(first posted 3/15/2014) The Outtake yesterday of a 1986 Pontiac Parisienne, like previous popular features on full size 1977-81 Pontiacs such as this 1977 Bonneville Brougham coupe, this 1978 Bonneville Brougham sedan, and this 1979 Bonneville Brougham coupe, triggered many fond memories of these cars. The chorus of praise here for these full size Pontiacs and other GM B-Bodies makes one ask what the car magazines thought of them at the time. The answer is that they had very favorable thoughts, as shown by this review of a 1977 Bonneville Brougham from the November 1976 issue of Road and Track.
R&T reviews from four decades ago had a straightforward, technically focused style that differed sharply from the obsession with trying to be clever, often by being snarky, that took over car magazines by the 1990s. In keeping with this tone, the review starts with the obvious issue of size, comparing the Bonneville both to its larger 1976 predecessor and the comparably sized W116 chassis Mercedes-Benz 450SEL. (Saying that the W116 S-Class had a “trim size” shows how much standards have changed since 1977.) It then praises the layout and comfort of the interior and the improvement in trunk capacity. All matter of fact, and all praise.
The review continues its realistic examination of the Bonneville by praising the simplicity and durability of its engine, pointing out the higher complexity, cost and maintenance requirements of the more advanced Mercedes V-8. It continues with further praise for almost all aspects of the car: vision, quietness, ride, handling, and braking. The only false note comes in the praise for “the excellent Turbo Hydra-matic 200,” but since that transmission’s problem was long-term durability rather than shift quality when new, the statement was a mistake only in retrospect.
Fans of the GM B-Body here probably need no outside affirmation of their views, but many no doubt will still be pleased to see that they have the support of a reviewer that was not even a fan of this type of car, R&T having had a distinct bias toward sports cars and foreign cars. Furthermore, R&T gave its favorable review to a sample with the smallest 301 cubic inch V-8 and lacking the optional handling package; with more power and better handling, the appraisal almost certainly would have been even more positive. It is further evidence of the significant progress that these cars represented during the 1970s and their fundamentally sound design.
These were nice cars but I would not want a 301. Too underpowered. Would be nice with a 400 v8.
350 as the base V8 (for every B-body) for the remainder of B-body production would have been nice. I know “because CAFE” but I wager the real world fuel economy of a 2 brrl 350 as the base engine wouldn’t have been much different than the sad little smog strangled 6s and tiny V8s.
Whoever gave this optioned Pontiac to R&T should have their head examined. No 403 or handling package.
And how many were actually equipped that way? I think the idea was to test a version as would be most commonly sold.
“And how many were actually equipped that way?”
I think a person reading a magazine like “Road & Track” would be much more interested in how the hottest version performs compared to the general public.
In a more basic consumer information publication I could see testing the most mainstream options.
I kind of like the format used today where the high zoot trims get a full review but the most popular versions still get a “short take” test.
Did you read the opening paragraph? why did we chose the Pontiac Bonneville Brougham? Because it happened to be the one most available
This test was done months before the publication date, and months before the cars went on sale. What they’re saying is that this is waht GM made available to them at that early date.
I’m sure R&T tested other B Bodies in subsequent issues/years, but that’s what they could get their hands on at the time.
And it was the right choice, because it represented what these cars were like without being optioned up. R&T back then tried to be more objective, and testing a typically-built car that represented GM’s huge gamble with downsized big cars was much more important than testing a “ringer”.
I think you’re missing the point….
“I think you’re missing the point….”
I certainly might be. I personally would rather go for shock and awe.
If I was running GM’s test fleet at the time, I’d be giving every magazine the most hotted-up “pre production” version I could for every early test. I definitely wouldn’t make a 301 Brougham the most available Bonneville for road tests.
If publications wanted the mainstream version to test, I would tell them they would need to wait until they go on sale.
yes, and go read what Road & Track writes about today. I quit reading them around a year ago when I realized almost everything they reviewed was $80k and higher. Oh sure, they’d deign to stuff a “quick take” of a Sonata or whatever in the back pages, but other than that the rag was mostly about $150k Ferraris or $200k Mclarens.
Car magazines are dying largely because they’ve become completely irrelevant to the average car buyer. All they do anymore is cater to moneyed boomers or people who haven’t outgrown their middle school fantasies.
When the dealer body finally realized what a profound difference it made in handling, all subsequent Pontiac B’s in the Portland zone were ordered with the suspension upgrade (the package name escapes me). I recall it being less than $100. This would’ve been early 1978. When a Pontiac-GMC combo was profitable without any other makes.
Page 38 says the rear has leaf springs. No way, right? The A’s these were spun off from had rear coils. Am I not understanding something?
Good read, thanks for the post.
I noticed that too; slip up.
They also botched the bore and stroke dimensions. It should be 4.00″ x 3.00″ (102mm x 76mm) same as a Ford and Chev 302 or 301.6 CID.
That’s a pretty fascinating read now that, 30+ years later, we know the entire story.
Interestingly, the $7750 as tested price is $29,950 today, adjusted for inflation. In other words, it’s about the same as (slightly less than) the average price for a new car.
The difference between affordability then and now, of course, is that the best you could’ve hoped for was a 3 year note in the 70s; so a car that cost this much was somewhat less attainable to the average family then than now (and which explains why so many people drive $40k+ cars these days…).
The flipside though is if loan terms were not as extended as the are today, would many of these $40k cars (and trucks) be closer to being $30k cars?
3 year note at 12% interest, I might add.
I am impressed by the objectivity and lack of hyperbole in this road test. It gives the downsized Bonneville even more credibility IMO. As I suspect Motor Trend would have gushed somewhat more in their review. I would have trusted this review.
I laughed at the line, ” …since every respectable automaker has to have a brougham these days.” Sounds like RT is lamenting that fact.
