I caught these two “C Bodies” (okay, one’s technically a “D”) at work the other day. Only a few years separate this 1987 Cadillac Brougham from the 1991-93 Olds Ninety Eight, but, “Oh, what a difference!” The story behind the C and D platforms during this time in GM’s history is convoluted at best…
So here goes… When GM introduced its new full-size front-wheel-drive (FWD) platform in 1985, it assigned it the C platform designation (which is what the Olds is based upon). “C” had formerly had been used to denote GM’s full-size rear-wheel-drive (RWD) platform on which the Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham was based, which was subsequently bumped up a letter to become the D platform.
The (D Platform) Fleetwood Brougham name was kept on through 1986 when, to avoid confusion with the (C Platform) Fleetwood, it was renamed Cadillac Brougham for the 1987-92 model years. Brougham again became a trim option for the Cadillac Fleetwood in 1993, when the Fleetwood name was moved from the FWD C platform back to the RWD D platform, making it one of the first American models to suffer a midlife crisis and try to recapture its youth change back to RWD from FWD.
I wonder what stories that Caddy could share with the Olds.
And given the body language (all schlumped over to the far side of the parking space) would the Olds would even listen?
More on the ‘combover platform’ Cadillac Brougham can be enjoyed here, or if the ‘sullen teen’ Ninety Eight is more your speed, try here.
Although I’m not a Cadillac fan, I do prefer the old-school rwd Cadillac in the pic over the new school fwd Oldsmobile.
My father had an ’86 Cadillac. I drove it once.
I’ll take the Oldsmobile, hands down.
With the 4.1 V8 that his 86 would have had, I would not blame you. The 307 that showed up for 1987 (?) was adequate, but barely.
The 307 came in 1986. If you see one of these on the road it’s almost never an 82-85, those years had the 4100.
Thanks – my personal experience was later in that run. I once did a CC on one of these, but have forgotten some of the details.
Yep, I linked your article at the bottom…
You wrote the car up twice in two days JPC. There was the article Ed linked to and the one below on your personal car. These two articles were the first I ever read at CC in 2012, about a year after they were written. I had been looking for a 76-79 Seville and decided after driving a couple that a Reagan-era Brougham would better suit my needs. That started the research that led me to CC.
Your words and pics sold me on the car and it’s your fault I’m here 🙂 I counted once how many times the 80-92 was written up and it was like ten, surely a record that will never be broken at CC.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/stories/the-many-cars-of-my-life-1989-cadillac-brougham-hello-old-friend/
I remember, I think I did 3 Broughams in 3 days, concluding with capsule on a white 90 that was the final iteration of that classic 1980 styling. I should also report that none of my children has completely forgiven me for selling my 89. 🙂
For many years, an aunt owned a mahogany-colored 78 Sedan deVille. She kept (and babied) the car for a long time. I was a bit disappointed when I found out that she had sold it. That body with a more robust powertrain held some appeal for me.
Wouldn’t ouch that Olds with a ten foot cattleprod. Give me RWD or give me death!
I’ll go for the Cadillac, though they are only a few model years apart, that’s really a 1980 Cadillac styling wise compared to a 1991 car, so there is about a decade gap there.
The egg rate grill is a giveaway that it’s really a 1986. 1980 had more pronounced horizontal ribs
Except for the typical bodyside molding discoloration and bumper filler cracking that Cadillac Brougham has held up really well. I’ve always loved how the flat top of the front wheel opening went with the long flat hood.
Which in turn went well with the flat, skirtless rear wheel opening and low ride height.
I don’t care for the wheel opening treatment on the Olds at all. Round up front and straight and skirted in back.
That Infiniti FX was sure a great looking car. Haven’t seen one of those in a while.
I wonder what the last car with metal bumpers was? It appears to be a 1996 Cadillac, while here in Australia I would say the end of the VH model Commodore in early 1984 would be the last – so the 87 Cadillac with a solid chrome bumper looks even older to my eyes.
Life is weird. I drive a wonderful first gen Aurora. I enjoy it thoroughly. But for some reason I’m drawn to this version of the Olds 98. It’s inexplicable.
