(first posted 3/18/2016) I’d say the 1978 – ’87 A-body (turned G-Body) Olds Cutlass four-door sedan had a pretty rough go of life from the time it appeared. The newly-downsized Cutlass Salons popped onto the automotive scene following the successful, more traditionally-styled Colonnade generation. Never mind that the four-door Cutlasses of the 70’s never even remotely approached the sales figures of the various two-door offerings. The 1973 – ’77 era of Cutlass was nonetheless a rational, reliable, uncomplicated, mainstream American sedan choice for much of middle America. Assembly quality wasn’t great, as high demand for the hot-selling Supreme coupes probably led to faster assembly times and sloppier workmanship, but the Colonnade Cutlasses in any form were reasonably attractive.
Then the Cutlass Salon happened.
Paul Niedermeyer has covered this stylistic faux pas, so I won’t rehash what he has already succinctly summarized. I remain baffled as to how General Motors gave the green light to making the non-Supreme / -Calais Cutlass look like a hatchback without actually giving it the utility of one. The aforementioned article also referenced their available, gutless, 260 small-block V8 and fixed rear door windows. Then there was Oldsmobile’s truly tragic experiment with Diesel power. Though the “Aeroback” four-door sedan lasted only through 1979 and the two-door through ’80 (the latter selling about just 4,400 units that year) , I mention these things only to set the stage for what I observe as the downsized, RWD Cutlass sedan’s all-too-brief time to shine.
Let me tell you a story, for a minute, of a Midwestern kid who grew up in the 1980’s in a family between two brothers that were almost ten years apart in age. My older brother is roughly six years older than me, and he had attended elementary school up through the late 70’s. Let’s think back to that time period in all of its plaid-country-shirted, bell-bottomed, corduroy glory. Growing up in a household with one working parent, my dad, and a stay-at-home mom, we didn’t waste a lot of anything – which meant we recycled and reused a lot of things, including clothing. By the time I got to elementary school, it was the mid-1980’s. I’ll be darned if I know how my older brother managed to preserve so many of his disco-era duds so well, while actively going out with his friends and doing regular kid stuff. My point is that by the time I was his age, I had a healthy helping of his hand-me-downs mixed in with a few, new items of clothing purchased from K-Mart, Sears, or if Mom was feeling generous, J.C. Penney. Nothing said “please beat me up” like rocking a pair of bell-bottomed Lee jeans on the soccer field during recess in the Reagan era.
What does any of this have to do with our subject car? Everything. With a roofline cribbed straight from Cadillac’s groundbreaking, “sheer look” Seville luxury compact (pictured above) which came out five years earlier, the restyled 1980 Cutlass sedan sported a look that although it fixed the terrible, hunchbacked profile of the Cutlass Salon, still didn’t look entirely original. The refreshed Cutlass sedan was, almost literally, wearing the first Seville’s hand-me-downs.
Still, for any fans of the respected Cutlass nameplate, any improvement over the Aeroback was welcome, and the ’80 four-door sedan sold quite well – posting better than a 300% increase over the previous year’s 39,000 figure, to the tune of almost 124,000 units. Perhaps its new, formalized roofline wasn’t quite as out of touch with the times as the duds my mom let me out of the house wearing, but still, anyone who had bought a Seville in the 70’s with its unique look as even partial motivation for their purchase was probably more than a little upset when the redesigned, GM A-Body four-doors came out for 1980.
The four-door Cutlass had a great sales year for 1980, and then again for ’81 (with almost 110,000 units). It now had the reasonably modern “clothes” on the outside, bore a slight resemblance to the most expensive Cadillac of five years prior, and had finally found broad acceptance from American buyers. Enter the front-wheel-drive Cutlass Ciera for model year 1982. Did any of you (also) have a little baby brother or sister arrive who proceeded to steal your spotlight almost immediately? The Cutlass Ciera, basically an X-Body Omega stretched with additional front and rear overhang and a handsome new skin, suddenly made the ’81 Cutlass sedan look outdated within just two model years of the older car finally having gotten its “look” together.
