(first posted 12/3/2015) I love to follow the old roads. In Indiana, they don’t get much older than the National Road, which Thomas Jefferson authorized in 1806 and was built across Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois in the 1820s and 1830s. And then when the US highway system was established in 1926, US 40 was laid along that old road. US 40 has been improved (read: straightened, widened, and outright moved) in several places; the old alignments still lurk here and there. But for the most part, when you drive US 40, you’re following a pioneer path. And it seems like whenever I’m on one of the pioneer paths, I find old cars, like this ’67 Bonneville.
In eastern Indiana, except for the modern traffic, when you drive US 40 you feel like you’ve stepped back 150 years in time. Suddenly, it’s 1860! At least, so says the surrounding architecture. This is Cambridge City, founded in 1836. And on the day we visited, the streets were lined with antiques for sale. It was the day of an annual antique festival.
No antique that day appealed to me more than this ’67 Bonne, built in the year of my birth. I have always adored the GM B-body two-door hardtop roof from ’67 and ’68. So long, so flowing – so gutsy. Audacious, even. I can stare at a car like this for hours
GM shared this roof across the entire B-body line. In those days, they were still pretty good about differentiating bodies below the sill line. At the top of the B hierarchy, Buick’s side sweep beautifully enhanced this roof’s graceful lines.
I’m not a big fan of late-60s Oldsmobile styling, and so to me, they’re the only division to make this roof look dorky — yet, somehow, longer than any of the other B-body hardtop coupes.
In the flesh, the ’67 Impala (and Caprice) look just enormous, but among B bodies they rode on the smallest wheelbase at just 119 inches and were the shortest overall at 213.2 inches. The Buick Wildcat was the longest 1967 B body, at 220.5 inches; it rode on a 126-inch wheelbase. The LeSabre rode a 123 incher, and was 217.5 inches long. The Oldsmobile 88s were a half inch shorter than that despite also riding a 123-inch wheelbase. The Pontiacs rode on 124- and 121-inch wheelbases, depending on series, and were 222.6 and 215.6 inches long, respectively
And Pontiac offered the most series by far. The Bonneville sat at the top, offering the best standard features and the most luxury. You could climb even higher with the Bonneville Brougham option package, which added a vinyl roof and power accessories inside.
The Executive was next, riding on the Bonneville’s longer wheelbase, but offering fewer goodies.
The Ventura was the most luxurious offering on the shorter wheelbase. It probably wasn’t on par with the Bonneville, but it was probably a much nicer place to be than the entry-level Catalina.
The Pontiac 2+2 was the straight performance model, on the shorter wheelbase but with a big 428-cube engine. It could be ordered only with two front Strato-Bucket seats; hence its 2+2 name.
At the bottom of the standard Pontiac totem pole sat the Catalina. Given its price-sensitive mission, it’s almost a surprise it could be ordered in the hardtop coupe body.
But back to this Bonneville. Each of us has our preferred kind of curbside classic. Some of us love a very rough but still driveable old car. Some of us adore a solid, complete car slathered with patina. A few of us like ‘em restored and even modified. But what I like, what I almost swoon over, is that all-original car that appears to have been lightly used all its life. This Bonneville heavily tripped that trigger for me. Just check out the faded paint on the decklid. And the interior, which I didn’t manage to get a usable shot of, is similarly in good, but obviously used shape.
There were three hitches, however. The first are the dual exhaust tips peeking out from under the passenger-side rear fender. I don’t think that’s stock (but I trust you’ll correct me if I’m wrong). Next is this car’s lack of fender skirts. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a ’67 Bonneville with an open rear wheel well trimmed in chrome. I’ve seen cars where the skirt went missing, but that’s not at all what looks like happened here. Some quick Googling reveals a handful of Bonnes so equipped, so perhaps the skirt was deletable on the option sheet.
Even if it wasn’t, it’s small potatoes compared to the third hitch: those wheels. WTF? These were real headscratchers until I realized that this car is running on modern tires – Sumitomo 225/40ZR18s, to be precise. That’s just the kind of modification I’d make, to get better handling and a wider selection of tires to choose from. And props to this owner for at least trying to make the wheels blend in by painting them body color. Persistent Googling revealed that those wheel covers are borrowed from a ’57 Pontiac. This owner even painted the centers body color. I don’t think a single ’67 Bonneville left the factory with body-color wheels and dog dishes – that’s more Catalina territory.
But these wheels look pretty good, and this car obviously comes out to play sometimes. And regardless of how we like our curbside classics, I think we can all agree that if they don’t come out to play, they’re no fun at all.
