(first posted 2/13/2013)
For many years now, I have been a firm believer in two things:
1) If you are patient, your patience will be rewarded , and often quite well.
2) There is something positive in everything. Sometimes this positive thing shows up immediately; sometimes it waits until much later; but, it always shows up.
Having been on the lookout for an aeroback Oldsmobile for a while, little did I suspect I’d find a 4-4-2 version, thereby proving Jason’s Rule #2: Indeed, something good resulted from my having to visit the hospital for an x-ray on a Saturday afternoon.
It also helps to be living once again in a town heavily populated with folks who, like me, are of a frugal and pragmatic nature, refusing to purge anything of (real or perceived) value. One of my very first CC posts (here) articulated my awe of the large number of still-running General Motors A-bodies throughout this area. This is another of them, albeit a tad bit older. Maybe this one isn’t a Curbside Classic in the literal sense–it rested at the top of a near-vertical embankment behind the curb–but when was the last time you saw another Oldsmobile like this one?
The pixels in these pictures were hardly dry, so to speak, when I started this article. Much of my motivation and ambition for covering this car came from wanting to determine whether or not this particular example was a bold attempt to be something it wasn’t. Although I suspected it was genuine, I have found (admitted) frauds only blocks away (here and here), so I was eager to verify this Cutlass’s DNA. So then, is this a faux 4-4-2, or the genuine article? First, let’s look at a little history.
We all likely know that GM began the Great Downsizing in 1977. That was the last year for the A-bodies, a.k.a. the Colonnades, before their clearly overdue sessions with the GM dietitians and liposuction artists.
During much of the ’70s, Cutlass sales had reigned supreme, often propelling Oldsmobile into the often-variable (but always enviable) third-place position in U.S. sales. (Tom Klockau wrote a great piece about a 1976 Cutlass Supreme here.)
And what does a Cutlass look like after an intimate encounter with a scalpel?
If you are talking Cutlass Supreme, things turned out rather decently. Sales of the redesigned ’78s reflected that decency, as Olds dealers moved 398,919 Supremes of this body style in various trim levels. Although less than 1977’s total, that was hardly anything to sneeze at.
And because this was Oldsmobile–the same company that would go on to slather the “Cutlass” name on almost everything they built in the 1980s–this, naturally, was not the only Cutlass variant.
The Cutlass certainly looked great as a wagon. Now downsized, the A-body wagon remained popular with folks who hauled stuff, with only 6,163 fewer sold in 1978 than in the previous year.
Then there is the Cutlass Salon sedan. This isn’t looking very promising, considering how that guy doesn’t appear very thrilled overseeing his new car. In 1978, 51,411 Salon sedans would find homes.
Then there was the Cutlass Salon coupe, of which 31,939 copies were sold. There’s an ugly puppy in every litter, but this litter was twice-cursed. Oldsmobile, along with Buick, jumped off the high dive and right into this empty swimming pool; miraculously, the other GM divisions managed to avoid it like the brown, floaty clump in the pool that it was. Paul has the Cutlass Salon covered here.
image source: www.ericcressey.com
How does one best describe the aeroback Oldsmobile? To my eye, it looks a lot like Quasimodo. For those of you who, like me, greatly respect shorter pieces of literature, here’s a nifty Cliff’s Notes version of sorts.
The Cutlass Salon was hairy ass ugly, no doubt about it. Like Quasimodo, it repulsed plenty of people, a circumstance duly reflected by its sales numbers. This body style of Cutlass could also be considered a novelty, as sales fell precipitously (sort of like being shoved off the roof of a cathedral) in 1979, and again, to a mere 4,394, in 1980. Following that performance, Oldsmobile euthanized the beast and grafted a first-generation Cadillac Seville roof onto the sedan version; and then, wonder of wonders, sales shot through that very same roof.
Yet poor Quasimodo, as we all should know by now, was actually a kind-hearted but physically ugly soul. These Salons did have all the durable and desirable A-body bones despite what had been draped over them. General Motors was simply trying to answer a marketing call for better space utilization. After their 1973 Colonnade bodies–in coupe form, hardly paragons of space efficiency– GM was simply trying to be responsive. Wise utilization of space was a concept that was rapidly catching on with U.S. consumers at the time (remember, Chrysler sold 180,659 of their Omnirizons that year), so the idea was not entirely foreign.
But GM, being GM, apparently adopted the Burger King mentality and wanted things their way. Really, why make the effort to build a car that appears to be a hatchback, one whose very design begs to be a hatchback–and not give it a hatchback? As my grandmother would say, this was like putting on a tuxedo without changing your underwear–nobody likes to be lured into a nasty surprise. Not having been up close and personal with this particular car, I can only imagine the space wasted inside this Oldsmobile as it’s constructed. Further, I can only imagine the number of sales lost because of the promise of utility that simply didn’t pan out.
