Some cars just don’t look as good in coupe form as they do sedans. The GM FWD A-Bodies are one such example: the sedans were generally handsome, while the coupes, in my opinion, looked unresolved. Even a revised roofline couldn’t save these stylistically.
This Cutlass Ciera I spotted in Greenpoint, Brooklyn would appear to be a 1986 model, based on the sealed beam headlights and the more rakish roofline that debuted for that year.
From 1982 until 1985, the Cutlass Ciera coupe had one of GM’s ubiquitous upright C-pillar rooflines that looked even frumpier. Really, it was more a two-door sedan than anything.
The full wheel covers and white paint don’t help the featured Ciera. GM must have realized they had a dud on their hands, or they didn’t want to eat into RWD G-Body sales, because the coupes were neither huge sellers nor publicized as prominently as, say, the Cutlass Supreme coupe had been. If you wanted a 6000 STE coupe, forget it. You could get a Ciera ES or GT or Century T-Type in coupe form, but the sedans were vastly more popular.
For 1986, Oldsmobile shifted 49,273 Ciera coupes, around 10k more than the wagon. That wasn’t too shabby, given the showroom competition from the G-Body Supreme and the new N-Body Calais, but the sedan left it in the shade with 267,493 units.
The W-Body was a vastly better looking coupe, although as I’ve mentioned before, it is baffling that GM launched them as a coupe and the sedan came 2-3 years later. And that GM kept the A-Body around. The A coupes didn’t last, though. The 6000 coupe’s last year was 1987, the Celebrity coupe 1988, the Ciera coupe 1990 and the longest-lived was the Century coupe which lasted until 1993.
If you’re going to sacrifice practicality, you probably want a car that looks sporty or imposing. The A-Body coupes didn’t satisfy either criterion.
I think the problem with GM design Back then is the windows are too low, which looks really weird with the big wheel openings at the back.
My biggest problem with this design is the proportions — the front wheel is set back way too much. There’s too much front overhang, and the wheel is too close to the door cut-line to work in a coupe. In a sedan this doesn’t matter as much, IMO.
Ramon: That is where belt lines resided for years
on cars. You’re used to the door sills being up to
your eyeballs on modern gun-slit window cars,
lol!
I think the featured car is a 1987. The grill of an 86 has 3 sections. Here is a pic of a 1986
I believe that the non GT coupes look odd but the Ciera GT coupe looks good due to the extra cladding.
Definitely an 87. I have one (sedan), the grille is a one year only design. 87 was an odd year because the brougham had the newer Euro lights and different grille, while everything else had the quad sealed beams. I’m on my 3rd grille, bad luck here in Brooklyn with random a**holes smashing em up.
The later cars look better than the earlier ones but you have to wonder why they bothered with these as 2 doors when they had the G-body cars.
That said, I would like to own one of these (6 cylinder powered, of course) for no other reason than their rarity….and I do like them.
If offered all four brand’s coupe, oops, 2 door sedan, I think it would be a toss-up between an Oldsmobile or Pontiac first, followed by a Buick, with the Celebrity my last choice.
“you have to wonder why they bothered with these as 2 doors when they had the G-body cars”.
The CAFE standards & the economic prognosis of the times had conspired against volume RWD V8 coupes, that’s why.
It’s one thing to make a choice with the luxury of 30 years of retrospect.
Who would have imagined in 1985 that gas would be dirt cheap in 2015!
Like you said, it’s more of a two-door sedan than anything. They didn’t change the doors or the roof or the C-pillar or taillights enough to call it a real coupe.
It reminds me a lot of the short lived 2008-2010 Focus “coupe”. Same taillights, general C-pillar shape, and upright blocky stance/height of the 4-door model. Not really sporty, or luxurious; they just chopped off the back doors, elongated the front doors, and left a flat beltline with giant, utilitarian-looking rear quarter windows (just like the A-body coupes). With both cars you just wonder… “why?”
This is just an opinion, but Ford was maybe trying to bring back the “ZX2” coupe, which has a tuner following. But, I agree it was like a Ciera 2 door sedan, a cheap plain car.
