The eternal question with GM brands is whether there was really a meaningful difference between them, and whether that difference was worth the differences in price. The early ’70s Chevrolet Impala and Pontiac Catalina still looked different despite their shared B-body shell, but they were more alike than ever in price and appointments — and the Chevrolet was now the better deal.
This very well-preserved, rust-free low-mileage ’72 Catalina two-door hardtop showed up for sale in Missouri in March 2025. It had less than 24,000 miles, and was about as close to showroom condition as a car its age can possibly be. It’s a handsome beast — way too big, by any rational standards, but a stylistic return to form for the Pontiac studio after the awkward, bulbous-looking full-size cars of the late ’60s.
However, looking at it, I recalled something the late Jim Wangers said to me back in 2009. “[T]he real truth was that there was no excuse for a car called a Pontiac,” the one-time Pontiac ad man and marketer mused. “The only reason for its existence was that it was beating the guys at Chevrolet and out-styling and out-imaging the guys at Oldsmobile and Buick.”
Long ago, before Bunkie Knudsen, Pete Estes, and John DeLorean, there were some salient differences between Pontiac and Chevrolet, at least in the U.S. market. Pontiac offered a choice of six or eight cylinders; Chevrolet had only a six. Pontiac offered 4-speed Hydra-Matic, while Chevrolet had Powerglide. The Pontiac had more chrome, more options, and a lengthier list of available accessories, at a time when the average new Chevrolet was still fairly plain. All those differences had eroded considerably or disappeared altogether by the early ’70s. The Catalina still used Pontiac engines, but otherwise there wasn’t a lot to choose between it and an Impala in appointments or features, especially in the plainer base Catalina series. (There was also a more expensive Catalina Brougham.)
In 1972, Chevrolet still offered an array of low-line full-size models Pontiac didn’t bother with. There were the Biscayne and Bel Air for fleet buyers and cheapskates, and all series but the Caprice and Kingswood wagon could still have a six-cylinder engine. However, that wasn’t what most Americans actually bought. Production of the Biscayne and Bel Air totaled only about 62,400 cars for 1972, while Chevrolet built more than 774,000 Impala and Caprice V-8s (plus 171,700 station wagons of all trim levels). All the V-8 cars came with Turbo Hydra-Matic now, with power steering, power brakes, and front discs finally standard, just like GM’s mid-price B-body cars. Was there any meaningful difference between an Impala and a Catalina other than brand name and styling?
Let’s talk about the styling first. Although both the Catalina and the Impala shared the same Fisher B-body shell — both these cars were even built at the same St. Thérèse Assembly plant in Quebec — most of their sheet metal was different. The Catalina cultivated a sportier look, with its V-shaped grille and the slightly racy kick-up of the rear fenders. While the federal 5-mph bumper standard (FMVSS 215) wouldn’t take effect until 1973, the Catalina also had a new energy-absorbing front bumper.
While the Catalina offered only one two-door hardtop roofline, the 1972 Chevrolet Impala offered two. The slightly cheaper Impala Sport Coupe (above) had more steeply raked C-pillars — I’m confident that they were the same as used on the Catalina down to the point where the sail panels intersected the rear fenders, which were different than those of the Pontiac.
The slightly more expensive Impala Custom Coupe shared the formal roofline of the Chevrolet Caprice Coupe, with wider, more upright sail panels and a concave backlight. This body style was very popular, probably because it looked a lot like the pricier Chevrolet Caprice Coupe for about $300 less. To be candid, though, I find it rather bland. There was nothing offensive about it other than its sheer size, but it wasn’t especially distinctive, which I assume was by design. A full-size Chevrolet of this era was the automotive equivalent of a chain restaurant like Denny’s or IHOP, thriving on familiarity and consistency rather than novel flavors. As with chain restaurants, the Impala was a big seller, so that formula seemed to work for Chevrolet in this period.
Let’s next consider their dimensions, which were considerable. The 1972 Catalina was 221.3 inches long on a 123.5-inch wheelbase and stood 53.4 inches high. Its base curb weight in two-door hardtop form was 4,289 lb. This particular car has few major options, so it’s not much heavier than the base figure.
