Oldsmobile offered three separate station wagon lines in 1964: the midsize F-85, the new Vista-Cruiser, and the full-size Dynamic 88 Fiesta, which was now in its final year. Although the Fiesta was the biggest of the three wagons, it actually had less total cargo room than its smaller siblings, making up for it with more power and a bigger back seat.
Oldsmobile had offered station wagons for a while in the 1940s, but dropped them after 1950, concluding that the market was too small to justify the production costs. However, the 1950s were the Golden Age of the steel-bodied station wagon — by 1956, they represented more than 10 percent of the U.S. market — and so Olds jumped back in with its B-body Fiesta wagons in 1957. In 1961, Oldsmobile also added station wagon versions of the F-85, the division’s new Y-body senior compact.
None of these models was a big seller. Station wagons were usually the most expensive variant of any given model line, and since neither midsize nor full-size Oldsmobiles were that cheap to start with, an Olds wagon was an expensive choice for family buyers. The sticker price of even a modestly equipped F-85 wagon was close to $3,000, and a modestly equipped full-size 88 wagon was almost $4,000. The big wagons sold an unspectacular 20,000 units or so a year, the smaller ones somewhat less than that.
While the compact wagons were assembled by Fisher Body, through 1964, Oldsmobile and Buick outsourced production of their full-size B-body wagons to Ionia Manufacturing. Ionia Mfg. was a division of Mitchell-Bentley, established by Donald R. Mitchell, Michigan’s “station wagon king.” They supplied other stampings, trim, and interior components to the auto industry, and Ionia had built station wagon bodies for most of the domestic automakers at one time or another.
Ionia Mfg. actually designed quite a few of the wagons they built: The client would specify the major dimensions and other parameters, trusting Ionia designers and body engineers to work out the details. (I don’t know if that was the case with these particular Oldsmobile full-size wagons.) As Mitchell-Bentley chief engineer George F. MacFarlane explained in a 1957 SAE presentation:
[W]e, and the other important body builders, are really coming closer to engineering a Station Wagon body from scratch. We still must, in most cases, start with Sedan front ends, doors and underbodies, which some of you fellows work out with studied neglect of Station Wagon requirements, and must then design the rear structure—rear opening area; tail and lift gates; seating arrangement; roof rails and headers; wheelhouses and trim—and must work this out satisfactorily; despite you closed car engineers. Take, for example, the wheelhouse—in the Sedan it is conveniently hidden in the trunk. In the Station Wagon, it is conspicuously in the passenger compartment. … The difficulties in designing rear end structure for Station Wagons are—as we hinted earlier—often complicated by the fact that the underbody is frequently a Sedan unit which was designed with little or no regard for Station Wagon requirements.
In 1963, Buick and Oldsmobile indicated they would not renew their existing station wagon contracts with Ionia beyond the 1964 model year. Late that year, Mitchell-Bentley decided to sell Ionia Mfg. and its 875,000 sq. ft. plant to another automotive supplier, A.O. Smith, which was probably the industry’s largest supplier of auto frames. Thus, 1964 would be the last year year for the full-size Buick and Oldsmobile wagons, at least for a while.
Through 1963, Oldsmobile had offered its big Fiesta wagons in both the Dynamic 88 and Super 88 series, but for 1964, the wagon was limited to the Dynamic 88 line. Base prices were $3,576 for the three-row model or $3,468 for the more common two-row version.
By comparison, the cheapest F-85 wagon started at $2,689, while the slightly plusher F-85 Deluxe started at $2,797.
The F-85 wagon was now formally an A-body intermediate rather than a “Senior Compact,” so it was fairly large, 203 inches on a 115-inch wheelbase and 73.8 inches wide.
The Dynamic 88 was about a foot longer, 215.3 inches on a 123-inch wheelbase, and 78 inches wide, 4.2 inches wider than its Fisher-built intermediate brother. It was also about 1,100 lb heavier than the A-body wagon.
You might reasonably assume that the bigger wagon would have more capacity, but, surprisingly, Oldsmobile’s own 1964 station wagons brochure says otherwise. The rated cargo capacity of the Fiesta was 86.6 cu. ft., 1.2 cu. ft. less than the F-85 wagon. The maximum floor length of the Fiesta wagon was only 0.6 inches longer than the A-body F-85, and the rated cargo height was 0.6 inches lower.
