Me and a friend of mine have a bet going and hopefully you guys can help us find the answer. My neighbor has a Pontiac GTO, the thing me and my friend can't agree on and what initiated our bet is what year it is. I say it's a 67 and he says its a 66. Can anyone tell us what visual differences if any there are between those 2 model years?

I can tell between the 2, but I can't think of the exact differences. Goat1966 would definately be the guy to answer this one.... considering it's his name and all

Since Goat1966 hasn't been on for a few days I found some pics in his gallery to show the difference between the 2 years from the rear view


1966

1967

Are you sure you dont have those switched?

I guess you are right I see now the 66s license plate says 6T6GOAT. I would lie to my friend and claim that i was right if it were not for him being right next to me doing his stupid victory dance

Okay sorry for the delay!! The main differences are.....

Front grills: 66- was black plastic egg crate design. 67- was chrome mesh design.

Tail lights: 66- was a rectangular lens with body colored covers over them. 67- was 4 individual strips on each side of the car.

Fender emblems: 66- was mounted mid height on the fender. 67- was made into the lower rocker chrome molding.

Seats: 66- they had horizontal lines. 67- they had vertical lines.

If it has a console: 66- the door was chrome with black slots. 67- was woodgrain.



Those are the easiest things to look for, there are many other subtle differences but too many to list.

I miss the days when there were that many changes from year to year. Nowadays it can be hard to narrow some cars down to 4-5 years, because there were little to no changes during that time. I would think that people would be more apt to buy a new car over a used car if it were like the ole days. Other than warranty reasons, why would someone want to buy a new car nowadays when they could buy one 2-3 years old that is exactly the same and half the price? That is certainly one of the reasons why I personally haven't bought a new car in over 20 years.

Dont matter to me I think they are both great (because they were designed by John Z. DeLorean).

__________________
If you wanna dance with the Devil get a Diablo but if you want a blast from the past get a DeLorean.

'67 FTW

__________________
-Escort Racing Development Team

No offense, but Delorean was the reason there were so few engines available. That's why they were all smallblocks till 70 when he left pontiac. Not that that is completely bad, the technology in head design was pushed quite a bit. I'm just saying that in Delorean's quest to have the car 100% his design only was a little on the insane side. The GTO is heralded as the grandfather of muscle cars, but when you're limited to a 400 SB, it gets kinda tough to keep on top running against the 396, 454, 440-6 or 426 hemi. Don't get me wrong. I absolutely love the lines of any GTO 64-69 (delorean years). I just think it fair to state that he was responsible for the car's performance being held back. By the time he left, and the CI limit was lifted, we had to play catch up. It wasn't long after that, the government started strangling the muscle cars. Perfection isn't always a good thing. It has it's downside too.

I know bigger is not always better. I personally believe the Royal Bobcat Ram Air V is the baddest car to come out of that era. It had the Poncho 400 SB and Milt Schornack said it was puttin' out 425 hp. It is true that you can tune a smaller engine to put up the same numbers as a larger one. If you do the same to each motor though, the larger one is still going to be on top.