FAQ |
Members List |
Social Groups |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
View Poll Results: 1964 or 1965, which do you like best? | |||
1964 | 65 | 32.83% | |
1965 | 133 | 67.17% | |
Voters: 198. You may not vote on this poll |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
||||
|
||||
I prefer the horizontal headlights on a 1964.
|
#82
|
||||
|
||||
I have owned my 64 GTO, a 65 GTO and a 66 GTO and like the horizontal headlights on a 1964 the best.
Tom V.
__________________
"Engineers do stuff for reasons" Tom Vaught Despite small distractions, there are those who will go Forward, Learning, Sharing Knowledge, Doing what they can to help others move forward. |
#83
|
||||
|
||||
Same as the preference on the 2004-2006 GTO styling, it's all in the preference of the individual. When they came out they weren't retro styled, and the mustang was. Ford kind of painted themselves into a corner with retro styling, no major body changes since the 2004 mustang, facelifts is all.
Had the GTO/Holden continued, they could have restyled it whichever way they choose to. Styling is objective, and there is no right, or wrong. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Well styled cars reflect in sales of that car, majority rules. I personally prefer the 65, but I'm only one person.... |
#84
|
||||
|
||||
I've always preferred the horizontal headlights.
My first car was this 1960 Bonneville and my GTO is a '64... |
#85
|
||||
|
||||
In 65 Pontiac nailed across the board but especially with the GTO...
__________________
________________________________________ 65 GTO owner since 84 original ca car |
#86
|
||||
|
||||
I like both but, but GM was going for the wide look with the vertical headlights.
__________________
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
64 is the best
I have two 64's, two 65's, two 2004's have had one 66 a 67 a 69
I like the 64 the best, for the one off's, the blue gray gauge pads and trim, the dash emblem, the odd windlace on the pillars, the interior colored lock knobs, the hood that was so very controversial, the fact that it lighter than the others, and smallest of the square bodies, the odd map light option, and the story of how to get it to the masses. The factory ringers, the hype and the fear from the management, and the industry craze that had to play catch up. It is the best story for the GTO, save for maybe the 2004 which was approached the same way, but hated by the car lovers of the GTO. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
65 gto !!!!
i have a 65 IRIS MIST htp ,purchased new when i was 16 in hackensack nj..... .. at a pontiac gto car show JIM WANGER the person who designed the 65 along with deloran.. signed inside my trunk "georgous gto !' then signed his name.. he told me 65 gto was the most beautiful gto and most importantly he said "65 GTO IS WHEN PONTIAC GOT IT ALL RIGHT , PERFECT " everything inside and out came out awesome,Great,WOW ! anyways being that JIM WANGER the gto designer for pontiac said 65 was perfect,the best year, then what else do you need to hear...smiles to 65 gto and all other years...Louie L
|
#89
|
||||
|
||||
Obviously the 1964 has the best steering wheel - the rare wood wheel not reproduced. A 1964 has to be a post I feel to look right and is best. I wish the taillights on a 1964 GTO were like the Tempest ones for that year.
So it is 1965 GTO for the win -- just has to be a hardtop. Post 1965 goats just look wrong. Better gauges, functional hood, best interior pattern, rear end bezel and taillights are sweet, and better tripower and engine. 1964 goats are like the 2004 "Saab GTO". Ok, but so much better are the 1965 and 2005. |
#90
|
||||
|
||||
This is like picking a favorite child. :--) I was born with this Pontiac affliction, the only explanation I have is my father having a black 1960 Safari with 3;90 gears and Mallory ignition for H-stock at Islip Dragway. The next family car was a 1965 Lemans, I was doomed!
__________________
[ |
#91
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
64 of course
lighter car lighter engine better heads first year for the high rise tripower intake lighter block no chamfers in the block, so higher compression only year you got an m20 with 3.90 gears, so It's monster off the line better color choices as they are more like the late 50's and early sixties cars better interiors with better color choices, red cars with white interiors got red dash uppers and steering wheels, interiors got fun head liners colors, they were not boring Engine tuned dash, Poor gauges, but cool dash. Horizontal head lights Sweet hood, I know it's not functional but so was the majority of these cars and even the functional ones had very very limited benefit This year is filled with one offs and odd ball options and features, such as the remote mirror on the fender, odd ball map light, dash emblem, no GTO emblems on the door panels, no Hurst logo on the shifter It is a sleeper I have a 65, an 04 and have had a 66, 67 and even a 69, but the best is the 64 |
#93
|
||||
|
||||
Hey, me too, even though mine is a Tempest!
__________________
65 Tempest, 400, TH400 86 Fiero SE 2.8 |
#94
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Was the 1964 a lighter car? I'm not sure but that makes a difference in handling and performance. Better heads, I'm not sure about that either. The 77 1965 heads were good for their period but of course, nearly every year had improvements till the early 1070's. Compression between 1964 and 1965 had to be close when physically measured, but I only know 1965 and 70cc seems to be is the number. M-20 with 3:90 ratio is a solid performance advantage IMHO. The 1964 colors had a bit more variety, I agree on the interior appointments too. Great dashboard and too. My father, who was 26 years old then, said that when the 1964 GTO came out the car was so beautiful that it stopped traffic. (N.Y. City) He sometimes likes to remind me of a lady who owned a "hair salon" and bought one new in burgundy, with spinner caps and a 4-speed was the ultimate showpiece. Sixty years later you can still sense the enthusiasm and excitement of when the 1964 hit the streets when he describes it.
__________________
[ |
#95
|
||||
|
||||
Slightly lighter 1964 body, not by much.
Engines would have been the same or slightly heavier in 1964. The Tri-Power manifold in 1964 weighed a whopping 46.2 pounds bare: https://forums.maxperformanceinc.com...5&postcount=45 The 1965 Tri-Power intake was a lightweight at 34.8 pounds: https://forums.maxperformanceinc.com...0&postcount=52 I guess if there was a significant difference in block casting weights who knows but essentially the same. 1965 #77 heads were an improvement over the 1964 9770716 heads, horsepower ratings for the standard 4-barrel 389 went up from 325 to 335 using the same cam (524009 in 1964 was the same profile as the 9779067 in 1965). The Tri-Power going up from 348 to 360 isn’t a good comparison because the 1965 used the bigger 9779068 cam. 1964 fan here, fun conversation!
__________________
1964 Tempest Coupe LS3/4L70E/3.42 1964 Le Mans Convertible 421 HO/TH350/2.56 2002 WS6 Convertible LS1/4L60E/3.23 |
#96
|
||||
|
||||
I like every GTO ever made, including the 2004 to 2006, which were the best performing of all, in every way except visual appeal.
We have two '64 GTO's, both Tri-Power with 434 Whitmore engines, 9770716 heads, 9775088 intake, mild Crower hydraulic flat tappet cam. 9.5:1 compression. The only visible non-64 item under the hood are the '67 HO exhaust manifolds and the '64 over the counter rod & tube mechanical Tri-Power linkage. As I said, I like 'em all!!
__________________
BONESTOCK GOATS '64 GTO Tripower Hardtop (Wife's Car) '64 GTO Tripower Post Coupe (My Car) '99 Bonneville SE Sedan |
The Following User Says Thank You to Dick Boneske For This Useful Post: | ||
#97
|
||||
|
||||
65 Stacked headlights.
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Definitely 65s, they look racier sitting still and have always loved the stacked headlights. I can still remember my Dad's 65 Bonneville and its headlights from when I was just a kid!
|
The Following User Says Thank You to dv657172 For This Useful Post: | ||
Reply |
|
|