(first posted 7/29/2011) Is the final version of the RWD Cutlass Coupe a Classic? Not exactly in the definition of the CCCA. More like CC, as in Coca Cola. When the same basic concept has been built continuously for twenty-eight consecutive years, and became the best selling car of its kind for much of that time, not to mention the best selling car in some of those years, I’d say it has the right to wear that label. Which the final version of 1988 actually did: The Cutlass Supreme Classic. But there’s a very dangerous, even deadly risk in wrapping oneself in the Classic moniker. Where does one go from there?
This final version of the RWD Cutlass Coupe was made through 1988. And although the Cutlass name was prostituted across a farrago of Smallmobiles, and the Cutlass Supreme name was revived in GM-10 FWD form, this one really is the end of the road for the Classic Cutlass. And for American ADD standards, a twenty eight year run of the same basic concept might as well be an eternity.
The Cutlass Coupe arrived in 1961 as a sporty variant of the brand new F-85 (CC here), GM’s first bold foray into the step-up compact field. The premise of compacts one step above the lowest cost ones was an iffy proposition, and high-trim versions like the cutlass largely saved their bacon.
Americans wanted style and spirit, not dreary stripper F-85s. Although performance was a significant part of the new Cutlass image, one in tune with the times, ultimately it was its other qualities that made it a classic. A stylish coupe, with the amenities to make it a comfortable one. The perfect combination for millions of Americans to plant on their suburban driveways.
And although the Cutlass Coupe stayed largely true to its original conceptual premise, it obviously also became ever more conservative, especially in its final iteration. The original Cutlass was a brash new thing; in fact there had never been anything like it before. Downright revolutionary! Yes, the Cutlass reflected its times (and the people that made those times) almost perfectly through its lifespan. That may well be the key to its enduring success. How many sixties “revolutionaries” ended up voting for Reagan? I know of at least one.
It should not come as a surprise that this final incarnation of the Classic Cutlass (1981 – 1988) almost perfectly overlaps Reagan’s years in the White House. Maybe it should have just been called the Cutlass Conservative. The Cutlass was the last holdout of its genre, a living time capsule. While even American car buyers were snapping up jelly-bean Taurii, the traditional square-edged Cutlass coupe soldiered along.
And although the image of the Cutlass evolved substantially, the final version is surprisingly close to the original in terms of its size. The Classic is a foot longer than the ’61, but that’s all due to excessive overhangs. It actually rides on a wheelbase (108″) four inches shorter than Job Number One. Close enough, for almost three decades of change. But size itself is hardly the final determinant.
There’s some even greater commonality under the hood. The 3.8 L V6 that quite likely resides under this one and so many others was directly derived from the 215 CID (3.5 L) aluminum V8 that powered the original. In 1983, at least, there were some other choices too, including no less than two diesels; the 5.7 L V8 and the 4.3 L V6, which supposedly had solved all of the V8’s shortcomings. Few wanted to be GM’s beta testers to find out if that was really the case.
And the not-so-hot 260 CID V8 was also on the tepid tap. 1983 was the tail end of the big bad energy crisis v.2, and the engine choices reflected that. Towards the end of the Cutlass’ long run, the 307 Olds V8 with a four barrel carb at least provided a bit more of that original Cutlass zest, although there’s little doubt in my mind that it couldn’t have outrun a ’61.
The role of the original Cutlass had long been taken over by the BMW 3 Series. A sporty coupe is a classic concept in its own right, but time stands for no car. Perhaps the Cutlass represents the crash of GM better than any other car, the poster boy of everything that went wrong, despite the fact that these final Cutlasses were probably some of the better-built GM cars of the era.
GM failed to see that the war it was fighting wasn’t just against cheap economy cars from Japan, but a paradigm shift that literally turned the American industry upside down. Americans always wanted the same thing the original Cutlass promised: a ” high-styled! high-spirited!” coupe. But what changed was the expectations of the ownership experience. Even though “high-styled” may have become ever-more conservative for many Americans, that wasn’t good enough. We don’t have to recite the endless litany of GM’s quality woes to know what happened. Even if the last years of the Cutlass were better than some of its earlier ones, that wasn’t nearly good enough. One short section of dike does not hold back a tsunami.
There’s a bittersweet aspect to the Cutlass Classic: the last of its kind could have just been another stage in its evolution. American cars are in another ascendancy, and a new Cutlass Coupe would be a nice alternative to an Infiniti G or 3 Series. But that ship left a very long time ago, and the Cutlass backed itself into a corner. It’s too nice of an example, and too sunny of a day to call this Cutlass a GM Deadly Sin. But ultimately, that’s what it represents. Change or Die.
BOF rear-drive coupes…which was the last one? I guess these G-bodies. I think the Crown Vic 2-door ended in ’87, the Caprice about then as well.
I think that at least in the case of 2-door cars they were doomed no matter how advanced they were. Any kind of big coupe is essentially a niche market at this point for any manufacturer.
I do like these old Supremes, though.
I firmly believe that the death of the beautiful coupes was the fixed rear windows – hear me out – that made them impractical for back seat passengers.
