18th Aug 2004, 22:15

The 389 had less performance parts than the 400? LOL. what do you think the 400 was based on? basically the same engine. the 67 had some head and intake revisions, but what ever fit on the 400 would fit on the 389,cept pistons of course. in fact parts interchange from 389 to 455.heads, intakes, cams,

27th Aug 2004, 18:08

66 vs 67 GTO... everyone who is a fan of the brand has an opinion. However, there are some of us that think that the louvered rear tail lights on the 66 are worth the price of admission alone! The 389 with the tri-power has an extreme "cool-factor" going for it. Tri-power was not available from the factory in 67, so they did the next best thing which was increase the displacement to 400...resulting in the same h.p. numbers. And, speaking for the interior, the dash on a 66 is actual wood as opposed to contact paper on the 67.

Having said all that, when considering automatic transmissions, the Hurst "his'n'hers" shifter, avail in 67, is nothing short of amazing. Add the Rallye II wheels, again for 67, and that's one good looking American muscle car. But, for MY money... and it is my money!...I bought the 66 GTO convertible, and I couldn't be happier!

26th Sep 2004, 23:22

I just happened to stumble on this site and must comment that the 66 GTO is the most stunning! When you put on the park lights and drive just before dusk, the tail lights are a rush!!! We have a triple black 389 tri power goat and it commands attention where ever we go! The 67's are awesome too, but just don't have the pizazz as the fire breathing 66 with it's style! Actually, I love the 65 model too, tri power of course, and some day...

18th Nov 2004, 16:47

Apart from whether the taillights are better looking on the '66, the rest of the car just looks, well, kind of boxy compared to the much more flowing, "coke-bottle" lines of the '67.

Having said that, though, I would take ANY '64-'67 GTO over the '68 and up models, whose styling, imho, has not aged nearly as well.

10th Mar 2005, 04:41

This guy should do his research before he accuses Pontiac of shoddy engineering.

14th Aug 2005, 14:26

I've had a 66 HT and now I have a 66 convertible. With the original 2 speed powerglide it's OK, but I'd rather have a muncie 4 speed, but the powerglide is original for this car, so I'll hang onto it. The originality of a GTO is of the utmost important to these cars, unless you really want to chop them up.

3rd Feb 2006, 21:14

I owned a 66 and a 67, as far as the 389 and the 400 the H.P. was the same at 335 with the exception of the tri-power 360 for the 389 and 360 for the Ram Air or H.O. in the 400. I loved both of them, but would have to say that the rear lights on the 66 were much better then my 67, but I liked the front grille better on the 67! I also use to own a 68 Convertible 400/350 H.P. All of my GTO's were 4 Speed manuals. Wish I would have kept at least one of them. I'm looking around now for one, can't believe the prices! Either can my wife!!!

19th Feb 2006, 20:04

The taillights of the '66 are much better. the '67 taillights just look boxy. However, the crome grille of the '67 is much sharper than the black plastic egg shell of the '66. All in all I like the '66 better and I have one. A hardtop with a 4 speed and a 335 horse 389. Its my dream car.

17th Mar 2006, 20:45

Does anybody know if you can fit the 67 chrome grille on the 66. I am currently buying a 66 but I really like the 67 grille. Your input would really help...

7th May 2008, 17:43

How about finding a 1966 GTO Silver with black top Convertible for $600. My friend found one in the mid seventies. I also could have bought a 1969 Ram Air III Convertible for $3000 late seventies. These used were affordable to even those in high school back then!

22nd Aug 2008, 20:22

I own a 1966 GTO convertable with a 389 4bbl and a 4 speed. The tail lights are so much nicer than the 67 but I do prefer the front grill and the outside tach option of the 67. Both are great cars.

13th May 2009, 14:51

I know the loss of pontiac is a shock to a lot of us enthusiasts, but I believe the value of the 60s era GTOs and possably more years will increase in value even more because of this.

13th May 2009, 23:04

The 400 wasn't introduced in the Pontiacs until 1967, I definitely agree with the poster about the 1964-67 GTO's were far better than the 1968 up GTO's, 1966 and 1967 were my two favorite years for the GTO's.

16th Dec 2009, 19:07

Yes the 66 GTO tail lights are the best looking. I had a 66 GTO I bought used in 69 for $900, but totaled it a year later, and finally in 2004 I started a complete rebuild, and now 6 years later I'm almost done. Just love it; 389 Tri power 4 speed that handles like a 85 Porsche with my upgrades.

31st Mar 2014, 05:30

I believe the 65 and 66 tri power were rated at 360 HP.

31st Mar 2014, 12:36

Personally my favorite appearance wise is the 68 GTO with hideaway lights. That is hard to beat. There is a sequential rear turn signal rear aftermarket kit I saw on older ones. 70 is a great year, but my vote goes to the Chevelle 454 SS that year on the same GM platform.

1st Apr 2014, 16:47

Nothing against Chevy, but in my personal opinion Pontiac always built better engines.

20th Apr 2014, 19:50

Yes they did. Even during the height of the Malaise Era, Pontiac's V8s held onto more power than any other American V8 engine.

21st Apr 2014, 10:05

Funny they chose the Cuda 426 Hemi and 70 Chevelle 454 LS6 over the GTO from the era. Top 2 muscle cars of all time.

21st Apr 2014, 19:11

Pontiac didn't even rate on the top 10 rated HP. The LS6 Chevelle was at 450, then the Hemi Cuda at 425 HP. The Challenger 440 6 pack and Road Runner were 390 HP. Even the Boss 429 was 375HP factory as well. In the quarter mile, the Judge came in 8th at 13.9 sec This was from Car Craft magazine tests on stock factory as equipped.

22nd Apr 2014, 08:09

Power to weight is a factor with a lighter car. I remember a 69 SS 396 eating everyone's lunch. Others may have had more HP, but also more mass.

23rd Apr 2014, 00:29

And none of those engines matched Pontiac's durability, smoothness and reliability.

23rd Apr 2014, 09:31

And then the bulletproof LS engines came out and were shared by both before Pontiac was dropped from GM. A very popular transplant in older cars as well. I suspect a Cuda Hemi would be as durable as any LS6 residing in climate controlled garages in 2014.

23rd Apr 2014, 18:30

A 389 Pontiac with trips is smooth?

23rd Apr 2014, 22:57

Comment 19:50 made a point that you guys are missing. That comment stated that during the Malaise era, Pontiac was still more performance oriented at that time over the other GM divisions. In 1979 Pontiac was still using their 400 V8 in passenger cars, where in 1977 Chevy only used its 454 to move the heavier pick-ups. Also by then Olds abandoned their 455 and Buick was building V6's. I'm sure horsepower ratings for Chevy during the muscle era were higher than Pontiac. But like I stated in my comment (16:47), my opinion is that Pontiac engines were built stronger and better. I had a '77 Grand Prix with the under powered 301, but I'll tell ya it was a solid, smooth work horse of an engine. Again, nothing against Chevy, they have a lot of cars from the 50's and beyond that I like, but a lot of their engines were known to be oil burning kettles.