Downsizing. Doesn’t that word always generate a distinct reaction? “We just learned today that our company is downsizing,” certainly prompts a reaction; conversely, “Hey, I’ve been able to downsize my waist size by three inches!” will yield a congratulatory response.
So why does the downsizing of a long-established line of automobiles always seem to generate a negative reaction, especially since it is of the waist-reducing variety?
The Oldsmobile 98 had a very long history (in automotive terms) by 1985. (CC had covered it through model year 1984 here). It seems that this generation of Ninety-Eight (along with its Buick and Cadillac cousins) has been very much maligned as an automobile–but why? Let’s explore some possible answers.
Possibility #1: It was front-wheel drive.
Yes indeed, it was front-wheel drive, a configuration that started becoming ever more common in the United States in such late-1970s and early-1980s cars as the Chevrolet Citation, Dodge Omni, and Ford Escort–economy cars, all. After all, had any luxury (or near-luxury) car ever had front-wheel drive? That would be just plain wrong.
Many consider this a front-wheel drive luxury car, but the Cord, which was built in the 1930s, was truly remembered by very few people in 1985. That’s the reason then, because of the front-wheel drive. Certainly the Cord, as a front-wheel drive luxury car, was a fluke of nature, was it not?
How inconvenient, that pesky Oldsmobile Toronado. It really blows that theory, now doesn’t it?
Possibility #2: It was under-powered, as were all front-wheel drive cars of the 1980s.
Yes, a good number of them were under-powered. You need only refer again to the infamous Chevrolet Citation and its derivatives, the Dodge Omni / Plymouth Horizon twins and the Ford Escort / Mercury Lynx for proof. Yet think about it this way: The outgoing 1984 model Olds 98 had a 307 cubic inch (5.0-liter) V8 with 140 horsepower, and each horse was responsible for pushing 30 pounds of machine. The 1985 model had a 3.8-liter V6 (231 cubic inches) with 125 horsepower, thus saddling each of its horses with 26 pounds of car.
Talk to any horse owner and he’ll tell you that the more horses you have, and the harder you work them, the more they need to be fed. With early 1980s forecasts of astronomical fuel prices for the balance of the decade and the EPA breathing down its collective neck, GM did what it thought was best and shrunk its belt size. General Motors did, wisely, keep the Chevrolet Caprice and the Cadillac Fleetwood around as an ace up their sleeve.
Possibility #3: It never sold well. People simply hated the new design.
In 1984, Oldsmobile sold 76,833 Ninety-Eights of all types. The new, more svelte 1985 models sold a mere 169,432 units, more than any year during the previous generation of Olds 98 (model years 1977 to 1984). By 1989, sales had dwindled to 66,000 units, a few thousand less than in 1974.
Possibility #4: It was so…so…different.
Now we may be on to something. It was indeed different from anything anyone had seen. As with anything new, there was skepticism about every facet of it.
Ford still had the rear-drive, 302 cubic inch (5.0-liter) Town Car, Grand Marquis, and Crown Victoria. Chrysler still had the Fifth Avenue, Diplomat, and Gran Fury, all pushed by their 318 cubic inch (5.2-liter) V8. Now, both Oldsmobile and Buick had a front-drive car for their top model, one that weighed about 1,000 pounds less than the competition. For traditionalists, the 1985 Oldsmobile 98 was a monumental change.
Do these possibilities hold any merit? Perhaps. If one thinks from a purely rational and strictly clinical standpoint, it can be argued the 1985 model was far superior than the 1984 model due to its greater efficiency in so many areas. However, this line of thought should be approached with extreme caution: Doing so could expand this purely rational and strictly clinical line of thought, even to the point of tempting one to argue that the Oldsmobile 98 was an irrational creation in the first place. After all, automobiles are strictly transportation, are they not?
Perish the thought.
Any conversation about the merits and successes of automobile downsizing are highly subjective and a matter of personal taste. This spectrum of subjectivity is a very healthy thing; if none of us had any subjectivity about automobiles, we would all agree with each other, and how profoundly boring that would be.
Personally, I was rather enamored with this 80,000-mile survivor when I saw it at the Ford dealership. Perhaps I’m in the minority, but I have always liked the shape of these 98s–but that’s just me. I also like peach wine, brunettes, and classical music, each of which involves a high degree of subjectivity and personal taste.
Yes, Oldsmobile downsized the dickens out of the 98 for model year 1985. Did it work, or did it fail? That is a highly subjective and personal issue, much like politics, religion, or one’s opinion of professional sports. Although that could be debated for an eternity, you certainly know whether or not you like the car, and nothing will ever sway your opinion.
Regardless of what your feeling is toward this Olds, you have to admire its greenhouse. That kind of bright, airy greenhouse with expansive side windows, low beltline and superb all around vision is sadly history today…
IF ANYONE HAS A OLDSMOBILE NINETY EIGHT OR EIGHTY EIGHT FOR SALE PLEASE CONTACT ME PLEASE. MY EMAIL IS APIZZILEO@GMAIL.COM
I am in possession of a 1985 olds 98! Has about 198.000 miles!!
I think they look very nice too.
Some of the problem may be that Buick, Olds, and Cadillac looked way too much alike. Remember this 1986 Lincoln ad? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaZqQLpbjFU
I once had a 1989 Oldsmobile Delta 88 Royale Brougham, I loved that car. Great visibility all around, never felt the 3.8 was underpowered in it, adequate would be the word I would use. Had about 88,000 miles on it when I sold it to a kid in his first year of college in 2010, and it still looked almost showroom fresh. It had gotten to where it would have some minor system fail on it every month and would run me between 200 and 400 dollars a pop. I couldn’t see continuing to pay a car payment worth of repairs every month and having to find something else to drive while it was broken. I do miss that car, belonged to my grandfather, he was a navy man and the car reflected that, dark blue vinyl roof, dark blue metallic paint, and a dark blue crushed velour pillow top interior. If I stumbled across another one in similar condition, with the way my life is now, I’d buy it.
Exactly. These cars were reliability nightmares. The electrics in particular were bad, especially the a/c system. One couldn’t have one out of warranty and not deal with something going wrong at least monthly. Those Consumer Reports ratings are, in my opinion, accurate and they swing a lot of lead.
