“Honey, does this make my rear end look too big?” This is a question that, when asked by his sweetheart, strikes fear into the heart of every male. The problem is that the question cannot be answered but in a single way – “Not at all, dear.” This is a problem because sometimes the only acceptable answer is not necessarily the truthful one. If Bill Mitchell, early in his career as head of GM styling, or his Pontiac design studio ever asked this question about this car, the response must have been a less than sincere “no, sir, of course not.”
Bill Mitchell had a long and distinguished career as GM’s chief of styling. The cars designed during his years at the helm were notable for a certain grace, a fluidity of line that made them uncommonly attractive. We recently featured the 1966 Riviera, a car that is sort of the entire Mitchell anthology all wrapped into a single vehicle (CC here).
But if the 1966 Riviera was the quintessential Bill Mitchell, the 1962 Star Chief may be the exception that proves the rule. Is there a GM car of the Mitchell era with more awkward proportions than this one?
Granted, this car came early in Mitchell’s career (the 1960 models had been the first to be restyled under his authority) and we were a year away from the 1963 model that would be one of the most beautiful cars of the ’60s (CC here). Maybe even beautiful cars have to go through that gangly, awkward stage that affected many of us around the age of thirteen or so.
I love the name of this car: Star Chief. It is so Jet Age, so mid-century modern. The 1950s and early 1960s was an era for the stars: Starliner, Starlight, Starfire. You could cruise the lake in a Starcraft. When Frank Sinatra asked us to come fly with him, it would have been in a Lockheed Constellation. So, when you are Pontiac Division and your brand identity from the beginning of time has been the dour Chief of the Ottowa tribe, what do you do to modernize your image?
Although the 1950s was the golden age of cowboys and indians on television (and we can only imagine the possibilities had Pontiac gone down this road), the space age beckoned and we got the Star Chief as the top of the line model in 1954. Star Chief: is this a mixed metaphor, or what?
But the Star Chief’s command of Pontiac’s firmament was short lived. With the 1957 introduction of the Bonneville, performance replaced both the space age and the native warrior. The Star Chief stayed on, but became the ignored, neglected middle child of the Pontiac lineup. Amazingly, the name would remain through 1966, when it became the Star Chief Executive. (Mixed metaphor to the third power?) The car became just the Executive in 1967, and Pontiac replaced one neglected middle child with another. Not everything that John DeLorean touched at Pontiac turned to gold.
But back to 1962. While the Catalina and Bonneville had full model lineups, the Star Chief line consisted of nothing more than a pair of four doors – the four door hardtop (called the Vista) and the four door sedan. No two doors, no convertibles, no wagons. No wonder we never saw many of these. Was this Pontiac’s way of upselling buyers to the Bonneville or the new Grand Prix?
Whatever the reason, how many of these did we ever see back in the day? Even in a year in which Pontiac was the number three selling brand (with well over a half-million cars out the door), the Star Chief was never very common on the ground. There was nothing worse than getting stuck with an “S” while playing car bingo on the interstate. Studebaker and Star Chief, that was about it, and they seemed to be around in roughly equal (puny) numbers in the mid 1960s.
Actually, the Star Chief was quite a value, if a four door Poncho was your thing. In this step above the basic Catalina, you got the same dimensions as the big Bonneville: a three inch longer wheelbase (123 inches) and an additional four inches out back. This must have been quite a value compared to the higher-level Dodges and Mercurys of the time. (OK, there was the Dodge 880, but let’s be honest – it wasn’t so much a step up as an escape hatch.) You also got the Bonneville’s candy cane taillights instead of the Catalina’s parentheses.
The Star Chief also avoided the Catalina’s troublesome Roto HydraMatic transmission. Instead, it shared the Bonneville’s (and the Cadillac’s) old fashioned but superior Super HydraMatic (a/k/a Jetaway). But there was a price to pay for all this value that hits me only now: this car looks really awkward.
Have you ever heard the term “shelf butt”? Well, the Star Chief has a bad case of it. Maybe it is the long wheelbase and the even longer tail end. The ’62 Catalina (shown above) is one of the most attractive cars of 1960s.
The identically-sized Bonneville looks better than this car, too. Maybe it is this car’s four door hardtop body. The Bonnie’s two door hardtop and convertible are strikingly good looking cars. And perhaps the B’ville’s more prominent side trim on the four doors plays some visual tricks on us.
