(first posted 2/13/2011) The Complete Cutlass Chronicles are about the rise and fall of the house of Cutlass. And here we are, at the very zenith of the Cutlass Supreme Coupe’s arc. Well, strictly speaking, the almost identical ’79 was the very tippy-top, but let’s just say that almost a million 78 and 79 coupes (combined) were sold during those two heady years at the top, before the long decline set in. And what do we account for the Cutlass’ out-sized success? Beats me.
Just kidding. Let’s say that I’ve learned the lesson of the Cutlass coupe’s success, or more like had it pounded into me. That’s the huge benefit of writing Curbside Classics: so many of my old prejudices have fallen away, to one degree or another. I’ve learned to appreciate what other folks found so appealing in cars that I found so lackluster at the time. And looking at this clean example here, that’s not all too hard. This one is actually rather sympathetic to me.
I wanted to like GM’s new downsized A-Bodies when they arrived in 1978. Even though I wasn’t really likely to consider buying one, I was pretty impressed with the B-Bodies that arrived the year before to great acclaim. And I got to drive a really well optioned ’77 Caprice, with the 350 four-barrel and F-41 suspension. Pretty impressive, for Detroit iron, given my import proclivities.
The A-Bodies seemed like another perfect step down in size, yet retaining RWD and V8s; potential 7/8 scale Caprices. Somehow, they just never quite lived up to their potential, and they tended to look just a wee bit too shrunken with their mighty small little wheels and tires.
The A-Body that appealed to me the most was the Malibu coupe: clean, unpretentious; no Broughams or tinny wire wheel covers. With the 160 hp 305, it had decent performance and handling, with the F41 suspension handled almost as well as it looked. If the 350 and a four speed had been available, it could have made quite a rep for itself, a true Malibu SS reincarnated. No such luck.
In hip and trendy West Los Angeles in 1978, GM was quickly getting into serious doo-doo. If it weren’t for the resident GM-maniac, the one who was even impressed with his test drive of the new Cimarron, I probably wouldn’t have even spent that much energy thinking about them, although I couldn’t (yet) quite resist GM technological prowess. And that’s despite the fact that it always under-delivered.
Nobody I knew then drove a Cutlass Coupe. But when we flew to Baltimore to visit family, the place was absolutely crawling with them. It was a perfect Towson-mobile: nice folks driving their new Cutlass Supreme Brougham to and from their brick colonials. Don’t get me wrong: there was something seductive about that; my life in LA was unstable, and trying to keep numerous Peugeot 404s running while living in an apartment in Santa Monica and trying to make a living as a free-lance tv production jack-of-all trades was always precarious. Those brick colonials and Cutlass Supremes looked so stable, secure and comfortable.
I guess that sums up the allure and success of the Cutlass Supreme Brougham coupe: folks want to feel comfortable and secure, and what better than this car to convey that every morning as you climb in for the ever-more crowded commute to the office park. There were easily a half-million folks a year willing to sign on the dotted line for that. Just not me.
I used to not care for the the lines of this car very much: way too boxy, and lacking in genuine character. I know; the Colonnades were huge pigs, but they were dripping with character, for better or for worse. The downsized A-Bodies are way too sanitized, or generic. It was the beginning of the dreaded look-alike curse that soon became a deadly cancer at GM. If you didn’t really care about these coupes and look closely, the Buick and Olds versions were utterly interchangeable. The tract houses of cars.
Yes, outside of California, where folks were clamoring for 3-Series, clattering Mercedes diesels or Hondas, the Cutlass was the hot little ticket for baby-boomers starting to get serious about their careers and ready to ditch the weird clap-trap cars of their hairy youth. How many noisy and aging muscle cars or VWs were ditched in the inexorable big step to respectability, comfort and a bit of driveway prestige? Millions.
To each their own. In just a few years later, I was driving a Buick Skylark Limited, with plush loose-pillow seats. Well, it was made available to me as a perk for my new job, but sure, it was comforting, after a fashion. Not that the seats were actually more comfortable than the Peugeots, and I missed the sunroof in the mild coastal climate. But the first trip into the hot interior, and my first air-conditioned car was a revelation.
So yes, I get the Cutlass Supreme Coupe. And this particular example is as palatable to my taste as possible: white, no vinyl top, no wire wheel covers: If I had owned one back in the day, this is how mine would have looked. Now I wouldn’t have bought one back in the day in hip Santa Monica, because young folks are so damn image conscious. The Cutlass just wasn’t cool. But I look at it now, and see a pretty clean and timeless coupe, even if it is a bit generic. That’s not say that I wish that I had actually had one, but that’s as good as it’s going to get, from me, anyway.