Yes, this car is like Quasimodo: a terrific and kind soul clothed in exterior garments that, by form and circumstance, will never allow the fullest realization of its potential.
This all brings us back to our featured car, and to the question you are yearning to have answered. Is it a true 4-4-2, or someone’s high-quality, backyard brainstorm? Did one even exist during this ebb of automotive performance? Of course one existed; GM wants to make a dollar, just like anybody else.
With a standard 3.8-liter V6, the 1978 drivetrain alone was enough to thoroughly erode the cachet of the 4-4-2 legend: Perhaps “4-4-2” now stood for four wheels, four shock absorbers, and a 2-barrel carburetor.
For 1979, more frightfulness was theoretically possible. The information available at www.oldcarbrochures.com barely mentions the 4-4-2 in the Salon section. Since it mentions the new-for-1979 availability of the 260 cu in diesel V8 in the Salon, and nothing indicating “not available on 4-4-2 models” except a reference to the engine application guide, you can see where this is headed. According to other online 4-4-2 resources, only gas engines were available on the 4-4-2; let’s just hope they’re right, and that Oldsmobile didn’t allow the 4-4-2 name to be totally defiled.
Just be careful in saying never, as you can easily jinx yourself.
Yes, there was indeed an Olds Cutlass 4-4-2, in the Salon coupe body style, for both 1978 and 1979.
As an aside, this picture does pose a thought-provoking question: Which was more plentiful: the ’78 Olds 4-4-2, or the ’78 Olds Delta 88 police package?
“miraculously, the other GM divisions managed to avoid it like the brown, floaty clump in the pool that it was…”
Buick also offered the slantback coupes and sedans for 1978 and ’79.
“Oldsmobile, along with Buick, jumped off the high dive and right into this empty swimming pool”
You are exactly right.
If old did stick a diesel in the 4-4-2 it would have stood for 4times(to the dealer) in 4 days and 2 x the cost to repair.
Funny!
As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And this beholder has always thought this body style to be, well, not all the way to beautiful because of its uninspired rump, but otherwise plenty attractive. When these were new I could see they were a bit of a gamble, and I hoped it would pay off for GM, but alas.
There are two Cutlass Salon coupes for sale on eBay right now. I’d have either one.
Not terribly fond of the design (As momma used to say “If you can’t say anything good, don’t say anything at all” !?) but I think it was inspired by:
I happen to agree with Tim B. Today most trunked passenger cars ARE almost “fastback” in design! A good recent example is this 2018 Chevrolet Malibu sedan, shown here.
It is funny how the original 442 with all of its potency was identified by teeny little chrome numbers, and this gutless lump screams its identity at you with maybe the biggest nameplate graphic ever.
What an unattractive car. Pity the poor guy who bought one of these, thinking that it was cool and that he would impress the girls. The purchaser of a broughamy Cutlass Supreme got what he was looking for. But not so the buyer of a 442. Yesterday’s 1962 Dynamic 88 is looking pretty good to me today.
Arrrrgh….A Roachback©! Get it out of here!
The REAL Olds 442 disappeared by the early 1970s. This…this…THING? Simply awful. These cars, especially with the sealed-window-sedan-back-door models was the last nail in GM’s coffin for me until 2004.
Get that thing out of here!
©Zackman
Zackman, why are you using David Saunders’ avatar?
When these came out, I wasn’t sure if the fastback was trying to emulate the “bustle back” styling of the soon-to-be-released Seville, or trying to evoke the popular fastback styling of the ’68 to ’72 Cutlass.
Either way, it didn’t work.
Knowing GM, I have long suspected this to somehow be related to the 80-85 Seville. It’s ironic then, that the 76-79 Seville body style is what replaced it, just as The Cadillac was entering it’s second of a six year run.
how were they to know ?
But I then wondered why Cadillac had gone ahead with the 1980 Seville, after seeing The Cutlass Salon land with such a thud on the sales charts.
In 77 the F bodies were the only GM cars I was interested in,this is a prime example of a car being uglier than it’s predecessor.American cars were often right first time then tinkered and tweeked into something worse.A bit like the before results of a makeover being better than the after..
‘Perhaps “4-4-2″ now stood for four wheels, four shock absorbers, and a 2-barrel carburetor.’
Ha! Four radio station presets, four floor mats, two license plates. Four plugs on the left, four plugs on the right, two exhaust manifolds. Careful, this could get silly. (?)
I always liked Car and Driver’s description of the 1978 442-It’s kinda like 4-3-1 instead of the original concept of 4-4-2 ((4 barrel/3-speed automatic/single exhaust instead of 1964’s 4-barrel/4-speed/dual exhaust). I’m surprised there was even 1 left to take a picture of….
