(first posted 12/2/2013) After last week’s rather busily-styled 1991 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight, here’s something refreshing: An ’83 Delta 88 Royale Brougham. I spotted this on my usual route through Downtown Crossing, proudly guarded by orange cones.
This generation of 88 happens to be one of my favorites. It’s a B-body that looks large and in charge, just as a full-size Oldsmobile should look. Looking a little more civilian than a Caprice, but neither as baroque as a Parisienne, nor as chrome-laden as a LeSabre, the Delta 88 is stately without pretension. This is probably the reason why these cars appealed so so many Americans in the early ’80s. I’ve always found this 88 a perfect complement to the concurrent Ninety-Eight sedan. While similar from the B-pillar forward, the Ninety-Eight featured a near-vertical roofline, upright trunk, and fender skirts (that actually looked good on it!) .
This one of course is all Broughamed-out with required wire wheels, padded vinyl roof, color keyed tape stripes, and lower chrome trim. Despite this, those styling features are tastefully incorporated into the design, in a minimalist sort of way. It’s more restrained then other Broughams, with their landau bars, opera windows, coach lamps, fender skirts, and busier trim work. Additionally, this one wears an attractive color combination. Obviously not the official color names, I’d call it a cappuccino with espresso vinyl roof – appropriate as my habitual Starbucks is across the street.
I’m sure you all know by now my disdain for skirted rear wheels. I’m thankful stylists never added that touch to these cars. It’s just so perfect and proportionate, with equal front and rear overhangs, equivalently pitched front and rear windshields, bookended by gently-sloping, balanced hood and trunk. Not to mention all of its crisp straight lines. In case you haven’t guessed by now, desire for visual balance and evenness is one of the mild obsessive compulsions that I suffer from. This has probably never been said about a Brougham, but looking at it puts me in a state of zen. I’ll admit I stopped and stared at this car for a few extra minutes because of how calm I feel from looking at it.
This design was in production for a lengthy 9 model years (1977-1985), making it the longest generation of the 88. It was hardly neglected though. Besides its annual grille tweaks (which is the reason I knew this was an ’83), the car was given a considerable facelift in 1980. And that restyling was definitely for the better.
I’ve never really cared for the ’77-’79 88s. Their headlights were too tall, and lacked substantial wraparound turn signals. I think the quad headlamps on either side may have inspired the front of the “Family Truckster“. Comparing one to an ’80-’85 88 makes the car look like it smacked into a wall. The rear also left more to be desired, with its generic horizontal rectangular taillights, and trunk lid that sloped off just a little too much. The 1980 restyle seemed to benefit more from the Sheer Look, which contributed to an overall leaner appearance.
These headlights and grille are the first things that come to mind when I think ’80s Oldsmobile. Despite our featured car’s end in 1985, they continued on the Custom Cruiser wagon all the way through 1990, thus appearing on an Olds every year of the 1980s.
I felt uncomfortable taking interior shots with all the cops and the owner (a construction worker, hence the cones) standing nearby, but I can attest it was covered in wall-to-wall, rich chocolatey velour Broughaminess. I’m always amazed by the height of the dash. No wonder these are the cars we usually see little old ladies trying to peer over.
I think I’ve gushed over this car enough. When you’re having a stressful day, it’s nice to see a car that’s so aesthetically pleasing. And to my joy, it’s an Oldsmobile!
Yes, no doubt about it, these looked better after the reskin.
My dad’s best friend had one of these in about 1986 and insisted that we borrow it when I packed up all my stuff and headed off to college that fall. It held a prodigious amount of stuff — but both Dad and I had sore butts and backs from that front bench.
Dad came to get me from college in his Renault Alliance. Sure, that car was full to the rafters with my stuff. But we got out four hours later with no soreness.
Those seats were awful. A relative had a Maroon ’86 or ’87 and I drove it a lot over a two week period in early ’95, complaining about the seat constantly. My mother said it was like sitting on a park bench seat, but softer. They told me the seat was the reason they were going to trade it in on something else. Why and how they tolerated it for so long, I dont understand. Between the two of them, they had over $6500 a month coming in with no mortgage. A Silverado 1500 replaced it and then a Ram 1500 replaced the Chevy when it was wrecked by their granddaughter. They drove Rams until the husband stopped driving in 2010. His last one was almost identical to my 2003, except his was a 2004.
Having regularly driven my parents’ – and later my – ’78 Estate Wagon 6 1/2 house each way between home and college many times, I can confirm the 60/40 split bench was no ergonomic masterpiece, either.
This is one aspect of cars I’ve never understood. All too often we can look back to a prior generation of a given model that had more comfortable seats, or a better driving position. Why do they feel the need to ‘reinvent the seat’ when a prior model has a perfectly good one?
With an up-to-now unanimous opinion, looks like we need a contrarian here. I much prefer the 77-79 version, which I have always considered the best looking B body of all. The 1980 redesign left the car with a droopy snout, a droopy derriere, and makes the car look like someone picked it up in the middle when it was still hot out of the oven. The fat, oddly shaped taillights do the car no favors, either. Give me a 98.
I will agree, however, on the color combo. I remember liking this pairing quite a lot when it came out. My white 84 Olds 98 had this same brown velour interior (but with the Regency loose pillow seats) and it was a soothing color that hid a lot of dirt and such. I would have much preferred this color to the white on that car.
Last point – the only reason I would prefer one of these to the LeSabre is that if you are going to listen to that distinctive Oldsmobile exhaust note, you should be doing so from behind a rocket hood ornament.
+1
Very well said and it echoes my sentiments totally. I do like these, but nowhere near as much as the ’77-’79 cars. The taillights, especially the half-amber ones just don’t work for me on these cars. The ’78-’79 wraparound lights do though.
True, the ’77-’79 cars didn’t offer overdrive, but the two optional 350 engines & optional 403 engine allowed higher rear axle ratios which make up for it IMO. Fuel economy will suck in either “generation”, but the early cars won’t have to work as hard at speed, hunting between D and OD.
This attractive color was real popular in ’83 and ’84 although it’s not my personal favorite. My ex-stepmother had an ’84 Sunbird convertible in this shade and it did look good.
