(first posted 2/3/2017) Pontiac would go on to great heights in the 1960s—and again in the 1990s—before it was culled in 2010 as part of GM’s bankruptcy. It often took the #3 sales spot for passenger cars in those two decades, and even pushed aside Chevy for the #2 spot in 1996 and 2000. In between these highs, Pontiac had some nasty lows too. Early on, Pontiac would not have survived the Depression without some drastic intervention by GM President Alfred Sloan and Chief Pontiac stylist Frank Hershey.
Between the two, they revived a moribund brand and set a pattern for much of GM’s subsequent success: shared bodies differentiated by as much distinctive styling as possible under the circumstances. Pontiac’s trademark “Silver Streak” styling appeared in 1935 as that critical stylistic hallmark for the brand, and was used all the way through 1956, by which time Pontiac had slipped again and was in need for another resuscitation.
Pontiac first appeared in 1926 as a companion brand to Oakland, based in Pontiac, Michigan, one of the early car companies acquired by William C. Durant in his creation of GM. The companion brand strategy was devised in the early 1920s, as at that time the five divisions of GM had a highly stratified pricing structure (often referred to as the “Sloanian Ladder”), that left some gaps between the brands, which were identified as opportunities in the hot market of the Roaring Twenties.
The gap between the four cylinder Chevrolet and the Oakland was the first one authorized to be filled by a companion brand, so Oakland, which had already been struggling with inconsistent quality and sales, created the Pontiac. And they shot themselves in the foot in the process.
As these two 1925 sedans show, the Oakland (left) and Pontiac (right) were essentially identical in styling, except for the Pontiac’s 3″ shorter wheelbase. The Oakland was powered by a 185 cu.in. straight six making 44 hp (it had dropped its first V8 back in 1917). And it listed for $1,215.
The Pontiac had a new 186.5 ci.in flat head straight six rated at a somewhat more modest 36 hp, but otherwise the general mechanical configuration and other specifications were largely similar. Except for its price, that is, which was a mere $825, making the Oakland a full 50% more expensive. You can see where this is going: Oakland sales plummeted, and it was gone by 1931. But for a few years, the new Pontiac greatly swelled Oakland Division total sales, until the Depression hit.
And Pontiac was hardly immune to its effects either. The solution, as crafted by Sloan, was to kill Oakland and essentially merge Pontiac’s manufacturing with Chevrolet’s in 1932, in the process creating the template for the future of GM.
The 1932 Chevrolet (above), shared its body, chassis and many primary mechanical aspects with the 1932 Pontiac (below).
As would be the case for decades to come, the main difference between the 1932 Pontiac and the Chevy was a minor wheelbase stretch, in this case in the front, from 109″ to 114″, thus creating a longer hood. But except for that and a different radiator, they were virtually identical externally.
The ’32 Pontiac Six coupe (there was also a short-lived and more expensive V8 model using the Oakland’s troublesome engine) was priced at $635; the Chevy at $490. That additional 30% only bought one an extra 6 cubic inches and 5 hp along with the slightly longer front end and different radiator, and perhaps some minor differences in the interior. Which probably explains why Chevrolet sold 313k cars that year and Pontiac 45k. But the costs for building the Pontiac were now substantially lower.
Sloan’s calm and pragmatic solutions like this to the upheavals of the automobile business were all highly effective: GM never once showed a loss during the Great Depression. In fact, the Depression was ultimately a boon to GM, as it eliminated or permanently weakened much of the competition.
Frank Hershey arrived at GM from Hudson in 1932 and quickly became one of Harley Earl’s most talented stylists. For 1933, he was given the task to differentiate the Pontiac more decisively from the Chevrolet, despite their bodies being largely identical from the cowl back. His bold and prowed Bentley-esque grill and heavily-valanced fenders were very successful in meeting that goal, and sales doubled to 90,198.
Under that lovely front end was something more worthy of it too: a brand new straight eight engine, with 223.4 cu.in. displaced by a bore of 3.19″ and a stroke of 3.50″, and rated at 77 hp. This flat head eight, with increases in displacement, would be used by Pontiac all the way through 1954, then the last of its kind still in production.
For 1935 and a new GM A-Body, Hershey and his team came up with something decidedly different: a continuous band of ribbed bright work that started at the base of the grille and wrapped around over its top, running all the way to the base of the windshield.
