(first posted 4/24/2017) Who would be driving a 33-year-old Pontiac on a late winter afternoon when the roads were wet with messy, melting snow? That question was on my mind as I admired this Bonneville’s near-pristine condition, with no body damage, still-lustrous original paint, and a perfectly preserved interior. Seemingly contrary to its condition, its presence at a supermarket parking lot on a cold March day suggested its use as a daily driver. As I photographed this car, a young man walked up, smiling in a way that suggested he was accustomed to people admiring his Bonneville. He was the owner – and suddenly the puzzle of the car’s condition and location became clear.
The car’s owner – we’ll call him Nick for this article – looked to be in his teens or early 20s, and this is his first car. He bought it three months earlier from a neighbor who had inherited it from an elderly relative, and Nick seemed to love the distinction that comes from driving a unique vehicle. Nick, though, is not a car guy. He couldn’t recall his Bonneville’s precise model year, or whether it had a V-6 or a V-8. Yet he talked enthusiastically about how comfortable it is and about how his friends love it. Despite being separated by decades, Nick’s comments likely parallel the reasons for which people bought these cars originally – not for technological or design advancements, but for comfort and social respectability. In fact, Nick and his car can help explain some of the Bonneville’s original appeal. In describing his car, Nick noted that he prefers driving it to his mom’s new Volkswagen. That’s quite a statement, so let’s take a look at this car.
Nick’s 1984 Bonneville traces its roots to 1978, when General Motors’ A-body intermediate car lines received the company’s second wave of downsizing. The A-bodies included sedan, coupe and wagon offerings from four divisions, among them Pontiac, which initially marketed its car as the LeMans. The LeMans earned a reputation as a solid, reasonably roomy, comfortable, but unexciting car. Though LeMans was the most visually interesting A-body sedan (with a pointy beak and slightly angular rear), little distinguished it from its Malibu, Century and Cutlass brethren. Sales were good, but not great.
Priced below the full-size B-body Bonneville/Catalina and above the compact Phoenix, LeMans occupied the middle ground of Pontiac’s lineup – until Pontiac’s Great Sedan Shuffle of 1982. For that year, Pontiac killed off its full-size cars entirely, and coronated the existing intermediate sedan as its new flagship. To drive home the point that it was now the division’s top-end car, the LeMans was given a facelift and was renamed Bonneville. Not just Bonneville, but “Bonneville Model G” – as if to show off GM’s new letter designation for this car range (from “A” to “G”).
“G,” however, wasn’t Pontiac’s lucky letter. While sales of the Bonneville Model G increased by 36% over the ’81 LeMans, it was not nearly enough to compensate for the 60,000 B-body sedan sales that Pontiac lost by discontinuing its biggest cars. Analysts have criticized Pontiac in retrospect for eliminating its full-size offering for 1982, but the decision was made with some forethought. GM had planned on discontinuing its entire B-body lineup by the mid-1980s in response to the energy crises and the resulting sales plunge experienced by all big cars. Pontiac simply tried to be an early adopter of that new order. But instead of fading away, big cars found renewed interest once gas prices stabilized, and Pontiac officials soon regretted their decision.
The best thing that can be said about Pontiac’s premature termination of its full-size cars is that the mistake was quickly fixed. Midway through 1983, the B-body Pontiac returned – this time assuming the Parisienne name. For the next three years, Parisienne and Bonneville (the awkward “Model G” suffix was dropped after ’82) were both marketed as Pontiac’s luxury vehicles. As the ads said, buyers now had a choice.
Source: Edmund’s New Car Prices, 1984.
“Choice” was an appropriate term, because the RWD Bonneville and Parisienne, as well as the newer FWD 6000, all overlapped considerably in price. Any potential customer who could afford one, could afford either of the other two.
Pontiac’s slogan in mid-1980s was “We Build Excitement,” which seemed particularly true for enthusiasts of traditional luxury – probably not what the slogan was intended to represent.
Source: Standard Catalog of Pontiac, 1926-2002
Despite the price overlap, Bonneville sold reasonably well, especially for a car that was designed in the previous decade. Our featured year of 1984 was the high-water mark for Pontiac’s A/G-body sedans, with 73,000 Bonnevilles being sold. The future, though, was coming into focus at the other end of Pontiac showrooms, as the new A-body 6000 gained steam. In 1984, rear-drive Bonnevilles and Parisiennes combined to outsell front-drive 6000 sedans handily – however it was the last year for which that would be the case. After 1984, these traditional cars were increasingly viewed as relics.
Curiously, for a sedan marketed as a luxury car, the base Bonneville outsold the more upmarket Brougham by more than 2-to-1 in 1982 & ’83. To persuade apparently miserly Bonneville buyers to order some more options, for 1984 Pontiac introduced an LE model to bridge the base-to-Brougham gap. Nick’s Bonneville is just such a car.
