1965-1966 Pontiac Catalina

The other day i was watching a clip where somebody drove an original 1966 Catalina 389ci 2 bbl THM. He mentioned the car was so smooth and accelerating to highway speeds went effortlessly, even a better riding car than the Chevy's, Buicks of that era he said. Is that a fact or just an opinion?

Thanks.

 

Opinion to me... even on the power of the car.
Lots of info I learned on this forum how Buick used more body mounts for a better ride and better and thicker frames.

Comparing cars that are over 50 years old isn't a good judge of feel quality. Some are survivors with old bushings and rubber in general. Some are resto's with one done better than the other.
A 389 2 bbl isn't a dog but it's not a higher compression 401 4 bbl Buick or 396 4 bbl Chevy.
Although a 66 Catalina 389 2 bbl or not should be smooth.

Factorys are known to have some better built cars than others come down the line though.

 

Thanks. It was a low mileage survivor about 40K mls in great condition.

 

Probably a really nice driver. That was still the era when most American auto manufacturers believed that if you paid more, you should get more. It wouldn't surprise me if the Pancho rode better and quieter then the Chevy, but no way would it have been smoother then a Buick or Olds.

 

A '63 Chevy full-size (X-frame) has 10 body mounts. My '59 Buick (perimeter frame) has 22.

 

This one? It sure looks like a sweet car.

 

That is the exact clip. The part when he rides the car at night he mentioned that it's better than all the others, Chevy, Buick.

 

More on this car and its ride:

 

Thanks. I just watched it. Would like to compare this car to Buicks when it comes to handling, acceleration, smoothness etc. I do believe this guy's opinion though, he had owned many to compare. Nice video.

 

Robbie, are you thinking of buying one?
I'm sure it's very smooth in all aspects. Could I pass a blind fold test as a passenger in this Catalina, a Wildcat, Olds 88 maby.
The difference between the ride and the Buick and Olds should be there but kinda marginal if there was no heavy duty suspension ordered when new on all cars.
This has a low compression 389 2bl I believe. Some off the smoothness on acceleration "might" come from a less aggressive cam than a 4 bl 389 might have.

The 66 Wildcat used a 401 and 425 and they had a lumpier idle, it smoothed out with more rpms but still maby there was a difference. Its been a long time since iv'e been in a boat like these. Also I don't remember being in a Catalina or Bonneville of that year.
My Uncle though had a 4 dr 66 Impala. Now that was a difference between riding in my Pops 66 Wildcat. It was though a 283 car I think? I was young, but right off the bat you could tell how much lighter and thinner skinned the Impala was and it had that 2 speed power glide whine.
Maby if had the heavy 396 it would of helped.

 

Thanks. Not thinking of buying one just interested about it. I can only compare a 1966 Skylark a 1973 Thunderbird and a 1973 Le Sabre 455ci 4 door sedan to my own car and i have to say that my car felt the most powerful, thight, stiff, and best all around handling. But ofcourse a coupe ain't no sedan and vice versa. It is subjective.

 

The X-frame was a horrible idea.

 

^ It's a huge contributor in that infamous '59 Impala vs. '09 Malibu offset crash video.

A '59 Impala V8 coupe is 700 lbs lighter than my '59 Buick coupe.

 

Also in the crash video they were comparing a rusty 50-year-old car with a new one. The only way that test would have been remotely valid would have been to find a virtually new '59 Impala, and even the suits at GM were not about doing that.

 

Back in the late 80s I was given a 65 Catalina with the same 389 to barrel turbo 400 combination. A one owner, garaged, 60,000 mile example. A very nice original. Growing up a car nut in a car family and by then several years a mechanic I had a pretty good sampling of just about everything by then. This Catalina left a big impression on me.

First: that high compression 389 was a very impressive engine. Super snappy off idle torque that reminds me of what is now common Computer fuel injection manners. Torque in the kick down range at highway speed was equally impressive. As for raw wide-open throttle it was typical of what you would expect for that size Engine of the era. The bottom line: for the throttle and rpm range a car is driven 90% of the time this car and engine did it better than damn near any comparable vehicle. Gas mileage was excellent for such a big barge. It would do mid teens mpg On the highway.

I had already owned many GM of the 60s By that time and hands down, the overall quality of the Pontiac is significantly higher than the Chevrolet. I can’t say that it necessarily surpasses Buick but the Pontiac has a more accessible youthful Quality to it that I really like.

While this could be argued to death I really think the 65 Pontiac‘s are an absolute High Point in the golden era of GM and automobiles period.

Steve weim55 Colorado

 

Was it a horrible idea for the 66-70 Riviera too?

 

I also have "read" rumors that the 59 Impala didn't have a motor??
I can't tell by the crash pic's.

 

Don't know but I believe the X frame was more for the seats and car being lower to the ground for a sport feel in the Riviera. Was side impact protection compromised, probably?

I would say Pontiac was close to Buick on interior parts quality in that era but WOW they sure did more with what they had and those Pontiac dashes were sweet.

 

Okay, so it wasn't for more stiffness and for instance a more balanced weight solution when it comes to the X frame?

 

Outcome would had been no different