A couple of weeks back, I ran a post on a 1990 Oldsmobile Eighty-Eight coupe that I found on eBay. Although the large coupe market was virtually dead by that point, several people speculated about possibility of a coupe model for the redesigned 1992 Eighty-Eight. Well, here it is.
The 1992-1999 (and ultimately the final) generation Eighty-Eights were attractive, if not rather unmemorable cars. They ditched the square generic look for curvier, more aerodynamic sheet metal that for the first time in a while was totally unique to Oldsmobile. I actually used a 1997 Regency model, which was more or less identical to the ’92 Eighty-Eight, as the starting point of this photoshop. I deemed the Eighty-Eight sedan’s rakish roofline sufficient enough for a coupe, so I only needed to extend the front door and go for a pillar-less B-pillar.
Considering this was my first time using iDraw instead of Microsoft Paint, I’m quite happy with how it turned out. I can’t say a 1992 Eighty-Eight coupe would have done anything to reverse the declining coupe market or Oldsmobile’s fortunes, but I’d certainly like to own one, had they been produced.
Nice work Brendan. Overall a pleasing design, though I think perhaps the C-pillar should be a tad thicker.
I like the C-pillar and overall the car reminds me of the first-gen Legend coupe. Another reminder of when new cars actually were attractive!
Exactly what I was thinking. It looks very nice.
Same here. It would have made a most attractive coupe – but where was the market?
It reminded me of the BMW 2000 CS.
That dates me, I am afraid.
Ah, but great designs are timeless…
An Oldsmobile Legend Coupe! I had the same thought when I first saw it.
This is quite fetching. To add to the what if: what if the H-platform were stiff enough/what if they could make it with supportive bucket seats?
I’ve never seen a 1992 Oldsmobile 88 two door coupe before. I’ve seen plenty of sedans, but never a coupe. Nice looking car.
GM’s full size (which is the H-body) dropped the 2 door sedans with the 1992 models. The C-bodies dropped the 2 doors in 1991. The car above is a what if.
I think it would be better than W-Body coupes, namely those cutlass supreme coupes. And a Buick Electra coupe will be nice too ( the only part I don’t like about the LeSabre is the shorter trunk and less sloping C-pillar than Park Avenue, making the car appear less sleek. Oldsmobile 88 has better roofline, and it has better proportions than 98. )
While doing this, I also did a photoshop of the 1992 LeSabre, giving it a faster roofline. I didn’t do anything to the trunk, but I moved the front wheels forward a bit to give it less front overhang.
Easy to ask, but – why didn’t GM do it this way?
Possibility A: By that point GM had thrown out any sporting pretentions for Buick and marketed it as “The Great American Roadcar”, code for “the preferred choice of retirees”, so a “formal” roofline was more appealing.
Possibility B: Designers just did whatever they wanted to do. Other designs during this period such as the Buick Skylark and Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight were quite odd.
Probably a combination of the two.
I’d assume most Buick LeSabre buyers were looking for maximum interior room and wouldn’t want a compromised rear seat due to a sportier roofline.
Makes me wonder about 2 what IFs; 1 . a 2 door 1991-96 ninety eight regency, and 2. an oldsmobile mate to the buick roadmaster, sold alongside the other 98 and 88 models, along with the aurora all at once.
always wondered why no olds on the big car platform but the custom cruiser. well sales potential or lack there of; but what would it be called and how would it look?
Great job Brendan – I do really like the way this sedan looks. Changing the roofline and moving the front wheels forward really balances the design nicely. Most GM front-drivers from the ’80s on had far too much front overhang, sometimes well over 2 feet of it, with only 2-3 inches between the front door and wheelwell. How did GM, which was once the industry leader in style and design, become so clueless about basic proportions?
The FWD layout dictated the position of the front wheels. They could have designed it to put the front wheels nearer the bumper, but this would have shifted the weight distribution. I think they wanted about 60% of the weight on the front wheels.
