(first posted 5/15/2017) I’ve been seeing this big, increasingly grungy Bonneville around town for years, but have never had a proper close encounter. I shot it once from some distance through a chain link fence in the parking lot behind the county jail, which made me wonder if it belonged to a guard or inmate. I suppose they don’t exactly provide parking for inmates, so we’ll safely assume the former.
I thought it might have been retired, as it’s been a while, but here it was, sitting in a parking lot across from the middle school, although it gets used for other purposes too. It’s quite the contrast from the sea of Outbacks, other CUVs, Prii and pickups. And finding it gave me the excuse to determine just what made the Bonneville longer than the Catalina. Hint; it’s all in the tail.
One of these days, we’ll have to do a complete guide to all of the GM full-size car bodies, as the various tweaks made to their basic body shells in GM’s decades-long shell game can be mystifying. Today, let’s focus on this Bonneville, which is not a C-Body like the top Olds and Buicks, but an elongated B-Body.
All these full-size Pontiacs had an extra two inches in their front ends, compared to the Chevrolets resulting in 121″ wheelbases for the lower-tier Catalina and Ventura compared to 119″ for the Chevy.The 124″ wb Bonneville (and Executive) had an extra three inches wheelbase, as well as seven more inches total length, 222.6″ compared to 215.6″ for the Catalina/Ventura.. That 3″ wheelbase plug is clearly visible in the extra long gap between the rear edge of the rear door and the wheel opening. But since that accounts for only three of those inches, the other four must be in the longer tail.
It seems a bit hard to believe, but the tail really is longer, based on measurements I took with a ruler from the centers of the wheels to the tip of the rear bumper. I should have reduced the size of the blue Ventura in order to make the comparison a bit more accurate. That’s what your extra money bought you: a longer tail to make parking this barge even that much harder.
Here’s what it didn’t get you: extra rear leg room. I don’t have the stats at hand to prove it, but that rear seat back edge follows the contour of the door opening, and is clearly not set back like the axle was. Pontiac’s specs were 37.5″ of rear seat legroom for all both the Catalina and Bonneville. OK, so the trunk was a couple of inches longer; that’s useful, when you have a long corpse to haul.
Sorry, but the rain on the windows made my shots a bit…runny. Nice big armrest in front, but none in back. That’s another game GM played over the years: it used to be armrests in the rear for the nicer-trimmed models, but at some point about this time, GM realized that these cars were occupied in the front about 90% of the time, and who gives a damn if the kids have an armrest? Better late than never, although that thinking eventually got GM into a lot of trouble.
Frankly, this Bonneville’s interior isn’t exactly very, uh, luxurious. Looks more like an Impala, never mind the Chevy Caprice. There was the Bonneville Brougham, but that never seemed to be very popular in its day.
Anyway you look at it, it’s a very different body configuration from today’s tall and short-overhang CUVs. You may not be in love with them, but these tall wagons sure are a whole lot more practical than carrying around a helipad on your tail end, an extra long-one in this case.
Of course there’s one on the front end too, although not quite as flat as the one on the rear. Handy though, to have two. This Bonnie is showing asymmetrical effects of our wet winters. Or maybe someone started washing it and didn’t finish. Odd about how the beak is clean.
Is there any need to talk about what’s under that long hood? Well, yes, since a bit of perusing my Encyclopedia brings up an odd fact:
The standard engine for the Bonneville with the THM automatic is the 325 hp 400 CID V8. But get this: the standard engine for the Bonnevilles equipped manual transmissions is a 333 hp version. Really? Pray someone tell us what’s the difference between these two. And just how many Bonnies were sold with the manual three-on-the-tree? Or the optional four speed?
These cars are really starting to stand out in today’s parking lots. It’s one thing to see a cherry Bonneville coupe or convertible on a sunny Sunday or at a car meet, but as a 50 year old grungy daily driver, it’s getting to be a bit of an anachronism. It’s not unlike like if you dropped one of these on the streets 40 years before its time; think how it would stand out among a sea of short, tall, upright Model As and such. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the longer, lower, wider era was a historic anomaly. Like it or not, today’s CUVs are just getting back to the historic mean. But it was fun while it lasted.
related Pontiac shelf-butt reading: CC 1962 Pontiac Star Chief JPC
I love the look of that old Poncho! As always I’m amazed at the car preserving environment you live in Paul.