Thank you for this article and the popular stories on this B Body Pontiac from the 1977- 1981 to 1983-1986 run. It is nice to know others feel the same way and miss these types of cars. The photos that are being shared and stories by others are interesting.
It is funny to note that interior became the base interior later. Pontiac did “Brougham” it up later. I think the 1980-1981 Bonneville refined this car and the Parisienne carried it out. It is funny how GM got the 1977 downsizing right and got the 1985-1987 one wrong.
I think that has to do with how GM changed in the 80’s and not in a good way with management and leadership.
It is funny how the SSE trim level became the “Brougham” of the late 1980’s and up until Bonneville died when at the end the GXP got that role.
Right. The 1978 base Bonneville received the 1977 Brougham interior, while ’78 Broughams got even more elaborate seating, similar to the 1978 Park Avenue.
They also had the best instrument panel, with “hidden” HVAC vents.
I like the Bonneville, but I don’t know if it got the best instrument panel! I love the Olds and Buick panels! I especially liked the round gages and clock on the Buick, and the big square glove box on the Olds. I guess it’s very subjective. I do think the Pontiac dash looks great with buckets and console, which I only remember seeing on the ’80-81 models.
You could get the most gauges on a Pontiac. Oil, temp, battery and a vacuum “fuel economy” gauge. Oldsmobile had an optional cluster, but I don’t recall it being as good as the Pontiacs, Buicks had none, except for an optional fuel economy indicator.
Good point. The Pontiac design definitely highlighted optional gauges (GM spelling “gages”) better.
The olds Rallye gauges were a real afterthought on that dash, they hung under the speedo on both sides of the column in a cheesy plastic housing similar to the dash, they looked tacked on which they were.
I’d take the regular Olds dash with the idiot lights over the Rallye pac.
The only one I’ve ever seen in person with the floor shift was a ’77 or ’78 Olds Holiday 88. It had sport wheels, and was pretty close to the Indy Pace car colorwise, with silver paint and red velour interior.
I’d like that, did it have a 403? I always liked the 77 Pace Car Delta 88.
Wow. 14.8 seconds to get to 60 mph? We have come a LONG way. That would be beyond laughable now in an entry-level economy car. I love these old cars, but looking at the cold hard test data helps dispel the misty-eyed romance we feel about them sometimes. Was the Pontiac available with a 350? I wonder how that and the 403 would compare in acceleration.
I was thinking the same thing myself. Just as surprising is the the 20 second quarter mile with a trap speed of 69.5 mph, and all on premium gas.
These did not require Premium fuel. That must be a mistake (the 91 Octane) or, did when was it we started recalculating octane? At any rate, 8.2 to 1 compression is a regular, unleaded fuel car.
I don’t know your age or experience driving these cars, but for those of us that lived through the era and owned them, the performance may not have been exciting, but as transportation they worked just fine – exactly as the article notes.
Yes, a modern Camry V-6 can cut the time to 60 mph in half, but 99.9% of the time, so what? Pulling away from a Burger King drive-through in a competent car 40 years ago was no different experience then it is today. If you are driving the Camry with a mind toward some economy, and not “beating” on your car, the trip to 60 mph is almost always far slower then the car’s potential.
The gas mileage in magazine reports tends to look poor, but they usually drive their test cars pretty hard. In stop and go driving, even with some care, my modern large vehicles don’t do a whole lot better then the 13.5 reported.
I’m not saying we have not made strides, it’s just that the numbers you are looking at could make the old days seem dismal – when this car was actually a pretty good all around day-to-day experience, and you’d be amazed how similar to driving most of the larger vehicles around today.
I do have experience. I was a kid when these were new, but I drove my parents’ 1978 Caprice with a 350 V8 a few years later when I was practicing for my drivers’ test. I also have owned similar cars as classics. And I agree, the numbers don’t correspond to the driving experience. I never thought a 1977 Caprice I owned with a 350 was slow. On the contrary, it felt fast and definitely torquey! I’ve owned several 350s (Olds and Chevy), a Grand Prix with a 400 and at least one 403-powered Buick from the era. No complaints. The 1979 Cutlass I had with a 260 V8 was wonderful and smooth, but SLOW. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was slower than 15 seconds to 60, but I never tested it.
The fact is, most modern cars are probably much faster and more powerful than they really need to be. At least fuel economy is now more reasonable, even with ridiculous amounts of power.
The takeaway may be that there is more to a feeling (or even reality) of speed and power in a car than raw numbers can tell.
Well, I am so close to 60 that I might as well call myself a 60 year old. I also drove many cars like this and do not remember them as being that slow. I simply found it somewhat astounding to see the numbers.
I understand what you’re saying, but beyond the ol’ nostalgia tour for about a week, I’ll take the Camry through the drive in window and on my daily commute each and every time.
I well remember those shuddering, heavy cars from back then that you could only park with a prayer. No thanks.
My ’53 Special takes 20 seconds to get from 0-60. It keeps up with traffic fine, but on the freeway is the problem…55-60 is its natural cruising speed.
Anyway, a 301 Bonneville won’t win any races, but you won’t feel unsafe in traffic.
The 301 was a slug. The 350 had 170 hp, and would have performed significantly better. I had experience with a ’77 Caprice with the Chevy 350 also rated at 170 hp, and it ran fairly strongly for the times; I’d guess 0-60 was around 10-11 seconds. The 403 didn’t have a lot more hp (185), but significantly more torque, and would have felt pretty well powered until one got into higher speed levels, where hp becomes the key determinant.
The 301 was nothing compared to the 265 engine coming for the 1980-81 model years. The 265 might be ok for the LeMans/Grand Am/Grand Prix but it feel underpowered under the hood of the Bonneville/Parisienne/Catalina/Laurentian.
You’ve driven a lot more cars than I did for perspective. I was surrounded by V-8s, and my sister’s 4 cyl. Mustang II automatic was a slug, which likely doesn’t describe how bad it was. “Unsafe at slow speed?”