I remember a Buick ad touting their large FWD sedans in the 80’s and re-introducing a large coupe. The ads went something like: “…years ago America’s roads were full of big, beautiful coupes…” Well, the windows were still fixed, and that lack of a feature sealed(!) the death of the large coupe.
I don’t and have never understood why the automakers removed the opening rear windows, pillarless hardtop or sedan. I believe it would make a difference, A/C or not.
I think initially that it was structural integrity reasons. Which the pillarless coupes from Mercedes proved is a non starter. So it really was cost cutting.
But I have to agree. Part of the allure, the sporting air of coupes was the “Hardtop” phenom brought in by the 3 1949 GM Hardtops. The style along with “Open Air” motoring without being in direct sunlight. I guess the BMW 3 series gets past the rule because of brand cachet and what seems to be an almost mandatory sunroof option.
I just think of how much better looking the Colonnade coupes would have been pillarless. But in the case of the H-body coupes (the last actually pretty mass market big coupes from GM) they had too much glass area to have roll down windows.
It has nothing to do with structurual integrity, it’s just a fad, nothing else. Pillarless two-door and four door hardtops were a fad, just like the Brouhgam epoch opera windows and “collonade coupes” were a fad. At the same time this particular car was made, there were other hardtops made, like the Mercedes W123 and W124 coupes. The Japanese also made four door hardtop version of many of their cars for the Japandese domestic market. Car design is very much about fads and fashions.
I do believe the Colonnade coupes actually were designed for Federal Rollover standards in the US that GM anticipated, but never came to be (the same ones that were supposed to outlaw convertibles). Given those Colonnades were Body on Frame cars, I doubt their actual bodies were all that stiff.
It might have been a combination of both things. Lots of glass area doesn’t help the “Brougham” feeling, but also looking how much this 1959 Impala crumbles against a 2009 Malibu there is some credence to the federal rollover standards part of it.
One of the reasons for the disappearance of roll down rear windows was downsizing in the late 70’s. Designers discovered that they could keep the same amount of rear shoulder room ( allowing 3-across seating ) by recessing the arm rests into the side panels of the interior — the downside to this was that the recessed arm rest cut into the space where the window mechanism used to be.
Also, the near-universal fitment of air conditioning pretty much made pillarless hardtop coupes and sedans irrelevant. No one was opening the rear windows anyway.
Fads and fashions? 😮 I thought car design was about bean counting and safety regulations. I’m not sure which sounds worse.
Regarding the BMW 3 series coupes, how often do people even ride in the back seat? I think rolling down the rear windows is a moot point. If people want open air they get a retractable hardtop. It’s an all-or-nothing proposition.
Another opinion: 2 door cars were killed by mandatory child safety seats. When I was a kid in the early 60s, my parents and most others I knew had 2 door cars so their unrestrained kids wouldn’t open a door and fall out while mom drove down the street. As kids got older, then they got 4 doors and wagons.
But did you ever try to put carseats into a 2 door? I did – an 84 Olds 98 Regency 2 door. Not a small car, and it was a gigantic PITA. I still remember the position. Door open, one foot on the rear floor with knee resting on the driveshaft tunnel while fooling with the buckle. Then go to the other side and do it again. Twice, because of the kid in the booster seat got the middle. Then do the same thing with each kid.
I personally loved the 2 door – open one door and put in a briefcase or bag of groceries behind the seat, then get in and drive. But the doggoned kids made it excruciating until they got old enough to ride without carseats.
Rear child-safety locks (our ’86 Camry had them) also made 2-doors less necessary for safety-minded parents. Keeping the kids safe & distracted (such as by the standard “Finding Nemo” video) are important family-car market issues.
Who invented the 1st rear child-safety lock?
Who invented the 1st rear child-safety lock?
I don’t know, but our ’71 Renault 4 had them.
My aunt’s ’66 Morris 1100 had them on the rear doors, if you didn’t mind getting your hands greasy.
My brother’s Citroen Traction Avant (1940 vintage) had that feature. Not a fad, that one.
When I arrived in the U.S. in 1990, these were still seemingly very common, even in import-crazy San Francisco.
A perfect case of “resting on your laurel”? Whereas Toyota’s principle (at least at the time) was continuous improvement. Unfortunately when Toyota eventually became what GM was at the time, they pretty much did the same thing. Human nature, I guess.
Two door coupe versions of sedans have usually some sporting pretensions and if done right some sporting attributes Sorry but this is a 2 door luxobarge shrunk in the dryer it looks awful from the cheap tin fake wire wheel hubcaps to the pillow seats it spells crap. The rear windows dont lower I didnt know but am not surprised its little touches like those that spell crap cart to me not luxury I looked over a friends new toy last weekend ha has a real American Coupe a Rambler Ambassador 68 SST the rear windows are power drop very cool it exudes class this doesnt it is nothing like the early F85 not even a poor imitation
Bryce I mean you no disrespect in any way, but you would have to have ridden in these and put them in context to the times to understand them. These cars were marked as both sporty and and as personal luxury coupes, depending on how you optioned them. To say that they were crap because of how they were optioned and styled is being rather close-minded.