This is the reason the C Body sold poorly later on. The basic design was excellent, it was relentless GM cost cutting that ruined what was in fact an excellent design.
Two years ago I inherited a 1985 Olds exactly like the one you described. It was a one owner and now has 39,700 miles. It is for sale.
What are you asking for the 98 ? Thanks, George
Still have it lol?
I just picked one up with 95k on the odometer, I’ll be fixing it up to sell. It’s in pretty good condition
I do remember as a young man who’s parents had a 1978 Olds 98, this was a bitter pill to swallow. I was working at the Olds dealer in the parts department when these came out. Now that I’m older I rather like this style.
A lot of us here are traditionalists but they can’t make them the same forever for many reasons. Tough to swallow at times but all so true. Manufactures just please, don’t screw with my full size truck, pleeease!
Actually, the full size truck is the next thing they need to screw with. As in, MAKE IT SMALLER! There’s no reason that an F-150 needs to be as big as they’re currently making them. Drop the size back to the late 1960’s, and keep the technological advances and build quality.
Never happen. You can buy this little truck for X or this big truck for only a couple of bucks more than X a month. People buy the big truck.
Chrysler had the Dodge Dakota which was the closet to the ones way back when. They quit building those in 2011.
If and when gasoline prices get to the point that average Joes cannot afford to feed an F-150, the size will be adjusted accordingly. Fact is, even at $4.00 a gallon, it is still relatively cheap enough for the F-150 to be the top seller yet again.
What are they asking for it? You don’t see many cars of this vintage on new lots. A friend of mine had a 1990 Delta 88. It was a tough and solid car that he put through the ringer.
Here’s a link to information:
http://www.joemachenscapitalcityfordlincoln.com/Inventory/view/Make/Oldsmobile/Used/
Very unusual for a new car dealer to keep something like this in its inventory instead of immediately wholesaling it. And it’s got a reasonable asking price, not like some dealers who grab onto a car like this and think they’ve got a Barrett-Jackson special. Wonder what it was traded in on.
My friend & co-worker traded in his problematic 1986 Toronado on a brand new, 1987 Ninety-Eight Grande, which had pigskin inserts in its leather seats, as well as a bulky center console armrest with a combination lock and a digital instrument panel. I recall my first ride in it – the passenger window came out of its track and the ac unit would shut down during hard accelerations, especially climbing one of the many mountains in our area. The service department at the local Oldsmobile dealership became quite familiar with this car. It was a nice car in its day, but I much preferred my Saab 900 Turbo, which also spent many hours in the service department.
At one time I owned three of these things, all at once–two ’88s and one ’89, all bought from my father. My personal car was an ’88 Touring Sedan with real burled walnut dash and interior accents. The touring sedan also had a full gauge package not found on lesser 98s. It was the most expensive Olds that year and listed for $25,000. It wasn’t a rocket ship (clever Olds reference) but I could cruise all day at 85 mph (137 kph) and get 28 mpg. On one trip from Salt Lake to Laramie I recorded 31.5 mpg. Must have been one hell of a tailwind. It was also a great snow car. It had its faults–weak motor mounts, frail window regulators and other niggling quality issues, but overall was a good car. I gave it away with 176,000 miles (283,000 km) on the clock. We gave my wife’s away to a charity, and younger son totalled the third. I could change out the alternator in these things in less than 15 minutes. Front rotors (Raybestos) were $21.00 a pop at AutoZone. Front rebuilt calipers would set you back $12.50 exchange. Try that with a German car.
There was a time when the midwestern US was crawling with these (and the Buick variants). A lot of older folks bought these and drove them for a long time. They suffered from the usual GM cheapness inside but proved to be one of the more durable cars made in those years.
These never appealed that much to me, but I could see where someone could be very happy with one. GM had a huge base of customers in 1985, and many, many of them bought at least one of these.
I’ve always thought the controvery over the downsized big cars was due to two factors:
1. The market for the GM (or Ford or Chrysler) big car was the believer in the “traditional ‘Murican car”. Inefficient V-8 engine in the front, automatic transmission with a column shifter, three-across bench seat, rear drive, soft suspension, ill-handling, gas-hogging mass of chrome and sheet metal. The kind of driver to whom ‘handling’ is the equivalent of “how easy is it to park?”, and pride is directly proportional to the length, width, mass and bling of the car sitting in the driveway. These are people who would never consider owning a ‘foreign’ car – and what GM brought out was about as close as they were ever going to come to copying a Citroen DS21. There was absolutely nothing ‘Murican’ about these cars.
2. These customers were quietly feeling threatened regarding where the car market was going. The days of ‘Murican’ cars holding 90% of the market was long gone, and you no longer had to be some kind of wierd ultra-liberal college professor dope smoking beatnik to own a foreign car. Actually a lot of these people’s neighbors were discovering that you could get something that was better built, better handling, more economical than a traditional ‘Murican’ car – and they were doing it in increasing numbers. Thus, there was a bit of a ‘circle the wagons’ mentality; giving a lot of credit and desire to cars that were too technologically obsolete (yes, Panther, I mean you) to really have a place in the market – thus giving them a lifespan much longer than they deserved.
There’s no doubt that the ’85 GM big cars were an advance over what preceeded them. It’s just that a lot of the customers didn’t want to see it, and weren’t going to see it, no matter how obvious the differences were. And now that they’re old, the deliberate bias has only gotten stronger giving way too much credit to a design of car that probably shouldn’t have survived WWII.
Excellent points, but I would add one more. It seemed that these cars were an in-your-face kind of reminder of the need to compromise or settle. Maybe we couldn’t really have it all. Cars from the beginning up to maybe 1970 had always been more and better in almost every way. In the 70s, there were some compromises, but they were minor and you could pretend not to see them. But with these, the compromises were in everyone’s face, and we could not ignore them.
Nice thought. Definitely a good point #3.
That’s a really good point. By contrast, the Accord and Camry kept getting bigger with each new incarnation, so even though they were still a good deal smaller than the C-bodies, Honda and Toyota could present their new generations as bigger and better than before.
Indeed. And it didn’t help that the top-line Ninety Eight looked like someone injected a Cutlass Ciera with growth hormones.