Same here. That faded gold color, beige top and interior on a big-ass ’67 Bonneville, with the odd split headlight front, sitting in the rain really captures the moment.
Sadly, Paul (and believe me, as one born in ’67 it is certainly a sad fact from my viewpoint), this is actually a FIFTY year old survivor. Oh that it were only 40….but that’s in the rear view for this car and this poster;)
Doh! Kind of the ultimate senior moment, eh? The decades are feeling more like years now.
This is one of those cars that in the late 60s I thought was quite arresting (no, I don’t mean that literally). I mean, look at the front end, most other similar looking cars would have put the headlights above the bumper, or inside the loop of the bumper (69 Plymouth Fury?). Pontiac did both, and yet it doesn’t look all that strange, at least not IMHO.
Then there’s that heavy (looking) crease that starts almost halfway down the side of the car and it flows down and back. On the smaller 68-69 Buick Skylark it looks too heavy, but on these Pontiacs it works with that front end.
Probably the biggest disappointment here is that all, or at least most, of that length they added to the Bonneville versus the Catalina was put in the trunk. But I guess someone thought moving the rear seat rearwards really would have required a longer rear door to keep entering and exciting the back seat from being too awkward?
My guess is, keeping the seat placement, let them use the same roof and glass for all the different lengths. Maybe the Chevys too.
A few remarks: 1) Pontiac from the early 1950’s featured longer tails on the more expensive models. The cab was always the same dimension. Ridiculous but true. 2) I sat in a number of these big cars for trips. Sitting in the center rear seat position meant getting a drive line tunnel up your butt every time the car hit a good bump in the road. Not very pleasant and certainly not what should have been the upholstering for this big beast. 3) Pontiac’s typically had less insulation in the rear seat area than Buicks or Oldsmobiles. The result was a lot of road noise for rear seat passengers. In 1966 I met a man who had a fully loaded Bonneville. The M.S.R.P. was $11,000.00, which made it more expensive than a fully loaded Cadillac Series 62 at M.S.R.P.! Another ridiculous point. With all of these remarks, these barges are fun to see.
I would question that $11K MSRP on any 1966 American car. A 66 Fleetwood Sixty Special based at under $7k that year. Might it be possible to add $4k in options to one of those? I am not sure it would have been. The Bonneville based at around $3500. A decade later inflation had stickers up into the range you remember, but not 1966.
Edit – on thinking about it, I remember ordering the “Car Buying Made Easier” book from Ford around 1972. They listed prices and options of every FoMoCo car. I recall being thrilled that 12 year old me could spec out an imaginary Continental Mk IV in a way that got it to hit $10K.
I would question the $11K 1966 Bonneville too. Some of the most expensive options (such as 8-track stereo) weren’t even available until ’67.
List prices for 1965 Bonnevilles and their options (www.oldride.com/library/1965_pontiac_bonneville.html) wouldn’t have been appreciably different for 1966.
I agree. My grandfather’s fully loaded new 1965 Chrysler New Yorker 4dr Hardtop w/ bucket seats (sorta) was @$5500.
No promises on completeness or accuracy, but I was able to cobble this together from the 1965 and 1966 information in the Standard Catalog. It appears that it would have been a struggle to load a ’66 Bonneville beyond $6,000, and such a car would have been very unusual.
With the big 428 engine (375 HP) the base price is $3750. Basic options run less than $2000 more (automatic, brougham, power steering, brakes, windows…). Even if you could double the base price with options $11000 is not likely.
I recall seeing a new 1971 Fleetwood Cadillac with a price tag of just over $10,000 with options.
These big Bonnevilles still had some swaggar to them in 1967. These were gorgeous cars when new, although I have always preferred the 65-66 to the 67-68.
I think all GM interiors got a bit of a cost trimming for 1967, and I agree that this one does not look all that special. But it looks no worse than the interior of the 68 Newport Custom I drove 20 years ago.
Good grief but that gold paint was everywhere in 1967. It seemed like everyone I knew had a gold car at some point between 1967 and 1972.