These were great cars, especially in the Oldsmobile versions. See the interior in the shots Paul has provided? Still in really good shape. All the Olds cars of the era had very high quality materials. These cars drove great; they weren’t very heavy, a loaded one like this only weighed in at about 3200 lbs. A 305 two barrel may have only had 145 hp but it had like 240 ft/lbs of torque. This was lots of torque to push a car of this size and weight around. The were peppy and easy to drive and even easier to park.
These were the last of the really good GM cars, the quality went down like a stone in 1980 in all the A, B and C bodies. In this particular car, all the power stuff was very reliable and the a/c would blow ice cold for years. GM sold loads of them for a reason; they were good cars, well built, reliable for their day and very nice to drive. If I could find a clean one (and had a place to park it) I’d grab it in a heartbeat.
Thanks for that. An “a” body would be my ideal 1st american car. stangs and Firebirds getting to expensive in the UK.
My mom had a 1978. It was a neat car for the front seat riders and looked good. But it held up very poorly. Lots of squeaks and issues and just flat fell apart.
My favorite and the only Cutlass which I have owned. (1987 sedan, after they changed the platforms name to G-body.)
Of course these sold well. What else was there? By 1978, Chrysler quality had hit new lows (and this was saying something) and the LeBaron coupe just was not as appealing. Ford was still selling those great big bricks (ThunderbirdEliteCougarLTDII) that were not all that appealing and got awful gas mileage. And Ford was developing a reputation for quality issues by that time too.
GM was still riding its image for top quality (at least among the domestics) and had by far the most modern looking midsize luxcoupe. These Cutlasses were well-proportioned. You are right that this car was the ultimate middle class (or aspirational) car in middle america. When an older cousin was ready for his first new car, this is what he bought in 1978.
The 307 was a good engine, and these were nice driving cars. They were fairly tight, were well built (for a domestic) and largely trouble-free. These bodies stood up to midwest road salt very well, probably better than anything else in their class, foreign or domestic. I rented one in the mid 80s and had to admit that it was a pleasing car to drive. I liked the 307’s torque and the transmission was so much more pleasant than the Ford AOD. Although I had never lusted after one of these, I understood their appeal.
This car may have been GM’s last real winner. These lasted many years in the Oldsmobile lineup, and were always among Olds’ most appealing offerings.
IIRC the ’78 Cutlass engines were 3.8 Buick V6, 260 Olds V8 and Chevy 305 V8. Not withstanding the soft cam issues (not sure what years) I’d take the 305 for sure. 307 in a Cutlass came later.
I have to disagree with Canucklehead about the interior materials. Maybe he was able to garage his, but long-term parking in the sun took its toll on the interior pretty quickly. Faded, cracked and warped dash. And every ’78+ b-body eventually got a case of the dreaded Drooping Headliner Syndrome. By 1985 or so, thumbtacks were the only thing keeping the headliner suspended on our 1979 Cutlass.
I never warmed to the styling of these coupes, but I thought GM nailed the 1981 re-skin. The scoop-nosed Cutlass was a little odd, but the Regal and especially the Grand Prix were gorgeous. A lovely coda to the long run of RWD American midsized cars.
+1 on the fact that the Aero-Restyle did them a lot of (Stylistic) good. I have to say I find the Composite Headlight 87-88 Cutlass Supreme and Monte Carlo the prettiest of the bunch, probably because I think square sealed beam quad headlamps are ugly. I don’t think I’d ever want to own one, but I understand why every relative of mine traded in their Colonnade Cutlass for one of these by 1983. These (and the B bodies) seemed to be as durable as it got from American Cars in this period, although I have to say my Great Grandfather’s retirement 1986 Thunderbird held up very well until the axle snapped in 2002.
I was always surprised how *long* these cars were loved (saleswise) as (it my starting to fog memory) it seems that The Cutlasses, in particular sold very well until 1986 or so before the Cutlass Ciera started taking over. And to be honest If I had my choice between Cutlasses, I’d go for a Cutlass Ciera..especially if it was one of the Hess & Eisenhardt Convertible conversions with the 3.8 V6
1986 was also the year Ford had launched the Taurus and the Mercury Sable who’ll take the place of the Cutlass in the sales chart.
This convertible is GREAT! Never seen before… Like Cieras! Especially the Cruiser wagon…
My grandmother had one of these that she purchased new in 1980 and kept it until she passed on in the early 90’s, at which time my mother inherited the car. This car spent its entire life in Southern California, not garaged and in the sun, and the interior and exterior held up great. In fact, I don’t remember any fading or tears whatsoever. My mother really liked the car. It took us to DC and back, and didn’t give us too much trouble. She would still have it, except it was stolen and stripped.
c5karl, here in the Wet Coast of Soviet Canuckistan, sun damage, ahem, is rarely an issue in any car. It rains half the year.
Compared to their competition, these cars were the best.
