Oldsmobile advertised this Cutlass convertible as one of the “1963 sports cars by Oldsmobile,” with “the look and feel of sports cars costing much, much more.” It had bucket seats, a lightweight aluminum V-8 engine, and even the rare 4-speed manual transmission, but a sports car? Let’s take a look.
During most of its heyday, the Oldsmobile Cutlass was an intermediate, but when it was first introduced for 1961, it was, theoretically, a compact car. The Olds F-85/Cutlass was one of GM’s Y-body “Senior Compacts,” structurally related to the Chevrolet Corvair, but with a longer wheelbase and water-cooled front engines. By 1963, the Y-body Oldsmobile was well on its way to becoming an intermediate — it got a one-year-only restyling that added 4 inches to its overall length and about 70 lb to its weight — but it wasn’t quite there yet.
Still, with an overall length of 192.2 inches on a 112-inch wheelbase, this F-85 was by far the smallest 1963 Oldsmobile. It was close to 2 feet shorter and half a ton lighter than a full-size Olds Dynamic 88.
In the Y-body generation, the Cutlass was still technically F-85 sub-series rather than a separate model, so this car has “F-85” identification inside and out.
The Cutlass, which had been introduced late in the 1961 model year as the Oldsmobile answer to the Corvair Monza, was distinguished by its much fancier interior, which included bucket seats, thicker carpet, and “Morocceen” expanded vinyl upholstery. The Cutlass also came with the high-compression four-barrel version of the aluminum “Rockette” V-8 engine that was optional on the cheaper F-85 models.
The aluminum Rockette was Oldsmobile’s version of the Buick 215-cid V-8, with different cylinder heads. It was all-aluminum with cast-in iron cylinder liners, which made it extremely light: less than 350 lb, lighter than most cast iron sixes and no heavier than some cast iron fours. Unfortunately, Oldsmobile had a bad time with the Rockette engine — casting problems and incompatible coolants gave it a nightmarish early repair record — and was already planning to drop it for 1964 in favor of an all-new, all-iron Rocket V-8.
However, the 1963 Cutlass V-8 offered very good power for its size and weight. With a manual transmission, it had 185 gross horsepower and 230 lb-ft of torque; automatic cars had a half-point-higher compression ratio for 195 hp and 235 lb-ft. There was also a rare turbocharged Jetfire version with water injection, which claimed 215 hp. Most F-85s weighed less than 3,000 lb, which made for decent performance. (Incidentally, while the Bring a Trailer listing claims that this car has a dual exhaust system, it doesn’t have true duals — there are two outlets, but a single muffler and exhaust pipe.)
The only contemporary road test I found of the normally aspirated 1963 Cutlass was in the July 1963 Motor Trend, which tested a Cutlass coupe with Hydra-Matic and got 0 to 60 in 10.9 seconds and the standing quarter mile in 18.5 seconds at 76 mph. The Borg-Warner 4-speed gave better performance than the sluggish 3-speed Hydra-Matic, but the convertible was 179 lb heavier than the coupe and theoretically had a bit less power, so it probably wouldn’t be any faster.
By most real-people, real-world standards, 10–11 seconds to 60 mph was plenty snappy, and compared to contemporary sports cars — actual sports cars — the 4-speed Cutlass was at least competitive. A Triumph TR4 had similar performance; an Austin-Healey 3000 was a tad quicker, and an MGB or Spitfire was slower.
However, people bought sports cars for handling, and in that realm, the Cutlass didn’t show well. If Oldsmobile had applied some of the same chassis engineering they later offered on the intermediate Cutlass 4-4-2, this Cutlass could have been a standout. It was lighter than the later A-body Oldsmobiles, and the aluminum V-8 made it less nose-heavy. The later cast iron Olds 330 added over 230 lb, all of it on the nose, and so the Cutlass really needed the 4-4-2 package’s rear anti-roll bar to keep its understeer within reason. The Y-body had much better weight distribution, which would have been a better starting point.
Unfortunately, what the 1963 Cutlass had in balance, it lacked in composure. Its steering was chosen for minimal effort, with no steering feel to speak of. Without power steering (which the pictured convertible doesn’t have), it needed 5.2 turns lock-to-lock, and the power steering ratio wasn’t much quicker. As for the suspension, a Cutlass like this one floated over high-speed bumps, leaned heavily in turns, squatted on its rear wheels if you hit the gas, and would dive for cover if you hit the brakes.
Brakes were another sore point. The F-85/Cutlass had 9.5-inch drum brakes, which had only slightly more lining area than the brakes on the Corvair, which weighed over 500 lb less and had much less weight up front. Skinny 6.50 x 13 tires didn’t help. The lighter Cutlass coupe Motor Trend tested had absolutely dismal stopping performance, hampered by hard-to-control lockup and poor cooling. Assistant technical editor Bob McVay reported that “it took 178 feet to stop from 60 mph and the brakes showed so much fade we didn’t feel comfortable driving the car until they’d cooled down again.” Nearly every actual sports car of this time had front discs, but GM didn’t offer those yet at any price.
It was really too bad, because this Cutlass was in many ways a very appealing package. It wasn’t too big, although it wasn’t really small except compared to a Ninety-Eight or a Coupe de Ville. It rode pretty well, and was well-furnished in a manner in keeping with its price (a 1963 Cutlass convertible started at $2,971). The Cutlass V-8 had enough power to make it decent fun to drive with the 4-speed. and if Oldsmobile had given this car even a little attention in the chassis department — such as an optional handling kit with firmer springs and shocks, and quicker-ratio power steering — it could have made a world of difference without ruining the ride. Sadly, nothing like that was even available; the only heavy-duty option was stiffer rear springs for trailering.
