posted at the Cohort by Garth Goode
We all know the Cheviac drill by now: it’s a Pontiac body with a Chevrolet chassis and drive train. Well strictly speaking, it’s a shortened Pontiac body on a Chevy chassis, since the Chevy has a 119″ wheelbase and the US Pontiac Catalina has a 122″ wheelbase, all of that extra 3″ being in front of the cowl.
Which would lead one (me) to the logical conclusion that the Parisienne is then also three inches shorter overall, given the reduction in wheelbase. Seems like the obvious thing to do is shorten the body in the area between the front axle centerline and the cowl. Turns out that’s not the case; the US Catalina is 213.7″ long, and the Parisienne is…212.22″ long, or just 1.5″ shorter.
Welcome back to the Canadian Twilight Zone, where things defy logic. But I was determined to find the answer.
I started with these two shots of a Parisienne (top) and Catalina coupe, the closest I could find. Their doors measure the exact same length, as does the distance from the rear of the door to the rear of the car. And not surprisingly, the Parisienne front end measures shorter, but seemingly shorter than just by 1.5″.
Of course subtle differences in where the camera is positioned in relation to these two cars can make a difference. But leaving that aside, if the Parisienne’s 3″ shorter wheelbase is all in its front end, yet the car is only 1.5″ shorter overall, they must have messed with the proportions on the front end that defy logic.
Then I took a closer second look: wait a minute; the front bumper on the US Catalina extend rearward past the front wheel opening, but not so on the Canadian Parisienne.
Time for a closer look:
Bingo! There’s no question that the Parisienne front end is longer ahead of the front wheels. So they extended that area to gain back half the distance that they lost by the shorter wheelbase. Who would have thought? Not me. But it does help keep the Canadian Poncho from looking too short in the front end. Can’t have that; it is a Pontiac, and not a Chevy, whose overall length was 210.8″. If the Parisienne body had lost the full 3″, it would have ended up…1/10″ shorter than the Chevy. Sacrilege!
The Chevy chassis’ narrow tread is mitigated here by these wide wheels, otherwise these tend to look a bit Narrow Track.
Here’s a stock Parisienne; definitely not Wide Track.
This one has a V8 badge on its front fender, meaning the Chevy 283 almost certainly (the Chevy 348 was also available). The Canadian Pontiac 6 had a unique six under the hood, the 261 cubic inch version of the Chevy Blue Flame six, with 150 hp. This engine was only available in trucks in the US, and was noted for its healthy torque curve. Transmissions were either the three-speed manual or the Chevy Powerglide. Guess which one I’d take?
So much for these jet engine afterburners; they were strictly dummies in Canada. In the US, a Tri-Power 389 was a different animal.
There’s something about a big six cylinder Pontiac I find quite compelling; if I’d know David Saunders was selling his 1961, I might have been tempted. At least mentally.
Now I need to figure out if Pontiac did the same thing on the later year Canadian cars’ front end sheet metal too.
Here’s the first part of VinceC’s very thorough History of Canadian Cars. He probably already knew this, but solving little mysteries like this is what keeps me engaged here.
I recall as a kid hearing that some local fellow was fixing up his Canadian Pontiac, and was pleased that he scored a couple of rust-free fenders whilst on a trip to the USA. He was baffled to find out that they just didn’t fit, despite being only an inch or two “off” in dimension.
The Old Man had a ’57 Pathfinder Deluxe with the 261/3-speed combo, with bugger all else in options. Later he had a ’65 Strato-Chief with the 283/PG, AM radio, power steering (for the missus). The ’57 was clearly the favourite, and he found the ’65 “sloppy”. Picture of the ’57 attached.
The dad of a high-school friend bought a ’65 Parisienne in ’75 to take over from their semi-retired ’59 Pontiac wagon.
After driving the ’65 for a few weeks, he declared it “cheap” and “tinny” compared to the ’59.
Perhaps it has always been such.
Now, that’s some esoteric research. “Canadian Twilight Zone” sums it up quite nicely. I actually like the Canadian Cheviacs, mainly for the prosaic Chevrolet drivetrains that would seem to make them a bit easier/cheaper to keep running. NIce, practical Chevy drivetrain in a good-looking Pontiac body? What could be better?
