(first posted 8/11/2015) While much can be said about the 1977-1990 GM B-bodies, of each division’s stories, it’s Pontiac’s that is arguably most interesting. Like its Chevrolet, Oldsmobile, and Buick platform siblings, Pontiac’s remaining B-bodies (Catalina and Bonneville) were significantly downsized for 1977, and thankfully to more acclaim than criticism. But with another oil crisis in 1979 and the following recession, big car sales once again took a blow, with Pontiac hit harder than other GM brands.
It was thus decided that Pontiac be stripped of it full-size cars after 1981 for the U.S. market, with the Catalina name disappearing forever and the Bonneville nameplate swiftly transitioning to Pontiac’s mid-sized G-body sedans. Pontiac dealers naturally were not happy with this decision from higher up, as despite lower sales than its siblings, there were still loyal Pontiac customers who wanted a full-size car. With the recession subsiding, fuel costs falling, and full-size car sales picking up again, these dealers’ and customers’ wish was answered by the General in Detroit with the Pontiac Parisienne.
Unquestionably as a measure of cost-saving, Pontiac’s born-again B-body in the U.S.was a clone of the Canadian-market Parisienne (which itself, shared more in common with the Chevy Impala and Caprice than the Catalina and Bonneville did), a car that had been in continuous production the whole time. Assembled in Oshawa, Ontario, all U.S.-spec Parisiennes were merely brought south of the border for sale in the U.S., as assembly plants in the U.S. that had previously manufactured Pontiac B-bodies had already been re-tooled for other vehicles. Had GM even spared the expense in rebadging the Parisienne for the United States, perhaps “Ontarian” or “Oshawan” may have been more appropriate.
Despite Pontiac’s theoretical position as the third-most prestigious B-bodies, that didn’t stop Pontiac stylists from applying prolific amounts of Brougham-tastic styling touches, largely in the form of excess chrome and chrome-look trim, to top-rung Parisienne Broughams (and previously the Bonneville Broughams) for an excessively gaudy and overwrought appearance. I personally think it’s rather tacky, although I can’t deny that it makes for quite an eye-catching look.
Predictably, sales of the U.S. Parisiennes were nowhere near the levels of pre-discontinuation Catalinas and Bonnevilles, but regardless these very baroque Pontiacs found a loyal following when they were new, which continues today among collectors. It’s obvious the owner of this Bostonian Ontarian Parisienne keeps it in meticulous condition, even if he did park it halfway into a tree.
Related Reading:
The Parisenne wagons were my favorite box B-body wagons. They simply had a different feel to them compared to a Caprice or LeSabre.
This was my favorite of the B-body GMs. I loved the looks, ever since my neighbor drove past me in a tan 1985 version. He had it for over a decade of trouble-free driving. He then traded it on a new Camry- for fuel efficiency reasons. If only he had given me a call first.
My favourite of the Pontiac Parisienne is the 1985 and later model years. I find it more attractive than anything produced before then.
When these are in better than “average” condition I feel they just narrowly miss being tacky. These Parisiennes are probably the only big, mid-priced car….well, maybe a Buick LeSabre, too, that can carry this extreme brougham look, with any grace.
As long as it’s not silver with a burgundy vinyl roof and/or interior, I’m okay with this or the Bonneville that immediately preceded it.
Possibly the owners also like their Parisienne because they too have a French name? I presume that the personalized plate DUBOIS is the owner’s last name. Clearly the car is not made of wood. 😉
Faux DuBois on the dashboard? Maybe the could have called it Laurentian, a good old Pontiac name that ticked both French and Canadian boxes!
When I hear Laurentian I don’t think of cars but of pencil crayons, or as they’re known in the US, “colored pencils”. Laurentian made the best pencil crayons, but I’ve learned that they have been discontinued unfortunately.
That was a kick in the memory bank Laurentian pencil crayons–and we had a 73 Laurentian.
Good right up on one of my favorite cars. However i have a Canadian market 86 Parisienne base that was built in Fairfax , Kansas in march of 1986. i thought the oshawa plant retooled first. I’ve never seen a oshawa built 86, and I’ve looked at a lot.