I feel that all the 1977-1979 B and C bodies had more detailing that got smoothed out when the 1980 “aero” refresh came around. So I am more in the 77-79 camp, but I like the 80 and up models too.
To me, all of the full-sizers came out better looking in the 1980 refreshening except for the Caprice and LeSabre coupes. The Caprice lost the distinctive wraparound rear window, and the LeSabre lost its light and sporty appearance, and got boring. I think I might also favor the 1977-79 Electras because they were still quite baroque.
Better looking 1980+ : Cadillac, Chevrolet sedan, LeSabre, Eighty-Eight, Wagons. Although I do like the ’77 Cadillac back over the ’78-’79, plus the Fleetwood still had the footrests in ’77.
Better looking 1977-79: Electra, 98, all coupes except Cadillac, Pontiac.
JP, I do agree with you that the taillights aren’t the most attractive. I guess my only praise for them is that they look like nothing else on another B-body (which all went with thin horizontal ones), nor any other car of this period. The red lenses definitely look better than the ’84-’85s with the amber turn signals.
I disagree. I love the amber turns, but I do think that all cars should have them anyway.
Was this the first and only time that a U.S. market full-sized American car used them? I know the Fury had them, but I think it’s considered mid-sized. Oh wait, I just remember that the `77-`79 LeSabre also had amber turns. Whoops.
About the amber turns on a Delta: they’re extremely bright. Anyone who’s ever driven behind one at night, or has looked behind them while driving one at night can attest to this.
Oh yes… those amber lights on mom and dad’s 84 Delta 88 were seared in dad’s eyes for a while when sis’s 84 Sunbird died on the side of the road.
We chained up the ‘turd to the Olds and had the hazard lights on, at 1am and he had to stare at them the hour it took to get it home, saw flashing yellow lights for hours after that. The upside, no one could miss that car.
Rear amber turn lights should be outlawed
That’s funny, as I feel exactly the opposite. Isn’t USA the only country that still allows red turn indicators?
You misspelled “red.”
Please elucidate.
For Dan Manick:
We’re talking about a country where looks supersede most other priorities.
Hence the disdain here for proper amber rear indicators.
And don’t get me started on the ten year trend toward gangsta wheels and tires on everything from economy hatchbacks to 350-duty pickups.
When comparing the looks of the earlier and later Oldsmobiles, I’m trying not to be biased, since our fleet includes a 1978 Olds. Both iterations suffer from the simple boxy styling that was prevalent at the time, but the newer one more-so.
I can see Brendan’s point about the headlights. Relocating the parking lights changes the look an a good way. I still prefer the older trunklid and taillights like ours. The 77-79 Olds has a bit of vestigal tailfin on the rear fenders, and the wheel arches are more oval-shaped instead of perfect semi-circles.
I usually prefer the ’77-79 cars as well. I know they smoothed them out and made them look sleeker in 1980, but I usually like the first iteration of a car design, and this one was particularly impressive, arriving in late 1976 after the long run of huge, long, rounded shapes of the 1971-76 cars, that really were continuing a trend that had started in 1965 on the B- and C-bodies. The ’77s were styled to look downsized, and they succeeded at it very well. They also were directly influenced by the 1st generation Seville. By 1980, the downsize was fully accepted, and I think that made it OK to go back to themes of the earlier cars: the longer, lower look, and taillights on the 88 that were similar to the ’74-76 cars. I do like the 1980 cars, though, and I remember being very impressed by the changes when they came out. It was a major update and very successful. On a personal note, my parents had a 1983 Royale Brougham identical to this one in every way including color, except without the vinyl top. It seemed like a completely different animal than the 1978 Caprice it replaced. The updates were very well done, and there was just enough difference between Chevrolet and Olds that it felt like an elegant step up.
Yes and no, JPC. While I do like the more-sloped roofline of the earlier models, that bluff squarish front end makes a mockery of any pretensions to aerodynamics – which should have been a concern to the design team. It presents too much of a bluff face to the wind. And I would agree with Brendan about the front lights needing to wrap around further.
And whichever way you look at it, that trunk just seems needlessly long compared to European or Japanese 1980 proportions. These proportions could only be American or Canadian. In a way, that almost dates it more than anything alse.
You are correct about how this Olds seems to have more presence about it than do some its B-body cousins. A great uncle and aunt of mine purchased one of these (I think a tad older than an ’83) that was loaded to the teeth including the 350 diesel. They drove it for nearly 10 years and put about 150k on it; the only problems I am aware of is it needing a new water pump every 10,000 miles or so. I’m guessing they got a good one or knew how to maintain it.
Automotive styling sure has evolved, hasn’t it? This was the norm in full-size styling at that time; lots of glass and a hood that was visible with a hood ornament that was there to guide you down the road. Now, the norm in full-sized is minimal glass, a console that consumes half the interior, and a hood you may or may not be able to see from the driver’s seat. What might the next thirty years bring?
Everything you just described about modern cars are all details that annoy me. Is being able to see out of your car too much to ask?
Several years ago I test drove a new E350 for fun, and my favorite feature was the hood ornament. I could actually know where the front of the car was!
Hopefully designers realize soon that they need to start going for more glass area. I’ll admit that the current-gen Kia Optima has grown on me since it’s been on the market. Then I sat in the back seat of one and realized the door sil was at my eye level! Even if I ever have a car with blind spot monitoring, I’ll still need to do the quick glance back for my own peace of mind.
Great point; blind spot monitoring, something that can go wrong, could be eliminated with glass. Glass is relatively low-tech.
You said E350 and I thought Ford van at first. Those have a blind spot the size of some states in New England!
I’m having to think of vehicles again as the tranny in the Buick started slipping Thursday and I’m at a loss on what I want, so your post is eerily timely. Seeing the hood and having glass is a large requirement.
You need another Panther!!!
The lack of visibility is annoying, but it can result in better crash worthiness.
Of course, I would also think crashes are more likely when you can’t see anything.
If you can handle the homely front face, I’m very pleased with the hood/road view and sight lines on the Outback. And it’s not ‘crossover tall’.
Brendan Saur:
I drive a 2008 Optima and often back into my parking
space at work. I have to open my driver’s door to check
that I am staying in my parking space when backing up!
