-September 2024 Special Lease Deals-

2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here

2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here

2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here

1960's Pontiacs

1246

Comments

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,802
    ...where I'd really question the miles. Those pedals just look like they have an awful lot of wear on them for "only" 40,000 miles!

    As for ball joints, well when I bought my '67 Catalina, it needed ball joints and engine mounts. I bought the parts myself. Forget how much, but I do remember it was cheaper to just buy the whole front-end rebuild kit instead of 4 ball joints. I think the labor to do the ball joints and engine mounts was about $500, and that was almost 9 years ago! So figure that whoever buys this car, unless they know how to do it themselves, is going to probably have to spend at least $500 just to put in the ball joints. And I don't even want to try guessing how much it would cost to get all the kinks out of the climate control system! If the fan part is burnt out, well then most likely the whole control unit in the dash needs to be replaced. Oh well, it's a convertible, so who needs air conditioning? ;-)
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    It sounds like the typical situation of someone wanting to bail out of a bag of problems.
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item- - =2404422652

    I'm posting this for two reasons. First it looks like a quasi-decent car (though it has it's problems). Second, the dealer is doing a nice job of marketing this car with a video. While I know this isn't the first time anyone has used video to market a car, I'll bet we'll see it used more and more.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    A common practice to sell yachts, but a bit over the top for a somewhat ordinary car like this. Still, it does show some professionalism so is to be commended on that level.

    I've got a digital camera with a "defect hiding" lens and those work great.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,802
    ...bought a '66 Charger from a place in Florida, only going by pics on the 'net, and a video tape they sent him.

    Looked great in the pics, I'll give it that much. Ended up being such a miserable POS once he had it trucked up here to MD that he actually got them to take it back!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Huh...what was the video able to hide exactly...all the hidden "details" or was it just that the video quality hid even the obvious defects?

    Mostly in yacht sales the video is not presented to show condition as much as layout and equipment. And I don't know anybody who buys a $500,000 yacht sight unseen.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,802
    ...well, I actually never did get to see this car. This guy was my co-worker, but I was out for about a week and a half with a bad case of pink-eye when he had it shipped to him, and then with the all-Mopar Nationals, I was probably about of the office for at least 2 weeks.

    Anyway, he drove the car to work the day it got shipped to him, and it stalled on him. He called me at home, and trie to pump me for suggestions. Nothing would get it started, so he had it towed to some place in Annapolis that's supposed to have a really good repuation.

    First problem was that the thing needed a new engine. It actually wasn't the original engine...I could tell from the pics that it was a newer, 1968-or-newer 318, and not the old 318 wideblock that a '66 Charger would have had. Turns out though that this thing's coolant passages were all silted up, and it was a miracle that the damn thing didn't overheat. The shop recommended just getting a whole new engine. On top of that though, they found problems with the suspension, places in the floorboards where sheetmetal was pop-riveted into place, with resulting gaps big enough to get a finger or two through. I forget why exactly the car wouldn't start, but in the end the whole estimate came out to about $3000, plus whatever a new engine (my friend was contemplating a crate 360). And this, on top of a car that he paid something like $9000 for already, and was represented as "turn key".

    Turn key and run for your life, I guess! I'll admit that it did look good in the video tape...the interior looked nice, and so did the exterior, but there was a lot of hidden evils just waiting to rear their ugly head.
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    http://adcache.collectorcartraderonline.com/10/0/0/39894700.htm

    In the Buick forum, we discussed the prospect of getting a car and just driving the wheels off of it. Personally, I felt there were too many issues with that '61 Electra that would prevent me from pursuing that option.

    And, while the same could be true with this '69 Bonneville, I think this car has more going for it in terms of better engineering and safety features.

    Assuming a favorable inspection and a reasonable purchase price, I'd be more apt to roll the dice on this '69 Bonneville (and just drive it as is) as opposed to that '61 Electra.

    Comments?
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,802
    I had one of those, but it was a 4-door hardtop. Mine was a 400-4bbl, but I think you could get a 455. It was a strong, fast car, and actually handled pretty well...it belied the fact that it was about 225" long and must've weighed around 4500 lb! It had been struck by lightning when the previous owner, my cousin, had it, and always had starter/solenoid problems.