Like almost all successful new styling ideas, the provenance of the “Silver Streak” has been in some dispute. Virgil Exner, who left Studebaker for the Pontiac studio in early 1934, claims credit for it, not surprisingly. He may well have done some work on it, but he clearly didn’t originate it, as it was first seen on a model submitted for one of Earl’s competitions in 1933, well before Exner started at GM. Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan.
There is some speculation as to its inspiration. One source says it was the cooling coils on a vintage Napier race car; another says that a piece of extruded clay was accidentally left on the hood of a model. We’ll never know for sure.
Pontiac certainly wasn’t bashful about the result. Nor the effect on sales: up over 60%, to some 130k. Of course sales during the Great Depression bounced up and down for everyone, and 1935 was generally a better year, but this was an exceptional result.
As was commonly the case then, and would be for some time, the second year of a major GM re-style had only minor changes. The headlight nacelles were moved up from the fender to the sides of the hood, as pioneered at GM on the 1934 La Salle. And the side portions of the grille were now body-colored to enhance the Silver Streak even further.
As the badge on the grille spells out, this is a Pontiac 6. After an absence in ’33 and ’34, the six was back in ’36, with 208 cubic inches and 80 hp. This was an update of the original Pontiac six from 1926. The price for this De Luxe Six coupe was $665, compared to $560 for a 79 hp Master De Luxe Chevrolet. This time, the extra 19% bought one a mere single extra hp along with the Silver Streak.
The eight, which curiously had only four more hp than the six, had a 116.6″ wheelbase compared to the 112″ for the six, again, all of it in the front end.
It took some careful perusing of the 1936 Pontiac brochure before I decided that this was a Coupe, and not a Sports Coupe, since the latter has a rumble seat whose lid lifts up from the front, not the rear.
Determining whether it was a De Luxe or Master would have been easy, as the former has Dubonnet independent front suspension, a design licensed from French inventor André Dubonnet, and used on both Chevrolet and Pontiac starting in 1934 for a few years, before they adopted the more familiar SLA with exposed coil springs, and had been used by other GM divisions since 1934. For more details on the Dubonnet system and its issues, see my 1936 Chevrolet CC.
Like Chevrolet, Pontiac offered a traditional and simpler solid front axle suspended by semi-elliptic leaf springs on their Master series, only available as a Six in Pontiac’s case. But foolishly, I forgot to bend down and take a look at the front suspension. A thorough read of the brochure did turn up one—and only one—other significant difference: the Master series did not come with a glove box lock. And this one clearly has one.
Actually, the Eight and De Luxe Six also had slightly different upholstery options, as compared to two for the Master. This would appear to be the taupe mohair and not the modified tweed pattern taupe woolen cloth. In the Master, the second choice was brown patterned broad cloth. Since the mohair was available in both, it did come down to the glove box lock. Whew!
In addition to the coupes and convertible, there were of course two and four door sedans, available as regular sedans and as “Touring Sedans” with a proper but bulging trunk grafted on to the back end. It was practical, but not terribly elegant. And the four door sedans were not as handsome as a the cleaner two doors to start with.
The regular two door sedan did have a very fine profile, especially the Eight, with its longer hood. Who needs luggage anyway?
It reflects quite well on a smaller scale Cadillac’s superlative V16 Aerodynamic Coupe, built for the 1933 Chicago Century of Progress Exhibition. It was so popular with the crowds that Cadillac put it in production for 1934. It was the pivotal change point for GM styling, as it negotiated the potentially difficult transition from classical to modern streamlined in a most elegant way.
This Pontiac Six isn’t quite in that league, but it certainly is a handsome and refined expression of that challenging transitional period, between 1933 and 1939. It was a boon time for the designers, as rarely would there be such profound change in such a short period of time. This ’36 is pretty squarely in the mid point of that era, and as such has one foot in each era.
Its Silver Streak may have started out as an accident or whim, but it became something much larger, and came to define Pontiac styling for…way too long. This is an unfortunate pattern, when a design feature is clung to way past its relevance. By the last few years (1956 being the final year), it looked very contrived, and finally corresponded with a slump in 1956 Pontiac sales, so deep that once again the division’s future was in question. It took some fresh, new thinking by its brash new General Manager “Bunkie” Knudsen, assisted by Pete Estes and John Z. De Lorean to revive Pontiac again.
