Are there any truly honest vintage tests of a genuinely stock 1964 GTO? Pontiac was a notorious provider of “ringer” press cars, including the most famous one supplied to Car and Driver that did 0-60 in 4.6 seconds and the 1/4 mile in an absurd 13.1 sec.@115(!)mph. That turned out to have a 421 SD super-tuned within an inch of its life by Royal Pontiac.
Car Life tested a 348 hp Tri-Power version that “had been checked out by Pontiac Engineering before the car was released to the Car Life staff“. That should have been a tip-off, but then this GTO wasn’t a blatant cheater like the C&D Bobcat. Given its performance stats, more likely it was a “stock” 389 engine, but very well tuned by its maker. Or maybe not.
In any case, Car Life’s test focused on quite a bit more than just its acceleration numbers, as the GTO was seen as a genuine enthusiast’s car when it arrived, and not just a drag strip terror.
It’s easy to pigeon-hole the GTO as the first muscle car of a genre that was about to explode, but that was utterly unknown at the time. It was seen as a bold experiment by John Z. DeLorean to create a genuine enthusiast’s car, meaning one that would appeal as much or more to those buyers looking for something that could handle, steer and brake along with burning rubber; an affordable, family-friendly alternative to European sports cars and sporty coupes/sedans, as well as buyers of large American cars with top engine options.
Obviously, dropping a bigger displacement into a mid-size car was going to give more bang for the buck than buying a 421 Grand Prix. But the concept was hardly new or original.
The 1962 Plymouth and Dodge were almost dead ringers for the size of the 1964 GM A-Body intermediates, with a one inch longer (116″ vs 115′) wheelbase, but also one inches shorter overall (202″ vs. 203″). The Mopars were a couple of inches wider (76.5″ vs. 73.3″), and their base curb weights (2 door, six cylinder) were an identical 2930 lbs. The Plymouth and Dodge were available with a quite warm 330/335 hp 383 and several performance levels of the 413, up to the 405 hp “Max Wedge” ram-induction 413. (We did a CL test of the Dodge 413 here recently)
These Mopars also handled well, and quickly established themselves as the hot set up for street or strip. So why was the GTO a runaway success, unlike the hot Mopars? We all know the answer: DeLorean was a master of marketing and the GTO, right from its provocative name, was positioned to take advantage of an image of something truly new. Well, in regard to its marketing and image, it rightfully was. And Plymouth came out with its GTX in 1966, along with a raft of other imitations of the formula along with unique “names” and visual identifications. Obviously, Chrysler was heavy on engineers in 1962 and not in street-oriented marketing hype.
The Pontiac 389 had proven itself some years earlier on the tracks and strips, and its performance chops were quite real, thanks in substantial part to “the Mysterious Mr. McKellar”, whose camshaft designs were a significant part of the equation. The GTO’s 389 had a hydraulic cam, but its quick-bleed valve lifters allowed it to turn 6200 rpm, when so called upon. The base version had a single four barrel carb rated at 325 ho, and the Tri-Power was rated at 348 hp. The linkage was mechanical, and worked “exceptionally good” thanks to the ministrations of the Pontiac Engineering staff.
The 389 pulled well from idle, but “it really starts to wail above 4000 rpm“, up to its 6,000 optimum shift point. CL states: “The 348-bhp rating seems an understatement” . There you have it. Was it under-rated, or was it massaged?
CL’s testing yielded a 0-60 time of 6.6 seconds, which is credible enough, especially since these times tend to vary quite a bit due to the difficulty of getting a good launch from start. The 1/4 mile in 14.8 sec. @ 99 mph seems a bit quick and fast, given the ’62 413 Dodge’s 15.1 @92, the ’66 Hemi Satellite’s 14.5@95 and the ’65 427 Galaxie’s 14.9 @97. Trap speed is a better indicator of actual horsepower, and the smaller-engine GTO was faster in the traps than all of these with larger and higher-hp rated engines.
For what it’s worth, R& also tested a 348 hp GTO, quite likely the same car, and its times were even better, with a 5.7 sec. 0-60 and a 14.1 @ 104 mph 1/4 mile. That’s seriously fast.
