History Differance Between a Buick and a Pontiac

What was the differance between a Pontiac and a Chevy in the 40's and 50's. One opinion I got was, "A Buick was for the family man and a Pontiac was a sport Chevy". What's your opinion?

 

Pricing strategy by GM. That is the only thing.

They said a young guy starts off with a new chevy, then by the time he is a dried prune, he had the money for the Cadillac. And all the steps through his life from Pontiac, to Olds, Buick etc....showing his peers that he is climbing the ladder.

That is what killed the Desoto...not having a very visible place in the ladder, to show off to your peers.

and later, the Olds and Pontiac just became too much profit loss with not much difference in the newer smaller FWD models. Lost identity killed them. Modern people did not see the ladder of esteem like GM once had going.

.

 

Pontiac was the next step up from Chev in the GM hierarchy. They were different companies within the GM fold. They shared the same body shell but went to a lot of trouble to disguise it. Everything else was different like chassis, engine, transmission, steering, suspension etc.

In an informal poll about 1950, auto writer Tom McCahill found Pontiac was a strong favorite of garage mechanics as a car for their own use. Naturally price had a lot to do with it but they seemed to think the Pontiac was a well made reliable car, and better value than Chev.

 

I did not see anything of Pontiac being "sport" until the early half of 60s. I think GM realized their old way of that social ladder climbing that worked so well from it's start in the 20s, was not working like it was still doing in the 50s.

could have been affected by the nasty sales slump of the late 50s recession?

So they changed the sales targeting, and Pontiac was chosen as the sporty model as it's lower pricing allowed a buyer to justify a few options....and options were a good profit builder.

Like I said earlier, the whole social ladder of esteem fell apart with the new generation, mostly starting, and continuing through the 60s. and beyond.

GM was really scratching when they put a Cadillac on the Cavalier shell in early 80s

.

 

What are the chances pontiac (and possibly even olds) could come back?

 

Zip.

Ray

 

In my opinion, during the era specified, the greatest difference was between Chevrolet and all the rest (of GM cars). In that period, Chevrolet was pretty much a one trick pony. All models and body styles shared the same chassis, engine, driveline... only trim and body model differed.

Whereas, depending on the model of the other makes selected, you could have a GM "A"or "B" or "C" body shell......a straight 6, a flathead straight 8, an OHV straight 8 in two different displacements or a V8, all in the same model year. Anything higher up than a Chevy had a much heavier frame and suspension, heavier duty duty rear axle assemblies, etc.

During that era, GM ruled the world in industrial marketing. Automobiles, trucks, busses, railroad locomotives, excavating equipment, power transmission equipment, military equipment of all types, diesel and marine engines, turbine engines.....just to name some products that easily come to mind.

Fabulous history........now mostly a shadow of it's former self

Ray

 

The hierarchy goes Chevrolet --> Pontiac --> Oldsmobile --> Buick --> Cadillac. With Pontiac being the performance division and Oldsmobile the technology division. Or that's how it was for decades until it all fell apart towards the end.

 

Go back to the 20's and it was an even bigger choice at GM. Pontiac had Oakland, Olds had Viking, Buick had Marquette, and Cadillac had Lasalle.

 

Before 1957 Pontiac was an old man's car. They had a good reputation for reliability and comfort but not for performance. Look at the 1956 with its two bands of chrome over the hood like a fat man wearing suspenders.

Then Bunkie Knudsen took over. His first move was to do away with the silver streaks that had been a Pontiac trademark since 1936. His next move was to jazz up the Pontiac with performance and style. His motto was, you can sell a young man's car to an old man but you can't sell an old man's car to a young man. Through the late fifties and sixties Pontiac was considered a hot car, in style and performance, a complete change from their former reputation. This was a deliberate marketing move on the part of the top management.

 

Oakland came first, Pontiac was the cheaper model introduced during the depression.


From the G.M. Heritage center-

Oakland Motor Car Company


Oakland Plant, 1934

Tell us your story >

Written by Bill Bowman

In 1893, Edward M. Murphy established the Pontiac Buggy Company in Pontiac, Michigan and produced horse drawn carriages thru 1906.

As it became clear that motorcar sales were surpassing carriages, Murphy incorporated the Oakland Motor Car Company in 1907, an offshoot of his Pontiac Buggy Company. Murphy is said to have chosen the name Oakland for his car venture, located in the Oakland County of Michigan, city of Pontiac, because cross-town rival Pontiac Spring and Wagon Works already was making a high-wheel motor wagon under the Pontiac name.

In 1908, the Oakland Motor Car Company and the Pontiac Spring and Wagon Works merged together under the Oakland Motor Car Company. Later in 1908, the first Oaklands went to market. The first Oaklands used an unusual Alanson Brush designed two cylinder vertical engine, which rotated counterclockwise. This type of engine was common in French cars but not popular with American engineers. The engines worked fine, but the cars did not sell well.