They set a trajectory that would soon vault Pontiac from #6 to #3 in the sales charts, an even more impressive result than the original Silver Streaks did for Pontiac in the mid thirties. This time, Pontiac had unleashed a tiger.
But back in 1935-1936, these were the cat’s meow. Or just a catwalk.
Related:
CC 1936 Chevrolet Master De Luxe: Is It Too Early for a Dubonnet? PN
Thanks for posting that. I see the difference between the 32 and 36 , but wasn’t there an even bigger change perhaps between say the 57s and the 61s? The 61s feel to me eyes to be modern and so different from the chunky high-riding mid 50s era.
dingleydave, Your eyes are accurate (IMO). Full size 1961 GM cars were smaller, lighter, and more logical than the same models of the prior years.
The dogleg windshields were gone, there was less squat on acceleration, less dive on braking, cornering seemed less ponderous, and they were a bit faster (all other things equal).
If ever there was a significant before and after moment in GM cars, 1961 was it.
Of course, right after 1961 they started getting bigger again. Go figure.
1933-34 was a massive styling change for the entire auto industry. Graham brought out enclosed front fenders in 1933, Chrysler, DeSoto and Huppmobile brought out aerodynamic styling for 1934, LaSalle for 1934 really headed the industry off in a new direction (aerodynamic, but not as radical as Chrysler).
Bottom line is that 1932 cars were pretty much chromed and better styled versions of 1922 cars, while 1936 cars had almost nothing in common with what was happening four years earlier.
All true. One streamliner that seems mostly lost to modern memory is the 34 Studebaker Land Cruiser.
But you are right that by 1935-36 things were looking significantly different and much more conventional.
That’s a very European looking design. Not to say there weren’t great designs in the US at the time, but it just has a European vibe to it. Wonderful.
Nicely done, as usual. That silver streak with painted grille was certainly striking, and seems an almost inevitable result of the streamline design motif. Did Pontiac or critics reference it specifically as an inspiration for the side spears on early 1960s Bonnevilles?
Don’t know. The Silver Streak was always used on the hoods, so maybe not. But it may well have been a subtle nod to it.
Wonderful find and article. Your explanation about the reasons for the demise of Oakland are the most descriptive I’ve seen.
There is something so simple yet elegant, solid yet light about these pre-war cars. It’s also nice to see something pre-war that isn’t a Ford or Chevrolet!
Very nice article. That side view of the ’36 DeLuxe Eight two-door sedan brought back memories, because my ’37 Buick Special had the same body style. And that ‘luggage back’ (at least that’s what Buick called it) had enough room for two normal sized suitcases and two of the little carry on things with rollers we now call suitcases today. The hump back trunk would have probably upped that to four traditional suitcases.
I don’t think anyone would have compared the Bonneville’s side streak to the Silver Streak, because by the 1960’s that old silver streak screamed “old man’s car” and “Pontiac’s failure”. There was a reason they got rid of it, and if anything they were taking a bit of a chance to bring it back in that manner.
Pontiacs of this era are almost invisible today, so it is great to see one. Moving up the Sloan Ladder to a Pontiac really was a big deal back then.
Pontiac and Dodge really used to duke it out in those years, and that eight cylinder option for Pontiac undoubtedly closed a few sales. But upon checking, it looks like Pontiac outsold Dodge only 3 years in the 1930s – 31, 32 and 35.
Thanks, again, Paul for educating us about the profound styling changes that came about in the 1930’s. Before this, all those “old cars” (pre-WWII) looked the same to me, just a little more curvy in the ’30’s. I am coming to understand your assertion that the ’30’s was a most important time in the evolution of automotive style. That 2 door Pontiac Eight looks very sleek to me in profile, something I bet some kid would have really loved at the time as a model toy.
I don’t quite understand the “gaps” in Sloan’s ladder. If we look at 1923 (Classic Car Database):
Cadillac ranges from $2885 to $4600 (not sure if this would include Fleetwood bodies)
Buick – $865 to $2195
Olds – $850 to $2635
Oakland – 975 to $1545
Chevrolet – $510 to $1060
Ford Model T – $269 to $595
Chevy does not seem to be priced low enough, but otherwise I do not see a gap. The real problem seems to be that Buick, Olds and Oakland overlap too much.