Well, oddball front fenders would put a significant damper on the fun (good luck finding replacements for ‘those’). At least it’s a 1960 Pontiac, which had the most restrained, tasteful styling of full-size GM products for that year. I love the one-year-only, non-split-grille and would sure rather have a Chevy-powered, narrow-track 1960 Pontiac than a bat-wing Chevy with a matching engine.
Adam on the Rare Classic Cars You Tube Channel has a 1959 Parisienne with the inline six that he has discussed in several videos.
And no back up lights or outside mirrors!
Adam over at Rare Classic Cars & Automotive History on YouTube has a 59 with the 6 cyl. He has a lot of videos on it and just posted a long video where they compare the Parisienne with the 59 Chevy Impala.
Can I assume the correct answer is: the three-speed manual?
To what question?
This one?
“Transmissions were either the three-speed manual or the Chevy Powerglide. Guess which one I’d take?”
The three speed column shifters and heavy long throw clutches (my GM experience: 1958 Chevy 6, in a prior century) weren’t exactly fun. With these big low revving lots of low end torque engines I’d take even the Powerglide automatic myself. The US Pontiac Hydramatics were of course a different story.
I come from a Canadian Pontiac family and nobody ever had a Parisienne. It was an object of lust when I was a little kid. My dad had a 1970 Stratochief with 350 SBC 2bbl and Powerglide. In theory, the 250 six and three on the tree were available but I am not sure if any were ever produced. It was such a stripper it didn’t even have power steering. This was doubly bad since it had the small steering wheel. I used to help my mum crank the steering wheel while parking. My dad’s first vehicle with power steering was a 1973 GMC truck bought used in 1976.
One of my earliest memories was when we picked up the Stratochief from Turpin Pontiac-Buick-GMC. It was a cold, sleety winter day in early 1971. The salesman, Art Sullivan, brought the car up. It was running, with all the headlights light and the wipers wiping. It was a very exciting moment for a six year old.
Interesting, I thought only chevies were still stuck with the Powerglide by then. Our Parisienne had the 350 2 bbl and Turbohydramatic . First car with power brakes and steering. My Dad thought his 65 Laurentien with a 6-cylinder engine and Powerglide was a dog.
Powerglide was still available for the cheap-o Stratochief and Laurentian.
Nobody in my family was ever so uppity to have a Parisienne.
The THM400 first made an appearance in 1966, but could only be had with the 396 and 427 engines. Lesser engines had to made do with the PG or manual shifter. The THM350/400 eventually became an option for lesser engines later in the sixties and early seventies. Oddly, for a few years, you could get a THM 350 for the base six, but that was canned later on. An Uncle had a ’70 Strato-Chief which still had a powerglide,but the THM350 was an option by then. (picture attached)
Something must have happened between 1971 and 1972, because automatic, power brakes/steering suddenly became standard on all the full sized GM, Fords, and likely Chrysler too.
The 6-cylinder/3-on-the-tree cars were still produced in this era… I know because just a few years ago I test-drove a 1971 Laurentian that was for sale in my Toronto neighbourhood, and it was so equipped. I desperately wanted to buy it, in part because of the powertrain, but also because the wild front-end design of the ’71 full-size Pontiacs is among my favorites of all time. But sadly the car was just too far gone body-wise, and mechanically it was really rough, too. To top it off, somewhere along the line someone had painted the originally navy blue car beige—so it was beige with a blue interior. The things people do. The owner also wanted an outrageous amount of money for it, so I had to take a pass. Really wonder where that car eventually wound up.
Good detective work there. That stock Canadian Pontiac is near identical to the one I came home in when I was born. I’m not sure if it was a Parisienne though, it may have been a Strato Chief because it had a 6 cylinder in it.
I also maintain that it’s the American Pontiacs that look odd, not the Canadian ones…
There’s something else a leetle off about that black Parisienne’s front end—and no, I don’t mean the dumb chrome eyelids making the headlamps useless.
The really dark amber turn signals?
The fact that the turn signals are amber at all. Watch for a post about it soon.
Here’s a nicer one. Australian-assembled Canadian, just to throw another spanner in the works.