People seem to regard the 305 Chevy a bit better than the 301 Pontiac. Not sure if it made much difference in the real world. The ’78 305 Caprice that was passed around our family from new through 16 years always seemed fine, just not exciting. The engine and tranny lasted the time we had it, and it broke 150K.
I’m pretty sure the ’77-’79 Olds 88s my dad brought home from the company fleet were 403 cars. They felt stout and fast compared to anything we typically had around. Probably similar to the ’76 350 4 bbl Cutlass I had.
A 307 ’82 Olds ’88 also made some rounds in our family. It felt competent, like the Chevy. But, not much doubt, it made jumping into one of the 350 or 403 cars feel pretty good. The 307 had various gasket problems and an eventual rough idle that no amount of money could seem to cure. And the AOD transmission trashed itself and was replaced with a 3 speed. Thus began a family migration to Panthers.
If the 307 was a slug, it was a lot better then one V-8 from the good old days. I did a quick drag with a friend driving a ’67 Impala sedan, probably with a 327. The Chevy was old, but seemed tuned well – it ran smooth. But, the Olds ditched the Impala in short order.
Imagine how the V6 would have done…
The 301 wasn’t a strong performer. Pontiac’s goal was to minimize engine weight, which they did resulting in an engine weighting less than a small block Chevy. That said, most of the big V8’s during this time were tuned to have very low peak power. This resulting in engines with strong (relatively) bottom ends but no top end power. So cruising around town even these weak engines accelerated with relatively low effort. Just don’t expect much when you get out into the two lane to pass someone.
The small block Chev was a much better performer. Up in Canada, our Pontiacs of this time had Chevy drivetrains, including the American named models. Road test magazine tested a 1977 4 door Caprice with a 305 2-bbl Chev. It ran:
0-60 – 11.8 secs
1/4 mile – 17.9 secs @ 76.8 mph
The 350 Chev’s were the fastest B-body cars of this era. They would out perform a 403. Car and Driver tested a 1977 2-door Caprice 350-4bbl It ran:
0-60: 9.8 secs
1/4 mile: 16.8 secs @ 79.3 MPH
These times aren’t too impressive today, but for a fullsize car in the late 70’s those times were pretty good.
Remember that this is not only a 301, its a 2bbl 301 with a 2.41 rear. Its probably the weakest V8 combo you could get in this Bonneville.
Interesting info. No wonder the Caprices with 350s that I drove felt faster. They were!
Yes, it is, but the Chevrolet 305 is also a 2bbl and the car times I quoted were with 2:56:1 rear gears. This is the weakest V8 the Chevrolet offered. The Chevrolet engines just pulled harder at high RPM’s and it was reflected in their superior performance. The 301 even has a superior bore/stroke ratio to the 305.
Furthermore, the 305 Caprice had an overall fuel economy of 18 MPG during the Road Test review.
Superior bore and stroke ratio? Is there such a thing. Oddly, at the time the 301 came out, everyone was going to more undersquare engines, as they were better with emissions and had better low speed torque. Maybe that’s part of its problem: poor low rpm torque, yet also poor power output because it didn’t breathe; the worst of both worlds.
I think the peak for overquare engines was in the late sixties or so.
Modern engines have become much more undersquare; My 2.4 L Honda engine has a 3.9″ stroke, along with a 3.43″ bore, yet its power peak is 7000 rpm. It’s the way to get decent torque , and the hp comes thanks to good breathing.
I should have said more ideal bore and stroke. Generally in these old American pushrod V8’s, the oversquare engines made more horsepower than the undersquare counterparts. Part of it had to do being able to run bigger valves. The 305 was specifically created for emissions, with its small bore. Build a 305 Chev vs a 302 Chev, the 302 will make more overall power with all else being equal. Or compare an early Olds 400 to a late Olds 400.
Build a 305 Chev vs a 302 Chev, the 302 will make more overall power with all else being equal.
Superior, on the race track, for sure. But swap in a Chevy 302 into a Brougham, and it would have been the recipe for disaster. it was such a peaky engine that one couldn’t even get it with an automatic of any sort.
A high peak power at high rpm back then made for a terrible engine for a family sedan.
That’s what made the bore and stroke of the Pontiac rather odd: since it made its peak power at a very modest 4000 rpm, being oversquare did it no favors at all; in fact, it undoubtedly hindered its torque output.
The Chevrolet was probably lighter too, this has an as tested weight of 4040lbs.
The Caprice was 3990 lbs, not a massive difference.
Paul,
it was just a general comment about the bore and stroke about overall power output. I was showing how much better the Caprice was with a 305 2bbl in performance vs the 301 2bbl Pontiac. This was mainly due to the Chevrolet small block having superior higher end hp vs the lame duck Pontiac 301. Any one who builds small block Chevrolets knows that the 305 is not a great engine displacement to build for performance.
The original 1967-69 Chev 302 was a “peaky” engine because it was basically a street legal race engine with a wild cam. It had been built to milder specs, it would have been fine in a street car. Essentially it was a 283 with a large bore and valves. Last time I checked, mild 283 Chevys were excellent little V8s that weren’t overly “peaky”. The only reason the 305 existed was to reduce emissions, not because of torque or low end power.
The only reason the 305 existed was to reduce emissions, not because of torque or low end power.
I guess we’ll just have to disagree. Because there’s no doubt in my mind that the more undersquare 305 was designed (instead of the 302 or even the 307) for two reasons: reduced emissions and improved torque curve at lower rpm.
FWIW, once the catalysts came along in 1975, it wouldn’t have been difficult to make a 302 “clean” either, as Pontiac was quite well able to do with the 301. And Ford had no problem making its 302 “clean”.
The 283 was designed for the mid 50s, when cars were lighter, and high rpm performance was desired. By the mid 60s, the 283 was struggling with the much heavier big Chevys. There’s a good reason they replaced the 283 with the longer-stroke 307 in 1968, rather than a mild 302, as the 307 intrinsically had a better low rpm torque curve. As all longer stroke engines do, other factors being more or less equal.