For 1926:
Pontiac $825 to $975
Oakland $1025 to $1295
Olds $875 to $1115
Buick $1125 to $1995
Cadillac $2995 to $4485
Chevy $510 to 765
Ford $345 to $580
There seems to be a gap between Buick and Cadillac, but not so much otherwise.
Until 1941, you had LaSalle in between Buick and Cadillac. After Pontiac, this was the most successful of the ‘companion’ brands. The name was done away with and the models were branded Cadillac because the LaSalle was getting trashed in the marketplace by the Packard 110 and 120. For the same money, you got the big car’s brand name.
Besides the Depression, you can now see why Viking (between Oakland and Oldsmobile) and Marquette (between Oldsmobile and Buick) failed. There just wasn’t a big enough gap to fit another brand in, especially when the brands had nothing to do with the parent brand.
The Lasalle first appears in 1927 which would fill in the price range.
The Packard 110 and 120 sell about 100,000 for 1940. Lasalle’s best year is about 30,000. Packard’s 110 is a low priced car at $867. Even the cheapest Buick is more.
That was Packard’s smart (at first, then very very dumb) move: The 120 and 110 had the same name, same styling, same showroom at the big 180 Senior cars (which didn’t survive the war) – a chance for badge snobs to get the prestige without paying for it (can we say Mercedes CLA today?) In the short run, it saved the company. In the long run, it killed the company.
Meanwhile, if you wanted something in the same price range from Lincoln, you bought a Zephyr. Which nobody could mistake for the big V-12 Lincolns. Even if it had the same number of cylinders. From General Motors, a LaSalle. Chrysler wasn’t really playing that much above the LaSalle range at that time.
So, basically, Cadillac swallowed up LaSalle and priced their low line Cadillacs to match the previous years LaSalle prices. Keep in mind that LaSalle was originally a V-8 (’27-33) and it’s sales were hurt badly by the Depression. The car was scheduled to be discontinued at the end of the ’33 model year, but the gorgeous design planned for the ’34’s saved it. Plus, the V-8 was dropped for a mildly upgraded Oldsmobile straight eight, and a few other unseen bits were cheapened.
You’re not comparing apples to apples; or coupes to coupes, or sedans to sedans. prices varied greatly back then depending on body style. And a buyer for a two door Buick sedan was not cross-shopping with a Chevy phaeton, as just an example.
Compare the prices of comparable body styles, and it’ll make more sense.
Ok I just looked at coupes, which for Cadillac is very high, but obviously Cadillac (1923) was well above Buick and Olds anyway. But the basic coupes are about $1200 for all three mid range cars, and Buick and Olds have an $1800 or so coupe. Cadillac is about 2x that.
What I see is overlap in the mid range.
I can’t really answer it properly without a detailed analysis. Keep in mind that these dollar differences look very small to us, but there was a huge spread overall from cheap Chevy to expensive Cadillac.
What they were really trying to do is to have a brand to directly compete against certain competitor brands that were doing reasonably well at their specific price point. There were so many brands back then, and GM wanted to go directly against just about all of them.
That all changed as the highly stratified market of the 20s collapsed, and many independents went bust. Whereas a Cadillac could cost 8-10 times a Chevy, by the 40s and 50s, it was a whole different ball game. By 1950, a Cadillac coupe was just some 55% more than a Chevy Bel Air coupe. And that spread only decreased further with time.
There are more than 100 makes in the early 20’s. What I do know is that Sloan wanted Chevrolet to compete against Ford, which meant taking Chevrolet down market. Wikipedia does have an entry on GM companion cars. I kind of understand the general idea, but I am not convinced that there was much of a need. But my analysis above shows that probably there was not much need for Oakland, but Pontiac probably would fit in between the Buick-Olds price range and the Chevrolet. Oakland seems to be priced inside of the Buick-Olds range.
I don’t think that there is a simple answer to the issue. My opinion is that Sloan had an idea about companion cars filling in some gaps that he thought were there, but curiously Buick’s companion is a one year wonder outselling the Olds companion, which had a three year run. Then we are left with Pontiac and Lasalle companions, Buick and Olds, Chevrolet and Cadillac. By this time the Great Depression sets in, so the whole market changes anyway.
I’ve always felt the Marquette and Viking were not terribly well thought out ideas, despite their being individually designed cars rather than some kind of (A-body) badge engineering exercise. And it’s damned difficult to find much of anything on either of them.
I always thought it said something that GM could be able to put out in 1930, NINE different brands of cars with (I believe) at least seven different engine configurations (OHV I-6, flathead I-6, OHV I-8, flathead I-8, flathead V-8, OHV V-12, OHV V-16) – and then drop three of those brands and at least one unique engine (Viking V-8, which had nothing to do with the LaSalle and Cadillac V-8’s) by 1933 without losing a beat.
For all the talk of the ubiquitousness of GM in the 60’s, I always figured they were at their most powerful (compared to the competition) in the 30’s and especially in the first part of the decade.
I hope I didn’t create the impression that I thought the companion brands were a good idea. They obviously weren’t.
They originated at a time when Sloan had not yet fully consolidated his power and GM. In the early 20s, it was still largely a collection of different car companies under single ownership. Progress towards stratification had been made, but it was still less than ideal.
I wasn’t there, but I suspect that the impetus for the companion brands most likely came from the divisions, not from Sloan.
I can look it up in my copy of Sloan’s book.
I just read a key chapter of Sloan’s book “My Years With GM”. I’m afraid I did not do justice in explaining the birth of Pontiac.
The reason for its creation were several factors, the most important being the decision back in 1921 that Chevrolet would move down market to compete more directly (although a bit above) with the Ford T. This was taken in incremental stages, but mostly completed in 1925. Lower prices for Chevrolet opened the gap with the next one up, the Oldsmobile (not Oakland, as I suggested).
Sloan decided that the new car to fill this gap be developed and built in a new way: instead of unique new car, it was to be essentially a 6 cylinder Chevrolet, using as much of the Chevy chassis and other components as possible. Oakland had little or nothing to do with the Pontiac initially.
Once the new Pontiac engine was developed, and plans furthered for the Pontiac, Oakland showed the most interest in it. And Sloan already felt that Oakland was weak, with an iffy future. So in the end,, the Pontiac was given to Oakland, but it was really part of an engineered transition to create a Chevy-based Pontiac as well as pahse out Oakland.
What really sealed the deal for Pontiac was when Essex came out with the first low-priced coach/sedan, at around $1000, a price segment GM was not active in for a closed car. So when Pontiac was launched in 1926, it was without any open touring cars; only closed cars and one obligatory roadster. i t was priced and targeted directly at the Essex, which was perceived to be a threat.
This all makes a huge amount more sense, given Chevy’s march down in price. And the rapidly changing market preference for closed cars. And it was a key first step in utilizing the engineering resources of a volume brand (Chevy) to create a higher priced car, with the resulting efficiencies. No wonder the Pontiac destroyed the Oakland. It was similar in most regards, but one third cheaper.
The rest of the companion brands all seem to be sketchier, and short lived, for good reasons. La Salle was of course the most successful, but as Syke pointed out, when Packard went downmarket, Cadillac had to do, negating La Salle’s reason for assistance.
My Cadillac history book does say that at the end of the 30’s or beginning of the 40’s that the Packard’s low end was taking sales away from Cadillac. I think Lincoln also had a low end model. Anyway Cadillac redid the series numbers to move the 61 up to 62 and then introduced the lower end series 61 Cadillac to replace the Lasalle. Cadillac sales for 1941 were up quite a bit, but exactly why is not clear.
Part of the Cadillac boom was due to being able to now buy a Cadillac for a price slightly above a Buick. But the big reason for 1941 sales was the quiet resignation on the part of the American public that we were going to be involved in that European war sometime soon, although nobody expected how it would happen. Pretty much everybody, with the exception of Graham and Hupp (who were barely hanging on), had a good 1941.
And it turned out the American public was pretty smart.
Re: Chevrolet moving downmarket. We usually forget that Chevrolet started out as a mid-priced (Oldsmobile level) car with a large six before bringing out a four cylinder car in 1914, and then also doing a flathead V-8 in 1917. And, during the short depression at the end of WWI, there was serious talk about dropping the brand altogether. The “downmarket but slightly upscale” strategy is what saved it.
I’ve never read Sloan’s book, have always wanted to. Obviously, there’s a lot in it that I’ve never picked up from all the other sources I’ve read over the last fifty years. Thanks for the insight.
I love that Deluxe 8 two door sedan… and I love that chromed stripe on the hood.. an excellent match with the Raymond Lowey streamlined trains in the last article. It certainly didn’t translate to the 50’s though.