Related reading:
The 70 is truly beautiful, Irony like he styling of this and it’s the worst looking b I think. The front is awful.
Ditching the fender skirts makes a huge improvement, its certainly a clean tidy old car I like it and its not a model we saw much of here only the odd private import there was a Brown 4 door 67 in my home town all the rest were Cheviacs locally assembled CKDs from Canada.
Your third photo caught a dramatic old-road phenomenon. Two sets of people talking TO each other and GESTURING with their hands. Their hands are NOT holding smartphones, and the people are actually LOOKING at each other, not at smartphones.
Using hands for gestures is a completely lost art in the new-road places.
These people are known as “pedestrians” 😉
OOI, is riding a motorbike without a helmet permitted in the US?
It depends on the state. Was on a trip once and went through Ohio, so decided to try it. Lasted about 5 minutes on the Interstate with tears streaming from my eyes and feeling definitely unsafe.
“is riding a motorbike without a helmet permitted in the US?”
It varies from state to state. In some states, including my home state of Massachusetts, it is not. In other states, individuals under a certain age (typically 18 or 21) must wear a helmet, while those over that age do not. A few states, including our northern neighbors in New Hampshire, have no helmet requirement at all.
According to the link below, Indiana requires minors to wear helmets (under age 18), but not adults.
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/helmetuse/mapmotorcyclehelmets
It is in Indiana. And omg, don’t start talking about helmet laws here, the bikers will rise up and hurt you.
No joke about that! I have been riding for years, always with a helmet and can’t believe how many “smart” people I know who don’t.
I have driven 40 clear across Indiana several times and many more on the central and western side. I enjoy looking for old motels, gas stations, and other abandoned businesses along the way. It is one of my favorite drives. I also prefer it to I70 in bad weather. If there is an accident up ahead, at least you can find a side road to turn around on or find an alternate route.
Love the Pontiac, too.
There are a bunch of old US 40 alignments in western Indiana. You should check them out. Just look for the National Road signs with the arrows.
I go up to Terre Haute from time to time, from Indy, and 95% of the time I take 40. It’s so much less stressful of a drive than I-70.
Jim, somewhat OT, but have your travels taken you to Starr Valley in Richmond IN? The Gennett Records label is pretty special to us geeks for old jazz and blues.
I know of it, but I haven’t been.
OMG! The “68 Bonneville brings back memories from being only 20 yrs old, and a crazy college girl (23 yrs ago!). Bill (that lucky B) was 40, and I fell in love with his mint ’68 Bonneville. Dark green, hard top, black vinyl bench interior. We would drive around, listen to swing music, and he’d sneak me into bars in Houston…drinking gin n tonics. Fun little fling we had! Wish I could find Bill….cuz I wonder if he still has that car! LOL! Bet he moved back to Chicago!
Love the Nose job!!!!!!!
Great car. Now just increase the tire size, oh look they did that. Now add 4 wheel discs. And rack and pinion steering. Now electrify it for less parasitic loss. Pull the bench and put in some firm contoured buckets. Now pull the 400 a small V6 would have far higher specific output. Now chop off those wasteful overhangs. Now raise the seats, Now raise the roof, my head is now too close.Those wheels, they will never due, find some silver toned aluminum wheels. they will fit in better. I am not sure about the Pontiac name, and building it in the USA, no. Have the stinky factory not in my backyard. Now we are finally getting sensible.
The journey from there to here.
I’m not usually a huge Pontiac fan, but I think in ’67 they had the best looking of the B bodies.
I’d rather see the original wheels, but getting tires to fit is getting a lot harder & more expensive every year. These are at least close to the proper diameter and nicely tucked into the wheelwells.
The Pontiac is very pretty, yes, but to me the Buick version defines the term ‘achingly beautiful’.
+1!
+2
I don’t know why, but I never cared for stacked headlights. They made the car look too wide.
As for the Olds, I quite like it. The full wheel cutouts and the crease between them remind me of the ’60’s Batmobile from the TV show. My favorite Batmobile. Maybe the Cutlass carried that design better.
But GM really did rock back then. Everybody has different tastes, I appreciate everyone’s opinion, and they covered a lot of different styles with the same basic body.
Aside from minor modifications, it’s always interesting to see how people back in the day ordered their cars when one could really give thought and prioritization to deciding which boxes to check off. Despite being a non-brougham, and clearly having come from the factory without vinyl or skirts, the original owner obviously felt it worthwhile to order the not often seen optional cornering lamps. I’d love to see how the interior was optioned.