These cars were best sellers for a reason. Were they perfect? No, but they stood for a lot of things to a lot of people. Not everyone wants a BMW…
In spite of my comment above, I agree 100%! A co-worker bought a 1981 Gran Prix and it was very, very cool, exposed Torx screws on the dash and all – sporty, “high-tech” looking and sporty all in one, fixed windows, cotwithstanding.
(Dying of laughter at the thought of a Cutlass Supreme Brougham being remotely sporty. Maybe the Calais, Salon or 4-4-2 revivals… but the Broughams… REALLY?)
I had a 1982 Cutlass Supreme Brougham with T-tops and I thought it was very sporty looking! My favorite car! Loved it! And miss it very much! It’s just a matter of opinion! It was a mid-sided sporty looking car! I didn’t like small cars so was a great other option for me!
Nothing in the mid 70’s and 80’s with 2 doors had roll down rear windows that I can think of. All the personal coupes had fixed rear windows. The older cars had roll down rear windows such as the AMC products because it was rare to find A/C on any of them and you needed as much ventilation as possible.
My aunt had one of these–she traded cars every ten years or so, so when her 1971 LTD that had replaced her 1960 Bel Air was ready to be traded, she got a 1981 Cutlass Supreme coupe. There was never anything distinguished or memorable about it, although they were certainly ubiquitous in those days (and in rural Tennessee, you were very unlikely to see an Accord, at least not yet). I do recall riding with her to visit her dealer for service, which had to have been 30-40 miles away, and she was so irked by something they did that she pulled a screwdriver out of the glovebox, right in the dealer lot, removed the front plate (TN was and is a one-plate state) touting the dealership, and tossed it onto their roof. I miss her. The car, not so much.
Ubiquitous then, unmemorable now. And the above specimen sports a brougham insignia on the landau roof to compliment the red velour interior. Perfect.
I have had some experience with mid 80’s Cutli as well as similar vintage Regals. Their hoods shook, dashes squeaked and they felt like a buckle of bolts. (the ’79’s before the re-design felt sturdier.)
But I do enjoy reading about the history and the epic CCCC series over the last months.
I think I love your aunt, too!
My father-in-law had a diesel Olds… unfortunately, there were numerous problems with the motor… after a year, he traded it in, and never got another Oldsmobile.
The diesel was a perfect example of GM cutting corners. If they’d developed a disesel from the ground up instead of turning a gas engine into a diesel, it might’ve succeeded.
I understand the Olds Diesel was not simply an adaptation of the 350, but a beefed-up design fully suited to the role. The problem was more systemic: lack of owner education, dealer ignorance, & engineering blunders like the head & fuel system.
This from a company with 2 divisions having long experience in the type (Detroit Diesel & EMD). But talk of corporate synergy is usually mere hype; usually the left hand doesn’t know what the right is doing.
The head and fuel system are kind of important, especially on a diesel. Get that part wrong -which GM did-and you have a motor not remotely fully suited to the role. The rest, unfortunately, is history.
Be still my heart!!!
I would LOVE to have this car in my garage!!! I’m not going to repeat my Cutlass stories again, but suffice it to say this is my idea of a beautiful car, and one of the better cars that came from the 1980’s.
And for the record, my 1987 Cutlass Supreme Brougham was a reliable and well made car.
I was thinking of you when I found it! 🙂
Nice shape, too. O knew you’d like it.
Wow, do you know me or what??? 🙂
These cars are so common, but classy looking when kept well. I bought one dirt cheap during my college days and it was a reliable car that everyone enjoyed riding in (and I liked driving it also) . Still miss that ride; it was the best $130 I ever spent.
I know these are much more popular, but I always preferred the 1978-80 version. I always like the first version of something, because it’s the original design intent, and I liked the way they purposely made it look smaller with the single headlamps (in ’78-’79) and squared-off styling. This version was trying to look longer and go back to some of the styling themes of the 1973-77 cars. It was also more aerodynamic, I’m sure, but somehow it seemed cheapened to me, compared to the 1978-80. The lack of chrome bumpers is one big reason I like it less. I’m glad you at least showed the early version of this 1981-up style. The aero headlamps on the 1988 “Classic” looked much worse, in my opinion. So are we going to do the Saturn-like ’88 FWD version next? I always liked those and they seem very underappreciated.
I just thought of something else that illustrates this deadly-sin, downfall-of-GM thing quite well. In the late ’90s a friend’s elderly parents (in their 80s) replaced their only car, an ’85 version of one of these coupes, in mint, low-mileage condition. Its replacement? A new Mercedes E-class! I’m sure GM and Oldsmobile weren’t even considered. That shows how much GM lost its way even between the ’80s and ’90s. If GM had been able to keep its product up to snuff, there was a lot of money to be spent that instead went elsewhere, even with older folks! We all know how the story ended for Olds. I’m not happy about it — I love Olds and GM. Just pointing out the sad facts.
Yep.
My grandparents had owned an endless string of GM cars. Multiple Caprices, an ’87 Buick Electra, a Monte Carlo or two, an El Camino AND a GMC Caballero, and even a ’92 Crown Vic.