I’m not home on my PC or I’d upload a pic of my RPO tag.
jer….You will never see an Oshawa built 86″ B”. The last Oshawa B body came off the line in November 84….on the afternoon shift. The actual last car was a 85 4 door Impala. For the photo op, the next day they backed a Blue Caprice up the line.
I know this because I was standing there. Losing the “B” was a sad day, for all of us in the” Shwa”
I remember my girlfriend and I were in Oshawa around 1982-83 and we hooked on to a tour of your plant–The tour guide was quite proud FWD and RWD cars were being assembled on the same lines. I remember seeing Celebrities and 6000’s but no Pontiac full size. We did see a lot of Chev B bodies obviously being assembled for Police and Taxi duty.
I believe the first US Parisienne’s used the Caprice/Impala body. But a model year or so later, they used the previous Pontiac Catalina/Bonneville body from 1981.
It was like they had to rush to get a full size car back in the market, and then people realized it was just a Chevy with different trim, so Pontiac brought back their exclusive body.
You are correct sir. The 1983-84 Parisiennes used the same body as the Caprice and Impala.
http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Pontiac/1984_Pontiac/1984_Pontiac_Full_Line_Brochure/1984%20Pontiac%20Full%20Line-42-43.html
These are my least favorite B bodies. To me, it just screams “cheap cop out.” I liked the ’77-’81 Bonneville/Catalina, and thought they had a particularly nice instrument panel, as well as front and rear treatments. No, they did not sell as well as their B-body siblings, either in ’77-’81, or in the ’71-’76 generation for that matter, but they did sell and they were distinct. This car is a horrible GM parts brand mash-up designed to placate dealers. It’s a shame they couldn’t just restart building the “real” U.S. Bonneville–after all, later iterations of the Parisienne even used the old Bonnie rear clip, mated to the bastardized Impala front… Better yet, the smart move would have been to keep the Bonneville as the “big” car, and transfer the Catalina name to the G-body for the LeMans redo in’82. That would have been a more applicable sister car to the G-Body Grand Prix anyway, just as Catalinas and GPs were related in the 1960s.
I like the 77-81 models the best. A friend’s parents bought a 77 model brand new. White, no vinyl roof, with that spiffy red velour interior…..way different than the viny seat Ranch Wagons they’d owned before it. Heck, it was more luxurious than most anything else in the neighborhood. It was Olds-powered although I don’t know the displacement.
Does anyone know the scoop as to why Pontiac was able to revive the old ’81 Bonneville rear sheetmetal and seats, but not the front section or dashboard? Did they just think buyers didn’t care anymore if their Pontiac used a Chevy dashboard and front sheetmetal? The ’82 Chevy-based front end did manage to look alot like the ’78 Bonneville, but was nowhere as distinctively Pontiac as the ’80-’81 front with the separated headlights and bowed grille and hood. And the Caprice dash, while not bad, wasn’t as elegant or distinctive as the ’81 Pontiac intrument panel.
I think the newer nose looks more modern and cleaner, despite the Chevy fenders. The grille is unmistakably Pontiac. Then again, I never liked the “indicators between the headlights” look even if it was a Pontiac trademark for around 10 years.
The ’83-’84 cars were a pretty lousy excuse for a Pontiac, but I rather like the ’85-’86. (We had an ’86 in the family for a few years…)
There is some additional story to the Pontiac B body during the 1980’s.
1981: Final year for B based Bonneville and Catalina
1984?: U.S. Spec Parisienne introduced in the U.S. using a Chevrolet Caprice body with some trim changes, unique grill, and a (I believe) mandatory two-tone paint job in a pattern not sold by Chevy. The car used a Pontiac steering wheel with a Caprice dash. The seats might be Oldsmobile 88 from what I can tell. A wagon is also available, basically a Caprice with unique trim bits.
1985 or ’86: U.S. spec Parisienne sedan goes back to 1981 Bonneville body and trim, from the B pillar back, but still using the Caprice front clip with a unique Pontiac grill and trim. Interior is a mish mash of Chevy and Pontiac, but the hard points tend to be Chevy. Wagon continues with little change – all but a Caprice clone.
1987 or so: Final U.S. spec Pontiac B body sedan as new FWD H Body Bonneville is introduced, eliminating G body Bonneville sedan as well. Wagon continues through 1990, the final year for any Box B body. The wagon remains little more than a Caprice with some unique trim. Pontiac leaves the full-size RWD business for good after Chevy move on to the whale Caprice in 1991 (unless you count the G8).
