Time to roll out this ’67 Cutlass that has been a neighborhood fixture hiding in its garage for so long, and get on with the Cutlass story, Chapter 3.
Just one minor hitch: It’s suddenly gone, moved far away. In desperation, I did what I almost never do: put out feelers. Even “Mr. Oldsmobile” couldn’t help, but he did promise me something else as good or better, for another day. In the meantime, this will have to do, along with the wonderful www. But the CCCCC show must go on without fail every Thursday, even with substitutes. And I swear I’ve got all the rest safely in my digital folders, unless I missed something; the Cutlass story is a mighty long and complicated one.
The big news for 1966 was of course the new ‘tunnelback” styling on all GM intermediate coupes. I’ve already suggested where that inspiration came from, at least in part. That, combined with GM’s coke-bottle look and a Toronado-inspired front end made the ’66 Cutlass family certainly look more voluptuous.
The evolution of the Cutlass was like watching the neighbor’s little girl grow up: the ’61-’62 was like the bright rambunctious ten year old all excited about her science project: a turbo-charged aluminum engine! By 1964, she had shot up, but not yet out. But by 1966, she was quite fully developed indeed, playing basketball in the driveway, and you better not let her dad catch you staring at her too long. And I’m a little worried where this line of analogies will eventually take me to in the eighties.
Yes, the ’66 and ’67 coupes were lookers indeed. You can all argue endlessly the pros and cons of the Cutlass versus the Malibu, Le Mans and Skylark, but this one rides pretty high in my book. It’s hard to beat the ’66-’67 GTO/Le Mans, but then one can’t stare at the same girl forever. Variety is the spice of life, and the Cutlass makes a nice number two, at the minimum.
And I know the 442 is the sexy one in the family, but we’re going to have to practice a bit of visual abstinence. We’ve already done a 442 CC, and I look forward to another one, but the whole main thrust of CCCCC is to document the Cutlass’ rise (and subsequent fall) to the top of the sales charts. The 442 had little or nothing to do with that. And that goes for the Vista Cruiser too, so it will get its own CC (do I hear cheers?). So lets move our eyes on to the really big story of the Cutlass in 1966.
The first-ever Cutlass Supreme! The influence of the 1965 Ford LTD was blazingly fast, although in the mid-size field, Olds was the quickest to draw its luxury Cutlass. The Supreme came only in the four door Holiday hardtop body style in ’66, and as a variant of the Cutlass line.
But that would quickly change; in ’67 the Cutlass Supreme became its own separate line, which included coupe, hardtops, sedans and a rag top. All the ’67s also got a new grille and a few other retouches too.
And in a foreshadowing of things to come, the ’67 CS (I’m going to be using that abbreviation a lot from now on) coupe jumped to the top of the sales stats, for the whole F-85/Cutlass family, that is. With 42k sales, the ’67 CS coupe had a long way to go to domination, but it was a start.
Since we’re perusing the Olds brochures, how about a look at those engines? The Cutlass came well endowed in that regard too. The standard engine was the 320 hp four-barrel high-compression 330 CID (5.4 L) V8. No options, except a low-compression version for regular gas lovers. Standard engine on the Vista Cruiser was a 250 hp version. And the F-85′s standard engine now had the smooth 250 CID (4.1 L) Chevy six instead of the odd-fire Buick V6. Good call, although I don’t remember anyone getting their knickers in a twist over this Chevy engine in an Olds like they did some fifteen years later.
Speaking of wagons and F-85, lets do take a quick look at them, especially when the copy reads “These two Olds wagons look trim as majorettes”.
That’s just what came to my mind too. Every time I see one…and what does that make the Vista-Cruiser?
And the lowly F-85 coupe: “just as trim as a stripper”. Yes, that would have been my father’s Oldsmobile, had he indulged in such things as mid-premium brands.
Let’s wrap this pinch-hitting chapter up with a look to the future. This ’67 CS may be a four door, but it already embodies very much the feel and styling cues that made later versions so successful. Stylish, but in ways that aged well, not just trendy. The Goldilocks size. The coupe-style formal roof-line. The slab-sides largely unadorned. A confident poise. Stout engines. Better than average build quality. And that name, of course. All of the ingredients in the recipe for future chart-topping success are here so proudly on display. But who would have guessed that in 1967?
![1979_Datsun_510_hatchback_(3)[1]](http://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/1979_Datsun_510_hatchback_31-50x50.jpg)
Any of those cars sitting in your driveway in the late 60s screams to the neighbors “We’re doing alright, thank you!”
