I wouldn’t wish being a 13-year-old boy on my worst enemy. Rarely in life is a person more self-conscious and annoying than they are at 13, but there is no period of life without its advantages. For example, my parents freely promoted my automotive education, perhaps to the detriment of other studies, as evidenced by my “capable of better work” report card comments. But that’s another matter entirely. As a 13 year old, I often visited the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, MI, which had and has a lovely gift shop, where my parents bought me a book titled Cruise O Matic: Automobile Advertising of the 1950s, thereby sealing my fate as an inveterate hoarder of antique paper products.
In that book (purchased for $14.95 – the tag is still on the back) were 108 pages of antique car advertisements from the 1950s, including the idyllic winter scene shown above. The book contained little analysis, just a glorious cross section of automotive art, both drawings and photography. There has never been a time in my life where the preponderance of my thoughts didn’t involve something with headlights, and in that distant pre-internet age of 1990, nothing could have affected me more. I currently have thousands of car ads (including the one pictured above) in addition to my ridiculous collection of actual cars, toys, and literature. Sure, it’s like the Pacific Ocean – someone would have found it eventually – but this book started something new.
Therefore, my “misspent” youth wandering museums and collecting all the books about cars my parents would buy me was all I could think about when I found this Super 88 at the Sloan Museum Auto Fair in Flint, MI, this past summer. Certainly, few believe that 1957 and 1958 were the pinnacle of Harley Earl’s career, fans of the 1957 Chevy notwithstanding, and mid-priced brands such as Oldsmobile and Flint’s own Buick perhaps suffered the most from the vicissitudes of the buying public during those oft-maligned years.
Although Oldsmobile remained in the top-five in sales for 1957 and 1958, those sales plummeted from 485,458 in 1956 to 384,390 in 1957 and 294,374 in 1958. The reasons why mid-priced brands suffered have been well-documented, but one excuse for Oldsmobile and Buick in particular is that their cars were too “gingerbready.” That’s a bit of a tough sell in the context of this Super 88; the rear view is perhaps the most representative of that line of thinking, but it is tame compared to some cars of its generation, including the 1958 models. The fins aren’t even really fins, and the rocket-inspired taillights clearly fit the car’s advertising image.
It’s possible that this tripartite backlite of some models with its bisecting ridges was not in the best taste, but it’s interesting and it doesn’t really detract from the styling as a whole.
The dashboard is appropriately glitzy, but not too much so for 1957. The Autronic Eye is a nice touch, as is the central clock. Even in a flashy red combination, the expansive view and chrome surround made for a dazzling drive, especially on a summer day.
Harley Earl was always at his best when it involved little details such as these little rockets atop the fenders and the forward-canting posture of the “88” on the “Super 88” emblem. All of this is fairly tasteful in context of the time, and augments the experience of owning or admiring a ’50s American car.
Perhaps the only excuse, aside from cars such as Fairlanes and Bel Airs encroaching upon Oldsmobile’s place on the Sloan Ladder and a recession, is that GMs of 1957 and 1958 looked backward rather than forward, as their contemporary Chrysler products claimed to. We all know the lengths to which GM went in 1959 to expunge their blunder, but from today’s perspective, it’s hard to fault the styling of this Oldsmobile. Sure, everyone had caught up to the Rocket 88’s lead in inexpensive performance by 1957, but that name was so enduring that people were still clamoring for it in 1977.
To be fair, Buick fared no better (and often worse) in sales during this time period, and it took longer for them to recover from 1957 and 1958. It’s been hinted at that those within GM at the time questioned Buick’s future due to the sales drubbing it took in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and if it weren’t for the sway of General Motors bigwig Harlow Curtice (whose 1957 Super, shown above, is a part of Sloan’s permanent collection), there might not be a Buick around to build innocuous SUVs today. That story is romantic but probably apocryphal: A Buick man to the end, even when he had the biggest office, Curtice retired in 1958.
True or not, Oldsmobile didn’t have such an inside-man at the top at the time of its demise in 2004, which is still sad to a lot of people who collect Oldsmobiles. If that weren’t bad enough, there are few modern print ads for the 13-year-old kids of today to collect, so those Oldsmobiles of 2004 may not jog the memories of tomorrow’s adults as this Super 88 jogged mine.