This is the Pontiac trimmed ’84 -’85 (or so) Caprice based Parisienne sedan……
US cars were initially made at Osh, but when that plant closed they (for both Canada and US) were made in Fairfax (mostly) and Wilmington (a few), where the old Catalina/Bonneville at one time were also made and they still had the old stamping molds for the rear fenders and skirts so it was very easy to make the revised cars, just needed to get the Guide lens factory to make the old tail lights.
Time line slightly off
Mid Year 1983: Introduced in US car. Used Chevy 229 v6, chevy 305 or Olds Diesel (through 85). Caprice front clip with different plastic grille. Used rear end from an Impala with different tail light lenses. Also 2-toned paint was standard on all sedans (I think solid was a delete option) and some trim like the center pillar and hood ornament from the old Bonneville was used. Std sedan and wagon used Caprice interiors and the Brougham sedan used Olds 88 Royale Brougham seats. Not sure where door trim on Brougham came from but it changed year to year. Wagon used tail light lenses from the old Cat/Bon wagons but used the moldings for the woodgrain package from the Chevys..
1984: Std V6 changed to Buick 231 just like the 88/Lesabre.
1985: Brought back the Old Bonneville Brougham seats for the P Brougham. Also did the sheet metal changes with skirts in rear quarters with old tail lights. Sedans got FI. Wagons got safari badges (as did 6000 and the J wagons)
1986: V6 changed to 4.3FI from Chevys because the B 88/LeSabre were gone and not worth the effort to certify the 231 for a low use engine. I think the wagon, along with the Chevy wagon started using the Olds 307 because it got better mileage than the 305. Sedan V8s were all suposed to be 305s but some 307 (probably meant for 88/Lesabre) slipped in (not sure for 85, 86 or both).
1987-1988: Only made the wagon and changed the name to just Safari. The wagon ended production 2 years before the other makes. The H Bonnie took the place of both the B Parisienne and the G Bonneville.
Thanks for the info Fred. A few corrections: The 4.3 FI became standard in 1985. In 1986 the 305 was used in V-8 sedans and wagons until about December 1985 production, then V-8 sedans and wagons used the 307 for the remainder of 1986 production. The wagons actually continued until the 1989 model year, with the 1989 being the final one.
See my timeline post below for full details.
For 1985 there was only FI on the 4.3 V6 cars, the 305 remained 4bbl carb in 1985 and 1986.
After Nov 1985, all B-body wagons switched to the 307 Olds engine including Chevrolet. For whatever reason, some 1986 Parisiennes also got 307 Oldsmobile engines., but some had 35 Chevrolet.
1989 was the last year for the Pontiac Safari.
My family owned an ’86 Parisienne Brougham in the 90’s. It was a sedan, but it had the Olds 307 rather than the Chevy 305. Smooth and (mostly) reliable but I think consensus is that the 305 was the better engine–I wonder why the wagons went to the 307 across the board?
I am not sure if anyone knows the real reason GM used the 307 across the board for all wagons. My theory is that GM had a surplus of 307 Olds engines that needed to be used up. And to avoid the late 1970’s debacle of putting Chevrolet engines in Olds and Buicks, it was just easier to put an Olds engine in all lines to simplify production costs. After owning both, I would agree that the 305 was a better all round engine compared to the Olds 307, although I would give the 307 a slight edge in smoothness.
I’ve always assumed that 1981 and earlier Canadian Parisiennes used the same exterior sheet metal as U.S. Bonnevilles, then the “Caprice clone” look was adopted for 1982 because the Pontiac sheet metal no longer existed (since the Pontiac Bs had been dropped by the U.S. parent company). When the Parisienne was first brought to the U.S., it was the same car sold in Canada, hence the “Caprice clone” look. A couple of years later, Pontiac pulled out the old rear end tooling to give the car more of a uniquely Pontiac appearance.
The re-introduction full-size 1983 Parisienne was just a little too obviously an Impala/Caprice with Pontiac grille and taillights. Tacky or not, the ’84-’85 models are better differentiated, and still have a modicum of the appeal that made full-sized Pontiacs so popular at one time. The ’80-’81 Bonneville two door is particularly nice, would have even made a great-looking convertible!