Also, almost all had Chevrolet 305 V-8s in them, leading to the big law suit.
i got one of those sitting nearby, completely run down. 🙁
It goes without saying that I would have to chime in here…
I think that part of the appeal of these cars was that you got a lot of the big car virtues, just in a smaller and easier to manage package. As you all know, I once owned a 1987 Cutlass Supreme Brougham coupe. It was everything I wanted it to be, extremely luxurious, roomy, and rather well made. The ride was serene, the radio sounded incredible, the AC blew cold, and it turned heads everywhere I went.
I find it interesting that these days cars this size are considered full size, yet it never felt all that large. If anything it felt “just right”.
I can’t wait for the 1980’s CCCCC!!!
Someone tried to sell me one of these when I was in college in 1989. I was from a family that bought quite a few GM cars so was partial to considering it, however, I couldn’t stand the sight of the Cutlass. It looked OK from the front though. I wanted a stick shift so I ended up buying a Datsun 240Z (a completely impractical 2 seater). It was fun to drive winding out the gears, sounded good, and went like the clappers thanks to those multiple carbs. The best part was that I started dating the girl who sold it to me. She was even more fun than the 240Z.
It was the beginning of the dreaded look-alike curse that soon became a deadly cancer at GM.
I’d have to say they were 3rd, after the Nova-Omega-Ventura-Apollo clones of the early 70s, and the Monza-Skyhawk-Starfire-Sunbird models of ’75.
At least the cloning on these were restricted to near twins Cutlass-Regal and Malibu-Lemans.
I, as a matter of policy, immediately and unequivocally condemn any vehicle labeled as ‘brougham’ which is not an actual brougham. It’s patently absurd. You wouldn’t buy a Panasonic LME 5082 brougham washing machine just because it had a vinyl top and the tub was lined with red velour. You wouldn’t buy a Nikon D80 brougham DSLR with ‘Brougham’ slapped across the lens in overdone, fake gold script. Well, that makes only a little more sense than the wretched automobiles so-badged in the flopping ’70s.
The ’70s were good for auto racing, my birth, and for hosting the beginnings of electronic music in its modern form. The american street cars produced then are a nearly uniform tragedy – and will remain so no matter how rose-colored peoples’ glasses become.
Modern domestic equivalents of these cars – built orders of magnitude better (eg, shipped with headlights hooked up, doors that latch, and transmissions containing transmission fluid) are routinely savaged, by the same people here waxing eloquent about malaise-era rolling garbage cans, for lacking leather dash boards and having mismatched plastic grain and failing to do 0-60 in under 7 seconds. But these loafing oafs and the absurdly horrid Panther platform spur misty-eyed nostalgia.
At least ’50s era cars, lousy transportation though they were, were -interesting-. They were the lunatic embodiment of a time when the -progress- of… everything… was viewed as a foregone conclusion. Asbestos ceiling tiles? Sure! Harbors and drinking water wells excavated with hydrogen bombs? Why not! Cars with conical spikes sticking out from the steering wheel hub? Anything else would suggest that the car might get into an accident!
The ’70s may have been noteworthy, but they saw through a completion of despair rather than a lunatic confidence in anything whatsoever. The cars were the same – met in their time with obligatory and strained compliments. At least -both- windshield wipers didn’t fall off. Complimenting them while slating niggling performance failings in modern cars is absurd, even allowing for an ‘in their time’ bonus.
I would write a conclusion, but my son keeps waking up, ants are invading my house, and I’m weeks late on an update to the game I foolishly wrote for the BlackBerry PlayBook. Haven’t heard of it? Exactly.
Where was I again? I forget. Hey, would you look at the size of that ant…
Excellent write-up, PeriSoft! I couldn’t agree more. The allure of these cars was simply the exterior styling of the coupes, although my nostalgia stopped when fixed rear side glass made its ugly debut.
The truth is, cars have never been better.
The ’70s were what they were. You just can’t explain them–automotively, or any other way–in a few short sentences. I was there, and I can’t do it–and I’ve tried.
You’re dead on. I owned a 79 Regal, and I personally don’t see how they sold any of those cars.
And the Panther IS absurd. Especially the ones with the bowtie taillights. The Lincoln, Mercury, and the Vic were identical triplets. And ugly.
My best friend’s family inherited one of these when it was about 5 years and 15,000 miles old. It was immaculate, as it should have been, and looked even newer than it was. It didn’t work though. No dealer or independent mechanic could make it work reliably. The days it started sufficed to demonstrate that the suspension had practically no damping. It handled worse than any other car we got our hands on, and my daily driver was a ’71 Plymouth Scamp. My friend’s was a 130K mile 1978 Impala wagon. Still, the Oldsmobile was a white knuckle ride at normal traffic speeds. The body crashed down on the back axle when you came to the bottom of a hill. The front tires bounced over the pavement when you turned the wheel. My friend’s family had two teenager at the time, but his parents didn’t make either of them take the Oldsmobile as their first car. It just stayed in the fleet as a spare car that looked better than the others but didn’t work, until one day if finally vanished. I think overall they were one of the cars that damaged GM greatly by being successful. In the then-short time I’d known my friend, it was his family’s 4th GM car. The others were bought new and not all that great. The Oldsmobile being around at the same time that their new Buick LeSabre was having cooling issues led them to buy a used Mazda GLC 4-door for my friend. It was a scary car from a shady dealer, but it was so much better than anything else they’d owned that they’ve been a Japanese car family ever since.