I once dated a woman who had one of these, a 2-door. Once you got inside, it wasn’t so bad, even though the dash continued the “overgrown Ciera” theme. The seats were nice and plush, it rode well, and the 3.8, while not exactly a “rocket,” moved the car along nicely. It had one dangerous flaw – the steering (column, rack, something, I’m not sure) would sometimes bind in a certain spot, usually when you needed it most.
I guess these cars had their merits, but they left me cold.
That’s a superb analysis and I agree one million percent.
I think you have nailed the reasons for my feelings toward those GM years.
In 1991, GM, up-sized the Olds and Buick in response to the beating they took from Ford. As you remember GM’s Smith took a lot of hits as a bean counter, and not a car man, back then.
I was elated when the 1991 Models came out as finally, I felt, they returned to style with great front wheel drive and engine performance.
I purchased a one owner 1991 Oldsmobile 98, Regency Elite, with leather interior in 2004, which I still own today. I plan to keep it, as it is the finest car i have ever owned. (161000 miles and runs and drives perfectly)
A couple of problems with your theory, these cars do have 3 across front seating, a column shifter for their automatic transmission, soft suspension and ill handling much worse than their predecessors (thanks to that “high tech” FWD). No they didn’t have a V8 driving the rear wheels but thanks to that FWD you can’t turn the wheels very far so they aren’t easy to park either.
All of the new models GM introduced in the mid-1980’s were modern, front-wheel-drive cars dressed up in 1970’s brougham outfits. Yeah, sure… most of these have a column shifter and split bench seats, but nobody ever mistook one for a 1975 Sedan deVille. That was their strategy to try and appeal to their ever shrinking base of loyal diehards while offering a product that would register as something more than an anachronistic bloatmobile with the rest of the world. Apparently, the execution of this plan resulted in cars that didn’t really appeal to either demographic. That’s unfortunate…
“…ill handling much worse than their predecessors (thanks to that “high tech” FWD)”
How do you figure?
After all of today’s discussion on these cars, I just parked next to a Chrysler LHS. All I could think of is how different the world would be if either
1. GM had built a car with the basic durability of the late 80s C body but within a more modern paradigm, or
2. if Chrysler could have built its LHs with the basic mechanical integrity of these GM 3800 powered front drivers.
More weight on the front wheels due to the engine and transaxle being in front of them combined with smaller tires and a strut suspension that lacks any significant camber gain and you have a car that plows as well as a John Deere. Sure some of the later higher optioned versions had better tire, wheel and sway bar set ups but base to base these do not handle as well as the B Boxes.
Precisely. Oldsmobile and Cadillac faired the worst, with an excess of ’70s gingerbread on an otherwise modern, aerodynamic body. It just didn’t look right. Buicks, came off a lot cleaner-looking and I always thought the T-type cars were pretty sharp. All three shared the same hilariously dated interiors; Even the Taurus came with a column shift, but GM pumped out cars with those silly pillow top seats for a solid decade after everyone else stopped.
Olds scrambled to freshen the look of its cars around ’88/’89 with some decent results – the dechromed 1990 Eighty Eight Royale is probably what the ’86 Delta 88 should have been. However, Olds tried to overcompensate by throwing their customer base under the bus with the disastrous “Not Your Father’s Oldsmobile” campaign. We all know the end result.
I vehemently disagree.
There’s no shame in faux wood appliqués & pillow-top seats. No shame in a cushy ride either. None at all. Granted, I don’t want that crap in my top end $60k Cadillac but these were affordable, middle class American luxury cars the likes of which cannot be bought today.
Why? Because automotive journalists told Americans what they wanted (Teutonic styling & performance) & Americans didn’t know enough to think for THEMSELVES. Now everyone laments the loss of affordable American luxury cars that aren’t carbon copies of everything else.
Say what you will. But those “silly, dated” interiors look classy & distinctly American to me. And they were actually available in something OTHER than black & gray.
Careful what you wish for…
I wasn’t a fan of these downsized models when they first came out, however after owning a couple I always came away with this thought; these cars do just about everything as well as the larger fwd models. Almost as much room, similar ride, better mileage and traction. I used to drive a newer Chevy impala at work and always thought it drove a lot like the 1988 lesabre I owned at the time. I always have been impressed with the reliability of these downsized models as well.
Theoretically they had 3 across front seating. Maybe if at least 2 of the 3 were as skinny as high fashion models. In 1977, GM managed to finagle the interior volume numbers so that the first round of downsized cars spec’d out at least as good in overall interior volume as their 1971-76 predecessors. In ’85 they somehow managed the same trick again — on paper. But put a ’75 Olds 98 next to this ’85, and ask anyone which is the roomier car. The 1971-76 fuselage bodies feel like they have extra elbow room to stretch out in. The rear seat passengers in the ’75 won’t feel like their heads are in danger of hitting the rear window. I had a FWD ’89 Cadillac and by that time GM had sorta given up — the seat padding was clearly intended for 2 people in front and 2 in back.
In a sense, these cars were too “American” for those buyers who were shopping imports, and not American enough for traditional American buyers. (My own feelings? I thought the proportions looked odd, although I think the concurrent Cadillacs looked worse. The tall greenhouse sits on a stubby body and just looks weird. However, today’s high-beltline-and-gunslit-windows trend is even more egregious.)
I also agree with the point that these cars did finally put the idea of compromise right out in front of us, and we didn’t like it.
Really well said, Skye.
These cars were the last kick at the cat for the WWII generation. Most people are extremely conservative in their outlook, not particularly liking, and even fearing, change. If your first new car was a 1949 Chevrolet, then a 1989 Caprice could be seen as a logical progression. It was not going to feel very much different from the car you were driving before your new C Body.
The people who bought these cars had a close connection to the events of WWII and many wouldn’t even consider driving a Japanese car, mostly for racist reasons, but also due to the belief that if it were made in America, it was certainly better.
By mid-model run, the quality of these cars (or lack thereof) was a well-known thing but another factor was the people that had bought this car were dying off in droves. The introduction of the LS400 in 1990 was no fluke; Toyota knew the demographics perfectly.