Did you also get the contemporary Le Car Parisienne ?
Hard to believe Renault would disgrace themselves by authorizing such Franglais: it’s supposed to be La Voiture or l’Automobile, isn’t it? Or better yet, just call it Renault 5, since even Americans have had no trouble remembering other European model names.
But Parisienne, at least, is tolerable, as everyone loves Paris, from Henry IV to Rick Blaine. Who dreams of a romantic fling in Berlin?
The Renault 5 was originally launched as such in the U.S., but flopped so badly that the new ad agency came up with the “Le Car” name to justify a relaunch, even though the car hadn’t actually changed. As for the Franglais, I assume the idea was that they wanted it to sound French, but didn’t want to risk blowing the relaunch by giving the car a name Americans couldn’t reliably pronounce.
I didn’t know that, as evidence they really did need a reboot. But it sounds like “Hollywood French” (as from Pepé Le Pew).
It seems to me that French carmakers were more attentive to the African market than the American. What a pity.
I recall a cartoon in one of the gearhead mags shortly after the Renault/AMC tie-up was annouced, think it was R&T, depicting an AMC Pacer rebadged as The Voiture
The second gen (1984) was called the Supercinq / Superfive / Super 5.
Everybody just called it the Renault 5, of course. It was substantially bigger than the first gen, and its overall quality (rust proofing !) improved a lot. Above all, it had a transversely mounted engine, unlike the first gen.
Its model range was incredible. From a fuel sipping stripper to the Brougham-ish Baccara model. From a diesel to the hot hatch GT Turbo. Its biggest engine was a 1.7 liter gasoline engine.
IIRC, the Bonneville Model G was Pontiac’s flagship until the Parisienne appeared in ’84. It was an Impala sedan with a grille and tail lamp swap and an upgraded interior. No coupe, though there was probably no demand for it anyway. It rode the brief wave of renewed interest in big cars that started in ’83, and then disappeared 4 years later.
The Bonneville Model G was an incredible letdown after the ’80 and ’81s: those Bonnevilles wore their mid cycle shovel nose/split headlamp refresh especially well, and the forgotten Catalina was very clean and tight. And this is where the Pontiac small block made its last stand.
That damn letter G was a bad omen, as Pontiac believed using that prefix would somehow cure the division of its terminal condition in the late aughts. We know how that turned out.
I thought GM torpedoing the Bonneville was premature. GM offered LeSabres and Deltas to their core base until the H bodies debuted in ’85. Could it have been that difficult to similarly extend the Bonneville? The car was profitable. And why not allow the storied name to ride off into the sunset with some dignity instead of dropping it on a 5 year old LeMans?
Deadly sin status indeed.
Actually the 6000 STE became the top car beginning in 1983 . The Parisienne is one of the smoothest and quietest (when equipped with 305) cars ever! The Brougham seats are amongst the most comfortable to be found on any car. Great car!
Note that Chrysler made a similar move corporate-wide in ’82, dropping the R-body and “promoting” the M-body to the same sort of quasi-fullsize status.
At the time Pontiac made the decision to move the Bonneville name to the G-body, I think it was assumed that Chevrolet would do the same thing within a year or two, and that within five years all of the RWD Bs and Cs would be gone and Chevrolet and Pontiac would exit the fullsize market completely. (That’s why there was originally no Chevy or Pontiac version of the ’86 H-body.) With gas expected to cost $5 a gallon or more, there would be no demand for cars as large as the current G-body or the proposed H-body in the price classes occupied by Chevrolet and Pontiac. Someone upthread had spoken about matching up the G-body sedan with the G-body Grand Prix; what eventually became the 1985 Grand Am coupe was originally supposed to be the next-generation Grand Prix.
In Canada, Pontiac was more downmarket than in the U.S., closer to Chevrolet, and there was a long-standing tradition of Pontiac having models that matched up with Chevrolet’s lineup. I have to wonder if GM Canada’s decision to keep a Pontiac B-body wasn’t a repudiation of the decision Pontiac made in the U.S. as much it was just a desire to have Pontiac’s lineup continue to match Chevrolet’s.