Boy I miss the days when you could really custom order a car and get exactly what you want and nothing more. Tried to do that a few years back with my wife’s Lexus ES 350. The dealer wanted a huge deposit and I was told it would take at least 6 months. Oh, and the nice discount I was offered on an in stock model would not apply.
Years ago I recall some very weirdly optioned cars in the neighborhood. A plain ’69 Galaxie 500 sedan with the rim blow sports steering wheel, a ’66 Bel Air wagon with a 396 and a ’63 Olds 88 that was fairly well equipped except for the 3 speed manual.
This would be more to my taste
Just wonderful, Mr. Grey. My grandma’s 1967 Bonneville wagon was painted that same shade of blue. If I recall correctly, it didn’t have fender skirts, but I’m even older than the author of this post, and my memory ain’t what it used to be. A lot of people don’t care for the way the bumper bifurcates the vertically-stacked quads, but I’ve always liked the unique ’67 Pontiac front end. I’m sure that’s partially due to the warm and fuzzy memories that old Pontiacs bring out for me, but these old Ponchos really have personality. I would love to take the featured car for a drive! A “For Sale” sign on a car like this would be a difficult temptation to avoid.
All the 1965-70 Bonneville hardtops, sedans, and convertibles came with removable fender skirts (except for those like this car that were specially ordered without them). However, the Bonneville wagons, which used the shorter Catalina wheelbase, did not have the skirts – although I’ve seen a few photos of such wagons with skirts retrofitted.
The “400” badge on the front fender, just above the optional cornering lamps, is not original to this car. The 400 was the standard motor in 1967, with either 2- or 4-barrel carburetor. However, the optional 421 did have an exterior badge saying so. I think this 400 badge might be from a Firebird.
I drove one of these in 1973 as a 17-year-old – it had been my grandparents’ car – but it was totaled in a chain-reaction crash on the way to college, on a wet road. Hydroplaning is easy when your car doesn’t have radial tires or disc brakes or ABS. I was able to drive it home at the end of the semester, luckily, whereupon it was donated to a community college for body repair classes.
My parents had a choice of a new ’68 Executive wagon or a dealer demonstrator ’67, and I’m so glad they chose the latter – both because it was very fully equipped (including cornering lights and 8-track stereo, among other options new for ’67) and because I loathed the ’68 front end. I don’t think there was any option available on the ’67 Bonneville wagon that wasn’t also available on the (new for ’67) Executive wagon.
Hydroplaning results from driving too fast for rainy road conditions. That’s the easy part. ABS, discs and radial tires won’t change a condition created by the driver. They’ll help correct the driver error.
Have you ever driven a big ’60s car on a rainy highway? By modern standards, my parents (and millions of others in the U.S.) were simply negligent to allow their kids to drive the typical American car of the era – front-end-heavy, with barge-like steering, bias-ply tires, etc. – hundreds of miles to and from college. No shoulder belts or head restraints either, of course. Only one model year earlier, the Bonneville wouldn’t even have been equipped with a collapsible steering column in the event of a front-end crash.
Moreover, driver licensing in those days didn’t require (as many states now do) a logbook of hours spent behind the wheel while driving with a permit and a parent in the passenger front seat; Maryland, for example, currently requires 60 hours, some of which must be night driving. Of course some people make fake entries, but (at least in MD) rules for graduated licenses are also in place that do not grant to 17-year-olds the completely unrestricted driving privileges that I had at age 16 1/2. Kids like me were able to drive foolishly and the consequences were sometimes much worse than bent metal.
Today in Illinois, teens are required to have a permit for 9 months to ensure that they are exposed to driving in the extreme winter weather we have here. My daughter had to complete Driver’s Ed and log in drive time for snow, rain, fog as well as night time driving. Now newly licensed, she is restricted in the number of non-family member passengers she can have in the car, as well as no driving after 11 PM.
This is a far cry from my childhood in Louisiana, where I got my permit at 14 1/2 (!!) While I did take Driver’s Ed and spent a lot of time behind the wheel with my parents, there were no requirements to present a logbook of hours driven. Other than taking a shockingly easy multiple choice written test, all you needed to do was pass the most basic driving test with a grumpy DMV instructor and be on your way. So on my 15th birthday (!!) I got my license, and was free as a bird, borrowing my mother’s Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight and driving whenever and whoever I wanted. While the teenage me thought it was fantastic at the time, the thought of it today makes my blood run cold…
And yet, teens still kill themselves driving, though now they’re in Toyotas.
