Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
When I still lived home nearly every Saturday morning you would see my Stepdad and I cleaning all the cars. I would usually do my two and my Mom’s. He would do his and my stepbrother’s cars (they kept their cars like crap and continue to today).
2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve
He has the new-car window sticker. Odd to me that on a car like that, the Day/Night mirror and a foam-cushion front seat were options.
I had posted on the Pontiac FB page I follow, where the car had been posted, that it was a Vista 4-door hardtop. A guy replied, "No pillar is called Ventura. You mean the Olds station wagon". Adam replied, "Ventura was a trim option on the Catalina" (correct). Guy replies, "Thanks Adam; finally someone who knows what he's talking about".
The sound you hear is me hitting my head on my desk!
I posted a page from the brochure showing that Pontiac called its four-door hardtops 'Vista' then, and Adam backed me up.
No crime in being wrong; the crime is being 100% confident when you're wrong (not Adam, the other guy).
They started that in '59, because that year "Catalina" became a stand-alone model, whereas in '58 and earlier, "Catalina" denoted the hardtops, both 2- and 4-door. The one exception looks to be the '58 Bonneville hardtop, which was referred to as a "Sport".
I guess in retrospect, having a "1958 Pontiac Bonneville Catalina" hardtop coupe would sound a bit awkward!
As much as I love my '67 Catalina, I do agree about '65 being pretty much the high point. The '66 is nice too, but I like the forward thrust of the headlights on the '65 a bit better. At least, that's the first thing that draws me to the '65, versus the '66. With the '67, the interiors seem cheaper to me. And the car overall has a fatter look to it. I still find it appealing overall...obviously if I didn't, I never would have bought one, and held on to it for nearly 28 years!
Ouch, just typing that last sentence, makes me feel old And another old memory that just came up, from when I was married. One time, my then-wife and I were in the office at the mechanic, and there was a car calendar hanging on the wall in back. That particular month was featuring a Catalina. I can't remember the exact year, but it would've been '63-66. Anyway, the wife looks at me and says "Honey, how come ours looks so much fatter than that one?"
The '66 full-sizes have a wonderful-looking optional wheelcover with a bit of a spinner. I'd have had to order that then.
I do like, too, that in '66 you could get a Brougham two-door hardtop and convertible.
Still, give me a '65. Despite the added length, I love the Bonneville Sport Coupe with buckets and console, rarely-seen.
In '67 they came out with an Executive wagon, as you know. It had woodgrain but the Bonneville wagon didn't; odd. I always thought that was done because if someone got the Ventura option on a Catalina wagon, you'd have otherwise had an Executive wagon! In '70 the woodgrain was optional on the Bonneville Safari wagon.
I prefer the '65 to the refreshed '66 for similar reasons to those Andre mentioned, but both are well-styled cars. I found this one having a white interior to be curious. Can't imagine they sold many 4-doors like that. We had a '65 Parisienne 4-door HT in that same paint color when I was a kid, but it had a red interior. I remember Dad bought it new, and I really liked it. It replaced a '63 Laurentian 4-door (think Bel Air) in a tomato red that had 3 on the tree and I believe a 6-cyl under the hood. The Parisienne was much nicer of course and had a 283 and Powerglide. For reasons I never quite understood we didn't have it long. It got replaced with a '63 Parisienne 4-door sedan in turquoise metallic. He may have had a financial setback that led to that, but I don't know for sure.
I had just finished watching the video Adam posted a few days ago on the '66 Catalina vs the '71 Bonneville when he posted video of the '65 acquisition. With the '66, while I like the turquoise paint and the matching interior color, the seats in the Catalina look pretty low-line, not Biscayne cheap, but not medium-price either. He praises the door panels as well which I judge in a similar way. Maybe this new acquisition will be a better comparison to the '71.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech, 2006 Acura TL w/nav
The sounds this thing makes during his drive are incredible. He normally is pretty reserved during his driving impressions but his reactions when it really takes off are unusual for him. What a bonkers car.
https://youtu.be/1n46p3JKjwE
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech, 2006 Acura TL w/nav
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
https://www.facebook.com/groups/pontiacmotordivision
A guy posted below me about 'Vista'--"It even shows 'Vista' on the window sticker", LOL.
