[Greg Reid]

and mine is a '68 so, who cares...lol

[Old Goat 67]

Kansas City in July.

[67Twistytee]

Dec 1966. Pontiac plant.

[GT182]

Originally Posted by fyrffytr1

Could it be that the seat frames are interchangeable and that is why there are provisions for the bumpers on either side? On my 67 seats the release can be mounted on either side of the frame. Whether it came with one or two I am not 100% positive but, since my seats tilt straight forward it makes sense to have two bumpers.

This is what I found for my 66. The seat tracks can be switched so you can swap the buckets from one side to the other. But... the right side seat installed on the drivers side wouldn't go back as far as the driver's seat in it's original installation. Not sure if the track mounting holes are different or not on the seats. I sat too far forward using the passenger on the driver's side, so I switched the seats back to their original sides. You could actually see the difference when you stood outside the car looking across the seats from the side. Any one tried this and found the same thing?

[geeteeohguy]

December '66 Baltimore plant build for mine....2 pucks per bucket seat.

[SR-71]

All 66's should have four bumpers, three bumpers are oval, part number 7712535. Two for the driver's seat and one for the inner passenger seat. The forth is a strange shaped bumper looking like a mutant version of the other with a sort of triangular portion on it. The reason for this is the optional reclining passenger seat. It used this strange bumper so the hook on the upper back hooked into the bumper on the lower to retain it from folding forward without using the release. Since all bases are the same all of them got the weird looking forth bumper.

[Longs]

My '67 was built in June in Pontiac, has original seats, one bumper per seat, both inboard, closest to the console.

[Greg Reid]

Looks like one bumper, inboard, is a slight trend with some exceptions. Maybe a plant to plant thing.

[GT182]

Thanks for backing me up Jeff.

No reclining passenger's seat and no odd shaped bumper in my 66. All original seat bottom bumpers were oval.

[SR-71]

I suppose that goes to prove that the assembly line folks didn't always get the parts on the cars when they should have. Probably figured no one would check them on it

[GT182]

Originally Posted by SR-71

Probably figured no one would check them on it

Until now. Too bad those guys aren't on the forums these days. Boy would they get an ear full.... good and bad. LOL

[boltbuster]

I got curious after all of our discussions and theories. In my car (which came out of the Baltimore plant, 'Brother' Gary, in May, 67), there is a round metal stop on both outboard sides of the seats, screwed into the spot where the bumper would have gone. When I removed the rubber bumper, there was nothing underneath it... the screw went through the fabric into the frame. So if the factories were just running out of bumpers, they whipped up something for the seat back brace to sit on. Otherwise, it would have eaten the vinyl in short order. Maybe using metal was just cheaper. Yes, it would be nice to chat with the guys who put our cars together, but I'm afraid a lot of them are gone.
Kerm

[67Twistytee]

Originally Posted by boltbuster

I got curious after all of our discussions and theories. In my car (which came out of the Baltimore plant, 'Brother' Gary, in May, 67), there is a round metal stop on both outboard sides of the seats, screwed into the spot where the bumper would have gone. When I removed the rubber bumper, there was nothing underneath it... the screw went through the fabric into the frame. So if the factories were just running out of bumpers, they whipped up something for the seat back brace to sit on. Otherwise, it would have eaten the vinyl in short order. Maybe using metal was just cheaper. Yes, it would be nice to chat with the guys who put our cars together, but I'm afraid a lot of them are gone.
Kerm

Think that was rigged up afterwards by another owner, because mine has nothing on the bumper less side and the original vinyl is still intact. I agree it makes more sense to have both installed since there is a seat brace on both sides.

[GT182]

Of the seats with only one bumper, did you guys ever notice that the bumper less side leaned back a bit further? I'd think it would have felt funny while sitting in the seat and the seat back "twisting" until the brace on the seat back contacted the seat's bottom frame.

[67Twistytee]

I never noticed it Gary. But like I posted earlier, now that you've mentioned it it's probably going to bug me - lol.

I do need to replace the foam on these seats as my wife complains about how she bounces around on the springs. It's particularly noticeable on the rear bench. But the vinyl has held up well over the years and the rest of my interior is untouched. I feel kind of bad taking it apart just for the foam.

[boltbuster]

Originally Posted by 67Twistytee

Think that was rigged up afterwards by another owner, because mine has nothing on the bumper less side and the original vinyl is still intact. I agree it makes more sense to have both installed since there is a seat brace on both sides.

That's very interesting.... Could be a PO fix. I've never felt that I was leaning to the outside in either front seat, at least not any more thatn I normally do.. LOL

[Greg Reid]

Originally Posted by GT182

Of the seats with only one bumper, did you guys ever notice that the bumper less side leaned back a bit further? I'd think it would have felt funny while sitting in the seat and the seat back "twisting" until the brace on the seat back contacted the seat's bottom frame.

Mine definitely did have a lean to one side, not necessarily rearward but you could see that the seat back was not 'level' across the top.. It always bugged me, but that being said, I don't know if the second bumper is going to fix it as I haven't put the seats back in yet. It may be that one of the feet is bent.

[60sstuff]

Originally Posted by SR-71

All 66's should have four bumpers, three bumpers are oval, part number 7712535. Two for the driver's seat and one for the inner passenger seat. The forth is a strange shaped bumper looking like a mutant version of the other with a sort of triangular portion on it. The reason for this is the optional reclining passenger seat. It used this strange bumper so the hook on the upper back hooked into the bumper on the lower to retain it from folding forward without using the release. Since all bases are the same all of them got the weird looking forth bumper.

Good post Rob (SR-71)

I’ve been cleaning and examining my 66 “roof rail map lights” and noticed something else with my passenger seat folded and pushed forward.

That RH outside seat bumper. My car “does not“ have a recliner seat.

I consulted with my good friend “Detective” Grant Baber and he suggested that it may be a catch for that passenger seat when it’s unoccupied.
BINGO ! Thanks Grant.

I never was aware of this “security catch”.
When folding the seat back forward, there is a slight resistance opposed to the drivers seat back.
That single odd shaped black bumper is very hard with a lip at the front which allows the rolled metal tab to slide over it as seen in the photos.

Seems to be a “one year only” safety feature before Pontiac got serious in ‘67 with both seats having a true locking mechanism.

Always learning. Cool stuff.

CT

[Jeff Hamlin]

Now that’s something I too have never seen.

I'm the second owner of my '66 and it had and still has 4 Oval Bump-stops.
And will add that each upper seat has screw holes/provisions in the RH side bumper foot.
I would assume to accommodate screws for a catch bracket like shown above.
With all the parts cars and otherwise, I've never seen this.
Very Neat!


And I see I need to conduct a deep clean

[SR-71]

Mine was installed the opposite and no catch on the seat back.