A convertible with the 325 hp engine tested by M/T was slower, with a 7.7 0-60 and a 15.8 @ 93 in the 1/4 mile.
A factory-built ’62 Chevy II with the 340 hp 327 was very close to the GTO too, with a 6.8 sec. 0-60 and a 15.3 @97 1.4 mile.
It’s all in the far distant past now, but feel free to jump into this endless debate as to what a truly stock Goat would do.
The GTO’s exterior and interior design was generally praised, but the location and accuracy of the tach was not. The tested car did not have the optional console, so its tach was mounted in the dash in the far right opening, unlike this one with the console mounted one. Either way, it was difficult to read and it was quite inaccurate, reading 6600 rpm at an actual 6000 rpm.
Not surprisingly, the 750-14 red line tires could not cope with the 389’s power, given that only 44% of the weight was on them. It took a lot of finesse with the throttle and clutch to get the best start, and then again avoid excessive wheel spin on the 1-2 shift.
The GTO was of course one of the new GM A-Bodies in 1964, and that meant a change from a unibody to a perimeter frame and body. Keeping in mind that perimeter frames are designed primarily for their ability to reduce suspension inputs and sound from the passengers, it was a rather floppy base from which to create a “genuine enthusiast’s car“. The GTO package came with an uprated suspension, and there was a stiffer option available, which the tested car had, along with the optional metallic-lining drum brakes. Good thing, as the stock drums were deemed undersized for a car of the GTO’s weight and capabilities.
The optional suspension “seems to do wonders“, eliminating all the wallowing and pitching of these (non-GTO) cars.
Handling characteristics were less Ferrari GTO and more like the typical American car: “strong understeer, changing to predictably neutral steering in high speed cornering. The rear end will break loose into a spin-out if the car is pressed hard…we can’t actually say that the GTO is the best cornering American car we’ve ever driven, but it would have to be among the better ones”. The slow (24:1) manual steering was not a help; there was a quicker (20:1) manual option available, bit CL suggests that the 17.5:1 power steering would likely be the best choice, even if there was a loss of road feel at higher speeds.
The optional metallic-lining drum brakes acquitted themselves well.
CL liked the look of the GTO except for the fake hood scoops, and suggest that swapping hoods with a Tempest could resolve that issue. Given how many Tempests have had GTO hoods swapped in, this is a bit ironic.
The bottom line: “It is honest in appearance and honest in performance—endearing qualities in any league.” But was its performance truly honest?
Related CC reading:
Vintage Car Life Road Test: 1962 Dodge Dart 413 – The Max Wedge Legend Started Here
One noteworthy point about the Motor Trend test (January 1964, if anyone’s curious) is that they recorded an actual observed top speed, which was 115 mph at 5,500 rpm. They noted, “We feel it would have gone even higher if we’d had more room,” although since they said power dropped off above 5,800 rpm, I don’t think more than about 120 mph would have been likely.
That and their quarter mile figures seem pretty reasonable for the weight, gearing, and power — quite brisk for 1964, but nothing extravagant, and probably a fair approximation of what a stock GTO would do without a lot of merry little elves fiddling around under the hood.
(Obviously, a Tri-Power engine in a lighter coupe or hardtop would have been faster, but faster to the tune of a full second quicker and 6 mph faster through the quarter mile would take more than 23 additional horsepower and a 500 rpm higher practical rev limit.)
What’s surprising is how often the manufacturers sent convertibles to the press, especially on high performance models. Convertibles invariably weighed more, almost always handled worse and had worse aerodynamics. You’d think they would want to optimize the results, not make them worse. And of course, convertibles sold drastically less than the hardtops. GTO convertibles were a pretty rare sight.
Jim Wangers blamed this on Frank Bridges, the Pontiac general sales manager, who was an old-school salesman who was good at running herd on dealers, but did not get the merchandising concept the GTO represented and didn’t think it was going to sell even 5,000 copies.
I was referring to it being relatively common with all test cars of a certain type.