Cool! Right hand drive, sunvisor and venetian blind to cope with Australia, where the sun is hot and tinted glass wasn’t allowed.
An Aunt and Uncle had a 1960 American Catalina sedan. The standard 389 and Hydra Matic made that car a yuuuge step up from the American Chevy, almost all of which came with a 283/PG (if it was a low trim sedan and you were lucky enough to avoid the six).
My relatives’ car had wheelcovers and 2 tone paint (white roof over copper) but no radio.
I had no idea that GM Canada played those kinds of games with front fenders.
Great information. Thanks, super sleuth!
Sri Lanka has quite a fair number of these Cheviacs, as it seems RHD production for export was mainly done by the Canadian operation. Before learning about these, the differences to American Pontiacs always puzzled me. There’s wasn’t a whole lot of information available before CC.
This survivor is a beauty .
-Nate
Paul, I love that you’ve chosen to dig into this, as this is a question that has bothered me for years—in part because I owned a 1960 Parisienne myself back in the late ’80s (with the big 6 and 3-on-the-tree), and was fascinated to learn, only years afterward, about these differences between the Canadian and U.S. cars. And as much as I appreciate your research, I’m going to have to dispute it—I think.
To me, I think the differences you see in the bumper/fender could just be chalked up to photography differences—a slightly different angle, and different lenses, can make for very different results in a photograph. I think the whole thing is just too close to call, in my humble opinion.
Now, I know that these photos aren’t the only evidence. Having the length dimensions of the Canadian vs. U.S. Pontiacs available for comparison should close the case once and for all. I get that. But with my Google searching I’m coming up with a couple of different lengths for the 1960 Canadian models. Which makes me think: are we sure the specs you found on the web are from reliable sources? I love to say, “It was on the internet, so it must be true”… but in all seriousness, are we sure?
I will say too, as a Canadian… I can’t imagine my fellow Canucks at the time fretting much about (or even being aware of) the precise lengths of cars. Yes, the Electra 225 made a big thing of it, but beyond that, did anyone actually know how long one car was compared to another? Was this in the brochures? If not, how would you know? I just can’t see the need to make the Canadian Ponchos slightly longer than the Chevys being so great as to necessitate tooling up entirely new fenders, plus the hood and whatever other internal changes would be needed to make this happen.
And what’s more—I remember my Dad saying that at the time (very late ’50s into 1960 or so) many people were frustrated with the ever-growing length and width of cars. My guess is that would have been the feeling everywhere, but perhaps even more so in Canada. “Hey, this new Pontiac is an inch shorter? Awesome. Maybe I can actually parallel-park it.”
So, this is my theory: GM just dropped the U.S. body onto the Chevrolet powertrain and called it a day. You can see with the Canadian cars (it’s very clear in your photos here) that the front wheels are set way back into the fender wells (I’m not talking about the track here, but fore to aft) compared to the U.S. cars. And to my eye the the rear wheel might be a little further forward in the fender well, too. I think that could be enough to cheat the entire 3” wheelbase difference. All so GM Canada wouldn’t have to spend any money tooling up a whole bunch of new stuff. “Let’s not spend any money if we don’t have to.” Has General Motors ever done it any other way?
My last piece of evidence: these two photos of 1959 Pontiacs. One (the 4-door) is a Strato-Chief, the 2-door is a Catalina. I see no discernible difference in the front fenders. But also, I have to say that for the life of me I can’t find ’59 Canadian Pontiac dimensions online. That would help, of course. But… if you agree by looking at these photos that’s there’s apparently no difference, I’m just thinking… if the fenders WERE changed in 1960 (between the U.S. and Canadian cars), why NOT in 1959?
I have to apologize also for this very long reply! But having a place to delve into this kind of arcane automotive information is exactly why I love Curbside Classic so much. Thanks again for posting on this issue.
Bruce,
Thanks for taking the time to put these very profound issues up to further debate! 🙂
Here’s my point by point rebuttal:
The dimensions given in my post and in this rebuttal are directly from the Pontiac spec sheets, and they include two points to the right of the decimal (hundredths of inches). I trust them fully. And yes, it’s in the spec page (last one) of the brochures. Here’s the 1959 Canadian brochure:
http://oldcarbrochures.com/static/Canada/Pontiac/1959%20Pontiac%20Brochure/image13.html
Forget about what your dad said: GM’s styling division trumped that, by a mile.