The newly rechristened G-Body Cutlass four-door soldiered on through model year 1987, sharing its “Cutlass” sub-moniker with the Ciera, which continued to improve and sell in ever greater numbers to much of middle America. My family had one. Actually, everybody and their uncle seemed to have a Ciera at some point, given its super-long fifteen year production run. With the benefits of FWD traction, powerplants that were more efficient, and the promise of opening windows and access to fresh, outdoor air for all occupants, front and rear, the Cutlass Ciera seemed to eliminate most of the deficiencies of the X-body Omega (safety, reliability) upon which it was based, and capitalize on its strengths. The Ciera sedan was certainly a more rational purchase for most families than the “traditional”, RWD Supreme, even if the early Ciera two-doors with their bolt-upright greenhouses and gawky proportions were about at sexy as a Maytag washing machine.
Back in Supremeland, though, the handsome coupes kept selling. Their look, feel and content was still just right for many Americans who still wanted home-grown personal luxury. The sedans, though, seemed to have little raison d’etre, so to speak – offering little if any extra style (which is debatable) for their extra premium over the Ciera, much the like Regal to Century over at Buick. I’m trying to imagine what the target demographic for the RWD Supreme sedan would have been. I’m guessing it must have skewed older, for those not quite ready to embrace FWD “technology” that was becoming more and more commonplace by the early 80’s. The G-Body sedan couldn’t have been targeted toward those who wanted some of the Supreme coupe’s style but needed four doors, as the sedan had little if any of the coupe’s panache.
By the time the Supreme sedan was phased out after 1987 (with the newly renamed “Supreme Classic” coupe continuing on into ’88), its aerodynamic, FWD, W-Body platform replacement which arrived for model year ’90 made all Cutlasses of the previous years instantly look geriatric, even the Ciera. Never mind the ill-advised “not your father’s Oldsmobile” ad campaign which accompanied it – the new Supreme seemed like a cool, high-tech Generra Hypercolor t-shirt in an era of tie-dyed Hanes. We can read about how the W-Body’s actual, lackluster story played out thanks to a great piece by Greg Beckenbaugh. In the meantime, though, let us acknowledge the G-Body Cutlass four-door’s all-too-brief time in the spotlight in its quest for just a fraction of the popularity and attractiveness of its coupe sibling at the Oldsmobile family table.
The subject car was photographed in the Edgewater neighborhood of Chicago, Illinois on Saturday, March 5, 2016. The ’76 Cadillac Seville was photographed downtown in Chicago’s Loop district on Thursday, October 16, 2014.
More related reading from:
- Jim Grey: CC Capsule: 1986 Cutlass Ciera Brougham Sedan – Dressed In Its Sunday Best; and
- Tom Klockau: Curbside Classic: 1986 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Brougham Sedan – Why Brougham When You Can Supreme Brougham?
I thought the aero-back Cutlasses looked really cool when they appeared, and yet, the Seville – look-alike styling was “nice”, too.
I’m puzzled as to why GM styled these Olds and Buicks to resemble hatchbacks, but then didn’t follow through on the idea….but hey, they weren’t the only car company to do that.
The only “downside” to the mini-Seville look was that GM gave all 4 of it’s divisions the same look. Buick alone, or maybe Buick and Olds could have carried it off, but giving it to Chevy and Pontiac too made it seem like the stylists were bankrupt of ideas.
Especially since (at least imo) there was nothing at all wrong aesthetically with the six-window notchback Chevy/Pontiac sedans. To me they look better than the formal roof.
Agreed, though I’m biased. Chevy and Pontiac should have kept the six-window greenhouse past ’80, especially given that the Malibu was phased out completely after ’83 and the Le Mans sedan given a nose job and a new name (Bonneville G) in ’82.
I can’t say I liked the Aero-Back, but it wasn’t as terrible as sometimes it is made out to be. I give credit to GM for trying to create some unique looks among its mid-size four doors.
My hunch for why all four versions went to the “Seville look” in ’80 was that it was a convenient way to patch up a sales problem at Olds and Buick and update the Pontiac and Chevy at the same time. My guess is that these cars were all slated for cancellation when the new FWD A bodies were introduced, so investment was minimal. Of course, these were the first cars to embody GM’s fear of decision making in the ’80s and some them persisted in the market for too long.