The LE package only cost $227 on top of the base Bonneville’s $9,131 list price. For that extra expenditure, buyers received minimal upgrades, highlighted by plusher upholstery with slightly contoured front seats. Even with the LE in the lineup, most buyers still opted for the base model. Among 1984’s 73,389 Bonnevilles, 56% were base models, 24% LE’s and 20% Broughams.
Nick said his friends jokingly call his car a pimpmobile. I’d prefer a classier nickname, but their humor is somewhat justified. After all, cars with cushy bright red upholstery accented by a forest of fake burled wood are not exactly common these days.
This particular Bonneville is well equipped, with a power split bench seat, air conditioning, power windows and locks, a cassette stereo, delay wipers and cruise control.
Of course, no discussion of G-body sedans would be complete without acknowledging the cars’ most memorable quirk – rear windows that don’t roll down. Nick shrugged off this quirk with indifference; the fixed rear windows are inconsequential to his enjoyment of the car. Chances are that most original owners felt similarly, even though in hindsight GM’s cost- and space-saving measure is largely ridiculed. Incidentally, the rear vent windows do open, and they are power operated in our featured car.
In an era when car buyers chose between dozens of stand-alone options, cars often reflected their owner’s personality and priorities. In this car’s case, it appears the original owner prioritized appearance over performance. Optional features such as a full vinyl roof, wire wheel covers, and painted pin striping give the black Bonneville a stately appearance.
Meanwhile, this car was not equipped to “add performance to the pizzazz” (as Pontiac’s 1984 brochure eloquently described). Nick’s car was ordered with the standard engine, a 3.8-liter 2-bbl. V-6 that developed 110 hp, though for an extra $375, customers could choose a 150-hp 5.0-liter V-8 (a diesel engine was also optional in 1984, for a whopping $801). Other available performance-oriented options included alloy wheels, a full instrumentation package, and wider tires, but these options were all skipped on our featured car.
A trunk lid sticker indicates this car was originally sold in Midland, Texas. Dry West Texas air may explain the Bonneville’s lack of rust, and the car’s condition suggests that it was garaged for a good portion of its life. Its geographic origin also explains the lack of a rear window defogger on an otherwise well-equipped car – at $140, it was likely considered unnecessary for a hot and arid climate.
Bonnevilles occupied a very traditional corner of the 1980s sedan market. With rear-wheel drive, body-on-frame construction, softly-sprung suspension, and velour-and-fake-wood interior, Bonnevilles didn’t pretend they were anything other than traditional.
Likewise, this was clearly a G-body sedan, with a strong family resemblance to GM offerings from three other divisions. If it seems surprising that Pontiac was able to sell over 70,000 Bonnevilles in 1984 (with a design that was 7 years old by that point), consider that Bonneville’s cousins sold in similar amounts. These cars took advantage of a significant market for traditional sedans in the mid 1980s.
Befitting a car whose purpose was to satisfy traditional consumers, little changed on the G-body Bonneville sedan from year to year. For our featured year of 1984, for example, the main changes were slightly updated bumper rub strips. The Bonneville was well suited for its intended audience, and no changes were necessary.
But nothing lasts forever. One detail that Nick knew about Bonnevilles was that Pontiac introduced an updated model for 1987. “They’re not as interesting,” he said. He’s right. The ’87 Bonnevilles were more modern, front-wheel drive, and fuel injected, but today they just seem like older cars. Nick’s ’84, by contrast, is a Classic, and a rolling embodiment of “They Don’t Make Them Like That Anymore.” And that, of course, is its appeal.
While they were up-to-date in the 1970s when first introduced, GM’s A/G-body sedans showed their age by the time our featured car was built, and some consumers considered them downright archaic. By any objective measurement, numerous other mid-1980s cars were more technologically advanced, faster, more responsive and more efficient. But for the 300,000+ customers who bought Bonnevilles between 1982 and 1986, none of that mattered much – the Bonneville made them feel better than did those other cars. Which brings us back to Nick’s comment that he likes driving his Pontiac more than his mom’s Volkswagen.
Is this Bonneville better than a new Volkswagen? One would be hard pressed to find any measure of performance, engineering or safety in which the Bonneville excels over a newer car. But it is, quite simply, neater to look at and to be in. Those incalculable qualities not only explain why a teenager in 2017 would enjoy owning one of these cars, but also why older drivers three decades ago chose them over GM’s newer A-bodies, or any number of domestic or foreign competitors. The Bonneville’s appeal lies not with a critique of its attributes but rather with its aura. Not everyone understands that line of reasoning, but for those who do, Bonnevilles can be very satisfying cars.
As for Nick, who knows how long he will ultimately own his Car of a Lifetime? But whether it ends up being a long- or short-term experience, I wish him all the best in enjoying his Curbside Classic.