It seemed as though Olds starting hitting its stride around 1966, after stumbling around in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The new Toronado helped renew the division’s reputation for engineering innvoation, but the Eighty-Eight, Ninety-Eight and F-85/Cutlass/442 were where the real sales action was.
In 1972, my parents bought a mint 1967 Delmont 88 Holiday sedan with 19,000 miles on the odometer from an elderly neighbor. That car was tough as nails, and pretty quick, too. In the late 1970s, my friend’s family bought a 1967 Cutlass Supreme Holiday coupe for his sister, and it was far more reliable than their brand-new 1978 Plymouth Horizon.
That Delmont 88 made my parents “Oldsmobile people” right up until the marque’s bitter end. My mother had lusted after 1960s Pontiacs, and my father tended to be pretty tight, but after that Delmont, they regularly bought one-year-old or brand-new Eighty-Eights every 5-6 years.
The Cutlass Supreme may have been the first signal that Americans were ready to accept slightly smaller cars. It was handsome, well-trimmed, reasonably well-built and pretty quick, too. When I was a kid, a fair number of us would have been happy with a Cutlass Supreme as the family bus (a 442 or, better yet, a Hurst Olds, would have been ideal, but good luck in selling our middle-American suburban parents on THOSE cars).
The Cutlass Supreme always seemed classy in a way that other intermediates were not. It also wasn’t as stodgy as the full-size cars, which had a garnered a definite “mom-and-dad” image by the late 1960s.
Even the 442 and Hurst Olds seemed like fast cars for buyers with some extra money and a little more taste, as opposed to the other muscle cars.
I always thought this generation of A-body looked pretty good as a sedan (as opposed to the ’68-’72 cars and other intermediates of this vintage that awkwardly adapt styling intended for coupes) and I really dig the “Holiday Sedan” CS hardtops shown here. The ’67-’68 Olds front clip, with the parking lights between the headlamps, is an interesting look, too.
All told, ’66-’67 is my favorite Cutlass. Or any A-body for that matter. The coke-bottle styling, tunneled rear glass and all-around good proportions and detailing. Later cars started to go cheap inside, and models like the Cutlass Supreme, which is so classy and understated here, dipped ever-deeper into the realm of faux-luxury cheesiness.
I didn’t know any Olds people growing up. My parents were Buick devotee’s and the neighbors were strictly Chevy, Ford, Pontiac. Exciting.
That is until my older brother bought his first car, a ’69 Cutlass. It was white with black vinyl interior and the ever present evergreen tree air freshener that stunk. (thinking about that aromoa co-mingled with cigarette smoke and the heater in the winter can get me nauseated.) But that car was cool and very fast!
As I recall the engine and exhaust had a distinctive Oldsmobile sound that can be described as a muted rumble of sorts.
I dug that car. A few years later my first car was a ’69 Buick Wildcat that i paid $300 for. Ugly as can be but also very fast and could cruise for days at high speed.
why oh why do we have to have b pillars? i really miss the ’60′s styling that allowed open windows with nothing between them. i’m sure it all has to do with safety but can’t somebody figure out a way to put this feature back into modern cars?
Get t-boned in a four door hard top and you’ll know why.
Or have to realign the doors.
Or have to yell over the wind roar at 70 mph.
Or the rattles, squeaks and body shake and flex.
if they can make convertibles work, than a pillarless hardtop should be a piece of cake….
“How to go Elegant without going overboard”
I think that was probably as accurate as American Automobile Advertising ever got. Cutlasses did stay rather restrained always, from the original 1961 coupe, and if you didn’t fall victim to half vinyl roof brougham hell, even the Colonnade era coupes were restrained and not particularly baroque hell. You can even say the initial W-body coupes were tasteful before they added all that cladding
I wonder where this is gonna warp to when we get to the Cutlass (Calais, Ciera, Supreme, Salon) era of the 1980s.
Ooh…. and random Craigslist find: http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/cto/2261563094.html
I kinda want it. Anyone wanna loan me $7K?
Paul, just wanted to say how much you have opened my eyes.
As a child of the 70/80s, never had much time for these cars. They looked ugly, and the 1980s GM cars in particular I hated. There was this time looking at the catalogue for the Olds Tornado, but that is another story.
But you’re really getting me to appreciate those late 60s, early 70s cars. I can see how much CAFE/oil crisis/EPA gutted GM — after creating these beauties then getting smacked around they just gave up.
My wife’s family almost always had Oldsmobiles. Her mother passed away two years ago. One of my wife’s favorite pictures of her mother is the one where she’s driving her then new 1966 Cutlass convertible up the driveway of her childhood home. It was a sunny day and the yellow and white Cutlass sparkled. Good times for my wife and her mom. Rest in peace, Nancy.