Well, convertibles were for a long time the glamor models, and so they read as “sporty,” but in a lodge brother/Rotary Club sort of way (with the 1961 Oldsmobile Starfire being perhaps the epitome of that mentality) rather than in a best ET and lowest 0–60 sense.
I knew a guy who had a Tri-Power Goat back in the day. He confirmed what has generally been accepted on multiple carbed engines, i.e., when in tune, they ran great. The problem was the carburetors slipped out of sync easily and often.
My favorite multi-carb set-up was the Mopar A12 Six-Pack (Dodge) or 6-Bbl (Plymouth). I don’t know if it was specific to those engines, but, apparently, in the interest of some semblence of being able to drive the things daily, the carb operation under low-throttle applications was through the center carb, alone. In effect, it was a 440-2v under most circumstances.
It wasn’t until the go-pedal was mashed to the floor that all six venturis dramtically opened up via the mechanical linkage.
This was reputed to be a problem with the 1967 Tri-Power 427 in the C2 Corvette, too – a bit finicky where the ’66 version with a single 4bbl just stayed in tune.
the carb operation under low-throttle applications was through the center carb, alone. In effect, it was a 440-2v under most circumstances. It wasn’t until the go-pedal was mashed to the floor that all six venturis dramtically opened up via the mechanical linkage.
That’s precisely how all these American three two-barrel (tri-power) setups worked; that’s the whole point. The center carb is only used until the vacuum or mechanical linkage opens the other two carbs at higher engine speeds. Essentially the same as a four barrel; carb, but with two more secondaries.
Which is why these do not need to be “synchronized”. It’s just a matter of the secondaries opening up at the right time; not too early or not too late.
What happens if both secondaries don’t open at the same time & the same amount?
Since they’re all sitting on a common plenum, nothing untoward. Maybe not optimal. “Synchronizing” carbs is really an issue when manifolds don’t have a common plenum.
I think it is indisputable that the main point of difference between the 62 Mopar B body cars and the 64 GTO was looks. The Chrysler cars made for a compelling package in all ways but the one that is often most important. The Plymouth version in particular is one I have warmed to, but it took a long, long time. The GTO hit the bulls eye for styling in 1964 in a way that the Grand Prix did in 1963 a size up and the Mustang did in 1965 a size down.
I think this car is kind of like the mechanical version of John Z himself. The car was the perfect mixture of the mechanical, style and a sweet spot in the market, where Delorean was an unusual mix of engineer/performance enthusiast, style maven and ability to read the market.
I was going to say the same thing. Good looks sell.
which is why Delorean had all that plastic surgery himself
As a ‘dyed in the wool’ MOPAR guy, I have to agree with J P 100%!
I spent the early years of the ’60s in the USMC totally because of the draft, but also, at least for therapeutic reasons, to get away from those awful 60 to 62 Exner body styles. The GTO had the eye appeal of a ‘sleeper’.
People were use to the body style of the Tempest which was pleasing to the eye compared to the MOPAR objects from outer space, though by 1964 the MOPARS had come back down to earth for the most part. In 1964 I could have easily lived with a GTO but had already bought a new ’64 Dodge Dart.
Another difference was packaging as a performance model for mass market. It was a smaller, lighter companion to Grand Prix and Catalina 2+2. The 62-64 Mopar B bodies were ‘racer specials’ meant for dragstrips, by special dealer order, not advertised in Life magazine.
GM Brass still had favoritism to full size “standard” cars, hence why rule of “No large cubic inch motor options in [small] mid size cars”. Delorean saw a loophole.
GTO’s were not a stand alone, ‘unique body shell’, car like Corvette, Mustang, and Riviera. Some still think “all Pontiac A bodies were GTOs” and “Mustang was Ford’s answer to the GTO”. nada
The 62-64 Mopar B bodies were ‘racer specials’ meant for dragstrips, by special dealer order,
The 383 and 413 became regular production options in the spring of 1962.
But, yes, a very key difference was the packaging of the GTO and its marketing. There was no comparable model/package for the Mopars. It would be interesting to speculate how such a package might have sold on them.