Which is all a roundabout way of saying that I really liked this Super 88 and I’m glad it’s still around, making guys like me smile about some of the most awkward years of their lives.
Actually, `57 is my personal favorite Olds design of that decade. Especially nice as a two-tone of copper/cream. The other Olds design I loved and still do is the 1960 models. Always wanted a 98 scenicoupe!
That’s a good question, Will: What’s the best Olds design of the ’50s? I think I might prefer the ’56, although the ’59 is pretty cool. I’m a Buick guy, but I think Olds looked way better in ’57 and ’58.
I remember reading that “Suddenly it’s 1949” was a common slur against the ’57 Oldsmobile and Buick, because of those 3-piece rear windows.
The Olds (and Buick) looked downright ancient compared to the equivalent ’57 Mopar products, but I think they’re still pretty attractive. I never really thought of them as “gingerbready”, but moreso just not “new” enough at the time, despite being new models. Now the ’57 Mercury, that one’s a mess, in my opinion!
One thing I always thought was a bit curious, is that as overstyled (I’m being diplomatic, I know it’s been called much worse) as the ’58 Olds was, it actually sold fairly well, all things considered. 1958 sales came in at about 76.5% of 1957 sales. That’s a LOT better retention, than any other middle-priced 1958 car! I always thought of the ’58 Olds as “most uglified” in comparison to its 1957 counterpart. So, for the car to sell as well as it did, despite that style, always kind of amazed me.
I’ve also heard that the ’54-56 Buicks weren’t all that well-built. They were also very popular, when new, which no doubt meant the assembly lines were sped up and they were thrown together more quickly. By 1957, that quality stigma was well-known enough, that it started to hurt sales. I’ve also heard the ’57-58 Buicks weren’t quite as well put together as the Oldsmobiles, as well, although the difference might not have been as severe by then.
Many Buick fans have claimed that the 1955 Buicks in particular weren’t well-built when new, as Buick was simply building more cars than it ever had. It might be a nice idea for an article to compare 1957 and 1958 – who maintained the greatest percentage of sales in that down year?
Oldsmobile was one Big Three medium-price marque that didn’t have quality issues at some point during 1955-57.
The styling may have been over-the-top, but the brand’s reputation for quality and reliability remained intact, which may have helped sales during 1958.
I agree! The 1957 Olds is one of my all time favorite designs. I remember admiring my uncle’s when I was child.
The ‘58 on the other hand was a total nightmare and truly “gingerbready”
Was your uncle’s a Super 88 as well?
I admired the ’57 Olds when it was new. It seemed to carry the recent Olds themes into a harmonious whole that sent the same message from all angles. Even the dash continued recent themes. The other GM brands lost their themes in ’57. Pontiac deleted the Silver Streaks, Caddy lost the fin-top taillights.
Your picture of the roof shows a unifying detail that I didn’t appreciate then. Ridges ran down the roof into the trunk, carried by the extra pillars in the window.
I agree that the roof ridges aren’t so bad in retrospect, but the picture of the ’57 Super makes me realize why the bigger bodied car might have looked a bit better; I think I prefer the one-piece window as many did.
I could never really warm up to these when I was a kid, and still can’t quite, except to appreciate them as period pieces. There were a couple in my neighborhood at the time, and I used to stare at them slightly perplexed.
The windshield looks too large in relation to the rest of the body. I thought the three glass rear window was odd and not effective, and a jarring contrast to the huge glass in the front. The package overall just wasn’t inspired; I didn’t think this body was any real step forward from the ’55 A-Body; just bigger and gaudier and more affected.
Yes, the ’57 Chrysler line blew these all out of the water, stylistically.
The ’55 A-Body was a tough act to follow. I never understood why so many flocked to the ’57 Chevy as the classic of the period; there’s nothing wrong with it, but the ’55 has always looked so much cleaner to me.
GM Pres. Harlow Curtice was a Buick man to the end, but you would think he would have at least had a Roadmaster, instead of a Super.