Maybe it was just that wonderful Fitzpatrick and Kaufman artwork. All of their Pontiac advertising for 1962 seemed to feature the Catalina, Bonneville and Grand Prix. Those guys could make anyhing look good. Not just good, but desirable. Alluring. Almost sensual. But the Star Chief was never shown in the ads, only in the brochure (where showing the car was mandatory). And even then, never from the rear. Although the brochure does not appear to feature F&K work, the Star Chief looks good in the artists renderings. Is it me, or are the proportions fudged just a bit in this drawing of the sedan?
I’m actually kind of disappointed here. The ’62 Pontiac is one of my favorite GM cars of all time, yet here is the unfortunate truth: this particular one is just not that well proportioned. Is this car an example of a cherished memory from long ago that does not measure up so well with a fresh look? I’m thinking of Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In. Or could it be the color? This hot red was never one of my favorites. And those cheap aftermarket wire wheelcovers do not do the car any favors.
Or has our yardstick changed? Does this car prove to us just how influential the XK-E and the Mustang really were, with their long hoods and short decks giving a subtle tweak to our sense of how cars are supposed to look?
Or maybe the car just has a big butt. No matter. The Star Chief may not be as attractive as either of its two gorgeous sisters, but it still has an awfully pretty face and a great personality. And it’s still a lot better looking than most of the other kids in the class of 1962.
I do see the visual logic, to an extended trunk. It lends the illusion of speed, and movement. Standard length trunk, and the design would appear almost static.
I thought the same thing looking at that full profile photo. It looks like a streak of movement, elongated at its tail end, like a comet almost. This impression is further enhanced by that gentle curve in the A pillar, which I’ve always liked about this generation of GM cars.
Also- power windows in a mid-range sedan back then seems fairly rare. I was surprised to see them.
The front wheels and tires positioned at the leading edge of the front fender, contributes to the appearance of forward movement, with the rear of the front fenders ‘drawn out’, behind the front wheels/tires.
The drawn out rear fender/trunk aft of the rear wheels, matches the look of the front fenders. Aiding in this overall illusion of forward movement.
As you might see an extended blur in illustrations or photos behind the moving wheels, to reflect this forward motion. Here that illusion is simulated, with the extended bodywork.
Drawn out blur behind car, gives the impression of speed. Drawn out sheet metal aft of the front and rear wheels, lends a similar look, but in steel.
Various horizontal lines extending the full length along the bodywork, also add to this speed and streamline effect. They were very inspired by jets here.
Ready for takeoff! Pulled back fenders simulate speed.
I too find the proportions on the Star Chief odd. It’d actually look much better as a convertible, and then only with the top down. The folded top would make the back deck blend better and not just look like a shelf sticking out there. Then again, the white roof on your find only seems to make the butt look bigger somehow. I think these look a bit better with a body-color roof. Awkward indeed.
That must have been a huge trunk. Enough room to get a whole other bag of golf clubs – or whatever else you were carrying – in there.
When I was little, I made an association between these cars and…Texaco. I guess I was more aware of Texaco “Sky Chief” gas than I was of Pontiacs, so I thought the car was a Sky Chief and wondered how come Texaco also sold cars. Words, albeit my often wrong and misunderstood words, were very very important to me.
Brilliant connection there! Sky Chief gasoline was heavily advertised. The Star Chief moniker must have suggested itself.
Another S car you didn’t see much: Plymouth Savoy.
The Catalina was undoubtedly better proportioned than the Star Chief, but viewed from today’s perspective, all of these cars had excessively long rear overhangs. As far as allowing for a large trunk goes, if memory serves, these were very shallow (in some cases not even accomodating an upright standard grocery bag. Further, getting to the spare tire, which was mounted against the rear axle, was very difficult, too, even for a tall guy. Still, the Star Chief was overall not an unattractive choice in 1962, it’s just that better choices were available, two of which were right across the showroom floor.
My question is whether the interiors of the Star Chief were a marked step up from the Catalina in terms of materials, finishes and other hallmarks of quality. Though longer, perhaps most Pontiac shoppers didn’t find the value in this mid-grade offering compared to the Catalina or Bonneville.