Passers-by look at me like I’m trying to back up a TRUCK
into the space.
Never had to do that when backing up with my 1996 Ford
Contour or ’81 Buick Century – they at least had normal
height belt-lines(where tops of the passenger doors met
the glass). I hope we return to sanity in automotive
design soon, before some driver or passenger whacks a
little child with one of the doors!
Makes me miss my `84 Royale (no cheese.) I bought it for $200 from my mailman, who, for years, used it as his mail car. I wish I never sold it, but I had to make room for my Volvo 245.
that is my parents car right there! same color combo, year and all.
Last I heard it was left on the side of the road with a dropped valve.
Nice “Pulp Fiction” reference 🙂 The cutlass in front of the garage is far more interesting though
nice Cutlass there … miss my 72 Supreme so much
I never much cared for or payed any attention to these cars when new but they were a whole lot better looking than the Volvo look a like cars that followed and the 91 featured recently
Sigh. I guess I need to slink off to the next meeting of All ’77-Up GM B-Bodies Look Alike (Except the Whales) Anonymous.
I try to see the subtle distinctions that are supposed to convey some sort of class hierarchy, and I just don’t. They all look pretty good, so give me a Caprice, any wheel covers you want as long as they’re not fake wires. And yes, I would have gone with a Polara as a new car buyer in ’73. 🙂
There there, now. Why don’t you go find a quiet room with a comfy chair and have some of this. You can come back when you feel better.
Whew…okay, okay, I’m back. Sorry, the onslaught of holiday marketing must have brought out my Scrooge-y alter ego.
What? Not a word about my clever choice of brew to offer you during your respite? 🙂 I saw this actual brew mentioned on a Facebook page last evening and immediately thought of you.
Sorry, ol’ pal. I blame overindulgence in Imperial with a 10w30 chaser, shot of ZDDP boilermaker-style…hiccup…
If I could buy that beer locally, I could learn to like drinking stout. As it is, I can get a beer named after the stuff that goes in the crankcase, and it tastes okay too.
Looks like the stuff that comes out of the crankcase!
During the winter months I prefer 5W-20.
In the fall of ’76 I was with you. I could not get over that these smaller, boxy, look alike cars were supposed to be better.
But, soon they were the best game in town as they appealed to me more than the early Panthers and R bodies. They also became quickly ingrained in my blood as Olds 88s were my dad’s occasional company cars. A ’77, ’79, and ’83 figured in the mix. I eventually owned an ’82 two door myself. I eventually drove several B bodies and the experience was always comfortable and practical, way better than ’70s Fords and generally easier than ’71-76 B bodies.
My rankings of original ’77 B bodies and the success of the ’80 restyle:
Chevy: ’80 restyle was the most rehashed and was a down grade.
Pontiac: ’77-79 was best and I like them a lot. ’80 and up rear wheel openings were too high (without the skirt) and the side rub strip was way too high. Awkward appearance.
Olds: Liked them all, 88 and 98 models. Some initial trim details on the ’80 were a bit awkward and the ’80 and up standard wheel covers looked bad. But, with wires and the improved trim, ’82 and ’83 were my favorites of the post ’80 cars.
Buick: Never a big fan of the ’77-’79 LeSabre with its droopy trunk and after thought tail light treatment. ’80 restyle and the tail lights by ’84 or so made a handsome car. Liked all the Electra and Park Ave models before and after ’80.
Cadillac: Was not a fan of the ’77 tail lights, but the ’78 and ’79 cars are probably my favorites. At the time, I thought the ’80 restyle made it much more a Cadillac than the earlier cars, but I think I’ve come to associate the style with bad engines and the later “updated’ trim treatments that were awful in my mind. And, the really awful door mounted seat belts – on GM’s flagship!
I have to agree, albeit having seen very few of these. Eg isn’t the split grille a Pontiac thing? I suppose there are only so many combinations of rectangles you can come up with…
Oldsmobile’s grille styling was a larger divide between two grilles, while Pontiac was a narrower divider bar and/or was wedge-shaped to mimic their arrowhead logo. On Oldsmobiles, the area was almost always painted body colour except, starting in 1977, it was chrome instead on the Olds 98. I presume this was to differentiate it from the Delta-88.
Olds used a divided grille (with a rather wide division) starting in 1968 (88/98) and 1969 (Cutlass), and never stopped until the end, at least on the 88/98. Toronado was a major exception, but of course it stood apart in the lineup, and Aurora continued with a non-divided grille (actually, the appearance of no grille at all!)
The best-looking vintage of this car was the 1985 Delta 88 Royale Brougham LS which used the old 98 Regency grille – chrome all the way across.
In ’73, my dad bought two ’73 Polara Customs for 5k. Once was yellow with a matching vinyl roof and interior, the other was a bright blue, with white vinyl roof and navy blue interior. Both had a 318 and AC. He sold the blue one in 1977 for a new silver ’77 Chrysler Newport and sold the yellow one in ’83 for a new sand metallic Mistubishi Cordia LS. If I could buy two new cars today for 5k, I would not hesitate.
After having driven a mint 1981 Delta 88 Brougham sedan for a good hour, I was really surprised at how much I enjoyed driving it. She was a nice maroon color with the Olds rallye wheels, F-41 suspension option, limited slip rear end and optional 3.08 rear end plus a full load of power goodies and even the rare rally instrument cluster option. From what I understand few were ever ordered this way which is really puzzling as it transformed a nice car into a very nice car.
The ride and handling were much improved (helped by a nice new pair of BF Goodrich P225/70R15 radial TA’s) and even the 307/200 R4 felt livelier than I ever remember these being. The $5200 price that he wanted for it ultimately prevented me from purchase but in a way I regret to this day not picking up this rare gem. I have not seen another one quite like it before.
The TA radials would have put me off it rains here and those tyres are rubbish in the wet
Wow, that is a rare option combo. Not many had the optional gauge cluster.
My Dad’s best friend had a late 70s model in the same shade of green as the car from the advertisement. It was nicely optioned but not loaded up and he used it for long distance travel while he used his pickup truck for commuting and farming. The car was rock solid for him and still looked pretty damn good when he sold it 15 years after it had rolled off the assembly line. I believe his had an Oldsmobile 350 and three speed auto.