A classmate of mine in high school and played hooky one day, we ‘borrowed’ his mother’s 78 Cutlass while she slept after returning from midnight shift. Having grown up in Fords and Mercuries, the small Cutlass was something of a revelation to me. It could do all of the things my dad’s Montego could do, but was smaller, faster, nimbler and better on fuel.
Compared to many of the cars available at that time, they delivered the same kind of performance as the bigger B bodies did. With 30+ years of advancements, we tend to forget that there was little real competition. Maybe the Fox body Fairmont/Zephyr might have come close, but they were insubstantial feeling compared to the A bodies of the times.
These definitely weren’t great cars, they were just right for the times. Sagging doors, floppy headliners, THM 200 grenades, things were definitely being cost-engineered. However, they were revered with the same kind of love as today’s Camry is to millions of people. Don’t forget that they were, by and large, cheap. Cheap to buy and cheap to own, and the specials had a little dose of style.
It would be interesting to write an in-depth story on the 1980-81 styling overhauls of the GM A-bodies, B-bodies and C-bodies. What a transformation from the somewhat dowdy, cheap looking cars to a more “Brougham”-like swagger (the ’81 A body sedans even looked like the original Seville). Especially by ditching the single headlight designs on the Cutlass, Regal and Monte in 1980, 1 year before the A’s restyle, GM clearly acknowledged that mistakes had been made.
For the record -my first car was a hand-me-down ’79 Grand Prix. Black on black, vinyl bench, wire wheel covers, 301 2bbl wheezer and that damn THM 200. Pretty ugly car not exactly loved by me. The only thing that was remotely fun about it was the ability to flip the air cleaner cover over to create a faux-4bbl sucking sound. Used to do that alot, but unfortunately it sapped even more power from the already weak Pontiac small block. Oh, and the ability to cram 5 or so of your friends in it without too many complaints made it somewhat useful..
I liked this car, stylewise. I thought the ’78-’80s were very clean. I liked the ’80 model best–it had quad headlights, which I thought gave the front end a more detailed look. They had the usual GM headaches–overweight doors that sagged and had metal fatigue cracks by the rearview mirror mount, headliners that fell on your head (but ALL domestics had that problem)–but overall I think they were better cars than their predecessors, body integrity-wise.
Engines were a mixed bag. IIRC the base engine was the 3.8L Buick V6, which had serious oil pressure problems from ’78 to ’81. Next step up was the 260 V8, which no one seemed to care for–like the contemporary Ford 255, it offered V6 power with V8 mileage. Smart buyers picked the 305 V8.
I never drove a Cutlass, so I won’t presume to comment on their driving dynamics. I did drive its sister Buick Regal once, and found it totally inferior to the ’86 Thunderbird I was wheeling at the time. Perhaps that’s unfair, since the Regal was aimed at the typical Buick purchaser–very non-sporting.
My folks had an ’83 or ’84 Cutlass Supreme. T-tops, chrome wheels (14 inch- blech), two tone (black & silver), gauge package. Unfortunately it also had the 4.3L diesel V6. What a boat anchor that was. Only about 27mpg highway and ridiculously slow. World class clatter and smoke too.
Aside from the horrible engine, the car drove OK. Looked good too, aside from the white striped tires. A 3.8 Buick would’ve made the car worlds better. A 307 V8 I couldn’t even imagine at the time.
They replaced it with a ’91 Mercury Cougar, bottom of the line. But that car absolutely blew the Olds out of the water in every way. Felt like a rocket ship compared to the Olds, even with the milquetoast Essex V6.
Probably the smallest full-body-on-frame car ever mass produced.
Model T? VW Beetle? All old British sports cars pre-MGB? I could go on…
Full body on frame? RWD? Interesting….that could be a great base for a pickup project!
I saw an ad for 1980 Cutlass coupe this morning and went through this website to learn more about it.
This particular example looks nice and clean, no rust at all and owner is asking only $1000 for it.
However, registration and tax would set me back $700 every year 🙁 But, if the car was registered as a pick-up, it would go down to $250.