Curiously, the Oldsmobile specs don’t highlight the one key dimension where the B-body Fiesta DID have a clear advantage over the intermediate wagon: the minimum width between the rear wheelhouses. In the A-body wagon, this distance was 44.7 inches. In the Dynamic 88 Fiesta, it was 48.5 inches, just wide enough to lay a 4-foot-by-8-foot sheet of plywood flat on the cargo floor.
Although it lacks the folding third seat, this particular Fiesta also has an extremely useful option that increases its versatility: a divided second-row seat. All the wagons had a standard one-piece folding second-row seat, but the divided version had a 30/70 split, so you could carry bulky items while still leaving room for at least one rear-seat passenger. This was a $37.12 option on the full-size wagon, $36.58 on the F-85 wagons.
Buying the full-size wagon did provide more room in the back seat: The Fiesta had 2.1 inches more rear legroom and 1.2 inches more rear headroom than the F-85 wagon, and the greater width provided 3.4 inches more hip room (though strangely no more shoulder room). Whether that was worth the greater cost and thirst was a question of priorities.
Of course, Oldsmobile’s biggest wagon news for 1964 was the February 1964 arrival of the Vista-Cruiser. The Vista-Cruiser would more or less replace the Dynamic 88 wagon from 1965 through 1970. It was based on the A-body, but with a 5-inch wheelbase stretch, to 120 inches, and a dramatic-looking raised glass vista roof.
The Vista-Cruiser offered rear-seat passengers more headroom than the big Fiesta, along with the added light and visibility of the glass roof. In the two-row Vista-Cruiser, back-seaters also enjoyed slightly more legroom than in the Dynamic 88 Fiesta, but the three-row models shifted the second-row seat forward almost 3 inches to accommodate third-row occupants’ legs.
Given that, Vista-Cruiser buyers needed to think very carefully about whether they needed the third row — aside from its higher price, the three-row version limited second-row passengers to only fractionally more legroom than an F-85 wagon. The three-row wagon did come with the divided rear seat (optional on two-row models), which did double duty providing an entryway for third-seat inmates.
Oldsmobile claimed that the Vista-Cruiser had more cargo capacity than either the F-85 or the Dynamic 88 Fiesta, up to 106 cu. ft., but the longer wheelbase couldn’t alter one key limitation the glass-roof wagon had inherited from its A-body cousins: The width between the rear wheelhouses was still about the same as the F-85, so a 4×8 sheet of plywood couldn’t lie flat. That was really the major drawback of the intermediate and compact wagons — whatever their cubic capacity, they just weren’t wide enough to carry bulky items the way a full-size wagon could.
Both the Vista-Cruiser and the F-85 also had smaller engines: They used the new Oldsmobile 330 cid V-8, usually linked to a 2-speed Jetaway (Super Turbine 300) automatic. (The F-85 wagon was also available with the 225 cid Buick V-6, but that engine was rare even in the sedans.) The 330/2-speed combination was adequate, but it wasn’t the most muscular combination for hauling or towing.
If you wanted muscle, the Dynamic 88 came with the venerable 394 cid Rocket V-8, which was in its final year; it would be replaced for 1965 by the new 425 cid engine. In the Dynamic 88 series, the 394 came with a two-barrel carburetor and 280 hp, but a 260 hp low-compression regular-fuel version was a no-cost option. This wagon has the optional L74 four-barrel engine, which gave 330 hp for $37.66. Premium gas was required with the four-barrel engines.
Unfortunately, Oldsmobile wouldn’t get the new Turbo Hydra-Matic transmission until the 1965 model year, so most Dynamic 88s had the unloved 3-speed Roto Hydra-Matic. Hydra-Matic was $231.34, although if you were planning tow, the $16.14 pricier heavy-duty version might have been worthwhile. This wagon also has an anti-spin differential, a $47.61 option seldom seen on full-size Oldsmobiles.
