Talk:Pontiac Bonneville

I've got some doubts about what Stombs has to say about the Bonneville G. I don't think it was anything more than a trim package on the former LeMans, not a continuation of the former full-size body. It's technically true that there was some kind of V-8 until '86; I was thinking of gas engines. The horrible Olds diesel 8 was around during the period when there were only gas V-6s. I'm not absolutely sure about the space in Le Mans/LeMans. My best guess is there shouldn't be one. However, Pontiac may not have been consistent about this. RivGuySC 04:32, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The H body was used for the Bonniville for 2000-05 and there is no dispute for this. It was the full size pontiac body.David_gc Does any body know where the theft deterrent module is located on a 1998 Pontiac bonniville

Concept car

The first Bonneville concept recently sold at auction. I added a bit about it in the introduction.

http://money.cnn.com/popups/2006/autos/bj_concepts/frameset_cnn2.exclude.html

RivGuySC 21:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

G or H platform? Need source.

I noticed someone came in and changed the 2000-2005 platform from G body to H body. I suspect that this is incorrect, but I'm having trouble finding a reliable source. The nitwits at the Bonneville Club are using Wikipedia as a reference, so we should get it right.

My reasons for being so suspicious are because:

• Someone already posted here saying it was G platform, and there is conflicting information around Wikipedia
• It rides on a 112.2" wheelbase (per Edmunds) which is the same as the LeSabre and closer to the Aurora, DTS, and Lucerne than to a Delta 88.
• I have been in most of these cars and have owned Bonnevilles from each era. The newer Bonneville appears similar to the G body cars.
• Same engine choices and under-hood appearance as Buick Lucerne

If GM took the H body name and used it for a cheapened G body then that's a possibility too, but then we still have some clerical work to do so we'd better figure this out. Haber 18:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup & Other

Thank you to the user who cleaned up this article. I started adding information as a rough draft and was planning on organizing later, just never found the time to do it. I appreciate that, it really improved the look of the page overall.

ALSO, I see you guys are confused about the 00+ Cars being either H or G bodies. I have heard many things, but the one I believe is that it is a MODIFIED H platform. I wish GM had sort of a techinfo area for their cars. I will continue to search. I've never heard of a case of not even knowing what platform a certain car is.

Wjcollier07 08:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think this? Haber 22:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Think what? I guess they are G bodies. I have not confirmed it, but someone else apparently did. Wjcollier07 01:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the 2000+Bonneville and LeSabre are modified G platforms. They are tightly based on the 97+ Park Avenue, to the point that almost all drivetrain and suspension part are interchangeable. Why GM chose to continue the "H" nomenclature is beyond me. Daltonultra (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Head up display information requested

The main Head Up Display page sites the Bonneville having a HUD with a picture here "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-up_display". If this car was one of the first or if there is any information about the Bonneville HUD and which year model has it, that information is requested. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.124.135 (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes my 1992 Bonneville SSE had one. In those days it was very unusual - I don't recall if it was an option or standard on that trim line. It took some getting used to but once I was accustomed to it I used it all the time. Speed and direction of travel. When I moved on from that car I really missed it. Cross Reference (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

LN3 (3800) v6 introduction time frame

The article currently states that the LN3 replaced the LC3 engine in 1988. I think that this is true, but that it was more of a midyear thing. Am I incorrect in recalling that both engines were used in the 1988 Bonneville? I think they were, but I'm not sure enough to make the change without some input.

