There were benefits to being GM. Rush out on stage in a bold new outfit, and get laughed right off it? No problem, just run back to the costume department, where they’ll find you a tried and proven one, and the master seamstresses will nip and tuck it to fit your size A-body in a flash.
The 1978 Aeroback A-Bodies (CCCCC Part 9) were a royal flop, but adapting the 1975 Seville’s tried-and-proven Saville-row tailored suit was a quickie fix. And a fabulously successful one. For eight years (1980-1987) we were given the chance to amend our sins for not having bought one of the originals. And very many did.
“The Little Limousine” is what I remember it being called; was it in an ad or a review? But that sticks in my head, although it’s less honest than just calling it a Little Seville. But what’s honesty got to do with this business?
Of course “little” may not have been the right word, exactly. The A-Bodies did have six inches less wheelbase than the Seville’s 114″ stretched Nova X platform, but from the looks of it, that was all in getting the front wheels out front. The passenger compartments were more similar sized; with the nod undoubtedly going to the A-Bodies for better interior space utilization.
This interior is from a genuine Brougham edition of the Cutlass Supreme, and it is a cushy cabin indeed. No wonder folks kept buying them for so long. Not really a spacious car, but adequate. And although the Cutlass RWD platform was getting a bit long in tooth towards the end of its career, it was a more modern and space-efficient design than its competitor, the Chrysler Fifith Avenue.
Yes, these Cutlass Supreme Seville mini-me sedans were everywhere, if you actually looked. They were as much of the backdrop of the street-scape for so long, it seems odd to realize that not every sixth car is one anymore. Familiarity does breed contempt. But fear not: there’s still a healthy sprinkling of them around. Like most cars that get built a long time, the later ones seem pretty solidly screwed together indeed. All of these three have a Volvo-esque perpetual youthfulness to them. Or maybe their owners are Cutlass-proud.
Engines: let’s forget about them today. Did anyone who bought one of these really care about what was under the hood, as long as it was unobtrusive? Nah. Any slightest pretense of performance and sportiness had long been purged from the Cutlass Classic playbook. Soft and silky; cushy and whooshy; that’s all that counted.
What else is there to say? Hmmm; your turn.
Why didn’t the rear windows roll down?! That stunk as a kid…
My dad had an 83 Cutlass Cruiser wagon with the 3.8 liter Buick um… powerplant? Lemon yellow with Woodgrain and a combo olive green/tan interior. It served us well, bought it in 1986 and traded it in in 1993. But she was used up at the end, that car had absolutely nothing left to give.
We used it to tow a 3800lb boat to and from the lake every weekend in the summer, stacked tons of misc building materials on top and then eventually I got my license…
She only failed us two times. Once was because dad didn’t exactly believe in tune ups.. After being towed to the shop the mechanic showed us that 4 of the 6 spark plugs had eaten their electrodes and the second time was when someone did a neutral drop and cracked the flexplate…
Solid ride!
GM wanted to preserve hip room on these things, since they were considerably narrower than the previous mid-sized cars. So they made the windows stationary. Even as a kid, I giggled whenever I read the brochures for them; Buick tried to make it sound like it was luxurious to have rear windows that didn’t roll down. Yet on the X-cars, they were not stationary.
I kinda have a loathe relationship with these particular Cutlasses. A large number of them were equipped with the 3.8L 2 barrel “OPEC Crisis” V6 (I’d even say that at least 45% of them were sold like that) GAWD did that thing ever just wheeze. The carb was nothing more than an inhaler to provide relief to that engine, since every stab of the gas pedal was giving it an asthma attack.
And out of the remaining domestic Mid Size RWDs I kinda give a nod to the 83-86 LTD/Marquis as being more modern, and perhaps more tasteful (and quiet). The 3.8 Essex didn’t holler as much when spurred. And those were available as wagons up to the end of their lives. And were outgrowths of the genuinely better Fairmont. Then again Oldsmobile had it’s last Million unit production peak in 1985, so this might have been the last brand equity peak before they slid into old peoples oblivion.
