JC shot and posted a car that has become rather scarce on our streets: A 1978 Olds Cutlass Salon “Aeroback”. And what pristine shape it is in too; someone loves this car very much.
Here’s the view that really counts. It will always be a mystery to me why Olds and Buick decided this body style was for them, while Chevy and Pontiac had conventional three-box sedans.
Like a wine that was crude and a bit harsh when young, it’s improved with age.
As to that last Aeroback sighting:
This one lived just one block from my house, until 2016, when its elderly owners put it up for sale. It took a while to find a buyer, and then I saw it once or twice shortly thereafter, but never again since. A neighborhood icon is gone, and we’re all the poorer for it.
When was the last time you saw one?
More:Â My full CC on the Aerobacks
It’s been a very long time since an Aeroback sighting for me. I would like one now, especially as I am a member of the Olds Club of America. Even at car shows, I can’t recall the last one.
I think that Olds and Buick were going after import buyers, and hatchbacks were and remain popular models due to their flexibility and likely single-car families or owners.
At the time, I thought they looked weird, but that was grade-school me. I was used to seeing Cutlasses but ones with trunks, like a proper “‘murican” car should have.
I’ll offer a hint. This is a 1978, two years after the first Honda Accord came out…
I just purchased one! It’s a one owner car with 35,000 original miles and it has been stored inside for the last 20 years. 305 4 barrel and automatic. The plan is to get everything running well and then put it up for sale.
R u sale in your car
The featured Green Cutlass Salon Brougham belongs to me and my wife. I have owned it 2009 for $2,500. The car just turned 49,000 original miles, yesterday, Aug 6, 2026. The photo is in Reno for Hot August Nights.
This year we took the car back to Reno for the week.
I get guesses that the car is a Caddy. I have to laugh because the derisive name for this car was The Buttless Cutlass. I also owned a 78 Buick Century Custom coupe at the same time this car was new and I found it attractive too. The Buick had the Buick V6, much less power than the Cutlass which has the 260, 2bbl V8. I own two other Olds cars, a 78 Delta 88 Holiday coupe, Y78 sports option and a Rocket 350 V8 and an 84 Delta 88 Custom Cruiser station wagon, all are in great shape.
As much as I love Oldsmobiles, these always looked terrible to me.I guess its like Seville “lite” but it is nice to see that someone has cared for it so well.
I think not a single one of them got to Uruguay. They were fastbacks but not hatchbacks, am I right?
Correct.
I always really liked the two-door versions of these; the frameless glass really looked good. I’m sure I’m not the only one who wished these were hatchbacks.
Me too. The four-door, not so much.
I had never noticed the frameless glass on the 2 doors until you mentioned it just now. Wow.
The mystery has now been solved in terms of why the two-door A-bodies of this vintage have always looked that much better than their four-door counterparts!
It’s the frameless door glass. It’s incredible what a visual difference it made.
Several have commented that the frameless glass of the Chrysler R-bodies looks so much better than the Ford Panthers. This is another great validation of that – the 2-doors are much lighter and nicer looking than the 4-doors. What a difference that made. However, if it had been my money, a regular Cutlass Supreme coupe would have been in my driveway.
Gee, it has to be more than twenty years since I saw one in the wild.
A family friend loaned me the four-door Oldsmobile Cutlass Aerodeck while I figured out how to resuscitate my Buick Skylard. One thing that I hated the most was whines from the rear seat passengers who discovered to their befuddlement that they couldn’t roll the windows down (that was at height of intense summer heat wave in Dallas). No, the tiny vent windows didn’t do anything benefical.
When it comes to the 4 door or wagon variants of this A/G body generation, I think the back window thing is one of, if not the only thing people remember about them! …more than 40 years after they first hit the streets. I know the official reason given was that this allowed more hip and/or elbow room, but my crystal ball tells me that it was mainly the bean counters that were squealing with glee as they cinched the pursestrings ever tighter.
These are another car that’s growing on me; the directs side profile looks great, but the rear view is still slightly out there. This one is all the better for its beautiful green color, sport mirrors, and wheels.
And I haven’t seen one in a number of years.
