A slope-backed Cutlass Salon much like this one was owned and driven by one of my fellow high school students in the early Nineties. It was blue and in amazingly good shape (from the outside, anyway) when he got it. I had always assumed it had been a hand-me-down from an older relative – perhaps a grandmother or an aunt, but since I wasn’t even on a first-name basis with him, I never managed to get the story. What I do remember is that one of my friends in particular referred to it as resembling a “big Citation”. The phrase “big Citation” still makes me crack up in present day, only because it actually kind of fits. I wonder what ever happened to that car.
When I spotted the above example, I was on a commuter train from downtown Chicago to the affluent suburb of Hinsdale for a job interview. I was in my second month of unemployment after my previous employer of over ten years had laid off my entire department. Needless to say, and though my position’s elimination was through no fault of my own, I was feeling like such a loser during that bleak time. As I looked out the window at this ’79 Salon base-model coupe (of which just 8,400 were produced that year out of about 564,000 Cutlasses total, and against 278,000 Supreme coupes; in other words, just 1.5% of total Cutlass production), I suddenly identified with the Salon’s own loser-dom. To quote that Jimmy Cox tune, my favorite rendition of which was delivered by the great Nina Simone, Nobody knows you when you’re down and out.
An upper-level seat on one of Chicago’s Metra commuter trains. Sunday, January 24, 2010.
As this train pulled away slowly from this station continuing toward Hinsdale, I made a point to straighten up my posture a bit in my seat on the upper deck, taking note of this Salon’s hunched stance. This Salon was clearly a winner, though, having made it over thirty years by that point in such fine, apparent shape. Somebody loves you, Baby.
Riverside, Illinois.
Friday, January 21, 2011.
Click here and here for related reading on the 1978 – ’80 Cutlass Salon.
(of which just 8,400 were produced that year out of about 564,000 Cutlasses total, and against 278,000 Supreme coupes;
So the remaining 286,000 were largely Aeroback sedans and some wagons? That’s valuable info for me. Do you happen to know if the breakdown of Centurys was similar?
Oh, gosh, no. Majority of Cutlass sales for ’79 were C/S & CSB coupes. See Brendan’s article from yesterday. 🙂
Dr. Zhivago 138, sorry for my earlier short reply – I only now have access to my encyclopedia and a ten key.
’79 Cutlass production figures could be roughly broken down by bodystyle (and without regard to trim level), as such:
– 2-door Salons: 12,000
– 4-door Salons: 39,000
– Wagons: 53,700
– The Rest (meaning CS, CSB and Calais): 459,000.
A cursory look at the ’79 Century’s & Regal’s sales figures would support that the Aerobacks constituted a similarly small percentage of Buick A-Body sales that year.
The downsized A body wagons sold well, so I am guessing most of that “remaining 286,000” were those.
IIRC, the Aeroback was in coupe form only.
A 4-door Aeroback definitely would have looked like a big Citation.
EDIT: I stand corrected. I read the Cutlass Supreme article.
I cannot recall ever seeing the 4 doors in real life. You could spot a handful of the Aerocoupes in the DC area when they were new. But not many.
The Aerobacks were offered with 4 doors in both Cutlass Salon and Buick Century guise; both sold poorly. Both cars were also offered with two doors as here, but here buyers had an in-division alternative with the Cutlass Supreme and Regal notchback coupes and both were huge sellers, rendering the fastback coupe completely irrelevant. Inexplicably, the 2 door aeroback sputtered into the 1980 model year even as the 4 door was replaced by Seville-like notchback sedan (which immediately juiced sales), but the Aerobacks remained glued to dealer lots two doors or four.
EDIT: I read your edit…. 🙂
I think these were available with a five speed, but I’ve never seen one. Just the photo in the brochure or ad.
For ’79, Cutlass had a ridiculous number of powertrain choices.
Base was the Buick 231 V-6
Then the Olds 260 V-8, in both gas AND Diesel
Then the Chevy 305 V-8
Then the Olds 350 V-8, again in both gas AND Diesel.
When I was doing research for another post here on CC. I determined that the ’79 Cutlass was one of very, very few passenger cars (for a specific model year) that offered the choice of 3-, 4-, AND 5-speed manual transmissions! There was also a 3-speed automatic available.