Notice there is no more Focus coupe at all? Even overseas.
The ZX2 was a cheapo fleet queen for most of its’ existence, but even before that never sold the numbers the 3-door hatchback Escort *it* replaced did, and that being in the ’90s when “Americans don’t buy hatchbacks” was at its’ peak.
Whoever suggested dropping the hatchback MkI Focus and replacing the ZX3 with this…two-door sedan as you called it, should’ve been hung upside-down from the roof of the Glass House.
At least, on that Focus coupe, one has good
visibility out those rear side windows, compared
to the up-sweep you see on things like Murano
and Rogue. That’s a good reason ‘why’ they
left the Focus beltline flat, like those ’80s
Cutlasses.
I just realized that I have never seen a Pontiac 6000 coupe
Yes the coupe is a rare beast indeed. Of course seeing a Pontiac 6000 on the road even when they were being made is rare
did the Cierra International Series replace the GT?
both seem to be quite similar
These cars, along with the G-body Cutlass Supremes and their W-body successors, epitomized the confusion at GM in general, and Oldsmobile in particular, during the mid- and late 1980s. There were several cars bearing a form of the “Cutlass” moniker that were competing for the same basic buyer. Oldsmobile effectively destroyed the equity of the Cutlass nameplate, as buyers were left confused as to what, exactly, a Cutlass was.
If I recall correctly, the A-body Ciera was originally supposed to replace the rear-wheel-drive, A-body intermediates. But those proved to be more popular than expected, so GM kept them around for a few after the Ciera and its corporate siblings debuted. Then the W-bodies were then supposed to replace both this car and the old A-bodies (redubbed “G-body”), but the Ciera was kept around until the mid-1990s.
These two-door Cieras weren’t terrible, but they weren’t great, either. They were an improvement over the original Ciera two-doors. By this point, however, buyers in this class were migrating to four-door sedans. It’s noteworthy that Ford didn’t even bother with a two-door Taurus, instead offering the Thunderbird for buyers who wanted a coupe.
Well, the RWD A body Malibu only stuck around until 1983. But, the RWD Cutlass Surpeme sedan sold until 1987. And no more LeMans 2 door after ’81.
The FWD A’s caught on a bit slowly, and then had loyal buyers into the 90’s.
All of the non-personal luxury RWD A-/G-body coupes were dropped after 1981. (Olds and Buick had actually dropped theirs after ’80, never replacing the unpopular Aeroback versions.) Even at that point, I think GM could already see that there wasn’t room for three different midsize coupes, and the non-personal luxury A/Gs had the lowest sales potential of the three.
The A/G-body wagons and personal luxury coupes were initially kept in production beyond 1981 because the original ’82 FWD A-body lineup didn’t include replacements. When an FWD A-body wagon debuted for 1984, all divisions dropped their RWD G-body wagons.
The G-body personal luxury coupes were originally supposed to be replaced by what eventually became the 1985 N-body coupes. There was apparently to be no Chevrolet version, to avoid excessive duplication between the various GM brands, and because in a world of $5-a-gallon gas, it was assumed that consumers in Chevrolet’s price bracket would all be buying something smaller or more utilitarian. After gas prices dropped and demand for the G-body personal luxury coupes remained relatively strong, GM decided to keep them in production . The N-bodies were repurposed as a replacement for the mortally tainted X-bodies.
The G-body sedans were apparently kept in production 1) as a hedge against buyers not taking to the dramatically different FWD A-bodies right away; 2) might as well, since the similar wagons were remaining in production for the time being; and 3) in case the G-body sedan might need to temporarily take over the large sedan role if gas prices spiked and sales of B-bodies fell through the floor (i.e., what Pontiac jumped the gun on and did for ’82). Long-term, the original plan was that Chevrolet and Pontiac would exit the full-size market, which is why the B-bodies’ planned H-body replacement initially included no versions for those brands. As with the personal luxury coupes, falling gas prices resulted in at least certain G-body sedan models continuing to sell relatively well, and some versions of the sedan remained in production for several years. Each division phased them out on its own timetable. Chevrolet was the only one to drop the sedan at the same time as the wagon.
