Average. Nobody likes average today. People today want special. They want unique. They don’t want coffee, they want something at Starbucks that takes as long to say as it takes to make. They don’t want bourbon, they want spirits crafted in a particular way, with a particular variety of grain, barrel char and aging. But it wasn’t always so.
In the years of my youth average was good. People drank their coffee from Folgers or Maxwell House. Cutty Sark scotch was the good stuff. And so was Oldsmobile.
I grew up around Oldsmobiles. And rebelled early. Oldsmobile was for parents. Female parents, actually. Oldsmobile occupied the same place in my mind as old bits of advice like “eat your dinner before you get dessert.” Oldsmobile was good for you.
The result of all this is that while I was steeped in a world of Oldsmobiles, I didn’t really pay attention to them. Why bother – they were everywhere. If I ever got in a spot where I needed an Olds, finding one would be a cinch. But that was for fuddy-duddies.
When Oldsmobile (and the rest of GM’s big car lines) were put on a diet for the 1977 model year I found them yawn-worthy. I liked my big cars big, and these no longer were. Big Lincolns and Chryslers were exotic to me, with presence. But looking back now after all these years I realize two things: Oldsmobile’s kind of normal was good. And I had no way of knowing that this kind of normal was on the brink of disappearing forever.
Let’s think about what normal was in 1979. Until summer of that year (pretty much the end of 1979 model year production) cars were just cars. Cubic inches still ruled and sixteen or seventeen miles per gallon on the highway out of a big, heavy American sedan was the kind of thing people bragged about. CAFE was coming and took some of the biggest engines out of some lineups by 1979 but you still had some decent powertrains available.
A good big American car started right up when you turned the key and didn’t make you think about it until you shut it off again. When you stepped on the gas it went faster and when you stepped on the brakes it went slower. Yes, there had been a learning curve in dealing with emissions hardware, but by 1979 the engineers had gotten pretty much back on their game.
Take this Oldsmobile. A 4 bbl 350 V8 was still considered a God-given right. But we could see a world of compromise coming across the horizon. This was the year you could also get a V6, a diesel, an Olds 260 V8 and a (gasp) Pontiac 301. If you wanted to tow a trailer or just wanted a little more scoot a 403 was easily available. If you bought a used ’78 model, anyway. At least you still got the good old Turbo HydraMatic 3 speed transmission.
But more ‘change was a-brewin’. By 1980 the traditional big American car started to die. CAFE was the new law of the land and weight was the enemy. Displacement and axle ratios raced to lower numbers. Overdrive automatics of increasing cost and complexity (and decreased driving pleasure) started to show themselves. And cars would no longer be styled just to look good. At GM at least, these big B/C body cars would get the aero treatment forced on them, so that new Oldsmobiles looked like big doorstops on wheels.
This is another set of pictures pulled from my marinated and aged stash of cars I never got around to writing up. I’ve got a million of ’em, so if I never see another CC I still have a couple of years worth of material to cover. And had I figured out that there has never before been a proper CC of a 1977-79 Delta 88 I might have gotten back to this one sooner.
These shots reminded me of a couple of things. First, I was delighted to see this color jump back to near the top of popularity after its early 1970’s disappearance. I am not sure I noticed it at the time but this is actually a two-tone paint job – and with a vinyl roof thrown in for fun. That slightly darker blue on the body sides is an interesting color (imaginitively called “medium blue”) that seems to have been offered in only 1977 and 1979 and only as part of a two tone on Oldsmobiles and Buicks.
The second thing these photos made me think about was that this was, to my eyes, the best styling job of the four B body cars that GM offered in 1977-79.
Everyone loves the Chevy, but it never did a thing for me. The Pontiac was OK if you were in the mood for lots of chrome and some fender skirts, and the Buick was fine until you got around to what might have been the least inspired rear end of a car since the 1920’s. The Olds carried its big-boned, square-jawed looks well. The shape was good, the details were right and there was nothing wrong with it. And as a bonus, it sounded like an Oldsmobile should.
I eventually owned an Oldsmobile that was built five years after this one – a 1984 Ninety-Eight Regency coupe. The interior was nice and it sounded like an Oldsmobile, but that was where the similarities ended. The shape was not quite right, the engine was too small, the axle was too tall and the glass-jaw transmission required a rebuild at 54,000 miles. This car was not American-style-1970’s-normal but the 1980’s-style basket of compromises that made you painfully aware of each and every one of them with every single drive.
