I’m sure I’m not the only person on Barn Finds who is comfortable taking a chance on buying a car sight unseen if the price is right (or is negotiable). The key to happiness in that corner of the car-buying world is, in my opinion, keeping one’s expectations realistic. I’d never buy something that costs more than I can afford to lose, and I’m a card-carrying member of the ten-footer club (sometimes twenty). There is one commonality among the cars I’ve bought online, and that is pictures. The seller of this ’55 Pontiac (on eBay) has included plenty of pictures, has plenty more to send to interested buyers, and includes enough text in the ad to assuage the fears of someone who might be nervous about the whole process. It’s been stored for decades, but it’s cleaned up nicely, runs and drives well, and it priced at that idiomatic old $9,999. Oh, and it’s located in Eureka, Montana, for those Barn Finders who happen to be in the neighborhood.
The Chieftain for 1955 came in two basic varieties: the 860 (Special) and the 870 (Deluxe), both on a 122-inch wheelbase. The Catalina hardtop was only available in Deluxe trim, as seen on our featured car, and it was a popular model; 72,608 were sold. All Pontiacs jettisoned the old straight sixes and eights for a brand new, modern overhead-valve V8. With 287 cubic inches, the new engine produced 180 horsepower with Hydramatic (which this car has). The owner says that the engine doesn’t smoke, tick, knock, or have any leaks “of concern” (only the typical old car seepage here and there). It starts perfectly, runs excellently, and drives beautifully, although it rides on ancient tires; the seller recommends replacing them and inspecting the brakes, although they are working fine.
As an aside, it appears that someone has installed a crankcase ventilation hose from the breather to the air cleaner, which is not uncommon to see when an engine gets a few miles on it. The odometer reads 75,675, which may be accurate given the car’s long hibernation, and we must remember that a 75,000-mile car was often just about worn out in the 1950s. Times have definitely changed our perspective on mileage.
The interior is missing its kick panels, but those are easily made out of a thin piece of Formica and some fabric if, once again, your expectations aren’t too high. My wife and I made a pair for my ’53 Buick, and they’ve lasted for years. The seats have been recovered and are in good shape, and there are no foul smells to deal with as there so often are in long-forgotten old cars. It will, however, need a package tray.
The best news is that the body and undercarriage show no signs of rust-through anywhere, probably due to Montana’s status as a salt-free state and a period of long dormancy. The bottom half has been repainted and is chipping in spots; the original color (according to the seller) was “a beige/salmon type color.” It’s not perfect, but it’s a good, solid driver that has enough power to be usable in today’s traffic and enough fettling to be done to offer you a hobby this summer. For under ten grand, who can beat it?
This is a great looking Pontiac. Its a nice alternative to a ’55 Chevy. ( Nothing against them, just that these aren’t as common). I’m thinking Scotty might chime in here. I remember him posting a picture of him and and family when he was a little kid with an Old Pontiac ( maybe a ’55 or ’56?) Sorry, I dont remember, that belonged to his family.
I’d definitely want to get a nice pair of period correct white walls for sure. This is a very nice color combination too. I really enjoyed this Aaron. Very nice find and great article too. Thank you.
Hi Dave, I’m with you. It kind of resembles a ’55 Chevy, but almost an entirely different car. I read, a ’55 BelAir Sport Coupe cost about $2166 new. This Pontiac cost about $2361, and well worth the extra $200 bucks. Pontiac, it seems, was kind of the Mercury for Ford, and both, ironically are history.
Re: Scottys parents car. I believe it was a wagon his dad cut the roof off, making it a roadster/pickup, of sorts. I think his mom, who clearly must be a special person, ended up driving the car around for a while like that. :0
Thank you for looking up the price difference Howard. I looked up what 200 dollars was worth in 1955 and what I found suggests about 2000 today. ( not 100 percent sure how accurate that is) but it is a step up for sure. But like you said its very well worth it.
As for Scottys family Pontiac growing up…… Wow…… I’d love to see that.
Dave
Looks like the same seller Dealer?) whose vehicles
have been featured here many times.