Chrysler at least had an excuse: They were still on the ropes and presumably wanted to rationalize production.
Ford did it too with the Fox/Fairmont-based LTD and Marquis. There seemed to be widespread belief in 1982 Detroit that big body-on-frame rear-drivers weren’t long for the world. Nobody at the time seemed to correctly predict how long the GM B/C body or the Panther would stick around.
Ford was smart enough to keep the Fox based LTD – Marquis in production until after the Taurus-Sable were launched, knowing how controversial the new styling might be perceived. Always good to have a back up plan.
They hedged their bets on an earlier occasion with the LTD II. I didn’t know until recently that the Fox LTD’s wheelbase was exactly the same as the Fairmont’s. No doubt this kept tooling costs down.
Unlike Chrysler and Pontiac, Ford didn’t actually drop the Panthers in favor of the Fox-platform LTD/Marquis. I suspect that may have been the original plan, though, or maybe it was thought that the Panthers would continue alongside the Foxes for a year or two at most.
Note that Ford kept the Fox-platform LTD/Marquis in production after the Taurus/Sable was introduced, but only until the end of the 1986 model year. In this era, GM was notorious for introducing new designs but keeping vestiges of old ones in production, sometimes for years. Whether this was a good thing or a bad thing remains a subject of debate.
I’ve never really understood why Ford kept the LTD II in production for 1979 alongside the new Panthers. By this time, the downsized GM B-bodies had been accepted as the new template for fullsize cars, and the Panthers conformed to that template a lot better than the LTD II did. At the same time, the midsize sedan market had gravitated towards cars the size of the downsized GM A-bodies, Chrysler M-bodies or Granada/Monarch. This left the LTD II as a car with no obvious market. I guess keeping all three of the closely related LTD II/Thunderbird/Ranchero in production allowed design costs to be spread out a little more. I also get the impression that Ford was pushing the LTD II in the fleet market more so than the Panther LTD.
Overlapping production of old & replacement models was done by SAAB & Peugeot too, at least, so GM & Ford were not unique here. I surmise it was a matter of manufacturing planning, keeping a factory going until they could fully ramp up logistics for a new model, like the supply chain or tooling. Stopping a production line (a profit center) is probably a huge cost they want to avoid, in addition to furloughing workers.
The 3rd-gen Taurus began production in Atlanta seamlessly after the last 2nd-gen rolled out, a novelty for Ford at the time.
Don’t forget Volvo–they were one of the biggest proponents of keeping the old and the new models side by side. The Amazon and the PV544 sold side by side for 7 years (’59 to ’65), the 140-series and the Amazon for 4 years (’66 to ’69), and the 740 alongside the 900-series for 3 years (’90 to ’92).
I love these cars, and I really love that Brougham interior. In fact, it is one of my all-time favorite Brougham interiors that the General ever made, right up there with a 98 Regency or Cadillac d’Elegance. I know it was available in leather as well but I never saw one in the flesh. I would like a 1980 or 1981 with the real Pontiac dashboard, not the newer models with the Parisienne/Caprice dash. Make mine a black Bonneville Brougham with either burgundy or tan leather interior. (I’d happily take those seats in cloth too!)
Pontiac did the Brougham thing on these very well The seating was closer to my ”77 Buick Limited than the last RWD Lesabres. That struck me as odd, and I bet a fews Buick owners “downgraded” to the Parisian. Buick at least kept their ’77 dash, (my favorite dash of these Bs/Cs) I would take one if it had the Buick dash and the Pontiac steering wheel!
The ’81 Brougham seats were not only terrific for looks but also more comfortable than most of the loose-pillow seats on GM B/C sedans (the ’80 had different, somewhat more restrained seats more closely related to the ’78/’79 design). But I much prefer the huge door armrests that were mostly reserved for the larger C bodies. And likewise the real Pontiac dash that, due to slight tweaks, looked the best in 1981.
love this brochure shot
here is a nice one in leather with a moonroof (its a Bonneville but interior is essentially the same)
…..I wonder when leather was removed as an option….doesn’t seem to be around in the latter years
Ahhhhh, that’s my dream Bonneville Brougham!!
The Cheviac was a fine Canadian, if not French tradition.