But then they also bought my uncle’s ’95 E320, which was nice but expensive to keep up, and now they have a 2001 Avalon XLS. Until the Benz, I don’t think my grandad would have even considered a foreign make, but once they’d had one, it was easy to steer them to the Avalon, which has been frighteningly close to flawless.
A while back he was kicking around the idea of replacing the Avalon. He’s 80 now, and I think a slightly smaller, more manageable car would be a good idea. I suggested a brand-new Hyundai Sonata because they’re a great value, and because of that warranty that wouldn’t expire till after he’d probably be dead.
I expected some pushback on the Korean car idea, but he didn’t bat an eye. GM and Ford lost a lifetime customer through indifference. How many thousands of times has that happened?
Count my father in as another one. His 1995 Eight Eight is showing the signs of the inevitable if you Don’t keep up on the 4T60-E transmission and it’s 16 years later and 200K Miles (That epic heave/sigh “why are you bothering me with driving?” shift between 1st and 2nd that denotes the worn bands). If he doesn’t find a shade tree to do the work it’s probably going to cost more than it’s worth to fix, considering a host of other issues most likely ready to pop off.
So I suggested he get one of the last Lucerne CX or CXLs, and he told me he wanted a Civic Sedan.Although I understand the concern of getting a larger, more luxurious car on a Social Security income, I was a little surprised he didn’t say the new Cruze or something. But I think the plastic manifold gasket fiasco that happened with the Eighty Eight and cost $1300 to repair put him off of being GM loyal for life. Plus there “ain’t no Oldsmobiles anymore anyway so why bother.” But more likely the Olds will get “parked” and he’ll continue chasing parts for his 1986 Isuzu pick-up in Junk yards to keep that running.
And I’ll inherit a perfectly preserved Eighty Eight with a bad transmission in around 3-5 years when smoking finally catches up with him….
Great article! I have always liked these cars but often wonder why.
I never thought about those rear windows not rolling down until I read this. Good points and yes, I recall riding in the in the back of my 86 Grand Prix Brougham (my brother prounounced it Bro-gum LOL) and feeling like I was boxed in.
The throw pillow interior always looked nice IMO but I could never get truly comfortable in it. I thought these cars handled nicely compared to what they replaced. The 3.8 V6 and 5.0 V8s performed similarly that being sloooow.
What a gorgeous car! Something about maroon and chrome, or dark blue and chrome…..
Next car I may have to venture away from silver….
I sold these cars when they were new, and although they had their virtues, the pillow top split bench seats on the example shown, were crap. I could never get comfortable in them, and much preferred the optional buckets or the split bench in the non-Brougham models.
Drove one with those seats from San Diego to New Orleans in 1989, and it was the softest, most comfy seat I have EVER sat in.
I drove the sedan version fully loaded down with 5 adults (counting myself) in college down the Ohio Turnpike from Sandusky, OH to Defiance, OH and before I could get off the Cedar Point Causeway everyone in the car was asleep but me. I take that as a testament to the soft suspension and comfy seats all around if you can put 4 college kids to sleep like that.
How did you manage to stay awake? 5hour energy wasn’t invented yet.
Wow – I helped my friend buy one of these back in the early 1990s from the original owners and it was in mint condition (think it was a 1984 model, it had well under 100K miles on it). It had the amazingly gutless carburated 3.8 that was downright scary as you tried to merge onto the freeway, but otherwise ran and drove just fine.
My friend moved from eastern WA to St. Louis, where I knew that the car would be a “high-value” theft target (for reasons you can figure out on your own). So I rigged up a really simple anti-start system consisting of a momentary pushbutton switch, a standard SPDT automotive “ice cube” 30A relay, and a hidden valet bypass switch. The relay intercepted the start wire from the ignition switch to the starter solenoid, and grounded the solenoid when not powered (preventing anybody from hot-wiring directly to the solenoid).
When you went to start the car, you had to hold your left foot down on the floorboard, about where the high beam switch used to be. The momentary switch was underneath the carpet there and completed the circuit for the relay. Your passenger wouldn’t even notice how you operated the system.
This contraption kept his car from getting stolen multiple times (but did nothing to keep the would-be thieves from trashing the dash trying to find the relay or the switch), and he got years worth of service out of that vehicle.
They were really nice cars to look at, and served an important niche for GM. As has been stated so many times in the comments, once people went Asian, they usually never went back.
I was helping my friend in his automotive repair shop today replace a radiator in a 1995 Accord driven by an 80-year-old lady who plans on driving the car until she dies. I commented to my friend that in earlier times, that lady would have been driving a Cadillac (doctor’s widow), Buick, or some big-boat Mopar. In fact, this lady’s previous vehicle had been an early 1990s Chrysler K-car which blew a head gasket so she got the Accord.
It’s really sad in 20-20 hindsight to see how badly GM and the American brands blew it. But OTOH, without the competition we have today, American cars would have not have improved as much as they have.
/ramble mode off
Actually, Olds DID produce a psuedo-sporty version of these cars. Remember the rare ’85 Hurst Olds with its two-tone black & silver paint scheme and funky Hurst “triple stick” shifter?