We had several of the “Seville-top” A/G-bodies in the early 1980s–my Pop had an ’82 and then an ’84 Buick Regal Sedan as company cars, while my mother got a 1983 Cutlass Supreme Sedan. I think a lot of the appeal of these cars was their “just right” size and reasonable performance.
At the dawn of the 1980s, after the second Oil Shock, the downsized GM big cars suddenly seemed huge again. The B- and C-bodies at that point also had been afflicted with engine downgrades in the quest for fuel economy, with too-small engines tugging heavy cars. It was quite the comedown from what these cars had been able to deliver performance wise just a few years prior.
At the same time, the revolutionary X-cars had already quickly earned bad reviews and poor word of mouth. So for some shoppers, a stretched X was questionable. Plus, the A-bodies were so square–many people (including my parents) did not care for that look.
With my mother, when it was time to trade in her ’79 Ninety-Eight, she quickly ruled out another as being too big and too slow. The Ciera was too small and too square. But she still wanted an Oldsmobile with 4-doors, so that left the Cutlass Supreme sedan. Ours had the V8, drove well and was comfortable in the traditional U.S. manner. It was a great Goldilocks choice–just right. My Pop had similar thoughts when he traded in his rather sluggish, sloppily built 1980 Caprice company car for the ’82 Regal sedan.
Well said. These cars represented what buyers that normally would have been tempted into a B or C body. That second oil crisis as you stated suddenly made those full size cars look huge and the “just right” practical size of the A/G body intermediates seemed to fulfill those buyers needs rather well non rolling down rear windows be damned. Pontiac even went so far as to eliminate there B-body after 1981 and transfer the name and frontal appearance to the then re-christened G-body series and sales went up for a period of time. Interestingly Chevy was first to pull the plug on the G-body formal sedan in there dropping the entire Malibu series for 1983. In fact all wagons were dropped after 1983 and the A-body FWD line took over Estate duty right up to 1996 for Olds and Buick.
The next G sedan to go was the Regal for 1984 followed by the Bonneville for 1986 and the Cutlass lingered until 1987. These were times when each division was allowed to do there own thing and there were still many variances on engines and transmissions being offered between them.
Dad one time brought home a rental 1984 Buick regal Limited sedan in a light brown exterior and chocolate brown luxury interior. We had that car for several weeks while ours was being repaired from body damage due to a freak black ice road condition that spun our Fairmont out of control and into a telephone pole.
Mom and dad loved that car and were temporarily treated to comfortable adjustable seats, A/C that froze you out of the car and something called acceleration. Yes this car felt suspiciously livelier than your average 231 equipped A/G body that I was ever exposed to at the time. Imagine my surprise upon lifting the hood to find what looked like a larger air cleaner sitting on top of what looked just like a 231 V6. This car had the optional 4.1 liter 4BBL V6 upgrade and an overdrive 200R-4 transmission which also gave you a rear axle upgrade to 3.08:1 compared to the 231 cars and there 2.41 setup. This was quite rare to see and I remember only seeing 2-3 others like it since then.
Both of Pop’s Regals had the 4.1 V6 and they were reasonably quick for the time. The ’82 Regal we had definitely felt faster than the car it replaced, which was a 1980 Caprice with the 305. The big Buick six also was pretty comparable to the Olds with the 5.0 V8. Our 5.0 Cutlass Supreme was probably slightly quicker than the Regals, but not really enough to notice.
As for the rear windows, we never put them down in NOLA anyway and used the A/C most of the time. So while the fixed rear glass on sedans was not a great idea, it didn’t really matter that much in daily driving.
All 3 of our G-body cars were well made and reliable. The ’84 Regal was short lived with us, as it was submerged in street flooding caused by a huge thunderstorm in 1985. Pop wanted another Regal to replace it, but as you note, they were gone after 1984. He went back to a B-body with a 1985 LeSabre Collector’s Edition, but never particularly liked that car as it seemed dated even when new and he found it way too big at that point. GM’s choices were starting to get pretty limited by the mid-1980s…
I’ve got a 4.1 V6 with 200c transmission I pulled from a 80 Electra sittin in the shed. No car to use it in, not yet anyway. Someday though.