Stepping on the gas no longer guaranteed an immediate increase in speed and the car’s shovel-nose styling was not the kind of no-apologies-here-I-am kind of attitude I had come to expect from an Oldsmobile.
It is now forty years since this car was new. Which is a long time. And admittedly, what is “normal” or “average” for one age group is not the same as for another. But for those of us old enough to remember Oldsmobile during its glory days, this car would be in the running for the last of the big Oldsmobiles that could be described as great cars. This aging former-Oldsmophobe now misses cars like this and would happily welcome one into his garage. Because “normal” is under-appreciated.
Further Reading:
Blandtastic!
+1!
There are many normals and averages of long ago that, when the gauze of nostalgia is lifted, I am happy to let lie where they are.
Why, Maxwell House was just the refined and perfected essence of muddy puddle (though I’ll confess a little wryness at Starbucks being a referral for modernity, as they produce just the puddle sans mud and have largely failed here). I don’t pine for it.
The era of American cars being whoppers was a normal really only about 20 years in duration, and their weaknesses as they necessarily adapted downwards into the eighties was entirely the product of manufacturer indolence, not the smallening itself.
Some good points, but I don’t think this 77-79 model was really any larger than Oldsmobiles of the 1940s. It was usually a pretty good sized car (other than the anomalous period of 1949-50 when the volume model was an A body.
True, and I do understand your point about it’s appeal being the last type of a certain sturdy simplicity (carb, large-motor torque, RWD, 3 speed, etc), especially when the ’80’s replacements came along. (People complain of ’70’s malaise, but I’ve long thought that heaps of flimsy ’80’s stuff is quite awful). It does remain a fairly sizeable car in most other places, though.
Of tangential interest, my dad had a ’38 Olds in the ’60-61 – unbelievably, the same as having a ’97 something now! – and even though it was much preferable to some wheezy little Englander, and still seen a pretty big car then, it wasn’t especially reliable, perhaps proving again that nostalgia ain’t made the same way anymore.
Not the same at all, actually. The average age of a car on American roads in 1979 was 5.7 years, and that was up from 5.1 years in 1969. The 2013 average-age-of-car-on-the-road figure was 11.4 years, that is just about double the 1979 figure. It hit 11.7 years in 2017, and 11.8 years in 2018.
So let’s call it an even 5 years in 1961, though the actual figure was probably lower. Your dad’s ’38, then, was 4.6× the average age in 1961. 4.6 × 11.8 = ~54, so having a ’38 car in ’61 was more like having a ’64 car today—though even that misses the mark, because the average age hasn’t been moving as a linear function of the current year.
Math is hard.
Let’s go shopping!😝
Daniel, undoubtedly. And when I showed these maths to my aged father, he despaired (yet again) that I could not follow his patient explanation of your paragraph after “Not the same…”, but more importantly, on using your methods, he found himself, gleefully and on average, to be a mere 12 years older than me, and therefore not my father after all.
And Mr Mann, math isn’t hard but IS a useless conspiracy theory they try to foist upon non-adherents, and shopping is well-known to be derived from the Roman tortures in the Plaza, so you’ll have to forgive me but I engage in neither.
Of the b body cars I prefer the olds. The LeSabre was ugly except the dash. My favorite was a Holliday coupe with ,403 and when olds wheels. 79 was last if the good ones. The 80 was cheapened and lightened and decontentrd.
I just found this string.
I am one of the larger fans of 350 V 8s and Crushed velour interiors.
We owned several, A 70,73,76,77 yellow black top and black crushed velour (ahh),79 (diesel) burgundy with red crushed velour ( like a whore house on wheels (Dad’s term)
That one was leaking transmission fluid in the driveway when it came home (foreshadowing).
If I had the room, I would have a collection of various years and trim levels.
Alas I cannot time travel.
These are the cars I wish we’d see more of at car shows and cruise-ins. Not because they’re special and fantastic, but because they’re an accurate example of what actually populated the American roads during their model year and 5-6 years afterwards.
And these cars, restored, are the mark of the true vintage car lover: The person who is willing to spend the same money it would take to restore the convertible, muscle car or sporting model; while knowing full well that his return on day of sale is going to be nowhere near as great because he’s put his effort into saving a four door sedan or station wagon.