We had many Bonnevilles of those years in our family: 1965 and ’66 convertibles, a ’67 coupe, and a ’65 Safari wagon. (The Bonneville wagon, and the Executive wagon that premiered in ’67, were the same body as the Catalina wagon, on the shorter 121″ wheelbase. Other Bonnevilles and Star Chiefs/Executives were on a 124″ wheelbase, not 126″.)
As for decontenting: Bonneville convertibles through 1966 had standard leather seating portions (bench standard, buckets optional) that I believe were lost for ’67, and the real wood trim on Bonneville (and Grand Prix) dashboards was replaced by vinyl for ’67. But there were positive tradeoffs, such as newly required safety equipment (energy-absorbing steering column) and newly available options, such as the cornering lights seen in the photos (not available on any Chevrolet). Plus the “disappearing” windshield wipers, a ’67 Pontiac exclusive.
Big comedown for 1968, though. Even leaving aside the front end, the full-size Pontiac dashboard was ruined by stuck-on extra padding in places that offered no real additional safety advantage, plus a full-length side rub strip that did the styling no favors. Also, the Bonneville door panels became one-piece molded affairs that didn’t wear well and had an inconveniently placed door handle (see photo).
You’re right about that gold paint era. My folks had a ’68 Ford XL in gold. Found a picture of one from bring-a-trailer. Ours had black vinyl on that fastback roof.
My dad had a 1967 Safari in that Bonneville color, it was “champagne”. He thought it hid the dirt. His first car w/ a/c and an am/fm radio.
That depends what colour your local dirt is. Our Diamante, in “Riversand” (a pale gold) matches the colour of the dirt around here, but really stands out in the red-soil and black-soil country.
I bought another roadgrime grey C5 never need to wash it except if I drive on our clay based gravel 4oads
Paul Wrote: “Odd about how the beak is clean.”
If you’re a Maryland Terrapins (Terps) Fan, this could be easily explained. Before basketball games, everyone rubs Testudo’s nose for good luck as they walk into the arena.
Perhaps folks are doing the same thing with this Bonneville. ;o)
Beat me to it!
Never having heard of the terrapins, I was going to mention the statue of the philosopher David Hume in Edinburgh, Scotland. People rub his foot for luck, a superstition he presumably would have rubbished.
Lore also had it that Testudo would leave its pedestal and fly over the administration building if a virgin ever graduated from U of MD. Safe to say that the terrapin has been firmly planted since its 1933 birth.
I graduated from UMCP in ’83. The other part of that story (at least at that time) was that Testudo would be shot down by the cannons on South Hill!
The weather, the condition, the lighting – this is a picture that simply screams “up to no good.”
I think if this massive beast was riding your tail you’d get over and let him pass.
I like it. I’m not a fan usually of black cars but I want to paint this one black and tint the windows right up to the legal limit (here in NM.)
The funny thing is that the extra length WAS the whole point. The standard Chevy and Ford formed the baseline. The longer your higher line car was, the more prestigious it was. Didn’t really matter if the extra length didn’t translate into increased interior dimensions. The full size models were already pretty big inside. Pontiacs also came with bigger motors standard. No six popper there. (I’ll guess that the extra five horsepower came from a dual exhaust system). What also counted was the nameplate. The Pontiac just had more status than the Chevy. Even if the interior appointments weren’t anything special. GM built many higher line models like the Buick Special (of the 1950s) which was the full size car with cheaper appointments. Think of the Chrysler Newport. Think of Mercedes Benz with their proliferation of C Class models. The point is that you are driving a Benz, doesn’t matter that their are competitive models that are a better value or that a C is a long way from an S.
The mindset back then too was that the longer the car was, the safer it was.
Imagine how many sets of PGA Tour size clubs you could get in that trunk…
My Dad and his buddies would drive south from Ohio each spring to find somewhere to golf when they got sick of waiting for everything to thaw out and green up in Ohio.
For most of the late 80s/early 90s they’d take a 1987 Fleetwood belonging to a friend that Dad only ever referred to as “Suds”. The trunk was the reason – not the interior room.