Always liked the Olds Super 88’s. You got the big 98 engine and some nice trim bits on the smaller 88 body. Sort of like a Buick Century. The ‘57 is not bad at all, but the ‘58 was a horrible debasement. I always thought GM could have saved a lot of money by carrying this design through 1959 (forgetting about the flat top ‘59-‘60’s), then bringing out the trimmer, attractive next generation for 1960 instead of 1961. Of course they panicked when they saw the forward look Chrysler products and decided they needed a new model ASAP.
I agree on Curtice’s Super! Why would you not drive the top-of-the-line Buick when you’re in charge of the company? It’s not like the Roadmaster was any gaudier in ’57.
Dear Aaron, great job explaining the ’57 Olds. In 1957 I was 13 and then 14 years of age. To me, these were great cars and still are. There is nothing drab about them. T “Rocket” engine was important to buyers. So, when you allude to 1977, we are speaking of Buicks with Chevrolet engines and what a mess! People who bought an Oldsmobile expected a “Rocket” engine and some of those Oldsmobiles were not so equipped. BOO, HISS! People of the 1950’s were enjoying the flashy styling. The tripartite backlight with well molded-in ribs with the roofline is a styling feature, not a detriment. As for the gent who does not like the ’57 Mercuries, ummm, I do, particularly the Turnpike Cruiser four-door hardtop. It reeks of 1950’s styling. The buying public must have liked these many styles of autos as they were purchased. On the other hand, when I worked at Chrysler in the 1970’s there was an expression that might explain away any problems with a particular car: “There’s an ass for every seat.” How owuld you like the Olds depicted sitting outside your front lawn?
Thanks Thomas! I love the picture of the black convertible.
We can love these cars out of context, and I do – however, to be fair, we need to consider what was being offered across all the manufacturers in 1957. When we do that, we can see how both Buick and Oldsmobile lost popularity during that year. Singulary, almost every 1957 automobile has something to recommend in 2024. Comparitively, is another thing.
Harley Earl’s time was over by this time and GM needed to have pushed him further back earlier in the decade. Auto stylists were artists and after over a decade of Earl’s art – it was way past time to keep him in charge. Now that I am nearing the end of my career, my contributions are no longer exciting and new. So I better understand how guys at my stage of life can be overlooked for the new kid in town who is bringing a new point of view into the workplace. By 1957, it was time to move forward for GM’s styling.
If you thought 1957’s GM designs were dated – lord almighty, 1958’s styling told 1957’s styling to “hold my beer!” – and then did a Harley Earl-inspired belly flop. It is not a suprise that when Earl was in Europe, the GM design staffers did a styling coup. As I had written earlier – what happened at GM during 1958 was a renouncement and a vote of no confidence.
Now this car is very nice to me today. I really like how the Olds’ globe hood ornament evolved from detailed and round over the years, to this elongated oval, grounded by the horizontal slash across it. That little elongated oval compliments the even further elongated oval grille opening. The oval theme continues into the dash design and on to the elongated ovals that became the afterburner tail lights. As a result, the overall appearance is lower and unified.
The 88’s rear fender cap is done wonderfully. It is much more attractive, in my opinion, compared to the Buick. The vertical break is higher on the Olds, lifting the rear styling, compared to both Buick and Pontiac, which breaks in the center, making their rear ends look heavier and more staged and unnatural. The chrome caps under the tail lights are neat. The styling continuity from the previous years makes for a handsome evolution.
Not a fan of the rear window, but it is different. The added ridge over each coming down from the roof makes the rear window design too needlessly heavy.
That said – had I been the age I am at in 2024, in 1957 – I wouldn’t have even noticed this car. I would have been nursing a stiff neck from trying to capture the passing Chrysler products. It would have been pretty tough for me to not end up with one of those had I been in the market. It would have been the biggest auto mistake, right? Yet, considering looks – Chrysler certainly had it. New Yorker, please!
Yeah, in 1957 Harley Earl had been in charge of styling for almost 30 years – a great run! And he was right most of the time…he might have lost the edge a bit at the end, but it was only the last couple years, and that’s only in context of the time.