I’ll take the caddy here….. The Oldsmobile? great drivetrain, terrible interior. Worst dashboard design in history, unless you like black plastic buttons lol
That’s a very good condition Ninety-Eight. Despite its sentimentality to me, I still hold a very critical opinion of it. A very disappointing end to a half-century year old nameplate.
Now, pre-1985, the “D” was the limousine and formal sedan platform for Cadillac’s 75 series, correct? It wasn’t just a new letter for that year, I think.
The wheelbases muddle things up nicely, too, with the RWD Cs having different WBs for the Cadillac than the senior Olds and Buick sedans. Before ’77, even more differences.
As for choosing between them, I’ll also take the Cadillac, despite being well aware of its shortcomings compared to Cadillacs of the past and more modern Cs such as the Olds, if only because the Olds, while almost certainly faster, more efficient, and safer, lacks the Cadillac’s memorable/iconic looks and doesn’t ride as well.
Also: I wish Olds had seen fit to follow Buick with the Roadmaster and had brought back a big Olds for ’91-’96. Though I always thought it odd that the ’90s Roadmaster, the pre-’59 Electra predecessor, was placed on what was basically the reskinned ’77-’85 LeSabre (a notch below the Electra in the hierarchy) B body, and then sold alongside the smaller FWD Park Avenue, which was really the Electra. It was always unclear to me during that period whether the Park Avenue or the Roadmaster was supposed to be the flagship for Buick, based on their shared heritage and the use of the LeSabre body. Then again, bringing back the Roadmaster sedan didn’t entirely make sense to me at the time either. Didn’t the pre-Roadmaster lineup represent a completed downsizing that had been accepted? The Brougham by then was considered a holdover. I don’t remember anyone clamoring for the return of a big RWD Buick. Maybe they were.
The Park Avenue was still the flagship sedan in as it could be more expensive than a Roadmaster when loaded up and trimmed in the supercharged Ultra version. They brought back the Roadmaster because they could, even though there was widespread acceptance of the FWD C/H body Buick, there still were Buick dealers and customers that wanted a RWD Buick, and not wanting to see any customers defect to Mercury, they brought back a RWD sedan, remember that even though Buick and Oldsmobile were selling FWD sedans, they both still carried a BOF RWD wagon in their line ups.
The Buicks of this generation were still quite attractive. Just underneath Cadillac. By the 2000, they changed the look of the Buick and made it look unattractive.
Carmine-
That’s very interesting and I didn’t know that. I suppose they’d already seen a lot of customers defect to Mercury in ’85-’86 and perhaps given the continued success of the Grand Marquis back then (when the average buyer was 65, not 80, and still buying new cars), they thought they might win back some business. Perhaps not investing in a big Olds as well was kind of a hedge.
Jason-
I’m also quite fond of both the Park Avenues and Roadmasters of this time, and the Park Avenues right up until the end of their run in the mid 2000s when they finally brought back the Venti-Ports.
I differ with you in that I think that the Buicks have been since about 2000 the most attractive of the GM cars, to this day.
If it was me, I would have kept one RWD sedan in each of the line ups, except for Pontiac, I would have kept the 1984 version of the 98 and Electra around as the Oldsmobile “Regency” and Buick “Limited” like Cadillac did with the Brougham and moved all of the production to the Arlington TX full size car plant.
If you were going to keep making all the hardware and dashboards and what not for the B-body Oldsmobuick wagon versions through 1990 anyway, might as well keep some of the sedans around for the diehards.
Carmine: This is what GM did with the midsize cars around 1982. They came out with new FWD versions, but kept the RWDs in production. The result was a mess, with the FWD versions not selling well, and losing money. What might have made sense is to have made the big RWD sedans all new with unibody designs in RWD. But moving to FWD at least got GM away from body on frame design.
Which ones didn’t “sell well”?
The FWD A-bodies? The Celebrity was one of the best selling cars in America through 1987, constantly in the 10 best selling cars, and number one in 1986. The Century and Ciera weren’t far behind. The only slow kid in the FWD A’s was the 6000, which ironically had one of the best versions, the STE in their line up.