If Pontiac wanted to do these right, They would have worked out a proper Bunkie Beak out front. Do a new 2dr and 4dr hardtop roofline. Of course also a small run of Pontiac 400 engines. That would show who builds excitement.
That is a beautiful B-Car, both inside and out. Love the colors.
Mid-80s B-Car could have been Peak GM – did the V8s have EFI?
According to Wiki, it wasn’t until ’89 that the Caprice got a TBI V8, so I assume no B-body Pontiac was available with it. But I’m not a GM engine wonk.
No sir, except for maybe late wagons. We had an 86 Parisienne Brougham, and the 307 definitely had a Rochester Q-jet carb sitting up top.
That looks very much like this ’84 that I picked up last year.
Interior shot
Rear shot when bought- spot my other Brougham-like vehicle?
69 Caddy?
Yep. A ’69 60 Special. Needs footrests, a vinyl roof and reading lights to be considered a proper brougham.
I like these but they always screamed Catalina to me – probably because they used the Impala body structure. Interesting!
That would be exactly why. It needed the older sheetmetal to be a “proper” Pontiac. Nonetheless that’s a nice ’84!
From the archives. These are two shots taken of the “new” Pontiac in the fall of 1981
Note the B-body love in the background!
Interesting. Must be the only case where Detroit brought in one of its Windsor/Oshawa brands.
It always seemed strange that the Big Three consistently gave Canadians more variety than they gave Americans.
In 1950 Canadian Dodge dealers had 17 distinct cars in 5 sizes, while American Dodge dealers offered 11 cars in 3 sizes. In 1960 Ford had 5 marques in US and 8 marques in Canada. In 1965 GM had 5 marques in US and 7 in Canada.
Logically you’d think the larger population would get the wider variety, but Detroit apparently had its reasons for going the opposite way.
Ford did something similar in the 1960s with the Meteor, Ford introduced a mid-sized Mercury for both the Canadian and US markets and used the name from the entry-level Ford-based car that was previously sold at the Canadian Mercury Dealers.
After just a few years, the Meteor mid-sized car was discontinued and the full-sized model was re-introduced in the Canadian market only as it was previously.
And about the Parisienne, the 1950s and 1960s models were Chevrolet clones with Pontiac trim but back in the 1970s, they were closer to the US Bonneville.
For a few years in the mid-1970s, both the Parisienne and the Bonneville were sold here and the Grand-Ville was available too, the Parisienne was between the Catalina and the Bonneville in the lineup hierarchy in the few years both models were offered.
The entry-level Laurentian and the Catalina were also offered simulataneously. After 1976, the Bonneville was discontinued and the Parisienne was the equivalent of the US Bonneville (and the mechanical identitity of most GM cars became confused as GM mixed the engines from most of it’s divisions). The Catalina and Laurentian remained and the Laurentian was a stripped down Catalina that was the Pontiac equivalent to the Chevy Bel-Air (which was discontinued in the early 1980s in Canada).
“It always seemed strange that the Big Three consistently gave Canadians more variety than they gave Americans…Logically you’d think the larger population would get the wider variety, but Detroit apparently had its reasons for going the opposite way.”
Canada had more marques, but fewer distinct dealer networks. The idea was to have a broad range of vehicles (at least low-priced, middle-priced, and trucks) at a single dealership. Each of the Big Three had two dealer networks in Canada, and the low population density in many areas meant that some areas might only be able to support one of the two. So each dealer network had to cover pretty much everything. In addition, the market in Canada was slanted more heavily towards low-priced cars than in the U.S., so it was especially important that each dealer network have low-priced cars.
In the U.S., it wasn’t seen as necessary for Lincoln-Mercury dealers to have trucks or low-priced cars. If you wanted those, you could go to a nearby Ford dealer. In Canada, it was. There might not be nearby Ford dealer; even if there was, Lincoln-Mercury dealers may not have been able to survive without a low-priced car (in Ford’s usual price class).
Love the Parisiennes, favorite B-body. One guy in town has one, mint shape. I think it’s his wife’s daily driver, as he drives an equally mint G-body Monte Carlo. I want to say there are two more in the extended family…
This would have been the star of the car show for me. Of all the B-bodies, I like the Parisiennes the most… possibly exceeded only by the Safari wagon!