I’ve never owned any of them, but I did come across several pictures of Cutlasses with the 260 Diesel and a 5-speed stick. I have to imagine the MPG were terrific, although the engine was most decidedly not!
The Olds 350 V8 4bbl gas motor was only in the 1979 Hurst Olds, then the 1980 442.
The Chevy 350 4bbl was available in 1978-79 A/G body wagons, but only in CA and “High Altitude” counties.
Source: oldcarbrochures.org
I believe that. The way I read the brochure, it just said there was a 350 gas. I didn’t see where it said who made it, so I just assumed it was the Olds 350. Mea culpa.
A close friend had the Malibu coupe, bought new, with the 305 and a manual. I can’t recall whether it was a 4- or 5-speed. Of note: the PRND21 printing for the auto transmission indicator was clearly on the instrument panel, but poorly painted over at the factory.
I thought the Malibu was the cleanest and best looking of the GM A-coupes in those years.
The manual trans that went with the Chevy 305 was a 4-speed. I suppose it’s possible they offered a 3-speed with the V8, but I never heard of that being seen in the wild. (Plenty of 6-es had them) The 5-speed was kind of… fragile, a friend of mine had one behind a 231 and managed to blow it up… so I’m guessing they never paired the 305’s with them. (My dad bought a 78 Malibu Classic wagon new with the 305/4-speed combo. Mostly because the local Olds store wouldn’t sell him a Cutlass wagon with a stick shift, he was a loyal Olds guy and complained about having to “step down to” the Chevy pretty much the whole time we had the Malibu-until 1989)
I think only Oldsmobile offered the T-50 5-speed. The other G4 A-bodies got 3- or 4-speeds only – to the best of my knowledge.
I have driven a ’78 or ’79 El Camino with a 3-speed, but I imagine the take rates on all manual transmissions in A-bodies were absurdly low.
The real unicorn here is the 260 diesel with 5 speed (i’ll need to check if the 350 diesel was available with a manual too). I have seen one!
GM was a real mess when it came to engines in the late 1970’s. It was in 1977 that they introduced the “corporate engine” concept, which was the beginning of the much needed engine consolidation (and the short-lived corporate blue engine paint for all engines). However, GM went about it in a poor fashion and it resulted in a his mishmash of engines, in particular on the BOP brands. Chevrolet pretty much always stuck with Chevy engines, while Cadillac basically was mostly Cadillac engines (with some exceptions for each).
Like I mentioned in the other Cutlass post, it was interesting how no one seemed to really care that the Cutlass Supreme had a 305 Chevy engine, while it was pure heresy the year before when a Delta 88 was delivered with the LM1 Chevy 350 (ironically, probably one of GM’s best engines from the late 1970s). It wasn’t until the mid-1980’s that the V8 engines were sorted, when it was just the Chevrolet and Olds V8’s left for all brands (except Cadillac). Then by the 90’s only the Chevrolet V8 would survive. Canada figured it out a little sooner, as the majority of the GM cars sold here had Chevrolet V8’s during this time.
The late seventies/early eighties small V8s from GM and Ford were fascinating for how bad they ended up. I guess they only did one thing well, and that was meet emission standards. But, other than that, they were terrible. Performance was abysmal, and fuel economy was barely better than larger V8s. They didn’t last long. And they used a lot of unique parts from the standard V8s so even is someone got one from the junkyard for, like, free, modding it to acceptable levels wasn’t worth the cost or effort.
The only silver lining was that Chrysler was in such dire straits at the time that they couldn’t get their own version of a bad, small V8 into production and had to make do with the tried-and-true 318.
I alway’s figured if GM had suddenly decided to just use the Chev engine the plants making them could never have kept up.
The 260 gas motor was a total dog and should never have been in an Oldsmobile car. It was slower than the Buick V-6 and it used as much gas as a 305 SBC. Horrid.
The 260 diesel was even more of a slug and there was no reason to offer it in my opinion.
The five speed was not a durable unit. Roger628 can attest to that!
The LM1 was a great motor, tough as nails and loads of torque. In a lightly option Impala they were quick for the time.
