The 1964 GTO didn’t just appear out of nowhere. John DeLorean’s perpetual quest for performance and innovative engineering solutions resulted in the very non-Detroit 1961 Tempest, with its hi-output four cylinder engines and flexible shaft drive to its Corvair-sourced rear transaxle and IRS. But a hot four was not enough, by 1963, and so the other bank of four cylinders was restored and the “326 cu. in” (336, actually) making a healthy 260 hp created the antecedent for the GTO.
Yes, the one proudly sporting the 326 badges.
CC 1963 Pontiac Tempest LeMans: Pontiac Tries To Build a BMW Before BMW Built Theirs PN
When I was in high school a classmate had a 63 Tempest 2 door, I don’t remember if it had the V8 or the 4 cylinder but suspect it had the 4. I thought that it was kind of ugly with it’s short hood and long rear deck that the Mustang had already made a styling dead end.
Yet, maybe it’s the drawings here, that 4 door looks really good, and the wagons I thought always looked pretty good.
Powerglide is pretty strong, but could that transaxlesurvive a swap for a 389, or a 421? It would certainly fit!
The earlier CC about the 1963 Tempest said the four-speed couldn’t hold up to the 326.
Well, there was this: https://www.hagerty.com/media/car-profiles/pontiacs-stripped-down-63-tempest-was-super-duty-quick/. Unsurprisingly, it used a beefed-up transaxle.
I wonder sometimes why a car company choses to call their engine one displacement, when in reality it is something else.
I get why Ford called their 302-V8 a “5.0”, when it was actually closer to 4.9L. Marketing. I suppose it sounded better.
But in this case, to lie about it the other way? Calling the new Tempest V8 a “326” when it was actually 336 cubic inches? It doesn’t make sense unless I am missing something here.
I turned 3 years old in 1963, and wasn’t yet car aware. (That happened when the ’65 Caprice we talked about the other day came out. ;o)
Perhaps there was another “336” with which Pontiac did not want to get this engine confused?
I believe GM had a policy of maximum 330 cubic inches in their intermediates at the time.
The precision of displacements has steadily dropped over the years. Old flathead engines were often described to the tenth, like a Kaiser 226.2 six. In the fifities and sixties the closest full cubic inch was good enough. When displacements switched to liters, the closest deciliter was used, sometimes rounded up a bit like the Ford 5.0. Now heavy trucks round up to the next full liter, like the PACCAR MX-13. Mack rounds up to the next hundred cubic inches – their 13 liter MP8 engine is actually 780 CI.
The 336 in version was a one-year only oddity, as the bore was reduced for 1964 to give it a true 326 cubic inches.
I assume that Pontiac had already committed to the bore and stroke making a 336 when the rule came down from the 14th floor, so they just called it a 326.
The Pontiac 336 actually dated to 1958, when it was supplied to GMC for their light and medium duty trucks. GMC had been using Pontiac V-8’s since 1955, but after the 1957 347 they had grown too large for light truck use at the time. The ’58 336 had a 3.88 x 3.56 bore and stroke. In ’59 Pontiac juggled the GMC 336’s bore and stroke to retain the same displacement while utilizing the new-for-”59 389 crankshaft. The ’59 336 had a 3.78 x 3.75 bore and stroke and was only used by GMC one year as it was replaced by the 305 V-6 in 1960. It appears that the 1959 336 was brought back as the ’63 Tempest 326. Someone found the tooling…….
Sometimes it is done to create confusion while other times it is done to avoid confusion.
For example to create confusion of the BOP 455s only the Olds properly rounds to 455. I believe that all of the 350’s don’t properly round to 350 either. Presumably corporate finally decided that they didn’t want to be competing against each other too much.
The Ford 5.0 is an example of trying to avoid confusion in that in trucks they still offered the 300 6 which also rounds to 4.9. So by calling the 302 a 5.0 they didn’t end up with a 4.9 6 and a 4.9 V8 and the V8 was still listed as larger than the 6
Similarly the 351 which came to be known as the 351W is actually a 352 but since they had an FE sold as a 352 they obviously wanted some distinction. Of course they threw that out the window when they reused that same 4.00 x 3.50 a 3rd and 4th time giving us the 351W, 351C and 351M.
Speaking of the FE the FT which often shared the same bore and stroke advertised different displacements. 390 for the FE but 391 for the FT.