For those who wanted the domestic V-8 sled, they were available until a few years ago, when demand for them dried up. The Greatest Generation was not around to buy them anymore.
I recall when the new GM full size line debuted. The Olds, Buick and Cadillac looked so much alike. Took a test drive in a 98 coupe with the landau padded roof. The Olds drove very nicely, but I believe the car listed for around $ 18K, too much money for too little car.
Due to the gas crunch, I bought a left over 84 base Camaro 6 cyl automatic for $ 9,600 drive out. It was the most trouble free car I ever owned. Only back to the dealer once, to repair the button on the gear shifter. If it hadn’t been in warranty, I’d a repaired it myself. I used to do all maintenance, brakes, oil changes, etc. Even changed the heater core a month before I sold it in 1993 with 70K.
The salesman tried to talk me out of the Camaro. He said he could put me in a loaded Cavalier for less money. That wasn’t even a thought. Even a cheap Camaro was a sporty car. If GM had any sense, they’d sell base models of cars like my Camaro, instead of trying to sell sporty wannabes like the Cobalt. A $ 15 to 20K Camaro would sell like hotcakes.
I think the problem with these cars is purely aesthetic. The proportions demand some truly avant-garde styling, with the big front overhang and the rear wheels behind the c-pillar. (I could imagine a Citroen sedan coming out rather like this.) Instead, it was festooned with leftover brougham gingerbread, so it just looks silly, like a little kid trying to wear his dad’s fedora and wingtips.
That’s why my favorite of these vehicles is the Seville STS. It takes the modern proportions and works with it, not against it. (Though it doesn’t look like a Cadillac to me. The STS should’ve been an Oldsmobile, the 98 Touring Sedan should’ve been a Buick… and Cadillacs should have rwd V8s!)
Always loved the Seville STS looks – and yeah, it’s a stretch to call it a Cadillac if you’re insistent on being traditional, but I always thought that what a Cadillac should have looked like back then.
I really liked the ’88 STS. I first saw one at the age of eight, at the 1988 Chicago Auto Show. It looked great in black with saddle interior. The whole interior on these were miles better than the other Sevilles, particularly those solid walnut door panels. I haven’t seen one in years.
From a left-brain perspective, these were a remarkable achievement for GM, in terms of space utilization and efficiency. But then, they were really a scaled-up X car (not in its details), which was the real breakthrough GM car (as well as the break-down car). The X, A, and these H&C bodies all shared the same architectural configuration. The trick was to differentiate them better, and that’s where GM ran into problems. But it was a hell of an effort, and a true paradigm shift.
Let’s face it; it was this whole family of new fwd GM cars from 1980-1985 set the template for all the modern fwd sedans today. The original Camry was very much influenced by the Citation. And so on… GM deserves some serious recognition for these, despite the fact that the eighties were a terrible decade for them.
My mom had an `87 Park Avenue for a good deal of my teen years; I drove it once I got my license in `98. It was a very good, reliable car. Once she sold it after buying an Accord, the owner threw a rod in the 3.8. Unfortunate, because I wanted to buy it from him as a replacement for my much-maligned `78 Cougar. Incidentally, I bought his `80 Cutlass LS; a saddle-brown four-door with the 260 that would be the start of my Oldsmobile habit.
My aunt’s `97 LeSabre on the other hand… Oy vey.
My parents traded their 1982 Delta 88 Royale four-door on a loaded 1988 Delta 88 Royale Brougham.
What I remember is that the 1988 model felt like a…rocket…compared to the 1982 model. The 1988 model would literally leap forward when you pushed the accelerator pedal, while the 1982 model had that definite “lazy” feel that we associate with “Malaise Era” vehicles. The 1988 model was also easier to park than the earlier model.
Where the newer model fell down compared to its predecessor was in “feel” and quality control. The 1988 model felt tinny and very light. There was a constant drumming in the trunk area on rough roads. The door panels and dashboard felt as though they could be taken apart with my bare hands. The ride was, if anything, even softer on the new car than on the old one. Oldsmobile had attempted to retain the boulevard ride of the 1982 model, and it just didn’t work on the lighter, front-wheel-drive platform. I can remember taking sharp hills at a decent speed in the newer car – it took longer for the car to recover than it did with the old one.
The 1982 model simply felt more substantial and heftier.
The quality control on the 1988 was not too good, either. That car required numerous trips to the dealer before all of the accessories and gauges worked properly. Fortunately, the dealer did a fantastic job in finishing what GM hadn’t.
I also remember my parents complaining that the 1988 model was lower and harder to enter and exit than the 1982 model.
The 1988 model was traded on a 1992 Delta 88, which was a dramatic improvement over the older car in every way (including ease of entry and exit). If GM had brought out that car in the 1980s, it would not have lost as much market share in subsequent years, and there probably wouldn’t be as much B-Body and Panther love today.
These were amazing cars, something I’m not inclined to admit when it comes to anything front-engined made by the General. When I was a kid, one of my best friend’s mother traded a 1980ish Oldsmobile 88 Diesel for one of these. I only rode in the diesel once or twice, but I remember her cursing it when driving. She was the first to get one in ’85, and I could not believe the space in the back- I could extend my legs fully and not touch the front seats. It really was a limousine. In many ways, these were as close to the BMC ‘Landcrab’ concept of space efficiency as American cars ever got. Unfortunately as mentioned earlier, this did involve some styling that wasn’t totally flowing. I think the 88/Lesabre actually pulled it off better than the 98/Electra, as the angled greenhouse on the lesser cars fit with the shovel-face much better.
Many years later, my best mates from the Soo had a ’88 Royale Brougham when they were a poor young grad student family in family housing at U of M. Up to this point, I always hated GM cars with a passion, and felt they were always unreliable cynically engineered pieces of junk. I still remember reading the Consumer Reports reliability index for these with its solid column of full black dots (much worse than average in all areas). Well, that beater 88 clocked up 250K miles and put up with the kind of abuse that a young family living on student grants could give it. Even after hit head on by a local cop car, it still drove with its hood duct taped down until it was finally junked in favor of a new Saturn in 1999 or so. The Saturn by the way blew its engine before its sixth birthday. However, even in the mid-00’s, these cars were still providing stellar service across Michigan, where they seemed to resist rust so much better than almost anything else.