The other thing I love about these cars at shows is you normally get to see them with steel wheels, hubcaps, and none of the bolt-ons that make it look like a high school senior bought it as a seven year old used car.
Real American driving. The kind we tend to forget. Or that our kids have no idea existed.
What I find interesting is that the 98s of 1980-84 still seem reasonably well represented out there. I think that by then the old timers who bought them could see that they could not be replaced and kept their old ones nice. But the 77-79 was still a throwaway car, either run into the ground by 3rd-4th owners or made into donks in the 90s-00s.
For something that was so popular, especially here in the midwest, this generation seems to have almost disappeared.
In Australia, Syke, the ordinary stuff of yesteryear IS now appearing at shows and gatherings. I reckon that the starting pool of nostalgia cars available is (by dint of population) much smaller, and the exotic versions have long sailed into off too-much-for-most pricing. So it takes less financial bravery here, as the remainders are now none of them valueless.
But here’s the funny thing: I’m excited at first to see the ’60’and ’70’s Holdens or local Fords and Chryslers that everyone’s mum drove, all nice and shiny, and inherently pretty in a way that crash-safe unchromed cars since can never again be. Then I look again, and remember just why I liked the seldom-seen GT’s and Broughams – the lowly ones are very, very prosaic cars indeed.
To mangle an old phrase, they make a lovely place to see, but I would never want to live there again.
Nice find, and I like how you framed the lead photo with the Buick – what a contrast. It’s wonderful to see one in such great condition, particularly with that unique two-toned paint.
You got me thinking – what car today represents these Oldsmobile values? Large, comfortable, aimed at female parents, reasonably powerful, reliable, reasonably affordable, and just “average” — to my mind that is best encapsulated in the Toyota Highlander. Sure, the Highlander isn’t a sedan but it certainly checks off all those boxes and is what “average” people buy today. I wonder if 30-40 years from now people will come across a ’19 Highlander in a shopping plaza and think wistfully of what a great car/time it was – I actually suspect they might.
And perhaps like this Olds back then, Toyotas are perceived as a bit bland, yet in truth, people haven’t been buying stuff like the Highlander en masse just because they’re all the (useful) things you mention: they also LIKE them, and for years I’ve reckoned Toyota’s dullness has been over-stated. Is it for me, no, but that’s hardly the point.
And so I agree that in time, folks will look at a preserved Highlander with good memories of its sheer usefulness, and also still thinking “And it still looks quite good now, y’know.”
LOL, I immediately thought of the Highlander too before I saw you also chose it. My sister in law (2 late-teenage kids) drives one, which replaced a Sienna, which replaced an Avalon. Those last two vehicles would have been a Vista Cruiser and a 88 sedan respectively in an earlier era.
I think Highlander is correct. I was going to suggest Camry as it does check most of the boxes but Highlander checks them all. Toyota sure has us figured out don’t they?
My thinking was leaning towards the RAV4 since I see more of those than Highlanders, but then this Olds is from the era when the Cutlass was outselling the Delta 88 (especially as a coupe).
At least as of about 10 years ago, the RAV4 had the highest percentage of female owners (75%) of any new vehicle in the US.
HaHa! I just bought a 2016 Highlander for my wife’s car. Around here in Houston, these are EVERYWHERE. Got to be one of the most common vehicles on the road, which is fine with me because it’s anonymous and blends into the automotive background. It is rather Olds-like in that it is built for comfort and isn’t the least bit sporty in its behavior. Engine is a 3.5L naturally aspirated V6, probably the current version of a 350: It’s relatively large, simple and living on borrowed time. I also like that 2016 is the last year it didn’t come with all the advanced lane departure, auto panic stop, etc.
We have a 2016 also, it simply does its job extremely well. Not the most exciting thing, but completely reliable, with a peach of an engine and the 6-speed. It’s coming up on 55,000 miles now and has had no issues of note.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-2016-toyota-highlander-xle-awd/
Nice find. I’m an Olds guy too – had a 69 Delta 88 and a 81 Cutlass.
But I was never drawn to these late 70s/early 80s coupe versions of the B Body – they just looked stilted to me – way out of balance.
Hard to believe Bill Mitchell would have signed off on these, but he was heading out the door for retirement.
GM’s full-size 77-79 cars, especially the Chevy, Olds, were as good as it got.