The 260 was indeed pretty slow. I always wondered at the time why it made less power than the other small “peanut” V8’s of the period. By 1979 it was down to 110 HP or 105 for California versions and 105 for 1980 and a measly 100 for 1981/82 model years. The Pontiac 265 which was also a 4.3 made 120 for both of it’s model years, Chevy’s 267 made between 115 for 81/82 years, 120 for 1980 and 125 for 1979. Ford’s 255 ranged from 111-120 in it’s 3 years of service. Somehow Chrysler got it’s 318 2BBL down to 120 HP for 1980 and AMC’s 304 was making only 125 for the 1979 model year, it’s last!
Having owned and driven all of these small V8’s I still preferred the 260 to the 231 V6 as they derived power differently. The 260 was still smoother and quieter and developed more low end torque and off idle power. It also had better drive-ability and was considerably longer lasting in many owners hands. My 1981 Cutlass with the 260 had 111K miles when I got it from it’s original owner, I put another 50 on it after that, sold it to a friend who drove it back and forth to college for 2 years after which it had well over 200k by that point and it was still running strong when he clobbered a deer going 65MPH with it. I put a new timing gear and chain set on it at 150K and a water pump and little else so it was pretty much all original otherwise. We used to tinker around with these Olds 260’s on the pre 1981 versions with larger jets, more base timing and eliminating the silly spark delay valve so they were able to get a full 30 or more degrees of timing advance and that woke them up a lot. Customers were much happier with these after those simple mods
The Chevy 267 and Pontiac small V8’s were quicker than both the 260 and Buick 231 cars I owned and seemed well enough suited to the A/G line cars overall. Naturally the 305 LG4 4BBL was the best setup for these cars unless you were talking about the W-30 Hurst which had the 350 Olds engine. I drove one of these and it was at the time the quickest car I experienced (during the early 1990’s) but also hard on gas. I literally went through a half tank of gas driving around town in that friends car with my foot buried in the carb.
My step-brother-in-law had a 79 Cutlass Supreme with the 260 V8 and the 5 speed. He often said it wasn’t quick, but it was reliable and thrifty. After he passed, I should have tracked the car down, but I don’t think I had a place to park it at the time.
The real unicorn here is the 260 diesel with 5 speed (i’ll need to check if the 350 diesel was available with a manual too). I have seen one!
Per my research, the 260Diesel/stick was only available in coupes and sedans, never wagons. And the 350 Diesel was auto-only.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/the-brown-rwd-manual-transmission-diesel-station-wagon-a-comprehensive-guide-to-that-mythical-beast-of-the-internet/
It must be Cutlass Week.
A GF from the mid 80s got one of these from her grandfather, though it was a 4 door. I hated, hated, hated that car at the time (during my stretch with a VW GTI that was this car’s total opposite.)
I remember putting a starter in it as the original was causing trouble on hot starts. It was the V6, I believe, which made me hate it more. The GF and I broke up soon after. I can’t really say that I have missed either of them (the GF or the Oldsmobile) in the decades since.
Well, doesn’t that figure — seeing a car that uncommon (probably the only one within a 500-mi. radius of Chicago) while on a train riding to a job interview. No chance to get out and take a closer look!
Eric703, that’s how it works a lot of the time!! Sometimes, I’ll even be an in Uber going somewhere (late), and if it weren’t for that, I’d be hopping out to photograph a find and paying the driver for his or her extra time! 🙂
On this day about 8 years ago, I figured, if I get this job (which I was offered but didn’t take), I’ll have more opportunities to photograph this Cutlass.
We had a small fleet of these leased as drivers’ ed cars in high school. I can never see one without thinking about riding around in circles with about 5 other Salons in the parking lot…while the drivers’ ed teacher stood in the middle of the slowly revolving parade of Olds and yelled at us through a bullhorn. Good times.
A great find Joseph! Fascinating, the way the Neon appears almost as big as the Cutlass.
The Aerobacks were such wasted potential. I liked that GM was willing to take a chance on a unique shape, but it seemed so half-hearted. For fastbacks, they looked so… serious. They were popular with older folks where I lived.
I’ve posted this Photoshop here before, so many apologies to those that have seen it. But I thought this is how GM may have handled this fastback design with more grace. With a short rear deck, similar to the Nova coupe. And a full true hatchback. Not a trunk in back, another failing of this design.
