Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

1960's Pontiacs

2456

Comments

  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    The linkage differences wouldn't prevent swapping--maybe I should qualify that with "as far as I know" :-). In fact the same year car could have either mechanical (sticks) or vacuum (automatics) linkage.

    I know the '65 heads were redesigned for better breathing. Is the problem with swapping manifolds just a port mismatch, or is it something like a bolt pattern or coolant passage mismatch?

    My understanding is that Pontiac used only two versions of its cylinder head and that one was used on base 389s and 421s, the other on hi-perf 389s and 421s. This would suggest that 389 and 421 intakes are interchangeable.

    I can't remember ever seeing black painted 8 lugs but there's a black one shown in the '66 GTO brochure as an option. They were never available on GTOs but I'll assume the photo shows the correct '66 version available on the fullsizers.
  • wq59bwq59b Member Posts: 61
    389 & 421 Tri-Power set-ups will interchange (as long as the head's year break is adhered to). In other words, there is only 1 Tri-P intake manifold part number per year. Carbs have slightly different part numbers indicating either manual/auto or 389/421, but they too all interchange. Another qualifier tho is that the '66 Tri-Ps have larger bore center carbs- obviously they only mate to '66 intakes.

    Yes 2+2s are relatively rare: 64: 7998 units, 65: 11521, 66: 6383, 67: 1768.

    "...the same year car could have either mechanical (sticks) or vacuum (automatics) linkage."
    True, many performance-minded full-sizers upgrade their vacuum linkage for mechanical.

    "I know the '65 heads were redesigned for better breathing. Is the problem with swapping manifolds just a port mismatch, or is it something like a bolt pattern or coolant passage mismatch?"
    All of the above, I believe... definitely bolt patterns.

    "My understanding is that Pontiac used only two versions of its cylinder head and that one was used on base 389s and 421s, the other on hi-perf 389s and 421s. This would suggest that 389 and 421 intakes are interchangeable."
    Pontiac had way more than 2 heads, but they all shared the same bore spacing & bolt patterns, so they all interchanged. In fact, (not to further confuse things) the blocks will accept heads from more years than the heads will accept intakes. But to answer your post- as stated above; there was only 1 intake PN per year (1 4bbl, 1 3x2, etc- excluding race parts).

    "I can't remember ever seeing black painted 8 lugs but there's a black one shown in the '66 GTO brochure as an option. They were never available on GTOs but I'll assume the photo shows the correct '66 version available on the fullsizers."
    The GTO brochure 8-lug was never released and I have never heard that any exist today. They should look radically different (if I recall they have 3 fins between each lug nut) vs. the e-Bay 2+2's 8-lugs.
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    Yes, the brochure 8 lugs have three fins between each lug nut. Who is this, Jim Wangers? :-)
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1873986701


    $14,100 didn't take it (at least officially). Interesting that the seller reduced his reserve during the bidding process. If $14,100 did meeting the reserve, I shudder to think what the original reserve was.

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Well, great, now he still ownes it. Lotta good putting it up for auction did him. It was a very fair bid, he should have taken it. There is no more money in that car IMO. It's a very weak color, it has a few problems, it's non-matching #s, not a show car by any means, and he wants how much more? 18 bids and a ton of lookers---the market has spoken if you ask me.
  • wq59bwq59b Member Posts: 61
    I disagree. As someone earlier questioned- the '65 2+2 auction did not state 'non-matching numbers', only that the Tri-P wasn't original. '64-67 Pontiac blocks didn't have VIN stamps, so you're left with engines & date codes alone for verification. The Tri-P in no way is a detriment; most people would prefer Tri-P and a complete yet unrestored set brings $800-- you could sell it and set-up 3 fully functional 4bbls for that. The color is more interesting- reds & blues bore me. Especially red. And from the pics it's local show car condition at least. Check out that die-cast tail panel- not a pit to be seen and 'impossible' to find NOS.
    While a 421 HO and a 4-spd would be worth more, even a few thou higher than 14K is still a fair 'market' price for a relatively nice and rare piece.
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1875004342


    I'm generally not too much into resto-mods (particularly a hardtop), but this one looks pretty neat. If you can believe what you read, sounds like its been fairly well sorted out.