When I was 17 I hit a parked car at over 70 mph with me and two friends in the front seat no seatbelts an nobody died that big car saved our lives
Very nice! Thanks for the B body comparison. Pontiac and Buick carried off this look the best, and those coupes are gorgeous. The Olds just doesn’t work at all, its big hips and open wheels need a more formal roof, and thus are attractive as 4 doors.
These cars are really dramatic in person. I still remember a white one that I watched pulling out of a gas station before I could photograph it.
I still can’t make up my mind about the front end. But I’ll bet that this car is one of the ones people had in mind when pushing for a 5 mph impact standard. One bump against anything with this car and the front end would be ruined.
The front does look like it should be done with the endura stuff Pontiac had a few years later. Must have come to them too, and off to work they went.
That’s one that got away for me. My Dad briefly had a ’67 Catalina fastback, bought used but in perfect cosmetic condition, white with a black vinyl top. That was one gorgeous car. Unfortunately the engine failed catastrophically about four months in and the parents dumped it unceremoniously for a ’70 Mercury 2-door; not horrible but nowhere near as attractive as that Pontiac.
I also love what the owner did with the tire/rim combo, great example of the resto-mod ethic tastefully executed.
Nice one Jim, I quite enjoy your posts on old roads. I’m not sure if there’s any such things in my area, but I must admit i’ve never looked into it. Certainly none authorized by Thomas Jefferson 😉
Nice Pontiac too, I’m with you on the lightly used driver look, which is why I’m shooting to make my VW look like a 3 year old car when it’s done. Love the hockey stick taillights on the 67. I’m lukewarm on the wheels, not really my style but well done, and could be much much worse.
Highway 6 has some good car spotting opportunities, but the scenery certainly isn’t as interesting.
I used to enjoy visits to see my uncle in Ancaster, as we would take the highway which is now Rymal Rd. As you’d know Doug, back then it was borderline rural with no stoplights. Car spotting was particularly good on that drive, as many properties along that road had old cars in their garages and driveways in various conditions between show car, driver, project and parts car.
You’re probably making a good decision to not shoot for perfection with your VW. I’m going a little overboard with my Windsor. My wife is worried, with good reason, that I’m going to be paranoid about anyone even touching it when it’s done.
I feel the same about the wheels on this Pontiac. Normally I don’t like such oversize wheels, but the owner has done a really nice job, making them body coloured and installing the genuine Pontiac dog dishes.
Your fine B-Body comparison demonstrates how masterful Bill Mitchell and his GM Styling was at deftly differentiating a shared body to give each make a unique identity. As long as corporate management supported that approach, each make succeeded; once they homogenized their look, they failed.
+1 Couldn’t agree more.
GM B bodies of the 1960s were just amazing, Especially Pontiac.. Maybe I’m biased because my father had a 1966 Bonneville 421 Tripower with factory dual exhaust system. Console shifter automatic transmission, power everything including climate control. Deep V8 rumble left no doubt about the 377 HP under the hood. That car was sooo badass, just absolutely epic in that popular GM turquoise color. The rear end styling was excellent with those long tail lights. All GM divisions that era were the sharpest looking cars of an entire generation, when Detroit built cars out of iron and steel.
The Pontiac interior was the best with real wood, and the ‘oh shit’ grab bar for the front passenger. Bonus points for console shifter
After the gorgeous B bodies of ’65-’66, I always thought the ’67 re-style was a bit of a let-down. Swoopy yes, but more bulk and bloat. Like someone trying to hide a few extra pounds with flowing and loose fitting clothes. These lost most of the sportiness and athleticism that the ’65-’66’s displayed.
You’re right, I think: the 65s and 66s did have a trim (for a big car) athleticism that was squashed with the more bulbous 67s. I have a soft spot for these, however, because of a very positive childhood experience with a ’68 Impala hardtop sedan.
Still a good looking car, but to me a step down from the great looking ’65/’66. The car does wear those 18’s well. A great find. If mine I would get a repaint and rear exiting exhaust, but would be fine with the rest of the car as is.
Cool car on a great road!
The front of this Pontiac brings back some childhood memories for me. In the early 1970s I was very young (~6) but really starting to differentiate between makes. My Pop had just gotten a 1972 Grand Prix, so I was very into Pontiacs. I knew the ’72s by sight, and I knew in general that Pontiacs had dramatic front ends. But I was blown away the first time I registered the front of the ’67. Someone was visiting our neighbor across the street, and they had arrived in an aqua-colored full size ’67 Pontiac. I’m guessing it was a Catalina, but can’t say for sure. But I’ll never forget that front-end. My mom let me walk up to it and check it out up close. I remember looking at it and thinking it was just wild, with the stacked, canted headlights, loop bumper grill and prominent prow. I didn’t yet know it was a ’67, that level of knowledge would come later, but the strikingly unusual look of that Pontiac sure made a lasting impression.