They certainly LOOKED sporty. Their performance was another matter.
The Hurst ‘Lightning Rod’ shifter has to be one of the silliest gimmicks ever installed in a car from the factory. Performance changed not one whit when using the things. It was a far cry from the classic, sixties’ Dual-Gate shifter. AFAIK, the whole ‘lever for every gear’ fad that was popular with true drag racers for that timeframe has all but died out.
It’s interesting when comparing what was essentially the last hurrah for the ‘true’ musclecar, i.e., sporty, RWD, intermediate V8 coupe (until the Holden Monaro-based GTO appeared, looking for all the world like a Cavalier with a thyroid problem). There were only three left by then: Monte Carlo SS, 442, and Grand Prix. None came even remotely close to the performance of the turbocharged V6 in the Buick Grand National.
The 442 and Grand Prix can be excused because the only division V8s left were the limp-wristed 307 and 301, respectively. But I never understood why Chevrolet kept the 5.7 out of the Monte Carlo SS, leaving it to die with the lame 305.
I had a G-body sedan and I still want a G-body coupe. Monte Carlo, (relatively rare) Grand Prix, or the ubiquitous Cutlass Supreme I want one. FWIW Hot Rod did a story several years back about how there’s enough room under the hood of one of these suckers for a Chevrolet 454V8. I should probably get a Monte Carlo just so I can keep my Chevrolet all Chevrolet and not ruin some of the last GM cars to have “divisonal engines.” I love the 307V8 but not for anything other than in town or flat state highway, their nightmares on the interstate or in hilly terrain.
I can attest that a G-body has room under the hood for a 454. Friend of mine is building up an 84 Monte SS and he and I stuffed a 454 in it, bolts up pretty much like a small block, though we ditched the clutch fan for an electric fan to gain some room.
There were a great many of these Cutlass Supreme coupes here in the Pacific northwest, as in most places in the country. It seemed to me that about two-thirds of them were brown, and were driven by young guys with droopy black mustaches and dirty t-shirts.
Oh how I’ve waited for this cccc to happen! I had an ’85 with the 3.8L v6 and the checkerboard grill, and although it didn’t deliver thrilling performance, it was a fun first car that looked tough in the high school parking lot surrounded by hand-me-down first-generation Dodge Caravans. Bent the front axle on a granite curb when I drove it between a telephone pole and its accompanying guy wire.
I missed my only love so much that I replaced it with an ’87 about a year and a half later (only $1000 with 93k miles in 2001!). It was the same maroon brown brougham as the one in the picture, but with the 305 5L v8 and 4 bbl Holley carb. Despite the alluring stats, you’re right…it wasn’t really much faster than the v6. I was still in the throes of impetuous youth at the time, so I foolishly added dual exhaust with flowmasters and chrome pipes. That car wasn’t quite garish, but it was certainly ostentatious and loud, and I adored it even more than my first. After a few years, it developed some kind of leak that made the interior smell musty and probably killed a few less-vital brain cells. Shortly thereafter, it had a spontaneous engine fire on I-90 and died an unceremonious death at the Westboro rest stop in MA.
I’ve seen one of those Hurst edition Cutlasses when I travelled to Oregon a few years ago. What a bummer to learn that they’re not real speedy either. Oh well. GM G-bodies will forever represent a time in my life when everything was fun and stupid and gas was .90 to $1.20/gal. Now I drive a Sentra. I got old :-/
Funny. I just got back from a family reunion in a small town in northwest Ohio. This car was the official vehicle of small town midwest. I saw a couple of pretty nice ones this weekend still plying the streets.
It was sorta like the Cutlass grew old along with the customers. We had a 61 F-85, and people of my parents generation were still buying these 25 years later. And even some people my age. It was kind of like this was what you needed to get when you grew up and became an adult. Not me, though. I spent too many years fleeing from being over-Cutlassed in my youth. But I would actually like one of these now. V8, please.
In many major metropolitan cities, these cars were the ride of choice for young inner-city males- usually with bright candy-apple paint jobs, oversized wire rims, and stereos you can hear a mile away.
I had a 1972 442 when I was in my late teens, early 20’s. Almost 30 years later and it’s one of the few cars I dream about (literally) and am disappointed to awaken in the here and now, without it. I remember these cars (in the blog post) from the late 70’s, but by then, they were cars for schoolteachers and other anonymous technical professions.
Until the second (well, really more like the fourth) coming of the Hurst Olds. I had just purchased a 1983 Pontiac Trans Am earlier that year and knew about the H/O, but couldn’t wait for it. It was just as well, because I’m pretty sure the 165 HP T/A would have creamed the H/O in every way except nostalgia.
After that, the later version of the Cutty coupe was on my radar again, but I ended up trading the crappy T/A on a 5.0 L Mercury Capri in late 1986, conveniently ignoring the 170 HP 442 models available then.
For as much as I loved the 1972 442, these 80’s versions, even though appropriately tarted-up, weren’t doing it for me. I guess it was because you could still get the real thing and the newer, lower powered ones weren’t going to give me the same kind of thrills…
Now, I wonder if I had purchased the 1983 Hurst/Olds, or the 1987 442, (or the 2001 Intrigue, for that matter), if there would have been a different outcome for Oldsmobile Division.