This Fiesta has an extensive array of options, beginning with power steering ($107.50, but basically mandatory) and power brakes ($43.00). It also has air conditioning, power windows, a 6-way power seat, a power tailgate window, a signal-seeking radio with power antenna, the Safety Sentinel speed-warning buzzer, a clock, a parking brake warning lamp, and a vanity mirror on the passenger-side visor.
In addition to the divided second-row seat, this wagon also has a carpeted load floor ($16.14) and an under-floor luggage locker ($21.52).
The roof luggage carrier was $98.35, while two-tone paint was $17.22 extra.
I can’t say I’m crazy about either this color combination or the color names (“Saddle Mist”?), but these Oldsmobiles were about as luxurious as regular-production station wagons got in 1964, save perhaps for the rare and pricey Chrysler New Yorker Town & Country.
The heavily optioned Fiesta obviously had the most features, but other than the bigger engine, there wasn’t much you couldn’t also get on the F-85 or Vista-Cruiser if you were willing to pay for it. This Fiesta’s original sticker price was well over $4,500 — a pricey way to get the kids to school back then.
On paper, this didn’t make a strong case for the Fiesta. It was hundreds of dollars more than the A-body wagons, heavier on gas, and a lot bigger on the outside, but it wasn’t much bigger on the inside, and it was less glamorous than the somewhat cheaper Vista-Cruiser. If you prioritized carrying bulky cargo, regularly carried adults rather than children in the back seat, or intended to tow, the Fiesta made more sense, but the range of its advantages was narrow.
In 1964, though, Oldsmobile buyers could still take their choice, and the results were fairly evenly split: 17,346 Fiestas, 14,540 F-85 wagons, and exactly 14,000 of the new Vista-Cruiser (whose sales were limited by its late introduction).
Oldsmobile didn’t get out of the full-size wagon market forever, and a new B-body Custom Cruiser arrived for 1971. The Custom Cruiser was downsized in 1977 and soldiered on (with one final dramatic facelift) through 1992, long after the station wagon’s heyday had passed.
1964 was the end of the line in one way, however: When the Dynamic 88 wagons ended production that summer, Oldsmobile also abandoned the Fiesta name. Ten years later, Henry Ford II called GM chairman Thomas A. Murphy and got his okay to adopt the name for Ford’s new B-segment supermini. Fiesta then became one of Ford’s longest-serving nameplates, remaining in use through 2023.
Related Reading
Curbside Classic: 1966 Oldsmobile Vista Cruiser – The Kiddie Wagon (by Paul N)
Chevrolet Caprice Classic And Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser Wagons: GM’s Long-Running Family Haulers –1977-1990 (by Aaron65)
1991 Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser Wagon: Last Act For A Long Roof (by Jon Stephenson)
Reading this article makes one understand why Ford sold SO many station wagons in this era.
Great find Aaron. I always assumed the Vista/Sports replaced the B-wagons for both marques, but clearly not. It seems the only real reason for the Vista was its front-facing third row.
The Vista/Sports wagons have always been a bit of a mystery to me. I assume that Buick and Olds decided that it was going to be cheaper to build a family-size wagon on the new B platform and that the best way to make a three row version was to make the third seat forward facing, for some perceived reason. Forward facing third seats had become totally passe by this time, and it would have been easy to just put in a rear facing third seat in the F-85/Special wagon. But that wouldn’t have been enough of a perceived replacement for the bigger B wagons, so they did what they did.
Obviously GM had high hopes for the concept of a lwb wagon with a forward-facing third seat, as they spent a lot of money doing it again with the new ’71 full-size wagons. And again, it wasn’t really a success. It was something of a classic GM thing: determined that a more complex and expensive engineering/design ideal was worth chasing after, even if the market (Ford, mainly) was telling them otherwise.
The forward facing third seat finally caught on in the Chrysler minivan so I would say that the idea was solid but GM didn’t have the recipe quite right yet.
Looking at the Oldsmobile wagons brings back memories from high school (1961-1964) and my familiy’s wagons. Ours were Chrysler Corporation, a 1962 Plymouth Belvidere bought new to replace the 1953 Custom Imperial sedan and a 1959 Desoto Shopper replacing the 1954 Plymouth 4 dr sedan. The Desoto had factory dual Air conditioning and war the last year for a Chrysler product with a generator. It didn’t take dad too long to adapt an alternator like the Plymouth had.