I remember a 1-hour ride in the early 80s in my visiting aunt’s Olds Delta 88, just like the feature car, except instead of that “GM Blue”, it was the “GM green”. Unlike my father, who would never go above 65, my uncle was not shy about doing 80-85 on open interstate. It was so quiet and smooth…felt like we were doing 50.
I thought of it as a land-bound Learjet.
My ’78 has been in the family since new. Fully loaded Royale with 350 (Code R) engine. Still looks good and runs fine after 41 years.
Beautiful, it reminds me of my Uncle Bob’s ’77 – four-door Royale too – except his was a brighter blue (with the same baby-blue vinyl top and crushed-velour interior). The first brand-new and really plush car I remember experiencing as a preschooler.
Random stuff:
– This is the Holiday 88 coupe, right? IIRC the standard model had a wider rear quarter window and thinner B pillars, like the white car in the brochure
– The 1977, 78, and 79 full size Oldsmobiles each had a different grille, including the headlight surrounds and side marker lamps, because, at least at GM, you just couldn’t have this year’s car look the same as last year’s car. Did buyers notice or care? Evidently not, or at least not anymore, and GM would largely end this practice within a few years
– Taillights had to look different each year too. For this generation, only the 1977 model’s looks right, with the backup lights where the protruding blades/fins are. After that they looked just randomly placed
– The 1980 model pictured is a 98 Regency rather than a Delta 88
– My family had the Pontiac 301 in a ’77 Bonneville and it didn’t feel as underpowered as the specs would indicate. It was smooth and torquey, with a nice shove in your back when you accelerated from rest. In routine driving it felt plenty powerful; only when you asked for more or drove up a steep hill did you realize there wasn’t anything more left
– I also rode to school as a 13 year old in a ’78 88, base sedan with white vinyl and black carpeting inside. It was… normal.
Holiday 88 was a bucket seat package with an exterior badge. It was available with a steel roof or any roof treatment.
Oops, you’re right. The concurrent Buick LeSabre also could be had with thin or thick B pillars (the thin ones were rare – base model w/o vinyl roof IIRC). Add to that the opera window/landau roof option on the big Pontiacs and there were 6 different rear quarter windows used on ’77-79 B body coupes.
Lots od Le Sabres had the thin roof like the Pontiacs. In particular look for the 1979 Palm Beach coupes, which were based on the Limited trim.
No, no, no, the Palm Beach had the common thicker B pillar also used on Pontiacs that didn’t have the landau vinyl roof. Base LeSabres (not sure if all of them or just those with metal roofs) had an even thinner pillar with no room for a silver or black applique.
…compared to Palm Beach thick B pillar:
Sorry, I thought you meant the landau window.
All the productive things I could be doing today, but noooo I’m fretting about the width of ’79 Olds and Buick B pillars… 🙂
” The 1980 model pictured is a 98 Regency rather than a Delta 88″
I seem to remember that visually, the lines blurred between the 88 and the 98 in this era, more so than had been the case previously.
Particularly after the RWD 98 was discontinued but the 88 soldiered on for another 1-1/2 years, and some of the 98’s trim was moved to a new top-of-the-line Delta 88 Royale Brougham LS (no, I’m not making up that name) including grille, rear backup light panels, some side trim, and the pillowy seats. Similar thing happened when the H body 88 outlasted the 98, there was a Regency model using the shorter 88 body afterward.
Similar thing with the last RWD LeSabres inheriting the RWD Park Avenue seats for the “Collectors Edition” LeSabre after the former went FWD.
The last RWD 88s and.98s had the same distinctions as usual: different wheelbase, rear doors, rear roof, rear fenders, taillights, and grill, plus different chrome trim.
Nice find. I have a ton of seat time in these Olds B-bodies. We had two late 70s Oldsmobiles in our family, a ’78 Delta 88 4-door sedan and a ’79 Delta 88 2-door. I also owned an ’85 Olds Delta 88 sedan. The late 70’s Olds’ were good cars overall, and I like them. Both of our late 70’s Olds had Oldsmobile 350-4bbl engines, and they certainly moved out a lot better than the 307 in my 85. The torque advantage was significant, although I wouldn’t call the Olds 350 cars fast by any stretch. The Chevrolet LM1 350 was definitely a stronger performer, albeit, less torquey at lower RPM.