Not only did the Regal sedan die after 1984 but so did the 4.1 liter V6. Oddly Buick didn’t replace it with the Olds 307 util 1986 meaning that all 1985 Regal coupes were only available with 231 V6’s in 2BBL or SFI turbo or 4.3 diesel power. Both the 231 carb and diesel also only came with the basic 3 speed transmission leaving the 4 speed for the turbo. Also gone were optional axle ratio upgrades for the lower two engines meaning 2.41 was the only ratio offered. If you wanted a 1985 Regal with any zip it was the turbo or nothing. This would have been a perfect opportunity to use the port injection system that the C-body series Electra/98 were offered with tied to the 200R-4. Better drive-ability, smoother operation, more power and better mileage would have been 4 rewards for spending the money on the basic Regal series which was going to be around until the 1987 model year. But alas in typical GM fashion they opted to cheap out and keep the sluggish 110 Hp 231 2BBl right up to the bitter end and didn’t even bother pairing it with the overdrive automatic. They instead reserved PFI and overdrives transmissions only for a few randomly selected turbo T-types.
These were all over in smaller-town Midwest. The prototypical buyer was a couple in their 60s who had been buying Oldsmobile since the war ended. The cars saw most of their miles shuttling from home to church and then to the family-style restaurant where they met their friends, who were probably also buying these.
Their appeal was just as GN said: fairly traditional, decent quality, and right size.
Thanks Joseph for a very insightful assessment of the last RWD Cutlass Supreme sedan. I always tend to forget about this particular Cutlass, as it didn’t really offer much unique value proposition. It just always seemed “there” in Olds’ lineup, and you’ve perfectly captured that essence.
The RWD Cutlass Supreme coupes still maintained an upscale, elegant aura, and they looked handsome in a timeless way right up until the end – all things that no other GM coupe after has ever achieved. The sedans meanwhile just looked plain archaic and dull by comparison.
Although this time predated my arrival by 5-10 years, G-body Cutlass Supreme coupes and A-body Cutlass Cieras were both owned by close family members.
Before my dad went Ford, the last GMs we had were an 80 sedan and then an 84 Ciera (83 was lemoned). Both good cars but the later 87 Taurus MT5 (and then 90 SHO) and 90 Sable wagon blew them away in my very young age.
Looking back, and at my wife’s 2012 Accord, I am reminded of the Cutlass Supreme’s role. A good high quality upper-middle class sedan. The Crosstour was the Aeroback, and the CRV is the Ciera. Taking sales as it is the more family friendly alternative.
I currently own a 88 MT-5.
Never understood why Oldsmobile and Buick got those Aerobacks while Chevrolet and Pontiac had traditional looking sedans. GM tried this style in the late 40’s and even then, the 4 door sedans did not look good. Fast forward 30 years and GM did it again with the Oldsmobile and Buick, and again the styling was horrendous. Fast forward nearly 40 years and now all manufacturers are slowly moving from a Camry copycat to an Aeroback look again. The Audi S7 would look great in a 2 door configuration, instead of the sedan currently offered.
Modern cars with this type of roofline tend to look better though because their rooflines are better integrated and come across as sleek and fastback-line, not clumsy like the Olds and Buicks.
Note how the 4-door Cutlass Aeroback’s roofline is identical to the sedan’s back to the end of the rear doors. Modern “aeroback” rooflines generally are a much more fluid shape, with the entire roofline lower than sedan counterparts.
“anyone who had bought a Seville in the 70’s with its unique look as even partial motivation for their purchase was probably more than a little upset when the redesigned, GM A-Body four-doors came out for 1980”
I really doubt this scenario. I’d be willing to bet a lot of Seville buyers may have even downgraded to the Cutlass after the bustleback Caddies came around.
You are right on with the styling, the 2 doors had way more panache. Olds even seemed to go out of their way to make the 4 door and Wagons look extra bland when compared to the 2 door.