Related Reading:
CC: 1984 Pontiac Bonneville Brougham – GM’s Deadly Sin #8 Paul Niedermeyer
CC: 1983 Pontiac Bonneville Wagon – Don’t Ask Questions, Just Roll With It Brendan Saur
Photographed in Falls Church, Virginia in March 2017.
Very nice, this Bonneville has been kept in very good condition. Normally, I would find this Bonneville to be bland and forgettable, but something about this looks very good to me. Obviously, the owner takes very good care of it, and probably will for a long time.
Speaking as someone who’s in roughly the same age category as Nick, I totally understand where he’s coming from. While I ended up with my Eldorado, my heart was drawn to these giant 80s domestic sedans like nobody else. I always wanted a late 80s Lincoln Town Car or a Cadillac Brougham to call my first car. These types of cars just have a certain presence to them, the aura, that’s so hard to define and so hard to replicate.
Yes, it’s underpowered. Yes, it’s completely backwards in engineering. And yes, despite that solid hunk of steel, I would be weary of getting into an accident with that thing. But speaking for myself, and I assume Nick as well, none of that matters. Something about these cars just speaks to certain people. It’s hard to explain properly, since I’ve never driven a traditional American full size sedan before, but there’s some odd fascinating character these things have that makes it hard to resist.
I will experience one of these types of cars someday, either for a test drive or an ownership. Maybe it won’t live up to the sky high expectations I’ve set for myself, but it would be a huge blank page in my life if it were to go ignored. I hope Nick enjoys this car, and I hope it stays with him for a long time.
I would expect it to be much easier to see out of than a modern car with the front pillars relatively upright and less bulky, which may help avoid accidents in the first place.
He will care about the lack of roll down rear windows when one of his drunk friends can’t roll down his window and throws up back there
Well said. That tiny vent opening is a very small target!
Whenever I see one of these (Which is rare anymore) I think of Buford T. Justice’s car in Smokey and the bandit part 3.
The comeback of the B body Parisienne was much like the story of the 1962 Dodge 880. Pontiac Motor Division was okay with losing the B body volume, but the dealers went *berserk,* because those customers were walking out the door for other GM dealers–they refused to consider the A/G sedan if they wanted a B. I knew a small-town Pontiac dealer at the time who said he’d sell new Caprices if GM would send them to him, because he’d keep his customers.
And there was also some Pontiac dealers close to the Canadian border who also sold some 1982 Canadian Parisienne as a way of protest also helped to bring back the B-body Pontiac.
Edit: I think Pontiac should had instead using the Catalina nameplate for the intermediate G-body for 1982 and let the Bonneville living for the whole full-size line-up just like Plymouth did in 1965 for the mid-size Belvedere and full-size Fury.
Good point, as the Catalina was traditionally a SWB version of the Big Pontiac, and the G-body used the same separate-chassis-with-RWD type of technology as the biggies.
The B-bodies 1981 and earlier have a nicer and more unique instrumental panel in my opinion, than the later Parisiennes, which use the Chevy dash.
I knew a small-town Pontiac dealer at the time who said he’d sell new Caprices if GM would send them to him, because he’d keep his customers.
And GM granted his wish with the Parisiennes. 🙂
Yes, it’s too bad they didn’t bring back all of the original Pontiac bits .
In the early 80s I bought a 78 Grand Le Mans 4 door. I had been driving mostly “stripper” model, 4 cylinder, manual transmissioned sedans and hatchbacks up to that point but decided with a move to (coincidentally?) central Texas, I wanted a car with factory A/C. That car was equipped with the Buick V6….IIRC, cruise control (a somewhat simple design: it was either on or off, no fancy resume and/or coast buttons), and a speedometer and fuel gauge….yet there were enough “holes” in the dashboard for a whole array of gauges.
To drive, it was a pleasant car, no fireball, with power steering and A/C that worked un-obtrusively. I didn’t own it very long, trading it for a small Pontiac the name of which I won’t mention.
Not pointed out in the write up is that just like the Phoenix, these A/G model Pontiac sedans were vastly outsold by 2 of their GM “sisters”: the Buick and Oldsmobile offerings sold nearly twice the numbers. My GUESS is that Pontiac couldn’t convince mid-sized buyers that they could produce/market a credible “small” Brougham. Folks perhaps still expected performance/flash/sizzle from the Pontiac brand?
I don’t have sales charts in front of me, but I think that was true only starting in 1980. The ’78-’79 Olds and Buick “aeroback” sedans sold terribly; when they were replaced with a notchback (still of a different design than Chevy and Pontiac used), sales immediately picked up. For 1981 GM moved all four sedans to the new roofline.
The front door pull handle (which I think was added in ’84 and not used on Broughams) looks like it would get in the way of using the armrest.