C&D did a full Road Test of a black $$@, and loved their test car. It had a Chevy 305 4 bbl V8, which was ironically not available in 1978 Malibu or Monte Carlo. Why not?
You’ve tempted me.
Four cylinders on the left, four cylinders on the right, too much optimism for true street performance credibility.
That’s the best i could come up with.
Look closely at the ad sheet. (Probably need to click on it & zoom in.) You could still get a 4-4-2 with a 4bbl carb (on a 305) and a 4-speed manual! If your dealer was willing to play ball (and you were willing to get an automatic), you could also get one with a police-spec 350. (IIRC, the police engine-not available in Kalifornia-for 1978 was essentially the Corvette’s L82!)
Original 4-4-2 (330ci) was 4-speed, 4bbl, dual exhaust.
Later 4-4-2 (400 or 455ci) was 4bbl, 400ci, dual exhaust.
80’s 4-4-2 (307) was 4bbl, 4-speed automatic, dual exhaust.
Quad 4-4-2 was 4 cylinder, 4 valves per cylinder, 2 camshafts…and made more power than the “high output” 307.
That ’78 442 is sad. My dad owned a ’69 442 convertible – now that was a “real” 442 that represented understated class and performance. This ’78 is embarrassingly tacky. Ironically, my dad also owned a ’78 Cutlass with the 260 V8 that was fairly stylish but lame performance.
“This body style of Cutlass could also be considered a novelty, as sales fell precipitously (sort of like being shoved off the roof of a cathedral) in 1979, and again, to a mere 4,394, in 1980. Following that performance, Oldsmobile euthanized the beast and grafted a first-generation Cadillac Seville roof onto the sedan version; and then, wonder of wonders, sales shot through that very same roof.”
IINM, the Olds and Buick sedans got the notchback roofline for ’80, while the coupes retained the 1978-79 slantback style. The coupes were then dropped after 1980 and not replaced, leaving the much more popular personal luxury coupe variant (the Cutlass Supreme/Regal body style) as the only Olds and Buick A-body coupes for 1981.
Chevrolet and Pontiac by contrast continued selling both the “regular” (Malibu/LeMans) and “personal luxury” (Monte Carlo/Grand Prix) variants of their A-body coupes through 1981, not dropping the former until the FWD A-bodies were introduced for the 1982 model year. But of course Chevy and Pontiac never had the slantbacks.
A very fine find indeed; congratulations! I’d long give up on one of these; probably more likely in the more Midwest than PNW. I bet there aren’t many left.
Well, it obviously does echo the design of the Citation. That wasn’t considered so bad…
” it obviously does echo the design of the Citation”
No, the 1980 Citation echoes the 78 Cutlass, not the other way around. An echo doesn’t come first. I only mention this because it would have been real folly if GM hadn’t learned something from the Aeroback.
Right you are. Remind me to comment before I’ve had my morning caffeine.
Maybe the Cutlass would have been less awful if it was an actual hatchback like the Citation. My favorite Mazda 626 was always the 5 door Touring Sedan in the 80’sand early 90’s and Audi managed to make one of the sexiest 5 doors with their A7.
Space utilization wasn’t terrible in these cars. We had a ’79 fastback sedan, and there was plenty of headroom in the back. Not sure how it compared to the notchback Chevies and Pontiacs, but I’m guessing it was about the same. The trunk was shaped oddly, but you could cram a lot of stuff in there if you used all the nooks & crannies.
A true hatchback would probably have been harder for them to build, because they would have needed a different structure that would have had less in common with the notchbacks and coupes. They also would have needed fold down rear seats, a feature that I don’t think was offered in any of the A bodies. And GM knew they had hatchbacks in the pipeline in the form of the Citation and Phoenix.
The biggest interior problem with these cars was one shared with all the A bodies: Fixed rear window glass. The popout vent windows behind the C pillar didn’t do nearly enough to get air flowing back there. Heaven forbid you bought a car without A/C.
The downsized ’78 A bodies were highly anticipated. I remember seeing some sort of sketch in one of the buff books of what the cars would look like. They showed vestigial fins on the Olds fastbacks. (“Fins are back!”) Opinions differ on the design of these cars, but I think we can all agree they would have looked a lot worse with fins.
Could you still get an Oldsmobile 350?
Curiously the brochure pics show a manual trans, which engines were actually available with a manual trans?
Gets a bit complicated; depends on 49 state/hi altitude/CA:
In 49 state tune, the 145 hp 2 barrel Chevy 305 was available with manual, and not auto. The 160 hp 4 barrel 305 Chevy with auto only. In CA and Hi altitude areas, only the 2 barrel 305 with auto.
http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Oldsmobile/1978%20Oldsmobile/1978_Oldsmobile_Mid-size_and_Compact_Brochure/1978%20Oldsmobile%20Mid-size%20and%20Compact-31.html
You could only get a 350 in the Cutlass Cruiser at first, the best you could do in a regular Cutlass was a 260 or 305, I think the 3.8 V6 and 260V8 were available with the manual, the 305 was a California option and I think, not available with the stick.