In 1909, Murphy sold 50% interest in the Oakland Motor Car Company to William Durant. The Oakland found itself as a charter member of Durant’s newly formed General Motors empire.

In 1909, Oakland introduced new engines, new body styles and new models, which greatly increased sales, but unexpectedly during the summer of 1909, Murphy died and a few months later General Motors purchased full control of Oakland Motor Car Company.

The Oakland brand was produced thru 1931 by the Oakland Motors Division of General Motors, but in 1932 the Oakland name was dropped and the Oakland Motor Division became Pontiac Motor Car Company.

 

One elder that was on hamb years ago for a short time, was in Olds R&D in the 50s. He had plenty of stories about the white collar design guys going out street racing at lunchtime, against the Pontiac R&D guys.

The brands were very much "not working together" according to what he was saying. Doing things differently, even though that would have saved money for GM.
.

 

Interesting to compare the depression to later times....like:

1932 was pretty bad for the US car makers with only TWO companies showing a profit in 32; GM and Nash.. even Henry lost money.

1933 was far worse, and Cadillac looked for a way to make the LaSalle more affordable, not just another Cadillac priced car...

So for 34 through 36, they ditched the expensive V8 and used the Oldsmobile straight 8 flathead with the LaSalle name on the head! Funny how that was OK, but when Olds did the same thing decades later by using the SBC, they got sued by consumers..

.

 

Don't know about early years but Olds was the lab rat for GM, with the f.w.d Toranado, diesel engine,ect. If it sold on a olds it was used in other gm .

 

Grrr!!! Wanted a Toronado diesel - made wifey let loose of the Cad Eldy for one. At first - it was nice. Got her a Shell credit card (now honey, just always use Shell - they have full service and always ALWAYS make them check the oil) BAH! Diesel puked, the $300 extra I paid for that "Cadillac Firemist Metallic Grey" - it scraped off in chunks like road dirt.

So I got a case of the ass (after GM said "screw you" to all us dumb-ass diesel owners), ripped out that POS motor, bought an Olds 98 with a 455, stuffed that in her, and man, there was no top end!

Zero to 140 mph on I-75 - like passing a VW at a stop light.

And BTW, it was missteps like that which GM did to itself and nearly destroyed the company. Right from laying down and taking it in the corporate butt over the Corvair flap, on thru the diesel fiasco, the Fiero, and on & on - don't forget their Ross Perot/EDS boondoggle and that first electric car they scammed California out of millions on. And Euclid-Terex - the divestiture/monopoly BS that Congress tried to shove down their throats.

OK, rant over.

 

A scary thought-------- the Chinese buy GM, thus becoming ChiGM.

 

Well, takeover GM. i don't know if GM can be bought being it is a corporation, but you know what i mean......

 

=================

That's about how John Delorean told it in the highly controversial On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors .

http://www.autonews.com/article/20111031/CHEVY100/310319927/delorean-didnt-fit-the-gm-mold

 

C. John Stutzer, you forgot to give credit to the Roger Smith era and the destruction it brought. And his brilliant birth of the Saturn division and how much money and R&D that sapped from Chevy, Cadillac and BOP engineering. GM CEO's being financial people and not "car guys". The money wasted reforming the different divisions and building cookie cutter products. Discontinung the 3800 engine after all the money spent to make it a top product. It was phased out because it was an "outmoded pushrod engine" replaced by engines that would not hold a candle to it. And on and on.

Hnstray, to quote your statementuring that era, GM ruled the world in industrial marketing. Automobiles, trucks, busses, railroad locomotives, excavating equipment, power transmission equipment, military equipment of all types, diesel and marine engines, turbine engines.....just to name some products that easily come to mind.
How true. How sad today. Basically a one trick pony. GM was one of the major contributors to the war effort during WWII. Would we have lost the war if not for GM?

F&J, to quote you:GM was really scratching when they put a Cadillac on the Cavalier shell in early 80s
That was a ploy to raise the CAFE (Combined Average Fleet Economy) to average out the Federally mandated average fuel mileage. Pure and simple. And another product of the Roger Smith era, put a band-aid on the problem instead of actually actually doing something about it.

 

Oh I haven't forgot about Roger Smith - that was when the damned snow job Ross Perot/EDS got pulled on GM (good sales work BTW, Ross!). It merits a whole book all by itself. I mean for Crikey's sakes, they bulldozed down Dodge Main, displaced 4,000 some residents, and put up a brand new plant - wiping out nearly 100 years of history, community, and replacing it with a white elephant.