The 1972 Impala was 219.9 inches long on a 121.5-inch wheelbase. In Custom Coupe form, it was slightly taller than the Catalina (53.5 inches), but the Impala Sport Coupe was the same height as the Pontiac. For those who remember Pontiac’s earlier “Wide Track” ad campaign, it might be disappointing to learn that the 1972 Impala actually had a fractionally wider front track than the Catalina (by all of 0.1 inches); rear track was identical for both cars. Base curb weight of a Custom Coupe was 4,179 lb, 110 lb lighter than the Catalina. About half of that was probably due to the different, lighter front bumper. This one is better-equipped than the Catalina, and probably a few pounds heavier.
There was really not a big difference in the prices of these cars. The 1972 Catalina hardtop started at $3,807.90, exactly $39 more than the Impala Custom Coupe. (The Pontiac was $88 more than the Impala Sport Coupe.) Unlike Pontiacs of earlier eras, you didn’t even get more brightwork with the Catalina — this car has $61 worth of extra-cost exterior moldings, and it’s still not what you’d call chrome-y.
With a starting price of $3,768.90, the Impala Custom Coupe cost $49 more than the Sport Coupe, mostly because it included some bright moldings that cost extra on the Sport Coupe. The concave rear glass was probably more expensive to make than the backlight of the Sport Coupe, but you didn’t really pay extra for that. (The vinyl top was not standard on this model, although it was very common.)
If you were concerned about resale value, the modest price premium of the Custom Coupe was well worth it, because a Custom Coupe could be worth up to $120 more than a Sport Coupe at trade-in time. Surprisingly, the Impala Custom Coupe even had somewhat higher resale value than the slightly more expensive Catalina hardtop.
In the ’60s, buying a Catalina rather than a full-size Chevrolet got you a bigger, more powerful standard V-8 engine, but that was no longer true by 1972. Pontiac initially announced that the ’72 Catalina would come with the L65 400-2v V-8, but when these cars actually went on sale, the standard engine had been downgraded to the 350-2V, with 160 net horsepower. The bronze Catalina has the 175 hp 400-2V, but it was a $51 option. You could also get a more powerful four-barrel 400-cid V-8, or the big 455-cid, and all of these engines were available with dual exhausts, which provided a very healthy boost in net horsepower for only $30 extra. Top option in 1972 was the 455-4V with dual exhausts, which had 250 hp and 375 lb-ft of torque.
Although the Chevrolet Turbo-Thrift 250 six was standard on the Impala until January 1, 1972, only about 1,500 cars actually had the six, and it wasn’t available on the Custom Coupe. The standard Impala V-8 was the Turbo-Fire 350, which was a completely different engine than the Pontiac 350, and slightly more powerful, with 165 net hp. Big-block LS3 Turbo-Jet 402 and LS5 Turbo-Jet 454 engines were optional; the latter (which came with dual exhausts) was actually significantly more potent than the top Pontiac engine, with 270 net hp and 390 lb-ft of torque. However, the Impala Custom Coupe pictured here has the two-barrel LF6 Turbo-Fire 400 small-block, a $51 option that was probably the best compromise between cost, weight, and fuel consumption. With 170 net hp, it was slightly less powerful than the unrelated Pontiac 400-2V, but had significantly more torque.
While GM divisions had different exterior and interior styling, every part of the body from the cowl back came from Fisher Body, and if you compare them side-by-side, you can spot the shared hardware and common moldings.
As I mentioned earlier, this particular Catalina was not lavishly equipped: It was ordered with an AM/FM radio ($144), a rear speaker ($18), a clock ($17), and the optional all-Morrokide (expanded vinyl) upholstery ($27), but no split bench seat, auxiliary gauges, air conditioning, cruise control, or power windows.