For 1979 Oldsmobile got a little wiser about performance and offered the 350 in the new for 1979 H/O Cutlass, which was the notchback roofed Cutlass Calais with a 350, much closer to a performance intermediate for those days than the 442 with the 260 was. The H/O option became the 442 for 1980, so the nameplate returned to a proper notchback roofed car for one year, then it was dropped, until the 442 returned again in 1984.
I recall reading somewhere in an interview with someone in Oldsmobile engineering at the time, that there was a big push from some of the performance oriented folks to try to get the Oldsmobile 403 snuck into the A-body, but they didn’t want to certify the engine for another platform combo.
So I wonder if a 350 Cutlass Cruiser would have been faster than a 260 powered 442? That would have been pretty humiliating.
Definitely. These were so light. Oooh a 350 Cutlass Cruiser would be kind of a hoot. Well, comparatively….
Still cooler than customizing a van which is what someone in the late 70s early 80s was likely to do. 😛
@ CARMINE
‘You could only get a 350 in the Cutlass Cruiser at first, the best you could do in a regular Cutlass was a 260 or 305, I think the 3.8 V6 and 260V8 were available with the manual, the 305 was a California option and I think, not available with the stick. ”
Close. You could get the Chevy LM1 in a Hi-Altitude wagon. As I have stated in the other A-Body threads, whenever the topic of 350’s comes up, that somewhere in my archives I have a bulletin that states that the 350 was cancelled,like you stated,in everything but the A-Body truck. ElCamino/Caballero. I’ve been searching for years for a 350 Wagon. No luck.
Now the correct answer is yes you could get the Olds 350 in a Cutlass. 1979 only. In the 79 Hurst/Olds.
BTW. That pic in the brochure of the dude grabbing a gear. That looks like the shifter for the 260 with a T5. It used the Chevette/Monza style shifter. I have a Saginaw equipped Diablo and it uses the normal looking slightly curved longer styled handle.
OK as far as I know the following goes as far as A/G-Bodies with a 3rd pedal. The Chevy V-6 was 3-speed only. The Buick V-6 was 3-speed or 4-speed. I’ve never seen the 3-gear behind the 231 so it might be 4-speed only.Just going by what the parts books tell me. All V-8’s(267/305SBC,Pontiac 301,78 ElCamino350) were 4-speed. The 260 Olds was 5-speed. No manuals available in the Republic Of Kalifornia….ever.
The one place I am 100% certain you could get a G-body with a Chevy 350 is in a Malibu with the 9C1 police package. (Probably not in California…but what else is new?!)
You could-for at least a year-get a 229 Chevy V6 with a 4-speed. I saw one, in an unfortunately-rotted Malibu…station wagon! (Sadly, someone had already pirated the pedal assembly, but that was definitely a Saginaw 4-speed.)
I still strongly disagree with anyone who thinks that the areoback is uglier than the regular notchbacks of this era.
To each his own, I guess. Both 35 years ago and today, my favorite of the ’78 A-Bodies was/is the Malibu coupe. But the aeroback Olds and Buick are #2 …. I always thought the “formal” roofline, whether 2 door or 4 door didn’t work on these cars. Though I will agree the 4-4-2 badging in inverse proportion to potency is pretty sad. BTW, although I’ve never seen a ’78 Olds 88 police car, the picture did remind me that the CHP used 88’s (Delmonts?) in the late ’60’s.
Oddly enough I saw one of these just last weekend. Not on the road mind you but at the local swap meet. Like a lot of ugly duckling cars they make a better case for themselves as an odd ball collector car than when they were new. Growing up I thought they were ugly and silly. These days quirky and a treat to see.
These aeroback Oldsmobiles/Buicks have to be some of the ugliest cars in my mind. It’s amazing how the roofline ruins an otherwise very attractive car, in my opinion. The 1978-88 A-body/G-body Cutlass Supreme notchback coupes are one of my favorite GM cars of all time. The ’87-’88s with composite headlights are particularly attractive. From pictures, I know my grandfather owned at least 2 of them (an 1981-86 model, and a 1987-88).
I feel the stand out design for this generation was the Buick Regal notchback coupe. It seemed to take over from where the 76-77 Cutlass Supreme left off hitting every view just right especially the front end and profile. Not sure if it outsold the Cutlass coupe after 77 but it sure looked better.