But payload has to be at least 1200lbs (driver included)…
So, know anybody who’d done El Cutlass-ino conversion? 🙂
Actually the Chevrolet Corvettes from 1968-82 were the smallest cars having a full body-on-frame construction plus these were much heavier than the ones used for the 1978-88 RWD A/G-Bodied Cars.
Pedro,
Do you know when the Cutlass Brougham started putting computers in? I am looking for a car without computers. Thank you, Ed
Ed,
Perhaps during the early-1980s that is just a guess I could be wrong though because IIRC none of the pre-1980 cars were even equipped with one or just a starting point on some selected models.
Actually the smallest full body-on-frame car was the 1968-82 Corvette another GM product.
You hit the nail on the head with the comment about millions buying respectability with these cars. My older brother was in his late 20s, and bought one for his wife, who was driving a ’72 Nova at the time. What a step up it was for this hippy-dippy couple — a beautifully tailored silver ’79 Supreme Brougham coupe with light blue landau top and interior, and all the power options. I was just 11 and thought it was the most amazing, luxurious car I’d ever seen — or at least could imagine anyone in my family having. It was VERY smooth and quiet (if not fast). It really was the Camry of its day (or maybe the Lexus ES.) It was also, in my opinion, kind of a bargain-basement 2-door Cadillac Seville. It had a lot of the style and comfort of the top-of-the-line Cadillac for much less. My brother and his wife kept it until 1988 when she got ANOTHER one — one of the last rear-drive Cutlass Supreme “Classics” to roll off the line.
I have a feeling that the ’78 Supreme that was the subject car in the photo had a vinyl roof originally. A lot of people repaint them and don’t bother to replace the top.
Amazing, the long write-ups; the reactions, these Brougham Era cars are getting. You know what I think of these cars? They’re rolling booths in fancy restaurants…you slid in, on the faux-rich upholstery, and wait for your server to arrive. Or for your destination to arrive.
As driver’s cars…they were appliances. As status symbols, they were just requisite fixtures, like stick-pins or tie tacks or cufflinks…doing nothing for your status except to hold position, while you worked to elevate it in other ways.
The Brougham Era is dead – and thank God for that. Soon the streets will be cleansed of the straggling Panthers and the general welfare will rise up smartly because of it. Whether econobox or trucklet or eco-Prius…may we finally be guided to PURPOSE-targeted cars!
“progressives”…geez. Why must “the streets be cleaned” of cars you don’t personally prefer? I happen to not be fond of hybrids or little foreign flavored cars whether foreign or US built and much prefer to own and drive Panthers, but even if I woke up one am and discovered I had somehow become the Maximum Leader that all “progressives” yearn for with the ability to ban types of cars, I wouldn’t, because the idea of America is that you have freedom to do what you like.
“Progressive” vs. “conservative” banter aside, I’ve gotta point out the full-size pickup truck as being the new “broughams” of our time – and there are millions of them out there on the roads as I type this.
So no, America’s love affair with cushy, powerful thrones that make them feel like little kings and queens as they motor along on their daily commute isn’t over, not by a long shot.
One of a few favorite cars of me and my siblings. My mom got a used one after spliting with my dad, and let each of us borrow it from time to time.
Classic burnt orange/tan as on some newer cars. Bucket seats and super stock wheels. No landau top too! Was a solid tank and Ma had it from 1983 to 1990, then my lil sis for two more years.
However, it had a 260, but I will swear by it. It had more gumption then my dad’s 1980 Regal 231 V6, which barely moved. The Olds got same V6 MPG with more torque and smooth as our old 72 Caddy. May not have won drag races, but gave us 9 years. The V6 had to be rebuilt in 1987, while 260 only major repair was a valve job that whole time, car was stored for 3 years before 1983, so some dry rot, but otherwise we loved that car. Trans never died and only the cap/rotor was swapped 2 times, and it would run fine.
The 78 CS and our 1970 Monte Carlo were GM at it’s best. OTOH, our 75 Skyhawk showed its Vega roots. the Hawk made the two G bodies look like Mercedes Benzes!
I’ve owned two 1982, I was intent on having them be Brougham, as I was in getting a Biarritz Eldorado from the 1980s as well, it was the DELUXE luxury version, IIRC, both had the Raleye steering wheel, my later Devilles I added a slip on leather steering wheel cover, it felt amazing over the skinny normal wheels, initially GM put their own LEATHER spin on these cars. I wouldn’t hesitate to buy them again. Thing I had to learn the hard way was cooling and other engine issues, with all these GM cars, gaskets leaking fluids or coolant leaks, etc. I had the HT4100 in my Eldo, so I learned the electronic tricks involved there
I feel these cars were definitely the Camry of the day. I really think people felt safe and confident buying them, as power in numbers is always the safe way to go. If my neighbor has one and my cousin has one then I think they must be good so I should get one too! They were conservative looking but still appealing and in the right color and with the right options were very classy.