    However, I do love the quote "BEING A PONTIAC, IT DRIPS A LITTLE OIL AROUND THE REAR MAIN". What's being a Pontiac have to do with it?

    Either it needs fixed or it doesn't, period.

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    RE: the previous auction result----I think the ad states that the block is not from the car. Well, the guy can try again if he thinks there is more money in it. But with 18 bidders and hundreds and hundreds of lookers, I don't know where he thinks this imaginary buyer is, who is going to pay more.

    It's the buyers who set the market after all, not the owner's opinion, or mine or yours. Only votes count are the ones that comes from the checkbook. They all voted NO over $14,100.
  • wq59bwq59b Member Posts: 61
    http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1875004342


    Yeah, that sure looks via pics to be a very nice one (I have a soft spot for '64s, having owned 3). Note that the A/C is aftermarket, not factory.


    ""BEING A PONTIAC, IT DRIPS A LITTLE OIL AROUND THE REAR MAIN". What's being a Pontiac have to do with it? Either it needs fixed or it doesn't, period."

    Pontiac's do tend to leak at the rear main seal- tho by no means do they all (none of my 3 did). It's a minor annoyance, especially compared to removing the engine & trans to fix. Many people would rather put a mat on the garage floor and carry a quart or 2 with them instead of footing the $$$ bill for R&R.


    I get your point, Mr S, about "they all voted no", but that was only the people who happened to click on that auction during those 7 days. Those are not neccessarily all the potential future owners of the car... or in other words '100% of that car's market'. One 7-day auction cannot establish the true average market value of a given make/year/model of vehicle. Don't forget a great many of the auction's counter's hits were very likely multiples by the same parties- so even the hits reflects less potentials than it shows.

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,676
    My '67 Catalina does that too, just a little. My mechanic said it would be best to just leave it alone, unless it got really bad. There's something about it that'supposed to be pretty hard/expensive to repair. I think he said something like "rope seal" or something like that?
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    I was told the same thing on my 67 Galaxie - the main seal is a "rope seal", and it does drip a tiny amount every so often. Mechanic said original seals from that time period often do that when they get old.

    Want to talk about laziness? My lower radiator hose connection at the radiator has a small leak when it is under pressure, but the coolant is only 15 months old (new water pump was installed right when I bought the car), so I don't want to drain all the antifreeze out into a drain pan contaminated from oil changes to fix it. Sounds like a spring project to me. I took a 2nd job to pay for upgrading the car, but working a 2nd job on Saturday doesn't give me the time to work on the car - Catch 22.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Well wq, the reverse also holds true. One "mega-sale" on one Pontiac at one auction doesn't set a new price either.

    When I was giving an opinion as to value, I was thinking of all the similar cars sold around the country and what they bring, and the bids were right in line with current value.

    If anything, Ebay bids are a bit higher than market, so a $14,100 result may be generous. Obviously, bidders were hesitant about the car to go full bore on it.

    You aren't going to get top dollar for a car without documentation, it's that simple. This car has questions about it which either the seller has to answer before the auction or the bidder has to hedge against while bidding in the dark.
  • wq59bwq59b Member Posts: 61
    Yea, that's true too, Mr S. Luckily for Pontiac-ers, for $35 and the car's VIN you can get factory documentation (build manifest) which would completely detail the car as it left the assembly plant-- so all originality questions could be answered. One can even do such for a bit more $ via credit card & fax for quickest results. But unless the car in question is a borderline #1 condition, 'option upgrading' usually does not degrade the value or break the sale for most Pontiac-ers. It's the true show cars or extremely desirable combos where this becomes more important & pivotal.
    It's hard to make black & white 'value fairness' determinations from 72 dpi internet snapshots. 14K may very well be generous.
    I watched an e-Bay auction for a drop-dead gorgeous red/red '64 GP 421 HO 4-spd earlier this year, 19K orig miles and about 2 dozen photos- it was as perfect as anyone could tell- it f'ing glowed! It was bid to 19K and didn't meet reserve. If you like those cars- there's NO WAY you could repro one for that amount... and it still wouldn't be factory correct. Does the fact the auction ended at 19K mean that's a fair value? Like you (or someone) said; once the check's signed, that's what it's worth. I guess I agree with that, in non-obvious cases.
    I'm gonna be watching this '64 Bonne- temptingly nice. Hard to find finer lines in the '60s.
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1875004342


