Pontiac was riding high in 1965, but the division’s big flagship Bonneville was in danger of getting lost in the shuffle. In August 1965, Car Life tested a Bonneville Vista four-door hardtop and wondered why it wasn’t selling even better, calling it “a winning combination” of comfort, luxury, and road manners.
Under the leadership of general manager E.M. (Pete) Estes and John DeLorean, Pontiac did outstandingly well in the mid-1960s, thanks to its combination of attractive styling, strong performance, and cannier-than-usual marketing. For 1965, Pontiac was the No. 3 automotive nameplate in the U.S, selling 802,000 cars for the model year and 860,852 for the calendar year, which I believe was also enough to make it the No. 4 automaker in the entire world, behind Chevrolet, Ford, and Volkswagen.
However, much of that success was concentrated at the cheaper end of the price scale. The publicity surrounding the midsize GTO had made the A-body Tempest/Le Mans line a hot seller, and Pontiac’s sporty image was moving a lot of B-body Catalinas, but the numbers were less robust. For 1965, Pontiac sold only 31,315 of the mid-level Star Chief, which was hampered by its old-fashioned name and lack of any two-door body styles at a time when two-door hardtops were comfortably outselling four-door sedans industry-wide. Grand Prix sales had slid to 57,881 cars, while the senior Bonneville series accounted for a 134,663 units, 16.8 percent of model year production. That wasn’t bad — it was better than the Buick Wildcat or Oldsmobile Delta 88 for 1965 — but it wasn’t outstanding either.
Car Life found the public’s lack of enthusiasm for the Bonneville somewhat puzzling:
WITH THE continuing affluence of the domestic car market, it’s hard to understand why a luxurious item like the Bonneville Vista isn’t Pontiac’s best seller. The Bonneville is big, reasonably powerful, quite luxurious in spaciousness, appointment and finish, is good on the road and smooth and quiet around town and, in all, quite a fitting carriage for either the transcontinental traveler or social diletante [sic]. … [A]long with the format of middle-priced luxury encompassed by the Bonneville series, this sort of Pontiac can also assume a variety of different characters and still be socially acceptable. With the optional engines, transmissions, axle ratios, power equipment and comfort accessories available in Pontiac’s option lists, it may be tailored, just as the GTO or 2 + 2, through the order blank to suit a hundred different tastes.
The editors noted that Pontiac offered no fewer than seven engine options for the Bonneville: four 389s, with two-, four-, or triple two-barrel carburetion, and three 421s, with four-barrel or Tri-Power, ranging from 256 to 376 gross horsepower. Most buyers (96.3 percent) ordered Turbo Hydra-Matic, but there was also a new all-synchro three-speed, as well as the optional four-speed stick — which you could even order on a four-door Bonneville, if you were so inclined. There were also 10 available axle ratios, from 2.41 to 4.11.
Car Life had mixed feelings about this wide selection, cautioning that a prospective buyer “would have to pay close attention to gear ratios, as Pontiac does some rather unenthusiastic things with long, long gears in its cars.” With automatic, the standard axle ratio in the Catalina was 2.41, while the heavier Star Chief and Bonneville normally got a 2.56 axle and the Grand Prix came with a 3.08. CL‘s four-door Bonneville hardtop, which had air conditioning, had 2.73 gears, which still sacrificed performance for slightly better fuel economy — with the test car’s 8.55-14 tires, overall gearing was a yawning 29.6 mph per 1,000 rpm in top gear.
The main consolation was that Turbo Hydra-Matic didn’t “hunt” between gears at part-throttle, as the older Roto Hydra-Matic and Super Hydra-Matic had with such tall ratios. CL explained:
It doesn’t shift down at low speeds until the throttle is depressed far enough to trigger a solenoid switch; rather, it “rides” on the torque converter at speeds below about 55 mph. … However, we would like to have had that 3.08, or even the 3.23, axle in the test Bonneville for their better high-gear performance—we object strongly to such dependence upon the torque converter.