But I think the sentiment is right that most Americans in the ’80s felt cheated by these, much more than the Taurus/Sable/Continental buyers. I think the reason is that these tried to be so baroque and ‘old fashioned’ looking, and thus conveyed the message that they were a downsized and thus somehow less of a ‘good deal’ in the metal for your money category. Ford buyers chose a Conti or Sable over the GM or Town Car because they were ‘high tech’ and thus were making a positive choice to buy something modern as there was an alternative. GM said take it or leave it.
Similarly, Chrysler always did well with their gilded Reliants, as they sold well to older couples who wanted all the bling they could get but still be able to park without scraping the sides of the garage. These GM cars weren’t marketed well at either the cataract brigade nor the more tech savvy near-luxury buyers, and thus were neither fish nor fowl, in spite of being very, very good cars. Furthermore, they were the only FWD full sizers of their era with transaxles that didn’t self destruct by 80K miles- something neither Ford nor Chrysler could claim. Combined with the fact that by the FWD era drivability problems have been mostly eliminated, this was one of the first ‘modern’ cars that you could actually sit at a traffic light and accelerate on green without restarting the car. That 3800 was a great engine, and probably third only behind the slant six and Ford Truck six as the most durable six cylinder engine of all time.
I remember when these came out, too. Our neighbors owned a gas station, and the local Olds dealer gave them an ’85 brochure for the 98. They were not luxury car people, so they had ZERO interest in it, so they gave it to my mom who had a 1983 Regency Brougham sedan. She liked the new car, but said it was too small for the price. I think this was part of the mentality back then – “expensive and luxurious” had to be “big”, period. It’s funny someone remembered the “pigskin” interior on the Grande models. I remember the brochure for these and thinking how disgusting it was for a car to have pigskin seats!!!
It’s difficult to go from this:
1983 Oldsmobile Ninety Eight Regency Brougham sedan:
…to this:
1985 Oldsmobile Ninety Eight Regency sedan:
But it looks so clean sans vinyl roof!
Obviously I’m not a member of The Greatest Generation. That ’85 looks so much better than the ’83. However, my father was a member of the generation, and he wasn’t about to pay big bucks for a car that was smaller than its predecessor, interior space be damned.
The pigskin was like a suede insert in the center of seats.
I loved these cars the second they came out, although I was holding my breath wondering if they would fail. The results (sales, reliability) were mixed, but I think we have to agree that they weren’t fails at all. I like the Olds, but I like the Buick better — it was very sleek and European looking, and had that cool reverse opening hood. Of course, this is only true if the car isn’t saddled with gold packages, vinyl tops, cabriolet aftermarket roofs, etc., as so many of them were!
If you ever rode in one, the space efficiency and visibility were truly impressive. I just rode in a 2013 Cadillac XTS, which occupies a similar position in the GM lineup, and believe me, it would benefit from a diet to make it more like one of these 98s or Electras! Like so many cars today, it’s too big, too tall, too heavy, and too hard to see out of.
I think the main reason these are maligned today is because of who’s hating on them — classic car buffs. Everyone else forgot they existed, and the classic people like the B-bodies/C-bodies/Panthers etc. because they have that old-fashioned rear-drive, body-on-frame platform they value so highly. For the actual intended customers, these ’85 C-bodies were a glimpse of the future (well, except for the overgrown, zero-visibility part of the future– I never would have predicted that!)
You hit the nail on the head, Chris. Most “car guys” care very little for anything that doesn’t adhere to the V8/RWD school of thought. Moreover, the B body always ends up as the main opponent when discussing the FWD C/H cars, an unfortunate outcome at best. And though I have a proclivity for B bodies, my love of all things Detroit esoterica does include such beasts as the C/H bodies, and why not? Try taking one to a car show, though. Chances are high that you’ll be shunned.
Here’s that reverse-opening hood I mentioned above, featured on the Buick Electra/LeSabre. This detail shows they were really trying to make something special. Whether they succeeded is up for discussion!
I loved tricking people with this little feature on my mom’s Park Ave; most thought they had broken the hood off!
I always wondered if these were inspired by the sideways opening hoods of late 40’s/early 50’s Buicks.
I thought these were beautiful cars – not only the Olds, but its Buick cousins, too.
A saleman at the company I worked for in the 80’s bought one of the first ones as his company car – with a car phone at that. I felt like I was in a Cadillac.
Wifey’s cousin also bought a Buick version and it was remarkable compared to almost everything else out there.
How in the world could a company like GM foist on its customers the X cars and then turn around and produce these? Talk about a 180 degree turn! Those cars forced me to look a bit more into what GM was offering, but it would still take years for me to return to them.
I only had a nagging problem with the half-way-down windows in the rear doors, but that’s just me…I manage to live with it, as it is a treatable disease!
Jordan– that’s hilarious! I’m sure most people aren’t expecting the hood to open like that on a Buick!
Zack– these cars are underrated, for sure. It’s obvious that GM worked very hard to make sure that the interior space and feel of the old cars was maintained in the much shorter new package. It was a pretty amazing feat! Oh, and by the way, the rear windows on the ’77 and up rear-drive B- and C-bodies also only rolled down half way. I hated that, too!
You have excellent air conditioning. You’re not supposed to care if the back seat passengers can hang out the window like a hound dog.
I’m not sure what the complaint is. As pointed out in the article, the ’85 sold better than any of the ’77-’84 models. They also sold well in ’86. I grew up in a place with lots of traditionalists, and they were generally okay with the new model.
There were two problems. First, the ’85 and ’86 models weren’t that reliable (I owned an ’86 for a while, and though it was a very comfortable car that ran great, it had the usual GM car-falling-apart-around-the-drivetrain issues.) The other problem was that Olds’ marketing screwed the pooch with the “This is not your father’s Oldsmobile” campaign when they rolled out the ’87 models. They managed to simultaneously tick off their existing clientele and not attract new buyers. That, if I recall correctly, was what started Olds into its death spiral. If you compare Buick and Olds sales in the late ’80s and early ’90s, you’ll see Buick didn’t have much if any of a drop-off.