I was surrounded by this generation of Cutlasses growing up. My aunt had a silver 1979 Supreme Brougham, silver with silver top and blue interior. I thought it was like a mini 98 Regency and was so impressed by those seats! I was in a car pool and rode in another 1979 everyday for 2 years, which was also silver with a blue top and blue cloth, just a base model, but still a nice car. Then in my third year of car pooling another Cutlass popped up; the driver’s Mom had a 1980 Brougham coupe, brown with tan top and cloth interior. I remember the kid picking me up in it one day saying he wished it was his as his 1973 Grand Ville was always breaking down. He loved driving that car as much as we did riding in it! (The Grand Ville was a mess and bounced all over the place LOL) In 1981 another aunt got a Cutlass Cruiser Brougham wagon – brown with tan vinyl interior – loaded – but the back windows didn’t go down. I thought it was so weird! The Brougham model in the wagon simply gave you the regular Cutlass Supreme interior – too bad it wasn’t the pillow seats – that would have been cool! It was a V-6 and my uncle regretted buying that car as it was so underpowered. They had it for about 3 years and traded it in for a Subaru! Lastly, my neighbor had a 1981 4-dr., dk blue with blue vinyl interior – weirdly equipped too – it had a factory CB, fiber optic lamp monitors, cornering lamps, power vinyl bench seat, tilt, cruise, power windows and locks, no vinyl top, wire wheels, and the 260 V-8. I rode in that car a lot and it always felt so solid and well-built. They kept that car until 1988 when it was totaled by their son. Memories!
Just check how ALL these similar sized Oldsmobile from the late 1970s measured up with each other along with certain similarities in design as well. If parked side by side, these were how their actual sizes would appear in scale.
It seems so strange now that a two-door car could be the best selling in the nation. You can hardly give away two-doors now!
Well, maybe if they’d actually produce some two-doors, they’d sell.
It’s really odd how things have changed. I guess it’s just too cost prohibitive to have both a two and four door car based off the same front end. Or maybe it doesn’t cost that much more to have a unique front end for a two door version when they’ve already spent all the money to have the rest of the car be model specific, i.e., the Dodge Charger and Challenger, which are essentially the same vehicle underneath.
Or maybe it’s that modern car design is such that it simply doesn’t lend itself to having both a two and four door off the same front end. Take the Taurus and Impala. I can’t really see how either of those cars could be configured as a two door.
But, as stated, it’s probably most likely that the market has evaporated. ‘Sporty’ these days equals SUV or, at best, a retro-mobile ponycar. Over at TTAC, they had a recent article about how poorly the new Impala, as nice as it is, is selling. If they can’t unload the four doors, how the hell could they sell any two doors?
I suspect child seat laws have had a big effect on the decline of two-door cars. The prospect of wrestling your kid’s hermetically sealed space capsule in and out of the back of a coupe four times a day would tend to limit the appeal except as a second car or for empty-nesters and people who don’t have kids. (And empty-nesters might still want something roomier to haul home improvement stuff.)
Maybe its just my deep-rooted ties to Oldsmobile, but I’ve always felt that the Cutlass Supreme coupe was the best looking 1978-88 A-/G-body, both inside and out. The Chevrolet versions were too plain, and the early Pontiacs (with the exception of the Grand Prix) were too ugly up front. The Buicks and 1982-on Pontiacs were attractive, but I think the Cutlass was always “just right”. It got better with both facelifts, especially the composite headlights of the ’87-’88s. My grandfather owned two ’80s G-body Cutlass Supreme coupes.
Here’s pictures of both of them, the earlier one on the left, which had the infamous Oldsmobile 5.7L diesel, and the later gray one in the middle. The blue Ciera in front of it belonged to my aunt.
At least in the B and C segments, 5-door hatchbacks are taking over from coupes as the sporty alternative to the default sedan; they have enhanced rather than limited functionality and so they sell well throughout a product cycle.
Recent sedan-based coupes have sold well for the first year or two but dropped off once they weren’t the latest thing anymore.
These were pretty popular in my part of California, too. The Silicon Valley Yuppies had moved on to the foreign stuff, but Cutlasses (or Regals, or Cougars,) still looked pretty good to the local proletariat. (We weren’t all engineers or venture capitalists.)
I got a chance to drive a co-worker’s 3 or 4 year old 79 Cutlass 2 door (I think it was a Brougham)having wanted to try it from the first time I saw it. I actually prefer the “aeroback” 2 and 4 doors to the formal roof 2 doors but even when new the fastback sedan was a rare car.
As others have said, most of the attraction was size. Having also owned a 78 Le Mans, I can say that performance was adequate with the V6 and not too shabby with the 305 or 350.
The Olds I borrowed was a nice Navy blue with white vinyl “landau” half roof while the Pontiac was double gold. You couldn’t pay me to drive or own their FWD replacements.