Funny you mention that. I knew 2 people who got Cutlass Supreme Brougham sedans to replace Gen 1 Sevilles. I think the bustle back really turned off a lot of buyers in that segment, and the top-trim Cutlass sedans were still plush and far cheaper, so a good choice for buyers (though bad for GM’s margins and Cadillac’s health).
A friend of mine was given a 10 year old base model rwd Cutlass sedan. Other than faded paint it was in fine shape. Unfortunately as a 25 year old, he had no interest in it and used it as a rural field car. The V6 was so underpowered it was diffucult to get much speed up when offroading. But he persevered and wrecked it in short order.
I thought this was a waste of a nice albeit slow car. I would appreciate it as a daily driver today.
The V6 cars were indeed slow, except for perhaps the later 4.1 and 4.3-equipped models. However, with the 307 V8, performance was quite acceptable.
(I’d also rate the pre-’81 267 Malibus and the 265 Pontiacs as acceptable. The Olds 260, though, as well as the ’81-’82 267, was barely more powerful than the 3.8 V6.
Funny thing. I have owned or driven just about all these variations of A/G body cars with everything from 231’s to Olds 260’s to Pontiac 265’s to 307’s and even 267 Chevy’s and the later 4.3 with TBI that replaced Chevy’s 229 which I also have driven a few. Those basic 3.8 229/231 V6 cars with the often equipped 2.41 rear gears were not swift but got the job done and felt livelier than your average 85-90 HP Slant six or 200 L6 Fairmont at the time. If you somehow got lucky and found one equipped with a 3.08 or 3.23 trailer tow setup the performance was much peppier.
The Olds 260 was a dog in all of it’s years but more so in 1980-82 when they adopted the C3/C4 computer control system which brought rated power and torque down to 105/195 for 1980, 105/190 for 1981 and 100/190 for 1982. In normal driving with light throttle they felt a tad livelier than the Buick V6’s but trying to pass on an open road was agonizing. Flooring the pedal produced a lot of noise and little motion.
The Buick 4.1 liter 4BBl V6’s varied a bit. The best performers were the 1984 in he G-body cars with the 200R-4 and 3.08 rear gears. The 1982-83 cars came with the limper 2.41 gears but made 3.08 available. these engines felt livelier all around and offered an improvement in highway passing over the 231.
The Pontiac 265 was one of my favorite engines of all the G series cars I have owned in my 1981 Grand Prix. I lucked out and got a 2.93: rear trailer towing gear on mine but most came with the 2.29 setup. This engine always felt alive and eager and gave the 3355 LB coupe enough power for most any situation I threw at it. It also ran so smooth and quiet you seldom noticed it was even there. It also was very reliable needing only a new timing chain and gears and vale cover gaskets when it reached about 120K miles. The difference between this Grand Prix and my 1981 Cutlass Supreme coupe with the Olds 260 was night and day as far as the engine was concerned.
The Chevy 267 wasn’t bad either but every car I drove including a 1981 Malibu sedan and a 1982 Monte Carlo were running the economy oriented 2.29 rear gears. Despite only having 5 more horses than the 229 the 267 was much more flexible, smoother and easy to live with and made 30-35 more torque than the 229. It grew a little breathless in the higher revs but made enough power for the lighter G series cars.
The new for 1985 4.3 TBI Chevy V6 was a revelation, especially in the Monte Carlo body connected to the 200R-4 transmission. I took a lightly used 1986 example out for an extended test drive and was surprised at how quick it was. It would rip the rear tires loose on command and effortlessly climbed up to 60 MPH and felt every bit as quick as the 305 from the 1983-84 G-body cars I drove. Compared to the lame 231 V6 that was still standard on the Olds, Buick and Pontiac, the 4.3 felt like a V8 in comparison.