GM did keep a RWD G-body around, but mostly only the personal luxury coupe versions, the RWD Monte Carlo, Grand Prix, Cutlass and Regal continued through late 1987-88, but the all versions of the RWD Malibu were gone by 1983, 1983 also marked the end for all the RWD A Body wagons, and the Regal sedan was dropped in the 1984, the only non-coupe RWD G-cars that survived were the slow selling BonnevilleG till 1986 and Cutlass Sedan until 1987.
I may be wrong of course, and Wikipedia is a doubtful reference, but under the Roger Smith entry (with a reference to Fortune), the GM10 is considered to be a catastrophe.
Nothing I was talking about before is in reference to the GM-10 cars.
The GM-10 cars came out in 1988, not 1982, they replaced the RWD G-body cars, and they didn’t continue making the RWD cars after the GM-10 W-body cars came out, except for 20,000 or so Cutlass Supreme Classics.
I dunno about “catastrophe” the W-body was one of the best selling platforms in the US throughout the 1990’s, only behind the F series and GMT-800 C/K trucks. There were several cost and design overruns that did cost GM to loose money on the W-body initially, plus not having a sedan version ready until 1990 also did hurt, but seeing as to how the last W-body car, the 2014 Impala Limited is STILL in production, I am guessing that GM more than broke even on the W.
The Celebrity was not considered a great car either.
GM initially had plans to move all it’s B-bodies to FWD by 1986 according to most information from the early 1980’s. They were on a downsizing and FWD craze. However, the drop in fuel prices increased the popularity of the Chevy B-body enough that they decided to keep it around. Buick Olds and Pontiac had the H-body fullsize sedan in 1986 and 1987. It’s a good thing GM did keep around these old B-body and G-body cars, because they were about the only car lines making a profit in this era with their development long paid for.
According to all Corvettes are Red, the W-body was (at the time of the books writing , mid 1990’s), the platform that GM lost the most money on in history to that time. They needed the cars to be BIG hits, and they really flopped in the market compared to GM’s expectations.
Most of the Buicks until recently have been good looking cars. It’s as if they’re trying to be like other car makes.
If in fact there was a D body, it would have been the Cadillac limo models. The letter designators basically determined where the A, B and C pillars were placed. The idea was that the underlying structure should be common to the different makes, reducing cost. So all B bodies were similar in design, with the C bodies somewhat bigger. Since only Cadillac had limo sized cars, calling them D’s is not really necessary.
The Fleetwood 75 became a series 67 in 1959 until series numbering was dropped for the 1965 model year.
I don’t trust Wikipedia but looking now out of curiosity, it alleges that it was a platform, and that it also included the 1936-1942 Buick Limited. 🙂
I suppose it could be necessary to denote unique parts, especially components that would not be interchangeable with smaller Cadillacs that otherwise shared their looks in a smaller package?
Orrin: There was before World War II a Buick Limited which Cadillac objected to, that was sold mainly as a commercial vehicle (limos, etc.). The point of General Motors was to develop a line of makes that did not compete with each other, but shared enough components that costs were reduced. If you look at GM styling after WWII, the basic sedan look is very similar for all of the bodies (Chevy, Pontiac, Olds, buick and Cadillac). So the body structure is similar for the bodies, but door openings vary from the smaller (A) bodies to the bigger B and C bodies. Rear seat room also varies between the bodies.
Overall, the Oldsmobile isn’t an ugly looking vehicle. Its ugly part is the grille and the rear end.
I don’t think it’s “bad”, just pales in comparison if I have to pick between the two. I’d still drive it.
Interesting that the back end gets heat. When they came out, I thought they looked like the ’90-’97 Town Car in back, a very popular and critically acclaimed design.
I hated the rear end on this Olds. It didn’t match well with the shape of the greenhouse looked added on to bulk up the car to full-size. The rear end of the Cadillac tapers towards the end, like on a boat. You can tell which one was designed when Bill Mitchell was around.
+1. You nailed it. To this day the rear of that Olds combined with the tall greenhouse: painful to look at. I can tolerate the front end…
The Olds is probably trying to avoid dings. With respect to the letter designators for body platforms, those were more or less internal designators. Platform names got reused numerous times, so calling something a “A” body is meaningless unless you specify a time frame. In the early to mid 50’s Chevys were all A bodies. In the 60’s A bodies were smaller cars of some sort.
