vehicle (not a motorcycle). Retroreflectors are for crash avoidance when the car doesn’t have any lamps lit.
Daniel, thanks for teaching me something new today – I had no idea why parking lights and headlights were lighted simultaneously. Now I do!
Then there was the budget version. 🙂
My dad talks about the 60 Bonneville his old man bought (I think he bought it new, which was quite the departure, since he owned a used car lot). It was the first car they had with air conditioning. They drove it from Dallas to the Grand Canyon the first summer they had it, and my dad says he froze his ass off the entire way.
Your family was way better off than mine. My tightwad dad didn’t spring for a/c until his 1979 Impala. That was his first car that wasn’t a total stripper.
My father ordered a new 1973 Chevy G10 shorty van for work. He wanted Topaz Yellow, which was only available with A/C, IIRC. So he had the A/C, but never used it “because it ate too much gas”. Many times I remember coming back down I-5 in the central valley from a fishing trip with the afternoon sun incinerating my right side. He had that van over 20 years and 225K miles, and I don’t ever remember him using the A/C. At least he let me roll the window down.
Buying the Bonneville would have been a significant departure for my grandfather too. He was a notorious tightwad. Maybe he was just tired of sweating all day long on the car lot for six months of the year; I don’t know.
My dad’s parents had Chrysler’s with AirTemp in the 1960’s. He says you could visibly see frost form on the vents of the ‘62 Newport if you set it to high on a humid enough day.
I also just remembered my dad telling me that this was the first car that was too big for the garage. So my grandfather poked a hole in the back of the garage just taller than the hood of the Bonneville and built a simple lean-to over the opening so that he could pull the car in all the way.
The featured Bonneville is stunning, right down to the color!
I’ve said it before, but the GM corporate windshield of ’59-60 is my all-time favorite, if highly impractical, with the extreme wraparound and the gracefully curved A-pillars and vent windows. The Mercury of the same model years comes close but GM absolutely nailed it!
Bill Mitchell did not like the split grille ’59 and directed the stylists to make the ’60 front mimic the grille of Miller Indianapolis race cars. I like both the ’59 and the ’60. Also, the flat top roof was a trendy look for ranch homes at that time.
I wonder what caused Mitchell to change his mind in ’61 and beyond; he usually got his way. He even got the split-window Vette for one year, even though the engineers were said to have hated it.
If I recall correctly, the customers loved the split grille, and the dealers did, too. The feedback from the dealers must have been strong enough for Mitchell to figure it wasn’t worth fighting that particular battle.
Few people were going to argue with the success of the 1959 Pontiac, which scored big gains in a market that didn’t show much enthusiasm for other medium-price marques.
+1 that’s what I recall reading