Basically the transaxle is located behind the engine. Putting it in front of the engine would move the wheels forward, but the weight distribution would then be more like 50% on the front.
2 words: Space Efficiency
I’ve long been trying to dispel the myth of “FWD proporitions”. The simple fact of the matter is a long dash to axle ratio is a total waste of space, and in the great late 70s downsizing scheme every RWD car got that chunk of body snipped out, the 77 B bodies, 78 A bodies, 78 Ford Foxbodies, 79 Panthers, ect. Other thing to keep in mind is GM largely mutilated the FWD X body to create the FWD platforms to follow, and when you look at a Citation it doesn’t really have that excessive of a front overhang, no bigger than a Nova or Malibu anyway. But trying to instill luxury into later cars created the necessity for a longer hood, and the easiest way to lengthen an end of a platform is at the overhangs. Not saying it’s good design, but have a look at the dead space between the engine/transaxle assembly and grille of a LeSabre one day, there’s plenty of dead space that could be chopped out.
The other thing rarely taken into account is the fact that the hinges of doors were moved forward on many cars in the 80s to improve ingress, thereby moving the cutline further forward into the fender area, faster sloped windshields play a role in that too(especially with fuselage style doors containing the A pillar skin). Look at the placement of the actual DASH when claiming something has a “FWD dash to axle ratio”.
Still the position of the front wheels relative to the front doors really depends on how the engine and transaxle are positioned. Putting the transaxle in front of the engine (most are behind) would move the front wheels forward.
GM’s full size FWDs for 1985 did not have quite as much front overhang as later models. But later on the front ends were more streamlined to reduce the drag and I found that it was difficult not to scrape the front on pavement on driveways or even some city streets with a large low spot. This is one thing I like about Cadillac current rear wheel drives.
As I said, dash to axle doesn’t equal door to axle. FWD does dictate proportions somewhat, no doubt, but it’s not as if manufacturers couldn’t add a few inches of dead space there on an existing platform, but they don’t because it’s a complete affront to space efficiency.
This LeSabre looks so much better, especially the body proportion. However, I think GM just reserved the better design for Park Avenue. One of the photo is by Richard Bennett. The long overhang has a practical advantage though, as the long wrapping around chrome provides good protection during pumper car mode in winter storm, minimize the chance of damage to wheels. ( hitting snow bank around 15-20 on ramp) The whole front clip can dip deep into the snow bank without getting front wheels stuck, which comes very handy.
In late ’80s and early ’90s, there was a supposed prototype of Caprice, but the speculation turned wrong, and it became Park Avenue instead.
That’s actually quite attractive. I always thought the final 88s/98s were the best-looking of the H-bodies, even in 4-door form.
I think that the 1995 Buick Riviera should have done better with no competition from other GM “full size” coupes. However, the Riviera’s first year production (a long year) was over 41,000, followed by 18,000-19000 for the next two years. Then sales drop off to under 11,000 with the last few built at the end of 1998 (as 1999 models).
The Riviera was not a hardtop of course. I sort of wonder if the Riviera would have done better as a 4 door coupe like the Saturns with the rear doors the so called suicide variety. This would have been competition for the Park Avenue although not really.
The Riviera was a pricey car. The base Riviera would have cost $43,237.33 in today’s money.
The price limited the sales potential.
But, my God, the 1995 Riviera has to be the best looking car out there!
Yup. After I wear out my Reatta (talk about front overhang!), I want a well-kept 95-99 Riv!
I had a 1991 model Reatta and a 95 Riv.
Quite nice. But I think you mean *Holiday* coupe. I really miss the Holiday designation for Oldsmobile hardtops that went back to the very first one.
As for the car, this is one of the few times where the sedan roofline makes an attractive 2 door hardtop. This would have been an attractive car.
The only thing I see wrong with this is that the window frame piece (the “B-pillar”) should be about as thick as the front vent window(?) pillar-thing, if only to preserve visual continuity. Otherwise, excellent work.