Then another case is to avoid confusion with another brand. IH’s 392 is actually a 391 and the intake manifold gasket actually reflects that, but presumably since Ford already had the 391 in their MD trucks they wanted something different.
Speaking of Ford and IH, Ford and the math will tell you the 7.3 diesel is 445 cu in but International sold it as the 444. The also maintained that 1 cu in disadvantage in the short lived V6 diesel used in the joint venture cab overs.
So lots of different reasons depending on the situation.
Good info all! Thanks Guys!
An “interesting” thought :
Pontiac, had they used the true displacement would have had a 336.
Meanwhile, Oldsmobile was developing a 442.
Buick could have touted their 215 or 330 and we think today’s alphanumeric system is confusing?
So many changes for a car in the last year of its generation. I always find this puzzling. Was Pontiac worried about the new Dodge Lancer or something?
GM had money to burn back then, and bigger was always perceived as better. So, more length and more engine for 1963 (wheelbase was unchanged from 1961-62).
Supposedly the general managers of Buick, Oldsmobile and Pontiac were not entirely happy with their “senior” compacts. Oldsmobile management, in particular, questioned the need to even be in the compact segment.
Their 1963 models were restyled to look bigger and more substantial. The Pontiac, in particular, appears to forecast the look of the all-new, larger 1964 models. I’m sure that was intentional.
Dart I meant, not Lancer.
It is a bit odd that Olds and Buick (or GM, or Olds/Buick dealers) thought they needed small cars in 1961. The Comet was a hit, but mostly, small equaled cheap in 1961 Detroit and there was risk the new mini-Buicks and mini-Olds could hurt the upscale image they were trying to portray.
I suspect the planning for those cars started back in ’58 when sales of the big Olds & Buicks tanked and Rambler had a pretty good year.
Of course by the time the small cars arrived in ’61 the economy had recovered and things were different.
I fondly remember the base model Tempest when new .
-Nate
I really liked the fresh new styling of the 1963 Pontiac Tempest. The creased sides of the 1962-62 looked passé by then. The rest of the GM Y bodies and fullsizers got the same, sheer-sided treatment except Chevrolet which was still creased. The new look was most apparent on the Pontiac, witness the classic 1963 Grand Prix, and on Cadillac. But those fullsizers stayed around for the then-ususl.two-year cycle while the senior compacts only lasted a year, supplanted by the 1964 midsizers. I missed the trim, efficient look of the Y-bodirs, particularly the Pontiac Tempest/LeMans and Olds F85/Cutlass/Jetfire. I could understand why GM did it, though.
The Tempest was much more innovative than the Corvair. It wasn’t a poor copy of an existing bad car. It was GM’s first 4 since 1928, and GM’s first transaxle since about 1910. GM never pushed it as an innovation.
While the Tempest was indeed innovative, it was still a front iron engine, rear wheel drive car.
The Corvair was a rear mounted, air cooled aluminum engine rear wheel drive car.
In my opinion that’s more innovative.
“GM’s first 4 since 1928”? More like an existing Pontiac 389 V8 sliced in half… such innovation.
3.2L is a bit big for a four-banger, especially one with no balance shafts and cylinders that move in tandem.
Hence, the reason the Pontiac ‘Trophy 4’ got the nickname “The Haybailer”.
Rare car here but a mate years ago had a V8 Tempest but I got the impression it began life with the big four up front and was hotrodded here could be wrong but it went like a bullet in a straight line, the brakes left something to be desired and scrubbing off speed for corners was a need not a want, I have wondered what happened to that car and have only seen one other.
Why is that women leaning out of the car? Obviously not wearing a seatbelt! Likely to get clipped by a sign post?
It was a whole different world in 1963. Seat belts were for squares.
The car took off on its own and the Mother is screaming to her Son for help!
A first case of “unwanted acceleration”…
The car is actually being driven by a dog. She’s yelling for help.
Seat belts weren’t yet standard equipment in many cars in 1963. As 210delray said, it was a different world.
True. My dad bought a 1963 BelAir with (I think) absolutely no options. It didn’t have a radio or even a driver’s side mirror. Both were added by my uncles within a year.
It also didn’t have seatbelts. When he decided on a road trip to Niagara Falls a year later, he had seatbelts installed for what would be a seven-hour, mainly highway ride. I was eight at the time and found the sensation of being belted in, very weird. I don’t think we used them again after that trip.
