Car of the Week: 1965 Pontiac GTO

[dodgechargerfan]

Bob Gouwens got such a nice GTO the first time he bought one, he almost had to go top shelf again when it was time for a second one.

The Wisconsin Dells, Wis., resident couldn’t buy a new Goat this time, of course, but he came as close as he could when he picked up his gorgeous 1965 two-door sedan. The stunning Slate Mist Blue Pontiac looks brand spanking new, and that’s just the way Gouwens remembers his first car.

“I had a GTO, a brand new ’66, when I was 17 years old. Most people never believe me, but I paid cash for that car when I was 17,” chuckles Gouwens. “And the reason I did was not because I was wealthy, but my dad never let me spend a dime. I worked in his restaurant cleaning and he’d give me a check for $12 every Sunday night at the kitchen table. He’d say, ‘Here’s your check I’ll put it in the bank for you tomorrow.’ And he never let me spend a dime. Consequently, not only did I learn to manage money, when I was 17 I had a enough cash to buy a new car.

“I sold the ’66 when I went in the Navy when I was about 19, so I wanted another one … and I paid about 10 times more for this one than I did for my first one [laughs].”

Read more.

 

[restoman]

[FONT=&quot]"...he did a frame-off restoration on it. It’s an all-original car.” ?????

Nice car, though. I sure wouldn't mind driving it.[/FONT]

 

[68R/T]

This is the part that caught my eye...."[FONT=&quot]Gouwens estimates the car has traveled only about 6,000 miles since its total makeover. “I only drive it to car shows,” he says, “so I’ve probably only put a couple thousand miles on it.”

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Which is it, a couple thousand, or 6,000? [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[69.5CUDA]

hmm didnt make note of the odo reading when you rebuilt the car?..if not how do you base ANY of the new maintinance off of anything

 

[TheIronSausage]

It's been restored, it doesn't need maintenance, it'll never get driven.. In three years he'll wonder why the brake pedal is spongy.

 

[Dr.Jass]

Gouwens is pretty sure the needle on the circular 120-mph would spin 360 degrees because he remembers doing it as a kid.

No, he doesn't. He just remembers lying about it. It was his way of convincing people that his 16-second car was fast.

Often regarded by automotive enthusiasts as the first true muscle car, in the sense of being a midsize car with a big-block V-8 engine, the original GTO was not really a model at all.

Sorry, nope. It's regarded by automotive enthusiasts as the first true musclecar in the sense of being a midsize car with a large-displacement engine, having a bitchin' name and flaunting its power as a group of performance and appearance options at a price point well below something like a Chrysler 300. In that regard, the definition is 100% correct, and I do consider the '64 GTO as the first musclecar according to "formula" although the cars were perfect "reverse sleepers". Truth is, the Pontiac V8 wasn't considered a big-block by anyone, since there was no difference in block size between the 287 to the 455 (similar to the AMC V8). The differentiation between big-block and small-block wouldn't happen until the MY 1977 intro of the short-deck 301.
By the definition given, the first true musclecar would've been the 1962 Chrysler intermediates with the 361 or 383 engines, though we'll go with the 330-horse 383-4V. It's well known among the true street rats of the day that the GTO was a pig, regularly getting its ass handed to it by said Mopars as well as any number of FE-powered Ford products and even across-the-aisle GM offerings. The GTO didn't really hit its stride performance-wise (low 14-second quarters) until the introduction of the Ram Air II engine for '68.

GTO equipment included a 325-hp/389-cid V-8 with a special camshaft, special hydraulic lifters and 421-style cylinder heads. It had a single Carter four-barrel carburetor. Also included in the option were specially valved shock absorbers, a seven-blade, 18-inch cooling fan with a cut-off clutch, a dual exhaust system, special 6-inch-wide wheel rims, red-stripe nylon low-profile tires, GTO identification medallions, twin-simulated hood scoops, six GTO emblems, an engine-turned dash insert, bucket seats, special high-rate springs and longer rear stabilizers.