Count me as a fan, especially the two door. And I’m not being revisionist; I loved them back in 1978 also. It’s a mystery why they weren’t hatchbacks. Well, probably the newly downsized body wouldn’t work well with a big hole in it, but it might have made these cars more popular … an Oldsmobile precursor to the Audi Avant. And by the way, I am NOT a fan of bustleback Seville’s; these are much better to my eyes.
Just my opinion though, probably the body and frame construction of both the 1978-79 Oldsmobile Cutlass Salon and its divisional cousin the Buick Century had not made the hatchback versions for some unknown reasons doable and practical even though both already had wagon versions on a different sedan body design version which the RWD A/G-Bodies later adapted from 1980-87 ala 1975-79 Cadillac Seville look. Although one can argue that the 1978-82 Corvette had a BOF construction plus it was a hatchback as well. Generally speaking though BOF construction only appeals to GM cars from the downsized 1978-88 RWD A/G-Bodied Mid Sized cars and larger so I believe the hatchback versions were not made.
Hatchbacks were only appealing to cars smaller than the 1975-79 Chevrolet Nova even though the Nova and its RWD X-Bodied divisional cousins were considered larger cars today with unitized body construction that had the hatchback options due to lack of station wagons offered for this product line.
I can’t say I have ever warned up to this design; nor can I figure out why it was put into production!
I last saw one @ 18 months ago about a mile from my house. It would appear sporadically for years, but then finally vanished. It did appear to be in good “driver quality” condition. DFO
I think the idea was to offer a more aerodynamic-looking car than a traditional sedan, taking a gamble that people would want such a design. The key here is “looking,” since I doubt there was much of a difference between the aeroback and notchback in terms of actual wind resistance. But GM made a point of calling these aerobacks instead of fastbacks for that reason.
After they were introduced, they flopped immediately in the marketplace, which led to a lot of finger-pointing among the GM executives.
It’s been at least 20 years since I’ve seen one in person.
Now I’m curious if the tapered trunk was more aero-friendly or not.
My ’03 Avalon had a drag coefficient of 0.28, better than my ’05 Taurus and 2000 Concorde which were each 0.29. It was a big boxy car with almost no tumblehome. Looks can deceive.
Here in the Great Lakes Salt Belt, I’ve never seen one at any local Cars/Coffee kind of thing, and on the road it’s likely been twenty-five years. I remember silhouette striking me as yet another fresh/new aspect of those cars, but never had the experience of actually riding inside one.
“Someone loves this car very much” = for sure!
It figures since I like the bustleback Seville (looks, not mechanicals) that I would like this as well.
There’s room in my fantasy “odd looking car” garage for this.
Next to my Matador coupe.
But I think people werent so much after the hatchback “look” as the function.
Made by Americans making a good wage and benefits.
But we have lots of diddlybops® in the cars to entertain us now so that’s good too.
To answer the question: Never have seen one
I saw this one in Winchendon, MA in summer 2014 just off my commute between Gardner, Mass and Rindge, NH where I was sent for work for a couple weeks that year.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/12458821@N08/14766042849/in/dateposted-public/
Nope, you don’t see these Cutlasses anymore.
This is a model that would get my attention at a car show.
Good to see one of the coupes again and in good condition.
This particular coupe is strangely alluring. The sage green paint with the color keyed
wheels makes the package work well. Has rather an AMC vibe to it.
Approximately a year ago in Kennewick, WA, it was in pretty raggedy shape, it was a 2 door model, to me the 1980 4 door sedan is everything the 1978-79’s should’ve been.
I cannot remember the last one of these I saw. I will say that this high-trim 2 door with the 2 tone green is about as attractive as one of these can get. I don’t hate this car, but don’t love it either.
It is a darn sight better than the 4 door, particularly in the washed-out light yellow of the one a GF owned in the mid 80s (from her grandfather). Ugh, but I hated that car.
Wow, it seems as if most of us maturing commenters are on the same page:
1) It looks way better now then in 1978. Likely because all remaining cars are essentially fastbacks. We are used to it.
2) Why on earth was this not the Chevy / Pontiac roof instead of the Olds / Buick?
3) Logically assumed a hatchback, but, nope, it’s got a trunk like a notch-back. Would have been very practical as a hatch, at least function would have followed form.