If that’s true there may have been some validity to that in the pre-crumple- zone era, the rear end structures were built like beer cans, and crush like them too if you observe old car wreck footage and photos. The longer they are the more metal to crumple and absorb the impact, and more space to separate the crush zone from the passenger compartment. I’d much rather be in one of these in a rear end wreck than in a tiny import of the era.
Until 1965, there WAS a reason for a Pontiac buyer to go for a Star Chief instead of a Catalina. Besides being a few inches longer but with the same level of interior trim, the Star Chief automatic transmission cars also had the four-speed Hydra-Matic…the same transmission as in Cadillacs. The short-wheelbase cars made do with the slow-shifting, less durable three speed Roto Hydra-Matic.
The Bonnevilles all had the four-speed Hydra-Matic.
I love to see these old cars! Love the write ups and would really like to see that comparison mentioned near the beginning. And the names – Bonneville, Catalina – oh the images they still conjure in my mind. Tempest, Lemans, Grand Prix. Pontiac really had me on the hook with the names. Bonneville and Catalina were and are the best to me still.
I would guess that the slight difference in the HP between manual and auto trans was due to slight changes in the ignition timing and/or carburetor calibration for the two engines. This was true for all vehicles back then–the Motors Manual would list different timing settings and different Carb part numbers for different transmissions.
Seems really silly to list them out separately in the literature. The manufacturing variances must have resulted in larger real HP variations than these tuning changes.
I wonder if the 4-speed engine had a slightly hotter cam.
“One of these days, we’ll have to do a complete guide to all of the GM full-size car bodies, as the various tweaks made to their basic body shells in GM’s decades-long shell game can be mystifying. ”
Please do. Even as a certified car nut, things like this still mystify me. A CC write up on them would be amazing.
I’m really unclear about thd ’76 and earlier high-end Pontiacs specifically. I know they were B bodies but they usually had some body panels or some such usually reserved for the longer C body. For a long time I was sure the mid-’70s Bonnevilles were C’s because the roofline and opera window looked like the ones from the 98 and Electra.
Ford Australia and Holden have done the same with their full-size saloons for years to differentiate the models.
Excellent comparison photos of standard Fairlane and stretched LTD:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/australian-brands/a-visual-history-of-the-aussie-ford-fairlane-and-ltd/
They call them “sedans” in Australia. They have boots and bonnets rather than trunks and hoods, but they have sedans and wagons, not saloons and estates. And of course, to further confuse the UK/US mashup, everything is metric.
Indeed, thanks for pointing it out, Tonito.
I live in Germany so I tend to go with Queen’s English, which is mostly used in European Union, rather than American English. That is unless I visit the United States as to avoid confusions or embarrassments.
A real survivor still being enjoyed. Gotta love that.
It looks like the rocker panel trim might have picked up the ground color (when it was still reflective) and visually slimmed the body, adding to the overall appearance of length.
The stamping tooling engineer in me is wondering how they could have come up with the extra four inches in the quarter panel.
I can see grafting a plug at the front but they couldn’t have tooled up for a completely new and longer quarter. It would be a massive and expensive set of stamping dies just for a few thousand Bonnevilles?
Being a 67 model myself I agree with MTN that it’s a bit of a sad fact, where the heck did those years go?
Doug D,
A bit of mental calculation tells me that nearly half of the full-sized Pontiacs sold in 1967 rode the longer, Bonneville, wheelbase. Not just the Bonneville, but also the Executive, used the longer bodies….so I’m not sure I’d say it was for “a few thousand Bonnevilles”. More along the lines of 150 thousand Bonnevilles and Executives….excluding the wagons.
Don’t have any numbers handy but I bet that combined Executive and Bonneville sales were way more than a few thousand and so this doesn’t seem much different than the many other sheetmetal variations that occurred between different models that were based on the same platforms. These were the same times when the big three might have two DIFFERENT hardtop rooflines available like Chevy did with the Impala fastback and sport coupes.
To your point, though, this seems like a lot of work for marginal visual changes and that is why this type of structural variation became way less common in the 1970’s and onward. Just too expensive vs. the perceived gain in differentiation.
“And just how many Bonnies were sold with the manual three-on-the-tree? Or the optional four speed?”