I had an 86 Fox-body Marquis wagon that was a really nice car. The wagons were attractive, the sedans not so much. And while the interiors were nice, they were not quite as nice as the Cutlass if you wanted to do full-out Brougham. In truth, I would have been more of a 5th Avenue/Diplomat kind of guy, but I know that I don’t have all that much company. A nice Fury/Diplomat would give a high-end Cutlass a run for its money for a comfy interior, and the Chrysler version took it up another notch or two..
I think that these Cutlass sedans made up about 40% of the new car registrations in midwestern rural counties in those years (Caprices, 88s Panthers and pickups made up the rest). If these eventually came with the 307 V8, it would probably get up and move fairly well. In truth though, these only became mildly attractive to me when the big Olds and Buick B and C bodies went away after 84-85.
When I was in a carpool in 1987-89, one of the riders had a 1983 Cutlass Supreme coupe with the V-8. It wasn’t especially fast, and under full throttle it sounded coarse and felt rough. It definitely wasn’t anything like the Rocket V-8s of legend in that regard.
The owner wasn’t too religious about regular maintenance…according to her, one time she checked the oil, only to discover that it was almost gone! And the car had well over 100,000 miles on the odometer (granted, mostly highway miles), so it was reliable.
My Uncle still has a 1984 Ninety Eight with the 307, and there were multiple 307 equipped Cutlass Coupes in the family. The 3.8 Sedans were reserved for Wives grocery duties and hand-me-down cheap to insure first cars for kids. The 307 powered cars seemed “Competent”: Not exactly thrilling, but par for the times. I would guess most of the pep was “all in the gearing” but they happily cruise the interstate at 85 all day long. I know the 4-4-2 Cutlasses with the 180hp 307 can hit 0-60 in the low 9s, I’d think the 140hp ones would be good for mid 11 0-60s. I don’t think that dog of a 3.8 could smoke a well tuned 110hp Corvair. Or a Post Emissions 250 equipped Nova for that matter.
A contemporary Ford 302 seems livelier and more playful, a Diplomat/Fury/Fifth Avenue 318 smoother, but the low to mid 20s mpg the 307 turns out in Freeway cruising makes it seem like it was a good compromise.
I think it could have been a better engine if it was developed beyond 1983. I don’t think it needed to be an engineering dead end.
I was guessing on the 307. I had that engine in an 84 Ninety Eight Regency and in an 89 Cad Brougham. Those cars were mighty -ahem- relaxed, but I always figured that if you could get rid of 1000 pounds, the engine wouldn’t be bad.
I guess my problem with these Cutlasses is the same one I have with my Mother’s 06 LaCrosse that I am driving right now as she recovers from knee surgery: I don’t mind a car that floats and plows like a big car as long as it really is a big car. If I am going to give up all the bulk and room, I would rather have something a little livelier in the accelleration and handling departments. This is where GM’s midsize and smaller offerings have always failed me.
Yeah, I have to say a lot of the times the W bodies that replaced these felt as brick like and unwieldy as the cars they replaced. (especially the base models with soft springing).
But then again the W’s aren’t really all that much smaller (at least in length, and in some cases weight) than these A/Gs, and when the Sedans debuted in 1990-91 they were sometimes longer than the “Full Size” C/H front drivers, all of but the DeVille during those years were under 200 inches long and about 3500lbs. I know the original Lumina was the longest of the Ws at over 200 inches, but it didn’t bump into any C or H body, since the Caprice was the full sizer at Chevy. I think that lead to another issue with Buick and Oldsmobile in particular: For nearly half a decade they offered 3 sedans that were within a few inches of being the same size. Why do we need 6 middle market cars that aren’t necessarily unique in purpose? The W bodies noticeably for their size also repeat a mistake of these A/Gs, they aren’t particularly roomy or comfortable inside (the rear seats are too close to the floor) compared to the H bodies.