I’m guessing probably not.
One has to keep in context the time era these cars were designed and introduced. 1977/78 was a time when fuel economy, emissions and downsizing were all the rage. Smaller engines and taller axle ratios were the order of the day and big inch 350 sized engines were saved for all but a few Hurst 79-80 Cutlasses and the odd high altitude/California wagon. The base engine setup in 78-87 for the Cutlass/Regal and GP was a 110 HP 231 V6 and a 2.41:1 rear gear. This gave barely adequate power on the open road and acceptable pep around town picking up groceries and picking up grams for church on Sunday. Nothing more. It was tough to find one of these cars with better rear gears unless one opted for the Hurst/442 package or a GN Regal or SS Monte. Add in low calorie 140 HP 307, 140-170 Hp 301 and 140-150 HP 305’s and the power didn’t improve a whole lot but drive-ability and smoothness and sound sure did. I would never think of owning one of these without a 4BBL 5.0 sized motor and swap out to at least 3.23 rear gears tied to the 200R4 transmission. Much power can be gained with this setup over stock and some fiddling with the carb secondaries.
And yet…I still want one…be it the Buick Regal form or the Olds Cutlass, I just can’t help but like the squared-off two door style. Not sure what that says about me, though…:)
I currently drive an ’88 Supreme Classic, that sat in pasture for the last 10 or so years. For the most part she’s holding up quite well, still has get up and go and I did have to make up for the 10 years of lack of maintenance. Not pretty to look at, but always gets me where I want to go, and with the velour seats, comfortable at the same time. I’m very happy with it.
Bought one of these in about 1986. White but otherwise identical to the lead in car. 3.8v6 and fragile automatic. Lost the trannie before I put 20k on it but otherwise a great car. Looked good, rode good, got high 20’s on the highway.
I think I would welcome it back with open arms. Future exwife just hadda hava caddie so she traded this in without me knowing what she was doing. Beginning of the end but it would have been something else if it weren’t that.
Thanks for the article. Sure don’t want the ex back but would love to have the car.
I was disappointed when Oldsmobile, GM as a whole, decided to switch from rear-wheel drive to front-wheel drive. Front wheel drive is fine if the engine is heavy enough, and has enough torque to pull the rest of the car and its occupants along at a safe pace. But generally I prefer rear-wheel drive, or all-wheel drive.
My front wheel drive car will easily move at a safe pace. It is also very capable of moving at a very unsafe place. I assume that’s because “the engine is heavy enough.”
1984 called; they want their unfounded opinions back. The same engines (generally) power cars just fine regardless of where the power’s actually going.
If there’s a reason to be disappointed in GM for switching from RWD to FWD, it’s that it dropped all pretense of sportiness (esp. in Pontiac and Olds, the two “high-performance” brands) in doing so.
Really, I’m surprised we don’t see too many more FWD luxobarges a la the Toronado/Riviera/Eldorado, where the flat floor (only possible with a FWD drivetrain) was a selling point. I know that it’s well-appreciated in my mother’s Honda CR-V on a long trip.
I always thought these were so attractive, and much more slim and trim than the ’78-’80. Something about the way the grille angled onto the plastic bumper section was a stylish touch. As a kid, I used to attempt to build them out of Legos, using the slanted “roof” bricks to simulate those bumpers.
Say what you want, but the Cutlass Supreme (rear wheel drive) hit the mark for its time period.
I had an ’83 Cutlass Supreme 2 door with bucket seats and console with the shifter on the floor. It had the sports suspension with the super stock wheels and handled much better than my friends ’82 Buick Regal. The 231 V6 wasn’t very powerful, but that did not matter. It was a very nice car and got me many compliments. Also, parts were sooooo cheap and any mechanic worth his weight in salt knew how to fix anything on the car.
I only gave it up because the rear seal was leaking 1 qt of oil every 500 miles. Also, A/C systems had moved to 134A freon and the old freon was no longer available.
I moved on to a ’97 Camry which was very reliable, but not near as fun to drive as the Cutlass.
that’s right, we had a 1981 two tone and it was a very nice car. I don’t recall wishing we were in a honda in those years. exposed torx head screws? wow, really?
I can’t get excited about ANY ’80s-era car. Nothin’ much past ’75-76, actually.
It’s the banishment of curves that makes this look awkward to my eye. Looks like someone took a knife to a block of clay and made straight cuts and took out chunks. Squared-off and blocky.
Nearly every early-mid ’80s car looked like this. Then came the squashed blob of plastic with wheels and windows…
Now get off my lawn….
When these body styles came out, I was initially repulsed–the Monte Carlo version especially. Over time, my eyes became acclimated to the shape, and they eventually made sense. This Cutlass iteration is my favorite of the lot.
I’m surprised so many people blame lack of roll-down rear windows as a reason for these cars’ demise. Most were second cars, never intended to be the family hauler. But rolling down the windows on the big long front doors would give plenty of airflow and buffeting to backseat passengers. Plus by the Eighties most had a/c anyway.