An 86 Pariesienne became the star attraction of a Canadian You Tube star….He took an old worn out car….hacked out the exhaust system, cut holes in the hood to run vertical exhaust stacks right off the exhaust manifolds, put a manual choke cable from a lawn mower in the car and dubbed it ‘The Cheviac’….It would give the old Plymouth Christine a run for its money.
Sounds like it was prepped for a demo derby.
You’re talking about “Davidsfarm” right?
The less said about that degenerate, the better.
Yes….the DavidsFarm Cheviac.
One of my favourite Parisienne models was the 1980 wagon bought by my father and mother-law. White exterior with tan inside and of course front bench seat. Acres of room in the back to haul our family of four at the time, the grandparents and all the gear for a day at the lake. The 305 V8 offered decent performance and the wagon glided effortlessly on the road whether in town or on the highway.
Nice Pontiac. The wire wheels looks amazing. This is the French whopper b body. We need more cars with rear wheel drive. Like the Chevrolet SS 2015.
Now every bodies full size cars are made in Canada.
I’ve sometimes wondered what the Parisienne or Safari would have looked like had it survived to 1991. Then again, a “bathtub” Caprice wagon larded by acres of “aggressive” plastic cladding.might not be an image I’d want to see…
Maybe something like this.
The Parisienne existed in the Canadian for many years before it was introduced in 1983 in the US market. For 1981, the Pontiac Parisienne was essentially a slight variation on the 1981 US market Pontiac Bonneville. The main difference between the two cars was that the Canadian Parisienne used Chevrolet drivetrains.
For 1982, GM of Canada had no fullsize car to offer, and since in Canada Pontiac was more of a “low-priced” car, this was a big problem for the Canadian Pontiac Dealers. So GM of Canada with it’s limited resources essentially badge engineered a Chevrolet B-body to create the 1982 Parisienne.
1981 Parisienne:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIy0OthaUZI
1982 Parisienne:
http://www.lov2xlr8.no/brochures/pontiac/82par/82par.html
For 1983 with fuel prices lowering, and the fullsize car market resurging, US dealers wanted a real fullsize car back. So as a quick fix, the Canadian 1983 Parisienne was brought to the US market. These cars were built in Oshawa and used Chevrolet drivetrains. 1984 Parisiennes only had minor changes from the 1983 models.
For 1985, production moved to the US, and the 1980-81 Pontiac quarter panels were reintroduced. However the front clip remained unchanged. The car continued with minor changes in 1986. In 1987 the H-body Bonneville replaced the Parisienne, while the B-body Pontiac wagon continued on as the Safari (dropping the Parisienne name) until the 1989 MY.
For 1982 when the US market “downsized” the Bonneville to the G-body platform it was to be the new “fullsize” Pontiac. Originally, GM was planning on downsizing their fullsize cars further from the 1977 design, eventually moving to a FWD platform (the 1985 H-body). Intially the FWD A-body was to be the midsize and the G-body the “temporary” fullsize cars until the 1985 FWD cars were to come out. This was also the reason for the 1982 Malibu restyle as it was supposed to be the 1982 Chevrolet fullsize replacement. This plan changed when gas prices dropped and fullsize cars picked up in sales.
I grew up in Oshawa and this was THE car.
Probably the most common for the middle classes of which Oshawa had plenty (thanks to good union wages) and chevettes for the younger crowd.
I still like them. Some of the cooler, local (but frugal) hip-hopper types drive them because they used to be cheap to buy. Now they are a bit more rare on the street.
It think it is apparent now that even by the early 80’s GM had to many brands. Once they all started using the same engines their really wasn’t much to differentiate them.
This car is *very* close to the ’86 Parisienne Brougham my Mom drove from 1997 to 2002. Ours had a blue interior rather than gray, and was missing the fender skirts, but other than that it was pretty much identical. Good solid car for the 5 years we owned it, and those seats were *extremely* comfortable. And personally I always thought the Parisienne was one of the better-looking B-Body efforts, though I was disappointed ours didn’t have the skirts (removed and discarded by a previous owner).
This was our ’86:
I always liked the 1985-86 Parisenne in a 1962-63 Dodge Custom 880-ish way. Same story-Crap! We need a full-sized car PDQ! Let’s to some cutting and pasting! It’s too bad they couldn’t bring back the 80-81 front fenders/hood/bumper with a possible grillework update. (I never could get used to the protruding front bumper/flush-mount rear motif). Oh well-it filled a niche…
I wonder how many coupes are left? 1982 Canada only model.