    Y'know how sometimes an old car won't always start on the first try? So you'd have to shut it off, pump the gas, and try again? Well, with this one, if it didn't start on the first try, the solenoid would get stuck, and it would keep cranking and cranking, even with the key off. Only way to stop it was to pull a cable off the battery, resulting in a nice big spark, or keep trying and pray the car started!

    If I had the money at the time, I would've gotten it checked out and fixed right, but I didn't. First time it happened, I replaced both the starter and the solenoid. It worked for awhile, but then started doing it again. This time, I just replaced the solenoid (although you had to take the starter off to get to it, so it was still a pain!) After that, it just kept on eating solenoids.

    2 days after I got married, it died in my grandmother's yard, and I just left it. Finally got around to messing with it...I put on a new solenoid, which it promptly ate, and I took that as a sign to get rid of it!

    Overall, I do like the big '69 Pontiacs. I think they're a bit ugly, but in a cool sort of way! About as good looking as a car with a beak can be, I guess! The last big Pontiac that *really* does anything for me is the '67...I've had a fascination with them ever since I was a little kid. The '68 is just TOO "beaky", but they toned it down pretty good on the '69, and made the body more flowing. The '70 just doesn't work with that "neoclassic" front-end, and the bloated '71-76 models were just too ugly looking, at least until the square headlights cleaned them up. I liked 'em once they downsized for '77, but by that time, all the exciting stuff, like hardtops, convertibles, and big-blocks were history.

    With the '69, you'll probably have trouble finding specific stuff like trim and body parts, but mechanical stuff should be a breeze. In 1967-68, Pontiacs had a different suspension from other GM cars, so those parts were all unique, but I don't know about the '69...maybe they were more compatible by then? Either way, if you need suspension parts, they're not hard to find. I used Kanter when I needed stuff for my '67, and I'm sure for '69 it'd be just as easy.

    Parts availability would be a definite plus for the '69, versus that '61 Electra. For one thing, they made a lot more big Pontiacs in '69 than they did big Buicks in 1961, but by '69 they were sharing more parts such as transmissions, and the Pontiac 400 was in production all the way through '79, so parts are easy to find.
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    http://adcache.collectorcartraderonline.com/10/0/0/39894700.htm

    The ad for this '69 Bonneville convertible has a photo, but for some reason the photo didn't display when I pulled it up today. Weird.

    Perhaps it'll work later. Anyway, just wanted to pass this along.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,802
    I saw it this morning, when I first saw your post, but after that it wouldn't pull up. Wish the ad said which engine was in it! IIRC, the standard engine was a 400-4bbl with 360 hp, but the 2-bbl was most likely available is a credit option. It'd be really cool if it had a 455!
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    I had a 69 Catalina for my first car, albeit it was 13 years old when I got it.

    I loved the back end - liked the "frowning" face tail lights. Maybe due to it being my first car, but I like the 69's the best of any Pontiac full sizers of that period.

    They just don't build them like that anymore.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,802
    ...was about 23 years old when I bought it. My cousin also abused the hell out of it for the 3 years he owned it. It was a really sweet, clean car when he first got ahold of it. But then I only paid $400 for it, so I can't complain...too much.

    Come to think of it, the rear end was my favorite feature of that car. As ugly as the front was, the rear just had a beautiful, clean flowing look to it. It's kinda neat to think that Pontiac could combine ugly and beautiful all into one package, and make it work!

    I guess there is always an attraction to and fondness for your first car, too. Mine was a 1980 Malibu coupe...nothing spectacular by a long shot, but I still have fond memories of it!
  • wq59bwq59b Member Posts: 61
    I'm not seeing this '69's pic either, but Butternut Yellow is about the last color I'd chose for any car. You'd be FORCED to nickname such a beast the 'Bananaville', you do realize...

    The '69 Bonne's standard 360HP mill is actually the big journal 428 and the 455 didn't appear until '70.

    Believe it or not- non-mechanical parts will be easier to find for the '61 Electra over the Bonne; the collector market for the very late 60s full-size Pontiacs just isn't 'up & running' yet- stuff is scarce in a big way. It is much more so 'up' for the '61, with 'resale' likewise being quicker and of a better return. Mechanically you'll have no major problems with either as far as finding parts. I'll have to re-read the '61s ad; I don't recall all these discouraging 'issues' it had.

    My wife's aunt had a tired '69 Bonne 4-dr hardtop, but she sold it before I could get my mitts on that 428. I did buy her '65 Bonneville 4-dr hardtop- what a beautiful classy cruiser that car was- PW, A/C, 62K, all black. I put about 8K on it before selling it in '94.