Yes, GM Canada did just drop the Pontiac “body” on the Chevy chassis. But note that in proper terminology of the time, the “body” was everything from the cowl back, which was assembled as a single unit and had critical functions in terms of the overall strength of the car, once bolted to the frame. This was even more the case with X-Frame cars; their reinforced sills and ribbed floors made them essentially semi-unibody cars, as the body played a key role in its strength.
My point is that there’s essentially no way that they could have “slid” that body back on the frame an inch or two. The body underside structure/floor pan is very complicated and expensive, and is one of the key reasons the Pontiac shared a body and frame with Chevy in Canada, to avoid making two versions. It had to be attached to the frame in the same critical locations.
You changed the subject when you introduced the ’59s. Do you know that their overall lengths are more different than the ’60’s? The US version is 213.7″ long; the Canadian version is 211.25″, so the Canadian is 2.45″ shorter, which is almost the same 3″ difference in their wheelbases. Which means they only had to add 0.55″ in front of the front wheel opening, much less than they did in 1960! Which explains why there’s no readily discernible difference visually, although of course the length between the front door front edge to the front wheel centerline is (and has to be) 3″ shorter. Since that means the fenders (and hood) had to be different pressings anyway, they must have added that 0.55″ in the front of the front wheel, but it’s not going to be readily visible.
Please note that the part of the body ahead of the cowl is of course called the clip, and has essentially zero structural role in the overall car; these parts are just screwed/bolted on to the frame and to the cowl. Which is why they it’s so relatively easy to change them; both after a crash as well as for GM Canada to press different ones for their Cheviacs.
Also, the camera’s relationship (angle) to these two cars you showed are different; its further to the rear in the upper photo which makes the front wheels much less perpendicular to the lens, hence the effect you’re seeing. It’s [practically impossible to find two photos on the web where the location and lens type of the camera is close to the same in both shots. You’d have to shoot two cars back to back in the same location, and not move the camera.
Finally, please note that one or more commenters in this post noted their personal experiences with the futility of trying to swap front fenders or hoods between US and Canadian Pontiacs. They really, truly are different.
But I’m glad you’ve solved the 1959 story for us: they are different from 1960, and Pontiac chose to extend the very front portion only 0.55″ in 1959 vs. the 1.52″ in 1960. You’ve inadvertently added to this continuing saga of the Cheviac mysteries.
Now we need to move on to 1961!
Thank you so much, Paul. Ha I don’t think I have the energy to move on to 1961! 🙂 But I really appreciate your response here. Well I have to concede on all counts—everything you’ve said here makes sense. I defer of course to your in-depth knowledge of the manufacturing process, and it makes sense too that these changes would happen only in the front clips of the cars. Which of course is much more obvious when you look at some previous years of Canadian Pontiacs, like the ’55 models, for example. Anyway, all good learning for me!
I also didn’t mean to discount what other commenters had said about the issues they’d run into trying to swap Canadian fenders with U.S. ones, and I think I do recall this coming up in some previous posts about Canadian Pontiacs, as well. I should have mentioned too that I was aware the pics I posted of the two ’59s were, as you pointed out, quite different photographically. The big thing I see is that the 4-door is shot from closer up with a much wider angle lens, which distorts the image in various ways, for example making the wheels look much more “tucked in” than they would if the car was photographed from further back with a more normal lens. Photography is my hobby so I’m keenly aware of how the choice of lens can change a scene or the objects within it. You’re right: it is very hard to find photos on the web to make these kinds of comparisons!
All that to say, thanks so much for humoring me here and addressing my doubts.
Back to the title of the post: I have to finally agree, this mystery is solved!
The pleasure is all mine!
Parisienne mystique (or confusion) lives on in Canada.
I have a 1960 Pontiac Parisienne with the 261 power glide. Performs as it should but am looking to upgrade
both. Wondering if anyone has had experience swapping and has suitable recommendations.
Thanks,
Jeff