thejmfc 23:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I will try to clarify to the best of my knowledge. In 1987 the Bonneville was redesigned on the H platform and the LG3 3.8 V6 was installed. In 1988 the LN3 replaced the LG3, the LE trim replaced the Base trim and the SE and SSE trims were added. I am also not POSITIVE about whether or not any 1988 model year Bonneville was equipped with the LG3, but the '88 DESIGN was a car with an LN3, but I have also heard the same as you that the actual change was not made on early '88 production models. There were not many other changes otherwise to the best of my knowledge. Wjcollier07 01:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I checked Auto Trader when I cleaned up the article, and all the '88s I found had LN3s. Now, there could be some early production models with the LG3, but unless one turns up, there's no definitive answer. --Sable232 02:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats exactly what I did. Plus I have a friend that owns an '88 and it sure doesn't have an LG3, but there are still some people who insist that some had them, so I guess there must be only a couple hundred EXTREMELY early production models out there with the LG3. Wjcollier07 07:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright then. Perhaps they were more rare than I thought, or don't even exist. I, also, only have heard rumor of them. I tried to visually see if I could spot on on Cardomain, with no success. Not many engine shots at all really, but what was there was all the new 3800 engine. I do have a guy in GM, so maybe I'll see what he knows. I'll let you know if I find anything definite. Otherwise, probably best to leave things as they are. Or to just add as a note that there might exist some '88's with the LG3? --- thejmfc 07:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the 1988 received the LG3 for the Base trim and the LE got the new LN3. Thats the mix up. I was told this by the service manager at my local dealership. The main reason for us having the confusion is that the LE was much more commonly sold than the Base model so the LG3 models are much harder to find. Problem Solved. Wjcollier07 20:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

non-refutable source of H-body for 2000-05

Your source is the 4th letter of the VIN of EVERY GM vehicle, the 4th letter of the VIN represents the body(go to autotrader or Ebay motors to verify this with KNOWN body styles of GM vehicles, for instance the J bodies or F bodies is not disputed right now) Keep in mind the G-body of the 1980's is completely different one than that of the Aurora/Rivera Exclusive G-bodies(the infamous "25hz car" of the '90s) that were introduced for 1995. To say that something "looks" like something else is absurd, do the Aurora and Rivera look ANYTHING alike? One has two less doors even than the other lol, yet they still use the SAME body. However I could see using the G-body designation as long as it is stated that it is a cheapened version of it, and not the actual G-body, for the Aurora was not even in production during the year the Bonneville was introduced(there was no 2000 Aurora, it was only '95-'99 and '01-'03) --Tygone2 15:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)--Tygone2 15:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK GM started to abandon that practice once they quit using single letters for their new platforms. The FWD H-body was discontinued in 1999 and replaced by the FWD G-body. The '00-'05 Bonneville can't be an H-body because there no longer was an H-body. --Sable232 15:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Another piece of evidence is that these cars were all coming out of Detroit/Hamtramck Assembly. I know this seems like original research but I don't consider the 4th character of the VIN number on its own to be a reliable source either. Haber 16:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What about our own wikipedia article that verifies the 4th/5th digits of VIN are for body frames? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Identification_Number How is this not a reliable source? How can you say GM quit using single digit numbers when you yourself say the bonneville is on the G-body, is that not a single digit number? How come when you buy a G-body shop manual it says it only covers the riveria and the Aurora? Also note even the '01-'03 aurora shop manuals also state it was on the G-body, as well as the 4th VIN digit, so the G-body was produced thru 2003 on the Aurora at the Orion Plant in Michigan, and the Lucerne is an H-body shares it. Until someone can show a reliable source about the 4th digit of the VIN i beg to differ that the 00-05 bonnies were on the G-body. It's like saying a J-body cavalier is on a C body because you can't trust the 4th digit...--Tygone2 23:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

RELIABLE SOURCE FOR H-body 00-05

HERE ARE YOUR SOURCES for the fact that the 00-05 bonnevilles were on the H-BODY, These are pictures of their respective Service Manuals, Look closely and you will see that They say H-body for the model year 2000 of the Bonneville AND lesabre.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q111/Tyliniemi/BonnevilleServiceManPic.jpg http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q111/Tyliniemi/LesabreServiceManualPic.jpg http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q111/Tyliniemi/hbody2.jpg http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q111/Tyliniemi/hbody1.jpg

Does anyone have anything MORE concrete than that?