Now do a 98! Or maybe an Aurora!
Your wish is my command! One Aurora Coupe “Prototype”
Not the smoothest job I’ve ever done, but I love the car!
Here’s one with no quarter windows:
I’m starting to think that anything looks good as a coupe.
Well, almost anything!
That one would look better lowered about two inches.
That doesn’t look half bad, considering the sedan’s questionable styling you had to work with. The roofline and fender skirts seem to work better with a 2-door body style.
Thanks Brendan! I’d like to thank GM panel gaps for helping to make this a little easier! 😀
I absolutely love the Aurora, but the 98 looks decent in my mind. The proportions seem less “blocky” to me.
I’m not good enough at Photoshop to lower things, though. But, I think that it would make the car even lower and leaner.
I really like this one! However, you can see why GM might not have wanted to put it into production – it resembles its platform-mate Riviera.
Can I have a 95-99 (gen 1) couoe please?
It looked like it had taken its design cues from its cousin the bulbous/bloated Buick Riviera.
Here’s a 98 that I did. I’m still not as good as Brendan, but you can get the point:
I left the rear quarter windows on this version.
Wow, those are all beautiful. I’m having no problem visualizing the real thing. Excellent work.
Thanks!
Hey GM, Internet people like my work! I may be able to fix Cadillac! Or, make a bunch of things into station wagons.
It could work!
Awesome work Brendan! That is a good looking car! And it does remind me of the original Acura Legend coupe, which was a great looking automobile. Too bad GM didn’t actually produce them, it may have sold well.
Excellent work! Of course, as the owner of one of the few mid-1990s large coupes (a Thunderbird), I think it’s a great looking concept.
Very nice design! Of course, in the real world it would have had a big fat B-pillar, but they could have done flush glass on the outside like you have. This does remind me a bit of the Achieva coupe, but much better.
The Olds’ ninety-eight one of the biggest impresions of my youth in holland, it was metallic bluewith metallic blue upholstery and it had courtesey lights a big roaring engine and tinted windows.
Electical moving front bench and electrical windows that quietly slid into those hughe doors.
A radio with a wonderbar, a window washer that spayed automatically, ‘;t was all the opposite world of my dad’s 403 Peugeot Diesel, with its poor single interior light, its noisy anvil-nailing Indenor Diesel engine, it’s acceleration that was slow-motion compaired to the Oldsmobile and the total lack of luxury. or metallic paint or upholstery.
All we had was a lousy sunroof !
Ah, but try getting a sunroof on that big Olds!
I’ve often thought the Aurora, as a spiritual successor to the Toronado, should have had a 2 door model. This car was very well executed, but I actually prefer the blockier previous generation of 88.
On plenty of levels it is! starting with the Aurora shared its (G) platform W the Riv,
hence no 2dr.
Holy cow, that’s good looking!
I noticed it’s not actually a ‘coupe’ but a two door hardtop, a body style I have always had a soft spot for. You definitely have my attention. If we can make a convertible why not a true hardtop. Can you make another rendering showing windows down?
it has always interested me how the larger two door went from being everyone’s dream to extinct in about 10-15 years. Can’t think of any other like automotive event that was brought on by no other factor than buyers taste changing.
. . . . . And mandatory child-safety seat laws.
…And big coupes really weren’t so big anymore, making those child safety seats a bear to use. I speak from experience with my ’89 Thunderbird. It turned into a Chrysler Town & Country.
But what about someone like me, with grown kids, who still wants a coupe or at least a 2 door? No American car company offers a single one (check that, Cadillac has three. Starting at $40K) It’s hard to believe they don’t make a couple of less expensive ones. I would consider buying a new car if something like the Cobalt coupe or Sunfire coupe were still available. GM even went so far as to hide the rear door handles on the Spark and Sonic to make them look more like 2 door cars. It didn’t work.
It seems almost unreal. An entire class of car, and a very popular one, now extinct because of govt. meddling? This is why I call my old Fairlane my “freedom” car.