When these were new, Pontiac’s tagline of “We Build Excitement” always seemed a bit lost with this and the Parisienne.
From reading this, maybe it wasn’t too far off the mark.
Eric, it sounds like Nick knows he has something truly unique. Let’s hope he keeps it that way!
True, as stated, while Pontiac Division was wanting “Euro style” products, the dealers were really competing with other GM brands for buyers. So, in with Parisienne, a virtual Caprice.
But in long run, didn’t work out, with only Buick left of GM’s “mid price” lines. Can argue all day about “which of BOP is the best” but that’s how it is.
Believe it or not, the new-for-’84 Bonneville LE model was a step in what Pontiac considered to be European style. The new, larger black bumper rub strips replaced the old chrome ones. Inside, the button-tufted loose-cushion velour on the Brougham was replaced with rougher cloth in a simpler pattern. The doors sprouted integrated pull handles rather than the Brougham’s “casket handles”, and plastiwood was banished from the doors. There was still plenty of plastiwood on the dash, but (to paraphrase the uberclassic Monty Python “Spam” skit) there wasn’t as *much* plastiwood as before, replacing some of it with grey trim. “But, I don’t want any plastiwood at all”…….
Nice looking Bonny, They do look great, but I remember hearing those putt around with the underpowered 3.8’s just about everywhere. They’re just so much better with the V8s IMO, if just for the V8 rumble – and of course, these days it’s relatively easy to squeeze some extra performance out of them for little $$. But oh well, the guy loves his ride and that’s all that really matters.
What a sweet ride! Congratulations, Nick, on the acquisition, It’s really something to be proud of.
And I’d enforce the no eating in this car rule pretty rigidly. There, trombone case interior saved!
Best wishes for a long and happy future together.
I understand. As a kid in the 70s I traded a perfectly serviceable 68 Mustang for a 59 Plymouth Fury for the very same reason. It was just cool.
As an adult, I really wanted my oldest son to stick with the more modern 90s version if he wanted a Grand Marquis, but he would not be dissuaded from the 1989 version we found.
I look at this and see a malaise-mobile. Someone who didn’t live through that time sees a car that is cool as hell. I am glad to see a young person who gets joy from his car.
That those rear vents open, and are powered, is huge. Being able to crack the window next to you and the opposite rear window is the difference between getting your hair badly mussed and a nice cooling breeze across your face while you drive.
Nicely written article, and thank you for not stigmatizing the young owner for not being a “car guy”. It sounds like he’s truly enjoying this unique car, and I found it interesting that you were able to forge a connection to him and the original buyer demographic.
Having spent most of yesterday wrenching, I have to wonder if not being a “car guy” is a good thing sometimes. He’s living the dream. Good for him.
The owner is a different kind of ‘car guy; in that he likes what he drives and doesn’t think of it as an “appliance” like most Corolla owners.
My next car after my current car kicks the bucket will likely be a body-on-frame vehicle classic like this. Well, realistically the latest model Mercury Grand Marquis. There’s a simple robustness and charm about these vehicles that current unitized front-wheel-drive sedan’s don’t exude. I know, a cliche comment on CC but is one worth repeating because imo it’s so true. It’s no wonder 4 door pickup trucks have become the new 21st century full-size sedan.
Having grown up knowing the G body intimately, I would have no problem dropping money to get a car like this if I truly wanted a mid 80s classic. They are indeed smooth and quiet as the advertising says with some nice pep to boot. I don’t have anything negative to say about this Bonneville or any G car except for those cursed rear windows. I really respect this vehicle. The other nice thing about this Bonneville is that there should be parts for it for the next couple of decades to keep it going a long time yet.
Being that these cars looked almost exactly like a ’76-’79 Cadillac Seville, I always found them attractive.
I think I preferred the Olds version most, though. And, of course, it had to be the Cutlass Supreme Brougham model. Gotta have those pillowed velour seats!
Here’s the ’86 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Brougham sedan. Seems like quite a mouthful for a car’s title compared to today.
“Seems like quite a mouthful for a car’s title compared to today.”
Definitely. But I still like it better than numbers or letters.
“seems like quite a mouthful for a car’s title compared to today”
Have you looked at BMW’s lineup recently? Could I interest you in a 740Le xDrive iPerformance?
And let us not also not forget the ’88 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Brougham Classic!
I’m not surprised he likes driving it. These were very pleasant and comfortable to drive so long as you weren’t driving them hard.
Nick has found a very nice ride indeed, and one that displays the virtues of the classic American car.
Although the excitement of the muscle-car 60’s Pontiacs was all gone but the talk by the time these hit the streets, the Pontiac name still carried some cache in the circles I ran in. The man who drove a Pontiac (well his persona, anyhow) was still a different fellow than the humbler more pragmatic man who drove a Chevy, or the middle class ‘Soccer Mom*) (*equivalent) who drove an Olds.