When the FWD big cars (Cadillac deVille and Fleetwood, Buick Electra and Olds 98) were introduced for the 1985 model year (delayed introduction), they were C bodies. The old RWD Fleetwood sedan remained in production as a Fleetwood Brougham to distinguish it from the FWD Fleetwood and Fleetwood 60 Special. I think Cadillac must have been thinking that the FWD Cadillacs would replace the RWD Cadillac in a very few years. But the FWD Fleetwoods must not have sold well. Probably the FWD Seville made more sense perhaps.
I owned an 86 Buick Electra T-type, which was one generation newer than the Olds shown above. The T-type was a European style sedan and very nice. Buick was forced to drop T-types for the 91 model year, as Olds was designated to be the European style sedan. That 98 probably is not a Euro style though, but the Olds Touring Sedan was.
I’ll take the Cadillac. Better ride and quieter I think, but not knowing for sure…
You’d be surprised; the front-drive C/H bodies were very soft and quiet.
After thinking about it…………….why can’t I have both?
Though the 98 needs some white walls asap. Though I would rather the 98 be one of the rare Touring Sedan versions of the 98, that way I can have a little euro with my brougham.
When I had my ’87 Brougham (I think the one pictured might be an ’87), I actually wanted to find a FWD C-Body to drive in the winter so that I could keep the Brougham in the garage. Was looking for a 98, Park Avenue, or 4.5L Sedan DeVille/Fleetwood. I thought finding, and alternately driving an SDV/Fleetwood in similar trim to the RWD Brougham would be cool/funny/unique. A big and little Cadillac.
A few months after hatching that plan and not yet having found the front driver of choice, I got a job in Manhattan, rendering that plan totally unnecessary.
As best I can tell, it’s an ’87. The ’87 and ’88 used the cross-hatch grill, and the *only* other externally visible detail difference I could find was that the drip molding trim has a break over the B Pillar on the ’87 and is one continuous piece on the ’88.
I would only consider the last of big RWD Cadillacs, when they had the retuned Corvette engine. Both performance and fuel consumption are better.
Those ’94-’96 models are pretty quick but I don’t think the L05 350 powered cars in the ’91-’93 RWD Cadillacs are too bad, now that I’m driving a ’93 Fleetwood Brougham. It’s fast enough to keep up with traffic without seeming winded and has loads of torque, and thus far I haven’t recorded an average mpg below 19–typically more in the 22-24 range. I think the ’91-’92 base option 305 was not terrible either, but I’ve only driven one once. All represent a significant improvement over the standard engine from 1982-1990.
The big difference is throttle body fuel injection vs tuned port injection. I owned an 84 corvette with throttle body and then an 86 with the tuned port. While horsepower was not all that much different, the performance was. The 4100 was probably worst for performance.
The 305 was a far better performer than the 307 in these Caddy’s from what I remember. Neither were fast but the 305 at least had some pep.
The Olds 98 of this era does ride very quiet and does most everything well enough. The 3800 powertrain is vastly superior to the olds 307 in the 4300 LB land barge Brougham but I still love those RWD boats nonetheless. But the best way to buy either of these cars is to get the 90-92 brougham with the 5.7 Chevy motor or go over to Buick for the then nicer looking and more cohesive Park Ave.
Having already owned a Cadillac D body (89 Brougham) and the similar Oldsmobile C body (84 Ninety Eight), I will go with the Oldsmobile here. I feel like a new experience today, and I would like to try one of these.
I’d choose the Olds also. Great engine and super isolated, and I like the front quarter glass and super busy dash.
Oldsmobile was doing its ‘not your fathers…’ ad campaign in 1989-91, so they were not looking for old style Broughams. Olds and Buick switched market positions after the Grand National was dropped, Olds aimed at ‘import buyers’. But then so was Pontiac, and we know the rest of the story.
Anyway, the RWD Caddy, with 1980 era body, was sold at the same time as that 98, for two whole model years, 1991-92.
Given the “not your father’s Oldsmobile” slogan, the fact that the Custom Cruiser appeared at all is curious, though its discontinuation after 2 years makes a little more sense. Maybe the “not your father’s part of that car was the fact that it couldn’t be ordered with woodgrain?