Our new 1964 Fairlane 500 Sports Coupe was the first car in our garage with seat belts standard – my Dad would never have paid extra for them and it was a factory ordered car. I believe that was the first year front belts were mandatory in some states. And from 1962 on some states required that the anchors be installed. I bought a used 1963 Fairlane in 1966 and had seat belts installed in an upholstery shop – easy because the anchors were already there. This was in Indiana but I doubt the state had requirements then – most likely Ford was meeting the higher standards of some states by installing the equipment in all of their cars? Seat belt history is long and complicated.
You are correct about the 1964 models being the first with standard front lap belts. States were moving in the direction of requiring installation of belts, so the domestic manufacturers agreed to make them standard across the board.
There were no federal mandates at the time. I’m not sure when the import mfrs started installing belts; certainly Volvo was ahead in this regard.
Nothing says fun motoring like child abduction and murder!
The fickle female is obviously leaving him for a cooler guy with a 336 Tempest. He’s better off without her, but he’d better get a Tempest of his own!
“The car that made these two, equal length tire marks had positraction. Can’t make those marks without positraction, which was not available on the ’64 Buick Skylark. … It’s a limited slip differential which distributes power equally to both the right and left tires. The ’64 Skylark had a regular differential… which anyone who’s been stuck in the mud in Alabama knows, you step on the gas, one tire spins the other does nothing. …. You see, when the left tire mark goes up on the curb the right tire mark stays flat and even, well the ’64 Skylark had a solid rear axle. So, when the left tire would go up on the curb, the right tire would tilt out and ride along it’s edge, but that didn’t happen here. The tire marks stayed flat and even, this car had an independent rear suspension. Now, in the ’60s there were only two other cars made in America that had positraction and independent rear suspension and enough power to make these marks. One, was the Corvette, which could never be confused with the Buick Skylark. The other, had the same body lenght, height, width, weight, wheel base and wheel track as the ’64 Skylark and that was the 1963 Pontiac Tempest!”
– Mona Lisa Vito
A quote from my Dad’s favorite movie!!!! Thanks Brian!
Could only have been made better if written in a Brooklyn accent!
The state would like to dismiss all charges!
I still remember this one from a Popular Science comparison test article we featured.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-1963-days-popular-science-tests-the-hot-compacts/
The road to the GTO was an interesting one.
My first detailed look at the underside of the ’63 Tempest was a roommate who had a couple of them. The first time I looked under the back of the 2-door hardtop with the automatic transmission, I noticed the torque converter hanging out the back side of the transaxle. I quickly saw it didn’t have any cover, because It was spinning like crazy, completely exposed. He said this was normal and it was not missing a cover.
I noted that the other Tempest he had, a 4 speed, 4 cylinder convertible, also had the Corvair-based transaxle, but had an engine-mounted clutch. So this meant that cars with the automatic transmission had a drive shaft that ran at engine speed all the time, and the cars with manual transmissions had drive shafts that operated at engine speed, but only when the clutch was not depressed.
Both cars suffered with engine vibration at various speeds, but especially at idle. The cause of this vibration was due to the engine having an “oversquare” specification, with the stroke of 3.75 and bore of 4.06.
In all INLINE engines with an oversquare situation, vibration is inherent as there are no other pistons operating in a different plane [like a V8 or flat opposed] that help dampen those vibrations. As a crank rotates and pistons move up and down, pistons move slower as they reach the upper [& lower] 1/3 of the stroke, with their speed faster in mid-stroke. In an inline 4 cylinder where the outer 2 pistons are in the same plane and the inner 2 are in the opposite plane, this creates an opportunity for major vibration problems.
In the Pontiac 389 V8, the 2 “halves” of the engine tend to dampen each other when it comes to this specific vibration problem. The Pontiac engineers certainly knew about this problem when they created the “half of a V8” slant 4. However they chose the easy & cheap way to handle the vibration problem: Installing larger engine rubber mounts with softer & more flexible rubber. But this solution had a problem that showed up later in life as the rubber in the motor mounts hardened. As the actual mounts were larger, and with the rubber hardened, the mounts actually amplified the vibration thru to the body/chassis.