There have been other bean counters in charge of GM: in the early 50s Harlow Curtice was CEO (my Uncle Red), and when the national economy tanked (including General Motors sales) mostly due to the Korea mess, he made a very public announcement that GM would be spending One Billion Dollars immediately on new plants and models. He even went to most of the major production plants, spoke right on the shop floors to the men and asked them to put their faith in GM. They did. Time magazine made him Man of the Year.

In 1955, GM was THE biggest corporation in the USA and in the world.

What happened at General Motors is that General Motors stopped believing in themselves. Yes, they did become a "bean counter" driven company - but that was a symptom - not the cause. They also were beset by anti-monopolists and much negative press due to safety issues and quality control and lack of product differentiation - another symptom - not the cause.

What marked the beginning of the end happened clear back during Frederic Donner's reign. And there were two components to that: one, the decision to reorganize such that outsider "non car guys" would get seated on the board (to fend off the anti-monopolists) and the second was to summarily end all GM involvement in racing ("we are a "SAFE company").

In effect, they decided to stop being a "car company that also makes everything else cool", to a "faceless corporation that has good average quarterly returns on stuff we market".

When you lose love and respect for what brought you to the lofty position, when you lose your balls for the game you are in, its over. When you stop being genuine, and too ashamed to brag about who you are - warts, failures and successes all rolled together - then you are just another collection of factories and distribution channels squirting out bland turds of mindless monotony.

You don't know who you are, you don't know who your people are, and as a result, your people and the rest of the world no longer cares what happens to you. You've stopped giving a damn, and that's about as hopeless as a heroin addict who will do anything for one more fix, existing for one more good quarter on the corporate ledger.

 

A couple hundred dollars at most.

 

To answer the original question....not too much in common between Buick and Chevy for the 40s and 50s. Different frames...sheetmetal and drivetrains. Oftentimes even wheel bearings are different. The way GM did it back then...Chevys and Pontiacs shared body shells and glass..etc. Buicks and Oldsmobile did too. Later on...big Oldsmobile like the 98 and senior Buick models shared body shells and glass with the Cadillac. Between Buick and Chevy? Not much interchanged....that's why GM was the biggest corporation in the world back then...individuality of each brand.

 

*THINK ABOUT IT* ---- >
ever been to a food court...? well sure you have...
so when you go to buy a car ... you'll be buying ONE from GM.
no matter what you choose yer getting it from GM
ha that's my story -n- i'm stickin to it...lol

 

While that many be somewhat true, depending on which Pontiac one compares to, it is a little misleading when expressed in dollars. A better illustration of the difference in price point is the percentage that amounted to. Two hundred dollars more for a Pontiac, compared to a thousand dollar Chevrolet, was 20% higher. A lot of money then and now when expressed in that context. Some people in the '40s worked for $1 an hour. My parents among them.

A $30,000 dollar car today would be $36,000 if 20% higher.

Ray

 

C. John Stutzer, I consider your uncle Red to be one of the greats in GM's history.

And the LAST "car guy" in the corporation was Bob Stempel, he only lasted two years as CEO, 1990-92

 

olds using chevy bodies wasn't all bad in '49-'50. you could buy a pretty fancy "chevy" with a 303" kettering engine and stick or hydramatic that would outrun just about anything on the street. think about all the old rock songs that praised the "rocket 88"!

 

I think it's not quite accurate to say "Olds used Chevy bodies...." It is true that Chevy, Pontiac and Olds shared some sheet metal and glass that comprised the GM "A" body. But there were many differences in them too and much of the body structures were not the same. For instance, roof, doors, decklids were pretty much the same for like body styles, but firewalls, floorpans, and dashboards were unique to the specific brands. Of course, as already discussed, chassis and driveline components were substantially different.

The same principles apply to the "B" and "C" body cars as well in their respective applications with intermediate and senior models. What all these bodies had in common was basic architecture which was designed, I believe, by the Fisher Body Division of GM, at that time a division of it's own. I believe the auto divisions tailored those basic structure to their specific model applications. Later, like the the auto divisions, Fisher Body autonomy was lost as the divisions were brought under more centralized control. Only the label "Body by Fisher" remained.

Ray

 

Had a buddy that got me into his shop telling me that 'I had to see this' as he flipped the car cover off the 1956 Buick Skylark. He stepped back and with a sweeping gesture exclaimed "There she is, EVERYTHING a '56 Chevy ever wanted to be"

 

Have read the pecking order at GM was Cadillac, Buick, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Chevrolet. I believe some shared pieces were used, but very little in comparison to our modern day cars, thinking the shared platform started in 60's. The 50's cars were the height of individual styling and over the top IMO, you have to go back to 20's/30's for individual style and class, today's cars are the best ever, comfort, safety, performance, reliability, longevity and they all look pretty much the same in their various class's w/ a few exceptions.

 

There is no such thing as a "56 Buick Skylark"!