Note also the resemblance between the outer extremes of the 1967 front end and those of the 1966 tail end; they have the same origami-like angles, seems to me.
GN, I can really identify with your childhood experience of the ’67. I remember thinking (at the ripe old age of 10) that the ’67 front was pretty wild.
All the detail here is new to me, but I’d go for the Buick. That side profile and crease is outstanding.
Also,the Pontiac appears to have the front end of 2 different cars mounted on top of each other. Sorry Pontiac fans.
Roger, I’m with you on the Buick.
I looked at that nose and thought, Gen 2/Gen 3 Vauxhall Viva. A far milder treatment, but still.
Both Ford and GM set styling trends in the mid-60s that their European businesses then picked up – look at the front clip on the Mk II/Mk III Cortina, the Mk IV Zodiac/Executive etc.
Here’s a third generation Viva. It’s a bit smaller than the Pontiac:
You’re absolutely right about the influence of US style on British cars, something that has been apparent since the 1930s.
The Viva and many other Vauxhalls up to the end of the 1970s are prime (perhaps the best) examples, but this Pontiac appears to be a Viva with a Chevette sitting on top of it, almost.
I’d still have one over many current cars though.
And all these years I’d assumed the bonnet (hood) flutes on the Viva were an homage to previous generations of Vauxhall – the Edwardian Prince Henry, or the 1950s Velox. Now I learn that they just shrunk a Pontiac front end in the wash!
My personal hunch is that the style was partly driven by a need to look compatible when sold in a Canadian Pontiac dealer as a Pontiac Firenza.
“At the bottom of the standard Pontiac totem pole sat the Catalina. Given its price-sensitive mission, it’s almost a surprise it could be ordered in the hardtop coupe body.”
By 1967, the market for fullsize two-doors had swung so far in the hardtop direction that it would have been unthinkable to offer a model of even the Catalina’s station only as a pillared two-door. While Catalina two-door buyers did have a choice of pillared or hardtop in 1967, sales were slanted heavily towards the latter, and the pillared model was in its second-to-last year (it was dropped after ’68). The Catalina was the only Pontiac fullsize model to even still come as a pillared two-door at this point; Olds and Buick had already completely dropped their fullsize pillared two-doors several years earlier.
Chevrolet still had fullsize pillared two-doors in 1967, but they were confined to the lowly Biscayne and Bel Air lines (which only came as pillared models, no hardtops), with the two-door Impala having gone hardtop-only in the early ’60s. And as with their Pontiac counterparts, the fullsize Chevy pillared two-doors weren’t long for the world; they would last just one year longer than Pontiac’s, and would be dropped after the 1969 model year.
For some reason, the Bonneville line grew to include a 4-door pillared sedan in 1968, which was retained up through 1974 or so (in addition to the 4-door hardtop). Very few were sold in ’68; see http://www.oldride.com/library/1968_pontiac_bonneville.html.
Pontiac offered a pillared Catalina two-door in ’67. We profiled one here some time ago. But you make a great point about how hard the market had swung toward hardtops. And it’s not like they had to tool up a special roof for one here.
In 1967, Pontiac sold 5,633 Catalina two door sedans, and 77,932 Catalina two-door hardtops. The Catalina was essentially analogous to the Impala; the two door sedan was only there for the hard-core Pontiac buyers who wanted a stripper.
Wow, now I know how remarkable it is that the one Catalina two-door sedan we featured still exists.
Here it is:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cohort-sighting-1967-pontiac-catalina-two-door-sedan-bring-on-the-love/
Full-sized, pillared, two door sedans in low-priced and lower medium-priced makes were in their last years in the late ’60-early ’70’s. The majority of sales seem to have been to fleet customers and municipalities/police agencies. Sales reps used them as business coupes, police departments as cruiser. In either case, they were driven hard and ended up junked early. The few still extant were those bought by the true skinflint, used sparingly and maintained religiously.
Very nice.
I’d try blending in the 18″ steelies by painting the exposed-by-the-dog-dishes part of the wheel disc bright silver, the outer rim portion matte black, and the outermost 1″ or so, maybe just the rolled edge, matte white so that at 30 paces you think you’re looking at full wheel covers over stock size bias-ply white stripes. Maybe even use matte black paint or vinyl on the silvery disc to simulate the original full cover’s accent pattern.