In movie “Ordinary People”, two big 1980 Oldses are star cars. Donald Sutherland’s character, the dad, drives a brown Delta 88, featured in a few scenes. While the mother, played by Mary Tyler Moore, has a navy 98 Regency. Back then the cars were spot on for 40-something parents.
If the movie was remade today, dad would have a Passat or Accord, and mom would have a Lexus RX SUV.
Oldsmobiles were a solid, middle american, upper middle class buy during that era. Automotive comfort food if you will.
They were exactly the same car as a Chevrolet. POS.
Did anyone ask you?
One of my favorite movies. Both of those cars were brand-new re-skins. I find it interesting that the models seemed reversed for the characters – the lawyer husband should have had the fancy 98 and the stay-at-home mom the more pedestrian 88. But it matches their personalities – she’s the complicated, fussy one, more concerned about appearances. This was the last year for the 350. I wonder if either one had it under the hood.
I have to disagree about the 1980 reskin. It absolutely ruined the proportions of the B-body cars. Where before everything was crisp and tidy and well-integrated, suddenly there were these overlong things hanging off of the passenger compartment. Give me the ’77 – ’79 any day!
Like JPC, I lean toward the 1977-79 styling of these cars, but I like all of the 1977-90 Olds B Body front ends. The only B-Body styling changes that I do not like are the cutouts in the middle of the front bumpers of the 1980- Chevies and Cadillacs, which unfortunately turned out to be the longest lasting design, wagons excepted. I could never understand why Cadillac and Chevy disrupted the linear styling of their cars’ front ends with the drooping bumper center, which no other divisions used.
Equal front and rear overhangs? This is a Bbox and their signature is a too long rear overhang and a too short front overhang. A Panther box on the other hand has those equal front and rear overhangs and an engine that is able to be set back further as a result for better weight distribution.
I’m still looking for the aesthetically pleasing part. These were butt-ugly cars. And GM pieces of shit at that.
Lord knows, I am no GM apologist, but those “GM pieces of shit” are still doing daily driver duty for quite a few folks some 30 years after they were made. Here in the rusty midwest, there is no old car that I see more frequently out in regular use than these. Ten years ago, they were downright common, even at 20 years old. The Ford Panthers (at least up through 1985) were more prone to body rust, and had enough weaknesses that they are almost extinct (the newer box Panthers are still occasionally seen) and the Chrysler M bodies are all but gone. The Japanese cars have all rusted away, while the European ones sit in alleyways while their owners scrape up the money to afford parts. If someone told me that I would have to find a 1980-85 car that would serve as my daily driver for an indeterminate amount of time, I think I would be driving (another) one of these GM pieces of shit.
While out hear you can’t throw a rock w/o hitting a Panther box and finding a Bbox is next to impossible.
Is this possibly just a matter of perception? I don’t really have any special interest in either of them or any preference and I notice about the same number of both Panthers and B-body cars. And considering how old and frequently abused both of them are, the number still on the road is impressive.
I’m sure a lot of it has to do with where you live. As I’ve mentioned before I can’t go more than a couple miles from my house w/o seeing at least one Panther box, though most frequently Town Cars while if I see any 77 up Bs in a week it will be surprising. It is not like one of them stand out more than the other in today’s traffic.
We discussed this once before.
I don’t think we ever got to what year Panthers you are seeing. I doubt it is pre-’86 or so. I see mid-late ’80s Panthers frequently, but only very rarely do I see pre ’85 versions—the straight back Lincolns, the LTDs with “LTD” in script on the taillights, the GrandMas with the wider-spaced silver trim on the taillights. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an early Panther Mercury with the “gills” near the front, and the last Mark VI I saw was 10 years ago if it was a day.
I see plenty of big Cadillac Broughams but other than the Brougham and Caprice, ANY BOP B-body I see is going to have been made in 1985 or before, and yet I still see them around with reasonable frequency. This in NY, CT, and NJ. I do think that says something for their longevity.
I’ll have to amend my earlier comment. If we’re talking the early cars alone, I see at least twice the amount of GM vehicles as Fords. The B-O-P examples also never achieved popularity as taxis, so that may have something to do with their extinction rate. I hardly ever see any older Econolines either, but I know they were here not too long ago and, as the newer versions are today, undoubtedly the top choice for work/beater van duty in their heyday. Same goes for ’90-’97 Town Cars. It seems like just yesterday they were ubiquitous as black cabs, now they’re becoming an uncommon sight.
Seems to me they got high CR ratings in the late 70s and early 80s for a reason. In some iterations (267 V8, HT4100 V8, TH200) they had some notably shitty components. The plastics and some of the upholstery didn’t hold up well. Panels didn’t always line up right.
Others had some notably excellent components, one hears very few bad things, longevity and durability-wise, about the Chevy, Olds, or Buick 350s, the Cadillac 425, the Olds 307, the TH400 and 350, or, in its later years, the TH200R4. They don’t roll over. They do not have major electrical issues. They are not known to be particularly unsafe (even though they admittedly don’t have the safety equipment cars have now). Their parts are easily obtainable. Most mechanics can figure out how to fix one even if the car is older than they are.
The original power accessories on my shitty ’77 Electra all still work. On how many Mercedes and BMWs is that the case? Because interestingly enough they all worked on my shitty ’87 Brougham, too. Fluke, me thinks not. Especially when the Cadillac was garaged all its life while the Electra spent a number of years sitting outside in a field down south.
Who was it said “GM cars will run poorly long after other cars won’t run at all”?
Are they perfect? Hell no. But (especially the lower-trimmed models) they remind me of scrappy veteran utility infielders in baseball. Not notable for their batting or fielding, but sticking around, year after year, always picked up by some team. These cars are like that. You can knock the off kilter door panels, the shreddy cloth, and the fake wood, all you want to, but they will not die, not when they are dinged up, not when they rust, not even when they are leaking every major fluid, right away. And the biggest problem you can think of can be fixed by even the most price-gouging, unscrupulous, unethical mechanic, for less than the price of a 12 year old Accord.