Darn few, which is no shocker. This did trigger a memory of seeing a ’66 Catalina with a three-speed a few years ago. Out of a quarter-million big Pontiacs in 1966, only around 5,000 had a manual transmission; it’s hard to see that number increasing any for 1967.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/uncategorized/car-show-photo-album-the-april-2014-jefferson-city-car-show-mopars-and-manual-transmissions/
I had a neighbor lady next door to us who owned a 1968 Pontiac stripper with factory 3 on the tree and a 400 on the front fender. Could never figure out how she came across that. Even had dog dish hubcaps. If I recall it was a Catalina in a beautiful medium blue.
“All these full-size Pontiacs had an extra two inches in their front ends, compared to the Chevrolets, with 121″ wheelbases for the lower-tier Catalina and Ventura….But the 126″ wb Bonneville (and Executive) had an extra three inches wheelbase”
That 126 should say 124.
Yes; I knew that, but my fingers didn’t. This was a rush job last night. 🙂
Thanks for taking the time to write it up, Paul. Much appreciated.
Handy ’67 reference table (Popular Mechanics)–I see Pontiac still had a wider track than anyone else.
PM tells me this was the first year for those hidden wipers on the Pontiac, which did indeed make the hood look sleek. Anyone know how long they lasted?
I’m tempted to say that the H Bodies were the last GM cars with hidden wipers. So 1999 for the Bonneville?
I had a 1987 G-body Oldsmobile with hidden wipers. They were constantly getting trapped down at the base of the windshield.
In the 1958 Buick Limited, the rear was stretched some few inches to “differentiate” it from the suddenly more plebian Roadmaster, by expanding the rear quarters. The underside of the trunk makes it very apparent how it was done.
I wonder why they didn’t just use the “c” body fo4 these. Pontiac did have a “c” in the 40s. It’s kinda like Oldsmobile 98’s on and off affair with the “c” body i the early 50s. You need a scorecard to keep everything in place.
I wonder why the more powerful engine came with the manual shift. In the fifties, manufacturers (especially GM) would put more powerful engines in their automatic shift cars to make up for the slippage and inefficiency inherent in torque converters of that era. I’m thinking specifically of Chevy (Powerglide) and Buick (Dynaflow) who put more powerful engines in to compensate for the slushiness of the autobox.
Ford also increased the Taurus SHO engine in 1993 to 3.2L for the automatic versions vs 3.0 in the manual.
My father traded his Copper 66 Bonneville Brougham for a 68 Bonneville Brougham in a color close to pictured, but changed by adding a hint of Green and calling it “Aztec Gold” with Black interior and vinyl top. Fully optioned as usual. Much the came body as pictured, Just the updated front and rear, and the vinyl filled color keyed side trim as stated earlier. Dad had Bonnevilles from 59 through to 72, when he went to Buick The trunks on each of those beasts was immense. Reaching for the spare tire meant actually climbing partway into the trunk. Made my Moms 67 GP look small in comparison, which it was. but grief .was there a lot of aft on that car. You did not drive a Bonneville, you “Helmed’ it.
Reminds me of a ’65 Bonneville that a student used as a daily driver when I worked at NC State in the early ’00s. Maybe a little nicer than this one, and a much nicer color (a light turquoise) but still with lots of “character” like oxidized paint and mismatched wheel covers. Whenever he parked in one of the parking decks, the tail of the car would extend probably 2 feet out of the space–surprised no one ever hit it as they drove by. Then again it was hard to miss.
I saw a ’65 of the same color for sale in nearby Durham back in 2010. Always suspected it was the same car; how many turquoise ’65 Bonneville hardtops are there likely to be in one area anymore? Maybe I should have made an offer–the price seemed reasonable if the mechanicals were good (something around $4k I think).
It seems like longer lower wider to this extreme were anomalies even in their time, it reached these extremes as full size cars, whose sales gradually eroded as the intermediate segment continually gained steam, albeit with still low but more manageable proportions, and “compacts” of the era are fairly close to the sedans of today.