Buick kept things going when the LeSabre started to show up high on J.D. Power initial-quality rankings around 1988. Somehow the Olds 88 and 98 didn’t, which also didn’t help.
Problem was Oldsmobile knew plain as day that they had to attract new, younger customers or buy the farm. My family garage saw loads of these cars (because they had so many problems) and the average owner had to be over 70. That means no more cars for Olds to sell to these people. The people who had bought Cutlass in 1973 bought the 98 in 1985. GM never replaced those customers (or turned them off by selling them crap like the N Body) and by 1997, they were getting desperate indeed.
The final straw with the traditional Olds customer was the Aurora and it’s siblings. Bucket seats and a floor shift, when grandpa wanted bench seat and a column shift, just like his 1939 78. Well, if Oldsmobile wouldn’t give it to them, Buick would. Which is the start of Buick’s reputation as an old person’s car – it became the only thing left in the GM lineup that the senior citizen brigade was comfortable with.
Given all the success with the Aurora, Insight, etc. and the younger buying audience, maybe GM should have changed the Oldsmobile marque to Aurora like (from what I understand) they came very close to doing. The crowd idolizing the E30 BMW wasn’t about to consider anything with Oldsmobile on the hood – no matter how magnificent the car. The “Not Your Father’s Oldsmobile” only drove home the point that, yes it was.
Problem was the Aurora was parts big GM junk. The car was a total disaster in pretty much every respect. Much of the front end was parts bin, struts for example, and these parts could not handle the weight of the car, which was built like a brick sh*thouse to make it quiet. Just like GM now, instead of clever engineering and lightweight yet strong metals, they just added more iron to it, like 400 lbs heavier than anything in the class. Frameless windows? What were they smoking?
Instead they should have done up a really nice Intrigue, one without a craptastic interior, with some gusseting to go along with it. With the 3.8 V-6, it would have been a much better car than the Aurora.
Fact is, the Aurora was so horrible it destroyed any chance Oldsmobile had.
@”The crowd idolizing the E30 BMW wasn’t about to consider anything with Oldsmobile on the hood – no matter how magnificent the car. ”
GM just did it poorly and didn’t give it enough time. Look at Chrysler. If there was ever an old person’s car in 1975-1985, it was Chrysler. Then the LeBaron convertible, then the Concorde, then the LHS, the Sebring and finally the 300C. Now, my college-age son sees ads for the 300C on Breaking Bad and really, really wants one. Now it is Accords and Avalons that are old-people cars.
“It never sold well. People simply hated the new design.” “It was front-wheel drive.”
Buick LeSabre and Park Ave ended up getting buyers after awhile, same with DeVille. Older buyers got used to the style. Olds Division, in general, was losing buyers, for many reasons, not just FWD cars. The Aurora was supposed to save them, but tanked.
Oh, and many Japanese FWD cars were huge hits, so can’t simply blame FWD.
“It was under-powered, as were all front-wheel drive cars of the 1980s.”
Many, many RWD cars in the 80’s were underpowered, with 110 hp V6’s or the infamous Caddy 4100 V8 with all of 120 hp. The Olds 307 was not known for burning rubber, too.
The 307 is no power house, but that 255 ft. lbs. of torque can make things hairy in the rain!
Sleds have always been about torque. At anything less than 100 km/h, a 307 equipped 88 is very responsive; it has loads of torque even at 1000 rpm.
At higher speeds, the car will crap out due to lack of horsepower. Even if it was an FE3, these cars were never comfortable above 120 km/h.
GM was told in 1980 “We are running out of oil, build more fuel efficient FWD cars like in Europe!”
Same know it alls In 1984 “These cars are too small, you should have known by now gas would be cheaper!”
These and the Buick LeSabre became my favorite rental cars for several years in the late 1980s. Comfortable, smooth, good visibility…never had a breakdown…and I routinely got 31-33 mpg cruising at 80 miles per hour. The Fisher-Price quality switchgear was a negative, but worse was to come.
I always thought these weren’t sufficiently differentiated from the contemporaneous Delta 88. We had an early-ish Delta 88 coupe – maybe 1986 or 87? – bought new. Pretty basic car, with just A/C and the 3.8. For that era the engine had plenty of power to move the car. I can’t imagine it was much different in the 98.
That was the last new GM car we ever bought, because it was such a reliability nightmare. Our collection of late 80s Audis and VWs were paragons of reliability in comparison – no joke. I remember the check engine light would come on intermittently (much worse than in any VW I’ve experienced) and it took over 100K miles before GM came up with a fix. That was the frustrating part. When my VW throws a CEL (which it hasn’t done in 70K miles, knock on wood) it usually means an easily-replaced sensor is dying/dead. It’s not ideal, but you’re usually okay for $100-200.
Sometimes the light would come on and the car would die simultaneously. It would generally start right back up though. My mother became adept at shifting into neutral and restarting the car at 60mph. Eventually she started doing this preemptively as soon as that orange light came on.
Ultimately GM determined that there was a defect somewhere in the electronic engine management system, and instituted some sort of recall/refund campaign, where they offered to fix it for free if the car had less than 100k miles. Beyond that, they would only reimburse for related repair costs during the first 100K. My mother had a long commute, and had been enduring this problem well past 100K miles. They did not get much out of GM, and even had to pony up to replace the component on their own. After that, the car ran much better until it threw a rod one day while teenage me was driving.
Like so many others, they (and I) were soured forever based on this experience. I realize it’s not logical, and that modern GM cars for the most part have nothing to do with that lemon, but we still would never seriously consider another GM vehicle.
So many people have been burned by GM and they always come out and say:
“We know our last model was a POS but we are now the NEW GM and this new model is the cat’s pajamas! We are not like we used to be!”
The above seems to be on a five year cycle.
My grandmother had the same issue with her ’85 Regency. It never ran right, always stalling/dying…fortunately she usually never drove that far. I don’t remember it ever getting permanently fixed.
She eventually replaced it with a ’91 Eighty Eight Royale, which never had any significant problems. A good argument for buying the last year of production and not the first year.