The market for some types (generally big) of coupes went away. The fact that only a handful of people want something does not make it profitable. government meddling had nothing to do with it. Hardtops went away because roll over standards made the 4 door hardtop too expensive to do (I would guess). We do still have convertibles.
Same thing those of us who want to see original action movies or listen to guitar heavy rock n roll – Pound sand and live in the past, or conform to mediocrity and listen to pop/country or rap, watch yet another rebooted comic book movie and drive around in transverse FWD 4 door blob like everyone else.
I like XM channel 76
… combined with passenger airbags before the feds grudgingly allowed passenger-side airbag deactivation, so you could not legally or safely carry a kid in the front seat.
Station Wagon to 4-door SUV/CUV happened in only about 5 years. (e.g. 1986 Taurus Wagon -> 1990 Explorer). Of course, the CAFE loophole encouraged things.
This is very nice. I was never a big fan of the stationary vent window on these cars, and never quite understood why they didn’t design the car in a more practical way to avoid them.
That stationary window acctually looks a bit better on this coupe. If you look at the four door, the operating main window is shockingly small, even a bit odd looking. While it is one of those “out there” safety concerns, that tiny operating window was too small to let even small / thin people escape from the car through the window.
And the rear windows only went down less than halfway. I have vivid memories of sweating in the back seat of my grandfather’s Eighty-Eight.
They were the biggest tease ever. Might as well have made them non-opening like the G-body sedans.
I feel fortunate about no one is riding on the backseat of my LeSabre during summer. The window only gets down halfway, and left rear one doesn’t work at all, on top of that, AC doesn’t blow cold neither. It would be a torture on the backseat during a ride. ( however, during several weeks in summer without a bed to sleep on, it became my very comfortable leather bed ) Much more roomier than Lincoln Mark VIII!
Wow Brendan, you did a great job creating an 88 “Holiday”. If this was a real car, I’m sure the Olds dealers would ruin it by adding faux convertible roofs, or thickly padded landau roofs with weird shaped opera windows.
I think that they way you designed it looks great ! I would have brought one in a minute..
“The 1992-1999 (and ultimately the final) generation Eighty-Eights were attractive, if not rather unmemorable cars. They ditched the square generic look for curvier, more aerodynamic sheet metal that for the first time in a while was totally unique to Oldsmobile”
Huh?? I’m hoping the square look comes back. The rounded “jelly bean” look is now the generic style (or rather lack of it) I would love to see some new “square looking” coupes with landau roofs and opera windows.
IMO, the first generation Crown Vic (1983–1987) was far better looking than the egg shaped next generation, even with four doors. (just using the Crown Vic as an example, there are many more)
What I meant by that statement was that the 1986-91 Eighty-Eighty shared a considerable amount of sheet metal with the LeSabre and Bonneville. It’s square, straight-edged sheet metal bore a strong resemblance to the A-bodies, C-bodies, and N-bodies. The 1992-1999 Eighty-Eight at least had it’s own roofline and mostly unique sheet metal from the LeSabre and Bonneville.
I think the “jellybean” look peaked around 2000. Car designs will never return to razor sharp edges for aerodynamic purposes, but there are many designs that feature squarer styling with sharper angles.
Look at the Lamborghini Aventador. Or the Camaro, Challenger, or ’14 and back Mustang. None of these cars look like a jelly bean. Neither does the 2014 Dodge Charger. But to me anyway, the new Honda Accord and Civic look exactly like jelly beans. The blunt vertical grille on the Charger must not be so aerodynamic. Angular shapes like the first few generations of the Lotus Esprit can be very aerodynamic if designed right. Also the Pinto did not look like a jelly bean, yet there were almost no straight lines on it.
Peak of jellybean:
For Ford, It’s Taurus.
For GM, it’s Chevrolet Lumina, Pontiac Grand Prix and last Buick LeSabre
For Chrysler, it’s Chrysler Concord and Dodge Intrepid.