Many 1977-79 Oldsmobiles (and other GM B-bodies) had the TH200 “metric” transmission, which was undoubtedly one of GMs worst RWD transmission. Our ’79 for example had one, and it failed at a low mileage. The TH200-4R that the later Olds 307’s got was a far better transmission. While still more failure prone than an old TH350, well cared for and with a properly adjusted TV cable you could get long life. I have owned several and never had a TH200-4R failure, even with high mileage and towing.
Back to comparing the ’85 Olds to the late 70’s cars we had, the 85 got significantly better gas mileage and was also a much more reliable car overall. I was often under the hood of both those late 70’s Oldsmobiles doing repairs. While the 307 was slower, it was “adequate” for the times in the lighter 88 body. The late 70’s cars did feel heavier but the quality control was not nearly as good. While still anecdotal, I also noticed the late 70’s Olds’ seemed to evaporate from the roads very quickly, while the 80’s cars seemed to by prominent on the streets well into old age.
Styling is also subjective, but I agree the late 70’s Olds’ were better looking than the 80’s versions. That said, the 80-84 98s were the least attractive. The 80-85 Olds 88’s were not bad looking in my eyes. But for both generations, I preferred the Chevrolet overall. I also though the Pontiac Catalinas, were very good looking too, while I didn’t care for the skirted Bonnevilles & Parisiennes.
I never warmed to the looks of the 80-84 88s – they looked kind of melted to me, the way the front and rear ends sort of oozed down towards the bumpers at the ends. The 98 kept its upright butt, hence my doorstop comparison.
I will agree that for choked 5-ish liter engines mated to too-tall axles and overdrive automatics the GM cars were probably the most pleasant to drive of the bunch. But that was not a high bar. The late 70s versions were the last that drove the way cars were supposed to drive (in my mind, at least, as someone who spent loads of time in 60s iron).
JPC, I agree with you about the 5.0L cars and that the bar was low at that time,That was why I said the 307 was adequate for the times, not good for the times. However, as slow as the 307 Olds cars I had were, it was still a lot better than a Chevette or many of the other underpowered econoboxes of that time that many of my friends were saddled with.
And I also agree the late 70’s 350 powered cars did have decent performance, really not far off the typical 1960’s family car. My early driving years I was driving several 70’s intermediates with 350 to 400 sized engines, along with newer RWD cars with the 5.0Ls and OD transmissions.. The difference in performance was big, but so was the difference in fuel economy.
Just to counterbalance, I have always preferred the looks of the 80-85, 88 especially but even the 98 I like better. To my eyes, the 80-85 looks like a modernized, squarer version of the 65-68. I’m weird, though.
Fantastic read JP! I agree that a large part of Oldsmobile’s decline in popularity was because for so many years it was simply “average” and “normal”.
You make a good characterization of Oldsmobile’s as being ordinary and average, for our generation (born in late fifties/early sixties). If I were older, I might have fine memories of a Rocket 88’s. But 4-4-2’s aside, Olds was pretty dull. I never understood the branding strategy behind entering Indy Car racing in the ‘90’s with the Aurora engine. Too little, and way too late.
In the B/C coupes, I liked the early “bent window” Chevy the best. It was both an interesting and unique feature. After Chevy gave up on that window, they were all the same to me.
I had viewed the family picture with your mum’s Cutlass before JP, but until today hadn’t caught the 63 Cadillac tail hanging out the carport.
An early memory towards your later purchase of a 63?
Haha, it turns out that the *actual* 63 Cadillac I bought was sitting in the garage of my mother’s Aunt Alma when this photo was taken. I wish it had stayed there. When her son took it for the grandkids to use, it took a beating.
…if random luck favoured you, you got a Turbo HydraMatic 350. If not, GM stuck you with a (Metric!) Turbo ProbleMatic 200. Whichever transmission (or facsimile thereof) this car has, it is now controlled by a shift lever that started life in an ’84-’90 Chevrolet—looks like the steering column got swapped.
That is an unusually subtle 2-tone. Suspiciously so, to my eyes—usually there was much more contrast between the two tones GM offered in combination, wasn’t there? The first page of the 1979 paint chip chart lists Light Blue Poly, then on page 3 there’s a “Light Blue Firemist Poly” and a “Medium Blue Poly” which is called out as a 2-tone colour, and looks markedly darker than either of the colours on this car. There’s “Light Aqua Firemist Poly”, which appears to be the only metallic bluish that’s green enough to potentially match the upper colour on this car, but it, too, appears deeper than the paint on the car.