I was in the Air Force, stationed in California, when these came out and they were a rare sight in that part of the world. When I returned to Kentucky in 1979 I discovered that the GM A bodies were thick on the ground. Not that this was surprising as they were always popular in this part of the country. I have never owned one of this generation but have driven and ridden in numerous examples; I found them to be comfortable and reasonably competent, if not exactly exciting to drive. I know that a lot of people were disappointed with these cars when they first came out; people were not happy with the downsizing and they appeared to be cheaply made, even compared to their immediate predecessors. Now, with the advantages of 30+ years of hindsight and knowing what came after these models, this particular iteration of the GM A body looks better. If I had to have one now I would opt for a Buick Grand National; might as well go top cabin if you go.
These cars, the Malibu, Regal, Cutlass, Monte Carlo, Grand Prix, were the best of these class of cars in the late 70’s to early 80’s. Almost all of the ones that I was familiar with were, with one exception, indestructible. They stayed on the road until they had rusted to the point of not being safe anymore. A friend of mine bought a year old 78 Regal that he drove for over 500,000 miles. The odometer cable rotted out years before the car did. It still was on the original short block and trans when he sold “for parts” it to two dopes who offered him $500 for it. They drove it six months before the engine spun a bearing from basically having no oil pressure. Other friends and relatives had Cutlasses and Montes, and they all stuck around a long long time. The sole exception is the Malibu that the father of the Regal owner bought in 1980. It was an “exectutive car”, supposedly with only 4000 miles on it, but I thought the odometer had been rolled back from about 20K, judging from the looks under the hood. That thing was a total turd, with suspension issues, a howling rear end, and intermittent electrical issues that took forever to resolve. He was the worst guy I’ve ever seen at buying cars, he never bought a used car that wasn’t a piece of shit. His brother ran a garage, and everytime he brought a car in for him to check out, he would say, “Don’t buy it!”, and of course, he would. The Malibu would be his last car, but it wasn’t close to the worst. The only smart thing he ever did was buy credit life on the ‘Bu, so his widow got the POS free and clear. She dumped it within a couple of weeks of getting the title.
This is why I hate white cars, so much surface detail gets lost, like the side blade just below the opera window.
I am trying to help an elderly women – she is 88 – develop a value for her ’78 Cutlas. I have seen it many times sitting in her garage under a tarp. She claims it is a Limited Edition – only 378 produced – Brougham. It is black with what appears to be a T-type of top with half of the top vinyl covered. Gary Stamm
Gary, what state is the ’78 Cutlass in? Show quality runs 11-15K…how soon is your friend wanting to sell her Olds?
Hi Corb. Thanks for the response. I think the car is in excellent condition as it has been garaged for years and rarely driven. I think she was hoping that the car would bring close to $20K. Given the right circumstances I think she would be willing to sell the car today. My wife and I are traveling currently and won’t return home for another couple of weeks. If you have interest I am happy to take some pictures of the car and send them to you but again it won’t be for a few weeks. Let me know.
I wanna know everything about the 78 cutlass supreme I really want to find one
Raymond. Sorry for my delay in responding. My father’s girl friend – she is now 90 and my father has passed away some time ago – has had her Cutlass it seems for ever. Several months ago she asked me to help in trying to sell it. She keeps it in her garage under a tarp. I have never seen her drive it in the 20 plus years that I have known her. My wife and I just moved to Columbus Ohio and we have most everything in boxes. I have a picture of the car but I’m not sure I can find it easily. The color is black and grey I think and I think she wants about $20,000 for it. If you are still interested I will dig into some of my boxes to see if I could find the photo and develop more information for you. It seems as if it is in great condition.
Does anyone know if the 1978 Cutlass Brougham does or does does not have a computer? Thank you, Ed
Paul, I generally like reading your posts, but your hatred for anything GM is really getting old. I will take any of those colonnades you reference as “pigs” over those crappy Peugeot 404’s. You needed a fleet of those to hopefully keep one running. People who live in glass houses should not be throwing stones. GM had their sins for sure, but so did many manufacturers during that era.
Are you serious? Did you actually read it? I’m practically gushing over this car:
“so many of my old prejudices have fallen away, to one degree or another. I’ve learned to appreciate what other folks found so appealing in cars that I found so lackluster at the time. And looking at this clean example here, that’s not all too hard. This one is actually rather sympathetic to me.”
As to calling the colonnades “pigs”, well they were seriously oversize and overweight, weren’t they? Or is there another reason they were downsized so drastically in 1978?
You misunderstood my comment about my 404s; I rescued old 404s from junkyards and folks who had given up on them. So yes, keeping a half dozen formerly-abandoned of any old cars is/was a bit of a challenge.
Talk about the kettle calling the pot black; you’re calling 404s “crappy”. Sounds like some serious Peugeot hate to me.