The next in the series will be the most interesting, as it seems the 1988-97 Cutlass Supremes were the answer to a question no one answered. Even if I’d still take one of the Convertibles: 1995, Dark Green with a Tan top, please!
I have the exact car you are looking for sir and will possibly be selling it very soon…if you might still be interested
you can email me at [email protected]
These are body on frame aren’t they? I’ve always thought they’d be a decent candidate to steal the frame, suspension and most of the running gear to stuff under a 50s car
These cars may have had a subframe up front. They definitely were not complete unit-body cars.
BOF they are.
I believe the rear windows did not go down because there was not enough room for the window to go down inside the rear doors.
Looking at the cars in the photos it seems to me that the rear window could have been made to roll halfway down anyway – one would think that was the reason for the rear door vent window, to make the main window shorter so it could go down at least part way.
I thought that the rear windows did go down starting with the 1980 models. GM jerry-rigged a roll-down mechanism in response to nearly universal customer complaints.
The 3.8 V-6 used in these cars was not the long-lived and smooth version that became ubiquitous in various GM cars during the late 1980s and 1990s. A friend had a 1982 Cutlass Supreme coupe, and the engine grenaded at about 82,000 miles, which he later learned was a common occurrence with this engine.
This car, along with the Buick version, dominated the intermediate sedan class in the early 1980s. As Paul says, in the early 1980s, these were virtually EVERYWHERE.
The Cutlass and Regal were so popular, that GM attempted to turn the Cutlass Ciera and other A-bodies into front-wheel-drive versions of this car. The result wasn’t all that great. Ford, meanwhile, had been getting whomped by GM in this segment, so it had less to lose by turning in a completely new direction. Which it did with the 1986 Taurus/Sable, which made ALL of the GM entries seem old hat virtually overnight.
As the owner of a 1987 sedan with every concieveable option, the rear windows most certainly DID NOT go down.
As the owner of a 95 supreme convertible they most certainly do go ALL the way down! Its really an amazing car.
I had an ’86 sedan and my windows did go down…but only half way. The window slats next to them also turned inward for more circulation
Hmmm….would I have chosen an A-body Brougham, or this Supreme if I was a new car buyer in, say, 1986? What was the price difference between a Supreme Brougham and a Ciera Brougham?
Tough call. I’d have probably gotten the Ciera for fuel mileage, but secretly wanted the Supreme.
The Ciera also had the more modern fuel injected version of the 3.8 V6 by 1986 with 140hp. Although it wasn’t as highly rated on surveys for initial quality or durability as it would towards the turn of the decade. But they were still aimed at more of a consumer audience at this point too (I’ve seen 86-88 Cutlass Ciera Cruisers with the 3.8L, Leather and Console Shift).
I would have definitely taken a Cutlass Ciera Cruiser with those options over any of the RWD Cutlasses, or just gone whole hog and gotten a Custom Cruiser. I doubt the 307 was any less economical in that than it was in the Cutlasses.
Yeah, any sane person would go Ciera by 1986 I’d think. My aunt had one about that vintage, a sedan with red leather.
I was looking for a very cheap used car a couple years ago and test drove an ’89 (I think) which had a Chevy 2.8 V6 in it. I thought this was weird, but I guess they built them with that mill for a couple years. The owner had advertised it as a V8, which I thought was just a typo, but come to find out he literally thought it was a V8 and seemed sad when I introduced him to reality. They had owned it several years allegedly…how could he not know that??
The car was straight but worn, with faded paint though no rust. The interior had aged OK as they tend to do, nothing special but it was all still there and no tears etc.
The scary part was the steering-inputs were a mere suggestion due to all the slop, the engine flopped around on what were almost certainly nonexistent mounts with the slightest throttle application, and every joint or moving part in the front end creaked, thunked, and ground with each minute movement. It was literally frightening. The owner clearly thought there was zero wrong with it.
I didn’t buy the car, but if I had had the time and maybe $300 in parts for motor mounts and front end work, it probably would have made a decent driver. The engine ran fine.