Blues of that era were somewhat notorious for fading; maybe this what we’re seeing is faded Light Aqua Firemist Poly over faded Medium Blue Poly.
As to the car itself: nifty survivor. I’d like it better with four doors and real rear turn signals, an Olds(!) 350 gasoline(!) V8, and export emissions.
Oops, I meant the comment below as a reply to this one.
I looked again, the 2980 Medium Blue on P. 3 matches the code I found on paintref for the darker lower color and the 2955 Light Blue seem to be the colors. Yes, the PPG chip looks dark, but then it has probably spent its life in a closed book while that car sat out in the sun. The striping shown in the close-up seems to match the two colors pretty closely, though.
“…if random luck favoured you, you got a Turbo HydraMatic 350. If not, GM stuck you with a (Metric!) Turbo ProbleMatic 200. ”
Yep, that’s how it worked out for us. Our ’78 had a TH350, the ’79 had the TH200 – both were 350 Oldsmobile V8s. FWIW, the TH200 was just the first of GM’s metric transmissions. The overdrive transmissions that followed, the TH700-R4 and TH200-4R were both metric too but didn’t have it metric stamped on the pan. IIRC, the TH200 stuck around until about 1985, remaining the base transmission on many B-body cars. Unlike the TH200-4R and the TH700-R4, the TH200 didn’t significantly improve with time.
GM had some odd transmissions during the 1970s. They made the “light duty” TH250, which was a light duty version of the TH350. This was reintroduced in the late 1970’s with a lock-up torque converter. Then there was the TH375 which was a light duty TH400 and a TH375B which was a HD TH350.
I also agree about the 4-door vs 2-door. I like our ’78 4-door better than the ’79 2-door. Good eye on the column and shifter. Definitely from a Chevy.
Very true on those transmissions. As I recall this was also the generation of Oldsmobile that started the brouhaha over “Chevy engines” being put in Oldsmobiles. The line about “engines from various GM Divisions” was in the fine print on the 1979 brochure.
On the color, I tend to like Paintref.com as they pull from multiple sources. This Martin Senour page, for example, shows the Medium Blue as a 2 tone color that looks pretty accurate.
H’mm, so Light Blue over Medium Blue? Yeah, I can get onside with that, especially if the Medium Blue has faded more than the Light Blue.
I think the engine thing was a few years before when the Cutlass outsold the full-size Chevy, around 1975-6. The “A Word About the Engines Used In These Oldsmobiles…” disclaimer first appeared in the ’78 model year brochures.
It was Spring of ’77 when some 88 and Omega owners discovered they didn’t get a genuine Olds “Rocket” engine and GM got stuck rebating cash to dis-satisified owners who were convinced that the Chev engine was inferior. Some SBCs did have soft cam and other issues but iirc that was later on in the ’80s and the 350 Chev was probably as good, if somewhat different in torque characteristics, as the Rocket 350. We had a ’77 88 with Olds 350 and THM350 trans and it was pretty spunky still, unlike later years, and post-79 models were terribly flimsy, imo, due to their forced diet.
No, actually the soft-cam issue started in ’74 and was pretty much done by ’83. See here and the link it contains to the UPI story.
Nicely written review about a survivor from the last of GM’s golden years. Somehow, I picture this car parked in the garage next to a mid-90s A-bodied Cutlass Supreme, which gradually took over as the preferred grocery-getter after Grandpa passed away.
Oldsmobile always seemed to me to be a way of stepping up the status ladder without standing out…in effect, never straying far from “average”. By the late 1960s, though, the Olds magic was in the A-bodies, while the B and C bodies always lagged the equivalent Buicks in my estimation, Olds’ reputation for superior engineering notwithstanding. As a kid, I was especially turned off by the pillow seating introduced with the 98 Regency in 1972, especially since they seemed to collect a lot dirt, dust and dog hair. At least this 88 does not suffer that aesthetic faux pas.
This 1979 model was among the last in the GM lineup to appeal to a middle to upper-middle class customer before the tide turned in favor of the imports in the mid-1980s. Afterwards, these were seen as Oldfolksmobiles and no longer desirably “average”.
“Compaticolor interior”, LOL.
That’s a new one to me. Pure brochure-speak gold.