Also for comparison the 2001 Aurora Service manual says "G-body" on it. http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q111/Tyliniemi/hbody3.jpg

--Tygone2 23:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm convinced. Thanks for the correction and for digging up those sources. It sounds to me like you work on cars a lot. Do you think the H-body of '00-'05 is a major change from the H-body <'00? Maybe we need an article in addition to GM H platform (FWD) or a second heading at the bottom of it? Something like H-body 2? Haber 01:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks VERY much for clearing that up. That is some excellent proof. But yes, there does seem to be some difference between the 87-99 H bodies and the 00+ H bodies. So does that mean there are TWO versions out there or was that redesign a total revision and replacement? I'm just going to go with the latter since there are none and will probably never be another 1st gen H body again. Thanks Ty. Wjcollier07 20:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This raises the question, what do we do with the '00-'05 H platform? I see three choices:

1. We lump it in the GM H platform (FWD) article, and explain what it is and why it is distinctive from the earlier H-body.
2. We put it in the GM G platform (FWD) article, under a subheading.
3. We start a new article, and call it something like GM H platform (FWD) 2000-2005.

Please let me know what you think. Haber 20:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Just put it with the existing H-body page. There is no reason at all to have a separate page for two different generations of the same platform. What I want to know is how the G-body article got to include the H-cars to begin with. --Sable232 21:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, same article it is. I suspect that the later H-body is closely related to the G-body, and that's how the mix-up started. But that's just my opinion and OR (and trusting Wikipedia six months ago). There has to be a source out there somewhere that explains exactly what happened to the H platform in 2000. This is the holy grail of the Bonneville page. Haber 21:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, this is very simple. There are many platforms that have kept the same name yet been 100% redesigned. They changed quite a few things with the steering, suspension and such but the general dimensions and overall platform are basically the same. Its not as small of a difference as the change in the H body from the 87-91 Bonnevilles to the 92-99 which look totally different yet share the same identical suspension and such, but instead a required revision with the addition of StabiliTrak and changing the weight balance of the platform. Basically the only differences are rear suspension changed from struts to shocks, added StabiliTrak, weight balance revision, etc. Not that many changes. I don't see what the huge issue is here. Whether you call it a G body or you call it an H body, is it going to drive differently because of what you call it? Maybe easier to work on one way or the other? I'm not sure what the motive for this argument is in the first place.

To make this really clear, lets take a look at how we identify different vehicles from one another. VIN number. You all know this. All Bonnevilles from 1987-2005 are designated H bodies by the VIN. Park avenues are designated by a C, Auroras and Riveras are designated by a G, so on and so forth. Back in the late 80s, early 90s, take a look at the differences between a C body and an H body, (between a Bonneville, LeSabre, Delta 88 and a Park Avenue/Electra) You know what differences you'll find? Well with the exception of a overall longer length, the C body might as well be an H. Yet you don't see people freaking out about that. All they did was minorly redesign a platform and kept the name and yet you guys are freaking out like they turned the H body into an A body and kept the H designation. It isn't a big enough difference to even dispute.

Also, just so you all are up to date, the new Buick Lucerne rolls on the same identical revised H-body platform that the Bonneville did. So if that is the same platform...and you guys think that platform is a G...then how does that revised H-body platform exist? By the way...the wheelbase on the Lucerne was lengthened, yet its still an H platform vehicle. How? Revision. So if that isn't an H body either just because its not the same as the standard 110.8" wheelbase H body, would someone care to tell me what it is? Wjcollier07 21:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I´m not an expert, but Flammang/Kowalke, Standard Catalog of American Cars 1976-1999 , ISBN 0-87341-755-0, page 915, write:

"The 2000 Bonneville, unveiled at the Chicago Auto Show in February 1999, was a derivative of General Motors` G-platform."

I add this for what it´s worth. -- Cheers, --328cia (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming excessive

That massive table showing what engine was standard is what trim level in what year is excessive detail and takes a lot of space to tell very little. Likewise with the table of airbag availability. Wikipedia is not Edmund's or Consumer Guide. --Sable232 (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I knocked the engine table down to a short list. It could actually be summarized in a sentence or two. Same with the airbag table, which I haven't touched yet. The specs of each engine (collapsible, at least) are also overkill - this isn't a gearhead fansite for specs. Please stick to the basics as it all has to go on one page. --Vossanova ^o< 20:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

1977-1981 Did Not Maintain the Same Interior Roominess as in 1971-1976

Here are the usual facts for four door models (which can easily be found in sales brochures and data books):

1971-1976

Headroom f/r 38.9/38.0

Legroom f/r 42.3/38.8

Shoulder room f/r 64.3/63.5

Luggage cap. (cu. ft.) 19.5

1977-1981

Headroom f/r 39.5/38.2

Legroom f/r 42.2/38.9

Shoulder room f/r 60.6/60.5

Luggage cap. (cu. ft.) 20.8

The EPA has published annual fuel economy guides since 1978. These guides categorize cars based on "interior space" which is defined as the sum of passenger volume and trunk or cargo volume. For example a midsize car has 110 to 119 cubic feet of interior space and a full size has 120 or more. Passenger volume is computed by finding the product of headroom, legroom, and shoulder room for both front and rear, converting each to cubic feet, rounding to the nearest cubic foot and then summing them.