Whenever I see a CC like this (really, of any sixties’ Pontiac), I can only think that, out of all the Big 3’s divisions, Pontiac could do no wrong in the sixties. While their powertrains were mostly just average, superior styling and marketing carried the day. The Sloan ladder was working perfectly with each GM division being clearly defined and leading their market, and none more so than Pontiac. It’s not hard to understand how many consider that time the zenith of the domestic auto industry (GM, in particular). It’s such a heartbreaker how GM’s leadership could piss it all away in the ensuing decades with Pontiac (and Oldsmobile) withering away to a final, ignominious end.
I could never see much difference between Buick and Oldsmobile. Styling was obviously different and engines were different, but what you actually got was much the same. Pontiac’s were clearly a step down from Buick and Olds, and a step up from Chevrolet. This was for the “full size” cars. The Bonneville was a nicer car than basic Buick or Oldsmobiles, so the Sloan ladder is really muddled even without considering the mid-size or compact cars.
The closest they ever came to really differentiating Buick/Olds was when it was decided that Oldsmobile would be the “experimental division” while Buick would be more technically conservative; thus, Olds got the first automatic even before Cadillac, went to a short-stroke V8 while Buick stuck with its’ old straight-eight for several more years, and got the FWD Toronado rather than a badge-engineered version of the RWD Riviera.
Buick’s straight eights were over head valves though, not flatheads. Buick would have liked to keep the straight eights, but making them any larger would not have worked. Their first shot at a V-type engine was a 22.5 degree V8, which did not work out, so the nailhead was put into production. I am not sure why they did not go for a 45 degree V8 version of the first Cadillac V16, which should have been workable.
A 22.5 degree V8? Shades of Vincenzo Lancia!
I think Buick did well keeping the straight eight as long as they did. The Buick straight eight makes a lovely sound; plus in the public mind back in the ’40s/’early ’50s V8 was pretty well identified with Ford. Let the lesser GM division Oldsmobile get publicity for its V8 first, thus ‘validating the concept’ of a medium priced V8. Cadillac, of course, was in a class apart in those days.
Both Oldsmobile’s and Cadillac’s new V8 were overhead valve designs, something that Buick’s straight eights had long before. Cadillac had V8 flatheads for a very long time. Cadillac’s first V16 was OHV, but then they replaced that with a 135 degree flathead V16. Buick’s straight eight was pushing its limit @170 HP. To get more horsepower Buick needed to redesign the engine. GM had declared that long (straight eight) engines would not fit in future engine compartments (probably by the mid to late 50’s).
Your citing of the Chevy/Olds and Pontiac/Buick pairings is apt. Although B-O-P cars weren’t all that different in content or size, styling notwithstanding, GM carefully paired the above sets in their dealer franchises. This was done to keep the price-step structure, i.e. Sloan ladder, in place, making the move from the low-priced Chevy to an entry-level middle-priced Olds easy with a trusted dealer by a loyal customer. Pontiac customers were up-traded to Buick Specials by the same process, it worked beautify for decades.
Until the early sixties, although they shared basic bodies (a big one and a smaller one, with Buicks and Oldsmobiles split with both), the frames, engines, automatic transmissions and suspensions were all different for each GM line. Some bits were shared, like the Hydramatic in several lines, but Buick having their own Dynaflow and Chevy their own Powerglide, etc. I think with the 1965’s the frames and suspensions became mostly the same. Still different engines. Engines and transmissions later started being shared and bodies became more shared. Basically, from the 50’s to the 90’s they slowly became different versions of the same thing.
I found the intermediates more appealing, but the front end of the ’67 Pontiac was dramatic and attractive. New for ’67 – hidden wipers, the first that I can remember. We had neighbors with a new ’67 Pontiac, and I always admired the clean cowl of this car.
Looking at the 1967 brochures: I think the Bonneville Brougham interior is comparable to the Caprice. The Impala interior is not far off from the Executive or base Bonneville interiors. The Catalina interior is similar to the Bel Air. The Ventura is perhaps similar to the Impala SS. The pictures don’t give one the feel of the actual materials though.
Without digging around in brochures, that is about the way I recall the situation. The base Bonneville was certainly quite a bit more car than the Impala due to its dash, standard features and exterior trim. But, the bulk of the interior wasn’t too far off the Impala.
But, then again, the ’67 Impala interior was still a relatively high end piece, recalling when the Impala had been the top interior into the early 1965 model year. Caprice was Chevy’s “brougham,” and the Impala interior didn’t start to get downgraded until 1969, and then again in 1971.