The Y-body F-85/Cutlass was a sales disappointment, and the restyled 1963 car didn’t really change that. Production totaled 118,811 cars, including 12,149 Cutlass convertibles. How many of those had the 4-speed? I’m not certain, but only 11.4 percent of 1963 F-85/Cutlass production had manual transmission of any kind, and the 4-speed cost $199.50 ($10.50 more than Hydra-Matic), so it surely wasn’t many.
The 1964 and later A-body F-85/Cutlass intermediates were bigger, offering more metal and bigger engines for the money. The 4-4-2 option, added mid-year, finally provided the kind of chassis the Y-body car had so desperately needed, although it would be another three years before front disc brakes were even optional, and they wouldn’t be standard until the ’70s.
From Oldsmobile’s perspective, the A-body Cutlass was a huge improvement: It cost less to build, it sold better, and the ’70s Colonnade version eventually became one of America’s most popular cars. However, I can’t help thinking Olds could have done a lot more with the Y-body platform. It wasn’t ever likely to be a sports car, even in convertible form, but with crisper chassis tuning and better brakes, it could have been an attractive and reasonably efficient sporty sedan.
Related Reading
Curbside Classic: 1962 Oldsmobile F-85 Cutlass Club Coupe – I’ll Try Anything (by Laurence Jones)
The CC Complete Cutlass Chronicles (“CCCCC”): Part 1 (1961-1963) Unfulfilled Ambitions (by Paul N)
Cohort Pic(k) Of The Day: 1962 Oldsmobile Cutlass – Rockette On Its Way To Supreme (by Rich Baron)
1962–1963 Oldsmobile F-85 Jetfire – How Powerful (And How Fast) Was This Early Turbocharged Car? (by me)
Automotive History: 1963 Days – Popular Science Tests the Hot Compacts (by J P Cavanaugh)
Vintage Reviews: 1964 Oldsmobile Cutlass 4-4-2 4-Speed – Faster Than Many, Better-Handling Than Most (by me)
I suppose that everyone who really knew anything about this has passed away…
Why did GM completely restyle the bodies of the Y-plarform for only one year? As then, I still think the 1963 Olds F-85, Buick Special and Pontiac Tempest looked a lot better by getting rid of the pleated sides and with their front clips cleaned up. But surely the powers at GM knew that the Y-platform was done for and that all-new A-bodies-on-frames were coming for 1964?
I don’t really know. The larger 1963 model was obviously a transitional model with styling that in many was predicted that of the even larger A-bodies that were on the way for the 1964 model year. I speculate that GM wanted to make the evolution from compact to mid-sized a bit less shocking.
I think the restyle for 1963 was approved before GM decided to go to the A-body design. Keep in mind that styling and tooling decisions were typically made roughly two years out. Oldsmobile and Buick had had second thoughts very early on about the size of the Y-body package, concerned that it was too small for buyers in this class, and the disappointing sales of the 1961 tended to bear that out. To the best of my understanding, the switch to the A-body was decided during the 1962 model year, after Ed Cole was promoted to group VP of the Car and Truck Group, so the 1963 models would already have been mostly committed by then. I don’t think the ’63 was intended as a transitional model for the ’64; if anything, I think it was probably the other way around.
The Don Keefe articles about the A-body Buick and Oldsmobile that ran in Collectible Automobile in 2014 and 2015, which I don’t have, may have a more precise timeline.
I got to drive a friend’s ’62 Cutlass coupe (with H-M). I was excepting something sportier in terms of handling and steering, but no, it wallowed and understeered just like an 8/10th size big Oldsmobile. The power steering was over boosted yet still slow. The automatic shifted and felt decidedly odd compared to the T-F in our Dodge. Underwhelming for such an effort.
I did manage to get it to right about 100 mph before its cooling system erupted like Old Faithful.
So did Rover use the Buick style heads or the apparently better Olds style heads?
Rover used the Buick style heads.
The early Rover heads weren’t exactly the same as either the Oldsmoble or Buick heads, although they were closer to the Buick. The Oldsmobile wedge heads allegedly had better exhaust porting, but the Buick approach had one major production advantage in that the compression ratio could be varied by using pistons with a different dish volume. The Oldsmobile combustion chamber design was all in the heads, which meant that they needed different chambers for high- or low-compression engines; that cost more to produce, which Oldsmobile eventually acknowledged.
I never paid too much attention to these but in convertible form the resemblance to the 64-65 Chevelle is almost uncanny
I was noting a resemblance to the “65-67, Chevy II”.
I like the looks and stance of this car .
I imagine being a GM product that fixing the poor handling & ride would be relatively easy .
-Nate
Some next door neighbors had one of these when I was a little tot. I recognized it as a newer version of our 61 F-85, and also knew that I didn’t see them when we were out and about (kind of like our car). Even then, I felt like most of the personality of the design had been removed in the 63 version. I want to like the car’s clean styling, but something about it still looks “off” to me all these years later.
This one has me scratching my head – was there another American car of its era that served the buyer a less durable powertrain? Both the aluminum V8 and the Roto Hydramatic transmission were almost guaranteed to give the buyer trouble before the 100k mark. All cars were more service-intensive then, but basic engines and transmissions were usually pretty durable. I’m having trouble thinking of another car (the Special at least offered the iron V6) as brittle over the long term as this one. I am amazed at the number of these that still exist.
Yeah, I really like how ’62 Olds compacts look, but unfortunately the Roto Hydramatic comes with (most) of them.
I think my (great) Aunt had a ’62 she later sold to my Uncle when she bought her ’69 98.
My Dad had a ’65 F85 but that was like a completely different drivetrain. His had the 330 and automatic. Probably much better than the ’62 but I don’t like the styling as much as the ’62…not terrible but kind of plain. I’m sure others may disagree.
Reminds me of a ’65 Rambler Classic.