And tiny 9" drum brakes at all four corners, 2.5" wide up front and 2" out back... the same sizes as the base brakes on a Slant Six Valiant. I think this is why "1 of 2,500" GM cars car considered rare these days, because their rate of attrition is much higher than other makes'--lots of them crashed into shit because they simply couldn't stop. I can't speak for Ford, but if you ordered a high-performance engine in a Mopar (even a 383-4V by itself in a 4-door) you were usually forced into buying a brake upgrade of some type, though the smallest brakes even offered on the midsize Mopars were 10"x 2.5" at all four corners.

The public sure ate up the GTO's image, though, due to Pontiac's intense marketing efforts that even included paying bands to write songs about it.

 

[68R/T]

By the definition given, the first true musclecar would've been the 1962 Chrysler intermediates with the 361 or 383 engines,

Many people will contend that the 49 Olds, with their first OHV 303 ci V8 matched with the 4-speed hydramatic available in their lightweight 88 model was Detroits first real purpose-built musclecar. :hmmm:

 

[Dr.Jass]

And those people would be wrong, since it wasn't. Going by the article's definition, it's out since the 88 was not a midsize car nor was the 303 a big-block engine. Going by the standard definition, there were no performance options or aggressive appearance cues nor was it marketed to the youth segment as a street racer or even a performance car. The "Rocket 88" was no more a musclecar than a '32 Ford Model 18. As I said, by the definition given, the '62 Mopar "not yet B-bodies" are the only cars that could possibly qualify since no one else had a midsize offering with a big-block until '64--and Ford didn't get one until '66 other than the race-only Thunderbolt.

Regardless, the '64 GTO was the first true musclecar.

 

[68R/T]

..... nor was the 303 a big-block engine.

Neither was the 389 in the GTO. Granted, the GTO was marketed towards the younger crowd as a "muscle car". But your claim the "soon to be" 'B' body Mopars were true muscle cars falls a little short. They were not marketed as such. Their "muscle" versions first hit the market as "police specials". Granted, had MA used marketing to appeal to a younger crowd with a catchy name and a couple of moldings, history would've been written differently. The 383's and even the 413 wedge were available, but never marketed as a special package.

A "factory package" is what puts a muscle car in its' own category.

 

[Dr.Jass]

You really haven't actually read a thing I've written, have you? :doh:

Neither was the 389 in the GTO.

Which is exactly what I said in my first reply.

But your claim the "soon to be" 'B' body Mopars were true muscle cars falls a little short.

I never made any such claim. However, as I'll now point out for the fourth time,
by the definition given in the article...

...the first true muscle car, in the sense of being a midsize car with a big-block V-8 engine....

The '62 Chrysler intermediates are the only possible car that fits that particular (and, as I've repeatedly said, incorrect) definition of a musclecar (since GM didn't even have intermediates until '64 and Ford's didn't get a big-block until '66). I've been saying that since my first post, and have never once strayed from the fact that the '64 GTO is the first true musclecar. Everyone in the hobby tries to argue that their choice, be it the '32 Ford 18, the '49 Olds (or Caddy), the Chrysler 300, whatever. They're all wrong. It's the '64 GTO, period, and I've never said otherwise. See, there was that whole bit in my first reply where I wrote...

It's regarded by automotive enthusiasts as the first true musclecar in the sense of being a midsize car with a large-displacement engine, having a bitchin' name and flaunting its power as a group of performance and appearance options at a price point well below something like a Chrysler 300. In that regard, the definition is 100% correct, and I do consider the '64 GTO as the first musclecar...
...By the definition given, the first true musclecar would've been the 1962 Chrysler intermediates with the 361 or 383 engines, though we'll go with the 330-horse 383-4V.

The way the article defines one, a 361-2V '62 Savoy wagon with a column-shifted 3-speed is a musclecar.

Go ahead, go back and find one place where I said the '62 Mopars were the first true musclecars without referencing them in regards to the article's definition, rather than the accepted one. You won't.

Going back and re-reading everything I wrote, I really can't understand how you didn't grasp that very-critical point in the first place.

 

[68R/T]

It's all about each individuals definition of muscle car. And like you said, according to this article's definition, the GTO was the first.