Comments: 1-15, 16
Body rusted around rear window. This problem is common to all GTO's of this year and requires pro body work to repair.
I bought this 1966 Pontiac GTO about the same time that a friend of mine bought a 1967 GTO. I was able to do a close comparison of the two cars. By today's standards this would be a super muscle car, but when compared to the 1967 GTO 400 model it almost pales to insignificance. Both had the same body, but it was as if all the rough edges where taken out in the 1967 model; even the chrome trim was laid out better. And on the inside, the 400 cubic inch motor of the '67 was
100% more desirable. Not only did the 389 have far less power, but there was also far less high-performance goodies that you could buy for it to build it up. The 389 was, after all, originally a big block family car engine. I don't know if the 400 was an option in '66, but I can only say that if I were to spend the money to buy and restore the GTO today, I would pass on the '66 (unless it is a rare convertible) and look very hard for a '67.
"Not only did the 389 have far less power..."
The gross horsepower ratings for the 389-4v and the (non-Ram Air) 400-4v were the same, 335.
I agree that the '67 stands out from both the prior model years as well as the later ones. It's too bad that Pontiac could not have incorporated some of those styling features into the 2004 GTO, kind of like Ford is doing with the 2005 Mustang. The new GTO is so boring looking, it may as well be a Lexus coupe.
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,
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!
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...
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.
This guy should do his research before he accuses Pontiac of shoddy engineering.
Re the above comment, after reading through the review and all the preceding comments and not finding the words "shoddy engineering", nor any remarks that could be interpreted to mean that, have to conclude that the writer put the comment on the wrong review.
Or else he has problems with understanding what he reads.
My first car ever was a 1966 gto, so I'll admit to some bias.I think the rear lights on the 66 are nicer, but the grill on the 67 wins. The 389 with a tri-power wins over the 400.the auto his and hers is 100% better then the 2 spd power glide. So far even.I'd take a 66 or 67 but I'd only buy a 66-lol.I'm actually looking right now,can't believe the prices. In 1996 I turned down a stock 66 389/tripwr, power everything,for $8500.That car is $30,000
now.I bought a new conversion van instead.That's worth about $3000 now-lol.
I've had a 66 HT and now I have a 66 convertable. With the orginal 2 speed powerglide its OK, but id rather have a mincie 4 speed, butthe powerglide is orginal for this car so ill hang onto it. The orginality of a gto is of the utmost important to these cars unless you really want to chop them up.
69 gto is worth about 30 grand.
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 grill 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!!!
The taillights of the '66 are much better. the '67 taillights just look boxy. However, the crome grill 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.
Does anybody know if you can fit the 67 chrome grill on the 66. I am currently buying a 66 but I really like the 67 grill. Your input would really help...
I had the pleasure of working on and driving (a lot) a very clean and restored '65 tri power gto with a 4 speed hurst shift. Most of the cars I worked on were skyline, evo, ferrari and such like. The gto stole my heart as I don't think I have driven anything with as much brute punch or with as much character. I was born in '65 so it amazed me that a car this old could be so bloody fast. I live in awe.