Chevrolet and Pontiac had different dashboards and different interior trim, but I’d be hard-pressed to say one seemed significantly more luxurious than the other. This particular Impala has a few options the Catalina lacks (notably air conditioning), and it has cloth seat inserts rather than vinyl, but that was all a matter of buyer selection — you could have an all-vinyl Impala or a cloth Catalina. If you wanted something nicer, the divisions were hoping you’d step up to a Caprice or a Catalina Brougham, which were more expensive and more luxurious inside.
The longer wheelbase of the Pontiac didn’t buy you any usable interior space. In fact, the Catalina hardtop coupe nominally had 0.9 inches less rear legroom than the Impala, a so-so 35.5 inches.
Despite the Impala’s different upholstery, a close examination of the rear seat reveals more shared pieces, like the rear armrests with their integral ashtrays. (These armrests were the main interior difference between the Impala Custom Coupe and the cheaper Sport Coupe.) Chevrolet claimed 36.4 inches of rear legroom, a bit more than the Pontiac, but if you wanted to regularly carry adult passengers in back, you were better off with the sedan or four-door hardtop, which had almost 3 inches more rear legroom. That was equally true of both these models.
Comparing these cars, I can’t help thinking that Jim Wangers had a point. The only strong reason to buy a 1972 Catalina over a 1972 Impala, other than whatever value you attached to the Pontiac name, was the styling. I like it better than the Impala, but was it worth an extra $39 to $88 in base price, plus the extra bucks Pontiac squeezed out of you for identical options (like $26 more for manual air conditioning), plus the $50 to $75 you’d lose in trade-in value compared to the Impala Custom Coupe? Maybe, but judging by the downward trend of full-size Pontiac sales throughout the ’70s, Pontiac was having a harder and harder time making that argument.
Wangers argued that Pontiac’s success always relied far more on marketing than tangible qualities. He had a point there too — how many of the features we now associate with classic Pontiacs, like Tri-Power carburetion, eight-lug aluminum wheels, or the ever-popular Rally/Rally II styled wheels, were extra-cost options that are probably far more common on modern collector cars than they ever were back then? Many of those features weren’t really even unique, and the ones that were tended to be gimmicks, but they set Pontiac apart from the pack. Without that relentless promotional drive, Pontiac was just another mid-price car — and after a while, that was the last thing that GM needed.
Related Reading
Curbside Classic: 1972 Chevrolet Caprice – Cadillac Carbon Copy? (by Tom Klockau)
Curbside Classic: 1972 Pontiac Catalina – Getting More For Your Dollar (by Tom Klockau)
Sorry Aaron, but on looks alone it’s the Chev for me. Pontiac went from the sublime 65/67 to the stupid beyond belief face of 1970 and still hadn’t recovered. All time best from the 71-76ers was 71 Buick, then 71 Chev. Both Buick and Chevrolet slipped the radiator grille down in 1972 so it was bisected by the front bumper, using body metal to fill the gap above. But IIRC 1972 brought the flow-through ventilation, plus the looks weren’t completely ruined. I could go a 73 Chev if forced, but by then all the others had gone beyond redemption styling-wise.
In this specific comparison, I choose the Impala Custom Coupe based strictly on styling. Although I’d prefer a different color. I would normally go Pontiac but that grille and front bumper look ungainly to me. The rally wheels are always appreciated.
>> Big-block LS3 Turbo-Jet 402 and LS5 Turbo-Jet 455 engines were optional
I believe you meant to say LS5 Turbo-Jet 454.
Oops — a typographical error, but an embarrassing one here. I’ll fix that.
I think the problem with Pontiac’s styling is that, starting in 1968, it tried to mimic the midslzed cars. Prior to that, it seemed like the midsized cars (and ’61-63 compacts) were inspired by the big cars, with the exception of ’67, where the big cars did their own thing.
Starting in ’70, I think the big cars were trying to go for that neoclassic/Grand Prix look, and much of that carried over to ’71. I’m probably in the minority here, but I think the big Pontiacs actually started looking better for ’75-76, with the more squared-off lines and big bumpers, especially the rectangular headlight models. But, for the earlier models, I don’t think the ’72 is bad looking, and I also don’t mind the ’73. But, in either year, I think I’d take an Oldsmobile over them, and definitely a Buick.