The A-/G-body El Camino and Sprint were also obviously not replaced in the ’82 FWD A-body lineup. I guess GM decided to keep them around for the time being, since they hadn’t been replaced, and a number of similar models (the other G-bodies) were also remaining in production. Though still decent sellers at the outset of the ’80s, these were never more than niche models, and they were losing ground to compact pickups. They probably only lasted as long as they did because so many related vehicles were still in production, keeping costs down.
Well said. Confusing time, and it was hard to make decisions.
And for one lone year, 1988, you had all three in production. The W-body Cutlass Supreme was introduced that year, but they kept the G-body around as the Cutlass Supreme Classic. Probably because folks were still buying them, also possibly because the Monte Carlo SS was kept around in ’88 as well.
I never did ‘get’ these. The style of the A body was that of a no nonsense workaday sedan…and in 4 door or wagon form they filled that to a T. GM had coupes all over the place that made more sense. The W body sedans seem to be the complimentary opposite in pointlessness.
Personally, I don’t think the revised roofline on the A-body coupes looked that bad. They didn’t look sporty at all, but it wasn’t like GM ever really tried to market them as anything beyond basic transportation, even the performance models. But I agree that there were much better looking coupes out there, even in the GM stable.
I think the coupes were partially produced as remnants of the previous RWD coupes which were very popular (Cutlass, Regal). GM may have wanted to appeal to those buyers with a FWD version of the same basic shape, a formal roof coupe.
Also, GM may have kept producing all of these modules to keep factories rolling as much as anything. Often labor contracts play a role in keeping vehicles around, particularly back then when GM plants weren’t nearly as flexible as they are now.
To me, these A body “coupes” were the beginning of the decline of 2 door sales. Pointless and ungainly looking. Nothing ‘sporty’ at all, and getting in/out of back seat was a pain. Ford didn’t bother with a Taurus 2 door, since they had T-Bird already.
The days of 2 doors versions of sedans being a sporty or stylish choice ended with GM’s boxy FWD cars.
The primary school styling puts me off these, the proportions are all wrong saving money by using the sedan roof pressing might suit accountants but it makes for ugly cars.
“Some cars just don’t look as good in coupe form as they do sedans.”
I beg to differ. In pre-aero days; i.e., up to around the mid-90s or so, ALL cars looked better as coupes. Nowadays? Sedans look in general, very good.
“Nowadays? Sedans look in general, very good.”
Id have to disagree. They just look…confused. Rakish rear windows and gunslit windows might work on a sporty 2 door. But attempting to make a sedan look ‘sportier’ by applying those and yet doing literally nothing to disguise the rear doors looks like a sad pathetic attempt to make the car something that it isnt. Its like a bingo parlor grannie getting a few tattoos and putting a purple streak in her hair. You aint fooling anyone, Mildred! These A-bodies as well as many giant 70s era 2 door brougham barges are guilty of the opposite, in that 2 doors ‘should’ be your lean, trim and tidy style and performance leaders. Starting there and reaching down into frumpville destroys the purpose.
Ive never been a fan of the look of 4 door sedans, but they look their best when they arent pretending. In terms of modern cars, the Chrysler 300 is a perfect example of that. The same could be said of early ‘downsized’ Caprices.
You said it. Just having two doors does not a coupe make. The FWD “A”s were sedans, period regardless of door count. The earlier 2 door versions at least were more “honest”, they were 2 door sedans and looked it. PS the term “4 door coupe” bugs me as bad as the term “gifting”.
None of the Cieras were beauty queens, though I do think this coupe roofline looked better than the one introduced for 1982. That frumpy, square 2-door dog never made any sense to me. Even the Omega coupe had a slightly more rakish roofline. Of course, there was also the abysmal Holiday Coupe from 1984, as GM styling began reaching its nadir.
My other rant on this car is the ridiculousness of the “International” branding. I mean c’mon, that car was about as international as a Dairy Queen in the heart of Kansas. Plus, I’d imagine that name sounded rather pompous and unnecessary to the average Ciera buyer, while being an utter joke to a mid-1980s yuppie.