I didn’t notice that. Such gibberish! 😀
It’s amazing how options can change the “look” of a car! I couldn’t find the exact picture I was looking for; of the subject vehicle sans vinyl top and wheel covers and in that bright green, but the attached one will do. The optional wheels, body side molding (IMO) enhances this car. I would not have a problem being seen in it, but the subject car is entirely TOO dull for my tastes! 🙂
+1 I agree 100%.
I wanted to make this point earlier today, but didn’t have time. So many Delta 88s and LeSabres of this era, had the most bland corporate wheel covers and muted colour schemes. Like the subject car, they looked way too conservative, and dreary. And far too many came equipped like this. It made them look downright stodgy.
Oldsmobile Super Stock and Buick Road Wheels transformed the looks of these B Bodies. But so many 88s and LeSabres had such forgettable wheel covers. And anonymous colours. GM should have offered a greater variety of attractive alloy wheels. Like Chrysler did with the 1980 LeBaron/Mirada for example. Including the memorable turbine style. Or Seville style wire wheels.
Oldsmobile Super Stock and Buick Road wheels looked awesome on the Custom Cruiser and Estate wagon, but it was way too often a rarity to see them equipped as such.
100% agree with you Daniel M and Moparman.
That’s actually quite a fetching 88.
Maybe that’s why the Bonneville appeals to me so much. Available snowflakes! And Daniel, I’m with you, I’ll take turbine-style over bland, flat wheel covers or, ugh, wire wheel covers ANY day.
Ahh, JP. Demonstrable proof taste is subjective. These are my absolute least-favourite of the ’77-79 B-Bodies. They’re so bland and blocky-looking, they look like the generic any-cars you might see in a Yellow Pages ad.
The Ninety-Eight is slightly more attractive but of the ’77-79 C-Bodies, I’d take an Electra.
The Chevrolet, somehow, just looks more athletic than the Delta 88. It’s crisp, it’s elegant, it’s distinctive. A design home-run. And yes, the Bonneville is a bit OTT with the chrome but I love it. Even the Catalina is quite clean and elegant. As for the LeSabre, it’s as blocky as the Delta but for whatever reason I like it more.
I just look at the hot-selling and very handsome ’76-77 Cutlass and then see this and think, oh dear, the “sheer look” doesn’t always work. Not saying this is ugly but it’s just very bland.
Yes Will, I will admit to being in the minority on the 77-79 Chevy. I find the 77-79 Chevy, Buick and Cadillac in a dead heat – all have their good features, but I do not find any of them to be a consistently good design. The Chevy bent-window coupe is the only exception which rises above the other body styles.
The Pontiac is my second favorite for just the reasons you mention – they managed a strong brew that is not for everyone but I like it.
This Olds is not great design, but I find nothing bad on it (unlike all of the others). I think my favorite feature is the shape of the wheel openings. The car is not all sharp and creasy, but smooth. This car is like a Brooks Brothers suit – it is not trying to be stylish, but is elegant in a conservative, down-to-business kind of way.
I think I much prefer the sedan to the coupe in this line. Somehow the way the vinyl top dips on the coupe is less appealing than in the sedan even though it’s there on both. However I could certainly be talked into taking a long (straight) road trip in either one. 🙂
Nice find, and as I noted to you privately before this posted, I’ll assume you weren’t so excited when you saw it that you just flung your Starbucks cup to the ground and started taking pix. Even though your car has barely come to a halt half-parked the same way as the Olds, I’m surprised you even closed your door….
I still can’t believe that we have never done a CC on one of these before!!! For something of the 70s that was as common as these were, just wow. But I guess that played right into my boring Mr. Average theme – everyone who has written here has never bothered to photograph one, or (like me) bagged one or two but never found the inspiration to write one up.
And let me tell you, if the owner of this Olds had offered a straight-up trade for that hated red Buick I might have taken him up on it. And bought him a Starbucks. 🙂
“everyone who has written here has never bothered to photograph one, or (like me) bagged one or two but never found the inspiration…”
You’ve hit the nail on the head. Thinking about this (but I haven’t verified) we’ve got some gaps in coverage of quite a few large GM cars and, I think, a few Fords also. Long ago I took pictures of an ’84 LeSabre and, if I’ve used it, was in some Louis Broderick fluff where it was figuratively demolished in grand fashion. It was not a serious take on the car itself.
While these B-bodies are now relatively scarce, they still seem quite prevalent. It’s almost like telling someone about Captain Kangaroo – doesn’t everyone already know all about it? But I suspect time has moved enough that may no longer the case.