I think the ’72 Impala is just about pure perfection style-wise, but I’ll admit to being biased. My grandparents had a Sequoia green ’72 Impala 4-door hardtop that I was obsessed with as a kid.
Realistically though, I don’t think there was much of a reason for picking a Catalina over an Impala by ’72, unless you were a die-hard Pontiac fan or preferred its styling. In the past, a Catalina would give you a bigger standard engine, and styling that looked more upscale and sporty (although that’s subjective). Usually, an Impala had a nicer interior. I have a ’67 Catalina convertible, and it’s interior is a bit plain, compared to a same-year Impala. By ’72, it seems like the same thing was going on. For example, didn’t the Catalina have hard plastic strips at the top of the door panels, whereas on the Impala the vinyl went all the way to window sill?
Consumer Reports tested a ’72 Impala 350-2 and a Catalina 400-2, both 4-door sedans. They both did 0-60 in 12 seconds (I think CR rounds to the nearest half-second). Quarter mile was 19.0@76 mph for the Impala, and 18.5@78 for the Catalina. 45-65 passing was 8 seconds for the Impala, 7.5 for the Catalina. On their 300 mile test trip, the Catalina did slightly better, at 14 mpg vs 13 for the Impala.
Consumer Reports rated the Impala as the winner in that test. The Catalina was #2. Other contestants were a 318 Fury III at #3, a 351 Galaxie 500 at #4, and a 304 Ambassador at #5.
They said that the full-load ride was the Catalina’s only major drawback. In the Catalina’s defense, they said that historically, it had a better frequency-of-repair record than the Chevy.
I have a 72 Pontiac Grand Ville, so right there I’m biased but I like the 72 Pontiac styling. I read an article that showed how it was a Bill Mitchell styling evocation of the standing radiator/pontoon fendered cars of the 30’s. I think the 72 pulled that off the best, and at least Pontiac tried. The 71/72 Buicks werre probably the most cohesively styled, and the 71 Chevrolet did a great job of pretending to be a Cadillac (a la 1963), the 71-73 Delta’s will always catchc my eye, but the rest of the B’s while generally handsome didnt set the world on fire, styling wise.
But what is less talked about is the engineering advances these cars incorporated. Teeing off the success of the 70 F-Body collaboration between Pontiac and Chevrolet, the B/C/E’s took the best of each division and melded it into a single platform. Pontiac steering, Buick brakes, Oldsmobile body mounting, etc.. The result was a car that drove, handled and braked like a much smaller car, while allowing the divisions to retain brand specific engines, transmission calibration and in some cases, rear axles resulting in some retention of division identity and customer loyalty. The success of this approach guided the design of the 73 A-Body, which in turn was so successful it became the basis of the world class 77-96 B/C bodies. I might also be noted this approach also began GM’s path to brand collapse (evident in vehicles like the Centur6000CelebriCiera).
The 71-76 B/C/E’s are probably as big as any car had ever been, but not overtly heavy in earlier years.Teamed with surprisingly resonsive low compression/pre-cat drivetrains made for a fairly lithe over-the-road car despite it’s size. If you’ve never had a chance to drive one hard, find a way. It’ll surprise you.
The Impala featured here suffers from a bad color and hubcaps, compared to the Pontiac. It needs the Chevrolet Rally wheels to compete. I think both cars are good looking and prefer them to the Buick or Oldsmobile B-body mates.
Properly speaking, the Catalina ought to have had its original deluxe wheel covers. It was not ordered with the Rally II wheels.
All things pretty much equal, I think the Pontiac is much more sporty looking, and the round instrument panel adds to that. Plus you don’t see yourself coming and going on every street corner like with the Chevy…
I vote Pontiac and agree with Dave’s comments.
“There were the Biscayne and Bel Air for fleet buyers and cheapskates…”
I am neither a fleet buyer, nor a cheapskate. I am a purist. I believe that a vehicle issued in its base form is a more honest representation of its engineering and mechanical design. A great car has a great foundation and in its base form, one can better appreciate its quality.