“If someone told me that I would have to find a 1980-85 car that would serve as my daily driver for an indeterminate amount of time, I think I would be driving (another) one of these GM pieces of shit.”-JPC
Precisely. They’re about all that’s left on the road in non-“collector” condition from ’80-’85 today–them and old trucks and vans. To be sure, I see plenty of ’86-’91 EFI Box Panthers but very, very rarely pre-’86 versions.
You want shit, speak to me of Chevettes and Citations, Yugos, Ford Tempos, and Hyundai Excels. One of those around today really is a fluke.
“Others had some notably excellent components, one hears very few bad things, longevity and durability-wise, about the Chevy, Olds, or Buick 350s, the Cadillac 425, the Olds 307, the TH400 and 350, or, in its later years, the TH200R4.”
Well the SBC was known for soft cam shafts and the water pumps aren’t that long lived either. The Olds engines liked to break the aluminum rocker bridge. The Buick 350 and Caddy 425 and even the 368 w/o the variable displacement or with it deactivated were pretty good. The TH400 is pretty stout the TH350 less so but still better than the TH 200-R4.
Yes most of the Panther boxes that are still around are the later models but I still see a few of the early models around here.
307’s are and can last 300-500k miles with little other than timing chain and gear upgrades and the occasional intake manifold re-seal. We see them all the time like this in Upstate, NY. In fact I just looked over a very nice 1990 Cadillac Brougham with said 307 at a family reunion owned by a relative since new that goes to Florida each and every year during the Winter months. It now has 310,000 miles and still runs as new with but a new water pump and timing chain set. The 305 Chevy’s did indeed suffer from soft cams and valve guide wear mostly noted during the 70’s and early 80’s but once repaired with a new cam and valve guides typically run for many years without much trouble.
If anything the HT4100 Cadillac motors, 5.7 diesel’s, early carbed Buick 231 V6’s and the notoriously weak 3 speed 200 Metric transmission were the bad spots in the B/C body line and are best avoided.
SBC had problems with poor camshaft metallurgy from the late 1970’s about 1982 or 1983. Water pumps were never a big issue in my experience and even if they did go they were super cheap and easy to replace. Our ’84 305 ran 200K miles without any issue on original cam, water pump and TH700-R4 transmission. There were lots of 305’s from this era that ran to very high mileages.
Olds 307’s were slow but did run for a long time. The rocker arm bridges were a cheap and easy fix. None of the Olds V8’s I owned or worked on ever had this problem anyway. And I’d take an Olds or SBC over a Buick for longevity any day of the week.
The early TH200-4Rs and TH700-R4’s had some issues, but they got better as time went on. It was essential on both transmissions that the TV cable be adjusted properly. Regular fluid and filter changes helped keep them healthy.
Most Olds 307s I saw in the years following their discontinuation never sounded very good – no compression, lots of oil burning. On the contrary, I’ve seen many old Ford 302s in ’80s vintage Panthers that run remarkably well and sound great. Not sure about the actual mechanical reliability of the two, but from simple observation, the old 302s seem to have held up better. I’d say the 307 seems to wear out faster than the the Chevy 305.
Actually, these are one of the best cars that has ever been built. You can’t get a more reliable and solid car than a american fullsize car. I think GM nailed it with the 1977-1990 (1992) B and C -body. Well, the fit and finish may not have been up to Mercedes level. But give me a 1978 Cadillac DeVille with a 425 and Th400 trans, it will last forever. Give me a 1978 Buick with a slow, but reliable Buick 350, even give me a 1989 Caprice with the bad reputation Th200R4 trans behind the 305 TBi engine, These automatics (after 1986) are not so bad as the reputation goes. I have owned a 1989 Caprice with over 150.000 miles on it, and the car is stil going strong today, but with another owner. The car has even an hitch.
Regardless some bad transmissions, those trans are cheap to rebuild, and the rest of the car are actually outstanding when it comes to long lasting reliability.
I grew up in those old Olds barges. We had a 77 and an 81 diesel. The 77 met its end in a demolition derby after many years with us. Before then, the floor had rusted almost completely out, the rear bumper fell off in the driveway, and it ran on 7 cylinders for most of its life. And despite all of that, it would’ve won the competition if it had restarted one last time.
The 81… I have no idea how or why we got rid of it.
Found one of these locally in what looks like very good condition but a 1980 model not exactly common in this part of the world, $10 per gallon gas doesnt help their popularity but survivors do exist
What a great find! I remember these so well, as my mother got a new Oldsmobile in 1983 and I spent a lot of time with my parents at the dealership picking out the car. The featured car’s color combination was Light Briar Brown with a Dark Briar Brown top, and I remember it was very popular. As Mom was going to trade in a 1979 Ninety-Eight LS (Brown with a tan top and tan vinyl), I was certain she would go for this color combo, with the dark brown leather inside–and we would finally upgrade to a Regency with the pillowed seats. Sadly, it was not to be. We drove in the demonstrator Regency Brougham, and she just didn’t really like it, primarily due to the power–or lack thereof. The ’79 had the 403, so the 307 just couldn’t compare. Also, my mother thought the revamped styling made the car look “too big.” She was ready for something trimmer, so we wound up special ordering a Cutass Supreme Sedan to her exact specifications. I got to help with the ordering, and we got a very nice looking, well-equipped smaller Olds to replace the Ninety-Eight. My mother never warmed up to pillowed seating and always preferred vinyl or leather, so she wouldn’t go for a Supreme Brougham. She picked the Supreme with a split bench in vinyl with power controls, all the toys like cruise, tilt, power windows and locks, AM/FM cassette, etc. It was Silver Sand with Super Stock wheels, sport mirrors and no vinyl top. Best of all it had the 5.0 Liter V8, so performance was reasonable for the time and close enough to the old 403, with MUCH better mileage. The Cutlass was still a really strong seller then, and it was easy to see why, though Delta 88s like this one sold like hotcakes too. Still hard to believe how hard and fast the Olds division dive bombed in the 1980s.
Our family had an 83 Oldsmobile as well. Unfortunately It was the front wheel drive Cutlass Ciera with the V6 and 3 speed auto. That car was definitely not a rocket but we kept it a long time. I wished we had a Cutlass Supreme, Delta 88 or even a 98 Regency. All of those cars were better than the Ciera.
