Vintage Car Life Review: 1965 Pontiac Catalina 2+2 421 HO – 2 Plus 2 Does Not Equal GTO

 

In the mid-1960s, Pontiac was riding high on its sporty image. The full-size Pontiac Catalina was a big hit, and the muscular midsize Pontiac GTO was a great success, so a sporty Catalina along the lines of the GTO seemed like a natural step. Yet, the Catalina 2+2 was a flop, selling far worse than the smaller, lighter, faster GTO. Despite its lack of commercial success, the 2+2 still had much to recommend it — Car Life tested a four-speed 2+2 with the Tri-Power 421 H.O. engine in April 1965 and called it “one of the most satisfying cars we’ve ever driven.” Here’s that test, along with some comments from the magazine’s 2+2 new model introduction in December 1964.

 

Pontiac first introduced the 2+2 for the 1964 model. It was a $290.52 option, RPO W51, available only on the Catalina Sports Coupe (two-door hardtop) and convertible. Like the similar Impala Super Sport, the 2+2 package didn’t include any performance hardware, but it came with bucket seats, center console, vinyl upholstery, and a special steering wheel and wheel covers.

 

This first 2+2 may have seemed like a logical addition to the Catalina line, but it didn’t sell well. Although Pontiac built 257,768 Catalinas for 1964, a mere 7,998 of those had the 2+2 option. The GTO option for the Tempest Le Mans, which the Pontiac sales organization had assumed would be a dismal failure, sold 32,450 units in its first year, outselling the Catalina 2+2 by more than 4 to 1.

 

Unlike the 2+2, the GTO had a clear unique selling proposition — it was the only way to get the bigger 389 cu. in. V-8 in the smaller A-body, which was technically a violation of corporate policy on intermediate engine displacements — and it was aggressively marketed. By contrast, the 2+2 was just another member of the full-size “bucket brigade,” and not very exciting. As Car Life remarked in December 1964:

It was not very enthusiastically received by the buying public, even with the sports car oriented name (borrowed from the Italian Ferrari 4-passenger grand touring coupe). The 2+2 started Pontiac existence just as did the Grand Prix—inauspiciously and unpromoted.

Pontiac tried a bit harder for 1965, making the 338 hp four-barrel 421 cu. in. V-8 part of the 2+2 package, along with a stiffer suspension, a Hurst shifter for the standard all-synchro three-speed, dual exhausts, and distinctive louvers on the front fenders. This raised the price to $418.54 for the hardtop or $397.04 for the convertible (lowered during the year to $409.68 and $388.63), but it made the 2+2 a little more credible as a performance package rather than just a trim option.

 

Pontiac being Pontiac, there was also a lengthy options list, with several more powerful engine options as well as four-speed manual or the newly available Turbo Hydra-Matic ($226.44 for either), eight-lug aluminum wheels with integral drums ($117.96 with the 2+2 package), and usual array of power assists and convenience options.

For 1965, ordering the 2+2 option deleted the usual Catalina identification, which inevitably leads people to insist that it was not really a Catalina, but a separate model. This would be true in 1966, but the 1965 dealer literature and the AMA specifications make clear that the 2+2 was still an option package for the Catalina, sharing the Catalina VIN codes.

 

Although the 1965 2+2 was still really only the sum of its mostly optional parts, Car Life liked it quite a lot:

Even if you have a fixation against Pontiacs, it’s easy to get excited about a car such as this, which is a lot more emotion, either negative or positive, than can be worked up over 75% of the current domestic automotive products. In fact, about all it takes to start an argument among carnuts [sic] these days is to say: “How d’ya like that new Pontiac 2+2?”

The 2+2 is the sort of car that inspires admiration, or completely rejects it. There seems to be little inbetween ground and no “mixed emotions” where it is concerned. It’s either your kind of car, or it isn’t. In our case, it was. It’s one of the most satisfying cars we’ve ever driven.

I can see why Car Life liked this car (which they went on to explain), but I don’t understand at all their contention that it was a love-it-or-hate it car. There was nothing polarizing about the Catalina, a popular, good-looking, mainstream full-size car, and even the hottest available engine didn’t change that. The test car’s 421 H.O. V-8 was a moderately hot street engine, not a high-strung racing mill like the discontinued Super Duty 421 — you could even get the H.O. with air conditioning, which the Fontaine Blue car pictured below has.

 

The editors continued:

What makes the 421-HO 2+2 such a pleasure, as there are many elements which enter into, and interact with, the car as a whole. It’s not just the brute power alone, nor is it the very roadable chassis, nor is it the quality of appointment nor the exterior styling. Rather, it is the balanced combination of all these things which create the overall impression of a superior sort of car.

Balance is probably the key word. The car has neither too little, nor too much of anything. Power is infinitely controllable, despite its ability toward roaring fierceness. Road-holding is precise and predictable, yet strong and inspiring. Riding qualities are firm without harshness and comfortable without indulgence. Gearing permits stunning acceleration on demand yet allows normal-speed dawdling without nervousness. Styling and appointment give tasteful distinction and dash without resorting to garish trickery or trimery. Balance of design, of performance and of component combination is the key.

Their test car didn’t have air conditioning, but it had the close-ratio four-speed with a 4.11 Saf-T-Track axle, the eight-lug wheels, a tachometer and the custom gauge cluster, quick-ratio power steering, power brakes, and an AM/FM radio. They also had the $3.74 Ride & Handling Package, which was stiffer than the not-very-stiff “heavy-duty” suspension that came with the 2+2 package.

The caption of the photo at the bottom reads, “STOPPING TESTS proved Pontiac’s brakes were adequate and average; they faded and locked when pressed for more than 18 ft./sec./sec. decelerations”

 

Even just two or three years later, as front discs became more widely available, the maximum deceleration rates the 2+2 posted would have rated “awful” rather than adequate. The eight-lug aluminum wheel/drum option improved brake cooling, but effective brake lining area and swept area were still inadequate for a car this size. Car Life offered little further comment on the brakes in this test, but in their new model introduction in December 1964, they noted that there was still some fade after two hard stops, along with rear lockup. They had judged the eight-lug setup only “relatively adequate” and suggested that “the hard driver might well look into Pontiac’s metallic lining option.”

 

The Tri-Power 421 H.O. cost an extra $231.26 with the 2+2 package, and provided a nominal 376 gross horsepower and 461 lb-ft of torque, compared to 338 hp and 459 lb-ft for the standard four-barrel 2+2 engine. Car Life explained:

Detail differences between stock and the HO engines are: 10.75 vs, 10.5:1 compression ratio, 288/302 vs. 273/389° camshaft timing, 0.409 vs. 0.406-in. valve lift, three 2-barrel Rochester carburetors (12.19 sq. in. throttle area at w.o.t.) vs. one Carter AFB 4-barrel (7.72 sq. in.) carburetor. Progressive, mechanical linkage for the three carburetors is standard for all manual transmission cars. Additionally, the test car had Pontiac’s new transistorized, breakerless ignition system.

Quick-bleed valve lifters permit higher rpm operation of this engine, giving a rev potential of nearly 6000 rpm, but for safety and longevity’s sake, it is generally recommended to keep the engine below 5800 rpm.

Based on the AMA specifications, the 421 H.O. cam had the same valve timing as the Tri-Power GTO engine, with the same 63 degrees of valve overlap, but slightly more lift (0.409 versus 0.406 inches). The transistorized ignition was not a standard feature of the H.O. engine — it was a separate $63.14 option. (For more about this option, see Part 1 of VinceC’s electronic ignition history.)

 

Given the poor accuracy of Pontiac’s $52.66 electric tachometer, which Car Life found a whopping 5 percent fast, it’s easy to see why a lot of owners added aftermarket accessory tachometers even on cars that had a factory tach. With the 4.11 gears and a close-ratio gearbox, having an accurate tachometer would seem more than usually important.

 

Such short gearing also made launch traction a problem, even with oversize 8.55-14 tires:

Applying the 421-HO’s power to the road for maximum acceleration is not difficult, just dependent upon tire equipment. Although the test car had optional 8.55-14s instead of the standard 8.25-14s, tractive ability was a matter of a delicate touch on the throttle pedal. Feeding anything over 2500 rpm through the clutch and first gear to the 4.11 Saf-T-Track (limited slip) differential produced smoke and spin.

CL recorded a 0 to 60 mph time of 7.2 seconds and a best quarter-mile time of 15.5 seconds, with a 95 mph trap speed, which was good, but not spectacular. They were quick to qualify:

Tires, street mufflers, driver-plus-passenger loading and some valve lifters that pumped up too soon limited the quarter-mile performance of this particular car. It could, and should, have done better with this gearing and equipment. However, at 15.5 sec. elapsed time, the CL testers got all there was to get, when limited to 5500 rpm shift points. Attempts to attain higher shifts achieved only pumped-up lifters and poorer times. Note that the first-to-second shift was made at 5000 rpm, however, as drag racers have found the car accelerates better through the early stages with this early gear change. Optimum times for the quarter-mile should fall into the low 14-sec. category when the car is more suitably tuned and equipped.

For comparison, here’s how their 2+2 compared with the Tri-Power GTO Car Life tested a month later, which had the same close-ratio four-speed with a 3.90 Saf-T-Track axle:

1965 Pontiac 2+2 4-Speed vs. GTO 4-Speed, Performance

Acceleration	2+2/4-Speed	GTO/4-Speed
0–30 mph	2.8 sec.	2.8 sec. [EST]
0–40 mph	4.0 sec.	3.6 sec.
0–50 mph	5.6 sec.	4.7 sec.
0–60 mph	7.2 sec.	5.8 sec.
0–70 mph	9.3 sec.	7.3 sec.
0–80 mph	11.2 sec.	9.2 sec.
0–90 mph	14.0 sec. [EST]	11.4 sec.
0–100 mph	17.5 sec.	14.5 sec.
Standing start ¼ mile	15.5 sec. at 95 mph	14.5 sec. at 100 mph

 

(Rows marked “[EST]” weren’t included in the listed acceleration times, but I estimated them based on the accompanying acceleration graphs.)

 

The 2+2 was a full second slower through the quarter mile than the GTO, crossing the line 5 mph slower, and took 3 seconds longer to reach 100 mph, which was not a close race. Whatever edge the 421 H.O. engine may have had over the 3-2 389 in power, it was clearly not enough to make up for the B-body Catalina’s substantially greater weight — between 550 and 600 lb heavier than a comparably equipped GTO. (Based on the AMA specifications, I think the 4,110 lb curb weight listed in the Car Life data panel was south of the mark by at least 129 lb, probably more.)

 

I’ll grant that the lifter pump-up probably cost them a little on top, but I’m skeptical that a “more suitably tuned and equipped” 2+2 could have done substantially better. The 1963 Catalina 421 Car Life had tested a year and a half earlier, which had the same engine and transmission with a 3.90 axle, couldn’t do better than 15 seconds in the quarter mile, even with a Royal Bobcat super-tune. Besides, any tuning tricks you could do with the 421 could also be done with the 389 in the lighter GTO, which would still win nine times out of ten.

 

Car Life nonetheless concluded:

However, it wasn’t the accelerative ability which impressed us most about this 2+2; it was its fine over-the-road manners. Hurtling this creature along the by-ways gives the driver the impression of a sporting-type car. It belies its bulk in the way it can be heel-and-toed and tossed about. Most big American cars develop mal-de-road under such treatment but the HO 2+2 takes it all in a thoroughbred’s style. As we said in the beginning, it’s pretty easy to get emotional about this kind of car.

Although that summation was very positive, CL‘s December 1964 2+2 preview test had offered a more qualified assessment of 2+2 ride and handling:

Happily, the 2+2 comes from the factory equipped with a slightly stiffer than normal springing and tighter than usual damping. Although this is not what we would rate “excellent,” it’s so much better than the standard Catalina that we think Pontiac deserves some praise. … We found the 2+2 somewhat more stable than its [Catalina] forebears over all types of surfaces and particularly in cornering. Better balance may be the key here, since the roofline seems to add more weight to the rear of the car. Or the slight revisions to the Pontiac’s front suspensions for ’65 may have improved the cornering ability to the point where the car simply feels better now.

The remainder of the main text is actually a letter from Car Life reader James R. Mansfield Jr. of Louisville, Kentucky, who had read CL‘s December 1964 new model introduction and offered his observations of his 1963 Catalina convertible, which had the same 421 H.O. Tri-Power engine (albeit with vacuum-controlled carburetor linkage), close-ratio four-speed, and stiffer suspension.

 

I’ll transcribe a few excerpts of Mansfield’s comments:

To begin the story of my experience with this automobile, let me say that it is the most powerful automobile that I have ever driven. With the 3.90 axle, it is difficult to leave a traffic light without causing enough tire squeal to attract every policeman within two blocks. If a person should accidentally open all carbs on such a take-off, the result is wild spinning and a lot of black smoke. If handled cautiously, the car is a pleasure to handle both in town and on the road, but the feeling of power flows back up through your foot to your head and you sometimes tend to feel somewhat younger than you are.

Mansfield said he hadn’t run timed acceleration tests, but had clocked the car at 126 mph in the measured mile.

The caption for the photo at the bottom reads, “ACCELERATION TESTS on the Carlsbad Raceway gave the 2+2 a plus for performance despite street-type tires and mufflers. Too much engine rpm on starts produced wheelspin; best technique was just to drive off line.”

 

Over the years, Car Life often took objection to the very short (high numerical) axle ratios found on many performance cars. Mansfield, who had ordered his car with the 3.90 Saf-T-Track, came to a similar conclusion on his own:

I always enjoy letting other automobile enthusiasts drive the car just to feel its brute power. One of these friends, an American Airlines captain who has owned sport cars and has been a car bug for years, described the power of the automobile in one word—dangerous. I had agreed with his description for some time and this, coupled with the 9 mpg which it got on a good day, caused me to change axles down to a 3.23. My gasoline mileage has now gone up above 12 and the automobile is considerably tamer at the traffic light and in the lower rpm ranges. The chief differences appear to be that I now must utilize the gearbox instead of ignoring it, and that the torque peak has moved up into the 80 mph range. The result of opening the front and back carbs at speeds in excess of 100 mph is still spectacular. …

Lest anyone think that the 3.23 axle is a cure-all, let me say that on a recent trip through the Colorado mountains, I found that the 3.23 ratio is too high for satisfactory starts on steep grades at that elevation. Also, in pulling a 1000-lb. boat and trailer, there are times when 1 even wished for a little more power than I have in first gear. I believe Pontiac was right when it chose the 3.42 as the best all-around ratio and, if I had it to do again, that is the gear I would choose.

If you didn’t plan to spend a lot of time on the drag strip or in impromptu stoplight confrontations, it was also sensible to stick with the wide-ratio four-speed, whose higher numerical ratios provided more dig even with a taller axle.

 

Mansfield also warned that his 421 H.O. engine went through oil at a rate of two to three quarts per 1,000 miles, which the factory insisted was normal. However, he still declared:

In conclusion, I will say that this is the finest road machine that I have ever driven—foreign cars included. It has comfort, performance and, in my opinion, handling that should satisfy anyone but a race course driver.

Despite such praise, performance-minded buyers continued to give the 2+2 the brushoff. Production for 1965 was still only 11,521 cars, while Pontiac sold 75,352 1965 GTOs. For 1966, Pontiac briefly made the 2+2 a separate model, with its own VIN codes, but sales were even worse — just 6,383 cars. For 1967, the 2+2 reverted to Catalina option package status and found only 1,768 more takers. Pontiac called it quits after that; they’d sold almost a million Catalinas from 1964–1967, but 2+2 sales totaled only 27,670, a dismal showing. The reality was that the day of the full-size performance car was already mostly over by this point, and big car buyers were becoming more interested in luxury than sportiness.

 

The editors of Car Life may have gotten emotional about their 2+2 tester, but this seems like a car that provokes milder sentiments. It’s handsome (more in the metal than in pictures, I think), but it was neither the best- nor the worst-looking ’60s Pontiac, and while it was far from the slowest, it was at best mid-pack in outright performance. Equipped like this, a Catalina 2+2 was somewhat more composed than the contemporary big-car norm, but neither the suspension nor the brakes were up to really aggressive use. For cruise nights or mellow Sunday drives, however, it still has a lot of charm, as long as you don’t try to square off against any GTOs.

Related Reading

Vintage Car Life Road Test: 1962 Pontiac Grand Prix 421 Super Duty – “The Fastest Accelerating Stock Production-Line Car We’ve Ever Tested” (by Paul N)
Vintage Car Life Road Test: 1962 Pontiac Royal Bobcat – Dry Run for the GTO (by me)
CC Tech: Pontiac Royal Bobcat Kit – “The Screwdriver Tune-Up” For Hot 389s And 421s (by me)
Vintage Car Life Road Test: 1964 Pontiac GTO – “Honest In Performance”? (by Paul N)
Classic Car & Driver Comparison: 1965 Pontiac 2+2 Against Ferrari 2+2 – 0-60 in 3.9 For The Pontiac? Sure! (by Paul N)
Vintage Car Life Review: 1965 Pontiac Tempest GTO – The Special-Order Supercar (by me)
Vintage Car Life Road Test: 1965 Pontiac Bonneville Vista – “Excellent Within Reason” (by me)