One of my aunts had a Regal coupe of this generation, and another aunt had a Cutlass coupe. I thought the Cutlass was a dime-a-dozen (and the Southeast was chockablock with them back then), but the Regal was a really nice car at the time. Attractive, comfortable and quiet.
The Regals were nice, but I’m pretty sure the Cutlass Supreme/Calais always outsold them. Olds, and especially Cutlass, was a powerhouse then!
Imagine if Pontiac had a version of the slantback.
They could have called it the Aztek…
They would also have offered a sport version called GTO, spelled out in 12 inch letters.
The Pontiac Aztek GTO, complete with fake hood scoops and a hood tach. Brilliant!
Don’t forget the ‘screaming turkey’ decal on the hood…
There’s an Aeroback (non – 4-4-2) around the corner from me–I didn’t realize we were still looking for one or I’d have grabbed a shot. However, it sits way up in a driveway, so a full set pf photos might be dicey (I never see anyone go in or out of the house).
What’s that you say? You want them to totally ruin the 442 name? Well you’re in luck (yes, this was a real show car, though it never actually entered production):
Yes, that ruins the 4-4-2 name, and my lunch, for that matter. Yikes.
The Warriors in Pink Mustangs (Breast Cancer fund) were done sooo much better.
Um…yeah. I think I’ll keep my Alero the way it is, thank you very much.
Yikes!
I looked at a 1978 4-4-2 like the one shown in the brochure above with the two-tone brown exterior. It would have been a good project car fr oaround $600, but the guy thought he had gold and was asking $1500. It was in rough shape with plenty of cancer and an interior where the plastic was starting to crumble.
The few of these that have survived seem to fall into the hands of people like that, I looked at a Cutlass Salon that was pretty much a 442, with buckets, console, SSII’s, 260 V8, but it was shabby, I offered $500, he thought it was worth $1500.
My friend and neighbor owned one of these cars for several years – what a lemon! It had a 4-bbl SBC (not sure of the displacement but the 4-bbl appeared to be stock) in it coupled to a 4-speed manual trans (Saginaw?) and a posi rear end.
He replaced the motor with a Goodwrench 350 replacement at just under 100K miles.
Then the transmission blew up. I helped him to rebuild it. He babied the car so it wasn’t due to abuse. I still have the special snap ring pliers tool that I had to buy in order to work on it.
Finally, the rear end blew up (hard to believe since engine was of such low power that the car could barely chirp the tires) – at this point, he decided to junk and part out the car as he was tired of plowing money into it. The body and interior were still very nice at the time (early 1990s) with zero rust.
I think it had 120K miles on it when he finally gave up.
I really, really wanted to like the car (not may 4-speed manuals in cars of that vintage), but it was a gutless gas-sucking wonder and I hated working on it every time something broke. How GM lasted another 30 years after this car was made is beyond me!
I’ll spill one of my darkest secrets. I kind of like the aeroback 442.
The salon sedans look way worse than the coupes(I can’t stand sedan fastbacks). With the 442 two tone stripe package, the lower stripe makes the top half look better proportioned. Plus the later 442(and Hurst Olds) based on the supreme G-body never seemed right to me. Those struck me more as homebrew clones than these did. Those just remind me of recent 70-72 442 clones based on the less desirable and cheaper supreme bodies. The aeroback 442, on the other hand, just strikes me as a typical late 70s factory paint on performance car. If it had the performance to back it up it would be more desirable.
I’d also say these were an improvement over the 76/77 Colonnade 442s. Those had an equally in your face stripe package with equally dismal powerplants all in a heavier bulkier package. Personally I think this body wore it better.
I don’t care what any of you nerds say, the tape-and-paint performance jobs of the 70s and 80s RULED.
I’m a sucker for the Citation X-11 hatch, the King Cobra Mustang II (especially in white!) and I think this thing looks killer in black and gold.
It’s hard to believe it’s not a hatchback, though.
Funny that you should mention the Mustang II Cobra! My other neighbor (two houses down from the 4-4-2 owner discussed above) had one of those, and at 40K miles it had already had replaced:
– camshaft
– rear end
– transmission
– power steering rack
– a few other things that I can’t remember now
And because it was a “Cobra” it had crazy-high insurance rates, even though it had a Pinto drivetrain in it!!
The yoots (‘My Cousin Vinnie’) have no idea how good even the crappiest modern cars really are. It’s remarkable when you stop and think about it. I still remember doing complete tune-ups every 5K miles.
So right Red……I’ve lost count of the times I’ve argued with other “bench-racers” and rose-colored-glasses nostalgia buffs about how much better, by orders of magnitude, cars (ANY CARS) are today. The lamest shit-box you could buy now would be safer, faster, better handling and more reliable than a decent mid-size car of 40-50 years ago. I’m only 59, and I remember rust, terrifying brakes, rattle traps as new cars, and hard-starting, woozy-handling like it was last week. Yes cars are infinitely more complex today, and near impossible to self-service, but I haven’t had a real lemon in 20 years.