The demands and expectations of V8 engines changed substantially in the post energy crisis era and smog era. HP peaks dropped from 5000-5500 rpm to around 4000 rpm. Also, big block and larger displacement v8s were on the way out. To compensate for the drop in hp, as well as displacement, a fatter low-rpm torque curve was highly desirable. A more undersquare engine is the way to get that, and since about that time, all engines have become more undersquare. That better suited the type of use and power curve of cars of the era.
Which is why the Pontiac 301 is odd, for its very oversquare dimensions. And which probably why the Chevy 305 felt considerably punchier at lower rpm, due to being much more undersquare.
Another factor in the lessened importance in high revving in the small V8 was that the Powerglide had been consigned to the history books. The high-revving nature of the 283 was probably the one thing that made the PG a viable transmission for as long as it was. When you only have two gears, the engine was turning some pretty good revs at the high end of low gear, like when passing a car at 55 mph. I think that the THM gave Chevy license to trade off high rpm power for lower rpm torque.
Paul,
I don’t know if you have owned any 305 Chevy’s but they are not torquey engine. In fact a 301 Pontiac does make better low end power than the 305 2-bbl. Here are the stats for a 1977 301 Pontiac and 1977 305 Chevrolet, both 2bbl (Rochester 2GC)
Chevrolet:
145 hp @ 3800 RPM
240 ft-lbs @2400 RPM
Pontiac:
135 hp @ 4000 RPM
240 ft-lbs @ 2000 RPM
Since hp is a function of torque, these numbers suggest that the 301 Pontiac makes more hp and torque at low RPM, while the 305 is stronger in the upper range. Somewhere between 2000 RPM and 2400 RPM, the 305 starts to make more power than the 301. Yes, the peak power for the 305 is at a lower RPM, however, I’ll bet at 4000 RPM the 305 is still making more than the 301’s 135 hp.
So even though the Pontiac had an engine with a bore/stroke that you would argue is unfavorable to low RPM power vs the 305, it actually is a stronger engine the lower RPM. In fact, compared to the 302 Ford, the 305 generally made less torque and low end power. Throughout the late 1970’s and 80’s of all the 5.0L V8’s made by all companies, the 305 Chevrolet was generally had the weakest torque ratings. And I should correct myself, the other reason for the small bore 305 was saving on parts costs (same crank as 350 Chev) along with emissions.
Further, I wasn’t trying to argue the 283 is a torquey, rather that low-po versions weren’t “peaky” engines. I am not disagreeing with you that longer stroke engines generally make more torque.
My point was that the Pontiac 301 has a bore/stroke ratio that generally makes more high end power than the bore/stroke of a 305 Chevrolet. But in this case, the 301 Pontiac is actually the stronger engine in the low RPM and the Chevrolet is the better performer in the high RPM.
I didn’t intend to start such a big discussion, but my entire point of the original post was to show that the 305 powered cars were significantly better performing than the 301s. Geez…
Are we really splitting hairs about a 12 seconds vs 14 second 0-60 times? Ok hooray for the 305. A 2.41 is still worse than 2.56 and 3990 is still LESS than 4040.
I know this bore/stroke thread had gotten long, but I need to add a point about emissions, or more importantly, lowered octane unleaded gasoline, that was the result of adding cat converters for emissions. Big bores inherently are more prone to detonation, made worse with low compression “open chamber” head designs. This meant the engineers chasing their tails with further lowering compression to solve the detonation problem, until the bore/stroke ratio could be changed.
Modern engines, with knock sensors and electronic spark and fuel controls are a completely different animal, and four, valve head arrangements have improved breathing and power with small bores.
For further reference, I pulled a couple other numbers from the old large displacement sedans to show how well these “small engine” new b-bodies performed.
1976 Chev Caprice 400 4bbl
0-60: 12.8 s
1/4 mile: 17.58 s @ 78.6 MPH
1976 Ford LTD 460 4bbl
0-60: 11.3 s
1/4 mile: 18.2 @ 75.5 MPH
1976 Plymouth Gran Fury 400 4bbl
0-60: 12.2 secs
1/4 mile: 18.2 @ 77.7 MPH
1976 Ford LTD 400-2bbl
0-60: 10.3 secs
1/4 mile: 17.8 @ 76.2 MPH
The fact that the 1976 400 LTD was faster than the 460 shows how much variation there is in these test numbers. I take them all with a grain of salt, or a margin of error of about a second either direction (or more).
The 460 was a MT test, so it’d be a California emissions car. California cars were usually slower and this test I cited was on the slower side for a 460 car. Typically most fullsize Ford 460’s were mid-17 sec cars based on earlier tests. This one was slower than normal, but it’s the only 1976 460 test I have. The 400 was tested by Car and Driver, and it would be a 49 state car. Most 400 fullsize Fords ran high 17’s. During this era, the 400’s weren’t typically that much slower than a 460 (not counting 460 PIs).
Chris, just think – your Accord is actually faster than this!
Thanks for posting more b-body love, it helps me get through this long winter, waiting for spring to get my Parisienne out again.
For me, this post reaffirms that todays car’s and car magazines are just awful to look at.
Well, it may have been slow, but at least it got poor gas mileage. Probably a California model as well, Cars have improved a lot since those dark days. Especially considering how gasohol is now about all you can get in many states. An 800 lb weight reduction was a big step forward, though.
R&T was the most literate of car buff magazines; probably due to its founder being an engineer.
Another typo: the figures for mph/1000 rpm and engine rev/mi are transposed.
The speedometer error part is a little sad, but hell, it’s the 70s.
One thing I miss about these cars: the big body lean in turns. People pissing you off in the back seat? Just go around the corner without slowing down much.
Another confused road test.