The Olds 307 also varied. The earlier 5A head versions were quick enough in proper tuned up condition. I had a 1983 Cutlass Supreme coupe with the 140 HP 307 tied to the THM 350 trans and 2.41 rear gears. That was a reasonably quick car for the time and vastly superior to my 1981 with the 260. It spun more easily to around 4800 RPM and made good mid range power. My 1985 Supreme coupe handed down from my grandfather also had a 307 but it was the notorious 7A head with roller lifters and was tied to a super lame 2.14 rear gear and 200 metric trans. It was quicker off the line than my 1983 and was super responsive in around town driving. Spinning the rear tire was very easy to do. The show was essentially over after 4000 RPM’s due to the smaller swirl port heads. Optioning up to the 200R-4 and 2.56 or better still 3.08 rear gears helped much in this regard.
1985 on up 305 4BBL LG4. The best performing engine hands down in the G-body cars, especially when paired to the 200R-4 transmission. This engine got 9.5:1 compression and a knock sensor and made 165 HP and 245 torque for 1985. Oddly and never properly explained to this day was the 1986-87 de-tune of this engine back down to 1983-84 power levels or 150/240. It was still the same engine with 9.5 compression and in the larger Caprice and F-body series made up to 170 Hp and 255 torque. I could never tell a difference between a 1985 305 with 200R-4 compared to a 1986/87 with same drivetrain so I always chalked this one up to dumbing down the LG4 to make the L69 look better in the SS Monte and F-body cars.
I actually like the look of the aero back cars. Must be the only one though.
You’re not the only one, I think they’re attractive in a quirky way. The fact that they are *not* hatchbacks is utterly baffling though.
I’m with ya, bro. My faves from that time period.
Taking another look at the 2-door Aeroback, I could see how it could look reasonably attractive in the right color and with the right accessories (I.e. body-colored Super Stock wheels). I guess it’s just the four door that does nothing for me.
And im the exact opposite. To me they look better as 4drs. I think a lot of cars that everyone else thinks look good as 2drs look better as 4dr models, like the Granada/Monarch twins. Or full size Lincoln’s.
These cars are still seen in traffic in Albuquerque. Mostly two doors and some four door sedans. Almost all of them either as low riders or on great big chrome wheels.
Like this one, also seen in my neighborhood? 🙂
Lots of former GM big car owners downsized to G bodies in the early 80’s. To them, this was as “small” as they would get.
I remember Buick referring to the new 1980 Century as there “little limousine” in the car ads. It was being pitched as a practical more fuel efficient alternative to the gas inefficient larger cars that could still make 6 people feel well taken care of. The basic 3.8 V6 was often talked about and for 1981 rated MPG was listed as 21/30 with a clause that your actual mileage will vary.
In my last year of grade school one of the teachers had a brand spanking new 4 door “aeroback”. I played on the volleyball team in the school league and at the end of the final tournament we were rewarded with a trip to the golden arches. Being the first place finisher we had to wait for the 2nd and 3rd place to be decided and then travel as a group. After loading in the car there was a further delay and we all sat out in the hot parking lot with windows that don’t roll down. I remember her saying we had to open the door if we wanted air. I thought that was just about the stupidest thing ever, besides the styling of course. What about when you’re moving? She was proud of her new car and I was just glad I went on to high school and never had to look at it again. Normal at the front and weird at the back.
Even in the “Great White North” there were a lot of these Cutless Supremes roaming around and everyone seemed to have at least one in their extended family or in a driveway nearby. The featured car reminds me of how these did extended duty as beaters long after the sale by date. They were cheap to buy, easy to fix and parts were readily available new or from the boneyard. Most of them became very shabby from the tin worm which we referred to more accurately as PacMan. A coworker had an ’84 that soldiered on well into the mid 2000’s. It looked a whole lot better than the one pictured above though it became very needy mechanically. It wouldn’t have taken much for a mechanically inclined person to keep it on the road for a few more years.
I always thought these were solid, respectable cars with styling that had an understated elegance to it. Sure, it may have looked a *lot* like a ’75 Seville with altered proportions, but the styling of that Seville was ahead of its time, being the vanguard of the sheer look. Equipped right (color keyed Rally II wheels, vinyl roof delete) they had some ties to their sixties predecessors, at least in my mind. The fixed rear windows were a cheap cop-out, sure, but on an A/C equipped car, not that big a deal. Slow but reliable with the Buick 231, and acceptable performance (and still reliable) with the Olds 307.