The Brougham is nice, but man, that paint color isn’t. I do love these anachronistic square models but personally I really liked the 1990 remodel. The composite lamps modernized it *just enough* while the minor changes to trim and the tails/rear fender caps updated the rest of the car nicely without spoiling the classic character. Of this generation the mid 80’s models are probably best avoided; I’ll take one from either end–an ’80 with the 368 (pre V8-6-4 system) or a ’90-’92 with the 350.
Those C-body FWD models I always found puzzling from a pure design standpoint. The fixed “vent” glass in the front doors because the side glass, if it were full-size, wouldn’t fit within the door body, drove me nuts.
I wish I knew more about platform architecture so I could understand why that was done.
Yeah – the little details really interest me.
Other than that, some of those C-bodies looked real nice, depending on exterior paint scheme and color. For my money, the Eighty-Eight was the looker of the whole bunch, especially in two-tone color.
However, the car that still had a bit of class was the Cadillac, for sure! A friend back then owned one of those Caddys – a 1977, I think. White with red & white interior. What a nice ride!
I think they were intentionally trying to hark back to the sportier-looking 65-68 models with the quarter glass. I thought it looked silly as a kid but twenty or so years later, I think it adds a touch of rakishness.
The first generation C bodies (Buick Electra, etc.) did not have the vent glass. But both the 1991 Buick Park Avenue and Olds 98 do, but not the Cadillac DeVilles. The Cadillac bodies were updated sooner, but even the 1994 Cadillacs do not get vent glass. So this may have been some kind of styling piece, or perhaps it was there to reduce wind with open windows. My guess is that it was not required, but maybe done for style.
Maybe to invoke the wrapped windscreens of the 1950s? Or could it have had some role in reducing wind noise maybe?
Oldsmobile for me. I’ve only encountered the H in recent memory as a LeSabre, where was able hop in the back seat, cross my legs (at 5’7″ behind an even shorter driver) and write a letter to a friend on a one-hour drive from Columbus to Dayton WITHOUT THE PEN BUDGING. I’ve yet to experience that kind of isolation in, say, an Avalon.
I’m really itching to find a nice H or C to write up!
One of the company cars at my Dad’s office was a ’98 LeSabre Limited with Touring suspension; it was a very nice car. I also loved driving my aunt’s 1986 Park Avenue. Lots of glass area, a manageable size, but so comfortable and competent.
“…Cadillac must have been thinking that the FWD Cadillacs would replace the RWD Cadillac in a very few years…”
That was GM’s plan, back in 1980 when gas went to 1 buck a gallon +, and predicted to be ‘Euro prices’ by 1985. Ford planned to drop the Panthers around same time, but gas stabilized, and GM kept some RWD cars, but Ford kept all of their biggies. GM lost buyers in the short run.
Easy to criticize GM, but in the early 80’s auto media, like C&D, was “looking forward to our country all driving smaller cars”. We all know what really happened.
It was their plan in 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996. I can’t criticize GM for thinking this way in 1980, but I can for most of the other years.
Yeah, “smaller cars in the future.” Then why are there so many suburbanites driving big-ass F-150 Platinums and King Ranches?
Really? GM cars kept getting smaller after 1985? I must have missed that….
They actually started up-sizing them as soon as they were able too again. Everything that came out in 1985-1986 was really designed between 1979-1982, I know that the couple of billion it would have cost to “throw out” everything and start from scratch may seem trivial, but……
Sort of a “Curbside Classic Effect”, as it has lots in common with both of these cars: today I saw a burgundy 1991-1992 Custom Cruiser in Providence, RI. I haven’t seen one of those in quite a while!
I like them both, but I would choose the Cadillac for its uniqueness on today’s roads.
I must be in the minority, ’cause I liked this version of the 98. More so than its cousin under the skin Buick Park Avenue. Hated the RWD Caddys – reminded me of driving to church on bitterly cold Sundays to listen to my boring-ass reverend.
Olds for me, no question. The 2nd generation C/H-bodies are really outstanding cars. The all-around best cars that GM built during the 90s, in my opinion.
Brougham Brougham Brougham Brougham Brougham, beautiful Brougham!