Crossovers may be the hot new thing but I wouldn’t write off anything as anomolies unless you can predict the future. Never underestimate a generational backlash of a trend, it happened to longer lower wider bulgemobiles, it happened to wagons, it even happened to minivans, which are more efficiently packaged than so-called crossovers can dream of. SUVs had their growth stunted by skyrocketing fuel costs and the Great Recession while still being largely truck based, retaining a sort of rebellious or rugged image by being forced out of them prematurely by external pressures.
I can predict the future. 🙂
And we will never go back to the lower, longer, wider sedans of yore. I don’t just mean CUVs; I mean most cars will tend to be taller and have less overhangs than sedans of yore. Especially at the rear: I predict long trunks will not come back. I’m willing to put money on that!
My Air Force roommate had one of these as his driver for several months back in the mid-seventies. His example was pretty used up, even at its relatively young age. At some point it had been flat towed to California from Alabama behind a UHaul truck and the windshield had been well and truly sandblasted. When you started the engine all of the warning lights in the dash came on and stayed on; there was either some sort of problem with the lights or the 400 V8 didn’t need no stinking oil pressure. Kevin had purchased the beast from another guy in the office for something like 300 dollars, and I’m pretty sure that the title was never put into Kevin’s name. The Bonneville did serve the purpose (cheap wheels) well and, when Kevin was able to get discharged early, the guy he had bought it from offered to buy it back. Bob (the purchaser/seller) was the guy who computed the travel pay for separating airmen and he simply folded the repurchase price of the Pontiac into Kevin’s travel pay home. I’m sure that whatever statute of limitations covers this offense has run its course by now 🙂
Based on the existence of the cornering lamp, I’d have thought this to be a loaded example. Surprising to see it’s so low-option otherwise.
One thing that huge hood on this car reminded me of was hot summer nights at the drive in movies. Too hot to sit in the car? It was’nt unusual to see the whole family on a blanket sprawled out on the hood,in the breeze, under the stars
67 was also the first year for the new dual piston brake master cylinder. A notible saftey improvement. So if you had a hydraulic failure you still had half a chance at stopping the beast .
As far as I remember, the horse power differences are from the torque curve required from the automatic transmission and the standard transmission. The difference was in the way the intake was “plumbed”, also changed the torque curve as this was the more important aspect. Feel free to correct me but I do recall “shopping” intakes at the salvage yards back in the day..
I very much doubt there were different intake manifolds for these. In fact, there’s almost certainly only one for all the four barrel versions, at least in 1967.
Anachronistic or not, I love it. Takes me immediately to the perfect world of wide track print advertisements…the happy place.
Paul – the HP difference is in the cams – if you ever feast your eyes on the factory workshop manual – you’ll be in the know. This appears to be quite a good car – all the things that let go or fall off (interior trim, steering wheel plastic) is accounted for – no discernible rot. Wrong cap(s), needs a detail, granted, but a rare find.
You’d have to prove that to me. Maybe…
What’s it called here, the CC Effect?
My Effect experience may have played out in reverse, where I spotted the subject before seeing a posting… A few days ago I was eyeing up a survivor ’67 Poncho, and based on the car’s location, color, and selling dealer’s subtle promo still on the rear, I’m pretty sure it’s a car that I knew from new.
I thought about approaching the ’67’s owner to tell him what I figured I knew about its history, but then decided to maybe catch him another time.
Paul – you were quite right – I was “sure” I had a breakdown on the various cam applications – but the workshop manual identifies just 5 for the V8s – with no delineation as to what’s what. Just part numbers. Great find – I cannot begin to imagine how many full size 67s are still doing daily duties – it’s still got its original antennae!
Paul – 5 different camshaft part numbers for the V8 in 67 – all 325 hp (400 – 10.5 to 1) are number 9779066(N). All 333hp (400 – 10.5 to 1) are part number 9779067(P). Both cams has same lift and duration – different valve intake and exhaust rates, valve overlap.
Ah yes, those Pontiac camshafts.
Actually the “067” cam has a bit more exhaust duration than the 066, 289 deg vs 282, with the same intake lift at 273.
Here’s what’s curious: in other applications such as the 1968 GTO’s “standard” 400, 350 HP engine, the 066 cam was used in the auto trans cars and the 067 cam in the manual cars…with no change in official power rating. In ’67 both manual and auto cars used the 067 cam on the standard engine.