The GTO looked good, but its name and marketing were brilliant. How many Tempests and LeMans would have been sold if the 389 were just another engine option? There’s no doubt it would have been drastically fewer. It’s not like the very brisk 326 ’63 Tempest/LeMans sold all that well.
Meant no special marketing for big block B bodies. Were just top level options, and GM was “we don’t support racing”, so no 400ish CI option for A body. But, as part of an “option package”, wink wink.
GM brass still thought of the mid size cars as ‘little cars we have to offer, to upsell to “real” full size cars’
Way back when I was selling Oldsmobiles in L.A., I would tell 442 prospects, if asked, that GTO stood for Go To Olds! Most prospects got a kick out of that.. 🙂
Curiously my own car (first one) at the time was a ’64 Tempest, but alas it had 4 doors and the 215 c.i. 6 ….:( OTOH I put @ 47,000 miles on the car during the 13 months I owned it. That did include a rebuilt engine for $433.68 at Community Pontiac in Whittier, CA. DFO
1964’s changing automotive zeitgeist (in the US, anyway):
The sports-minded buyer, if he’s small-car oriented, might not like the GTO because of its sheer bulk; or he might find the handling a bit too heavy, particularly if he’s from the tail-twitching swing-axle school of driving. The stab-and-steer boys, however, just climb the walls over such a marvelously malleable monster.
One other misconception is “… all GTO’s came with bucket seats, floor shift, and a console…”
Other is someone posted about a 1969 [Tempest] Custom S and said “I never heard of a GTO Custom S”
In ’64, bucket seats and floor shifter yes, console no. (Which had also been true of the previous Le Mans, so it wasn’t any notable innovation in itself.)
http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/United%20States/Pontiac/1964%20Pontiac/1964-Pontiac-GTO-Brochure-Rev/index.html
Paul: If you wanted a followup for this, the May 1965 Car Life has a review of the ’65 GTO framed in a way near and dear to enthusiasts (even ones who could never have afforded the car or wouldn’t have been old enough to drive it): going through the options list and carefully selecting the perfect mix of features for optimum results.
As a 10 year old, not particularly a car guy 10 year old when the GTO came out, I, and my neighborhood 10 year old friends were distinctly impressed when an early GTO was parked in the neighborhood. We oohed and ahhed at it, pointed mostly at the GTO badge and were very impressed.
Somewhat older now, the muscle cars I’ve driven and ridden, with the exception of a certain 327 Corvette, haven’t really been very impressive. Granted none were “A” list cars, but for the most part, I don’t think very many were really very fast/quick.
But the GTO was a near instant legend in it’s day, regardless of if it performed as it was supposed to. Maybe not Mustang like, but even the very young me knew most Mustangs were really more show than go. But that was ok, they did look good in the mid 60’s.
I was 13 in 64, a neighbor bought a new maroon convertible with a 4sp and 3 deuces… I detailed it for him when it was probably a year or so old.. Shortly after that he installed a Latham supercharger with four 1 barrell carbs. It was a badass machine.. Guy he hung with had a gorgeous red 59 vette… Cool stuff when I was a kid. The gto owner sold my brother a 58 Pontiac hardtop he had lying around. My brother proceeded to destroy it as a field car.. We lived in the country.. A farmer in the area drove a 64 442 convertible.. Another hot car of the day
One thing about the 64 gto and the 389.tri pod
.motor..it pushed Chevrolet to develop a 396 motor and in 1966.and 67..the ss396 chevelle car was made and developed which was a really good car and series..and in 67 the .ss350 camaro was developed..this really pushed Pete estes.gm to develop chevy cars.thus the z28s that were superior.
Love this “Blast from the past” article. I was a huge Pontiac fan all the way back to the very early sixties and when the GTO came out it just stoked the fire. After getting out of high school in 1966 I had the good fortune to acquire a red 64 4 speed 4 bbl (no console) and then a couple years later got a black 64 automatic. The pictures that illistrate the article show both of my colors, how cool.
While Delorean was the mind that envisioned and brought forth the GTO, Jim Wangers was the marketing genius behind its success.