It’s like food. Calling me a cheapskate because I’m choosing the plain vanilla ice cream instead of the popular hot fudge brownie sunday is inaccurate and insulting. I appreciate honesty and enjoy it when it’s not covered up.
It’s not about cost – a lot of us value and enjoy simplicity.
I’m also a proud minimalist, pretty much in all things. Whether it be houses, automobiles, clothing, food, etc. Keeping things simple and in their purest form gives one a true appreciation for whatever it may be. Think about a 1950s blonde bombshell with typical period wardrobe and hairstyle versus Grace Kelly with her timeless chignon hairstyle and simpler, more elegant wardrobe. Or this base Impala/Biscayne versus the same car dolled up as a Cadillac Coupe de Ville. In both cases, the simpler version looks both better and less dated over time. We’re in the minority here in the U.S. however, as American culture has always preached the gospel of more, more, more and keeping up with the Joneses. We could learn a thing or two from Scandinavian and Japanese minimalism and how it’s ingrained in their cultures.
If I had to choose I’d take the Pontiac, but a 4 door of some sort, wouldn’t want to swing those giant heavy doors. In that era, whenever my dad car-shopped, he’d check out Ford, Chevy, Pontiac, pass the Olds dealer to check out the Buicks, then circle back and buy the Oldsmobile he was going to buy in the first place. I never quite understood the whole ritual. He was a 4 door, vinyl top, vinyl seats, smallest V8, full wheelcovers, a/c AM radio shopper.
I have always found the 72 big Chevy an attractive car, and the custom coupe in this color combo looks great to me. I like the Pontiac’s profile, but the heavy handed detailing of the front and rear ends lets it down.
The Chevys sold far better, but in my Midwestern suburban world, the Pontiacs were owned by more people I knew.
It’s obviously going to be a matter of personal taste as to which one a person would prefer. To my eyes the lines on the Chevy are a little too, I don’t know, nautical, or too Cadillac-y. Whatever it is, it doesn’t do it for me, it just looks heavy and plain. The Pontiac isn’t sporty but it doesn’t present itself as a wall of sheet metal, so I would prefer it.
“ a stylistic return to form for the Pontiac studio after the awkward, bulbous-looking full-size cars of the late ’60s.”
I’d agree with you if you said 1970, but I think the 68-69s were the last truly attractive full size Pontiacs, and themselves a return to form from the weird looking 67s. The 72s are just ok, a definite improvement from the dorky 70 and a minor improvement over the 71 but it has a lot of that neoclassical creep so prevalent in 70s cars I have a hard time saying it’s a return to form for a Pontiac.
Pontiac’s 60s iconicness may well be marketing and gimmick driven but their styling truly was a cut above Chevrolet and I’d argue Oldsmobile and occasionally Buick and Cadillac(who’d borrow Pontiac cues). Take away the value gimmicks and the marketing and yeah, it’s a coin toss to a Chevrolet, but unlike the 60s you didn’t wind up with the substantially better looking car if heads was Pontiac in 1972.
69? Yes!
Neither float my particular boat. The ’71 Olds Delta 88 with it’s big and deeply divided & sculpted grilles was the best looking by far of any 1971 to ’76 GM B or C body, to my eye, the ’72 and later ones being sullied by bumper regulations.
“Chevy” has the cleaner, sleeker, look. “Pontiac” slips in a ‘cool”, kind a “ungainly”, vibe. Choosing between the two would be tough.
I agree that the Pontiac had more “style” and offered a visual alternative to the Chevy, which was clearly aligned with Cadillac styling themes, as it had so often been in the past. But these giant cars trying to look sporty with their close-coupled hardtop coupe roof really weren’t working anymore, which explains why they went a way shortly thereafter and why the Chevy’s Cadllac-esque formal roof sold drastically better. It really suited this format of car more.
Put me in the Chevy camp on this comparison. The ’72, styling-wise, was one of my favorite Impalas, and definitely my favorite of this generation (although I do prefer the ’73 Impala’s taillights).
The Pontiac just seemed to ‘busy’ looking up front, while the back looked kind of plain.