Oh and I like the Olds too.
We had a beautiful baby-blue Brougham in ’88 and a dark blue Regency in ’95. Both were outstanding cars, but nothing beats the class of the Brougham. Nothing.
Oldsmobile was great in the time. The 98 is the best Oldsmobile ever. I liked the 1986 model most.
I love my ’95 98 Regency Elite. The ride is great (air-suspended) and it is very comfortable to drive every day! Marge is also very dependable.
GM knew how to make a quiet cushy FWD vehicle, they had been doing it since the late 60s. I once drove a 84 Toronado 307 V8 through the countryside and at a deserted stop sign I actually opened the door and touched the pavement to make sure it was still there. While driving I couldn’t tell it was that isolating…
>The story behind the C and D platforms during this time in GM’s history is convoluted at best…
I had not realized until I read this that the Fleetwood was dropped from the Brougham’s name. I have been looking through my old Edmunds price guides and I find that things are rather more curious. In 1965 Cadillac dropped the series numbering scheme and the series were Calais, DeVille and Fleetwood. The Eldorado became a Fleetwood model at this point. Then the Seville joined the Fleetwood series in the mid 70’s.
The 1985 Cadillac’s are remarkable because we get the first FWD Deville, along with the FWD Fleetwoods. My 1985 Edmunds price guide shows that the Fleetwoods include the FWD and RWD models, along with the Eldorado and Seville.
1986 is where things become quite curious. The Fleetwood series includes only the limo’s and the Brougham. The Eldorado and Seville are now separate series. The FWD Fleetwood is listed in the Edmunds price guide as an option for the Deville series.
I do not have an Edmunds price guide for 1987, but my 1988 shows that the Brougham is a series and the Fleetwood is back as a FWD series. After the FWD Fleetwoods are dropped, the Fleetwood name reverts back to the RWD Brougham, and now is no longer applied to any current model in production since 1996.
Used to be that the “senior” Cadillacs were part of the Fleetwood series, even though they sometimes didn’t carry the Fleetwood name on the car, the Eldorado, was a Fleetwood Eldorado since 1963, when it lost the “V” and gained a “wreath” even though you hardly really saw Fleetwood prefixing Eldorado in an advertising, it was just “Eldorado”.
That ended around the late 80’s, even more interesting, there was a crossover year in 1993, when the “new” RWD Fleetwood and the “old” FWD Fleetwood were both available, Cadillac made the FWD Fleetwood a Sixty Special for one year, previously the Sixty Special name was reserved for a 1989-1992 ultra exclusive 1000-way custom seating package designed by Giugiaro.
My Cadillac history book shows that the Eldorado in the 60’s was a series 64, then a series 63 until 1965 when the series numbering scheme ended. Fisher and Fleetwood were body and finishing companies. Some Cadillac bodies were done by Fisher and finished by Fleetwood. At some point GM bought both companies. Fleetwood generally meant for Cadillacs a high end interior. So, from the beginning of the Eldorado in 1953, one might think of it being a Fleetwood.
All Cadillacs had “Interior by Fleetwood” tags, either on the sill or earlier on the passenger side of the seat.
It usually read “Interior by Fleetwood-Body by Fisher”. These door sill tags survived until the late 80’s on the Brougham.
By the 1960’s the only “real” Fleetwood cars were the limousines, the rest still had Body by Fisher trim tags. The 1957-1958 Eldorado Brougham also carried a Body by Fleetwood trim tag.
The 57-58 Eldo Bro was a series 70. 59-60 it was a series 69.
I have googled Fleetwood body and found that some Cadillac bodies were made by Fleetwood up to the early 30’s. By the mid 30’s Cadillac bodies were made by Fisher, but Fleetwood continued to finish some of them. After World War II I wonder how much of the Fleetwood group might have been left. After WW 2 Fleetwood implies a high level trim for Cadillac.
Body by Fisher was also found applied the Chevys.
I don’t want to go round and round on this. “Body by Fisher” is found on almost all domestic GM cars except Corvettes. It appears on cowl tags through 1981-1982 in some cases. It remained on the door sills on some GM cars into the 1990’s, though by then Fisher Body didn’t exist anymore, it had been folded in the Inland-Fisher-Guide components division.