Funny — my parents bought a new car in 1983, and I wanted them to get the Cutlass Ciera. I thought it was trim, new and stylish. They ignored teenage me (probably wisely) and got a loaded 88 Royale Brougham almost identical to the one pictured here, except with no vinyl top. It had transmission issues right out of warranty, but otherwise was a handsome, sturdy, comfortable car and they loved it. I found the 307 quite adequate when I drove it.
This is the one B/C-Body car that I think got better looking with the 1980 restyle. The changes are subtle but I agree that they took a lot of “bulk” out of the appearance, which is not to say I don’t like the earlier ones too. However, they are merely cars I appreciate; an ’80-’81 Holiday Coupe with the sunroof and SSIIs, no half-vinyl roof and painted ALL BLACK is something I could get really excited about.
Brendan, I also wimp out on taking interior shots in the city a lot of times. Sometimes I look around and know that someone is gonna give me shit about it and I’d rather not explain myself. Occasionally I’ll even pass on taking any pictures – some days you’re just not in the mood for explaining that you’re not a terrorist/undercover cop/serial killer/etc.
I aborted taking anything but one picture of this very sweet ’78 Royale (what a great color combination!!!) for that very reason. Too many bad vibes standing behind me.
Haven’t gotten the hang of resizing images yet… my stupid bad! Maybe I need to figure out how to set my phone to NOT take pictures at an absurd resolution (and maybe this is also why I’ve already burned up all the space on an 8GB SD card)?
What a fine-looking Oldsmobile! +1 on the great color combination and another for the killer starfish-capped Super Stock IIIs & whitewalls.
+2 The super stocks transform the exterior. Looks great. Unfortunately, those wheels were extremely rare on the ’77-’79 88s.
Had an 80 88 royal Brigham. It guzzled gas worse than a 78lincoln. Handled like a turd. In rain was like driving a ford in the snow . The top of the drovers door fell off. The hood ornament fell off n hit and broke the windshield. The 350 had good power but started to burn oil. Used to floor it and leave tailgaters in a stinking blue cloud. It broke aluminum rocker pivots and burnt a valve. The trim fell off. The stupid cruise control was on the turn signal and if you hit resume while making a turn it would kick I 5 seconds later half way through the turn and if it was wet you would go sideways. What else. The seats broke under non obese people. The windows went outside the tracks if caused at over 30 mph. It was a horrible car but I’ve driven worse. If you want a real dog get same thin wit a v6 0r 301pontiac or a 4100 Cadillac. I traded it for a78 Ford ltd which was better riding and faster and never broke down and got over twice the gas milage. It was bigger. More comfortable very comfortabe and had the cruise safely on the wheel. Nothing broke or fell off and it looked better with flip up lights. I have been driving ford barges anc panthers ever since. Gm cars suck. The per 80 cars were better with larger engines and better transmissions and more weight. The 80 gm restyle was a same size downsizing that ruined these cars. Weak engines transmissions axles. Thinner body work and basically a disaster
I find it difficult no impossible to believe that a 400 powered Lincoln which in every car that I ever drove with this engine achieved around 10 city and 15 highway got twice the mileage as an 80 Olds 88 even with the 350 Rocket V8 which was easily capable of 15 city and 20 plus highway. Also these late 70’s Fords before they downsized into the Panther bodies 79 LTD’s and 80 Town Cars had the worst steering I have ever encountered and rode very soft due to overly mushy suspensions. Any Body with the cheap F41 suspension option was light years better. Yes a 70’s Ford 3 speed automatic is easily more reliable than a GM 200 metric 3 speed. By contrast the 80 4 speed AOD Ford had lawsuits for stalling out in traffic and early failures so each suffered problems in these years.
Comparison. Panther std v8. Olds v6
Transmission decent aid(watch the 3$tv bushing) . Olds 200 grenade trans.
Axle ford decent ratios n never broke. Olds to high and weak.
Seats ford sturdy and comfortable. Olds weak. Collapsed under a 100 lb man.
Body ford held up. Olds rusted out.
Cruise ford safe on wheel. Olds dangerous on turn signal.
Ford average 15 plus per gallon. Olds under 10.
Ford everything worked. Olds every thing didn’t.
Vinal top ford cracked and pealed and caused rust. Olds best vinal top ever.
Ford headliner stays up. Olds headliner falls down.
Ford paint looked good for years. Olds faded and peeled and could not be washed in car wash.
Ford better trunk. Olds too shallow and fell down.
Handling ford competent. Olds scary.
Ford rode like on glass. Olds like a truck.
Ford had vent windows. Olds Windows don’t seal if raised over 30 mph.
Ford was better in every way except the vinal top. Recommend anyone considering this buy an ltd or grand marquis or town car or mark 6 or get an m body fifth ave. If you must have a gm full size get a per 80.
Not all B-bodies had the THM200. I couldn’t tell you which, but I’m guessing the early models with the larger engines (Chevy 350/Olds 403/etc.) had the THM350 instead. I also believe the 200 was improved later on, especially the OD version, and anything that still exists in working order is “one of the good ones”, as they say.
FWIW, I always liked the GM turn signal cruise control, although most non-car people seem unable to master it for whatever reason. As long as your fingers aren’t ridiculously tiny, you can work it without even taking your hands off the wheel.
Also LOL @ making a list of why your 30 year old car is better than another 30 year old car. Who cares at this point?! It’s not a competition!
It is a competition to insecure tiny minds. Remember: Ford RULZ. Oldmobill sux.
Sounds like your 80 Olds was a disaster. I had an 84 Olds 98 that was a pretty good car, and also an 85 Crown Vic. In my experience, the difference is closer than yours. My Olds had a tranny go out at 56K (although over 13 yrs old) and my Vic was getting oil in the anti-freeze when I traded it at 72K (and 10 yrs old). FWIW, Consumer Reports was giving Ford the better ratings by 1984-85. I liked things about both. The Olds felt heavier and more solid. It felt more like a traditional big car. The Ford felt lighter weight – the body felt less substantial, but the car’s handling felt more nimble. I got similar fuel mileage out of both. The Ford felt quicker off the line, but I much preferred the operating characteristics of the Olds tranny to the Ford AOD.