With their test car’s 325 hp 389 (second-mildest of the available engines), 4,370 lb curb weight, and sleepy gearing, the Bonneville wasn’t likely to be a rocket. CL nonetheless clocked 0 to 60 mph in 8.8 seconds and the quarter mile in 16.6 seconds at 82 mph, which was ample for most people, and they found the Bonneville could return up to 14 mpg in milder use. Simply selecting a more assertive axle ratio would have made a big difference — the Reef Turquoise car in the color photos in this post has the same engine and transmission, but a 3.42 axle, which undoubtedly puts more spring in its step — and if that still wasn’t enough, the options list offered further relief. The most practical alternative was probably the milder four-barrel 421, a $138.48 option providing 338 gross horsepower and 459 lb-ft of torque, but for $375.77, you could have the 421 H.O. with three two-barrel carburetors, boasting a stout 376 gross horsepower.
The full-size Pontiac line was all-new for 1965, becoming a bit bigger than before (1 inch longer in wheelbase, 0.4 inches wider, 1.7 inches longer overall) and riding a new perimeter frame. It looked even bigger than it was, but the 1965 Pontiac was a great-looking design, characterized by the outstanding draftsmanship that was the hallmark of the designs developed under Pontiac studio chief Jack Humbert: crisp but curvaceous, rich in detail, with deceptively complex sculpting that pleased the eye while sometimes confounding the camera lens.
Skirted rear fenders made the new Bonneville look particularly beefy, but unlike the big Pontiacs of just a few years later, the ’65 still retained a lingering sense of athleticism despite its bulk, like a heavyweight boxer in a well-tailored suit.
Car Life hadn’t always been impressed with GM’s early perimeter frame designs, but they thought the new Pontiac’s body/frame structure “one of the best in the General Motors’ lineup”:
The “swept-hip” frame has C-section side-rails in the Catalina sedans, but for convertibles, hardtops and the longer Star Chief and Bonneville models, it utilizes box section rails. These make the frame stronger, to compensate for their lessened body strength, and add measurably to the ride stability. The body is flexibly tied to the frame in 20 or so places through rubber mounting pads and these allow the frame to “work” in absorbing vibrations transmitted from drive-train and suspension systems without passing them to the passengers within the body. The separate frame/body construction does very well from this standpoint and when the additional sound deadening and padding of a luxury model such as the Bonneville is added, the result is an extremely quiet car at virtually every speed.
The caption of the trunk photo above reads, “NO LACK of space in the Pontiac trunk— there’s room for everyone’s luggage. Extension below antenna is power raising and lowering device.”
Commendably, Car Life found that the 1965 Bonneville’s greater quietness and isolation hadn’t resulted in pudding-like handling:
For a really big sedan, the Bonneville Vista is refreshingly easy to drive. Even secondary roads, where its softly sprung GM counterparts seem to suffer greatly from lack of suspension damping, pose no problem to this Pontiac. True, the optional suspension GTOs and 2 + 2s are better at this, but the Bonneville was at least acceptable—which is more than we can say for the others.
Perhaps Pontiac’s success at roadability lies in its “Wide-Track” idiom, although its front tread is only 0.5 in. wider than that of Chevrolet, Cadillac or Oldsmobile, and slightly less than Buick. A better explanation lies in the front-end component and geometry modifications made for the 1965 model year which reduced the scrub radius of the front wheels and gave better directional stability. Pontiac uses a combination of 0.812 in. thick anti-roll bar at the front and stiffer than usual (for GM cars) springing in the rear [125 lb./in. at the wheel]. This gives the Bonneville an excellent resistance to body roll during cornering maneuvers and responsive, without being overly sensitive, steering control.
Road manners, then, are excellent within reason. Braking is adequate. This Bonneville had Pontiac’s optional aluminum wheel/drums, which no doubt help in this department. Two consecutive stops from 80 mph were made, with only a slight hint of rear wheel lock-up, both registering 20 ft./sec./sec. rates of deceleration. And, with the optional 8.55-14 tires, there was plenty of capacity for hauling six passengers without overloading.
As you’ve probably noticed, the turquoise Bonneville in the color photos has the deluxe wheel covers rather than the optional eight-lug aluminum wheels with integral drums. The aluminum wheels, seen below on a 1965 Grand Prix, were a $120.51 option on the Bonneville, Star Chief, or GP, $137.73 on a Catalina, and since modern reproductions are available, I think they’re probably a lot more common on modern collector cars than they were at the time.
Even so, they were a very desirable option on these cars. Like the contemporary Chevrolet Impala, the 11-inch drum brakes on full-size Pontiacs of this era didn’t have generous swept area for the cars’ weight, so they faded heavily. The aluminum drums had no more effective lining area, so they wouldn’t stop you any quicker — the 20 ft/sec.² deceleration rate Car Life recorded was mediocre even for the time — but their improved cooling gave somewhat better endurance. (Front discs wouldn’t be offered on the big Pontiac until 1967.)
Although the editors didn’t comment much on the Bonneville’s interior, it was lavishly trimmed in either cloth or Morrokide vinyl. (It doesn’t appear that their test car had the rare $161.40 Brougham Option.) The Reef Turquoise car shown here lacks many of the CL tester’s power accessories, but has expanded Morrokide trim in an eye-popping two-tone turquoise, which is worth pausing to examine:
Aside from styling and power, Pontiac could usually be counted on for a good gimmick or two. Car Life was keen on the test car’s new articulated wipers, reminiscent of “those used on interurban and transcontinental buses,” which swept a greater area of the windshield than would conventional wipers.
Their tester also had air conditioning with automatic temperature control, a new option for 1965. Where Cadillac regarded its Comfort Control automatic climate control system as a separate system from the standard air conditioner, Pontiac treated automatic temperature control as a $64.56 add-on to the normal price of the “Tri-Comfort” air conditioner ($430.40 on a Bonneville).
The CL tester also had power steering ($107.50), power brakes ($43.00), a power seat ($96.84), power windows ($106.25), vacuum door locks ($69.88), remote decklid control ($10.76), and the closed positive crankcase ventilation system ($5.38) required in California and New York by this time. Adding Turbo Hydra-Matic ($231.34), 8.55-14 whitewalls ($44.60), a radio, and other miscellaneous accessories brought the total to $5,172, and even that had probably not exhausted the voluminous Pontiac option list.
Car Life concluded:
These things, and the inherent good qualities already outlined, make the Bonneville a powerful force within its market segment. Its good performance with a standard engine should make it more attractive than it is, but perhaps that is due to the fact that Turbo Hydra-Matic hasn’t been around long enough to be fully appreciated. We think Pontiac has a winning combination going for it: When all those youngsters now buying Tempests and GTOs think about “trading up,” they’re going to sample, and be very pleased with, the stylish big Bonneville sedans.
Such pleasure was not immediately evident in the sales figures. Pontiac would build only 135,954 Bonnevilles for 1966, little different from 1965, and Bonneville sales would fall off after that, dropping below 90,000 units by 1969. Pontiac management had no reason to cry about the division’s commercial performance overall, but despite former general manager Semon (Bunkie) Knudsen’s oft-repeated about selling an old man a young man’s car, it seems the Pontiac formula wasn’t really making it with the middle-aged set. (In later decades, many domestic automakers would have killed to have that problem.)
It’s often tempting to envision these big domestic cars in terms of the people who were most likely to buy them. Senior Buicks were still associated with well-to-do doctors and bank executives, solidly upper-middle-class. A big Oldsmobile might appeal to a local alderman, a civil engineer, or maybe the head of the local school board, while the fancier end of the big Chevrolet line had a feel of blue-collar affluence, a car for a factory foreman or senior salesperson. By comparison, this Bonneville has the vibe of an affluent former football star, five years or so into retirement and beginning to succumb to middle-age spread, but still a flashy bon vivant. Many Pontiac fans of the ’60s weren’t there yet; for those who were, I suspect that a Bonneville like this was a little too much of an outlier, despite its imposingly handsome shape.
Related Reading
Curbside Find: The World’s Most Pathetic Pontiac Bonneville – Which One Was The Most Beautiful? (by Paul N)
Vintage Snapshots: Pontiacs On The Road – In The ’50 & ’60s (by Rich Baron)
Automotive History/Curbside Classic: 1964 Pontiac Bonneville Brougham – The True Father Of The Great Brougham Epoch? (by Paul N)
COAL: 1965 Pontiac Bonneville Limo – One Unique Poncho (by Keith Thelen)
Curbside Classic: 1967 Pontiac Bonneville – Long, Longer, Longest Tail (by Paul N)
Beautiful Bonneville. The interior especially, is very well-done.
A very attractive, and sophisticated-appearing, dashboard and instrument cluster design. Rectangular sections and round gauges often clash, but they go together uniformly beautifully here. Tied together and complimented by a very tasteful wood tone, colour and texture. The chrome surround on the dashboard, is such a nice finishing touch. Elegant door panels, and full-looking seating surfaces seem well-made, and inviting. I don’t know about seating comfort, but aesthetically I’d give this interior a nine out of ten for its visual beauty, and appeal.
Full credit to GM for still doing an almost masterful job establishing brand identity. Pontiacs of this era were almost breathtaking at times, for their unique looks. Besides Cadillac, perhaps the GM division with the most distinctive styling, and brand design elements.
Well before my time, but even in the ’70’s, I would turn my head to admire these full-sized Ponchos. They were a bit overstyled, and heavy-looking in the rear quarters, but they exuded so much character, and panache. The nose design was so original, and defined a timeless Pontiac-look.
For their level of creativity, presence, and flamboyance, I give them top marks. Then and now. Not quite ’64 Riviera originality and character here, but very close. Such a cheerful car, for a Monday. Thank you Aaron. Great overall design work here!
I really disliked the amateurish, unfinished, almost tacked-on appearance of the 1957 Ford Fairlane’s headlights, and headlight bezels. From a design POV, I thought they looked very poorly handled.
On this Pontiac, the same scenario is handled artfully, and elegantly. Separate parts, integrated like a sculpture. Showing Ford how it could (and should) be done. Headlight area design, is a distinctive styling highlight.
It’s almost like the (really) bad designers of the 1950’s, were given other roles. And some truly creative and talented stylists were allowed by this time, to do their thing. Like the carmakers splashed cold water on their own collective faces, and got a grip. And let very patient talent, rise to the forefront.
Hmm, I always thought the 57 Ford was a beautiful design, front to back.
I always aim to be as separated and objective as I can, but there was some genuinely questionable design work happening, during that era. I know people are sentimentally attached to many designs, but the headlights on the ’57 Ford, look strikingly like bulging eyes. Always have for me. When they could have integrated the headlights, and bezels, so much more subtly. Amazing, it went to final. Sign of the times.
Agree about the importance of headlights in design; I guess it’s because they’re analogous with eyes. Did the 1957 thing with Ford happen because they were creating a shape which could accommodate one or two headlights because in 1957 not all states allowed four? The 1957 Imperials were available with both depending on the state and it’s obvious the single lens models were using a bezel intended for a pair. Headlights do matter; compare the lovely (if a little baroque) detailing on the 1965 Bonneville’s stacks compared with the ungainly look of the 1966 Mercury Comet.
I worked as an advertising agency Graphic Designer, for a number of years.
If I brought any of my Art Directors a photo of a ’57 Ford, and told them I thought the overall headlight design was effective, and well-handled, I’d be potentially setting myself up for unemployment.
So nice to see an interior with color contrast. Same with the exterior color as well.
Today, everything is gray on the outside and charcoal black inside just like my Toyota RAV4. I’ve already walked up to two RAV4s in the parking lot thinking they were mine. Kept hitting the key fob, but heard the beeping sound in the distance!!
Cost-cutting everywhere. If the market pushes back, with their purchasing power, they can affect better products. Buyers put up with a lot.
I can handle the two-tone turquoise. In fact I kinda like it. But that wood grain! The color, the shape of the panels, it just looks awful to me. And the steering wheel spoke and rim design doesn’t help.
I knew a real-life owner of a Bonneville almost identical to this one: my affable, cigar-chomping Uncle George, who was about 55. He had started as a door-to-door life insurance salesman in the Depression and had risen through the ranks to be a district manager. Always a loyal Pontiac buyer, he happily ascended to the most expensive car Pontiac made, and bought new Bonnevilles every couple of years until the 1977 downsizing, when he switched to Olds 98s in order to have something large enough to pull his Airstream trailer.
In any case, he was a comfortably well off member of the smaller-town/city bourgeoisie, respectable and not remotely hip, and someone who probably saw the GTO as nothing more than an insurance risk!
As a child I thought this generation of Bonneville was strikingly attractive, inside and out. Without really being more expensive than similar cars from other domestics, it was just better conceived to impress in many small details: the dash with real wood, the clear plastic steering wheel, the attractive upholstery that looked like more than an afterthought. It was really something.
Does anyone else feel a mid 60’s Pontiac vibe (no pun intended) with the new Kia line up?
So many overt almost gaudy attempts in car design, from the ’60’s through the ’80’s, to recreate the elegance of Art Deco style, and 1930’s era prestige.
Many tasteful Art Deco-like styling elements on this Pontiac. Gracefully applied. No question, the designers were talented and inspired.
My grandfather’s last car, purchased new in 1965, was a white ’65 Bonneville 4-door hardtop with black vinyl interior and a 389 4-barrel. He kept it the rest of his life (he died in October, 1984), and it was always his pride and joy. I thought that car was very fast, huge, and just super cool. I loved the sound of its motor (especially when accelerating), the real wood on the dash board, the power windows (my parents never ordered those!), and the little red bars that would drop down when he turned up the heater. He used to let me sit on the front-seat armrest (I was born in 1966), no seatbelt or child safety precautions whatsoever, and I loved how he would floor it and I’d be thrown back against the seat! It was a very well made and luxurious automobile. Many fond memories!
It’s not clear to me what the social status was of Pontiac in the mid-1960s. Certainly nicer than a Chevrolet, but nowhere near the cachet of a Buick or Oldsmobile. Who were the buyers?
Given the bold visual and cultural statements Pontiacs made, I would suggest more creative-types: Writers, Photographers, Designers, Architects, Art Directors, Actors, etc.
CL seems a bit out of touch, as the answer to why the Bonneville wasn’t selling better in 1965 was very obvious: people were snapping up Mustangs and GM A-Bodies. And other compact and mid-size cars.
Full size cars’ market share had been falling since 1955, then precipitously so since 1957 until they enjoyed a brief slight upswing in 1963 and 1964. But the arrival of the Mustang and GM’s very stylish A Bodies revived the large cars’ terminal decline in 1965.
I witnessed this first hand. Up to this time, big cars were still the default family car. That suddenly changed in 1965: folks were buying Mustangs and LeMans and other smaller cars, even if their kids had to suffer a bit in the back seats. And more Americans had two cars, often both smaller and cheaper than one big expensive car. The market was fragmenting, and 1965 was the pivotal year, with 1958-1961 having been a very effective preview of coming attractions.
Starting about this time, big 4-door sedans became associated with conservative middle aged (or older) men. And that would become only more so with time. What woman wanted to drive a huge sedan that had a butt extension (like the Bonneville) to make it even more cumbersome to park or just drive?
Frankly, Pontiac’s tradition of extending the rear end of the Star Chief and Bonneville was absurd and threw off the inherently good lines of the unmolested B Body, which the Catalina wore much better, and which sold much better. The Star Chief was an absurd relic of another era, an extended rear sedan with a modest interior. So 1940s.
The reality is that Pontiac’s big car line, especially the Bonneville, was being cannibalized precisely by the kind of smaller cars that DeLorean preferred himself, he endlessly railed about how the big cars were too large. So why sell a big car with an extended tail? Look at that profile shot of the Bonnie in this post; its extended tail is a travesty of good proportions and taste. There’s no excuse to screw up a clean design like that.
As to the Pontiac’s long (low numerical) rear axle ratios, this was some Pontiac was big on, and for good reason. Americans were spending more time on interstates and freeways, and rightfully all American automatics should have had an overdrive 4th gear. These rear axle ratios essentially gave it to them, and at little cost in performance. 0-60 in 8.8 seconds! That’s excellent for a huge sedan at the time. Let’s face it, these cars were not used for stop light drag races, except maybe by their owner’s teenage kids, as I well know (our neighbors across the street had a ’64 Bonnie that was abused that way).
The long axle ratio was also used by Olds in their Turnpike Cruiser package, also to good effect.
I remember vividly how a new ’64 Catalina convertible (his Dad’s, presumably) driven by a friend of these hot rodders across the street still made a real impact. But the world changed quickly during that year, thanks to the Mustang and the Beatles. Big were relegated to the fringes, the province of fusty older men, and their terminal decline was now sealed, thanks to women and kids who didn’t want anything to do with them anymore.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-who-killed-the-big-american-car/