4) This car had a hell of a time in the market when the expected roof line on an upscale Olds looked like this….
Fastback sedans with trunks were almost a semi-premium trend in Europe. There was the Citroen CX, the Rover SD1, the Audi 80 Coupe, and the British Leyland ADO71 for a start. I’m probably forgetting a few. The Salon trim level had been around for a few colonnade model years as a european-inspired combination of trim, ride and handling. Perhaps the 1978 Cutlass Salon was supposed to tie together the import-like equipment of the Salon name with a European body style.
That may well have been the plan, but here in flyover country, we didn’t get it. Given our penchant for Oldsmobiles at the time, the effort missed Old’s traditional market, and probably seemed irrelevant to most import buyers.
I guess Oldsmobile management came to see things your way, considering that the 1980 Omega line arrived with only notchback body styles.
I like reading old car magazines, and it seemed like Car and Driver found a reason to test a colonnade Salon every year they were available. When the intermediates were downsized, they shifted their agenda to trying to convince people to buy Pontiac Grand Ams. They were no more effective at selling Grand Ams than they’d been at pushing Salons, and the Grand Am they promoted left the market during 1980.
The SD1 had a hatchback. There was also the trunked Lancia Beta and
In America the most famous and commonly-seen trunked fastback was the cheapskate model of the Ford Pinto; the first Honda Civic had the same model structure, trunk coupe or hatchback in the same profile with the hatchless model being the “Prices Starting At” special.
Not sure why I thought the SD1 was an example. The Beta saloon was all the odder considering that they had a hatchback Beta in the HPE.
I don’t really consider the Civic to belong in this group, since its body style was pretty close to the two-box template laid down by the Morris Mini-Minor/Austin SE7EN. Also, like the Pinto you mentioned, a hatchback with the same roofline was offered as a premium feature. Although I shouldn’t have included the SD1, I was referring to cars that looked like hatchbacks but weren’t available as hatchbacks and were marketed as more than basic transportation.
I just had a thought that a Chevrolet Malibu Aeroback would have looked literally like a 5/4-scale Citation. There was going to be no way Chevy (or Pontiac) was getting this body style assigned to their divisions.
I actually really like this one. As JPC noted, the higher trim level and options chosen bring it all together. I’d actually almost go so far as to call it “distinctive”. But as others have mentioned I don’t think I’ve ever seen a 4-door that I thought was anything but ugly. In fact my ex-wife grew up with a lower spec 4-door in silver over red that was not exactly fondly remembered. She and her siblings referred to it as “The Turtle” for reasons that aren’t too hard to conjure.
It has probably been at least twenty years since I’ve seen an Aeroback *Cutlass*, though I have seen a Century Turbo Coupe a few years back at a car show in Flint.
I’m just going to come right out and say it – I find this green Cutlass genuinely attractive. As in, I really like it. The rear three-quarter view is slightly wonky, but I especially like it in profile. I love it for being something really different within the Cutlass portfolio.
My 78 salon. 69 350 SBO with 67 #4 heads, 67 Vista cruiser rear end, 400 turbo. Completely rebuilt suspension and steering. Went manual steering and brakes
As I described in my COAL, my driver’s ed cars were a mix of these, and a few of the 4 door versions. I recall the 2 door ones though for the little row of flags under the Cutlass Salon badge on the front fender. I always loved those flags and was amazed that Olds shelled out for such a fancy badge. I also wondered just what substantiated the mix of nations represented in the flags, or did they just randomly select flags/nations?
I seemed to have a lot of time in high school for fixating on little details such as that.
I remember the flags as a child. A family friend had one and i remember standing in the driveway looking at all the flags thinking this must be a really important car- so worldly!
I was working at the Buick dealer when these came out, and I generally liked these. Their two-toned color schemes showed the cars to best advantage. And I thought the wagons were excellent.
The fixed rear windows were the most significant fault, garnering far more complaints than the style. I think the coupe concept worked absolutely, with the four doors falling short.
My parents had one – a ’78 with the 262 V-8 (miserable) but all the go-fasters: AC; power everything. When my Mom quit driving she gave it to me in ’95 (28,000 miles) and I immediately sold it to her across-the-street neighbor for $1k. Thing wallowed like a hog in mud; no feeling in the steering and scary power brakes. I gladly took his money and got back into my ’91 Mazda Protege LX with the DOHC engine and drove off a happy man.