Nice looking car, and at 75k miles, the engine isn’t so bad. Nothing that a valve grind wouldn’t fix if it’s performance was wheezy. Also, in those days, “Catalina” was “hardtop” in Pontiac-speak. And in a couple years, Pontiac would start emphasizing performance too, shedding their stodgy image.
Nice Pontiac. The 1955 & 1956 Pontiac were the practically the same car. Knew a family that had two 1955s, 2 door hardtops, the wife’s car was green & white, the husband’s was red & white, purchased both at the same time.
I like this car and the color combination. One thing that stands out, and not in a bad way, is the stance of the vehicle. It seems to sit a bit high with a slight drop to the front, but still high enough to notice. Perhaps someone replaced the shocks over time as most cars from this era that have sat for that long are tail draggers?
Cooter,
Shocks would not change the ride height. Either the front suspension is well settled and or the rear springs were changed which could very well give it a little more height in the rear.
I think maybe someone has reversed the rear spring shackles to increase the ride height.
Yes, replacing shocks on an older vehicle can change the ride height, especially if they are gas, and can affect it by influencing how the springs compress and rebound. If you switch out old shocks for new ones, the car may ride higher due to stiffer shocks’ better ability to control the springs.
Yes if they are air shocks. Otherwise no. Shocks are static and maintain a centered position and only adjust to a height when the suspension moves then return to a relaxed / centered position.
The first new car my Dad bought for my Mom was a 1956 Pontiac Safari wagon.She got the Pontiac because the Plymouth dealer wouldn’t take her 1950 Dodge Wagon in trade.She was driving by Pontiac dealer and they had a Safari wagon in same color scheme as this car I learned how to drive a car in it, as my father gave me my first driving lessons in 21/2ton GMC flat bed truck and a 5 acre field, no power steering no power brakes, and no synchros in trans. Definitely a different time.
O.K. Safari wagon, so sorry she didn’t keep it, traded it in 58 for new Chrysler wagon, and kept it for 10 years, till she got 2 sick to drive.My brother got the Chrysler, and I got Dads 57 Coronet with a 392 Hemi in it, but that’s a story for another time
The’55-56 Safari was Pontiac’s answer to Chevy’s Nomad.
If there’s any mechanical change I’d make it would be to swap out the front drums for discs. And I believe the Pontiacs sat on a longer wheelbase than the Chevy? I also prefer the front facia of the ’55 over the ’56 (bumpers).
Betcha the kick panels from a tri-five chevy would fit and nobody would know the difference.
Nice Pontiac, great color. Once knew a couple who had 2 1956 Pontiacs, 2 dr. Hdtps. Wife had a green/white, husband, Red/ white. Not much difference between the 1955 &1956 Pontiacs.
I always liked the scoops over the head lights and the entire body style to me is better that the Chevy. Wonder if its a 6 volt system ? This appears to be a great car at a reasonable price.
In ’55 it was 6 volt. In ’56 nearly all cars converted to 12 volts.
These are great cars and this is a great realistic price would buy this car without delay if I did not have 3 other collectors cars!!
I believe all GM cars were 12 volt by 1955. This one has a 12 volt battery in it. .My Mom had a 1955 Pontiac in about 1961. Then one day it disappeared and a 1957 Olds 88 took its place. NO one ever mentioned what happened to the Poncho. (Her 1950 Fastback Olds just disappeared also. (Hmmm) I always liked this. Body and trim style. (Coming from a guy who drove a 1955 Chev convert all through sc hool) They always seemed to be good solid cars.
I bought a 55 Pontiac 2 door sedan when I was in college. Learned it had similarities to the 55 Chevy. Glass was the same. Drove it to Ft Leonard Wood and back to Iowa every weekend when I was in AIT at FLW. Gave my Dad the title in case I didn’t come home, Asked him not to let my brothers drive it while I was gone. One of them totaled it while I was gone.
I guess looking on the bright side, you did come home to find out. Thanks for your service. Lest we forget.
I had a ’55 Cheiftan in the mid ’60s. Only problem I had was the fact that Pontiac used wing nuts on their rocker arms. One came loose on the trip to my final AF Base creating a rough ride til a mechanic in a small town in the upper peninsula of Michigan fixed it.