There’s a CC to be written about the dmise of the personal luxury coupe. I admit I don;t understand it. With so many childess people young and old, these should be more popular, not less.
“Childless people old” probably have a CUV for easier ingress/egress, or they don’t drive much at all. “Childless people young” are probably those making a conscious decision not to have children, or at least put them off until later. So depending on their personal views/lifestyles (they tend to be more urban and left-leaning), they drive an econobox or no car at all, preferring public transport, biking, or walking. Not That There’s Anything Wrong With That.
Really, what killed the personal lux coupe, along with truly huuuge luxury cars, was that we no longer necessarily see a large car as a positive status symbol.
There’s a CC to be written about the dmise of the personal luxury coupe.
It would be titled: “The rise of the BMW 3-Series, the personal luxury coupe of the post-Detroit era.”
Can you see how the 3 Series and other imports totally took over this market? And largely because GM kept building the same thing for almost forever.
The early A-Bodies like the Cutlass, LeMans and Skylark played the exact same role the 3 Series has come to play: an somewhat upscale, fashionable, contemporary well-performing coupe.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/cc-classic-1965-pontiac-lemans-the-3-series-of-its-day/
I couldn’t agree more. Although the engineering is totally different, the “senior compact” cars were like GM’s Neue Klasse BMWs: a break from the past, with new engines (aluminum v8, v6, “trophy” 4) and new technologies (turbocharging, rear transaxle). The 1964-1972 GM cars stepped back on innovation, but each had its place, making it like GM had 3 or 4 different -02 NK cars. Pontiac had looks, Oldsmobile had handling, and Buick had luxury; and the Chevelles could be as good as anything. You had 4 images, 4 divisional engines, each representing important design strengths… And if you liked what the GM cars had looked like 2 years before, you could buy that from Dodge, with equal or better powertrain choices.
Later on, during my actual lifetime, I remember reading in Car & Driver that the #1 tradein for a BMW 318i was a Cutlass. It seems that part of the problem was that GM’s approach to engineering cars got to be so focused on cost, that “regular” cars were not so easily converted to “special” cars. In my lifetime, Ford was the first US manufacturer to reach out to people other than legacy buyers, or people looking for cheap transportation, with the Fox Mustang, aerobird and Taurus-Sable.
I have really been wanting to do a comparison test: “1967 442 vs E30 M3.” How do they compare, really? I have not been itching to do a more contemporaneous and fair comparison, “Oldsmobile Quad-IV 442 vs any BMW at all.”
Interesting hypothesis, but the 3 coupe and its comparable Audi and Lexus competitors don’t sell in anywhere near the same quantities as their Seventies counterparts did.
True. The market is more fragmented. But fads still dominate; in the 60s-80s, coupes were the hot thing, regardless if it was a GTO or a six-cylinder “Mustang Secretary Special”. This all goes back to the seminal 1960.5 Corvair Monza coupe, the first popular-priced coupe with bucket seats and floor shift. It begat others, most importantly, the Mustang. And when Mustang owners got a bit older, they bought more comfortable Cutlass coupes.
Now many folks buy CUVs, or such. Women love CUVs, as much as they loved Mustangs and Cutlasses once upon a time.
But some still want a stylish, sporty, luxurious coupe, and there’s BMW and some others ready to give it to them.
Very true. A 3 Series BMW can be leased by almost any university grad by the age of 40 and quite affordably, too. BMW will lease a 320i here for $350 a month at 0.9% and then whack a big discount on it if you buy it out at the end of the lease.
It fulfills the exact same role as the G bodies did for very comparable money. You can take the car right to an M4, it is a brilliant concept that has made the Quandt family oceans of money, right out of GM’s coffers. It’s a brilliant piece of marketing on cars that really don’t have any more content than anything else.
My cousin ordered a car just like this with the rare option of bucket seats. It was a handsome color when new. He also got the rare diesel engine option and actually got very good service out of the car.
I can’t tell from what you’ve said, but does he still have the car now or no? If he got the bucket seats, they might have been part of a sport package (although granted, this was still back in the day when you could truly custom-order every option), and to have that along with the Diesel, and not have such a terrible experience with it as to send it to the scrapyard in 6 years, is certainly a rare and possibly valuable model.
No, he does not have the car now. He kept it about 7 years?? It was the Brougham with the bucket seat option which is what made it rare to me. It was quite a handsome car.
Bucket seats were available on base coupes and were std on all Calais models from 1978-1984 and it’s Salon replacement from 1985-1987. All Hurst W30 models and 442’s got them also as std fare. The last year 1988 Classics had reclining buckets with floor shifter packaged together as an option on the base model.
Did anyone else notice that in the ad for the car, all the quotes are unattributed? It looks like some ad guy just wrote a bunch of fawning praise and put them all in quotes. Geez, how sleazy.
This guy calls it Hamilton, no one is sure exactly why.
Maybe that blurry tan guy in the background is George Hamilton. Or he just thinks it’s a fancy name.
My aunt bought a new ’81. Nice car. As a kid I remember hearing “Abracadabra” by Steve Miller on the radio. She never checked the oil and it needed a new engine by 1987. By 1990 it was more rust than car.