RE.: The Interceptor--I have seen people liken the styling to the Avanti, although other than the long-hood, stubby-deck, quarter window, and wrapround rear window, I don't see it. The Avanti doesn't have any vents on the body, and has 'tumblehome'--the tucked-under lower body sides that GM took to new extremes in the '70's.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
I'm guessing a Hellcat, would have been the spiritual successor, makes too much power.
Not sure if he said which transmission it has.
It looks totally factory, not thrown together, which is a credit to the builders.
I haven't watched the whole '66 versus '71 teardown yet, but it just seems to me that the '66 Catalina starts off as a higher-quality car, to begin with, just in more basic interior trimmings, wheras the '71 Grand Ville is a bit more of the "lipstick on a pig" concept. Cost cutting here and there on the basic design, but then throwing on some nicer padding and materials to hide that fact. When he mentions about how the '71 is really no bigger inside, it really blows my mind, that something that big only has a trunk in the 17 cubic foot range!
One area though, where the '71 might be better, is the location of the steering wheel from the driver. On my '67 Catalina, I find it way too close for comfort, and on longer drives, my elbows and shoulders start to ache. I didn't notice it when I was younger, but once I got into my mid-40s it seemed to be a lot more noticeable. It's been ages since I've been behind the wheel of a '71-76 B/C-body, so I can't remember if they were much better, or not. I do remember an old test of a '71 Impala or Caprice...might have been Popular Mechanics, where they had an photo of one of their test drivers behind the wheel, holding his hands in a position of where he thought the steering wheel should be, and it was a few inches ahead of the actual location of the steering wheel.
Also interesting, that he said the '71 seemed like it was a sportier handling car than the '66. I wonder if that was simply because of advancements in technology? Back when I had my '69 Bonneville, even then I noticed it seemed like a big leap forward from my Catalina. Part of it was that the steering wheel felt like it was a bit smaller in diameter, but it also felt like the steering was a bit quicker. That Bonneville actually felt pretty modern in the way it handled. Well, modern for the early 90's when I had it, and I was comparing it to cars like my Grandmom's '85 LeSabre, or my '82 Cutlass Supreme. But it just felt to me like a larger version of those cars, and the added length only became a problem when I had to park it in a tight spot. But in contrast, the Catalina just handles like an "old" car.
So I'm guessing GM did some kind of suspension/steering improvements between '68 and '69, and the model year change was more substantial than just cosmetic. But then for '71, despite some of its shortcomings, they were able to modernize them even more.
I even thought that when I saw that '72 New Yorker interior posted the other day.
EDIT: I see the '66 is not like that; the '65 is. My mistake.
https://www.hemmings.com/stories/2022/01/11/meaty-rear-tires-hint-at-the-engine-swap-under-the-hood-of-this-sleeper-1980-chevrolet-malibu
“Split bench seat”… uh, no. “Original 3.23 Posi”… I don’t think so. Those van or pickup hubcaps don’t look right to me either. I’m sure it probably goes like stink, but let’s try to be somewhat accurate.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech, 2006 Acura TL w/nav
Edward Topolewski
Bill Pressler Thanks for your input, but I've read the window sticker...
I still maintain that's a Ventura trim package. I know this because my father ordered a 4-door '65 from the dealership with the Ventura trim level which was somewhat of an upgrade that eliminated the center post columns.
I replied, "I'm exhausted. There's nothing more that Adam or I can add".
Wow.
Like we were talking about here not too long ago--there sure seems to be a lot more dumb****ery on FB than other car sites I regularly visit.
Looking through the '66 sales brochure, the Ventura's interior is definitely different. Doors look a bit more thickly padded, and they don't have that horizontal contrast stripe that bisects the door panel. The lower edge of the door panel has an area that almost looks like it's designed to have carpeting installed.
With the seats though, they show a 4-door in cloth, and a hardtop coupe in vinyl, so it's a bit hard to directly compare. Interestingly, on the 4-door in cloth, the cloth looks like its just an insert that doesn't go all the way up and over the top of the seat. And, are those...headrests? On the hardtop coupe? In '66?!
Here's a page from the Catalina's section of that brochure. Looks like the same interior color as Adam's hardtop, just in a 4-door...