And I think the jellybean of all time is ’96 Taurus. The jellybean started with aero Tbird and Tempo, with much success of ’86 Taurus and Sable, ( Aerostar only had a name though ) pushing further to ’89 Ford Thunderbird with critical acclaim. Release of the grill-less Ford Crown Victoria triggered negative reaction already, and Lincoln Mark VIII had controversial feedback. ’94 Mustang had questionable styling ( evidenced by quick modification of taillights ) and ’95 Lincoln Continental looked quite awful to me ( a Mark VIII wanna be, but in the form of a super 1st gen Taurus ) and jellybean finally got the deserved punishment on ’96 Taurus. Then, after few heritage of jellybean ( ’98 Town Car, ’97 Mark VIII, aero F-150 ) it’s over.
I think the 80s iterations of jellybean should be separated from the 90s iterations. The 80s ones were designed and proportioned more like traditional square cars had looked up to that point, just with soft rounded edges and faster windscreens. 90s ones on the other hand ushered in in that more organic blob look(which we’re saddled with today), at Ford I’d say started with the 94 Lincoln Mark VIII, then the 94 Mustang, followed by the 96 Taurus/Sable/Continental. The panther kind of stayed in the 80s aero format all the way to the end.
Yes I agree. Jellybean from ’80s was quite different from those in the ’90s, they were not that sour. The first jellybean started getting sour was the ’92 Ford Crown Vic, as the public didn’t like the grill-less front clip at all, neither the rear clip. They added some sugar in ’93 by putting a grill and light bar on rear, but their overall proportion was still fairly traditional, so it wasn’t too sour to start with. ’93 Lincoln Mark VIII was very unique and should be reserved for specificity cars, but the extra sour taste soon spread to all, and didn’t go well, like the ’95 Lincoln Continental ( I don’t think a mainstream sedan should look like a jellybean. It looks like jellybean coated shellac )
Two out of three Panther cars inherited the conservative styling from Mercury, but the ’98-’02 Lincoln Town Car looks like a melt down box ( I can see the headlights melting…) It’s not organic though, so a facelift in ’03 can cure the problem well.
Don’t forget that all the Japanese and Korean manufacturers plus MB and BMW make jellybean cars as well. And they look so much alike that even a car person needs to look at the badging on most of them to know what they are. To me they are just generic little FWD sedans, the brand doesn’t really matter.
Cars didn’t used to be generic. I remember when I could tell what almost any car was from 1/4 mile away. They all had their own distinct look.
Back in the 90s, I saw a bubble caprice coupe someone made in one of those “hot rod” magazines.
Could be a worse choice.
I did mess with the rear window and add pinstriping, but the whale cars look nice as a coupe.
I still wish they produced the panel wagon prototype version.
Someone built one in my area (Pawtucket, RI or Seekonk, MA), and I see it occasionally when the weather is nice.
Found it on CarDomain. It’s…um, unique, I guess.
Huh. They shortened the whole car rather than lengthening the doors…that’s one way to do it I guess!
I’m now wondering what would happen if you took this two-door rendering, with no center pillars and with that roofline, and made it a four-door hardtop.
That roofline on the Olds is beautifully sleek, but I’m afraid it could never pass today’s rollover strength standard. It’s hardly stiffer than a convertible’s top.
I modified this picture of my former 1991 Park Avenue to give it a few extra inches of wheelbase…
Matador and Brendan… Your photoshop images are pretty talented.
I like your Olds 88 coupe concept, but always hated that awkward upright, weird 92-94 nose… Kinda takes away the “sport” in the sport coupe look, you were going for.
Now, is there any way, you can do an 88 coupe with the better look of the 88’s 95-98 “facelift” front end? Now, that would like great.
Never understood why Olds made this gen of 88, a Regency towards the end of this body style … To me, Regency has always went with the 98 moniker, not 88.