    With the beautiful '61-67 full-sizes to choose from- I just can't whip up much enthusiasm over the '68 and up F/S. And dad had a '70 Cat which I remember fondly- but I've no real desire to obtain one. I actually like the '71s best out of '68-75 as far as styling goes, tho they're all attractive to some degree (just not as much as the earlier years!)
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,802
    ...so then my Bonneville would've had a 428 standard? I'm looking in my Consumer Guide antique car encyclopedia right now, and they're actually a bit vague about '69 engines. For some reason, they don't list the Bonneville's standard engine. The only engines listed for the Bonnie are a 370/390 hp 428, and a 265 hp 400, but both were listed as optional. The Catalina/Ventura and executive are listed with a 290 hp 400 standard. I've found other typ-o's in this book in the past, though. The sad thing is, I have 3 copies of the book...one that went through 1980, one that went through 1989, and now this one, that covers up through 2002, and they all have some of the same typ-o's!

    I'm guessing the 290 hp 400 is the 2bbl, and the 265 hp 400 is a 2bbl set up to run on lower-octane fuel?

    Okay, now I'm all confused...so what *should* my '69 Bonneville have had under the hood? All I remember was that it was a 4-bbl, but I can't tell a 400 from a 428 or 455 unless I look at the sticker ;-)

    Oh yeah, I did get a chance to see the pic of the '69 Parm found. It actually looked close to the color of my '67 Catalina! Did they call that color the same thing in '67?
  • argentargent Member Posts: 176
    I like the Consumer Guide books, but they have a lot of minor errors, and because they recycle the text from book to book, they don't get fixed.

    The tricky thing about the Pontiacs is that the standard engine depended on which transmission you ordered. I think with a manual transmission, the 370-hp 4-bbl 428 was standard (as it was on Grand Prix SJs), but the 265-hp 2-bbl 400 was standard with automatic, with the 428 an extra-cost option. (Standard on Catalinas and Executives was the 290-hp high-compression 400 2-bbl, with 290 hp, while the Grand Prix started with the 350 hp 400 4-bbl.)

    I figure that was a bit of fancy footwork to advertise a lower price, because I don't think more than a few hundred '69 Bonnevilles had the "standard" 3-speed manual. Most of 'em had automatic -- which of course you had to pay extra for, as well -- and thus the 428 pushed the price up yet more.
  • wq59bwq59b Member Posts: 61
    Ya: the '69 Bonne had the 360/428 standard- auto or manual. I am 95% certain that the 'manual/auto trans = different tuned engines' thing was finished with the advent of the THM for 1965. By '69, a manual in a Bonne was truely a rarity, of course. "A few hundred"? Try only 44 out of 89,334. And '370HP' is a typo too; the 370/428 is a GP-only engine. The only '69 Bonne engines available were the standard 360/428, the 265/400 (auto only/ rare in the Bonne) or the 390/428HO (all full-size except wagons/ extemely rare in a Bonne), tho I do have a source that also lists a 340/400 4bbl- but I have never seen mention of that in any other sources.

    And there's a subtle tell-tale sign to tell the 'non-standard' displacement Pontiac engines (195, 326, 350, 421, 428, 455) from the 'standard' ones (389, 400)- but if I told you what it was I'd have to kill you (joke!)

    Correct: the 290/400 2bbl is a high CR engine (10.5:1) while the 265/400 is the regular fuel motor (8.6:1). The 265HP motor was available across the board- I've seen one in a '68 GTO with a bench seat & a hood tach!

    In '67 there was a paint color called Champagne (code S) which was used again in '69 (code 63 on data plate but still S on paper). This is the only 'yellow-family' color I see shared between the 2 years- so that's possibly it- I don't know what Champagne looks like offhand. There's no RPO "Butternut Yellow" for Pontiac from 1955-1975, tho custom colors (either special mix or from other divisions) were done on occasion- so it still could be a possible original color.
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    http://autocolorlibrary.com/cgi-bin/search/searchpic.pl?1969-pont- iac-pg01.jpg

    Looks like that '69 Bonneville is Mayfair Maize - assuming the present color is original to the car. The seller probably doesn't know the "official" color name. But, Butternut was a pretty good guess.