However this was the last generation before the loss of divisional identity at GM. After these, everyone drove an Olds Cutlass because it had more status, but cost no more than a Chevy. Of course after everyone could afford an Oldsmobile, Oldsmobiles lost their status. Unable to add horsepower to distinguish themselves, Pontiac went to bling, and Hell. There were some bright spots (I always wanted a supercharged SSE, and would still be thrilled to find a good one today) but the magic was gone from the name.
I have a 1985 Cutlass with the 3.8l in it and owned a 1987 Cutlass with the 307 V8 and believe me, he is not missing anything. 40 more HP did not really motivate that car anymore then the 110hp V6 did.
My 1985 Cutty has the power vent windows and I love them. Unlike the manual ones on my 1980 Malibu which only opened a small amount, the ones on the Cutlass swing open all the way resulting in excellent airflow.
I actually like the 1987-1991 Bonneville(especially the SSE version) better then the 82-86 version
The 305 was the way to go if you wanted an honest power increase in these cars that was felt seat of the pants. The base 110 HP 231 V6 and the most commonly ordered 2.41 rear gears provided 12.5-13 second 0-60 times in these G-body cars. The Fairmonts and Granada’s with the 200 six was 14.5-15 for comparison’s sake and the later Fox bodies 120 HP Essex 3.8 equipped LTD’s and Marquis were usually around 11-12 seconds.
I have a 1987 Cutlass coupe with the 307/4 speed auto and optional 3.08 rear gears and only 27K miles and can tell you it is noticeably quicker than any 231 I have driven. My guess is that your 1987 Cutlass had the base 2.14 rear gears and 3 speed automatic which made this mill feel more sluggish. Even still note that the 231 made 110 hp and 190 torque and the 307 was rated 140/255 so the 307 should feel punchier off the line if in proper tune.
Great tale! My only personal experience with this type of car was 50 or so miles in a slightly older (maybe ’80 or ’81) 4 door Cutlass Supreme loaner I got from the Olds/Honda dealer while the stereo was being installed in my new ’82 Civic. It was a great cruiser and those seats (blue on the Olds) were an experience.
Have owned and driven tons of A/G body cars and seeing one in this condition just warms the heart. Out of the 4 G-body sedans the Bonneville was my favorite. It just looked a bit less angular and more fluid. The 1982 engine lineup wasn’t the best with a 3.8 and optional 4.1 V6 as the only gas fired mills. But looking at what the other cars had proved that mileage was in and power was out during the early 80’s. The Cutlass sedan’s top engine was a 100 HP 260 V8, Chevy offered a 267 with 115 horses on the Malibu and Ford had a 111 HP 255 in it’s T-Bird and a 105 HP 3.8 V6 in the Granada/Cougar lines.
I always considered 1983 as a big turning point as far as performance was concerned. The small 255, 260, 265 and 267 small V8’s were out and the 302, 305 and 307 were re-instated as power options for the mid size cars. The venerable 305 got an HO version or the L69 with up to 190 horses for the Monte Carlo SS, the Cutlass got an HO 307 with 180 and the T-Bird/Cougar line obtained a fuel injected 2.3 turbo and a stick!
Back to the Bonneville. If ordering my own it would have the snowflake alloy wheels with red pontiac center crests, 305, 4 speed automatic and the best optional gearing available (3.08:1 more than likely), optional full gauge cluster with tach, LE trim just like this car with split seats and passenger recliner, power everything and the HD suspension upgrade with 205 series tires. It was the options that made these cars so memorable. And it is this plus the lack of interior color and plush seating that I so miss on today’s vehicles.
> LE trim just like this car with split seats and passenger recliner
Ah, you reminded me of a common Detroit anomoly that persisted for decades – the reclining passenger seat, and a driver seat with 6-way power adjustment including height and tilt but no recliner. In the imports, if they had reclining seats (and they usually did in upscale models), both seats reclined.
It was dependant on the car usually. Cadillac offered power recliners throughout it’s regular lineup during this time with manual versions on the Cimarron and Buick offered them on the Regal and on some of the smaller cars with bucket seats. I drove a 1982 Grand Prix with bucket seats and both seats reclined. My 1979 Cutlass Calais also had dual reclining bucket seats. I think it was mainly the cheaper Chevy, Pontiac and Ford sedans that only offered it on the higher trim levels and on the passenger side only as I remember seeing a recliner on the driver’s side of many Detroit sedans during the 80’s. I would need to look at my Consumer Guide auto series books to exactly confirm which cars and trims did or did not have them available though.
I think one reason Big 3 didn’t offer reclining seats for years was that AMC/Ramber had them first*. So, the “Not Invented Here” syndrome persisted.