My Uncle is an Audi/VW dealer and has been for over 40 years. He was always kept very busy with mid to late 80’s Audi 4000/5000 and various VW’s in the shop constantly breaking down with electrical nightmares, oil leaks, tranny failures, seized up rear disk brakes and on and on. The C-body GM’s from 1988 on up were almost uber reliable in comparison owned by my folks, aunts and uncles and neighbors etc.
I liked the Buick Electra/Park Avenue version of this car a bit better. The 1991 and 98 redesigns really refined this basic formula and made them the ultimate FWD American luxury cars. For me though, I never really bought into V6/FWD in a large luxury car. Oxymoron would be a good word. Mercedes, BMW and Jaguar never gave up their traditional drivetrain configurations, and their reputations never took the hit that American companies did. Cadillac is finally getting away from FWD, and their reputation as a world-competitive luxury car is improving, thank goodness.
Are you sure about that 125hp figure for the 3.8 FI?? I recall seeing these extensively at car shows in the summer of ’84 (when these were introduced) and in ’85 and I recall the Olds and Buick folks talking about a 150hp figure . . . and I did drive a Buick variant at the time and it would jump off the line like a startled deer . . . . .
I think the first ones were 125 hp but the torque was 195 lb/ft. The next year they added roller lifters (which they should have had in the first place) and power went up to 150 hp and 200 lb/ft.
These were good, torquey units and I doubt the people who drove the cars thought them under powered.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/my-curbside-classic/my-curbside-classic-h-is-for-heavy-breathing/
Gack, not the first gen H body… Give me a second generation! I still believe one day I will own a Bonneville likely one from the 00’s. (Which would technically make it a 2.5 or 3rd gen car.)
I’m telling you man, if you want a FWD Bonneville, you want one built between ’87 and ’97. The ones built post 2000 are craptacular compared to the early ones.
I personally prefer my 1st gen Hs to my 2nd gens as well, but to each their own.
The 1992 to 1999 (my favorite body style) are getting pretty thin on the ground unfortunately. The Pontiac were also purchased by “more youthful” customers who have abused them pretty heavily.
My grandmother’s boyfriend of 18 years had a gray 1987 Regency sedan like the featured car in the picture above, sans the vinyl top and Brougham interior. He absolutely loved that car. It had the 3.8 V-6 with the base Regency interior. I remember riding in it and driving it thinking that it was very responsive and comfortable. The only problem he had in 14 years of ownership was the electronic A/C control unit in the dash. Other than that I remember him telling me how reliable that car was compared to a 1977 Monte Carlo he had traded in for the Olds. He loved that it was roomy, handled well and got good gas mileage. He searched for a base Regency because he liked the look of the seats better than the Brougham. I always thought it was rare being a base model, as most of the Regencys of that vintage seemed to be a Brougham model. I also remember how that car did not rust out like most other GM’s from the 80’s. In fact, in 2001 with 110,000 miles on it, it still looked new and drove great. I wanted to buy it from him but he felt funny selling it to me in case something went wrong so he traded it in on a new LeSabre. He still liked the ’87 Olds better than that one too!!
I really think GM had a winner with these cars. I used to see tons of them – all the brands and models, too. The 3.8 was a great engine that only got better each year. I think GM’s major problem back then was that they tended to rush products to the market before they were perfected. Was the design and execution of these cars a good one? Most definitely.
My father’s last ride was a 1988 98 Regency Brougham.
Tranny at 50K
Engine at 75K
He was a salesman and was religious about maintenance. Didn’t help. When he passed, we traded the 98 and the ’84 New Yorker (a whole ‘nother story. Bill was a terrible judge of cars.) for a new ’92 Camry for my mother.
We sold that in 2008 with 40K on the clock. It had spent 3 years in the garage; we put gas in it, jumped the battery, and it ran like a top.
Sounds like your Dad had a real bad one…I know quite a few people that had these cars with high mileage and they had very good luck with them. I think for the most part they were durable and enjoyable cars to own and drive….I guess with an 80’s vintage GM vehicle there were good and bad ones mixed in the bunch…I do know that the 3.8 SFI V-6 only got better as the years went on. And they were pretty quick and responsive engines too.
Sounds really strange seeing as how the 1988 on up mills were the excellent bullet proof 3800 engines which are known for going 200-300K easily. Transaxles in that time period were hit and miss regardless of company. We used to swap out Honda Civic/Accord automatic transmissions in the 90’s on early to mid 80’s cars on a regular basis. Same goes for FWD Fords, late 80’s on up Chrysler Ultradrives and numerous early build GM 440 units.
That is a beautifully kept example. It’s a shame to think that most likely at the cheap price it will be purchased by an idiot and be destroyed in no time.
I remember when these came out as a nine year old GM loyalist I was shocked by these, yet inside I was somewhat intrigued at the same time. I have one of the early 1985 brochures and I remember looking at it a lot, to me the “traditional luxury” was wonderful. I guess it was because I was brought up around luxuriously trimmed cars and learned to enjoy traveling in peace and quiet.
As much as I enjoy my new Escape, I still enjoy a plush motoring experience from time to time.
I guess it’s a good thing that this car is so far away from me, I’d be seriously tempted to buy it.
Hi Richard,
Funny how you mentioned someone getting that car and destroying it – that’s actually what happened to my grandmother’s cherished ’87 Fleetwood d’Elegance. She had the car for 15 years and babied it. It was always garaged and totally immaculate. I don’t think it ever saw the rain!! It had only 60k on the odometer. My uncle (who has zero sentimental value) made her sell it when she gave up her license at 95 years old for $2200 bucks to a neighbor that destroyed it in a year’s time. It made me sick to see that car get beat up. In fact she would ask me about the car all the time and I had to lie to her that it still looked good – I didn’t want her to feel bad!!
My first car was my father’s Oldsmobile – just like this one – an ’85 98 Regency Brougham. In fact, the featured car could be my old car except for three things:
1. Mine had an aftermarket sunroof
2. It had electronic climate control (no auto mode tho – just digital)
3. The plaque center dash top I think said something other than “Ninety Eight” – I think it actually said “Brougham” – and the seats aren’t tufted enough – come to think of it, the font on the speedo looks different too. Might be a fake Brougham. I’m pretty sure this is an ’86, not an ’85 – I believe these were all changes to the ’86 model year.