Yeah, they switched or offered the Chevy 2.8 concurrently with the Buick short deck 3.0 sister of the 3.8 in 1985 (I think), then moved the 3.0 with fuel injection to the N bodies exclusively and had the 2.8 Chevy as the mid step engine for the Century and Ciera through 1988, 1989 they replaced all of the V6 options with the 3300.
Having owned one with the 307V8, 4 brl carb, and posi-trac would I own one again? Yes with one modification. The engine.
The 307 was adequate for its time and certainly not the worst of the smog choked V8s that the Big 3 tried to sell in the 70s and 80s but once speed limits started to rise in the 1990s the engine was woefully out of it’s comfort zone above 65mph and having all 4 barrels open ALL THE TIME on the interstate was not a recipe for serrenity or anything approaching fuel efficency. I used to think the appropriate solution would be an LT1 and matching transmission. Being older and wiser I’d like to try the 3800V6 that GM reoriented for RWD applications in the 1990s Camaro and see if the performance + fuel economy would be a nice blend.
But honestly I did LOVE that car and that car is why I shed a tear when Oldsmobile died.
I’ll never understand why GM, in the face of relaxed CAFE regulations in the 1980s and $10 oil, didn’t swiftly move to advance cams, EFI, intake and other improvements that only really showed up on the 1996 GMT Vortec and the 1994 B/D LT1.
Sunk costs from the 1970s? Trying to redirect customers to the A/W bodies with their more sophisticated platforms and powertrain? Both? I know GM was always a case study in diseconomies of scale.
Doesnt sound like we missed much by hot getting these down under GMH moved away from US platforms in the 70s and took on Opels heavily modified for local use but they did still handle well. They used local engines and Opels gutless 1900 . The 6 we had dated back to the EH of 63 and the 253/308 cube V8s were of 60s origin updated for emmisions. When lead got outlawed GM begged the RB30 from Nissan for 1 model then went to the 3800 injected Buick for its mainstream motor which had very good performance out here possibly due to the Commodores weight they were light 1300 kg or there abouts basicly the Caddy Catera but Buick powered insteadof the inline 6 from Opel they were a huge success.A manual Commodore could get 35mpg HWY so not bad on gas either,something must have wrong with US thinking in that GM US made FWD compulsory in stead of making proper cars.
These suckers were also available with the unloved 260 V8 for the first couple of model years. I think in contemporary road tests those were even slower than the V6′s.
Isn’t that the torque-less 267? We had one in our Impala, I was so disappointed in our first V8 powered car. It made our AMC 258 seem like a rocket ship.
Back to the car at hand. My father almost bought one of these. I begged him not to because I couldn’t take all the rectangles, and he relented.
Different engine, but the Olds 260 was probably similar in terms of performance, or lack thereof. Pontiac also offered a 265 V8 in 1980-81, which actually was the base engine in Firebird Formulas.
Arrrrgggghhhh! Condemned fixed-windows!
This disease spread to the original Chrysler K-cars on the 4-door sedans and wagons, too.
Back in December 1977, shortly after this body style first came out, my wife and I (only married for 3 months) went to look for a new car. Her 1970 Mustang was getting tired, and I had recently bought our 1976 Gremlin. Well, guess what? The original version of this body style in Malibu guise on the 4-door sedans had a full-size fixed window in the rear door and a little glass triangular vent in the C pillar. I was appalled at this weight-saving feature – that was the reasoning behind the fixed-glass disease. No deal, ever!
Well, we considered a Nova and an Aspen and a Ford Fairmont.
No deal either way. The Mustang was kept awake for another 2½ years.
We talked it over for about 3 minutes and decided to save our money for a 10% down-payment on a house (you had to do that back then!).
One of the wisest decisions I, we ever made, too.
Fixed windows…AAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!! I HATE THEM ALL!
Don’t get me started…………………….