The Aerobacks are funny cars. It’s almost as if it’s one of those optical illusion pictures where you know something’s wrong, but you can’t quite put your finger on it.
A more aerodynamic front end might have helped some but, in the end, the styling just isn’t all there. And, as others have said, it’s just plain weird that GM couldn’t make the sloping rear a hatchback. Don’t know if it would have helped sales but it probably couldn’t have hurt, either.
In fact, I wonder if that decision was due to the sales split of the 1973-74 GM compacts which offered both trunk and hatchbacks versions. IIRC, the trunks far outsold the hatchbacks.
I think if the taillight panel was more vertical, that would help some.
Agreed. If the trunk lid were just a ‘little’ more horizontal, and the taillight panel was just a ‘little’ more vertical, maybe even with a Kamm style, it could have made all the difference in the world.
As others have pointed out, the aeroback just looks a little too much like an AMC effort, i.e., a big Gremlin which was just a Hornet with its trunk sliced off. It comes close to being in the ‘What were they thinking?’ category.
I think if they would have done a slight flying buttress similar to the first gen AMX, it would have looked better.
Indeed, along with a less steep rake (or ‘tumblehome’).
The bottom line is there were a variety of stylistic options GM could have done to make the aeroback more aesthetically pleasing, but it’s as if they chose the absolute worst style choice (with predictable results).
Buicks addition of the spoiler on the 79 & 80 Turbo Coupe did improve the look of the rear. Here’s a picture of my 79.
It’s been about ten years since I last saw an Aeroback (or Aerodreck, as I used to think of them when they were new). The car I saw then was a 4-door Cutlass Supreme in a copper-orange color that has seen renewed popularity in recent years. That Cutlass, driven by an elderly man who probably had owned it since new, was in excellent condition, had the color-matched super-stock wheels, and did not have a vinyl roof (if memory serves, that option began to lose popularity about the time these downsized intermediates were introduced). The car looked quite good from the front and sides, but not from directly behind, easily its worst angle.
Someone above mentioned piloting one of these Aeroback Cutlasses in drivers ed in the late ’70s. Most of my driving lessons were in a brand new Monte Carlo of the same generation, but towards the end of my 8-week session, we ended up with baby blue Cutlass S 4-door virtually identical Paul photographed near his home. Apparently, it was hard to determine where the rear end was when in reverse in an Aeroback. A few weeks later, one of my fellow students backed into an immobile barrier, creasing the bumper.
The side view on these cars just looks off and the rear view just looks like they ran out of money and just slapped on a bent piece of cardboard from a refrigerator box to finish the body design.
I really struggle to remember if I have even ever seen an aeroback in person, it stands to reason I probably did but I can’t conjure up a mental mage of any. The 1980 restyle I imagine plunged the 78-79s into terminal depreciation, wiping them off the roads in their entirety by the 90s.
They’re, umm, interesting, I actually legitimately appreciate the attempt to expand the stylistic paths of the sheer look less cookie cutter(which the 1980 revisions of pretty much every line did the exact opposite) but they don’t seem fleshed out, they’re like the shapes you see in the preproduction clay stages you’ll find in design studio photos. Part of the problem is they have many unflattering resemblances, number one that comes to mind is the Rambler Marlin, another boxy fastback with a rear headroom friendly roof and the other the Ford Pinto pony with its little trunklid on what should be a hatchback body.
They do look kind of cool now, Cutlass Supremes retained a higher survival rate/ collector appeal but they aren’t really standouts like these. The Supreme has better proportions but a nice aeroback coupe like this one is a real eye catcher, perhaps what this bodystyle needed was exclusivity or even coupe only option status (ala the 68-72s) rather than being the mainline cutlass or Century sharing rooflines with the 4 door
It’s surprising they offered a 2 door Aeroback at all, with the Regal and C Supreme available. My dad bought a ’78 Century 4 door in a pale non-metallic blue that I’ve come to hate on all cars. He eventually gave it to his pastor in the mid 80’s.