    I've been in contact with the seller to ask about the front seat adjustment and steering column adjustments.


    The car lacks a tilt column and the only seat adjustment is the 'ol manual fore & aft. Plus, there's no pull-down, center arm rest. Bummer! By the way, the current owner says he has a 42 inch waist and weighs 250 pounds. Hope the seat springs still have some tensile strength.


    Bonneville was Pontiac's top of the line. Didn't any Bonnie buyers ever breakdown and spend an extra $200 +/- for 4-way or 6-way seat adjustment, tilt wheel and center arm rest?


    Of course, I'm making the assumption these optional features were available on a '64 Bonneville. You could get them on other full-size GM models that year.


    One other thing, this car has only received one bid so far - for the minimum/opening amount of $8,000. Of course, it still has over 8 days to go.

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,676
    ...that my '67 Catalina 'vert came with a tilt wheel, and a/c, although it's just a bench seat with no armrest. So I'm sure that some Bonneville buyers, somewhere, sprung for a few more options!

    I still remember my Mom's response though, when I asked her about her old '66 Catalina, which she bought new when she was 17. I asked if it had a/c. She said "why would it have air conditioning...it was a convertible!"
  • wq59bwq59b Member Posts: 61
    Any '60s GM manual seat is only going to have the 'fore-n-aft' only adjustability. Power options in general were only starting to slowly become more popular in the 60s. For '64 Pontiacs (not including A-bodies) only 17.6% were equipped with power front seat and only 8.3% had tilt (first year: '63).

    I never had a problem with the manual bench/ fixed column in my '64 Catalina and I drove it every day for 2 years in perfect comfort.

    Parm-- have you had comfort issues with '60s cars before?? You certainly could shim the manual seat as far as fore/aft tilt goes, and even effect the seatback angle slightly (more so if you wanted to go more upright).
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    My main issue is that I don't want to spend a significant investment for a car that's not comfortable to sit in. If figure, why gamble on a car with zero seat angle adjustment when I can get a car with a 6-way adjustable seat and remove all (or at least, most) doubt that I can get comfy.

    I don't have any special "medical" issues or anything. I just don't want a driver's seat that's permanently locked in the "upright position" with no hope for adjustment.
  • carnut4carnut4 Member Posts: 574
    Just make sure you take a good test drive before you buy.
    The "bucket" seats in my 62 Impala SS are identical [except for upholstery pattern[ to the ones found in all GM cars of that era. For me, the cushion and angle of the seat and steering wheel is very comfortable. Of course, you can change the angle by shimming the seat on its track.
    Some seats I remember being uncomfortable were some of the Tbirds, and some of those Mustangs. GM pretty much gave you comfort-at least with the buckets-in front.
    Back seat comfort was another story-especially in coupes and convertibles!
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    Sorry, about the title of this post. Couldn't resist the musical reference ;-)

    So, what's all involved in shimming the front seat on it's track? Can you shim from the front, thereby increasing the backward rake angle? Will this work on both bench and bucket seats?
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,676
    ...I'm guessing that it's just putting a metal spacer between the base of the seat frame and the floor. The bolts that hold the seat down extend pretty far below the floorboards, so there's some room to play with and still have the seat bolted firmly down.
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    So, would these spacers go above or below the seat track?
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,676
    Basically, there's just four bolts holding in the seat, which you take off from underneath the car (well, bucket seats would have four each). The threaded studs themselves are actually a part of the seat tracks, welded on. These studs go through the floor boards, and the seat is then held in place by a nut that goes on underneath the car. They're pretty long too, about 1 1/2-2 inches, so I'm guessing you'd be able to raise the seat by maybe 1-1.5 inches.