Our neighbors had a black vinyl over dark metallic green ’67 Bonneville coupe with the skirts, AC, and probably more when we first arrived. It was a beautiful car in 1969.
I’m okay with the ’68 front end, but the ’67 is a busy and beautiful piece of art with a lot going on – but it all works well.
I believe the skirts were optional on everything but the wagons – I don’t believe the factory ever fitted the wagons with skirts. They may have been a delete option on the Bonneville as the vast majoriy seemed to have them.
Nice find, and nice comparison with the related GM products. I’d have to agree that the Olds is the one that doesn’t appeal to me off hand, while all the others do. The Impala looks least foreign in modern times with its relatively consevative overhangs.
Best ’67 GM B coupe? Perhaps the Pontiac. The Chevy is certainly the least overwrought. The Buick is very appealing, but I recall how huge they were. The Poncho might be a bit more forgiving while behind the wheel.
I know that GM gave its various divisions a good bit of styling differences, at least in the bodies, but I never realized how many different wheelbases and lengths the various B (and C) bodies came in. I guess the volumes were high enough to justify it. GM really had its game on in the Sixties. I really didn’t appreciate the fantastic looks of the big B coupes as a kid back then, or at least not as much as I do now.
For me, the Buick version looks best, especially in Wildcat form, with the Pontiacs a close second. Even if the interiors were starting to get weak, exterior styling was second to none.
I was going to comment on the different wheelbases, too. In the ’65 or 6 spec sheet that Paul N posted yesterday, there was no difference in the rear legroom between the Pontiac 4 door htps, so what was the point? More overhang?
I thought the Wildcat was the LeSabre body with the Electra engine (like the later Centurion), but it must have had its own sheetmetal these years. With all a la carte options and more color choices, manufacturing must have been incredibly complex without computers and bar codes.
Then in ’86, the large FWD cars were all 110.8″ wheelbase. The market forced them to enlarge the C bodies quickly, so it was a false economy.
Good to read another feature about an American Pontiac model.
I like all the B body wide-track models from 62 to 70. I’m impressed how the owner upgraded the wheels and tires making those 18″ wheels look like stock with hubcaps.
Sixties Era Pontiacs are tough looking cars. How it mostly went downhill after 1970, with a few exceptions, is beyond belief.
Jim, thanks for another great post and accompanying pictures. It’s hard to believe, even knowing how everything played out, that the dramatic, beautiful style of these Pontiac B-body biggies would be progressively watered down from this high point. That’s not to say I don’t like other full-size Pontiacs which followed, but IMHO none of them looked as unquestionably good as the featured ’67. Extra points for the light patina on this one.
While you can’t go wrong with the 1965-70 GM full sizer’s I always thought the 1967 Pontiac front end was my least favorite of the 1965-70 Pontiac full sizer’s, fortunately the 1967 front end has grown onto me a lot, surprisingly I’ve thought the 1967 Oldsmobile B/C cars had the best looking front end of the 1965-70 Oldsmobile full sizer’s
To me the most important line in a car is the roofline. I love fastbacks, and nothing is a fastback like these big GM coupes. I always thought these cars were a little awkward looking when they were newer, but now I love the look. There was one parked in the front yard of a house in a little town I pass through on the way to Merced. I would admire it’s long smooth lines. I haven’t seen it in a while but maybe it’s getting a freshening up.
An earlier comment was about how unsafe these cars were. Well, these were the state of the art for American cars of the times. Looking back forty years sure they seem pretty primitive compared to a modern car with disc brakes, abs, traction control, air bags and other safety equipment. Back then you had to drive a car within it’s limits, and it’s limits were pretty narrow. Your average car of today performs like a sports car compared to these old tubs.
I’ve been trying to sell my old Mustang and had a young guy come out to take a look at it. Now my car is totally low spec with four wheel manual drum brakes but upsized wheels with radials. I asked him if he had owned or driven any old cars. He said no as I took him for a ride. I told him that this car was 45 years old. I explained that the brakes took a lot of pressure to stop and that you had to drive within the car’s limits. I told him that back in the day, the suggestion was to keep one car lengths following distance for each ten miles an hour of speed. Six car lengths at 60 mph! I let him drive the car for a bit as we went back to my house. He decided to pass and I don’t blame him. I had mentioned that this was not a car like those on TV, where they spend a fortune updating and upgrading it. It was just a car that had been maintained and repaired as necessary. It’s easy to lose sight of that when you look through rose colored glasses.
Built the year you were born? Pretty close for me. I had one of these with the original owner’s manual… date of sale was 10 days after I was born in December ’66. I still remember the symmetrical radio and heater controls.