    Or, perhaps the car has been repainted with a color the paint shop called Butternut.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,802
    ...is probably the color. It does look good with a black interior and black top. BTW Parm, thanks for that link...I was able to look up the paint choices for '67 with it! I can't tell exactly what color my Catalina is, though. Here's the link for '67:
    http://autocolorlibrary.com/cgi-bin/search/searchpic.pl?1967-pont- iac-pg01.jpg

    It's hard to match up the colors exactly because of screen differences, but mine looks like it might be either Mayfair Maize or Montego Cream.
  • wq59bwq59b Member Posts: 61
    Sorry for any misdirection; I was looking for a yellow color used in both '67 & '69 and my printed list didn't show Mayfair as being available for '67.

    That is a great site BTW!
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,802
    In some years, it even lists interior colors and vinyl top colors!
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    About a half hour looking in there!

    What amazed me was the variety of colors that were available that either I've never seen or else barely remember.

    Even, say a '62 Chevy. I guess some of those colors just weren't that popular when new?
  • argentargent Member Posts: 176
    I was just guessing when I said "not more than a few hundred" big Pontiacs had manual shift; it was _after_ that that I looked in THE STANDARD CATALOG OF AMERICAN CARS and saw that it was only 44 cars and 7 wagons for '69. Man, obviously _nobody_ except GTO or Firebird buyers wanted manual transmission by that point.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,802
    ...wasn't a manual tranny "technically" standard, but then every one was built with an automatic and priced accordingly, unless somebody ordered a manual?

    For instance, in 1957, the DeSoto Firedome supposedly came with a manual tranny standard, and then the Powerflite was optional, and then the Torqueflite optional above that. In reality though, I think all the '57 Firedomes and Fireflites were fitted with Torqueflites. The only time I've ever seen a manual or Powerflite was on the cheaper Dodge-based Firesweep.

    I'm sure GM and Ford pulled similar stunts. I could see some people wanting Catalinas or even Executives or Grand Prixs with manuals, but a Bonneville was all about luxury. Almost seems a waste from an economic standpoint to even offer a manual with it!
  • argentargent Member Posts: 176
    I think pretty much, yeah. Dealers generally did not stock cars with manual, at least not with a 3-speed stick (the performance-oriented cars with a 4-speed were another matter, although on most cars a 4-speed was an extra-cost option as well!), because they were not desirable, and nobody wanted to get stuck with an unsalable, manual-shift stripper on their lot. So while the manual transmission was technically standard, to get a 3-speed you would've had to special order one most of the time.

    Nonetheless, automatic was NOT standard equipment except on higher-end models. All Cadillacs had it by '53, as did the Oldsmobile 98 and high-end Buicks, and by the sixties it was standard on Lincolns and Thunderbirds, but in most cases it was TECHNICALLY an extra-cost item, ranging from about $175 (for Powerglide on cheaper Chevies) to around $240 (for Turbo Hydramatic).

    I think that's _why_ they made manual "standard." On a '69 GM car, automatic was one of the most expensive single options on the sheet, second mainly to air conditioning and some of the more exotic engine choices, so not making it standard let them advertise "low, low prices," even if no cars were actually sold for that cheap. Keep in mind that at the beginning of the decade, stuff like backup lights, turn signals, windshield wipers, and even outside mirrors were not necessarily standard equipment even on cheapo cars. A "stripped" base model really was...
  • wq59bwq59b Member Posts: 61
    >>"a Bonneville was all about luxury. Almost seems a waste from an economic standpoint to even offer a manual with it! "<<

    Interesting POV. That's exactly my opinion when the new car enthusiasts bemoan something like the current Bonne for not offering a manual; even tho almost none would be ordered that way.

     
    I do not consider having an automatic as an option a "stunt"- no matter the installation percentages. Pontiacs & Buicks didn't advertise base prices prominently in the 60s, seldom even in local advertising.

    The only situation I can imagine where this becomes questionable is if a considerable number of cars are built with the optional automatic and NO OTHER options. Then the base price -whenever infrequently advertised- becomes misleading. But the fact is that practically NO cars were sold with NO options- a situation that renders base prices pretty much irrelevant.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    In the excellent book, "Packard: A History of the Motorcar and the Company," the authors claim that when Buick introduced Dynaflow, the customer had to place a special order for a Buick with a manual transmission, even though Dynaflow was officially an option. Otherwise, Buick sent all of its cars from the factory with Dynaflow.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    They were aiming very hard at the womens' market-- back when ladies didn't "think" they could drive a stickshift.