Another interesting question – what was the best looking of the ’57 Forward Look cars? I like your choice – the New Yorker hardtop (two or four door), but they were all pretty good.
Sometimes I wonder what my mindset would have been, if I’d been alive in 1957 and in the market for a new car? I’m sure I would’ve really been swayed by the Forward Look Mopars. But, I wonder if I would have bought one, gotten a lemon, and have it be so bad that I’d swear off Chrysler forever?
That being said, I do own a 1957 DeSoto Firedome 2-door hardtop. I’ve had it since September 1990. However, buying one of these, just as it’s about to turn 34 model years old, is a whole different story from buying one new, back when they were new!
Also, nowadays I don’t care about having the latest styling fad of the moment. If I like the style of something, it tends to be because it catches my eye, not because it’s the latest and greatest. But back in those days, I wonder if I would have gotten wrapped up in all the marketing/advertising hype of the day, that could convince people they NEEDED a new car, even if the old one was still fine? So even if I had bought a ’57 Mopar and it had been reliable, would I have still been in that mindset of trading after a few years, or would I have tried to hold onto it?
People tended to be a lot more brand loyal in those days, too. So I have the feeling that, if I was already driving an Olds, I might have still had a ’57 Olds at the top of my list. Although, the ’57 DeSoto is sort of the “Not your Father’s Oldsmobile” of DeSotos in a way, and like other Forward Look Mopars, lured away some buyers from other brands, based on the flashy, futuristic looks. However, just like the “Not Your Father’s Oldsmobile” alienated the Olds faithful back in the late 80s and 90s, yet burned new buyers with bad quality, the same seemed to hold true with Mopar.
I’ve seen more of the “Buick, offering in my lifetime. Think the “Olds” is the “better looker”.
I don’t live all that far from Flint, so I think I see a not-so-representative number of Buicks at car shows. On the other hand, Lansing’s only another half hour or so past that…
I really like the ’57 Olds too, but prefer the Ninety-Eight and particularly the 4-door hardtop. Also like the Cadillacs that year. All these cars have a dynamic beltline dip, fullsome bodies and good width-to-height proportions. The ’58 Chevy 4-door does too.
Don’t care for the 3-piece backlight on the ’57 Olds though, would replace the outer pieces with sheetmetal. And the car could use nicely integrated skirts.
I too prefer the bigger-bodied Oldsmobiles and Buicks from 1954 to 1957. Honestly, I’m just not a big fan of the ’58 models, although I know a lot of fans of the period are.
Years ago I wrote up a 58 Oldsmobile, and I still remember how my research into that car (about which I knew virtually zero when I started) changed my opinion on the 57-58 Oldsmobiles.
I agree with the consensus that if they are not ugly, they are at least odd and not very cohesive. But they were very good cars, probably as good as any that were built at the time. Make me another who is glad you found it.
You don’t see them too often!
It’s a minor detail, but I kind of marvel at the size of the “Autronic Eye” on this Oldsmobile. I’m used to seeing the much smaller, centrally-mounted, versions of this device. I’d imagine that if I were purchasing this car new, I’d possibly forego that option just so I didn’t have a tennis-ball sized thing mounted on the top of the dash messing up the symmetry. It does seem that these things came in all sizes and dash placements back when drivers would pay extra money just to be courteous to on-coming traffic.
Oh, and I do really like the bold “O L D S M O B I L E” in the front grill. I think if one is going to go for badging, it’s best to go big or go home. 😉
Oldsmobile had some of the boldest badging in the 1950s, didn’t they? I never thought about the difference in size among the autotronic eyes in the ’50s, but I have heard that they didn’t work all that well. They were apparently easily confused by street lights and the like.
I had one in my 63 Cadillac. It worked great on the kinds of roads people used in the 50s – rural, 2 lane highways. It did not work well in any other situation. The brights always stayed on when on a nighttime interstate highway because it would not detect oncoming lights which were too far to the side. The brights almost never came on in urban areas because of all of the environmental lighting – but then who uses brights in the city anyway.