The Plymouth had a MOPAR hang-on under dash A/C unit, for my senior prom, I was taking my date, my sister ane her date to the prom, after the shuttle to pick up my sister’s date and back to the houde do he could escort her to the car, as we reached the end of the street the “GEN” idiot light popped on, even though the school was only about 1.5 miles away, dual A/C units + headlights and no alternator, was not a good idea, so back to the houdse, switch to the Plymouth where the A.C unit precluded my date sitting next to me.
After finishing school, graduating from the “university of Parris Island” i ultimately met my first wife and quietly co-signed on a loan to purcahes a 1970 1/2 Falcon wagon (the 1970 1/2 Falcons were re-badged Fairlanes after that nameplate was dropped Dec 31st 1969). That one lasted us until my older son clipped someones bumper leaving the credit union parking lot and ripped the right rear quarter panel open rendering the car unsafe as that was the spare tire well and the right side tail pipe was right under that spot.
All of these are very handsome cars .
-Nate
I haven’t lived nearby since the mid-naughts, but as recently as 2003 there were still standing remnants of the Ionia factory in Ionia, Michigan. I wonder if they’re still there.
These were very rare on the ground back at the time.
The question I have is: Since Iona was involved in engineering these wagons (as well as building them) did they play a role in the Chevy and Pontiac versions, which were largely the same but built by Chevy and Pontiac? Presumably so, although Chevy did not have that optional split folding second seat.
I suspect not, since the Catalina Safari and Chevrolet full-size wagons were built by Fisher Body. Fisher had built wagons at least since the ’40s (they built the postwar Chevrolet/Pontiac/Oldsmobile A-body wagons, among others), so I think that Buick and Olds going with Ionia was probably driven more by cost than engineering expertise.
What’s the difference(s) between the regular and HD RotoHydramatic? Wonder if they were less troublesome than the standard version (also known as Slim Jim)?
I am with PN, wondering how much of the wagon structure was shared between the Iona Olds/Buick wagon and the Fisher-built (presumably) Chevy/Pontiac. For example, the C pillar area of the roof looks pretty much the same to me.
I am also kind of amazed at the power comparisons between the 330 and the 394. The figures I found indicate that the 330 was rated at 280 to 310 horsepower, depending on the version (presumably 2 bbl regular gas vs. 4 bbl premium gas). That is not much less than the 394 in top trim, and more than the regular gas lopo 394. Maybe the more modern engineering of the 330 was showing its merits.
I wonder what percentage of station wagon buyers ever carried any 4’x8′ sheets of plywood, drywall, or paneling in their cars. The ability to carry these seemed to be a litmus test for whether your wagon (or pickup truck, or SUV, or van) was a serious cargo hauler, but I don’t get a sense that all that many people (other than construction workers, remodelers, and such) needed that capability. The one time I recall buying 4’x8′ tileboard for a kitchen remodel, the folks at Home Depot used their machines to cut down the slab to the smaller size I needed (for free) that would fit in my hatchback.
The 4×8 sheets carried in those days was usually paneling. To finish a basement or cover a damaged wall, the labor and skill was much less than working with sheetrock since no taping, mudding, or painting is required. The sheets were relatively light, so one person, often a do-it-yourselfer could carry a sheet from the car into a house.
My Dad drove a 60 Olds 88 until 1963 when he had the space between our house and the neighbors paved to make a driveway. It was too narrow for the big olds to fit, so he bought a 63 Olds F-85 station wagon which was a good bit smaller. This car had the all aluminum 215 cu. In. V8 later purchased by British Leland. All the time he had it, we never saw more than two or three of the same model in a station wagon configuration. Now, that was a rare car!
How did the cargo capacity of the Oldsmobile and Buick wagons compare with the Chevrolet and Pontiac wagons? I tried Google but was told the data wasn’t available
The Chevrolet full-size wagon claimed 87.0 cu. ft. The Pontiac Safari was rated at 86.4 cu. ft. for the Catalina, 85.8 cu. ft. for the Bonneville.