    Actually, I've driven huge cars fromt he 50s/60s with manual transmissions, and I don't think it works in the very large sedans and coupes. Big cars should be automatics unless they are drag-strip specific.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,802
    ...that the advantages of a manual shift and extra gears become less and less noticeable as engines get bigger.

    I know the 4-speed tranny (and the 5-speed, whenever that came out) are the more desireable manuals, but would a 3-on-the-tree give much of a performance advantage over a 3-speed TH400? Like say, if my '67 Catalina had a 3-on-the-tree, would it be significantly faster?
  • blh7068blh7068 Member Posts: 375
    "would a 3-on-the-tree give much of a performance advantage over a 3-speed TH400?"

    Its possible. Can't speak for all but sometimes different rear axles were available on manual cars.

    I know on my bird the standard axle was a 2.73 with auto. Manual trannys came with a 3.08 as standard.
  • andys120andys120 Member Posts: 23,508
    those were actually fairly rare. By then most GTOs were automatics, particularly 'verts (mine was a ragtop). I don't have stats but I know that the vast majority of 60's musclecars were bought with juice boxes and 2bbl carbs.

    If it was really about performance you got the pillared coupe with few options on it not related to speed (these were the rarest).

    Damn, I'm going to miss this board!

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • carnut4carnut4 Member Posts: 574
    had the 383 with the big Chrysler 4speed, manual steering and brakes. Now that car took some effort to drive, even being an intermediate. The way that 4speed shifted, I think it might've been quicker in the quarter mile with a Torqueflite. If I had that same car now, I'd want it with a Torqueflite and power steering.
    Damn I'm gonna miss this board?
    Isn't there a way we could save it?
  • ndancendance Member Posts: 323
    is a funny thing. There were a bunch of models which were 4 speed only for one thing...personally, I've never owned an American high performance car with an automatic and have hit only a few when shopping...OTOH, I don't doubt that most GM A-bodies (especially Cutlass/422/Skylark/GS) have automatic transmissions.

    As to saving the board, I'm all for it too. The problem with having older car discussions on the other boards is that some numbnuts is always (I mean *always*) going to chime in about how well their Kia (or BMW, or whatever) does something better than the car being discussed. The average person has real difficulty talking about concepts in the abstract rather than bringing their own situation into the mix.
  • ndancendance Member Posts: 323
    I've never owned a Chrysler muscle car (always Chevrolet or Ford, never could hang with that goofy starter), but...*man*...those shifters are great honkin' things in RR's and their brethren. The 'Coyote Duster' is pretty cool, though.
  • rea98drea98d Member Posts: 982
    Carnut, remember what would be considered an intermediate in 1965 would probably be considered full-sized in 2003.

    And it's been said before, but I'll say it again:

    "Damn, I'm gonna miss this board!
    Isn't there a way we could save it?"
  • wq59bwq59b Member Posts: 61
    >>"I had a four speed '69 GTO... those were actually fairly rare."<<

    1969 GTOs manual trans installations actually were 44% (both 3- and 4-speed), and if you 'pull out' just the GTO convertibles, 36% had manuals. Thats not rare at all.

    In other musclecars- yes; manuals were much more infrequent, to the generally accepted point of being rare (the Buick GS is probably a good candidate here).

    The long throws of the column-shifted 3-on-the-tree probably negate much of the gearing/rear ratio advantage. My buddy had a 3-on-the-tree '53 Merc I drove a bunch- not easy to speed shift: your hand traveled almost 2 feet with each shift. Maybe by the late 60s they shifted quicker/shorter in general.

    I guess I haven't been here long enough to know: what 'ends' a discussion board... what's being referred to above???
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    Go to the Classic Cars discussion main page (showing all the classic car topics). At the top of the page, you'll see in red letters that Edmund's is shutting down the Classic Car discussions.
  • wq59bwq59b Member Posts: 61
    I see it now. Great- a civilized board with a bunch of knowledgible people having interesting discussions. Yea- that needs to go. I guess any reason behind it is inconsequential at this point.

    Anyone have any potential future congregation spots?
  • blh7068blh7068 Member Posts: 375
    "I had a four speed '69 GTO... those were actually fairly rare."