    If you raise the front part of the seat too much though, you might have to raise the back part a bit. I don't know if increasing the rake too much up front might cause undue stress somewhere?
  • wq59bwq59b Member Posts: 61
    '59-65 GM full-size seats (of which I am most familiar) are not as andre1969 described (other years very well may be tho!). The seat brackets each are attached to the floor with 4 bolts (that would make 8 bolts for bench, 16 for buckets). These go in from the interior side and thread into a strongly-reinforced area of the floor- no nuts.

    That's nitpicking really, the end result is that you can add shims/spacers both between the bracket & the floor, and between the bracket & the seat. If done at the front of the brackets, obviously this will raise the front of the seat cushion bottom and ALSO lean the seat back backwards more. If you add a lot of shims, you should make them angled to maintain a good 'seat' of the seat against the bracket/ bracket against the floor. The reinforced plate is strong enough to withstand this easily. It should be quite possible to reduce the seatback rake by increasing the height of the 'tilt-stop' bumper on buckets. On benches I think something more involved/customized would be required.

    Parm- as I said- I was in complete comfort (in that I never thought/wished it was different) in my '64 Cat where nothing adjusted except fore-n-aft. You should try a '60s GM out first before eliminating all these potential vehicles for you merely because they don't have the rare power adjusted seat. You might be totally fine with them. They certainly weren't a rampant problem when new.
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    A good explanation. Sounds like the simplest way to go would be to install spacers between the bracket and the seat.

    You're right. Ideally, it would be nice to sit in every car I'm smitten with. But, the reality of it is, I can't.

    I'm in Indiana. So, if I find a car I really like in Oregon that has only fore-aft seat adjustment, I don't want to really push pursuing it and spend the air fare for a test drive only to find the driving position to be less than comfortable the second I get behind the wheel.

    On the other hand, I KNOW for sure I can get plenty comfortable in a car with 6-way adjustment. So, I look at a 6-way seat adjustment as a way to increase my chances of being happy with what I get. Or, looking at it from the other side, it decreases my odds of disappointment and is one less thing I have to worry about.

    Take that blue '64 Bonneville as an example. Cool car! And, I'd look damn good driving it (well, good for me anyway). But, with only a manual fore-aft adjustment, there's no guarantee I'd like it unless I get myself down to TN and climb behind the wheel - at which time I may find the trip was a waste.

    I don't always agree with Fernando's mantra of "It's better to LOOK good than to FEEL good." For the money I'm going to spend (which for me is a lot), I demand both! ;-)
  • ndancendance Member Posts: 323
    why not...

    1) Take out original seats
    2) Store carefully in garage
    3) Put in a decent seat of aftermarket seats
    4) Put back in old seats when the car is sold

    :ducks:
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    . . . but these colors have always been attached to convertibles. Still, I "gotta" say, this '64 Bonneville has definitely caught my attention. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1875004342


    While this car doesn't really fall into the full-blown "resto-mod" category, the chrome American Mags (which I love) and the after-market A/C certainly give it that look.


    I'm of the opinion that its value is probably a bit less than if it were bone stock and in as equally good condition. Having said that, CPI shows the value of a '64 Bonneville hardtop in "good" condition is about $5,800 with an "excellent" example being $9,600. By the way, they have these same values for '64 Catalinas as well (does that seem right?).


    The bidding on this Bonneville is currently up to $8,300. So, if you buy into the argument that it's no better than "good", then it's currently over-priced. But, $8,300 does fall in between the good and excellent values if you're on board that train.