Cooter and John, you are both right. It depends on the shock style, brand of shock and the weight of the vehicle. As a rule, a shock will not cause a ride height change. But with today’s variety of shock types it can. If you installed a pair of Bilstein rear shocks only. They would provide appropriate 60 lb. “Preload at the rear which in turn would make a 120 overall difference in the front. (Like pushing down on the front bumper with your hand.) If installing them on both ends it would be the same as taking your fingers and lifting on a fender lip. I use a Bilstein as the worst case example for this situation because a Bilstein has the most internal pressure. (360 psi dry nitrogen) Other “pressurized” shocks can have a similar result but with extremely less pressures. Anyone who has installed a gas pressure shock knows how you have to sometimes compress the shock in order to install it. In the “old days” of non-pressurized shocks, the shock would have no effect on the actual spring rate of the suspension. Also on one of these GM vintage vehicles. Actual suspension lifting air shocks like Monroe or Gabriel (high jackers) are a bad idea. Because the bottom of the shock is attached to the rear differential (like almost all vehicles) but the top is attached to the body. So you are not really listing the chassis, but the body, which is not designed to support weight. It causes stress on body mounts and can cause the shocks to “poke through’ the trunk floor where the shock is mounted. (Don’t ask how a teenage kid found this out on his 1955 Chev convert.) “Back in the day” the fix on these cars (all GM cars had this issue) was to install 6 passenger wagon leaf springs at the rear. Because just installing o e. replacement one resulted in the same condition within one years driving. They had one additional leaf. The owners of six passenger wagons installed 9 passenger wagon springs. This did give a slight lift at the rear. In my opinion “the perfect rake”.
Ok, the old guy is done talking.
Wayne,
Thanks for that excellent enlightenment, especially for this old guy as well. Very well put and I learned something as well. I was not aware how those gas shocks operated.
Jon,
Not all gas pressurized shocks work or are manufactured the same. Bilstein (the best in my opinion) and KYB gas adjust are deCarbone mono tube design. Which means just that, the piston diameter is only slightly less than the outside diameter of the outer shock tube diameter. Under the piston and a specific amount of shock oil is a floating divider piston. This divides the shock oil and the nitrogen gas. A “standard” shock is a twin tube design. With the outer cylinder/tube being the shock oil reservoir and the inner cylinder/tube is the “working” tube. As you can see (I hope my description is adequate) this second design really limits the piston diameter requiring the piston and lower tube valving to have to be “extra stiff” to compensate for a smaller piston and possible shock oil foaming. There is air in all oil and worked hard enough and “hot” enough the oil will foam. In the case of the deCarbone style shock all the valving is in the piston, the pressure behind the floating divider piston keeps the oil from foaming. (Air in the oil stays suspended and not separate and foam.) The “pressurized ” twin tube shock is less likely to foam, but still has the limitation of the piston size. If you are able to drive a vehicle in a back to back drive with a standard twin tube shock (pressurized or not) and then with a deCarbone style shock. The difference will be immediately noted. The deCarbone piston is larger and flows more oil for more control, BUT does not feel stiff because the valving does not have to compensate for lack of piston size or the foaming issue. And if you still are not sure about the difference. Go blast around a corner with bumps in the middle. I’ve had people scream because they knew we would die because of the speed that I went into a bumpy corner. And after we came out without a loss of line through the corner. They said “order me a set of Bilsteins!” The difference between a Bilstein and a KYB is cost and performance. A Bilstein “average piston size is 48 mm and 360 psi pressure a KYB gas adjust average” piston diameter is 36mm and 240 psi pressure. I use Bilsteins when I can afford them for my street vehicles and KYBs when my funds are low. When funds are tight for the wife’s car I use KYB gas adjust. On my own vehicle or a truck I use KYB Monomax shocks. All deCarbone shocksbwill feel stiff when first used. But will soften up a week or two down the road. One other benefit of a deCarbone shock is that it will not “soften with use” IF AND WHEN” It fails it will be a complete failure. Clacking noise when it runs out of oil. (A very unlikely occurrence) Plus, if the top and bottom mount are the same. You can run the shock upside down to save unsprung weight. (Make sure to use a proper dust cover.)
Well thanks for the well detailed explanation Wayne. I’m sure others will enjoy it as well.