And safety? I’d must rather be in a head-on in a 2016 VW Passat than a 1966 Lincoln. well-designed crush zones beat heavy metal any day….
Another one of my favorite cars. I know I have a penchant for the odd and ugly.
I have no issues with these cars aesthetically, I thought they were emulating the fastback GMs from the 40’s. I guess no one else saw the ‘heritage’ styling but me…
I don’t think this car is completely stock, but I’d have to see it in person to know for sure.
Nice find, though!
IIRC the resemblance to the late ’40’s GM fastbacks was intentional and mentioned at the time. Most car journo’s then were probably old enough to remember them, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they were also reminded in GM press kits.
I only see a resemblance to 1940s fastbacks when it is done right (tapers and curves, not a flat “hatchback” wedge). The boat tail Riviera, Rambler Marlin, original Barracuda, and C2 Corvette all scream 1940s to me, but this one just screams Honda Civic.
Funny that when one mentions the tarnished name of the 442 that nobody brings up the 87 and up N-Body Calias/Acheiva. Only available with the Olds Quad4. Even neater were the versions with the W40 package. Those were true off the showroom racers.
It’s only a name.It’s only a name.
Kind of like Chrysler slapping the name HEMI on a wedgeheaded V-8.
Even worse, I remember “Hemi 2.2” emblems on K-cars.
The Calais/Acheiva 442/SCX were kick ass little cars, 190hp from a 2.3 litre engine, I think W-41 was the performance package.
The badges would have said Hemi 2.6, as they were only fitted to the balance shaft Mitsubishi motors.
2.6! You’re right!
I remember doing a double take the first time I saw one of those.
Well, it did have a Hemi head…
Yeah but the “2.6” numbers with it are like naming a feminie hygine product “44 Magnum”
These cars were overshadowed by the Vegas, Monzas, Citations, diesels, and Cadillacs, but I knew plenty of families that stopped buying GM after owning a Cutlass from this generation. Salesmen insulted the intelligence of sedan buyers by telling them that the car was too downsized for roll down rear windows. Cars were shipped to the Oldsmobile dealership where I later worked with dry differentials. Most of the cars I’ve been in that overheated were this generation Cutlasses. Some shades of paint might as well have been watercolors, such was their durability to the elements. T-tops rattled and leaked. Rear springs were insufficient to prevent bottoming in daily driving. Front bench seats were torture for small women drivers. I had a decommissioned ’76 Pontiac patrol colonnade as my driver’s ed range car, and it was less worn out than Cutlasses and Regals that were half its age and hadn’t seen police duty. Many people think that the market moved on, or that customers were alienated by the FWD cars that followed. I think the reason that these were the last huge selling cars of their type was because the people trading them in were newly open to the idea of a Ford, Honda, or Toyota.
The early cars had some issues but by the early 80’s things improved dramatically. The aero coupes/sedans were gone, notch back sedans were selling in much larger numbers, less people ordered diesels as time wore on, Buick refined the 231 so it ran decent, the 260 under powered V8 was dropped and the peppier 307 came on line, 4 speed over drive automatics were introduced in 1983 along with an HO 307 in the Hurst and later 442 line and quality was improved. The sedans still didn’t have roll down windows and some V8 equipped models would still use the under sized 200 metric transmission which had a limited life but overall the G-bodies were decent cars. The best way to order any of these cars is with a V8 engine, overdrive transmission, F-41 suspension, superstock/rally wheels and the optional gauge package. Bucket or brougham seats were prefered over the basic solid bench also.
I bought a 1984 Cutlass Supreme with the 3.8 V6 in 1987 with 41,000 miles, loved that car! It had the split bench seat in brown velour, white body with the brown split vinyl top, that quickly sizzled in the hot Atlanta sun.Drove it 10 years and put well over 200,000 miles on it. The car was very reliable, never burned any oil, and always seemed to get 19 miles per gallon.
Love the hubcaps on the Salon Sedan in the ad with the wincing designer. Just can’t bear to look at the rest of the car.
As for GM’s need to shout about the car’s attributes (or lack of) on the car, I have a soft spot for all those Celebrities chugging around with a 3.1 Liter Fuel Injection badge or the sexy Luminas with the ABS badge.
As a minor footnote, according to Car and Driver’s road test of the new-for-1978 Chevy Malibu Classic, the 305 4-bbl was exclusive to the 442 (or at least it was in 1978) because there weren’t enough 4-bbl carbs to go around for each division.
You know, when you think about it, the sedan versions of these cars were just way ahead of their time!
Look at just about every new sedan for sale these days, they all have an extremely raked back C-pillar, and a tiny trunk opening.