My father bought this car new in November 1984. It was delivered with all sorts of gremlins – spent lots of time at the dealer subsequent to delivery. LOTS. Seemed to get more reliable as it got older, until he had the transmission rebuilt then sold the car to me (full blue book value) – I think the car had 65k on it at 8 years old. Transmission grenaded twice more (possibly thanks to cheap rebuild), electronics kept acting up, engine mounts / strut mounts broke, plastic radiator fins leaked, power steering rack was going out – all within a year of my teenage hands getting on the car. Never was in a wreck, always kept garaged, very clean.
It would be fun to take this car out to relive the memories. But not enough to purchase.
I’m pretty sure this is an ’85 — it’s the only year that didn’t have the CHMSL (Center High Mounted Stop Light) in the rear window.
I agree. Plus, the center of the grille on 1986 models had a body-colored insert, instead of all chrome.
It sounds like there is more dislike for the car now than when it was new. Probably the people that bought them then aren’t interested in old cars.
I don’t mind it as a whole, it looks like a lot more space efficient car than the ‘traditional’ American car which appeals to me, however the near-vertical rear window is jarring. The internal width seems marginal for 3-across seating so you wonder whether the impact of a rwd trans tunnel would be significant – my Falcon does have 3-across front seating, which I have used literally a couple of times.
Lots of comments on this one; good post Jack. My aunt had (and still has) an ’86 Park Avenue, silver blue with navy vinyl top and navy velour interior. She got it in 1995 or so, and it was a very good car for her. It replaced a ’78 Thunderbird.
I drove the Park Avenue several times and really liked it. Lots of room and glass area, and very comfortable. I think the Buicks were the best looking of the three.
She stopped driving in about 2003, but the car (and my late uncle’s 1981 VW Rabbit pickup) are still in the garage. Looks like I”ll have to get over there and take some pics for a CC!
I was in high school when this cars came out…over all I liked them..early on….but I have to say GM shouldnt put those dumb looking fake-ass drop tops on a four door…I know ford was doing the same thing with their Mark series car a few years before…but it still looked dumb…lol…now I said I liked them early on…..these cars and the close cousin buick…..started showing up …piled in salvage yards everywhere…in the mid 90s..and early 2000s….just alot of them for an average age of only ten years???…I thought they must really suck,,,,because so many of the cars were not in all the yards I went to because they were wrecked…but because they were worn out interior and exterior…and the motors were shot….
At our dealership, the downsized C & H bodies sold well as it was noted in the article and were pretty popular throughout its run. The 1991 and 1992 redesigns, respectively, were comparative disasters and alienated a lot of buyers. The Ninety Eight especially so as for most of the 1991-1996 years there were various models, iterations, and choices that confused buyers notwithstanding the styling. Styling is really what killed Oldsmobile along with its corporate repositioning into being something of a large import fighter rather than a bread-and-butter middle class American car. My the early 90s, things were getting ugly at the dealership we went from selling 1,200+ cars a year to 350+, but overhead was low so we just thinned the staff when necessary and soldiered on until 1996. The Cutlass was a big disaster for 1988 not having a sedan until 1990 and the fact that most of the traditional buyers of the G cars did not like the new W car and went elsewhere. It really was a trying time to push product in the 1990s at Oldsmobile as the usual buyers took one look at the cars and went to Buick. The Alero and Intrigue were short bursts on the radar screen but it was also like a slow death by the mid 1990s so my uncle’s family sold out in 1996.
As it relates to the featured car, the FWD C’s were well received and I believe the Oldsmobiles were the best of the lot followed by the Buicks and then the Cadillacs last. I disliked the Cadillacs mostly because at that size, the car really did not look distinctive for a Cadillac.
The C body cars were among the first GM cars to have the third brake light standard. The early 85s did not but most of the regular production ones did.
The Buick 3.8V6 was a wonderful engine for the C&H car platform, the very early models had a Buick 3.0 carbureted V6 standard which was awful but only a very small percentage of those made it out the door. Most of the 1985 cars had the old 3.8V6 that was port fuel injected but had a distributor. In 1986 they came out with B&3 code V6 with the DIS which made the cars very responsible. In 1988 they came out with the C code 3800 which made these cars comparatively fast.
The 1988 C&H cars were the first GM cars to offer airbags again called SRS by then until GM made them standard on the Corvette and Cadillac in 1990.
On a personal note, I owned a 1990 Touring Sedan until 2000. I absolutely love the car, the interior among the best leather seats that I have ever sat in plus real walnut on the dash and doors plus additional upgrades and the touch control steering wheel. I had 155K on the clock until someone stole it in 2000. It was dark red with matching red leather interior and the aluminum wheels. That was the last Oldsmobile I ever drove regularly.
Didn’t particularly like these when they first came out, but after owning a 1988 Delta 88, I realized the downsized models pretty much do everything as well as the larger rwd models: similar room, ride, and style with better mileage and traction. Newer gm designs also evolved from these. I used to drive newer Chevy impala at work and always thought it drove a lot like the 1987 lesabre I owned at the time.
What a nice car the olds 98 . This is my favorite olds 98 .GM should bring back Oldsmobile and Pontiac.
After a friend totaled my ’87 Pontiac Safari station wagon, I inherited an ’85 Regency during a complicated interfamily vehicle swap. Dad had an ’84 Regency with leather seats whose transmission difficulties were legion, and I was always alert for that in the ’85 (which would sometimes shift with an awful clunk). It had a digital calculator embedded in the dash, pillow comfortable seats, a rotting driver’s side door into which the window would periodically fall if I ever forgot that the window could never be opened, and an enormous back seat which I put to very good use. I replaced my own turn signal modules and alternator belts! It finally died from a oil pump failure at 187,000 miles. Sometimes I miss that car, but only because I was twenty-one to twenty-three when I owned it.
(After four more years with a ’90 Dodge Daytona, it’s been Subarus ever since.)
My Dad had an ’85 Regency Brougham navy/navy. I loved the car. It had zero problems, body held up beautifully as did the interior. He sold it in 1991 with 90k. Folks who purchased had it for another 5 years and raved about the car always. A handsome luxurious American sedan ot trying to be anything else.