To me, it wasn’t just the rear roof line that made these cars look stodgy. Other elements as well, like the formal nose, and the upright rake to the windshield. They just didn’t come together cohesively. I’ve raked the nose and windshield in this Photoshopped version, hoping to give the design more elegance and sportiness. Length, height, and wheelbase remain the same.
If I was shopping for a Cutlass at the time, I likely would have bought a Cutlass Cruiser wagon instead. One of the better looking domestic wagons at the time.
That almost looks like a GM version of the Plymouth Caravelle. It would have been much too modern for that era, that look screams mid-1980s to me. And a hatch was a non-starter, as at the time it was associated with cheap compacts, not an upscale car like an Olds. But I agree that something like that may have been a winner.
I recall reading before their launch that at one point there were to be stick-on “fins” that gave them that notchback profile. I also recall they were indeed originally intended to be hatchbacks but cost (or maybe NVH) concerns nixed that.
Daniel, I’m not going to lie – I like your add-ons to the Salon. I’m sure I’m not the only one who thought the similar-vintage Toyota Corona 5-door was a good-looking car. By giving the rear quarter panels a bit of a horizontal stretch, it takes away from the droopy look of the actual production car.
Thanks for (re-)posting your photoshop, as I don’t remember having seen it before.
That looks like a 4 door Chevy Vega!
Perhaps this shape would work now as a Cadillac. Add some of the Art and Science angular lines and creases, an angry face repleat with razor thin running lights/headlights, and integrate the bumpers, and it would be fine. But in the context it was presented, it flopped. In an era when a hatchback denoted youthfulness, it was silly to offer the looks (and not the convenience) of the shape of it on a sedan that sold to the older crowd.
JFrank, it’s interesting that you mention this… Looking at pictures of the last CTS coupe, it does (in profile, anyway) look like a much modernized / chopped / sectioned take on this basic two-door fastback profile, with similarly angular lines. Wow. I’ll be paying closer attention the next time I see a CTS coupe in traffic.
I don’t hate those but I think they do look better as sedans
I agree with Daniel M. that the Aerodeck should have been a hatchback.My pick for a Cutlass would be a Calais with the gold/white W30 package.
That was my dad’s car, went with him to buy it. He moved to the other coast and a year later someone torched his car. He probably deserved it because he drove like a jerk. The car didn’t though.
“What was Olds thinking?”
So many forget that there was a fastback Cutlass S and base coupe in 1973-77, similar to Chevelle and LeMans. Not all Colonnade era Cutlasses were formal roof Supreme coupes. So many on the net assume that. [Not all Supremes were coupes, too]
The Aeroback 2 door was meant to replace the base and Cutlass S coupes, which were ‘sportier’ or ‘budget’ models. The 4 doors were replacing all Cutlass sedans. Some assume that they ‘came out of nowhere’ or were some ‘radical 70’s design thinking’, aka ‘what were they smoking?’.
While I doubt that Olds expected to sell many, the aeroback 2-door was available all the way up to a Salon Brougham. Basically, they fired up the order book and let the market tell them what to build. The feedback came back so quick that the Seville roof sedan went on sale in 24 months.
These aren’t my favorite cars, but this one looks sharp when bookended by the blobby car and the blobbish truck…
For whatever reason, I’ve always liked these cars. I would drive one today if I could find one to drive.
I’ve long said these would have been great as hatchbacks, GM really could have gotten a step on Honda had these cars had hatches. Remember, the contemporary Accord had a hatch, GM could have captured some mind-share had the Cutlass been equipped as such.
Ah well, they couldn’t/wouldn’t take the risk and went crawling back to the Seville house of design.
GM sold a bunch of Citation hatchbacks.
I think GM just got the styling wrong in this case. I don’t think it would have sold better as a hatchback. It wouldn’t have been cheaper to build than the full wagon, and the wagon is better looking.
Buying a fastback-coupe Cutlass instead of a Supreme notchback coupe in 1978 saved you a whopping $500 ($2,000 adjusted). I can’t imagine the Supreme cost a penny more to build, but pretty cars sell for more it seems. Functionally, the rear seat backrest leaned back at a much greater angle in the aeroback than in the notch coupe where it was nearly upright. But the trunk opening was much larger in the notchback.