I, for one, love the Broughammy goodness as worn by the Parisienne. Beautiful cars.
Kind of off topic…..but seeing this car made me think of my Uncle’s 79 Bonneville. He bought it brand new. Hardtop….black with light blue cloth interior. IIRC. I loved that car.
Few auto manufacturers believed that Americans would be driving large vehicles after 1981. Less than a decade earlier, Chrysler found itself awash in large vehicles during the first gas crisis. When 1980 hit, the combination of high gas prices, availability, the entire mood of much of the country didn’t justify large cars. Even the makers of large cars, didn’t plan for them to be restyled before being axed.
It took Ford almost a decade to just to mildly refresh the Panthers. And that was after the big car rebound that began in 1983 into an economic rebound across the board by 1988. GM never did a complete redesign of the wildly successful 1977 full size line until it fully replaced them with the Buick Roadmaster, the Oldsmobile 98, the Cadillac and the full size Chevy Caprice and wagons.
Big car looked doomed in 1981. What Pontiac did wasn’t a surprise. They wanted a sporty image, and that beautiful full size Catalina/Bonneville wasn’t selling like it was a few years earlier.
But the Parisienne wasn’t up to what Pontiac offered with the Catalina/Bonneville. It was obviously a Chevrolet with a Pontiac grille. Other GM divisions were relieved that they didn’t follow suit, however, those divisions weren’t targeting the same demographics as Pontiac and having the full sized cars were still an important part of the model mix.
The Parisienne suffers by comparison to what had been the full size Pontiac a couple years earlier. I can’t appreciate the Parisienne because I remember the Catalina/Bonneville. Those were the real deal – the Parisienne – not.
The brochure shot of the 1981 Bonneville is from the full-line Pontiac brochure, and would be the last time the division used “Pontiac” to mean “the full-size Pontiacs”, the same way Chevy’s cars in the ’60s were “Chevy II, Corvette, Corvair, Chevelle, and Chevrolet” Pontiac’s cars in 1981 included the Firebird, Grand Prix, Phoenix, LeMans, and for the last time as seen here, Pontiac (meaning just the full-size Pontiacs). In 1982 the G-body Bonneville was marketed as just another Pontiac model, not the Pontiac, and the Parisienne when it came to the US was treated the same way.
Canadians didn’t get a “Bonneville Model G” in 1982 – that car was still called a LeMans (or Grand LeMans) until 1984.
This confusion at Pontiac about which car was the Pontiac, i.e., the full-size Pontiac, was even more evident at Chevrolet. Why didn’t Chevrolet get a version of the downsized FD H body platform? This car could have competed against the Taurus and cut into sales of the mid-size Japanese sedans. That H body should have been the new Caprice. Instead, they fielded the mid-size Corsica ” rental car” and recycled their ” large car” , leaving buyers to wonder where was the “regular” Chevrolet.
There was the bland Lumina, which seemed too small to me to compete with Taurus. Chevrolet quality and style had to move up to compete with Japan, but they didn’t move Cadillac and Buick upmarket enough to avoid squeezing Pontiac and Olds out of business. They didn’t expect there to be so many rich people after the wretched 70’s and nearly 50 years of 70-90% tax brackets ended.
It was very disappointing to see GM falter for so many years after Taurus. GM’s cars appeared instantly out of date with sharp lines and rectangular styling. Chrysler was in no position to go after the Taurus, so I didn’t expect much except longer K-Cars, which weren’t bad cars and kept them in business. However, GM just blew it.
When the Lumina arrived, it looked good, but it wasn’t a good car. I used them with work and I also used Mercury Sable as transportation, and the Lumina was sub par across the board. It simply didn’t work as a design and the interior was feeble. That instrument panel was completely wrong compared to what the competition was offering. What the hell happened to the leg room in the Lumina? That was completely jacked! Uncomfortable as hell and with those awful GM seat belts? No way could the Lumina compete.
Even in Chicago, which was a top market for Oldsmobile for decades, these cars couldn’t compete. It was embarrassing.