Here is a cowl tag for a 1957-1958 Eldorado Brougham, it says Body by Fleetwood, now it may have been and probably was finished in the Fisher-Fleetwood Plant 21 in Detroit, as all Cadillacs were, but THE DIVISION felt that there was enough difference to stamp FLEETWOOD and not FISHER on the tag.
I am not exactly sure what your point is. However, the Cadillac history book that is my reference is:
Cadillac The Complete Seventy-Year History by Maurice D. Hendry published 1973 by Automobile Quarterly
Fisher Body took over Fleetwood Body, after which GM took over Fisher. This website/page may be of some interest:
http://www.coachbuilt.com/bui/f/fleetwood/fleetwood.htm
The end of this page indicates that the Eldorado Brougham is a custom body, but it does not come from Fleetwood. It does not come from Fleetwood because they stopped making bodies in 1932.
Obviously, if GM ownes Fisher and Fleetwood trademarks, they can use them anyway they see fit. As I understand it, the 57-58 Eldorado Brougham was built in the USA. However, the 59-60 was built by Pininfarina in Italy. The Eldorado Brougham and the Eldorado convertible are listed in my book as having distinctly different series numbers. The convertible was given a series 64 designation for 1959 and 1960, while the de Ville is a series 63. Then from 1961 thru 1964 it is a series 63, along with the de Ville. The coupe was dropped in 61.
I always like that Olds 98 series for the combination of very modern with retro elements like the more formal roofline and half covered rear wheels and simple shapes reminding me of a ’61 Continental. Also big windows, vast if cheapo by modern standards interior. I liked the dashboard design OK. Some years ago I was hoping they were so unfashionable they would be cheap on the used car market, but they really weren’t.
I love the 80s RWD Fleetwood style, I don’t like that color though.
That era of Olds 98 is something I’d definitely drive, but I don’t really like the looks of. The 80s RWD 98 Regency Brougham is a slick looker that shares some of the neat 80s Caddy type styling. By the next generation, they did that weird modern-euro/old styling thing and it just didn’t really work for the type of car that a 98 is. Not your father’s Oldsmobile = apologizing out the ass for what you are. Now they are history.
I cringe every time I see that Buick commerical pulling the same thing with all the people not being able to locate/identify the Buick right in front of them. As if the big triple shield and waterfall grill wasn’t an obvious enough tip off. Buick has made some pretty classy cars that are appreciated by those who know them. They have (had?) a solid market as the mature near-luxury marque, the worst thing they can do is to try to appear “hip” and not an “old lady car”.
Another problem I have with this Olds 98 is that it looks too much like an Achieva. I don’t get that, usually a company shares a look between models when that look is really attractive, e.g. ATS/CTS, LeSabre/Park Avenue.
Interesting comments. I enjoyed the article and the responses. I did want to address a few things. The Ninety Eight got an upgraded interior along with the Eighty Eight that shared parts with the Oldsmobile Aurora in 1995.
The people who ran Oldsmobile went to the heads of GM and asked to keep the Ninety Eight rear drive and fullsized like it appeared in the early 1980’s. GM said no. GM could have switched the Ninety Eight back to rear drive in 1991/1992 when Buick got the Roadmaster and Cadillac got the Fleetwood in 1993.
The other rumor I heard is that when Cadillac stopped using the 200 hp 4.9 liter V8, Oldsmobile wanted that V8 engine to help distinguish the Ninety Eight from Eighty Eight and for other reasons. It did not happen.
I own a 1995 Oldsmobile Ninety Eight, and I like it. The interior is an improvement over the 1991-1993 models. The things that hurt the 1991-1996 Oldsmobile Ninety Eight was the interior( 1991-1993) the front end and the rear. The concept on another website looked better than the production car.
Here is the link:
http://autosofinterest.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/1991-Oldsmobile-98-clay-d.jpg
Thank you for your time. Thank you for the articles and comments.
The way things worked at GM when there is more than one division wanting much the same thing, is to have each division propose what they want to do. I suspect the Buick and Olds both proposed a RWD car for the 92-96 model years, with Buick winning. My guess is that while there was room for one additional make, two may have been more than the production capacity.