    Price aside, it gets back to the age-old question, which is the better classic to live with? A convertible? - which carries it's own mystique and delivers the open-air driving experience, but at the cost of lessened security, the lack of a whistle-free lid when top up driving is a must (ie., saving one's skin from the super nova-like effects of the mid-afternoon July sun).

    Or, is the better choice (to live with) a hardtop? - which offers more structural rigidity, more stereo speaker placement options and probably less maintenance/repair costs. But then again, the top is always up - whether you want it there or not.


    If there ever was a car that could make me "switch sides", this '64 Bonnie just may be the one.

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,676
    ...I didn't realize the old GM seats were attached in that firmly! I was just going by what little experience I had with seats, which was limited to pulling the bucket seats out of my totaled '69 Dart GT and swapping them into my bench-seat '68 Dart 270!

    I've never even bothered to look under my '67 Catalina to see how the seat is bolted in...I figured it was jus one bolt at each corner.

    As for seating comfort, the two Pontiacs I've had, the '67 Catalina 'vert and a '69 Bonneville 4-door hardtop, fit me just fine. Strangely enough though, the convertible feels like it has more legroom, especiallly in the rear. Go figure.
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1875250512


    $18,200 didn't buy it the last time this was on Ebay at the beginning of the month.


    If at first you don't succeed . . .


    Let's see how close it comes to $18,200 (which I thought was pretty generous) this time around.

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I wonder how many Ebay deals go sour after the bidding. I guess that's not a statistic likely to be publicized but I'd guess 10% or so never come down. I know that even at real auctions, where you can actually strong arm the bidder and where you've pre-qualified him, still there are cars "kicked back" for one reason or another. Given Ebay's less supervised arena, I'd expect a failure rate that was substantial. by normal auction standards.
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    Last time it was in Ebay it received a high bid of $18,200 which didn't meet the reserve.
  • ghuletghulet Member Posts: 2,564
    ...what IS the reserve on this car? I mean, it's nice, with great equipment, manual trans, blah, blah, but 'what is the limit' on a car like this? I suspect the seller might be dreaming in technicolor.

    As far as eBay goes, I'm pretty sure lots of auctions end just shy of reserve, with either the seller contacting the high bidder and making a deal, or vice versa. If someone really wants to sell a car, it's dumb to keep relisting it on eBay (for weeks at a time per auction, in many cases) over a relatively piddly sum of money. Then again, we all know plenty of collectors who are 'certain' their car is worth 'X', only to find that money never materializes. Some never learn.
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1875250512


    If only it weren't white with a black interior - one of the least appealing color combinations known to man (especially for a convertible).


    By the way, does any one know the purpose of the red knob located under the dash on the far left-hand side? I've seen this same knob on other GM cars of the mid-60's. So, perhaps it's a factory piece and not an after-market item?

  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    The red knob is for the four way emergency flashers. This was a seldom seen option back in, I think, 1965 and 1966. Became standard on all GM cars in 1967.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    When I see cars like this re-appearing after the reserve wasn't met, even after a very fair market bid of $18.2K, what I see is a seller who really doesn't want to sell, or need to sell, or care to sell, the car. He should have contacted the two highest bidders and hammered out a deal, just like I'm sure Duffy did.


    If his reserve is SO FAR AWAY from $18.2K that he can't even make an off-line deal work with people throwing real money at him, then obviously his reserve is way ahead of the market IMO.


    You've seen those "price reduced!" signs on Houses for Sale? Same thing needs to happen here.

  • wq59bwq59b Member Posts: 61
    I looked up the value of the '66 Bonne convert in the OCPG today. In #2 it's 'worth' $16,100 and in #1 it's 'worth' $23,000, add 30% for Tri-Power. I'd guess a 4-spd, tho not for everyone, would add another 25%.
    So saying this car is south of a #2, say fairly pegged at $14,000, adding the Tri-P and 4-spd at a low $5000 plus (by percentages based on 14K it 'should' be $7700), that's a 19K car. 8-lugs also definitely add to the value, too.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Okay, let's get one thing clear, here. IMO, OCPG is completely inflated, at least 10-20% away from the real world. We call it "The Wish Book" in the trade, as in "don't I wish I could get that for it".