Down in my neck of the woods, where we don’t see heavy salt use, these were common well into the 2000’s, and you’ll still see the odd G-body sedan in beater or elderly owner use to this day. (Discounting the ones used in more of a “modern classic” usage, which you’re starting to see here and there.)
I had a couple. My first was a green 1987 Cutlass Sedan with no options except for A/C, rear defroster and automatic trans.
My second (pictured here) was a 1985 that was loaded to the gills with options. I found them to be comfortable cruising cars but cursed the miles of vacuum lines that I had to replace on them.
Nice one.
I like yours, too, Leon! I seem to recall you mentioning in another thread that the wheel covers on yours (originally factory wires) were replaced with vintage ones from a Cutlass from the 60’s. I think they look(ed) great on your car.
Yes,
There came from a mid 1960’s Oldsmobile. They came from a junk yard car($5 each)
The problem with this car, that I saw immediately, was that it arrived with more than a few glaring mistakes. The odd hatchback-less roofline wasn’t really attractive at all. The rear fender line didn’t fit either the hatchback style, or the notchback style. The rear windows in the rear doors, didn’t open! Instead GM used that ugly tilt window. The engine choices weren’t great. It was rear drive. It was a mess of a car that probably looked passable when designed during the mid-1970s, but certainly was out of date by Day one.
What did GM expect to do battle against with these cars, the Torino? That car was nearly a decade old by 1978 and Ford was phasing it out.
Ford showed up with their brand new Volvo-esque Fairmont the same year this car debuted. The Fairmont was obviously focused on future trends, while GMs offerings were not. The Fairmont simply looked lighter, yet roomier and more modern than these GM cars.
From there, it was like these cars were ugly stepsisters meant for the fleet. FWD with light bodies, roomy interiors and a completely different look was in, what these cars looked like, were out. They plodded on for another few years before the plug got pulled.
GM missed the trends entirely when these cars came out. They weren’t bad cars, but they were just ho-hum cars, and that caused a nice car to get overlooked.
Glad to see them shine here – they deserve more respect than they got back then.
We (my immediate family) had a number of Fox bodies, starting with a 1978 Mercury Zephyr. The Fairmont/Zephyr sedans, while fairly well designed had a number of flaws. The carbureted 2.3L 4 cylinder was no ball of fire. No torque to speak of, in hilly country the car was just frustrating. With an automatic, it was positively lethargic. In all but the hatchback Fox bodies, the trunk was far too shallow to stand up grocery bags.
The front seats had plenty of legroom, but the back seats were meh. In two door Foxes, the rear windows did not roll down either.
The Foxes were lighter, but the RWD A bodies were better drivers. With the standard V6 engines, they had more power and similar fuel mileage.
The reality was in 1978 that FWD was the future. Both of these chassis, while serviceable for the future, were not the future.
Here’s today’s useless trivia…you can tell form the outside if the notchback A/G body sedans have power windows, because the rear door vent windows have a chrome pin visible on the outside that the window latch attaches to on manual window cars…the power window cars have no protruding chrome pin.
Same goes for wagons I assume?
I don’t care how much hip room they allegedly preserved, but fixed rear windows on a four-door sedan had to be one of the stupidest ideas Detroit has ever come up with. I won’t totally blame GM, because Chrysler’s K-car sedans had fixed rear windows in the beginning. Just awful.
I actually liked that Chrysler fixed that mistake on the K-cars within a couple of model years, whereas the GM G-Bodies kept those fixed rear windows through to the bitter end.
The featured car likely would not pass safety inspection in Pennsylvania with that body damage.
The featured car has the rare fiber optic lamp monitor system – seldom seen on Cutlasses. It also has opera lights and is a Brougham model. Very nice car, probably had a high MSRP as it seems to be a really loaded example. Too bad it has been banged up so badly.
IIRC, Pontiac brought out a badge-and-stripe engineered GTO version of the aeroback coupe in 1978 or so? I think I remember seeing one on one of those auto-resto inspired shows a few years ago. It was based in an auto parts store in New York City. Or have I had too many Bud Lights since then?