Thanks! I have to do something to keep me from actual work, correct? 😉
I’ll see if I can find a grille to use. The problem with doing these is that the pictures have to be from just the right angle, or I run into issues.
I like the facelifted 88s, though. The Buick LeSabres had a nicer exterior in my mind, but the Olds interior was pretty nice looking.
One facelifted 88 Coupe:
I like Brendan’s hardtop more, but GM would have cheapened out, so I retained the B-pillar styling.
I like this. Clean and simple. Long hood and short rear deck. And the mirrors are mounted on the doors where mirrors should be, not the A pillars. It could use some whitewall tires. Could even be done in a landau version with wider B and C pillars, and a vinyl roof with an opera window.
I’m not good enough to pull off whitewall tires, but I can do Landau roofs!
I really want one of these, now!
Olds actually decided to market a Regency in 97 to the departed 98’s fans, whom they figured would sign on for the switcheroo to a gussied up 88.
That was the reasoning I read at the time. smh – at the time it seemed like a lame excuse for trying to sell 2 cars off 1.that were =
Brendan proves what all designers should know: subtle changes in proportions and details can make a tremendous difference in the appeal of a design.
Any car without a B pillar gets my attention, the Olds looks great.
There is a small coup renaisance, I see many Benz , and some new Lexi coupe seem to be everywhere, and the Infiniti née G37..
There are some statistics on the Cadillac history website that break out the coupe, convertible and sedan sales numbers. My Cadillac history book also has numbers. What I found is that for the DeVilles in the 60’s, coupe and convertible sales are about equal to the number of 4 door sedan sales. As time passes the sedans become more popular, but coupe sales are about 1/3 of sedan sales in the 80’s.
At the end of the 80’s and into the early 90’s coupe sales drop off for the devilles, but the FWD Fleetwood coupes are still doing OK. But around 92 or 93 coupes have fallen to a few thousand, making them profitless and therefore pointless. The Eldorado is still good till the end of the 90’s.
Cadillac still makes three 2015 coupes. Honda makes the Accord and Civic Coupes, and the new CR-Z hybrid coupe. Toyota makes a 2 door hatchback version of the Yaris, which I just discovered is finally available in the LE version with cruise control. Maybe worth a look. Nissan makes the Altima coupe. Hyundai makes the Elantra and Genesis coupes. Kia makes the Forte coupe. Fiat has the 500 2 door hatchback. Mazda makes the Miata hardtop, but I don’t fit in that. VW makes the Golf 2 door and of course the Beetle. There are more 2 doors out there than I thought. I like the Fiat 500, but don’t know if I trust a Fiat. Everything else but the Yaris is out of my price range.
If you could afford a 500, you’re pretty close to a Civic coupe or a Forte Koup. Both of those start around $17K (before any discounts/deals of course).
The Elantra coupe was discontinued after the 2014 model year. I can only assume it sold slowly, as I only ever saw a few. In my opinion it wasn’t differentiated far enough from the sedan version.
One of the points here is that the large coupes seems to disappear in the early 90’s. My post was to show what the large Cadillac coupes sales did. They were a significant part of Cadillac sales in the 50’s until about the end of the 80’s.
The ELR might be considered a come back for the Eldorado, but it is really Cadillac’s version of the Chevy Volt. The ATS coupe is based on the sports sedan platform and is a compact car. The CTS-V is mid-sized but with a Corvette engine is more of a sports car than anything. I would not consider any of Cadillac’s coupes large cars.
Very nice job with this Olds! The sedan roofline does work surprisingly well. Considering how good the previous generation 88 and LeSabre looked as coupes, though, maybe it shouldn’t be a surprise…
I owned a 97 Regency in the exact color listed above. What a fun car. I got it used for like 2500 bucks and it gave me a year or so of trouble free driving after I fixed a headlight switch. The big Chicago snow storm in 2011 killed it though… I really liked the controls on the steering wheel and the alloy wheels which made it look much better than my 97 Bonneville SE.