    So, given my (and my colleagues) subjective opinion of OCPG, the fact that the car prices out very close to OCPG suggests to me that the bid of $18.2K was more than fair.

    Real world on a #2 should be $12,000, with 25% for all the options, so $16K should be the bottom line and as you calculate $19K approaching near show quality.

    This car should have sold.
  • ghuletghulet Member Posts: 2,564
    ...the tri-power is going to 'add 30%' or the 4-speed would 'add 25%'. In particular, I think tri-power is just a bragging right at this point, it basically says you have a rare option, three carbs to fix instead of one, and that it uses twice as much gas when you stomp on it, whoopee. The four-speed borders on inappropriate in a car that weighs 4000 pounds. This isn't a drag racing car. Not to seem harsh, they're nice performance options, but just not that crucial, especially on a Bonneville. I do think anything even approaching $20k is just about 'all the money in the world' for this car. I mean, it is super nice, has some rare options, etc., but it's also not perfect, and it's colors are a bit boring.
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    http://ebaypics.kruseinternational.com/pics/ebaypics/general/bogr1/3.jpg


    Are we sure that the red knob under the left side of the dash is for the flashers? Seems like an awfully big switch just for that.


    Of course, I suspect that in 1966 some states required a flasher switch while others didn't. Thus, if this is the flasher knob, it is probably a last minute fix on the part of GM before installing a more elegant solution in later years.

  • ghuletghulet Member Posts: 2,564
    ...GM would add the flasher/hazard switch on the bottom right of the steering column (I imagine this started when GM redesigned those columns, with the starter lock out feature, for the '69 model year). I don't remember if my neighbor's '68 Impala convertible had the hazard switch on the column, or if it had them at all.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,676
    ...has the hazard button on the steering column. It's just a little black plastic button on the right side of the column. I dunno what year they were required as standard equipment though.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    If I recall correctly, my parents' 1965 Chevrolet Bel Air didn't have a hazard/flasher switch. I remember being quite impressed by the hazard/flasher switch (mounted on the steering column) on their 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont 88.

    They probably became standard for the 1967 model year, which was when the first of the new federal safety standards went into effect. Either the government required them, or the manufacturers made them standard as a gesture in response to the furor over vehicle safety.
  • ghuletghulet Member Posts: 2,564
    ...if da two a yooze had hazards on the steering column, that must have been when the hazards became standard. Isn't '67 when most auto makers got 'energy absorbing' steering columns as well?
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,676
    ...that GM made the energy absorbing steering column standard. I just went down to the garage to double-check, and it even says "energy absorbing" on the center hub of the steering wheel, right below the big Pontiac arrowhead.

    Did all cars have energy absorbing steering columns in '67? For some reason, I'm thinking Chrysler didn't have them until '68, but I could be wrong.
  • ghuletghulet Member Posts: 2,564
    ...my usual source book doesn't list an energy-absorbing column specifically (standard equipment is listed as 'all Federally mandated safety features), but I do have a picture of a '66 that has a deep-spoke wheel with a padded center. Do you remember anything about the wheel on that *most wonderful, beloved* '67 Newport you had, Andre?

    Oh yeah, Happy Holidays to all!
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,676
    ...picturing the steering wheel of that '67 Newport I had. About all I remember of that car was it was almost a total opposite of my Catalina. Pontiac really knew how to make a big car feel youthful, sporty, and desirable back then. I can't really imagine too many younger people of that era lusting after a '67 Chrysler, though!

    I didn't have that car long enough to really get familiar with it, or for it to "grow" on me. I got it over the summer of '99 from a buddy of mine. His grandmother had passed away, and his family wanted the car gone so they could get her house fixed up and ready to sell, so they gave it to me. I bought my Intrepid that November, and my uncle lent me the money for the down payment. Well, I also owed him $2000 from a few years back, when I was married and he sold us his '88 LeBaron. I felt bad having all these cars and owing him money, so I ended up selling it to help start paying him back.