Roadholding: is how well or not a car behaves in a tight turn or emergency steering situation round and round on a smooth skid pan to test G loading not Handling its roadholding or mechanical grip.
Handling: This is how driveable the car is when traction is lost ie the back end comes out or it understeers into a tree, good handling cars can be driven sideways quite easily under complete control by a competent driver.
My father bought a 1978 Bonneville Brougham in November of 1977. He ordered it optioned the way he wanted. It was white with the carmine red (bordello or brothel red to some) velour interior. It had the “loose pillow” look like the earlier Oldsmobile 98 Regency (see not all broughams were “Broughams :-). It also had the radial tuned suspension option. I don’t recall the option code but it was similar to Chevrolet’s F41. He ordered it with A/C (we lived in Texas after all), power windows, power driver’s seat (it was a split bench and the passenger side seat back reclined), full instrumentation including a vacuum gauge (fuel economy gauge), power deck lid release, and AM/FM stereo with a power antenna. There was no tape player.
It didn’t have a vinyl top (yea!) but it did have fender skirts – odd that because IIRC only the new Cadillacs also had them. Chevy, Olds, and Buick did not. He ordered the 400 cu. in. 4bbl V8. This was the true Pontiac engine; the same used in the Trans Am save for having different cylinder heads. The Bonneville was rated at 180hp. I believe the T/A was rated at 200 or 220. The rear end ratio was 2.41:1 (what!)
Don’t worry that Poncho engine, even in its smogged from and with that ridiculously tall read end, had enough torque to chirp the tires going into second gear if you really got on it.
Dad traded in a 1974 BMW 3.0S for the Bonneville (go figure) so he obviously appreciated a car that could move and was always looking to enhance the handling of every car he owned. I believe he traded the Bimmer because he had become pretty PO’d with the maintenance costs. His ride before that was a 1967 Cadillac which required nothing more than scheduled oil and coolant changes for over 120,000 miles.
How did he enhance the handling of the big Caddy. His first stop after driving from the dealership was to the tire store to have a new set of B. F. Goodrich radials and Monroe-Matic shocks mounted. We probably had the best handling Cadillac in town. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn he had considered getting the heavy duty suspension from a commercial chassis model for his modest 4-door sedan. And it was a true sedan with a B-pillar. Dad had no use for those “flimsy” 4-door hardtops. At least the Cadillac had frameless windows on the doors.
While the Bonneville certainly didn’t handle as well as the BMW and could not outrun it, the car held its own on the wide open roads of Texas and Arizona and, yes, it was very quiet. When I drove the car I would often look down at the speedometer and see I was doing 20 over or more. Dad drove the Pontiac for eleven years and close to 150,000 miles before he succumbed to the minivan disease. Pity.
The 77 Cadillac didn’t have fender skirts (except the old Eldo). Pontiac was all alone on that. At least when removed, it didn’t look like they were missing.
No fender skirts on the 77 Cadillac. At least Pontiac’s could be removed without showing undergarments.
I did not see it mentioned in the R&T article, but am I correct in thinking that the Pontiac 400 was still on offer in ’77?
Not according to my Standard Encyclopedia of American Cars, which only shows the Olds 403 available in the B-Bodies. There’s no ’77 Pontiac brochure at oldcarbrochure.com, but there is a ’77 Police car brochure, which does show the Pontiac 400 available except in CA, where the 403 was offered.
I’m guessing the Pontiac 400 may have been available in ’77 on these cars, but I wouldn’t bet on it. Someone else have a ’77 brochure?
Here you go Paul.
I mentions the 6.6L available as a 403/400.
That was quick! Thanks.
Yep it was available for sure, I have the owners manual for a 1977, it lists the 231 V6, 301, 350, 400 and 403 and I’ve seen a couple of them real live and in person.
You must have a different edition than the one I’ve got. Mine shows the Pontiac 400 as “optional” and the Olds 403 as an “alternate”, which I’m guessing means California or High Altitude*. It also says that in-between the smallest and biggest V8s, there were Chevrolet, Oldsmobile and Pontiac 350s available, all 4bbl and all rated 170HP. I know I’ve seen decked out ’77-’78 Bonnevilles with the 400 and wagons with the 403, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen one with any flavor of 350.
Auto parts sites seem to indicate that all the above is accurate, and also that the Chevrolet 305/2bbl was commonly substituted for the Pontiac 301 (even though it doesn’t appear as an option). They also switched from odd-fire to even-fire V6s midway through the model year, bringing the total number of available engines in the 1977 Pontiac Catalina to 47,385. Such is the madness that was GM once upon a time… personally, I love the wide variety available, regardless of how little sense it made.
*=Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that even though a particular engine may have been listed as “CALIFORNIA” or “HI-ALT”, you could still special order it in any of the 49 other states regardless of how close to sea level you were.
Sean: Here’s the scan form mine. It doesn’t show any Chevy or Olds 350s, just the Pontiac (based on bore and stroke).
It does show the Chevy 305, but only available in the Phoenix, Ventura and Firebird.
And the Pontiac 400 is shown as being available only on the Firebird TA, GP, LeMans, and Sunbird. Whoa! Sunbird? I think not.
The 403 is shown as optional on the Catalina, Bonneville and Firebird.
And the Pontiac 400 is shown as being available only on the Firebird TA, GP, LeMans, and Sunbird. Whoa! Sunbird? I think not.
Now THAT would’ve been something!
I guess the Standard Encyclopedia of American Cars is an entirely different thing from the Standard Catalog of American Cars, which is what I have, and which lacks any kind of tables like that.
The Chevy 350 “alternate” in mine might be a misprint, but I’m fairly certain all the other ones were actually available. Car-part.com, whose search function is based off the Hollander Interchange Manual, shows all of them except that one. It seems as if 1977 was the last year that the Pontiac 350 was manufactured, so I’m betting that the Olds (or Olds & Chevy) 350(s) only became available later in the model year when Pontiac 350 supplies ran out.
Autozone.com has an interesting breakdown of how common each engine was in any given model. Just as you suggested in a reply to someone else up above, the 301 was the most common engine choice in both cars:
Bonneville V8: 48% w/Pontiac 301
Bonneville V8: 33% w/Pontiac 400
Bonneville V8: 12% w/Pontiac 350
Bonneville V8: 5% w/Oldsmobile 403
Bonneville V8: 2% w/Oldsmobile 350
Catalina V6: 84% w/Buick 231 (even-fire)
Catalina V6: 16% w/Buick 231 (odd-fire)
Catalina V8: 63% w/Pontiac 301
Catalina V8: 18% w/Pontiac 400
Catalina V8: 9% w/Pontiac 350
Catalina V8: 6% w/Oldsmobile 350
Catalina V8: 4% w/Oldsmobile 403
Obviously, the Chevy 305 isn’t listed there either, so maybe that’s a goof as well, but I’d bet on at least some being built that way. The 305 seemed to end up in everything during those years.
If anyone is still following along, I apologize for the extremely number-heavy comment – I try to keep things light and easy to read as much as possible, but sometimes I just need to nerd the fuck out! Plus, it fascinates me that General Motors was still such a massive and confusing entity back then. It’s a project trying to unscramble minutiae like this… just imagine all the engineering that went into it!
It’s too bad GM doesn’t have technical papers available for Pontiac online. They do have them for Chevrolet, Cadillac and some Oldsmobiles – and if you really want to blow your noggin apart marveling at the complexity that goes into one single automobile, or if you just always wanted to know how much an optional AM/FM/Stereo unit impacts weight distribution in a 1977 Monte Carlo, head on over to: http://gmheritagecenter.com/gm-heritage-archive/vehicle-information-kits.html
Yes the 400 Pontiac was still available, but I don’t think many were produced.
“… but I don’t think many were produced.”
Was it a customer preference thing or a GM production constraint thing?
I’m guessing that high-displacement V8s weren’t exactly the style for the times, but why would the 403 outsell the 400 in a Pontiac?
Which one you got depended on whether it was 49-state, Cali, or High-Altitude emissions, although I don’t know exactly which was which.
What I do know is that it was irrelevant in Canada because the biggest we could get was the 350 Chevy in our Laurentians, Catalinas (yes Catalinas were part of our lineup starting in ’77) and Parisiennes. The other engines were the 250 inline six and the cam-lobe eating 305.
I believe the V8s that used in full-size Pontiacs from 1977-80 with California/high-altitude emissions equipment are the Oldsmobile 350 and 403(discontinued in 1979).
I’ve seen more than a few, and that’s since 1996, not new, I took a 77 Catalina 4 door with a 400 in on trade, I’ve looked at a couple of Bonneville Broughams that were for sale, both a coupe and a loaded sedan on 2 different occasions, both had 400’s, so there were a few of them around.
In these dark days of early EPA testing, you had to certify each car by engine and transmission. The certification was expensive and this lead to GM cutting costs by only certifying certain combos for the California market vs 49 state. So, if GM certified the 403/auto for California, it could just sell that combo in any b-body sedan as a “6.6L”. Most customers didn’t know the difference or care.
In the late 70’s GM was switching to “corporate engines” as opposed to divisional engines. This resulted in the mess of engines we have in the late 1970’s. During this time Pontiac did have a 350 and 400 engine, but they were being phased out of production, while Pontiac focused on their new smaller 301 (and later 265). The new 301 was a short deck, thin wall casting, light weight block and didn’t share much with the “old” heavy Pontiac V8’s.
This lack of Pontiac V8’s caused many Pontiacs to have other GM division engines. It was also seen in Firebirds, where many 6.6L were actually Olds 403 engines rather than superior performing 400 Pontiac.
Nice Merc.
Those Bonneville’s were tough as nails, rode and drove wonderful. We had a 77 Electra Limited with the 403 and it was fast, especially after the removal of the catalytic converter as soon as the warranty expired. The Bonneville grew more handsome with the trim upgrades.
Most engines of the era were chocked by crude smog control. Simply removing the cat and advancing the time unleashed the best. Do many states allow desmog still?.
Nice article, by the way, Robert, thanks for uploading. Part of me definitely appreciates these cars but as someone else mentioned above it probably is a nostalgia thing and for today’s daily driving something newer is probably better.
Of course I’ve been binge-watching “The Americans” for most of tonight so have been getting quite a heavy CC dosage there. I remember the article on here about it last year and we finally decided to start watching it. Great show and tons of great cars!
There was a Bonneville of this vintage on the season opener if I recall, a really loaded car too, with a sunroof and snowflake wheels, it looked pretty nice.
Why was the change to stalk mounted dimmer switches seen as a positive?
Is it a manual transmission thing, because I know with an automatic, my left hand is a lot more likely to be occupied than my left foot at any given moment.
The change of location was likely two-fold; first, due to rust in the floorpans, and second, the wiring would catch less debris on the steering column.
The fuel economy and 0-60 are not good on this ’77 with the 301 and 200 transmission. Too bad they didn’t test a “B” with the suspension package or a better engine.
I wonder if that bronze ’86 Parisienne had the 307 + 200R4 like my ’86 Brougham.
I get 15-16 average, 24 on the highway and it’s about 12-13 sec 0-60. It never struggles like the 301 did in the road test. The overdrive transmission surely helps as does the 307 which is well matched to the 2004R. Same powertrain in a Parisienne should be good for 12 sec 0-60 and even better mileage. The 200R4 is not related to the weak 200. It’s a great transmission and more sought after than the 700R for older muscle cars needing an overdrive.
That ’86 would be a much nicer daily driver than the ’77 and considering the basic designs are just 10 years apart a much, much better driver than the Toronado. I really liked that ’86.
I dunno how they got such low mpg, a 301 with this combo should be able to get in the 20’s on the highway, we had a 1979 LeSabre with the same combo that would get in the 20’s on the highway. I imagine this was a very green press car, maybe not broken in yet, probably driven aggressively by the R&T staff.
Actually, the TH200-4R was based on a TH200, but GM made a ton of improvements to the transmission when it added the OD. Although the TH200-4R isn’t bullet proof, it is fairly reliable overall. I have owned several to high mileage without failure.
I have owned the 307, TH200-4R powered b-bodies and 305 TH700-R4 powered ones. I always preferred the Chevy drivetrains to the sluggish 307 Olds. However, with both combos mid-20 MPG’s weren’t an issue on the highway. The 305’s are “peppier” and more lively in my experience than the 307.
This was especially true test driving two full size Parisiennes, one a 1985 and the other a 1986. They were identical except for the power trains. The 1985 had the Chevy 305 with 9.5:1 compression, knock sensor and 165 HP and 245 torque tied to a 2.73:1 rear gear and 700R-4 transmission. The 1986 used the Olds 307 with 140 HP and 255 torque tied to the same 2.73 rear gear and 200R-4 transmission. The difference was instantly noticeable. Off the line they felt similar. But after 30 MPG the small block felt way quicker and wound out faster and at a higher RPM. The Olds with it’s distinctive burble felt all done in and winded at 30 MPH and the power came on much weakly then on after when the trans shifted to a higher gear. Hoghway passing power was interesting too. The Olds motor felt adequate up to about 60 the again felt weak and lacking whereas the small block just kept pulling.
I could swear that the 1979 LeSabres and Bonneville sedans I drove with the 301 2BBl V8 felt quicker or just as quick as the 307 1986 Parisienne I test drove many years ago but I’m going by memory here.
Re: The review itself. Very cool, and I think very fair and balanced. I’m not exactly sure what reviewers objection, other than trendiness, is to the “American” interior. This continues to date. Every car does not need to have ass-cupping sports car bucket seats inside. What is wrong with a “living room”. If you are not actually driving a sports car, I should think you WOULD want a living room. Commuting by car is often stressful. I don’t get why someone wouldn’t want it to be as comfortable as possible. Hatred of gadgetry is also irksome to me (though it reflected my mother’s views on cars for years, when she would refuse to pick ones with a/c or power steering). What on earth is so aggravating to these folks about 6 way power seating? But of course it’s okay once Mercedes has it. Then it’s not irritating at all, but AN ENGINEERING MARVEL.
Re: slow acceleration. A 13-14 second 0-60 time was perfectly adequate when the speed limit was 55 mph, gas prices were through the roof, and everyone was paranoid about it getting much worse.
0-60 on my ’87 Brougham (140 HP Olds 307) and ’77 Electra (155 HP Buick 350) were/are 14 and 11.5-12 ish seconds, respectively. But they have no problem eventually reaching and cruising comfortably at speeds between 60-80 mph. The only situations they are hard to work with is entering the freeway with oncoming 80-85 mph drivers, and (only in the case of the 307 powered Brougham), climbing steep hills while maintaining highway cruising speed.
I would note the Mercedes compared to the Pontiac appears to have been tested as even slower.
Of course, if everyone would just obey the law and not insist on driving 80-90 mph in a 65, the cars would keep up with traffic fine…
There seems to be some inconsistencies in this particular road test. The curb weight as tested is listed as 4410 which is what most B-body station wagons weighted at the time. I have owned or known many people with 77-79 B-body cars and loads of 80-90 examples. The 77-79 examples weighted in around 3690-3900 LBS for coupes and sedans and the 80-90 versions were a bit lighter than that. The 14.8 second 0-60 time is obviously a no to low mile green car also reflected in it’s very low 13.5 MPG. Most any 77-79 2BBl 301 coupe or sedan I have driven in Bonneville or LeSabre form returned 17-18 combined MPG and as much as 23-24 on the open road and did 12.0-13 seconds 0-60. The 4 BBL option in 1979 was quicker still and actually slightly better on fuel in the Bonny. The LeSabre’s in these years only had a 2BBL for the 301. 1977-78 305 2BBL Impalas/Caprices were a tad quicker and about the same on gas. For 1979 the 305 was detuned to just 130 hp but I never drove a 79 example so don’t know if they were much slower in the real world.
For 1980 the Bonneville/ LeSabre both dropped the 2BBL carb on the now optional 301 and offered only a 4BBL setup. All the B-body cars lost some weight these years, gained lockup torque converters and higher pressure lower resistance tires, all to improve mileage. Chevy lost it’s 250 L6 and substituted the 229 V6 and it’s 305 adopted the 4BBl carb. The small V8 engines instead were 2BBl equipped in the form of the Chevy 267/Pontiac 265 and the under powered Olds 260 which was reduced to a mere 105 HP this year compared to 120 for the others.
For an interesting comparison to this Road and track article I have a 1979 Consumer Guide Auto test that has a Bonneville Brougham sedan with a 2BBl 301 weighting in at 3780 LBS, 140 Hp 235 torque and 2.41: rear gears that averaged 19 MPG in there tests and did 0-60 in 12.3 seconds.
I know it is against the rules not to think this was the worst styling of the ’77-’79 B bodies, and the fender skirts get a lot of negative comments. But, I’ve loved these cars since day one, and happily had the opportunity to drive one for a week. Make mine a slick top two-door with the sunroof, please.
It is? I always ranked the Pontiac 3rd or possibly 2nd depending on bodystyle. The Oldsmobile 88 was by far my least favorite styled of the 77 Bs with its blocky anonymous styling and unflattering (coupe)greenhouse shape. The Pontiac looked more like a tarted up Chevy with the Buick roofline but that’s not a bad thing, the details are attractive and with the right options(snowflake wheels or Rally IIs) they look fantastic.
I think its the only car with fender skirts I like. Nice chiseled good looks and sharp wheels.
Back in the day I remember my 77 GP with the 301 wasn’t a rocket, but 21 mpg highway was much appreciated in 1984. When rebuilding the carb I discovered that the casting looked like a Quadra Jet with the secondaries blocked off and very small primaries.
Even here in Western New York, among the rust capitals of the nation, I met a ’77 to mid’80’s B-body Pontiac on the road yesterday still in nice condition, even in the colors of the car in the article. From what experience I had with them as used cars back then, they demonstrated many of the good qualities described and for a car to drive distances comfortably and reliably, you could do worse. As a daily-driver collector car, they’re still relatively cheap.
My father bought this very configuration (other than color) in 1977. Coming from his previous ’74 Grand Prix (400/4V), the Bonneville was a straight line slug… but adequate. My other impressions were an exceedingly smooth and quiet ride, excellent passenger and trunk space, much-improved fuel mileage, and pretty controlled handling… for the day. He normally kept cars 2-3 years, but kept this one for 5, as he liked it so well.
American cars of that era cannot compete with the germans. Built quality of the germans was by far superior, beginning with sheet metal. Restoring a Merc or BMW of that era is a trifle. Restoring a GM product is nearly impossible, no matter how good drivetrain is (and Cadillacs had very good drivetrains from my experience, but even their bodies were lousy tin cans as well).
0-60 in 14.8, 13.5 MPG? Not a big performance improvement over the previous “whales”.
I liked the 1980 reskin better (stylistically) as it did a much better job tucking in the bumpers.
It’s difficult to convey how forward-thinking and ahead of its rivals General Motors seemed in the late 1970s for what would be the last time. GM owned about half the American marketplace and they seemed untouchable. Everyone knew we needed smaller and more economical cars, but we still wanted all the room and comfort of the big cars we were used to. And GM delivered in spades with the downsized B and C bodies; it was well known that Ford and GM had cars like it on the way, but they were still two years off. GM had them now, while Ford and Chrysler tried to compete with LTD IIs that were just facelifted Torinos and Monacos that were just Coronets with a new grille. These new Bonnevilles (and the other B body cars) seemed so small and toylike to me at the time; a mere five years later they looked like lumbering dinosaurs again.
My family had this car, a 1977 Bonneville Brougham sedan ordered from the dealer with our choice of the 60 or so optional features. We chose green two-tone paint that wrapped over the roof – my mom found it distinctive as the Caprice offered only three two-tone combos and green wasn’t one of them, and Chevy’s two-tones didn’t wrap over the roof like Pontiac’s did. Pontiac also offered more glitz in the form of super-wide chrome rocker panel moldings, fender skirts, cornering lights, a starburst emlblem that hid the trunk lock, and wide vinyl body side moldings that protected that dazzling metallic paint.
Inside, there were even more choices as we ordered 6 way power driver’s seat, reclining seats, full-length door armrests with power windows, red and white door-open warning lights, extra interior lighting like reading lights; AM-FM stereo with power antenna (but no tape or CB), an analog clock (digital was also available), remote RH outside mirror, thermostatically-controlled aircon, a built-in trash binnacle, rear air shocks, and a limited-slip differential.
Our car had the same drivetrain as the R&T test car. My dad insisted on a V8 but figured the smallest one would do which meant the new-for-1977 Pontiac 301 (I was unaware at the time that each GM division had unique engines). Although acceleration with the 301 looks poor on paper, it seemed plenty adequate in real life driving, at least by malaise-era standards. It was quiet, smooth, and torquey, easily keeping up with traffic. Only when you floored the pedal looking for extreme acceleration or drove up a steep hill would it become apparent that there wasn’t any reserve power beyond what was used for typical getaways from stoplights. Also more than adequate was the base suspension, which rode smoothly and didn’t keel over too much during cornering. It helped that we ordered the largest tires available.
If I had to describe the Bonneville in one word, it would be “substantial”. It oozed solidity in a way that GM cars from the 1980s simply lacked.
I wasn’t there, but I’m having a little difficulty with Road & Track’s claim that “Oldsmobile is responsible for steering columns” for all the variously-branded B-bodies. My understanding is the Saginaw division of GM made steering columns for every GM vehicle. So what exactly would Oldsmobile have been responsible for? Telling the Saginaw people how long the steering shaft had to be and the dimensions from the coupler to the clamp…?
Daniel, I completely agree. Saginaw Gear was responsible for manufacturing nearly all GM steering columns. They sold that steering column to other, smaller OEMs (e.g., AMC). It was distinguished (not in a good way) by a turn signal stalk that felt like it was going to snap off every time you used it.
Chrysler also bought tilt columns from Saginaw rather than making their own in the mid-late ’60s through the ’70s and possibly into the ’80s.
Flim-zee-chintz™ turn signal switches, yes. Also the Briggs & Stratton ignition lock cylinder would wear such that the key could be removed in any position. This was so common people actually believe it was meant to be that way (link is to a comment in a whole post on the subject).
Chrysler were good students; they built that same ignition lock failure into their own in-house Acustar column launched in ’90, though it didn’t happen anywhere near as often or predictably.
Regarding “removable” keys, my still-perfectly-working ’03 Avalon with 264,000 miles has two keys. The primary one is so worn that it can be removed when running, but the less-used second key cannot. Sometimes in the cold I can run back in the house to get something with the car still warning up in the driveway. I’ve never had a two-sided “modern” key that did that, just the old GM and sometimes Chrysler keys. My ’90 S10 did it when it was only a few months old. Never had an old two-sided Ford key do it. Before the Toyota I didn’t think that still happened, but the Avalon is way more long-lasting than any key, or most other cars, apparently.
Our ’63 Impala wagon key was designed to be removable after starting, probably because the optional child-proof rear door lock posts needed something shaped like a key to raise them. You also needed a key to lower the rear glass.