That same year, opting for the HO engine gave you ( in addition to beautiful streamlined exhaust manifolds ) 360 HP using the ( relatively ) hotter and somewhat famous “068” cam in the manual trans cars. Auto trans cars used the milder 067 cam, but still had the same rating.
There are other examples of cam chicanery with the Ram Air III engines as well, but I would be digressing.
I want to take it home and wash it and wax it and whitewall it and wheel cover it and squeeze it and love it.
Having spent my earliest years in a typically equipped ’68 Impala sedan, this is still a luxo boat by comparison. The basic interior could be described as deluxe Impala, but by the time you add the Pontiac dash, various standard features, probably some extra space from where the Poncho wheelbase started (121 vs. the Chevy 119), the standard engine, the monstrous trunk and optional equipment levels more typical of the Bonneville vs. the Impala, and you have a car that I would have envied over our Impala.
If this Bonnie has AC, I’d label it slightly to the low end of typical Bonneville equipment.
Our neighbors up the street had a black vinyl over dark green ’67 Bonneville coupe. It was a glamour puss compared to our Impala.
The second interior photo shows this to be a non-a/c car.
One of the two chrome dashboard switches visible under the dash pad (at right edge of photo) is probably the front/rear speaker fader switch; the other may be the reverb (which causes a slight delay in the signal to the rear speaker), available only on mono radios. Clearly neither one is a power antenna switch, as a manual antenna can be seen on the front fender.
Upholstery is cloth-and-Morrokide, the other standard alternative besides all-Morrokide.
The car has no power windows or vacuum door locks. Nor can I see an outside mirror adjustment lever on the driver’s door (although there’s a slight chance the steering wheel is obscuring it, if it’s there).
Really, except for the cornering lights, it’s one of the most basic ’67 Bonnevilles I’ve ever seen. It may have options not visible in the photos, such as power front seat or tilt wheel, but I doubt it.
I like the overall look of the front end, though the well-shrouded headlamps are exactly why sidemarker lights and reflectors came in by law the following year, and the prow/beak is a pedestrian maul.
I much dislike the aft-upsweep at the rear door beltline. I’ve just never, ever seen anyone’s version of this that didn’t remind me of someone squinting on one side on account of some kind of horrible eye infection. And the frowny taillamps never did much for me.
Just came across your article while googling some random Pontiac stuff. I have a gold ’67 Bonneville which I’m restoring to running condition now after sitting in a barn for almost ten years. It’s nice to see that there are still others driving around and fun to reed that even for US standards this is a really big car. Imagine what it’s like over here in Europe, where I can’t get it to fit in most parking spaces! 😉
It is getting very easy to find my Ford in a large parking lot. Look down the rows, and mine has the trunk. That, and it isn’t a boring neutral color.
Now – let’s make it look even longer and heavier!
I love the styling and “presence” of the 60s big Pontiacs, especially the Bonnevilles. Each year from 62-69 has its own magic IMHO, and the hockey stick taillights are now popping up in a variety of models currently on the market. The ironing board hood and pointed beak may have created issues for pedestrians, but for me it worked from a style standpoint. Pontiac was a style leader back then, but seemed to lose its mojo in the early 70s.
I could tell a ’69 Bonneville from a distance by the open air scoops in the vertical portion of the grille.
Maybe it was to make it look like a jet or something.
In Canada with our “Cheviacs” or “Ponvrolets”, they used the 1967 Grand Prix front end to create a Grand Parisienne.
http://oldcarbrochures.org/Canada/GM-Canada/Pontiac/1967-Pontiac-Broch/slides/1967_Pontiac_Cdn-02-03.html
Assuming there was one, did the pillared sedan Bonneville have more rear legroom than the hardtop? That was true of the C bodies of this era.
There was a locally assembled Cheviac version of this and it pales in size the the real thing, Ive seen them side by side, American servicemen stationed at the deep freeze base in Christchurch brought all manner of cars with them and sold them locally thats where the 1 I saw originated,.unfortunately a lot of our vintage tin went home with them and then the Australians arrived and vacuumed up many of the body styles they didnt get new coupes and tudor sedans.
The 65 through 67 Pontiac standard size cars were the best styled ones!