    Another thing I thought was kinda interesting, about the Newport versus the Catalina. Normally, I like Chrysler products because they usually feel roomier inside than comparable GM products. Not so with this Newport, though. Even though it was a hardtop and the 'Cat is a 'vert, the Pontiac just felt roomier. The Pontiac was wider inside too (yes, I was anal enough to measure once ;-) And with the seat all the way back, there's more legroom in the back of the Pontiac. It even seemed like it had a bigger trunk!

    As for handling, well, I probably didn't put 100 miles on that Newport in the time I had it. The brakes also went out (another reason I got rid of it, in addition to owing my uncle money!) It still had bias-ply tires on it, whereas the Pontiac has 215/75/R14 radials. I'm sure either car would be a joke in the slalom, but the Pontiac still felt like it would run circles around the Newport.

    I do think the Chrysler had better, more supportive seats, though. That was probably the only advantage it would've had. Dang, wish I could remember the steering wheel though! I'll have to see if I can find some '67 Chrysler pics online!

    Oh well. Happy holidays, everyone!!
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    The energy-absorbing steering column was a GM innovation. If I recall correctly, GM allowed other automakers to use it immediately, in response to the safety furor created by Ralph Nader's book, which was published in 1965. Chrysler and AMC used the GM column, but Ford initially adopted a steering wheel design with a deep dish and extra padding in place of the GM column.
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1875004342


    This auction has ended with a high bid of $8,700 that did not meet the seller's reserve.


    $8,700 sounds like a lot for a nicely sorted out, original '64 Bonneville sedan without the mag wheels and after-market A/C and other things. I don't believe the says whether the Tri-power set up is original - I'm betting it's not. Personally, I don't know how much value this ads given that it probably guzzles fuel like a sailor on leave.


    On the other hand, other than the 3 carbs, I do suspect the upgrades make the car more comfortable to drive and easier to live with.


    This auction started with a seller defined minimum bed of $8,000. I'd be curious to hear opinions as to the $8,700 value indication.

  • ssurgeontssurgeont Member Posts: 8
    Just a couple of thoughts reading 60'Pontiacs I have a 67 2+2 CV 4-speed that is being restored and its interesting to see values put on these cars when so few exist.67 full size pontiacs were not that popular then and as in alot of cars they aren't that popular now.This guy on Ebay with the 65 2+2 cv green just sold a 67 2+2 hardtop for $14,100 that had about 40+ bids.Another 2+2 hrdt. is still unsold on autotrader for 15k.the 2+2 seller on ebay claims he is selling a "collection",so maybe we'll see more soon.I looked for two years even flying around the country to find a 67 2+2 cv.and I know of about 15 to 18 different ones.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    The car was fully priced at $8,000 and certainly the owner could have taken the $8,700 bid with no regrets.

    The bid was more than fair and in no way insulting. If he's looking for substantially more than an $8,700 bid for that car he better order a birthday cake for it every year he owns it.

    I'd say the car was worth about $7,000 in real California dollars, but of course if it was extra nice no problem charging another $1,500 or so.

    Maybe he'll sober up and re-run it.
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    Sorry for the typos in my recent post about the '64 Bonnie on Ebay. Must've had too much eggnog on Christmas.


    Anyway, too bad this car wasn't a convertible. If it were, I would've been one of the bidders (a losing one I suspect).


    To ssurgeont, 1967 was the last year for the 2+2 option was it not? Also, do I understand you to say that the seller of the green '65 2+2 convertible is the same person who sold a '67 2+2 hardtop for $14,100?


    That's ironic because $14,100 was the exact same price as the highest bid received on the green 1965 2+2 convertible.


    http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1873986701


    Thus, given that convertibles generally sell for more than hardtops, he's probably holding out for a figure approaching $20K. I wish him luck.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles