The 1964 Pontiac GTO didn’t just appear out of thin air; John Z. DeLorean had been working his way towards a genuine American GT for several years with the 1961-1963 compact Tempest. The ’61 arrived with one half of the future GTO’s 389 V8, including a four-barrel hi-po version. And there was the rear transaxle with independent rear suspension; DeLorean was a big IRS fan, although the Corvair’s borrowed swing axles were not really optimal.
But that was just the first act; for 1963, Pontiac ditched the expensive and rarely installed optional Buick 215 aluminum V8 and dropped in a reduced-bore version of the 389 V8. In an (initial) concession to appearances of modesty, it came with only a two-barrel carb, rated at 260 hp. But as the year progressed — with the GTO already waiting in the wings — a 280 hp four barrel HO version became available too.
This CL review is of a 260 hp version backed by the two-speed automatic. Not exactly quite a full-grown tiger yet, but it was already showing its stripes.
Actually the so-called 326 displaced 336.66 cubic inches. Why Pontiac advertised that it had 326 cubic inches is a mystery; GM’s edict that intermediates shall have no more than 330 cubic inches didn’t come out until 1964, so for ’64 the bore was reduced again to make it a genuine 326. But of course that rule was then totally flouted by the 389 GTO. Does any of this make sense?
CL suggests that the Tempest LeMans was something of a 7/8 size budget Grand Prix; a logical call. The ’63’s longer and wider external sheet metal did elevate it visually into a genuine mid-sized car even if its internal body structure was still all very much the same; also largely shared with the Corvair. CL suggests that after driving it for a while, no one will ask why Pontiac didn’t just drop in the 389 as the 326 has more than enough beans to spin the rear wheels on command.
The two-speed torque converter automatic had a lot of Powerglide DNA in its case, but there were some changes from the ’61’-’62 “Tempest-Drive” version. The unit shifted more smoothly and was deemed an improvement over the previous version, having ditched its torque-splitting top gear function.
Total torque multiplication with the 3.09 rear axle was too much for the skinny 6.50-15 tires, resulting in excessive wheel spin. Hitting the throttle even lightly three-quarters of a way through a turn caused the rear end to swing out of control. A higher (lower numerical) axle ratio was recommended. Contrary to popular belief thanks to a famous movie scene, a limited slip differential was not available. The presumed reason the ’62 Corvair’s Positraction unit wasn’t used is because a larger and stronger differential had to be used with the V8.
“Of course, driving a car with so much power is great fun“. 0-60 came in 9.5 seconds, not exactly a stellar number, but reasonably quick for the times. A version with the three-speed manual was tested by Popular Science as part of a comparison test, and it was faster with a brisk 8.1 second 0-60 time. The specs showed that car having a 3.90:1 rear axle, although the brochure does not show that as optional.
Of course the 280 hp four-barrel 326 HO version that came later in the year was faster yet, with a 0-60 time of just under 7 seconds and the 1/4 mile in 17 seconds (Car Life test). That 0-60 time is very much in ’64 GTO territory, even if the 1/4 mile ET isn’t quite.
At a cruising speed of 80 the Tempest felt like it was “loafing“. It conveyed the sense of a larger car, although its ride and road/engine noise didn’t quite, undoubtedly due in part to its unibody construction.
The power steering was too slow, with some 5 turns lock-to-lock. The 9” brake drums should have been upgraded; they were marginal.
The four speed manual (borrowed from the Corvair) was not strong enough to use with the V8, so a three-speed was the only manual gearbox available, but with such a torque-rich engine in a relatively light car, the lack of the extra gear was probably not really an issue except for racing. As it was, the three-speed was a bit marginal and there were reports of damage from enthusiastic shifting.
The instrument panel was new for ’63 and attractive in appearance with four large round openings, but the details of its layout were not quite optimum. It’s a testament to the Corvair’s relatively roomy interior that essentially the same cabin was deemed quite suitable in that regard in the Tempest.
Very little or nothing was said about the revised rear suspension for ’63; it still used swing axles but now used L-shaped control arms instead of semi-trailing arms. This reduced toe-in changes as the camber changed. The Tempest had acquired a rep for its tricky rear end manners (snap oversteer when exceeding its limits); the ’63 version was a minor improvement but did not go far enough. A camber-compensating spring like the ’64 Corvair had would have been a good start.
CL made no real mention of the Tempest’s handling; maybe because its vices were already known and they didn’t want to rub it in further? Or perhaps they just didn’t drive it in the kind of conditions where the rear end was likely to act up.
The final verdict was positive, although there was some discomfort with the Tempest’s seemingly inevitable external growth. Well, that too was just the warm up act for the ’64 Tempest and all the new GM A-Bodies. They were headed for growth, but most of all, lots of performance increases, starting with the GTO. The ’64-up GM A-Bodies would be the beginning of the biggest change in GM’s long history, as these cars and their successors would eventually muscle out the large cars for sales superiority. So yes, the ’63 Tempest was more than just a warmup act for the GTO; it was a the beginning of a revolution.
Related CC reading:
Automotive History: 1963 Days – Popular Science Tests the Hot Compacts
Vintage Car Life Road Test: 1964 Pontiac GTO – “Honest In Performance”?
Ate Up With Motor has a very in depth look at the ’61-;63 Tempest:
Magnificent Kludge: The ‘Rope-Drive’ 1961–1963 Pontiac Tempest
The service manual axle ratio availability chart (https://pontiac.oldcarmanualproject.com/manuals/1963/1963%20Tempest%20Shop%20Manual/05-Rear%20Axle%20and%20Propeller%20Shaft/image3.html) confirms that axle ratios of up to 3.90 were available with the V-8, but anything (numerically) higher than a 3.09 was a special order.
Thanks. I just added a link at the bottom to your excellent post on the ’61-’63 “rope drive” Tempest.
I had two of these with 4 cylinders in my yard. Both drive shafts broke. One of the local wrecking yards with 4-5 Tempests had each driveshaft long gone. Unless someone reproduces the driveshafts, these cars can’t survive.
I wonder if a competent welder could modify a Porsche driveshaft with Pontiac yokes.
I very much doubt it. For starters, the Porsche shafts are much too short and substantially smaller in diameter than the Pontiac shafts.
One of the problems with sourcing a replacement Tempest driveshaft is that the shafts were different depending on the engine (four-cylinder vs. 215 vs. “326”), transmission (the automatic shafts were longer), and model year. So, a shaft from a ’61 manual-shift four-cylinder car is not going to fit a ’63 V-8 automatic, for instance.
Er, substantially LARGER in diameter, excuse me. The Pontiac shaft diameters ranged from 16.5 to 19.1 mm, where the Porsche shafts were 20 mm for the 924 and 25 mm for the 928.
I have some minor pity for GM of the early 60s. They tried all manner of engineering feats – Rear air-cooled engines, transaxles, aluminum engines, turbocharging, etc, etc – and most of it was met with a public response of “can we just have normal cars with bigger engines, please?”
Yes but during this time the rest of the automotive planet was progressing. There was indeed an awakening at the end of ’79 with an American generalization of fwds but looking at the N.-A. automobile fleet today with all these pick-up trucks and their ladder frames … we are almost back to the 40s.
The rest of the world also went down a lot of dead ends before it standardized on the modern FWD drivetrains. A lot of import technology didn’t work any better than American technology.
As a life long mechanic and many multiples of car ownership, the RWD platform has many advantages over the modern FWD platform. Like, better handling, better balance, less complexity, easier to service. No way on earth that you can drive the front wheels and design the best suspension and steering together.
No way on earth that you can drive the front wheels and design the best suspension and steering together.
Sure you can. Audi has been doing it for decades, and there’s been others too.
I wish I lived in the days where everything had longitudinal engines and big open engine compartments, no busting my knuckles changing transverse engine serpentine belts!
I don’t find FWD, or RWD or AWD to be “progressive” technology, which would be to imply that it renders one or the other obsolete, which is demonstrably false. It’s just technology, with its own list of pros and cons. The rest of the planet in fact perfected all forms of driven wheel technology, look at BMW, Mercedes or much of the JDM product we didn’t get here in the US. It was American manufacturers if anything that went all in on the lock stock and barrel wholesale adoption of FWD, from everyday cars where it makes sense like a Cavalier or Citation to prestige products like a Cadillac Deville where it was kind of frankly absurd, and ultimately hurt the reputations as the initial trendiness gave way to objective comparisons to its RWD (overseas)competitors.
Likewise pickup trucks. In terms of their engineering there are sound reasons pickups have ladder frames, There has been a lot of progress between a 40s Ford F1 and a modern day F150. Whether suburban Dad with white collar jobs need one is a different debate but as far as the product itself goes it is no more or less evolved than a FWD crossover (which actually have traits of 40s cars; they’re tall and are only distinguishable from each other by the grilles!)
Manufacturers didn’t adopt FWD en masse because it was trendy or faddish or “progressive,” they adopted it because it offered better packaging efficiency, which was vital for B-segment cars, very useful for C- and D-segment cars, and facilitated downsizing for better fuel economy of larger models. CAFE gave American automakers barely 10 years to improve their fleet average fuel economy by about 10 mpg — around 50 percent, in other words — and while cheaper gas prices and loopholes for trucks and SUVs made it seem less urgent, we’re now all paying for that environmentally. That was (and remains) far more important than whether a longitudinal FWD car allows easier spark plug changes or theoretically better steering feel.
The Tempest didn’t adopt a rear transaxle because DeLorean thought it would be neat (although I’m confident that he did), but because it allowed Pontiac to make a compact (which their dealers had desperately wanted) based on Corvair hardware (which the corporation was determined to do for reasons of production economy) without it just being a Corvair with Pontiac badges.
Matt is not wrong that all of these technologies have pros and cons, but the trends happened for specific, compelling reasons, and it’s silly to ignore that.
For the rest of the world no, but American automakers for a time certainly embraced the trendiness of FWD, “Contemporary as it is” for the 86 Deville marketing says it all. No doubt FWD was a boon to packaging in those small segments, to the point that cars like the Pinto and Vega really do seem like outmoded concepts, but FWD’s packaging benefit diminishes the higher up you go on in size where a transmission/driveshaft tunnel isn’t particularly intrusive anyway, especially as center consoles became standard equipment.
In reality it was much like you mention with the Tempest transaxle; for all the marketing speak about being contemporary with FWD downsized Cadillacs, in practice it facilitated platform sharing and engineering commonality with the rest of the high volume GM models taken to the extreme. GM themselves wanted FWD to seem trendy and progressive to an audience increasingly favoring the RWD heavy German brands as the true standard of the world. There simply wasn’t money in it to develop all new RWD platform and more efficient powertrains to the degree of FWD ones for a smaller segment of the market, Ford found that out the hard way with the MN12 platform.
Matt, the 1980s GM FWD cars really did make the most of the packaging benefits of FWD. All of them had leading edge space efficiency, low weight and fuel economy. There was no way any of them could have been equalled in those categories with a RWD platform.
Of course there were lots of RWD cars that may have had good qualities and were perfectly acceptable to the market but those were almost invariably other qualities, like dynamic ones from the Europeans or reliability from the Japanese. But none of them could match the qualities that the GM C and X/A bodies had in their strengths.
The problem with these kind of debates is that it’s rarely an apples to apples comparison; what was a priority for GM at the time was not one for Mercedes or Lexus.
To conclude this debate without tail (rwd) or head (fwd) I personally will choose a current manual Civic over a perfect sleeper th400 Chevette anytime .
The saddest failure has to be fuel injection. How many customers did they lose to poor driveability in the 70s?
True. I knew the Big Three had fallen far behind when the VW Super Beetle got Bosch K-Jetronic fuel injection in 1975! The domestic automakers didn’t follow suit until the mid ’80’s, screwing around with electronic feedback carburetors and throttle-body fuel injection before finally admitting defeat, and adopting port fuel injection in the late 80’s.
They had fuel injection in the 1950″s. But I’ve wondered why the delay for modern ECM injection for so many years, was it the cost? Would be interesting to hear from actual company employees what they know.
A combination of things: cost, reliability, durability (an engine compartment is an extreme environment for electronics!), sunk costs in carburetor development and manufacture, patent encumbrance (Bendix had very broad patent coverage in this field that made it hard for others to experiment; Bosch licensed the Bendix patents to develop the D-Jetronic system), and the fact that there wasn’t necessarily enough of a benefit to seem worthwhile.
The single biggest performance advance in modern fuel injection (in terms of power, driveability, and emissions performance) is feedback control, which was not developed until the 1970s. Without that, the ECU has to have a preprogrammed set of mixture parameters for different driving conditions, which have to be reprogrammed for each engine and different states of tune and which aren’t very flexible, a big hassle. Once feedback control became available, it could also be applied to carburetors, which functionally was kind of an awful Rube Goldberg affair, but had less investment cost.
I believe Bosch sold Volkswagen the D-Jetronic for the VW Type 3 at cost, in order to get field experience with the unit.
True, GM had Bendix mechanical fuel injection for the Corvette 327 and the Pontiac Chieftain in 1957-58, but it was more expensive and even harder to tune than the multi-carburetor setups so common at the time, since very few mechanics really knew how to work on it. It wasn’t until the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, when electronic controls first became small enough and cheap enough to be installed in cars that EFI became practical. Only by the 1980’s, with the microprocessor and personal computer revolution in full flower, did EFI really begin to make significant inroads into the carburetor’s dominance. The early fuel injection systems used mechanical sensors with an analog computer to control fuel delivery, since the transistor was still in its infancy in the 1950’s (invented in 1947) and the first practical integrated circuit (IC), which would make the microprocessor, the “computer on a chip” possible, wouldn’t be invented until the early 1960’s. The first IC’s were used to build the first Apollo Guidance Computer, used quad dual-input NOR gates in a 16-pin Dual-In-Line (DIP) package. Quad means that each chip had four (4) logic gates on a single silicon wafer, each gate had two (2) inputs and one (1) output, for a total of twelve (12) pins, with two (2) extra pins for power (+VCC) and ground (GND), with two (2) of the sixteen (16) pins left unused.
The simple answer is the technology wasn’t ready yet. The transistor had just been invented in 1947, and the first practical commercial devices started to appear about two (2) years later. So the early Bendix system used by GM on the 327 Corvette and the 1958 Pontiac Chieftain used a mechanical analog system to control injection duration and timing. Electronic controls would have to wait until the late 1960’s. The integrated circuit (IC) wouldn’t be invented until the early 1960’s. The one of first IC’s used commercially was the quad dual-input NOR gates used to build the Apollo Guidance Computer. Packaged in a sixteen (16) pin Dual-In-Line (DIP) package, they packaged four (4) dual input NOR gates in a single Integrated Circuit (IC), comprising about one-hundred (100) transistors on a single chip! Each gate uses three (3) pins, two (2) inputs and one (1) output, plus two (2) pins for power (+VCC) and ground (GND), with the remaining two (2) pins unused. This pales in comparison with the modern microprocessor, the “computer-on-a-chip” which has millions of transistors on a chip, with dozens of pins.
As a newly graduated engineer in 1984, I was thrilled when the new 64 kilobyte (64,000 byte) DRAM chips came out in the same package, so I could expand the memory for my PCjr computer! Now, of course, memory is measured in Gigabytes (One Billion bytes) and Terabytes (One Trillion Bytes).
So the electronics to make modern electronic engine controls possible weren’t available until the early 1970’s. Despite Doc Brown’s efforts to replace a microprocessor in the Back to the Future movies with vacuum tubes, what he did is physically impossible. Even an analog computer made from vacuum tubes would have been as big as the DeLorean itself, and a digital computer might have occupied Doc Brown’s entire laboratory, if not his entire house!
The mechanical system Chevrolet and Pontiac offered starting in 1957 was by Rochester, not Bendix. The Bendix Electrojector, offered on a VERY limited basis by Chrysler in 1958 and announced but not actually sold by AMC, was electronic — and indeed was the direct predecessor of the Bosch D-Jetronic system — and fairly sophisticated, but costly and not yet reliable. It also ended up stymieing further development of electronic injection, because Bendix claimed very broad patent coverage while losing interest in developing the concept further, since there didn’t seem to be an obvious market for it.
“Significant inroads” is of course a subjective judgment, but D-Jetronic and L-Jetronic (built under license in Japan) started to become common on higher-end Japanese models by the latter ’70s, since Japan had enacted stringent emissions standards modeled on ours on top of their existing higher taxation on engines over 2 liters. It was less common in Europe until the ’80s because the mechanical K-Jetronic system (which was developed after D-Jetronic) was cheaper and, combined with electronic ignition control, was adequate for European emissions standards, which at that time were much less stringent than ours, and, like carburetors, could be given electronic feedback control.
The 336.66 cubic inch version was a left over from the 1959 GMC, as Pontiac was supplying V8 engines for the lighter GMC trucks then. When Pontiac increased the stroke of the V8 in ’59 to 3.75″, GMC didn’t want the displacement increase from the 1958 version (also 337 cubic inches) so Pontiac debored the 3.75″ stroke engine to 3.78″
I’d guess that in 1962 parts for the ’59 GMC’s were still being made in house so it makes sense to go with what they had available especially as a 389 would have probably destroyed the transaxle.
The 1964 edict limiting size to 330 cubic inches resulted in another debore to 3.72″ for the 326 displacement.
Of course; makes perfect sense. Thanks.
I’m reasonably sure the 330 cubic inch displacement limit already existed by 1963, even if it had not yet become very relevant. After all, corporate management already knew of and had signed off on most of the divisions’ plans for the 1964 models, and Oldsmobile was already working on its new small iron V-8 (which was a substantially new engine, though sharing some basic tooling with the older Rocket), which I’m quite sure was designed to that limit rather than the other way around.
I can’t see any other reason Pontiac would describe the 1963 engine as a “326,” to the extent of claiming in the AMA specs that the bore is 3.72 inches rather than 3.78.
I suspect the bore cap was initiated by this car, and the marketing folks were cautioned to avoid getting themselves into an issue with having to market a “smaller” engine in ‘64. Of course, it all became moot.
Given all we have learned about the special treatment Pontiac press cars got during the GTO era, I remain a little suspicious about the tests of these 326-powered Tempests from 1963. This figure with the 2-speed automatic doesn’t seem too outlandish, but some of those other tests of the higher performance versions sound like a lot more punch than should have come from adding a couple of barrels to the carb, and whatever other tweaks a 4 bbl version might have seen. After all, the 326 has not gone down in history of one of Pontiac’s performance greats.
The four-barrel H.O. version and the Royal Pontiac hop-up Car Life tested in April 1963 had manual transmission and a much deeper axle ratio (the special order 3.90), so it’s not surprising that they were quicker than automatic cars with the taller standard axles. A ’63 Tempest is a good 300 pounds lighter than a ’64 Tempest with the later, “true” 326 and somewhat lighter than a ’67 Firebird V-8, so the engine didn’t have to be one of the performance greats to provide good performance, as long as you didn’t break the transaxle gears.
One example of the absurdity of GM to downsize and shorten is when they turned the Cadillac V-8 sideways, (Seville, DeVille, 1980″s). Made water pump, accessories, tune ups near impossible. All for shortening the car 6-8 inches. They then had to artificially lengthen the car since the short version wouldn’t sell.
Remove the Audi drive axles and already you’ve removed unsprung weight. I bet Audi could improve the steering a lot if they didn’t have to compromise for the drive axles. Never have drove any Audi, but driving a 1973 Toronado alternately with a 1973 Delta 88, the Toronado drove like a dump truck in comparison.. Now going on ice and snow, the Toronado just plowed through like there is no issue, great car for going 60mph on icy and snow packed highways.
I can’t see why the handling of a 1973 Toronado would be at all relevant to a much later Audi or other more agile FWD car. That’s like saying you don’t want an iPhone because you hated the PowerMac you used in the ’90s. Apples and oranges.
Was just demonstrating the superiority of RWD to FWD for handling in one example with personal experience. Why did Camaro and Mustang refuse FWD? Because FWD degrades handling and steering.
I think the reasoning is a lot more complicated in that, the Probe was fully developed and set to replace the Mustang but the Mustang enjoyed something of a renaissance with the fuel injected 5.0 and acquired an extremely enthusiastic following, enough for Ford to actually listen. I’d argue the handling/steering dynamics of the Mustang were never all that much to write home about until fairly recent times, drag racers was the Mustang’s performance market and RWD is better for weight transfer and the 5.0 was a tried and true engine with a large established support network, and the solid rear 8.8 axle was robust, and easily improved upon. It was one thing switching to EFI as the aftermarket quickly mastered but throwing out all that other stuff gearhead buyers wanted was not going to fly and Ford recognized that the Mustang was no longer in that broad sporty car market competing with Celicas but a niche modern muscle car market it and the GM F bodies had a loyal buyer base with.
RWD has superior dynamic qualities…. in the right car, with all tings being equal. but you need to take into account the fact that the weight balance in a V8 fox or SN95 is something like 58/42 at best and the if the suspensions aren’t anything to write home about a good FWD chassis will run circles around one.
The 5.0 Fox Mustang and gen3 Camaro/Firebird could be made to have excellent cornering power on a dry track, but in their day, they were not especially well-rounded cars dynamically. People didn’t buy a Mustang 5.0 LX for its dynamic qualities, they bought it because it was cheap, relatively light, fast, and readily upgradable in power, and you could do parking lot donuts with it.
And, to return to the actual subject of the article, the Tempest was RWD, moved the weight of the transmission to the rear, and used independent rear suspension that minimized unsprung weight — all features associated with agile sporty cars, and yet its actual handling was quite poor, even treacherous.
Having just turned 60 this year, i decided to list all the cars I’ve owned. When I saw the number was 68 runners and 3 that were bought and titled (Florida) as parts cars, I nearly fainted! That number didn’t include those cars that I’d have loved to have owned that my family owned (a 57 Chevy Belair cheaply optioned with the blue flame six and no radio, or the 1973 LTD with a sun roof that I knew was rare as a kid).
But this article reminded me of one I’d long forgotten:
My sister bought a new 1965 LeMans coupe and ordered the 326-3 speed. What a nice car bc she ordered an upgraded interior, and the deluxe outside goodies of full wheel covers and the like.
Thanks for a great trip down memory lane!
I have 3 of these cars, 2 are V8 convertibles and one a V8 coupe, all Lemans models. I picked up my first one in 1990 and restored it. Broke the shaft once, now I have spares.
There is a club for these cars, the Little Indians, a specially chapter of POCI. The 1961-63 “ropeshaft” cars. We have over 400 members and 500 cars. Awesome club to find any and all information, parts, tech info, etc… http://www.littleindians.com