Both of mine had niggling problems. The automatic temp control system in the Olds never worked right, and the door locks in the Ford were frozen up and would only work via power. The Olds had a couple of electrical shorts that took awhile to run down and the Ford ate an a/c compressor. Neither was a perfect car, but neither was horrible.
The Panthers from the first half of the 80s were far from bulletproof, and the early AOD transmissions were not reputed to be all that strong either. In my midwestern area, the panthers (at least the Ford and Mercury versions) rusted worse than the B bodies. Honestly, most problems you had with your Olds I did not experience. On my personal scale, if the car was from the first half of the 80s, I vote B body. If from the second half of the 80s, I vote Panther.
I’m with you on the first half/second half dichotomy except the upper-most rung: I would still take the C/”D” Cadillac over the Lincoln in the second half of the 80s and except for the ’80 Cadillac would probably take the Panther Lincoln over the HT4100 Cadillac for the first half of the greed decade. Which is precisely opposite the trajectory of their popularity during that decade!
Well, Orrin – you remind me that I need a late box Town Car to update my big car comparo. I owned a good pairing of earlier Panther/B-C bodies, and I added an 89 Cad Brougham. My son has an 89 Grand Marquis, which should be close, but I am sure is not quite there as to interior appointments. It is conceivable that I could be talked into joining you on the Cad Brougham over the Town Car. It is that damned AOD, which has the most miserable shift characteristics of any automatic I have ever driven.
I think GM’s automatics very often had better shift characteristics than Ford. The Ford C6 never shifts as smooth as the TH400 as an example.
Today I’m not sure, but the Ford AOD wasn’t a good transmission, shift characteristics and reliability is not good.
It’s impossible to be really satisfied by either.
The 302 is a slightly better engine for what passes for “acceleration”, but not so much so that its really “better” than the 307. I don’t think I ever maintained 65 behind either up a hill without at least a downshift to third if not to second.
The AOD vs. the THM200R4 is not the most wonderful comparison either. I had no issues with the 200R4 in my Cadillac, I will say that, in 175K all it needed was new fluid and filter every 30K per the manual. No flush, no bands, no nada. The AOD was more troublesome (bands), and always shifted jerkily.
The 302 wins on maintenance because you don’t have that stupid eQjet that was the bane of my existence. However, what work I myself could perform on the car, I noted that the 307 was slightly easier (plugs, etc.). On the other hand, the 302 at least didn’t have 50 miles of vacuum lines. Yet, I thought the diagnostic codes on the 307 were easier to read.
It’s hard to really love either. Which always leads me back to an ’80 Cadillac on that bodystyle as the first choice. No eQJet. No HT4100. A THM400, no Ford AOD. No Ford VV carb.
Favorite b body 78 0lds 88 holiday 403. Still rather have 78 ford Lincoln mercury or chryslet
Hooked on phonics much?
+1
Of course everyone here knows that I am An Olds guy all the way, and while the Cutlass Supreme is my personal favorite, these early 80’s Deltas are my second favorite Oldsmobiles, and also really help define what an Oldsmobile should be. What few times I have gotten to either ride in one or at least be around one, the feeling that they were just a little better than the average family car was always there. For a large car, they just seemed “right”.
And it’s funny to think that to me these were always true family cars for the upper middle class, mainly because when I was young, that’s who I remember owning these, not old folks!
+1. This is how I remember Oldsmobiles too. They were nice cars and a suburban status symbol in a quiet sort of way. They were driven by parents and sometimes teenagers who got to borrow their parent’s car (like me and many of my friends). Older folks drove them too, but in no way were they “old people’s” cars back then–that happened in the later 1980s and 1990s.
Yep. Not only did my fifty-something parents have one of these 88s, but so did my twenty-something sister and new husband (actually, it was an 1984 88 Royale Brougham coupe.) I guess the coupe was slightly more youthful!
Agree Richard. When I was little in the early-mid 80s (3-4), a lot of “big kids” (10-15 y/o) Dads were driving these, and Ford Crown Victorias. I always figured them to be a car your Dad would drive. Was supposed to drive, when he got to be 45-50. If he was working a good job. A car for grownups. Not for grandpas. Grandpas drove Broughams, Town Cars, and 98s. That made sense. Oldsters were the only people who could afford really big, expensive cars. And the only people who looked right in them. What kind of 40 year old professional was going to be driving a big Cadillac? It’d look like an associate trying out a partner’s desk chair in his office during lunch break. My grandfather was a bank president. He wore three piece suits and horn-rim glasses well into the 80s and what the hey would you be doing driving his DeVille, Bud Fox? Didn’t we just hire you 2 years ago? Although financing had been going on for a while and the corporate structure had already begun to obliterate them, even then, at the tail end, you could see kind of a hierarchy in the business world that was controlled by the WWII generation. Look at the GM ads from the early 80s. Families in the Chevies and Olds. Salt and pepper board chairmen in the ’82 Fleetwood.
Of course it was the 80s and as noted tastes were already changing quickly so my dad never reached an Olds phase, sometime between ’80 and ’85 whatever was left of those parameters was washed away by the boom…some of his friends who made money quickly in the Reagan uptick were getting in to MBs and Cherokees about this time. If they had had B-Bodies before they sold them. They never made it “up” to the C-Bodies. By 1985, clearly, it wasn’t “up” anymore. Everything was changing–computers in the office and at home, faxes, barriers of all kinds breaking down and new and different goals for a new generation. The old guys hit 65 and retired, and appropriately, so did these. Cs morphed into FWD old people cars and Bs, except the Chevrolet, largely disappeared.
Their disappearance was appropriate, a fitting symbol of the changing of the guard. Yet something was lost. These represent the last few years when an Olds in the garage meant you were a middle class man with a good job, at least, anywhere but maybe NYC and LA. I like them. They’re honest and are quietly successful. We see too little of either. Is there any car today that broadcasts that “I am doing well, but not getting ahead of myself” vibe? Not really (especially since Lexuses are now old people cars, too).