I know there are more modern versions of that tech, but I sometimes wonder if it is much better, given all of the bright lights I get bombarded with on interstate highways.
I wonder too; and I suspect that it really doesn’t work all that well and that’s why manufacturers don’t push that option. I seldom seem to encounter “auto-dim” headlights in rental cars, and I don’t have it on any of my 3 modern cars (post-2006).
What I DO have, and find to be nearly universal in modern cars is “automatic” headlights that are set (assuming you have the switch in the correct position) to come on in low-light situations. In fact, I think that tech is so ubiquitous nowadays that I wonder if new drivers even know how to turn their headlights on manually. It’s very easy to just assume it’s present.
Obviously, turning lights on or off is an easier job for sensors than adjusting them based on oncoming light conditions.
I had a similar auto-dimming feature on my hand-me-down ’87 T-Bird. It was located on the rear-view mirror, but it was so erratic that I left it permanently switched off. Neat idea, lukewarm execution.
I’ll wager 90% of the Autronic Eyes we see now were added long after the cars left the factory. Just like cheesy fender skirts and A pillar spotlights. At least windshield visors have fallen from fashion. Men should just pee on their tires and leave their new old car original.
I have GM’s half-century newer Intellibeam in my DTS, and it still isn’t very good at distinguishing oncoming headlights from other lights and reflections off road signs.
I tend to forget about the ’57 Olds and Buick, the shock of the ’58’s styling kind of overpowers the memory. The ’57 Chevy came off pretty well with the flat quarter panel and fin, which connected them to the newer styling of the Chrysler cars. It and the Cadillac were the only GM cars to get the thin flat fin. I’ve always liked the three window look of the back of the Olds and Buick, it looks a bit like the windows of a small airplane. I had a ’57 Cadillac and I really liked the basket handle C pillar with the wraparound back light. The flat topped, forward canted fins also looked very sharp and clean. This Olds comes off a bit heavier from the rear, but I love how the back up lights and exhaust ports are integrated into the taillight stack. I would have left off the dual fender rockets though. A single larger hood ornament would have looked cleaner.
Me too…that’s why I was pleasantly surprised to see this ’57 last year. I don’t think I would have taken as many pictures had it been a ’58, although I don’t mind its front end and grille treatment.
I agree. The ’57 Caddy was a great looking car to me. In all forms–2 door, 4 door and convertible. My favorite Caddy of the decade.
Our family had a ’57 Super 88 “Holiday” two-door hardtop, white with a turquoise stripe on the side and turquoise interior. It also had the J-2 engine, which my Dad loved except for the gas mileage. He drove it for four years and we traded it in on a ’61 Olds Dynamic 88 four-door hardtop. It was definitely a sharp looking car. The only problem was Dad wouldn’t spring for white-walls, so it looked a bit “off” with those big blackwalls.
The 1957 Oldsmobile sported an all-new body that year – as did the Buick and Cadillac. That is undoubtedly one reason why Chrysler Corporation’s all-new 1957 models were such a shock to GM’s management and stylists. This basic body was expected to run through the 1959 model year, with the next all-new body debuting for 1960. (Chevrolet and Pontiac would be all-new for 1958.)
Not only were the Mopars radically styled, but management had pulled them forward by one year. They were originally scheduled to debut in 1958. That had a disastrous effect on build quality, but ended up shocking GM’s stylists.
One wonders how things would have played out if those finned Mopars had debuted for the 1958 model year. That would have given Chrysler more time to get the build quality right. GM, meanwhile, would have been on the second year of these B- and C-bodies, with an all-new A-body debuting in 1958. The B- and C-bodies were scheduled to be redesigned for 1960 anyway…the main effect would have been on the Chevrolet and Pontiac.
Being the proud owner of a 1957 Super 88 for the last 29 years, i think the design is pretty good !
Here it is :
Nice car, Luc!
A very good looking car, indeed!
’57 dashboard = peak ’50s Futuramic chrome gorp! (Photo from RL Plaut’s ’57 Olds post).
In the mid ’80s I saw 2 of these: One was a black & white 4-door like VanillaDude’s photo, corner of Rt. 10 & Center Grove Rd., parked at the diner. Saw it frequently on my way to County College of Morris in my ’62 Comet. One day it disappeared; never saw it again.