Sadly, I often fall into the same trap with my personal style. Some people feel that my 80’s clothes don’t suit me any more, but I just make them get off my lawn.
I just love the prose used in that ad posted above: ” . . . with the aid of a 1 1/4 inch carburetor, perfected to include such advancements as an accelerating pump for added snap on the getaway.”
Having cut my teeth rebuilding American car carburetors, I can readily attest that you will most certainly be wanting for that added getaway snap if your accelerator pump is not functioning!
Helpful tip to maximize your getaway snap: if your accelerator pump circuit includes a stainless ball check, and you are replacing it with a new one, set the new ball on its seat and lightly tap it with a drift to mate the seat to the new ball (of which the diameter may be slightly off from the original).
What a treat to see this lovely Pontiac and to read about the ’20s and ’30s, which were the decades when the automobile really “came together” technically and stylistically.
The mid-’30s was also an important transition towards all-steel bodies. Was that Pontiac already made that way?
Yes. All-steel “Turret-Top” construction, which was first employed in 1935 by GM.
When my parents moved from Charlottsville, VA to Sharon, PA in late 1945, they purchased a well used 1936 Pontiac straight 8 for the trip. That black coupe served them until August of 1948 when their wait for a new car finally ended. The Pontiac went to the junk yard and a new 1948 Dodge 2 door sedan took its place.
I remember nothing of that “first” car as my twin brother and I were born on February 3rd of 1948. My father told me stories of having the transmission rebuilt, the head lights having 3 settings (dim, bright and country) and a minor collission with the local milk truck that caused no damage. Apparently trips through the Blue Ridge Mountains would cause the old Pintiac to over heat.
My mother told me of the advanced safety features of the Pontiac. As infant twins I always sat on my mom’s lap and my brother laid between her and Dad on all trips until the new Dodge arrived.
I did purchase a die cast model of a 1936 Pontiac business coupe several years ago. It seems to be a rare model.
I have a question regarding the 1936 Pontiac. Were any models equipped with a “banjo style” steering wheel? The one here does not appear to have one and I “thought” the upper trim level cars with the straight 8 did.
Although the silver streaks out-lived their styling usefulness, my favorite car in 1955 was Pontiac! Loved the dual silver streaks. My father shopped many brands that year (including Pontiac). When money was finally handed over he bought a New Ford Fairlane Sunliner. Beautiful car (but it didn’t have silver streaks).
Is Pontiac still the only example of a companion make outlasting the parent make (Oakland)?
Does Rambler/Nash count?
“Is Pontiac still the only example of a companion make outlasting the parent make (Oakland)?”
If you think about it, Rambler was a companion make to Nash, and outlasted Nash. Interestingly enough, in the 1910’s “Nash” as a brand-name replaced Jeffrey which had earlier replaced Rambler. So it went full-circle.
“Mini” as a make has outlasted all the other BMC car brands, including of course Austin.
“Jeep” of course outlasted Willys.
In a weird way, “Avanti” as a make outlasted it’s progenitor Studebaker. Not sure that counts.
Given that the Dodge Challenger and Dodge Charger are both being discontinued this year, even though it seems they still enjoy mildly healthy and (given the amortized tooling) profitable sales, the only two Dodge vehicles left will be the Durango and the “Hornet”, a rebadged Alfa Romeo small car. It would be simple for the Durango to be rebadged a RAM and it wouldn’t be surprising for the Hornet to disappear or get rebadged a Chrysler or even an Alfa Romeo, in which case Dodge would be outlasted by it’s “companion brand” RAM.
As a side note, as I am sure everyone is aware, the Packard and Pontiac flathead Straight-8’s both were produced through the 1954 model year.
Were the companion brands sold at the parents’ dealers?
The Silver Streak was an excellent way of making your car purchase stand out from what was still a large crowd of brands that streamlining had led to similar appearance. We have even more brands and aerodynamic imperatives now, so stylists have to add as many creases and bulges as they can to create a distinctive look on a smallish CUV shape. Getting rid of the U–the flat gray or black plastic bits–sounds like a good idea to me.
The regular two door sedan did have a very fine profile, especially the Eight, with its longer hood.
That ’36 ad has a great illustration–Pontiac has a history of that–but how lifelike are the dimensions in it? (Again, Pontiac ads, history, etc.)