*Of the 4 American makers left after Studebaker/others folded.
Three cheers for Nick, for actually caring about his car’s style.
And Eric, I’d like to complement you on the price range chart–it’s a very clear way to display those data.
Thanks… I’m glad you found the chart useful!
I created the chart in Excel — used the chart that’s intended for stocks (it’s called the High-Low-Close chart). I’ve never had a reason to analyze stocks, but it sure is a useful tool for looking at car-price ranges.
I can understand Nick going for this rather than a more modern car – it’s got some style, a nice back story, it’s different and probably some paper history to reassure as well.
The Bonneville/Parisenne story is interesting, and that comparison chart fascinating. Back into the Archives for B body history……
Good story and nice car! It’s great that a teen has discovered the appeal of this charismatic creampuff. Perhaps the experience will make him more of a car guy. That car will need some maintenance and maybe he can learn to do some of it himself. I also hope he keeps it washed and waxed and doesn’t run it into the ground! But then, he would hardly be the first teen to kill a nice old car. I can think of a few friends from when I was in high school that drove old, former grandparent cars that never looked as nice after a couple years.
My grandparents had an 86 Bonne. They special ordered it to be a comfortable, loaded highway car that wouldn’t attract attention from thieves. It was a base model, light green in and out. All interior options including power driver seat and reclining passenger, cruise and tape deck stereo, but outside it had standard hubcaps with blackwall tires (from the factory!) and no vinyl roof. V8 engine, but I don’t know what axle ratio. Pretty cool car, though it didn’t turn out to be as reliable a car as their previous car (77 Catalina).
I always thought the front ends on Pontiac’s G car were good looking. The chromey grill with a gentle curve on its upper edge and the headlights slightly recessed in their chrome surrounds are attractive to me somehow.
How nice to see one of these being taken care of and enjoyed in a non-ironic way. (Nice whip, Nick!) Eric, really like your writing style as well.
Looking at the pictures of the G-bodies from the four GM divisions makes it clear how the money Pontiac spent to engineer the body-colored bumper covers was put to good use.
Nice read, while I wouldn’t want to drive one of these things unlike “Nick” but I doubt there are many other 19 year olds who appreciate cars like this. Saw one of these in traffic recently so I can confidently say one is still going strong down in Savannah. No road salt here obviously but humidity doesn’t help prolong car lives.
It’s been my experience that most young people will appreciate such a car after they’ve ridden in one. It’s funny to watch them tense up at a railroad crossing for the first time, expecting to have their fillings in their teeth rattle loose only to have the car float over the tracks with just a clip clop of the tires.
Wonder how “Nick” got this car? From eBay and was shipped from TX to VA? Or from relative’s estate?
Anyway, regarding the H body FWD Bonne. When new it had “wow factor”, compared to what car mags called the ‘anti-deluvian’ [sp?] G body. Also, H bodies were a hit in Chicago area; popular used cars for working class in 90’s/00’s, but most now junked.
But, 30 years later, I agree that the G’s are more ‘collectible’ and have higher sentimental value.
Re: Car and Driver opinions:
Back in fall 1981, in their ‘New Cars 1982’ issue, they were practically cheering the cancellation of Pontiac’s Big Cars, as if “this is the future, big cars are dead, get used to it”.
Then, when ’83 Parisienne came out in spring, they were like “What were they thinking dropping the old Bonnevilles?” Also, named the ’83 Caprice in “Ten Best”.
They flipped back and forth on big cars like a dolphin.
Another reason I take those magazines opinions and performance figures with a grain of salt. I much prefer to be my own judge when it comes to rating cars like this.
Now I remember the quote from C&D “Pity Pontiac, they dropped their big cars…”, when just a year or 2 before, they were going on and on about “everyone will buy/drive small cars by 1984!”
Sure, because the owners (buyers) were in the front seat.
Good point. I don’t think my father ever picked a car on what the back seat was like for my brother and I. Lots of staring at the front seat and windows that didn’t roll down or only part way. And never A/C, too much money!
I remember when people even cared if their rear seat passengers’ windows only rolled down part of the way.
I’m a Canadian Parisienne Fan, but I shan’t kick out the G-series Bonnevilles (Here called the Grand Le Mans) and I loved the Bonneville Safari wagons, they were and still are “Spot-on”! I was a Pontiac fan, during the “All-Canada” hey day, and these cars were THE go-to car during Autodom’s dark days. One thing though, I kinda wished they kept their full-sizers like Chevy, Olds, Buick, and Cadillac did when they were restyled. To prove that point, I took a Revell ’85 Caprice Snap-Tite kit, and converted it into a fictional Parisienne. People still give me the “Pontiac did THIS?!” looks, and I say “Yeah, they should’ve…”
I’ve always thought these were an ugly redesign of the LeMans, particularly considering how aggressive and handsome the ’81 LeMans looked. But looking at this example, I’m in awe of how well it has been maintained. And there are still some aspects I like, like the very 80-81 Bonneville-esque taillights. Pontiac did gingerbread very well. I just loathe these Seville-ified A/G-Body sedans of the ’80s.