You guys write some poetic words and lots of credit to you for research on the vehicles. Seems like everyone has been around these cars. I personally am a Oldsmobile guy and a young one at that being aged 48. The cars of this era are crap Oldsmobile or other. They had no personality the same as other brands. Aside from slight changes in front or rear they were all the same. Glorifying cars from this era is a shame
Well Bob, I guess it’s all a matter of context. I will acknowledge that in many ways these were yawners compared to the Oldsmobiles of a decade or two earlier. But compared to what passed as Oldsmobiles in the 1990s, these look pretty good to me now. There was still some unique Oldsmobile DNA under the hood (in most cases) and Oldsmobile was a huge seller.
You say that “glorifying” cars from this era is a shame, but aren’t there lots of other places where folks can go to heap praise on the Oldsmobiles that the collectors love? Dr. Olds, the Ws, the 442s are fine and all, but get waaay over-represented on all of the media sites. We roll differently here and think that every car deserves its fifteen minutes. And if I were going to “glorify” a car, I think I could manage a better job than this. 🙂
Bob, I read your comment several times and couldn’t figure out if you prefer the Olds’ from before this period or the ones that came after? Pointing out your age didn’t help me figure out the answer, it puts you right in the middle where it could be either.
The car having “no personality” is probably what made it appeal to many that just want a car that gets them where they are going. Not everybody wants excitement on their commute, that’s what Pontiac was for.
Great article, JP. I never really thought a heckuva lot about these cars (big Cutlass fan, though). I’d never really thought of these in particular as average……moreso just the Oldsmobile brand in general as average: a cheaper Cadillac, something quite innocuous and the auto equivalent of the flavour vanilla. But it’s interesting when most of the Oldsmobile cars are no longer roaming the roads at all anymore, that they carry a particular nostalgia and uniqueness for not being unique at all.
But you knew that already……
Say what you like, but I was very impressed with the GM B & C bodies of “77 thru “79. GM read the writing on the wall and took the bold step to downsize.
Some of the forebearers were the Cadillac Seville and Ford Granada (yes, it too deserves credit).
My favorites of this GM breed were the Delta 88 Royale (my sister had a blue 4 door) and Chevy Caprice coupe with the wrap around rear window. IIRC, GM was very well rewarded for its venture in downsizing.
I just bought one. It is in the shop for repair and will be on the road soon with a new paint job. I love the car and I will love it more on the road. 1979 Oldsmobile Delta 88 350 4 bbl red metallic full hub caps 4 door sedan.
Here is my quite rare, all original, survivor, 1979 Hurst/Olds W-30 with the “R” code 350. I bought this ‘79 H/O W-30 December 9, 1999 for $2,100 at the ripe old age of 17. The “R” code 350 is the same Olds “R” code that came standard in the ‘79 Delta 88. The ‘79 H/O was the only Cutlass in ‘79 that had the Olds “R” code 350. All other ‘79 Cutlass got the 260 V8 as the top engine option. There was also an optional 350 diesel for 1979.
1979 Hurst/Olds W-30 came with the Olds “R” code 350 rated at 185hp witch were the same hp specs for the Delta 88, but was a bit underrated for the H/O since the Cutlass was a shorter wheel base and a bit lighter compared to the ‘79 Delta 88. The Olds “R” code 350 has an “R” stamped on the block and is also the VIN engine code used on all ‘79 Hurst/Olds. The “R” code also indicates that the engine is a true Olds 350 and not a GM Corporate 350.
3 speed TH350 Automatic with the Hurst Dual Gate shifter. No other options were available for the ‘79 H/O.
All ‘79 Hurst/Olds came with the standard 2:73 rear end except for California cars, witch came with a 2:53 rear end. No other options were available for the ’79 H/O.
The Firefrost Gold and Cameo White paint, along with the gold painted Olds aluminum Sport Wheels are exclusive to the ‘79 Hurst/Olds W-30 and no other ‘79 Oldsmobile or GM car.
1979 Hurst/Olds W-30 “R” code 350.
Indy stay with mint cars
I think that may have been my old car. Limo tint windows the steering wheel column is from an old builk ( maroon). Beee. Looking for it. Wonder if it still exists. Miss that car. The baby blue car was repainted when i first got it. 300 is what it intially costed me. Traded in because parts were hard to find.