Nina is great, but the best rendition of “Nobody Knows You….” is Tim Hardin’s bluesy take from his early Columbia recordings:
These are really the Rodney Dangerfield of cars, and boy, did they get slagged at the time. I mean, the combination of such RADICAL styling and rear windows that were fixed in place was just way too much at the time. I remember the buff books howling about it. I don’t think it was really fair, either, because they cars drove really well and had cool engine options.
Looking back with the benefit of forty years of hindsight, making so many engines and iterations of the same car was completely mad. The GM divisions were competing against each other with almost everything the sold.
By 1978, AMC was a non-entity and Chrysler Corporation was on the ropes. The Ford Fairmont and Mercury Zephyr were replacements for the Maverick and Comet, respectively, and thus less expensive than the A-bodies. And the Ford offerings felt like it compared to these GM intermediates.
The imports weren’t yet a factor in this market segment for much of the country in the late 1970s.
It seems crazy in retrospect, but, in the intermediate segment, an Oldsmobile dealer in 1978-80 worried more about competition from the local Buick, Pontiac or Chevrolet dealer than AMC, Chrysler, Ford or the imports. I’m sure that concern was shared at the division level.
I’m a 1978 model myself, and I don’t think I’ve aged nearly as well. I actually really like the Aerobacks with the benefit of hindsight, although they were unbearably dorky in the mid-late 80s. (At least to this car-crazy kid.)
I spent a good part of my childhood in one of the 8,400 base ’79 Salon 2-doors. It was probably one of the best-looking of the 8,400–black with a red pinstripe to match the then-fashionable red interior, with rally wheels like the one in the picture.
I imagine the story of how my parents wound up driving away with it in late ’78 is similar to that of most Aeroback owners: Oldsmobile dealers were practically giving them away. My parents were expecting their second kid and wanted to replace my mom’s ’70 Maverick with something a little more reliable (and air-conditioned), but the budget was tight. I wasn’t quite 4 years old, but I remember going on a test drive in a Malibu sedan, which my parents didn’t buy because the Chevy dealer “wouldn’t deal.” Across the street at the Oldsmobile dealer, however, a new Cutlass Salon could be had at fire-sale prices.
Somehow that car, with its sluggish 3.8 V6, lasted for 10 years and more than 100,000 miles. My parents got their money’s worth, but I was always jealous of my best friend’s mom’s “real” Cutlass–a handsome ’81 Cutlass Supreme in dark blue, which always looked much more dignified than our weird Aeroback.
No one has yet mentioned that Buick got their own version of the Aeroback, as well. Some seem to like it a bit better but it’s just as awkward as the Olds.
It’s interesting how the intermediate body styles shaked-out at the time. Since Chevrolet and Pontiac had their notchback PLC Monte Carlo and Grand Prix, instead of Aerobacks, they got more traditionally styled roofs on the Malibu and Lemans. I guess GM wanted a unique roofline for the upmarket divisions to separate them more readily from the lower-rung cars and, thus, were born the Aerobacks. The logic was sound; it’s just that the execution left something to be desired.
Those color-keyed styled steel wheels were a giant pain in the neck to keep clean and the little aluminum trim pieces around each cutout would sometimes get a little loose and rattle. I have less-than-fond memories of cleaning and hand-waxing the wheels on my mother’s 82 Cutlass Supreme sedan, and trying to keep the whitewall Dayton Quadra tires looking good too.
The Aeroback was an abomination…my dad flat-out refused to even look at the Olds until they went with the notchback “mini-Seville” look in 1981.
I’m not crazy about the 2 doors, i prefer the 4 door version. These cars were rare when they came out and way more so now. i would love to find a nice one (or it’s Buick brother).
I have a Facebook page dedicated to this car & it’s fraternal twin the Century.
https://www.facebook.com/1979.80BuickCenturyTurboCoupes/
Always liked the 78/79 GM aerobacks, both 2 and 4 door…sometimes different is good, and they surely were different. They would have been even better as true hatchbacks, having had SAABS of that ilk, we got used to the superb functionality of that body style. Be hard to find a nice example of these nowadays, but it’d be worth preserving!