Excellent article, Eric. I love me some facts and figures! And you make a good point about the ’87: it will feel more like a modern car, but it’s old, so it won’t have the charm of the G but it won’t have the comfort of something newer. It’s in that awkward limbo.
The way many of my fellow Curbsiders wax lyrical about B-bodies – and, to be fair, I do love a lot of B-bodies myself – you almost forget how automotive journalists were talking about the Bs and even the Gs as the 1980s wore on. Flicking through a Consumer Guide, for example, you’ll see these were still considered comfortable but “hardly state-of-the-art”. Fuel economy was criticized, as was the performance of the V6. To be fair, if I were in 1984 and had to choose between a 6000 and a Bonne, I’d probably be more inclined to go for the 6000. And the ’87 Bonne redesign was quite a nice one that really helped elevate the nameplate.
Granada was a better car
Please elaborate on why this is. Besides the non rolling down rear windows there isn’t a whole heck of a lot of difference between the cars as far as interior space, trunk space, comfort and driving dynamics go because the Granada/Couger were softened up to ride more plush like the G-body cars and the M-body Chryslers. Consumer Guide said they were comparable but gave the nod the to GM sedans for offering more engine choices with better performance, optional gas saving overdrive transmissions (Ford didn’t start offering these until the LTD a few years later and the superior fuel economy advantage of the diesel engine options. The Ford duo countered with snappier rack and pinion steering and slightly tidier exterior dimensions.
Most Granada’s and Cougars of this time era were equipped with the sluggish 200 six and the top option was the 255 V8 or the 3.8 Essex V6 a year later, neither of which remotely compared to the power and drive-ability of the Chevy LG4 305 with 4 speed automatic that came a year after the Bonneville in G form was introduced. Picking one car over the other was mostly down to brand loyalty, how the car was equipped and where you got the best deal.
If you’re referring to the old style Granada from 1975-1980 then I would say the A/G body was superior in most ways to those.
If your speaking about the 1983 onward Ford LTD and Mercury Marquis those were a nice update on the prior Granada/Fairmont cars and had fuel injected 3.8 V6’s and overdrive automatics like GM offered on there V8 engine options and the Buick 4.1 V6. Motor Trend did a direct comparison of the 1983 LTD and the Pontiac Bonneville with the 3.8 liter V6 engines and came away a little more impressed with the Ford. i agree with that assessment for the most part but those Essex 3.8 motors sure are head gasket munchers and seemed a bit weak overall.
Would this Bonneville have been a “car guy’s” choice when new? I was an infant back then, but my general impression is that the first owner may have been much like Nick — not terribly interested in cars, but still desiring a handsome and comfortable car.
Very outstanding example and I’m glad its owner appreciates it, even if they are not a “car guy”. Depends on what modern VW, maybe unless it’s a Beetle, but I can’t say I’d be more comfortable driving one of these, but to each and their own.
Of all the G-body sedans, I find the Bonneville the most attractive, particularly for its front fascia.
Love Nick’s comparison of the ’84 Bonneville to a newer VW. As the owner/driver of 1994 and 2009 Mercury Grand Marquis LS models, I’d definitely prefer my “old” Mercs over a new or late-model VW. One. Nick’s Pontiac though now 30 years old was a reliable and quality-built car that will last forever with proper care and maintenance than any recent “Brokeswagen”, which is basically “low-hanging fruit” right down there with the worst of the worst (Fiats and Chrysler products, or 1980s Yugos) and certainly not on the same quality/reliability level of Toyota, Lexus, Honda, Hyundai or Buick. Most VW are extremely unreliable and require many, many trips to the repair shop that drain your bank account. That 1984 Bonneville was also a much better car in quality and a lower-maintenance job than the 6000 thanks to rear-wheel-drive (no MacPherson struts up front, just coil springs and shock absorbers all around) and far more dependable (gasoline) engines: 231 V6 and 305 V8 than the 151 Iron Duke and 173 V6 in the 6000s. The ‘Bonnie shared the same basic bodyshell, chassis and interior with the more popular Grand Prix coupe, which in turn shared the same 2-door G-body as the Chevy Monte Carlo, Olds Cutlass Supreme and Buick Regal.
Mostly agree with what you said but the Buick 231 V6 was hardly a paragon of long lasting goodness and one had to be religious about their oil changes and service to keep one of these alive well past 100k miles without the oil pump wearing out causing low oil pressure conditions. The bottom ends usually ended up as scrap on many of these engines because the distributor driven oil pump would fail causing a no oil pressure situation. The 305 was a far better engine and the 151 Iron Duke and Chevy 2.8 were decent motors that I have seen loads of examples with 200k miles that still are going strong. The Iron Duke even had TBI starting in 1982 which I think contributed to that.