FFWD to the 1980 or 1981 model year, and I’d take the Bonneville over the Impala/Caprice any day.
I do like that Catalina’s roofline and wheels though!
Overall I like the Catalina more. Though the Impala was a good car “on paper” I never did care for the look of the full size Chevrolet’s front grille treatment for ’72. The 71s looked good and IMO the grill for 1973 was out and out handsome.
Branding aside, both cars made profits for General Motors and their shareholders. And that’s all HQ cared about, market share and market dominance.
That’s a bit simplistic and not quite accurate. Profits were ultimately the only thing that GM cared about; sure, market share was usually good too, but ultimately it was profits, and a higher market share didn’t always directly equal higher profits. Some car lines may have increased market share but were not profitable (or profitable enough) to build and sell. The 1961-1963 “senior compacts” come to mind as well as a few others.
Profits on any brand’s car line were dependent on volume, unless they were virtual clones like the compact Pontiac Ventura built on the same lines. There were still substantial tooling costs involved for each division to differentiate their various cars (B-Body, in this case) as well as engines, advertising, marketing, parts, etc.. This explains largely why Pontiac chose to drop their B-Body cars after 1981, as the volumes had dropped so low that they had become unprofitable.
We’ll never know the actual profitability of the various car lines, but it is well known that Chevrolet had by far the largest profits by volume and Cadillac the highest by profit margins. Pontiac sales were weak during the ’70s, and undoubtedly the division’s overall profit margin suffered substantially.
I much prefer the Pontiac. The front end styling in particular is much more stylish than that of the Chevrolet. Were in the market for a big GM car in 1972, I would probably go for a Pontiac four door sedan. I never liked hardtops much because of the problems sealing the doors.
The guy who did the airbrushing on this picture showing a 1972 Canadian Bel Air Sport Coupe should have done a better work.
https://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Canada/GM-Canada/Chevrolet/1972-Chevrolet-Full-Size-Brochure/slides/1972_Chevrolet_Full_Size_Cdn-06-07.html
Interesting to note then in Canada during the 1972 model year, both the Catalina and Laurentian was offered in the Canadian Pontiac line-up. https://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Canada/GM-Canada/Pontiac/1972-Pontiac-Full-Size-Brochure/slides/1972_Pontiac_Full_Size_Cdn-16-17.html
https://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Canada/GM-Canada/Pontiac/1972-Pontiac-Full-Size-Brochure/slides/1972_Pontiac_Full_Size_Cdn-20-21.html
I prefer the Pontiac, but I far prefer the LTD……it even has some Bunkie Knudson in the grill!
I would pick the Pontiac between the two, but I am no fan of that grill, which is excessive, and had been so for several years.
The bumper bisecting it is another issue I have, but that of course applies to the Impala as well
Mom had a ’72 Impala Sport Custom with the 400. Looked identical to the one in this article. I have zero fond memories of it. I can think of no redeeming qualities. The ’65 Impala (with 283) she had previously (which became my first car) was better in every way.
The ’72 Impala was too big, too heavy. The drivetrain seemed to soak up whatever power the 400 had. There was nothing sporty about the suspension. It wallowed all over the road.
It’s funny, most of the time I would pick a Chevrolet over any Pontiac, but this time the big Pontiac wins by a big margin.
Those 15″ Rallys are a big part of the attraction, so I went looking for a pic of the Impala with the Chevrolet equivalent factory wheel option to even the score, couldn’t find any. Maybe not available? so I asked AI to generate a picture of one, but no, the Pontiac still wins, by a lot.
It appears the 15-inch styled wheels were not an RPO for the 1972 full-size Chevrolet. On the Chevelle, they were only offered in 15 x 7 size with 60-series tires, which the B-body didn’t use in 1972. I don’t suppose there was any reason you couldn’t substitute the wheels from a Chevelle SS, but Chevrolet didn’t normally offer them on the bigger car at this point.
I don’t like the colors but I’ll take the Chevy anyway .
400 C.I.D. and a two barrel Rottenchester carby ? . I bet it had serious intake honk when you nailed the foot feed .
-Nate