GM was just offering a crystal ball into the future with these cars…
A very astute observation.
+2. I wonder how many people driving new maximas and altimas find these hunchback GM cars ugly.
The front ends of this and the equivalent Buick were incredibly uninteresting, not only in their own right but also by comparison to the more distinguished front-end designs of the formal Cutlass and Regal coupes in the same showrooms. Perhaps if they’d used quad headlamps in ’78 instead of waiting until the formal-roof sedans to (re)introduce them…
Jason, nice write up and a very nice and rare catch. i’m a fan of this body style, having seen a brand spanking new Buick Turbo Coupe much like the 442 here, back in my CG days at RESTRACEN Yorktown, VA. The first of the Buick Turbo V6 motors, if my memory is correct…..it had the carburated turbo. Plus some neat graphics and matte paint touches. Would love to see one of them caught for these pages, the perfect book end for the Olds!
I never understand why everyone always says these are ugly. It’s so similar to the notchback, but just a 2-box version. A little plain, maybe, but ugly? To me, they’re very clean-looking and minimal. I thought they were daring when new, kind of a sheer-look version of what Saab was doing. But what American buyers wanted at that point was the formal Seville look. The coupes had it, and so did the sedans starting in 1980, so they easily eclipsed these oddballs. As for the trunk, it would have been neat if they were hatchbacks, but a lot of people then (and now) wanted the more hidden storage of a trunk (which the Saabs also had, if I’m not mistaken, and I certainly could be!)
What a pig! I remember hosting the ’78 model year dealer announcement show in Detroit as the first time I beheld one of these! What an embarassment. We all knew it and some bold enough to tell sales management were dressed down for speaking up.
One in four midsize cars sold in that era was a Cutlass, which held the #1 sales position for many years. But it was the “formal” coupe that sold so well, not these dogs.
442 (4 barrel carb, 4 speed, 2 tailpipes (dual exhaust) was launched in the ’64 model year as a performance option on a Cutlass or F85 to respond to the GTO’s success.
Olds had no choice but their 330 V8, GM limited mid-size cars to 400 ci and Olds only had the 330 and 425 V8s. They tooled up a 400 for the ’65 model year with a slight bore reduction on the 425..
With unique 400 ci engine, trim and suspension differences, 442 became a model rather than an option package in 1965 and remained a separate model with specific engine and chassis through the 1971 model year, iirc.
For ’72, 442 was reduced to a trim option, with choice of engines, though it could still be ordered with a 455 V8 until ’77 MY.
The ’78 had a good handling package, for its day, but the highest output engine available became the 305 Chevy small block. The Olds 260 V8 was most popular for the Cutlasses, a little less power, but better mileage. It was so frustrating to know how much better they could have been with a ’70 W31 350 ci V8 but for emissions and CAFE.
Wasn’t the max engine size in the A body 330 cu in up through 1964? I seem to recall that the Olds 330 was supposedly the biggest legal engine in that platform. Pontiac was supposed to stick with the 326 in the Tempest, but Delorean’s “export” subterfuge blew out the corporate engine size limit by using the Pontiac 389. I thought that the 400 ci limit was the “new” limit after high GTO sales saved Delorean’s bacon.
I never heard of a 330 ci limit for vehicle series. I can understand the theory that a corporate guidline of some sort was responsible for Chevrolet 327, Pontiac 326, Olds 330, but Buick had a 340 at the time, suggesting otherwise.
My father was an Olds product engineer beginning in 1961 and told me of the 400 CI corporate limit, which still existed when I started with Olds in 1969, but was dropped for the ’70 MY.
The ’68-69 Hurst Olds got around the 400 ci limit by being an “aftermarket conversion”. Demmer Tool & Die, a business in Lansing, was the upfitter, installing a few H/O specific parts. They contracted Olds to actually build the 455’s on the line, much like COPO Chevrolets got around the rule.
Dad told me that Pontiac had actually proposed using their 421 V8 in the ’64 GTO and just calling it a 389. The package was in the build system until wiser heads pointed out that it would not enhance Pontiac’s reputation for integrity!
These were a huge step backwards. They may have been light, but they were poor handlers, didn’t ride nice, used cheap materials throughout. The transmissions and rears were light duty crap. Add the fact that they were soo ugly. Puke.
No one will ever consider them beautiful, but I like these fastback A-bodies in a quirky sort of way. I’d drive one. Back in the day (mid 80’s, as I was an infant when these were new) I found them odd, a curiosity, but even then, not ugly. Applying the 442 name here was unquestionably a mistake, though they also recycled the Hurst/Olds name repeatedly on this generation (at least that had a 350 option the first couple years).