I have seen Bonneville G’s modified with SBC V8 crate motors and all get out. So, these can be “car guys” rides.
I had an’82 Bonneville G wagon with the 5.7L diesel. I traded it at 80k miles afraid of the diesel coming apart. This was a very comfortable car and achieved well over 30mpg on the highway.
I appreciate reading a positive article regarding this body style of the Bonneville. When my dad passed away in July of 1982, we (the adult kids) talked my mom into upgrading her 1975 Catalina to a 1982 Bonneville Brougham Model G. She loved that car and drove it for years! In 1991, I noticed a woman drive her 1984 Bonneville LE to bank at which I was employed. It was hard to miss that she kept sheets on the seats the entire time she owned the car. In July of 2017, I noticed this same car parked along our Main Street with a “For Sale” sign in it.(and sheets STILL on the seats!) With 78,000 and a like-new condition, I scooped the car up within fifteen minutes of it being put up for sale. It joins several other Pontiacs I have to drive for fun!
I want to buy this asap
These are nicely sized Broughamobiles. When planning for $5 a gallon gas in 1979 and beyond, GM, Ford and Chrysler turned their intermediates into full size car replacements. Some even took the names of their larger counterparts, like Pontiac did with this era’s Bonneville. There was a strong belief that the traditional full size car exemplified by the Panther and 1977 GM cars, would lost their markets. We did not see the traditional full sizers replaced for over a decade, as a consequence.
So we have a nice example of a fully loaded intermediate Broughamobile from Pontiac. As noted above, Oldsmobile and Buick had one of these as well. Over at Ford, Mercury had a Fox-bodied Cougar and Ford had a cheaper counter-part, the Fox Granada. Lincoln had the Fox Continental with its bussle-trunk. At Chrysler, they struck gold with the Fifth Avenue. All these cars were based upon simple rear drive intermediate cars.
So, these are really nicely sized Broughamobiles. They have everything you liked in a plush bordello-velour shag mobile, but in a smaller, more managable size. They looked like a wedding cake on the outside, and rode quietly. There is a lot to like in that kind of package. They used tried-and-true mechanicals that are inexpensive to maintain.
Sure – that kind of car is a sweet ride. Definately better than many other similarly sized cars. They have a lot of style and are like little Victoria-age houses – filled with dated charm and surprises.
The original post is from 2017. It is now 2023. I would STILL rather drive this than a new VW.
Sadly this 80’s GM product is probably better built than any post Dieselgate Volkswagen product.
P.S. 80’s GM is not known to be the pinnacle of quality.
At first glance reminds me more a mid-80s K car New Yorker and not a Bonnie. On second glance also.
That overlap with the Catalina/Parisienne and 6000 – ouch. Are those sedan/coupe sales only or total including wagons? They managed a clean break with the midsize wagons, the final year for G-body wagons was 1983 with the FWD A wagons arriving for 1984.
IMO it was a mistake to continue offering these traditional RWD cars because of that confusion. The 6000 base/LE/SE should’ve been called Catalina with the STE inheriting the Bonneville name. Leave the fluffy Broughams to Buick and Olds. Of course, there were still Pontiac-only dealers in 1982, in contrast to when Pontiac’s SUV offerings were too minimal for the 1990s/2000s, dealers could care less whether they were branded Pontiac or GMC just that they were theirs to sell.
Mike’s dad in Stranger Things has one of these – at least in the first 3 seasons, he’s never seen driving it. It only appears parked in the Wheelers’ driveway, mainly in establishing shots, but it’s really great car-casting. I’d like to think the salesman showed him a 6000STE but he’s not ready to move on from the Brougham Era yet, and won’t be for several years to come. But even though he could probably afford a Caddy (it’s mentioned he makes a 6-figure salary in 1985), he’s just not that flashy, and he doesn’t need another Big Car with his wife’s station wagon. And for those who know what a Pontiac Bonneville had been 20 years before, it adds an element of “I-used-to-be-cool” to his character.
Bonneville name worked well for the FWD H body for 1987. The 6000 name was left over from early attempt to change all Pontiac names to alpha-numeric, such as T1000, J2000, etc. Glad they changed 2000 to Sunbird.
RWD G bodies are in demand for project cars, even wagons, for LS V8 swaps. And mint GN’s and Monte SS’s sell for good $.
An issue of Motor Trend I have from the early 80’s stated that GM was planning also to move the Delta 88 and LeSabre nameplates to the G body sedans and to have no V8 in cars larger than Cadillac’s HT4100. However, obviously fuel prices soon dropped, and plans changed.