Wow, those ads look like this ad. And the top pic in the first Tempest ad makes me think of The Jetsons: JAAAAAAANE! STOP THIS CRAZY THINNNNNG! (only I guess in this case it’d be “Georrrrrrrrge! Stop this crazy thinnnnnng!”)
The Tempest was available with the aluminum 215 V8 from its introduction, so there was always an alternative to the big four. It was a much lower output unit, though, than the 326 that replaced it for ’63.
It was, but the take rate was extremely low, as in 1-2%. They were unicorns. Buick’s price to Pontiac was presumably high, and so Pontiac resisted using them.
My dad bought a ’61 Tempest plain-Jane four-door, with the automatic (drat). No hot-rodder he: his family cars preceding the Pontiac were (in order) ’38 Plymouth business coupe (gray); ’47 Willys Jeep Station Wagon (maroon); ’56 Ford Country Sedan wagon (white). The car had been returned to the dealer with low miles. It was darkish metallic red; the exposed wheels were black. He had the dealer paint them red—the first time I became aware that he cared about the appearance of a car in that way. He also had the dealer REMOVE the lap belts. Huh—so much for the enlightened PE.
The shifter sprang from under the seat, a little chromed lever. There was a vertical quadrant (gear indicator) on the dash. Our first car with a radio; I got my first speeding ticket in that car. A connection, there ? Yes, I guess so . . .
In 1961 my dad bought an almost-new repoed Tempest plain-Jane four-door, with the automatic (drat). I would have liked using that floor shifter—surely the only one offered post-war on a stripper American sedan ? The automatic of course had that little chromed tab lever emerging from under the seat, with a vertical quadrant more or less centered low on the dash. (I wonder what the mechanical linkage for that looked like.)
The car was darkish metallic red; the exposed wheels were black. Dad had the dealer paint them body color, an act that dumbfounded me for its quirkiness as well as its novel indication that he would care about such a thing. He also had the dealer REMOVE the lap belts. Huh. So much for the enlightened mechanical engineer ?
I had already gone away to college by then, but that didn’t stop me from getting my first speeding ticket in the car. I liked its size and relative maneuverability. The car ended up belonging to my younger brother, and he wrecked it in the rain on the Taconic State Parkway. His panic stop bent the brake pedal, on the way tail first into a boulder. He wasn’t hurt, much. That was the end of the Tempest.
Sorry—don’t know what happened there; my first edit disappeared that post—I thought. So, you get both versions. Maybe I’ll turn the whole thing into a novel . . .
Well how ’bout that.
I’ve actually driven one of these.
Around 1992.
I’d completely forgotten about it. A V8.
It was owned and loved by a mechanic who kept in great tune.
It was at an altitude of about 6,000 feet so it’s performance I would describe as “quick enough”.
I hadn’t realized what a great looking car the ’63 Tempest was! The round taillights in the second ad photo sent me on a Google search. I’m impressed – I can’t believe I’ve never paid attention to this before now.
Same here! These work for me to the same degree the ’65 Chev items—similar but horizontally arrayed—don’t.
A colleague at my high school job had a 1963 Tempest coupe with the 326. It had those attractive round taillights, almost a vertical version of the 1965 Chevrolet taillights. The 1963 LeMans had the more conventional horizontal taillights.
I never drove the 1963 as I did not yet have a license but it was traded for a new 1966 LeMans coupe with the 326. That car I washed, waxed, and drove often. It had the two-speed automatic but was light and the two-barrel single exhaust 326 was more than adequate to keep up with traffic. It did not run well on cheap fuel, however. You had to use at least “ethyl” or it would ping loudly when you tromped on it – which we did frequently. This was a great engine but unfortunately these cars rusted quickly in the salty roads of Indiana winters.
Another example of wasted GM opportunity: this Tempest/Lemans V8 chassis was the perfect basis with further development and refinement to become a sporty, luxurious down-sized Cadillac for 1965-’66 introduction to begin competing with Mercedes-Benz.
H’m. I donno; at that time Cadillac buyers bought by the pound and square yard, and GM weren’t interested in having it any other way, don’t you think?
My contention is GM had a readily available platform to develop into a M-B contender. They had to start at some point to well before the mid-1970’s to appeal to a segment seeking high quality, sporting, prestige yet smaller luxury cars. There was ample evidence in the increasing M-B sales to put them on notice this was an emergent segment.