Also, a few blocks from my house, someone who worked at the same company as my father drove a ’57 coupe to work sometimes. Root beer brown and white. Really ratty condition. He was working on restoring it, but I think it was another one of those projects that went nowhere. Many years later I saw it in his garage–apart and immobile.
These days it’s harder to find cars of the ’50s actually driving on the road, and I miss seeing them! Would today’s teens be fascinated by a book like “Cruise-O-Matic”?
There’s a kid out there somewhere who would like that book, Stephen, but I don’t know if I’d use the plural in this sense. 🙂
A few years ago, I saw a couple in their 30s driving a ’56 Olds regularly, but I haven’t seen it lately. I try to drive my ’53 Buick often, but it’s not an everyday thing to see a ’50s car doing car things, and it is always a treat when you do.
I am fine with the basic body shape of both Olds & Buick all the years ’56-58. They were probably a step behind, but I don’t tend to be an early adopter, so that’s fine.
The first two years I much prefer the Buicks overall. The side trim on most of the Olds models seems awkward. Random curves that don’t relate to each other or the body shell very well, while the Buick’s open rear wheelwell and the sweep spear is just perfect.
For ’57 it seems like the Buick trim is basically similar, but somehow the proportions got off just a bit for me. On the other hand, Oldsmobile nailed it. I’m not sure there’s a thing I would change. (Ok, the 2 rockets on the front fenders might be a little over the top?)
In ’58 it flips back. I acknowledge that the ’58 Buick is not for everyone, but it works for me. Except the Limited with the vertical hash marks or whatever on the rear fender, all the rest with the arrowhead and horizontal ribs are great. I don’t dislike any of the trim bits on the ’58 Olds, I just don’t like them together on the same car. Something about the mix of curved trim in front (which doesn’t quite match the curve of the beltline) and the very straight rear fender top with the straight trim strips causes them to look swaybacked to me.
All those chrome details inside and out – and all real chrome plated metal, no silver painted plastic that they use today. I wonder what percentage of the car price was to cover the cost of the chrome – probably more than the Rocket V8 under the hood.
‘59 definitely! Start of the low rider generation and a Daytona victory – not to mention the most space age/artistic styling. What’s better than that?
Good point, Darren.
My dad had a 57 super 88 Olds in 1959 and 1960..out of college on his first job…..dad was a Oldsmobile guy always.and bought many.68 Vista cursier..76 cutlass..73 ninty. eight.olds..he believed in them…myself..well.in 1971..I had to have a 66 ss396 chevelle 4speed car…of course gas went to 88 cents in oct.1973 and that blew my chevelle up quick..resorted to a 73 gt.vega.to get myself thru college in 1975 and had a 74 camaro in.1977..even today..I have a 2015 impala.and it’s a great car….my car stash.is a 66 ss396 chevelle… 79 Trans am car..gold…2013 camaro and some jeeps I regret buying..well I guess 2024.will include a. Dodge.charger and. 2025..probably a electric chevy..so much for my hot rod days..r
I have had 64 cars in my 66 years. My favorites were Oldsmobiles. As a kid, we had several. As an 18 year old I bought a used 72 Toronado, two years later I bought a brand new 76 Cutlass Supreme coupe (didn’t everyone?) Next came the 77 Toronado X/S and finally a 1997 Aurora. I miss Oldsmobile and Pontiac, too. If GM would just listen to me….lol.
Me too, James. I wonder if Buick is next (my favorite of the BOP three). It wouldn’t be much of an argument to say that none of them would be what they used to be in their heyday.
My dad had lots of cars including several 1950s Buicks with actual open portholes on the side, what he said were great for a mechanic to relieve himself while working on the car and or cool the motor off it was overheating. Yes I think it’s gross too. You’ve got to know my dad (be glad you don’t actually)
I, for one, love the three part window. It wasn’t like 1949, when they tried to disguise the divided window. This one celebrated its divided nature.
But more to the point, when I see one of these, I always think 20,000 Leauges Under the Sea.