It's odd that the fabric part of the seat goes all the way up and over the top on the Catalina, but stops short of it on the Ventura. But on the plus side, the Ventura doesn't have that vinyl strip in the center (on the 4-door at least), and the fabric looks a bit nicer, to me.
The Ventura and Star Chief Executive cloth interior doesn't bother me, as it's nice cloth and the cloth goes almost all the way across the seat, instead of having a big vinyl bolster down the middle. I think that the cloth interiors were not available on the two-door Ventura and Executives, only the all-vinyl.
I remember seeing a gold '70 Ventura four-door hardtop for sale a couple years ago, that had a nice cloth interior which, like the '66 above, was a completely different seat pattern than the all-vinyl interior. It was nice....luxurious, but not reaaallll so.
Oh, I found that conversation on facebook. I was going to say something, but then I remembered that old line about arguing with some people is like mud wrestling a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it!
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport; 2020 C43; 2021 Sahara 4xe 1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica Wife's: 2015 X1 xDrive28i Son's: 2009 328i; 2018 330i xDrive
https://topclassiccarsforsale.com/pontiac/241874-1970-pontiac-ventura.html
It seems like such a minor detail these days, especially since nowadays just about everything has individual seats up front and the padded top of the console serves as the armrest. But I guess in those days, that armrest was one detail that separated the upper level cars from the masses!
No center armrest option on Venturas.
I remember that a center armrest was the sign of a luxury model, really....and if it also had one in the back seat (e.g., Bonneville Brougham), hoo-wee! LOL
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
But, now that they're not an everyday sighting anymore, I think they're kinda cool. Another attitude I've softened up on considerably is my opinion of brown shades. I used to absolutely despise a brown car. But now, depending on the shade of brown, and how it works with the car overall, I don't mind. And I think again, it's because there's such a sea of white, gray/silver and black these days, that brown is actually refreshing. I think owning that 2000 Park Ave might have made me a bit more receptive to the color, although it was more of a sandstone, than out and out brown. I think that '70 Ventura has just a touch of gold in that brown, that I find attractive.
On the subject of armrests, years ago I when I belonged to the National DeSoto Club, I remember in their newsletter someone did an article comparing the '57 Fireflite to the '57 New Yorker, to see if the New Yorker really was worth the extra money. Both were the most expensive full-line models in their respective divisions (not counting the limited production Adventurer and 300C). A '57 Fireflite started at $3487 for the 4-door sedan, while a New Yorker was $4173, almost $800 more. Both had 4-bbl Hemi engines and Torqueflite standard. I remember the writer saying the DeSoto's interior actually seemed nicer than the New Yorker's! The seats seemed to use nicer materials, and the armrests were a more expensive integrated style, versus bolt-on for the New Yorker. However, I do remember them mentioning something about an armrest making a difference in favor of the Chrylser. Relying just on my memory, I was thinking it was standard on the New Yorker, optional on the DeSoto. But then I looked up some pics of interiors to refresh my memory, and I'm seeing a lot of '57 New Yorkers without an armrest, and only a few with them. And no Fireflites at all with a center armrest. So I wonder if the difference is, it was optional on the New Yorker, and not available at all on the Fireflite?
Anyway, I do remember the author saying that, despite the DeSoto being nicer in a lot of respects, they still preferred the New Yorker, because it was hard to match that 392 Hemi with its 325 hp and gobs of torque. The DeSoto 341 put out 290 in 4-bbl form, which was good for its displacement, but still no match.
As for seat coverings, I still tend to think of the more of the surface that's covered in cloth, the better, because I remember those hot days in the 70's of having to put a towel on the seat, or you'd get burned. But, often, vinyl was considered an upgrade.
With the '57 DeSotos, overall the seat pattern seemed more ritzy on the Fireflite, but on the cheaper Firedome (which I have), a larger portion of the seating area was covered in fabric.
Fireflite:
Firedome:
Cloth interiors--in Studebaker-land, my favorite car is a 1964 Gran Turismo Hawk. Most have the standard bucket seats covered in optional all-vinyl, but the cloth inserts, which were standard, had a metallic thread running through them every so often. Although in my mind that's sort of a '50's thing, I like it. Studebaker knew the Hawk was old-line, as they often used the word "classic" in its advertising, but such was the beauty of the '53 that with admittedly pretty major revisions, it could still be sold as a '64 model. Pretty early on the final Hawks were recognized by the Milestone Car Society.