    A guy in my Pontiac club has a 69 Judge 4 speed RA 3...always brings home a trophy.
  • chris396chris396 Member Posts: 53
    I drove a Charger RT with a pistol grip 4-speed. It was like shifting a truck. The throws were very long.
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item- =2408211911
    This one will sell for $30,000+ as the reserve has already been met. This one has most of the goodies in that it's a 4-speed convertible.

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item- =2408239660
    This one is at $16,200 which is pretty strong for a hardtop - albeit a nice one as far as I can tell.

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item- =2407998242
    4-speed hardtop (currently at $8,100) that doesn't look as nice.
  • ghuletghulet Member Posts: 2,564
    ...looks great and has some nice 'luxury' options, but I certainly *hate* aftermarket speakers in the front doors at this price, and I'm not too fond of the overspray on that ID plate. Nice car, though.
  • keitharookeitharoo Member Posts: 1
    I had some work done on the Throttle (TPS and IAC) now the 1988 vehicle runs poor. Especially in Idle or pulling out from a stop. Then it shifts at the wrong speed. (2nd gear is +40 MPH, 3rd at about 70MPH) These shifting points gradually settle down to the normal speeds if I continue to drive. However if I turn of the car and let it sit for overnight or more than a few hours the problem comes right back. I was reading that the Throttle stop has to be adjusted if work was done on that area. Does anybody know how? Another symptom is the car will run fine at highway speed. I can drive it for hours at 55-65 MPH but when I stop and turn off the engine then try to start it again it sometimes does not turn over. I get real knocking, bucking and dies trying to get up to speed. I did the TPS adjustment myself with a voltmeter. (It was way off) Some drivability improvement was seen. Now I am trying to see if the same idiots who installed the TPS got the cable messed up. Oh yes, it has Air, Automatic and less than 100 thousand miles on the engine.
  • bobbotroncfh1bobbotroncfh1 Member Posts: 9
    Hi there, I'm new but you seem to know your stuff.

    I just picked up a '74 Nova with some Pontiac rims on it. The original steels were rusted out...

    Could you please tell me where these wheels most likely came from?

    Here is the ebay page. If you scroll down there's a picture of the wheels.

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=290137663928&- ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=019

    Any help is appreciated.

    Thanks,
    Robert
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,859
    I imagine that was a pretty common Pontiac wheel for several years, so it's hard to tell, but there was the Pontiac Ventura version of the Nova, that would be my guess (emphasis on guess!).
  • bobbotroncfh1bobbotroncfh1 Member Posts: 9
    Hey, thanks for the response. I now know that they're rally II's. What I don't know is if they put out different versions of those wheels. Either way, thanks!
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,802
    I'm not positive, but I think the Rally 2 came out in 1968 on Pontiacs. The big cars used a 5-on-5" bolt pattern, while compacts and intermediates used a 5-on-4.75" bolt pattern.

    If those are 14" rims, they most likely came off a Firebird or maybe a '68-72 Tempest/LeMans, or a Ventura like Texases said. If it's a 15" rim, then most likely it came from a '73-77 LeMans

    I'm not sure when the Rally 2 was finally phased out, but I know I've seen 80's Bonneviles (the RWD G-body model),Grand Prixes, and Parisiennes with them. Pontiac started offering a Snowflake Rally around 1976-77 and another style called the Honeycomb, and I think it was around that timeframe that the Rally 2 started to lose its popularity.

    I think they're sharp looking wheels. I have a '76 Grand LeMans with Rally 2's, and I want to get a set for my '67 Catalina convertible. Just been too lazy/cheap to get motivated on that project! :blush:
  • bobbotroncfh1bobbotroncfh1 Member Posts: 9
    Awesome. Thanks man. This forum is so cool. They're wrapped in Winston Californian I's.
    P215/75R15. So must be the '73-'77 LeMans then. How much do you think I can get for 'em? They're not that great condition. A little rust, and a couple of the emblems are missing, but all the ring covers (?) are there. Tread's pretty good for what its worth.

    Thank you very much for your help.

    Robert
    Northridge, CA
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    Remember that 1969 Catalina convertible we saw at Macungie with the messed-up Endura nose? How would you fix that and does anybody make aftermarket Endura noses? I'm always worried about those filler panels on my 1989 Cadillac Brougham but fortunately there are aftermarket sources for them. I'm sure you've seen how awful a Caddy looks when those filler panels go bad! Vomitrocious!
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,859
    Take a look at what they're going for on Ebay.
Sign In or Register to comment.