For example the 1977-1981 Pontiac Bonneville has 39.5x42.2x60.6 = 101,014.1 cubic inches of passenger room in front. Dividing this by 1728 cubic inches per cubic feet yields 58.46 cubic feet of front passenger room. It has 38.2x38.9x60.5 = 89,431.1 cubic inches of passenger room in rear. Dividing this by 1728 cubic inches per cubic feet yields 52.0 cubic feet of passenger room. Rounding to the nearest foot and adding them yields 110 cubic feet of passenger volume.

Now turn to any 1978-1981 EPA fuel economy guide and what you'll usually find is this for a 4 door Pontiac Bonneville:

BODY TYPE/INTERIOR SPACE PASSENGER/TRUNK OR CARGO(CU.FT.) 4DR-110/21

EPA fuel economy guides obviously did not exist in 1971-1976 but repeating this calculation for a 1971-1976 Pontiac Bonneville yields 115 cubic feet of passenger volume. Thus the interior space of a four door 1977-1985 Bonneville is 110 + 21 = 131 cubic feet whereas the interior space of a four door 1971-1976 Bonneville is 115 + 20 = 135 cubic feet. The 1971-1976 Pontiac Bonneville is clearly roomier than the 1977-1981.

The main reason for the difference is shoulder room and the difference between 64.3 inches of shoulder room and 60.6 inches is dramatically obvious to anyone who has seen both cars. Furthermore the only interior dimensions that increased in 1977 were front seat headroom and trunk space.

This also underscores the fact you cannot shorten a car by nearly a foot, make it narrower by over 3 inches, loose 800 pounds and not lose interior room.

I know that the GM ads of the time pushed the idea that the 1977 full size cars were just as roomy despite the drastic downsizing. This usually involved mentioning (often trivial) increases in headroom or legroom from the previous year. (Interestingly, by odd coincidence, most full size GM models experienced correspondingly small decreases in headroom or legroom in the two years before the downsized models were unveiled.)However, nobody took it seriously then because anyone could see that there was a substantial decrease in room. And besides all of the interior dimensions were published in the sales brochures and data books for anyone to see.

Let's not keep promoting 33 year old sales propaganda. It is a vain hope of mine that wikipedia will someday be a source of factual historical automotive information.

Sadowski (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin Bonneville? WTF?

"The Bonneville endured until 2005 as the division's top-of-the-line model. The car was named after U.S. Army officer Benjamin Bonneville."

I am not sure who is hacking Wikipedia these days, but I always assumed that Pontiac named its "performance" car after the Bonneville salt flats, home of high-speed record attempts, and not after an obscure French fur trader.

Comments?

74.243.118.229 (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it. While the salt flats were apparently named after Mr. Bonneville, saying that Pontiac named the car specifically after him and not the widely-known salt flats is probably wrong. --Sable232 (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

File:90SSE.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:90SSE.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

8th Gen weights.

I don't know how much the 8th generation car weighed but I'm sure the figures listed are wrong as a car that weighed 3000 tonnes would be more note worthy and the Kg figures in that box don't seem to mean anything either.(Morcus (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC))

Better image for rear view

I would like to illustrate how the Bonneville Model G (1982-1986) looks from behind, but sadly neither of the two photos I have are that good. One is a night time photo, with lots of distracting lights and weird colors, while the other depicts a car with aftermarket wheels. Which one is better? Or does someone else have a good photo available? Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• 
  Night photo, lots of glare
• 
  With glaringly non-standard wheels

I would choose the one with aftermarket rims, and just note in caption/description "with aftermarket wheels". Just my opinion. Regards, VX1NG (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)