Final word: I wrote this in 2011. So your comment “your hatred for anything GM is getting old” is a bit out of date. I had to look twice to confirm it was written in 2024 and not 2011. I used to get lots of comments like this back then. It’s a real throwback; I’d almost forgotten what it was like back then.
We were treated to a brand new Cutlass Supreme brougham coupe during the blizzard of 78, thanks to my dad’s 76 Cadillac refusing to start for the 8th just before the storm.
Previously, the Cadillac dealer either offered him something off the used car line (a green and tired 73 Fleetwood one time, a used Calais another time) or nothing. That was until I became friends with his son at my school! The next trip in, a brand new with 23 miles on it burgundy coupe. What a nice job GM did.
He really liked that car, but mom would have nothing to do with any two door cars! He ended up with a 78 Buick Electra.
I do remember us driving that Cutlass out during the blizzard to get some food and it did pretty well (wheezy 6 cylinder wouldn’t spin the tires on ice, according to him!)
Nice article.
LOL! Yes I know it was written in 2011, but it is the same old stuff from you on GM vehicles regardless of the year. I guess for you that was “practically gushing” over that car. Maybe I just gave you a little of your own medicine by calling your Peugeots crappy. Anyway, I do appreciate the time and effort you spend writing most of your articles, and hope you continue to do so for many years.
Millions cannot be wrong. You simply cannot fool millions of people and do that every year without seeing a massive decline in sales. A million people bought this car, got into a bank loan to pay it off at a ridiculous percentage, insured it, and lived with it – so the car is proven. It is a historic ride that was massively popular. So our job isn’t to get all emotional over it, our job is to see it, honor it, catalog it, and move on.
I was not the market for this vehicle. I was too young to buy a car that was a smaller version of my parent’s rides. I liked new. I like efficient rides. I like the new design of cars like the Volvo, Fairmont, Golf, Ominirizon, and brougham anything just seemed to me, at that time, to be a grandma’s ride.
Now – there could be a lot of positives. I see a small car that could have been a cool comfortable cruiser. The drawbacks are the quality of the materials used. The car is too heavy as well. It is a nice looking car. The little rear side windows are forced and ackward, the severe vertical rear backlight is also unnatural. But the body design is nice. The Cutlass styling cues were carried along without being ridiculous. The rear tail lights are too slanted, but I wouldn’t call them ugly. The front end is nice. Today, the car looks pretty interesting. Back then – NO.
Downsizing wasn’t painless. Designers tried to attach styling designed for larger cars onto these smaller cars. That just didn’t work. The Malibu worked because it wasn’t bogged down with its earlier look like the GM personal luxury coupes were. The Monte Carlo, Thunderbird, Mark VI, Cougar, and many of the GM coupes were not as attractive on a smaller car. We see a lot of little cars during these years junked up to look like their bigger older versions and it does not work. Little brougham cars look like pigs in tuxedos, just putting it out there.
It took another generation to fix this – which was actually – kill off the brougham look. What young people back then, as well as folks in trendy locales knew about these cars, was that the brougham look was passe’, and it was time for something newer, lighter, cleaner, more efficient looking, and more modern. It was time for the Taurus/Sable and the popular rides that the master of Broughamology, Lee Iacocca, derided as “potatoes”.
Good call on Iacocca being the brougham king. Even when he rounded and smoothed out the Lebaron, it still had the Iacocca brougham touch. He just couldn’t get away from it and, ultimately, the times passed him by.
GM, likewise, stuck with the brougham emphasis a bit too long, as well, and the rise and fall of the Cutlass is a great example.
In fairness many 83-88 era Thunderbirds had a touch of brougham too, the grille design was straight off of the 70s models despite being angled back and with the exception of the relatively uncommon Turbo coupe, velour seats fake wood, wire wheels, whiteline tires and even two tone paints were the norm rather than the exception.
Iacocca had a less attractive bones to work with in the K car especially early on but cars like the 85 Lancer/Lebaron GTS and the 87 Lebaron coupe/Convertible were pretty well in the potato formula he supposedly was so against. Once Chrysler had the financial means to break out of the Aries/Reliant hardpoints Chrysler’s design and trimming themes weren’t that far off of Fords Mercurys and Lincolns
I remember being surprised at the time that GM would use the old-style body-on-frame construction for such a relatively small car in the late seventies. Surely unitary would have been a more efficient use of materials? But I guess it helped in being able to offer so many different styles for the different brands – same chassis, different bodies.
Also, it seems odd (to me) that Cadillac didn’t get in on the A-body at this point. You’d had the first gas crisis, Cadillac had already introduced the first Seville successfully, so they knew the market was there for smaller Cadillacs. A Seville based on this package would seem ideal, and might have been more successful than the mindbender they wound up with.