Odd-duck styling on the fastbacks and poor name revivial choices aside, these A/G bodies were actually good cars. Typical malaise GM lackadaisical quality control and lousy interior trim, but the cars themselves were solid. Full-frame, not particularly rust-prone, generally rugged if not powerful engines (ignoring the puny 3.0 V6 and the abominable diesel). Still an awful lof of them roaming the streets for a 25 to 35 year old vehicle.
I purchased a Cutlass Salon Brougham Coupe new back in 1978. Always liked the body style (2 door only). Mine had bucket seats, console, am/fm stereo, a/c, sport steering wheel, power steering & brakes & a 260 Olds V8 (a.k.a. boat anchor) with an automatic & a 2.29 rear axle. It was slow & not that good on gas. Looked for one for a long time for one with the 442 package until I found its fraternal twin. A 1979 Buick Century Turbo Coupe. I purchased it in 2007 from the original owner with 12,000 actual miles on it. Still had the original tires, brakes & shocks on it. It’s a highly optioned car. A/C, bucket seats, console, tilt wheel, power windows, locks, steering & brakes,rear defroster, power sunroof !!!!! & a factory block heater (he lived in Chicago). And it’s a radio delete car. It gets a lot of attention when I take it out for a cruise.
I like that version of the Buick front with the amber corner lights and blacked-out grille. Very clean and international for 1978. That should’ve been the standard version – for Chevy, with Buick getting the more formal front Chevy had designed for the Malibu.
Although the 78 and 79 Malibus are my faves in the a body style……call me crazy but i like these (and the Buick)slant back 4 doors more than their (Seville backed) replacements. They should definately have had a hatchback.
Eddie I am also an aeroback fan so we’re both crazy together!
I had no ideal Ned Flanders drove an aeroback Olds.
I’m probably one of the few people here who actually likes the Cutlass aeroback look. My uncle had a ’78 in the late 80s and it was reasonably comfy, could seat six in a pinch, and rode pretty well even for a 10 yr old car. Yes the rear windows didn’t roll down, an obvious GM cost-cutting measure. But I still liked the styling, both then and now.
I still see the aerobacks styling as a clumsier execution of the Volkswagen Dasher styling. And thought they were hoping to capture a somewhat European upmarket appeal.
Wow, no less than three manual transmissions were on offer – 3, 4, and 5 speed. Really bizarre given few Cutlass buyers wanted a manual of any type. I wonder how many 260 V8 / 5 speeds were produced.
Am I the only person who thinks these look sharp?
I never cared for the styling on these cars, but they actually were more than a stripe package. Car and Driver tested a ’78 Cutlass 442 powered by a Chevy 305 4-bbl and they actually liked it. To quote the article the stated
“On the whole, the 4-4-2, like the other GM intermediates, doesn’t represent anybody’s idea of a technological great leap forward. Though it’s trim and light, it simply carries the traditional body-frame construction of the Detroit intermediate automobile to it’s logical, quiet and luxurious conclusion. And yet the feeling of balance exhibited by the 4-4-2 distinguishes it as an automobile that aspires responses that driver’s care about. It’s one of the best combinations of cosmetic flash and real performance that people who like street fighting Detroit Iron have seen in a long time.”
The big plus of these ugly ducking Cutlass’ was the availability of the 305. Unlike the better looking 80’s models that got saddled with the slug of a 307, at least the 305 Chevy could get out of it’s own way. In fact, the 305 Cutlass that C/D tested pretty much matched the performance of the heavy hitter Colonnades that preceded it.
1977 Cutlass 4-4-2, 403-4bbl, 3.23 gears:
1/4 mile 17.3 secs @ 79.3 mph
1977 Pontiac Can Am, 400 4-bbl, 3.23 gears:
1/4 mile 17.2 secs @ 79.7 mph
1978 Cutlass 4-4-2, 305 4bbl, 2.56 gears:
1/4 mile 17.4 seconds @ 83.3 mph
I don’t really mind it, and don’t hate it at all. It should have been a hatchback. The hood and front end could have sloped down a little to match the back. Sorta Monza-ish. But I like the slight upward angle of the rear quarter window. To me it just looks unfinished. But the mechanicals were solid enough. The Chrysler Crossfire to me has a similar proportional problem, but the roundy rear on that was worse. Jeremy Clarkson said it looked like a dog’s arched back when it takes a poo. The Olds doesn’t look like that so that is something. The Olds tagline could have been “Olds Aeroback. Styled to not at all resemble a dog pooping. Unless you have a robot dog. In which case it would not poop. At your Olds dealer today.”
I like ’em, in both 2 and 4 door versions. Shoulda been a hatch though!
The main thing that ruins the design for me is the way the rear side windows look so deeply sunken in, like there’s about a two inch shelf at the base of the windows. That positively screams at the smooth integration of the body sides and roof. It’s the kind of stylistic blunder I can’t unsee.