Built the year I was born too! I sadly dislike this body style. I think the front end is hideous, the rear looks like it has a sagging butt and the taillights look like an afterthought. The ’66 was such a better looking car!
I was a big fan of the 1965-66 cars when new – in large part because my parents had two ’65 Bonnevilles, a wagon and a convertible – and even so, I was wowed by the ’67 models when I first caught a glimpse of them. Later I drove a ’66 Bonneville convertible for many years (1974-91) but still would have preferred a ’67, which had all the advantages of the ’66 – straight-line acceleration, huge trunk space, etc. – plus a larger standard engine, new safety features (energy-absorbing steering column, 4-way flashers, locking seatbacks on 2-doors), and available options that were either new for ’67 (cornering lights, 8-track stereo, etc.) or totally redesigned and improved for ’67 (cruise control, automatic temperature control a/c). The only thing really lost in the transition was the genuine wood veneer on the dashboard.
I have never warmed to the front end styling of the 1967 big Pontiacs, but the rest of the car is a beauty and this one is in a lovely period color. I have traveled quite a few times on US Route 40 in the eastern half of Indiana — it’s a great drive, with light traffic, 4 lanes divided outside of the towns, and a 60-mph speed limit. Most of the small towns along the way, like Cambridge City, are quite charming.
Look for the “class of ’57” showroom in Knightstown, where owners of a variety of 1957 cars keep their classics on display. We first happened upon the owners and their cars when they were celebrating their 50th high school reunion at a residence nearby on Route 40.
Controversial perhaps, but I’ve long admired the styling of the ’67 Pontiacs. Works beautifully in the hardtop body style. I wouldn’t touch the paint either, And while opinions may vary, I absolutely love the wheel treatment. Body color 18″ with vintage center caps? It may not be period correct, but to me, it looks absolutely outstanding! The only change I’d make would be to go to a little more sidewall-maybe a 50 series rather than a 40. The 40-series has a little too much “rubber band” about it.
Jim, I love your photos. I think the ’67 Pontiac is one of the most attractive bodies and for sure one of the most beautiful grilles GM ever created. Makes a very wide car even wider-looking. 🙂
Oh and one more thing…now I’m curious about the “very positive childhood experience with a ’68 Impala hardtop sedan”. That was a beautiful car too.
Thanks for sharing. i really appreciate it that you shared with us such a informative post.
I have never warmed up to the “Bunkie Beak” on this generation of Pontiac.
This butt-ugly nose job ruins the looks of the car.
Even though I’m mainly a Mopar guy, especially ’67-68 fast top C-bodies, 65-67 Bonnevilles are peak Pontiac for me. Just love them.
In 67 (and similarly for several years before and after) fender skirts were standard equipment on all Bonnevilles except wagons where they were not available.
On the Catalina, Ventura and Executive fender skirts were optional except on wagons. Oddly you couldn’t factory order skirts on a car that had the basic hubcap (dogdish).
The Brougham option on the Bonneville included power windows, fancier interior trim and nameplates. It did not include the Cordova (vinyl top) but it was a “recommended” addition at extra charge. The brougham option was only offered on the two door and four door hardtops.
Such a lovely car, Jim Grey, despite the annoying, albeit minimal, mods. But its the owner’s choice. I love the 1960s full-size Pontiacs, and once the ’65 Coke-bottle look took hold, the styling blasted off. I even like the 1969 and 1970 models, although they are less attractive with such heavy-handed front-end styling. “I Dream of Jeannie” wasn’t on in reruns in my area until 1985, so it was a triple threat of Barbara Eden in a harem outfit, the great Larry Hagman as a protagonist (well, he was also a protagonist in “Dallas” to some of us guys!), and maybe just beating out both of them, the stunning Pontiacs!!! I’d also been watching “My Three Sons” since the early 1980s mainly because Fred MacMurray had that calm and pleasant but authoritarian demeanor, Tina Cole as Katie was just a dream to look at, and the steady stream of Pontiacs was fun. But the Pontiacs in this were a little more reserved (think Steve Douglas’ annual change of blue Safari wagon), so in this case, Tina Cole was the incentive!!!! I was from a GM family, but we had everything but a Pontiac. Close friends of my parents had a 1967 Catalina that was ten to 12 years old when I remember seeing it, but I thought that car was sensational to look at! Not a slave to fashion or planned obsolesence, the husband once said, “Other people buy new cars.” It took decades for that wisdom to sink in, and I count that as one of the best pieces of advice I ever heard (or overheard)!