“Little Limousine” was actuall the description Buick used in ads for it’s A-body Century sedan. Period ad pic below:
http://images.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/03/century81.jpg
IIRC at the time, I was told that the windows rolling to half way down was mandated by the feds. Apparently, some young kids had fallen out of the car at speed and some lawyer successfully lobbied to get the auto makers to halt the progress at halfway, or in some cases (like two doors) to not work at all. At least that was the story the Mercury dealer gave my brother when he bought his 1978 Mercury Zephyr two door. I guess I could check on Snopes.com…
I could never get behind the chopped off look of these cars. I never ever related them to the 1st gen Seville, either. To me it was just late stage malaise CYA-ing, to keep these cars as a backup in case the FWD versions flopped badly. While I’m probably one in a crowd of about seven who liked the previous ‘aeroback’ GM mids from the late 70′s, these seemed more like caricatures of the successful and practical B body RWD cars from 1977. Someone (probably in Car and Driver) joked that the designers should be brought up on formal charges for the look of these formal roofs. Unfortunately, these were even worse than a flopped FWD A body. Small, underpowered, cramped and IIRC, not inexpensive.
Of course, there were precious few alternatives. The Fox body Fords were pretty competent, but the 2.3L Pinto motor was awful in these things. The 200 six was better, but few of these ever seemed to come with V8′s. They doled out seemingly few 302s in the Fairmont/Futura/LTD II versions. The K car derivatives were equally cramped, slow and again not very inexpensive. They really didn’t come into their own until turbos were common across the line.
Accords were underpowered, small and expensive, Toyota Cressidas were either the same size or bigger, and similar issues. Datsun Maximas were same size and mission, but more money. VW /Audi really didn’t have competition for this, and MB was way too expensive for this kind of duty.
Russian Roulette Oldsmobile style: Cutlass Supreme or Cutlass Ciera?
Oh, BTW: I hate the mini-donk. Some things you just can un-see…
Ah, my (screen)namesake! What was it about these cars that always warmed my heart? Looking back I would have to say that I personally liked how it provided much of the luxury, ride and style of a full size car but in a more manageable package. I remember as a kid back in the 80′s when my parents had one, a 1986 Supreme Brougham coupe, black with claret red leather and chrome super stock wheels (what a looker!). I was hardly the most popular kid in school, but whenever I was dropped off in front of the school in that car, even the snootiest of kids would nod approvingly in my direction. Even back then, Oldsmobile still meant something, and that is what I loved about it.
Recently I acquired a rather pristine 1995 Buick LeSabre Limited, and one of the things that I love about it is how much it reminds me of the 1987 Supreme Brougham I had once (see my avatar). Very close in size, and just as luxurious. Sure, it’s a throwback to the Great Brougham Epoch, but that’s what I love about it.
My wife had 1983 4-door model in that omnipresent maroon color that afflicted about a third of the Cutlasses of that time. She drove that thing before I finally brought back the family’s Lincoln Mark VI from the dead.
Hmmm… memories of that car…
My then girlfriend, myself, three of her younger siblings and myself all picking up my mom and driving her off to meet her family.
They had seven people in that car (maybe eight) and my mom was used to being around far nicer stuff (Acuras, Cadillacs, Lincolns, etc.) I think the thing smelled like a cross between sweat and kids. Not all that pleasant.
I was scared that my mom would think ill of my then girlfriend due to the ragged nature of that beast. 11 years old, no A/C, young kids strewn about, lots of wore off parts and ends strewn about.
My mom never told me anything… and I definitely was not about to ask her opinion about it. We took everyone out to a laser show at Stone Mountain Park and it turns out we all had a great time.
About a year later the mom replaced the engine with a crate one. Drove it 1500 miles. Sold it. I always thought that was such a fantastic waste. But then again, that car was no better than the Mark VI when it came to fuel economy.
Another forgettable POS 70s and 80s style American car. There’s still a ton of them alright…rotting away at Pick n’ Pull. If this is a classic, then so is the Yugo.
The fixed rear windows were to save $$, not from a lawsuit. GM didn’t want to admit a mistake and change them. If they were from a lawsuit, all 4 doors now would have fixed windows.