Did the notchback replacement get operable rear windows or just vent ones? It at least had less solar heat gain, so small vents were less overwhelmed. I remember the recessed rear armrests were too far forward to be useful as armrests but OK as door grabs, and the doors were quite light in weight.
The Aerobacks always appeared to me as to have planned as a hatchback and then somebody got cold feet and it was completed with a conventional trunk.
They were originally designed as a hatchback, but the bean counters nixed it because of the additional cost.
The last one seen in the flesh was circa 2006 in Parry Sound, Ontario
Only $4500
There is a used car dealer in union beach n j that has a 2 door areoback Buick century
That’s parked next to a Renault encore it has not moved in years
If you get by there again, post some photographs!
I have pictures on My phone but I can’t figure out how to post them however google 1618 union Ave hazlet New Jersey which is a quick check our type of 7 11 and turn the picture around you will see the light blue century with the alliance hiding behind it
Hey Fordfan, which dealer and where in Union Beach? I’d love to go take a look at the Century. I happen to have a thing for these areoback coupes.
Union Ave auto sales Union Ave and State road 36
It’s at the back of the lot and been there a long time
I don’t know if it’s for sale but if not why would it be there
That 2 door, especially in profile, is one fine looking car.
The 5 door has a hint of Chevy Citation about it, sadly
I think the job of the four-door Aeroback was to prepare the market for the Citation and Phoenix.
Never seen one, but I do like those immitation Aussie Valiant rims
Funny! Actually Olds was using that design first.
Those wheels are a strange cross continental cross brand anomaly
Those wheels I believe were 1st offered by Oldsmobile in 1968. They have since become the iconic styled steel wheel of Olds.
Those wheels were known as Super Stock II (SSII) and had argent paint from 1968-69. 1970 began the SSIII with color-matching paint.
The earlier, Super Stock I wheels were the ubiquitous Magnum 500.
Another difference is there were two types of center hubs: bolt-on or snap-on. They started with bolt-on, added snap-ons, then the bolt-on hubs were phased out.
Finally, the last versions eliminated the trim ring and the rim was nicely chromed.
Fugly looking car. It looks like a daschund dog, especially in the four door incarnation.Woof
Hey Fordfan, which dealer and where in Union Beach? I’d love to go take a look at the Century. I happen to have a thing for these areoback coupes.
Union Ave auto sales Union Ave and State road 36 in hazlet New Jersey
I don’t know if it’s for sale but if not why would I be there I thought it was in union beach but it is in hazlet
9,000 dollars is price desired. Hasn’t moved in 7 years. Talked with the dealer today. The a pillars and sail panels are damaged. White interior. They took the B pillars out and never remounted them.. Missing the rear bumper filler and the car is slowly rusting away. He left me standing in the lot, before we could get the keys and check it out. I got impression he did not care to sell. Used to sit in a dealer for 20 years before was left outside..
Couple we own. Turbo hood and factory rear spoiler helps looks a lot. Can be modified like any other g body.
Rear view
I think it’s been at least 10 years since I’ve seen one and in the PNW rust is not an excuse but the fragile TH250M and general mediocrity making them not worth fixing seems to have killed most of these
Hmmm, with an aero nose could the fastback Cutlass been a NASCAR contender like the later Monte Carlo SS or Pontiac Grand Prix 2+2?
The styling was immediately criticized as a hatch that wasn’t, and that GM’s “formal” divisions offered this vehicle without a formal roof. Brougham styling was still expected and this design was a huge sales flop.
The reason it looks better to us now is because we’ve forgotten how popular formal coupes were back then.
It’s strange that it could sit for 7 years nd the guy was not interested in selling it be should have been al! over you
At the least he should have said make me an offer
I wish he would have also. It sat 20 years in the dealership, now 7 years with him. Hate to see it go to waste so slowly. I have photos I can post from when it sat in the dealer ship, I got After they sold it. Needs to be towed out of there. I would save it but it’s more of a$5000 car now as should be regasketed, hoses, belts, fuel lines flushed, tires replaced, brakes and all redone. Top price I have seen on these non turbos is 4500- 6000 . That’s running, driving, etc. The interior rear sail panels are like hens teeth to find in good shape.