The sixties Star Chiefs had a bit nicer interior than the Catalina and a bit more standard equipment (clock, chrome moldings, etc.) It also had a 283 HP 389 V-8 and the four speed Hydramatic, compared to 267 HP and the Rotomatic for the Catalina. Given its extra length as well, not a bad upgrade for $300.
Mixed feelings on this. The trunk is bizarrely long, but if there are a few cars & model years that can pull off ‘American excess’ in a relatively tasteful way it may be this one.
The 1961 and ’62 Pontiacs were very attractive cars and to my eye have aged better than the more-praised 1963, which in hindsight may have begun the ‘bloating’ of the full-sized sedan in the mid-1960’s.
This trend appears to be a hold over from the mid 1950’s, where stylists tried to copy the proportions of fighter planes. A short front end, compact cockpit, followed by a long fuselage and tail. GM used to extend the tails on many of their premium cars, leaving the wheel base the same as lesser models. The tail made the car longer, which was more prestigious, and allowed the buyer to “one up” their neighbor.
I love the look of this car, four door hardtops combine practicality with a hint of sportiness and fun. They look so cool with all the windows down. Pontiac was just hitting their stride at this time, and would punch above their class for the next ten years. Even though Pontiac was just one step up from Chevrolet on the Sloan ladder, they built models that were desirable enough to compete against Oldsmobile and even Buick. Because they had that Pontiac spirit and flair.
I found this car quite awhile ago, and still remember my disappointment in its looks. When I was a kid, Mrs. Bordner next door had a 4 door 62 Catalina that I liked a lot. But maybe what looks great to a 6 year old kid doesn’t hold up as well as I once thought it did.
These cars were long for the sake of being long. I remember the bottoming out marks on driveways, especially if the car had an aftermarket hitch.
A lot of driveways and parking lot entrances, and some streets with drainage dips, were unusable in the era of longass cars. GM’s soft coil springs made it even worse.
Forty years into male adulthood, I have finally developed the perfect answer to the opening question. Feel free to steal and use it, fellas.
“I think you might be able to find a (dress/skirt/pair of jeans) that’s more flattering to your shape.”
(Thank me later.)
As for this Pontiac, I’d hate to calculate the departure angle. I hope you don’t have a steep driveway, or you’ll be replacing the tailpipes often.
Holy Overhang, Batman! – Yeah, I have to agree with most here that this thing is a bit out of proportion.
I think that this is most noticeable in profile, where curve of the the glass behind the C-Pillar is easily observed… or not… The disappearing glass in that gold colored car in the sixth photo down makes that trunk look even longer.
As to the QOTD that most men used to fear, in a post-Kardashian world, the answer to that question is found in this video…
The ’62 Star Chief and Bonneville had just slightly under 5 feet of overhang — 59.9 inches.
In hindsight (LOL) I grew up with these cars. Most all of them had big butts.
My go-to answer to “What’s a ‘first-world problem’ that people don’t have anymore?” is tail-dragging cars that scrape on driveways. Almost nothing has much rear overhang at all and anything that does is jacked up to pretend to off-road capability.
I say this having just jumped from the world of new cars thanks to other sites’ NY Auto Show coverage where the stunningly awkward Kia K4 sedan has been transformed into a real looker of a hatchback while Subaru, having freed the Outback from design constraints dictated by the now-going-away Legacy sedan, destroyed its USP and created an awkward middle child big 2 row SUV that’ll compete with all the others that don’t sell nearly as well as the intensely popular ones a size smaller and the only slightly bigger 3 row models.
Good point about tail-dragging. I have the opposite problem…front-scraping. If I am not careful, I often grind the underside of my front bumper on driveways and other transitions. Of course, my car has about 6.5″ of ground clearance.
And that’s the way I like it.
Nice find and write up! I’ve noticed before that 61-64 Bonnevilles look like they have extreme rear overhang. Was it more than its platform mates? It would be interesting to do the research.
The Bonneville and Star Chief had the same rear overhang, which was 4 inches longer than the Catalina.
Sorry, I meant other GM divisions.Be interesting to look if the overhang was also more than Ford or Mopar full sizers. Of course most all American cars had a lot of rear overhang, but the Bonneville/Star Chief does seem excessive in those years.
I covered that in great detail here. Did you miss it?
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/design/which-car-had-the-longest-rear-overhang/