But I always liked it.
It’s easy today to not understand how these cars flew off the shelf back in the 70’s and 80’s but they were simply the right car for the right time. By the 90’s coupes were reversing there sales trend and even better examples like the T-Bird/Cougar, Camry/Solara etc and all saw declines. The Fwd 2 door Lumina and then Monte Carlo saw enough sales to keep the lights on in the factory up until the 2000’s but by 2007 sales were minuscule.
Folks including my parents/grandparents and many friends and family members at the time enjoyed the quiet ride/comfortable seating and easy effortless motoring these cars provided. Add to that very plush interiors, attractive styling that still gets loads of comments today and a reasonably large trunk and it’s no wonder these were so popular. We can talk about how sluggish the 231 seems today and how some of the interiors haven’t held up over 25-35 years of abuse and how gaudy some of the colors and vinyl roof options seem in this bland minimalist global world we now live in but does that really matter?
These cars are still hot even today with many buyers. Don’t believe it. Just log into Ebay or go on Craigslist and watch how long a bucket seat V8 coupe with lower miles in nice shape lasts. I have even seen people pay up to 10K for a really low mile example. A really nice Brougham can command 6-8K and I have seen 231 V6 cars in clean original condition command 5-6K. Another thing many buyers doing is converting these over to modern fuel injected small block power plants, upgraded disk brakes and suspensions and revised gauge clusters with more readouts.
This car was the one my high school friend’s father bought when he put his 68 Polara 4 door out to pasture – same color/interior – everything.
A very nice looking car then and now.
I had four of these between ’86 and ’96. First one was a no-frills ’81 Supreme, burgundy from stem to stern. It was a piece of junk but it had Keystone mags and I was 16. It would go dead at low speeds, so often that I perfected shifting into neutral and restarting on the fly. After a while I got to thinking (correctly) it was gaudy looking and I wanted to put stock wheels on it. But my dad told me the Keystones were the only thing that would sell it, and of course he was right.
Second one was an ’83 Calais, white with burgundy landau vinyl, T-tops, the plush burgundy seats with buckets, and sport suspension with rally gauges and steering wheel. One of the finest cars I’ve ever owned. Drove and rode flawlessly and I never had to do anything to it other than change the oil. Still, I foolishly traded it for higher payments and a new ’92 Beretta.
Number three was a beater, a silver ’82 Supreme that I bought to drive to work while the Beretta sat in the garage. I got it for next to nothing, put a rebuilt long-block and tranny in, and racked up the miles. Ended up selling it to my dad.
Last but not least was an ’83 442, two-tone gray with Ts and near-mint gray interior. It didn’t have any more oomph than the Calais, really, but it sure sounded great (don’t know if the mufflers were stock, but they had a nice subtle rumble). Not long after I bought that one I got engaged and my soon-to-be (and still is), who’d never driven anything bigger than her Tercel, was afraid of it. The night before I took the tags off I reclined the cushy driver’s seat to near-horizontal, cranked the Alpine one last time, and watched the sky. I actually welled up.
Don’t have the time or space for a weekend ride but I still miss the ’83s.
My mom gave me her (blue) ’82 OLDS Cutlass Supreme Brougham in 2002.
I brot it to AK in 2007. It is a classy car. Now at 68 I get more men propositioning me than I did when I was 18 years old and svelte. I’m going to be selling it this year and I am going to miss it.
What a pity about the Cutlass and Oldsmobile. In the early 80’s there really was ‘A special feel in an Oldsmobile’ . They lost their way about 87 or 88 and let the bean counters and designers just make cookie cutter cars that looked like Buicks and Chevys. Same thing with Ford and Mercury. The Cutlass Supreme was the most sold automobile through 1986. Every car company scratched it’s head as to why, and tried poorly to come up with some form of competition. And failed miserably.
Grandmas drove these Cutlasses.
We drove these in 1983, leaving Grandma in the dust. Why drive a throwback to the 1970s when you can have this?
Cutlass in 1988 – sad!
TBird in 1988.
Why would you want that old Cutlass?
Liked the generation of the “T Bird” that came after this version.
Ford introduced a new popular style language in 1983, then sold millions of Taurii. The aero look was the look for new cars. WHY did GM keep pushing a car that looked like it was over a decade old for the same prices? A vinyl roof? Opera windows? Holy crap talk about dated. WHY would someone drop good coin for an old car like that? Cutlass didn’t just lose the race to imports – it flipping lost the race to the domestics as well. Look at what Chrysler was selling. Who wants an old Cutlass?
That first picture of the Olds is better looking than most of the vehicles on the road today.
So, soo, true!
As far as I understand it, these and the very similar Buick Regal were the best cars GM made for most of the 1980’s. All the other cars they made had various issues, quality, engines, transmissions, or just plain crappiness. These at least had quality interiors and proven drivetrains, for the most part (not counting diesels). People knew this, and that’s why they sold so well. Not to say they were great, but they were better than the alternative, if one wanted to stay GM.
That’s the really sad thing – these were the best cars GM made for almost 10 years running.
Of course I painted it brown.
Somehow I just had to. 🙂