Wow. I forgot about the 2-door Celebrity and I can’t remember ever seeing a 2-door 6000 in the flesh.
For what it’s worth, I much prefer the stodgier roofline of the ’82-’85 version. The revised roofline that appeared in later iterations (2 and 4 -door models) always seemed half-assed to me.
Regarding the question of why they even bothered to offer these alongside so many other 2-door GM models . . . . . . In addition to CAFE, wasn’t it also that much of the basic tooling for the 2-door was already place from the closely related X-body cars?
GM developed a two-door version of the FWD A bodies because there had always been a two-door “regular” A body alongside the A-special coupes (and before that a 2 door sedan alongside the hardtop coupes). What they didn’t understand was that market fragmentation had reached the point that some segments were going away.
They unwittingly pushed it along with their cost-cutting. If an optioned-out Civic 3 door hatch still cost less than a Ciera coupe and not much more than a Celebrity coupe and felt just as, if not more, refined and genteel while still being a nimble, sporty small car, well, you wouldn’t be shopping coupes if you needed the extra room, would you?
A couple of comments.
I never even realized that the 6000 was offered in coupe form. I thought I had seen all manner of every A-body variation (including Celebrity VR coupe)… but that one I didn’t know existed.
The mention of the 6000 STE brought back memories. Back in 1996, after the summer of my freshman year in college I almost purchased a 6000 SE wagon with the gfx package (to replace my 77 Dodge Aspen wagon….better mileage, newer, etc). I found one locally, for the right price. When I called to inquire condition, I was told it had some “light scratches on the passenger side”. When I got there, it had the words F*CK YOU keyed into the entire right side of the car, wheel well to wheel well. That was enough to cause me to walk away. Ahh, memories.
Finally, I think that the later model roofline looked great on the Ciera once it went to the composite headlamps in 1988, especially in GT trim. The flowing roofline matched well with the smoother, rounded front end.
Pro tip: On NY registered vehicles, look at the registration sticker on the windshield. It has the year of the vehicle printed on it.
“The 6000 coupe’s last year was 1987, the Celebrity coupe 1988, the Ciera coupe 1990 and the longest-lived was the Century coupe which lasted until 1993.”
I never realized that each division phased the coupes out on its own timetable (just like the G-body sedans noted in an earlier comment). I knew that the Celebrity coupe was dropped after ’88, but I had thought the others all survived into the ’90s, and assumed that Olds and Buick dropped them at the same time. My guess would have been that Pontiac sold these until ’90 or ’91 and that Olds and Buick both kept them until around ’93.
I wish automakers could offer sedans, coupes and wagons of every car line now–I so miss 2 door family cars
This article reminded me of how cool I thought the 6000 STE was when it came out.
Agree on this. I have the 87 sedan and I think it works much better stylistically. And the roof racks on these look HORRIBLE (sedans and coupes), imo.
My parents purchased a new ’82 Century 4-door with the 3.0 V6.
I think the appeal was the styling and technology. In the early days of downsized cars, the A-bodies had much better proportions than the J and X body cars, and FWD was really catching on. These really were very modern family cars when introduced.
In the first few years of ownership, we almost never saw a TV or print ad for the Century. This seemed really strange for a brand new model. Maybe this car wasn’t aimed at Buick’s core demographic? Were there tons of ads for the other A-bodies?
Take a look at the new Buick LaCrosse photobombing the subject Olds. What will we be saying about that one in 30 years??
This was one of the the last hurrahs for the ‘Coupe as a cheaper option by virtue of eliminating two doors’ marketing model (The old Focus coupe may be the last).
Since then coupes have pretty much become exclusively premium luxury/GT options (At least in the US).
The 1982-85 coupe roofline was pretty terrible. The old practice of lengthening the front doors and shortening the rear windows worked on cars with non-vertical C-pillars (in most cases) just didn’t work with the formal roofline, and the look was awkward and unstylish.
However, I really don’t mind the revision. It works well enough with the rounded nose, and I think it’s a fine-looking, if uncommon, variant.