Pontiac never had an aeroback A-body, so it might be the Bud. Or, more likely, perhaps you’re confusing your recycled musclecar names with the aeroback 442 that Olds put out?
My favorite of the G-body sedans is the 1984-86 Bonneville series. They looked a little more up to date than the Cutlass or Regal sedans and the front and back weren’t as severely squared off. They also came with the 305 4BBL and 200R-4 which made decent power in these cars. A good second choice would be a 1981 Lemans sedan in two tone paint with the 265 V8, trailer tow package and snow flake alloy wheels. Now that is one ultra rare setup!
Went to the Impound Auction yesterday. This 82 Cutlass brought $1200 which in my humble opinion is about $500 too much.
Until I got to your interior photos, I was thinking that 1200 might not be bad for a good running, non-rusty Cutlass, especially if it was a 307 car (though I don’t know if the 307 was available in ’82). But that interior is pretty trashed.
I got the VIN. Its a 260 V8.
Now, this would be worth a lot more! Very popular with resto-modders. One could swap in a larger Olds V8 into the 260 mounts.
$500 today is near junk value.
Rear
Interior shot. It was locked so thru window only.
And rear.
“The four-door Cutlass had a great sales year for 1980..”
Seems like one of the few good selling cars that recession year. Lots of Chicago area folks downsized from full sized to these and Century sedans. At least those who were still doing well [job wise] during the recession. Gas prices were high, but those that didn’t want to squeeze into a sub-compact felt comfy with mid size cars.
Being RWD, and v8 optional, these make good resto-mods. Amazing to see once plain/luxo 4 doors with “LS Swap” 😉
As much as I love the coupes, I’d definitely take a Ciera over the RWD sedan. Also, I don’t mind Ciera coupes, nor the little FWD Calais coupe. I’ve always thought they had a handsome, distinctive look.
Calais. Pretty gangster for a FWD compact. They can’t hold a candle to the RWD 80s Cutlass Supreme coupes, though.
House behind the Ciera looks like a Tesla Cybertruck.
A good friend had one of these, in dark blue. He absolutely adored that car, and we went to alot of lunches from work together, and also on weekend trips to Kitchener. A shirt factory there would sell seconds on a Saturday morning, and if you got there early enough, the shirts were just like first line quality.
Back to the car. My buddy had an accounting business on the side with another chap at work. The other chap would come and borrow my buddy’s Olds, to go out and run errands for the side business during the work day. Rather than walking over from three buildings away to scoff the key, he got one of his own cut. As if that wasn’t enough, other folks in that department found out about this little ‘arrangement’, and began to get the spare (contraband) key and do their own little errands, doctors’ appointments, etc. That went on for quite some time, until my friend had to put a stop to it.
I love the two door aerobacks. The first one was a 78 Cutlass Salon brougham that I purchased new. I currently own a 79 Century. If you look at the body from all different angles, I think the worst view is the straight on rear. GM should have used the style of the first gen AMX with the small flying buttress.
This just goes to show that the 1975-79 Cadillac Seville and even to a lesser extent that the 1975-79 Chevrolet Nova 4 Door Sedan were both instrumental and influential with the updated design of the 1978-87 GM RWD A/G-Bodied 4 Door Sedans. Remember too that the 1975-79 GM RWD X/K-Bodied Sedan were discontinued by then and by 1980 the GM RWD A/G-Bodied beginning with the Oldsmobile Cutlass/Cutlass Supreme and Buick Century/Regal and then a year later the Chevrolet Malibu and Pontiac LeMans/Bonneville adapted the 1G Seville “look”
More photo comparison here now see how the 1980-87 Oldsmobile Cutlass 4 Door Sedan shared some design resemblance and measures up with other identical sized Oldsmobile 4 Door Sedans of that era as well.
These were nice smaller sedans for buyers downsizing from traditional cars. They had all the classic Olds luxury touches found in the 98 and Delta, but in a nice more manueverable package.
These were in competition with the Fox Cougar/Marquis, the Granada/ LTD and the Volare based Park Avenue.
All these cars offered big car touches in a smaller package.
»aHEM« The Volaré-based which, now?