Really odd the things I remember...
2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech, 2006 Acura TL w/nav
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Plus, you got the door panels that were soft at the top, instead of the hard plastic on the base Catalina.
The Catalina Brougham took over for what was the Ventura option in '70, and the Bonneville got knocked down to what had been the Executive in '70, and of course Grand Ville took the place of the Bonneville in '71.
I don't know if I've ever seen a real car with it, but I always liked this brochure photo of the optional '72 Grand Ville Custom Interior (think "Brougham" in '70 and before). In a four-door you got a center armrest in the back seat too. Not even talking about bumpers, I don't care for what they did to the Grand Ville in '73--lots more fake wood inside; the door panels reminded me of stalks (stocks?) of cheesy 'Western' air rifles; instrument pods became square; fussy seat patterns with a bunch of interconnected diamond patterns, etc.
For looks, I'll take the '72 Grand Ville.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_potter_2000/3058028062
Didn't take long for the requisite, "Probably 107K miles".
That always cracks me up.
Look at that interior and tell me if that says 107K miles. I remember seeing them with half that mileage where the wood was cracking and peeling, etc.
I recall discussion about a plain-jane '68 Chevy II Nova coupe on FB with 30K miles. I believed it as the body was very solid for its northeast location during its life, and the low-buck original seat trim was in good shape. "Gotta be 130K" someone opines. People forget that back then with regular use, cars were usually shot by 100K. That the Chevy II had rust-free quarters and good cheapo cloth interior were proof enough for me of the mileage.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/207245510448803/posts/669591927547490/?comment_id=670497907456892¬if_id=1641946276878770&ref=notif¬if_t=group_comment_reply
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Still, I enjoy the 'All Original Cars' page a lot.
I really haven't looked at Adam's own stuff, but as I said, seems like he does post them on FB on 'All Original Cars'.
"d'Elegance"--that name is such a cliche, LOL. I think there's a Seinfeld episode where George's Dad is talking about their Cadillac and says, "It's a De-Elegonce"!
But the car itself, that Fleetwood--very nice.
RE.: YT and FB versus other car forums--everyone here has different tastes, but there's almost no churlishness.
Love that word--from Bugs Bunny cartoon, "Oh, churlish dolt!".
That isn't a pic of your car is it?
However, I'll admit when I first saw it, at a quick glance I was thinking hey, what if that WAS my car, in a past life, before I owned it? But, this one is a Fireflite, whereas mine's a Firedome. Main external cues are the FireFlite has that little "V" in the leading edge of the spear near where it says "Sportsman" and the Fireflite also has a taller backlite (although not noticeable at a quick glance in this pic). The Fireflite also had a bit more chrome, such as at the base of the C-pillar, and along the rain gutters, but that washes out in this picture.
Oddly, despite mine being a cheaper model, mine has a mirror mounted on the passenger side fender. It's utterly useless, but it's there!
In the Giant Eagle (supermarket) parking lot, saw two Trail Blazers (not the current one; the old ones) parked right next to each other, both backed into their parking spaces. On the way out of there, I saw driving, one of the Saabs that was based on the Trail Blazer. It was black and pretty clean other than a big goose-egg in the LR door.
In a driveway near my daughter's house, I saw a white '90's Lincoln Town Car. Sat nice at all four corners, no visible rust, nice wheels and correct-looking-width whitewalls, and it was the year that did not have the extra vertical separation in the rear door glass. No 'hillbillying' up, either, like aftermarket wide wheel opening trim or mock top. Those TC's to me are some of the best-looking ones, and I used to get them pretty often as rentals back then from Budget Rent-A-Car.
Only slightly related, but I am still searching for a new, or close, 2020 Impala, with not much luck. Most notifications I get are for ones with mileage in the 50's or 60's. I never really tried to look at a Lacrosse, as I like the Impala styling better. There are two Chevy dealers I use based on which sends me the best oil change coupons, within ten miles of me. There's a Buick dealer ten or so miles away too but I have no experience with them. I spotted this dirty, silver late Lacrosse in our hotel lot. I've never seen one so basic.