You hit the nail on the head. My father, born in the late 1920s, always wanted a Cadillac, and could have afforded one for most of his career. However, he didn’t get one until he retired, as it wouldn’t have seemed “right” otherwise. (That car was a lemon, by the way, and really soured his Cadillac dreams). We enjoyed Buicks, Pontiacs and Oldsmobiles for the most part, and they were totally appropriate for their mission and the social statement they made. I miss the “upper middle” brands, though I agree their demise was due in large part to changing society. Automaker’s offerings also played a factor, as I remember several Chevrolet Caprice Classics my father had as company cars which were pretty much just as nice as the Buick LeSabres that they replaced. So why pay more for a badge, especially when unique engines and styling went by the wayside? Today, I suppose that Japanese brands like Acura, Infiniti and Lexus primarily fill this shrunken market segment, but somehow they just aren’t the same. Maybe Buick is gradually getting back there, as I am starting to see Enclaves emerging as a “smart” suburban choice, along with Grand Cherokees. If today’s Ford-based Lincolns were still badged as Mercurys they would fit this niche too (of course, in this scenario vehicles bearing the Lincoln brand would be proper RWD luxury flagships). Unfortunately, most choices today are either total mass market or “high” luxury with not much in between.
What a thought-provoking analysis! Interesting. Thanks for posting it.
While these cars had a lot of shortcomings they were way better than the awful fwd cars that replaced them. So long as they had an over301cid engine they were OK. If not for theruination caused by the switch to fwd tthere would probably still be an Oldsmobile decision. Last gm cars I would ever consider owning would be a 93 to 96 roadmaster Fleetwood or caprice. Still the thought of owning anything gm scares me but the bigger cars were the best of the bunch. Just remember to stay away from the v6 231 Buick. The 265 and 267 and 260 engines. The diesel and the 301 Pontiac and ht 4100 and they were OK. Still prefer a Victoria or Marquis though.
I preferred the c body to the b. I remember driving an 84 park ave as a taxi. It was really nice except the 4.1 v6 was under powered and thirsty. The best automotive seats ever. That car was beautiful. Buicks had the best dash and seats and except for the v6 was just about perfect. Way better than the b body olds somehow. And the 4.1 lasted a long time too. Way over 200k miles. With a v8 this car would have been perfect. I remember when it died the owner had a wrecked v6 delta 88 and we put the Buick interior in the olds and the front clip from the Buick on the olds and had a first rate second rate car. Old pick was awful to the extreme. 3.8 with no power and no power steering. Also horrid interior with powers nothing with those sumptuous Buick seats. It made it long enough to find a decent car.
I like the Buick dash as well. Having driven Electras and Fleetwood Broughams, one thing I like more about the Cadillac dash, however, is that the glove compartment is up higher and vertical. Although the front legroom figures in the brochures don’t seem to bear it out, I believe that positioning of the passenger side dash in the Cadillac gave the right front passenger more “knee room” than was available in the Buick, because the Buick’s glove compartment slanted in and down at knee level.
Never driven a C-Body Olds. Vividly remember though, when as a little boy was driven in an ’80-’84 98 by a rich and rather elegant old lady whom my mother had befriended. Appropriately, in grey with grey cloth. It had been her late husband’s car. Solid and comfortable.
I love the B-Body Delta 88 and 98. My Grandfather had a ’78 98, and my Dad had a ’79 88. The 88 was a terrible car (horrible engine), but to me that is what a grown-up should drive.
I’d love to have one in my garage now.
Along with the G-Body Cutlass, these are the last great cars that made Oldsmobile a legendary American brand.
I have a 60K mile 84 88 Royale Broungham (with optional ‘rallye gauges!) There is nothing sold new today that comes anywhere close to matching the comfort these cars offer.
Back in the day, my Mom bought a new 1982 Delta 88 coupe, 2 tone Redwood with a burgundy interior, Rallye wheels and a 307. It was a sharp car and Ive never seen another one like it despite the trillions of Olds B-Bodies they built in those years. It was the first car I ever drove and it would have been my first car had my older brother not wrecked it a month before I got my license.
4 years later and I’m still driving my Delta 88! Just turned 80K and still runs amazing!
I had a 1985 Olds Delta for a little while. It was a barge with comfy seats. I remember when I hydroplaned on the road one day as I was cresting a hill. The drivers in the cars below scurried out of the way real fast. Nothing like the Titanic coming at you.
I have a G Body 1985 Cutlass Supreme Brougham and the grill does resemble its big brother Delta(the trim around the headlights is the exact same as the Delta 88’s as i had to replace the left one when I got the car)
I had two ’85 Deltas back in ’03-’04-ish. One was a gray beater Royal Brougham I bought for $40 at a towyard, the next was a much cleaner midnight blue Royale with the midnight blue vinyl top and matching interior, limo tint and wire wheelcovers. I paid $150 for that one at another tow yard. They were supposed to be flip cars but I hung onto both for awhile because I liked them so much (but I always had a soft spot for the 80’s box-barges). I had a couple Panther LTD’s before this and thought the 307 was a bit more powerful in comparison but I later got an ’88 Grand Marquis with its’ fuel-injected 302 which beat the 307 hands-down. I put the gray one in a ditch and the undercarraige got high-centered on concrete. They pulled it out no worse for the wear besides a leaky fuel tank. I scrapped it, sold my blue one and still want it back. For whatever reason that dark blue ’85 was quite popular with the females (ok it was a chick magnet), and idk why since I was in a ritzy suburb populated by ritzy upscale cars. Ghetto charm? I subjected those Deltas to a LOT of abuse and they never broke on me. For a younger guy on a budget when ARCO gas was still .99 a gallon those Delta 88’s were the truth. I later had a next-gen Delta 88 with FWD & the 3800 and it was just a boring forgettable car. It gave me no reason to hate it but I did, it just didn’t measure up to the old-school cruisers I had before it.
Always wanted to like these Oldses, but I can’t stand them. Too many painful memories of my ’82, which looked exactly like this one, except for the burgundy interior. The absolute WORST car I ever owned in my 30+ years of cars. It ate up an engine and two transmissions. Headliner drooped. Dashboard disintegrated in pieces of flaky foam. Everything broke, including weird stuff like on no other car. Power windows shorted out in a thunderstorm. Trunk springs broke, dropping the lid on my head – within hours of purchase. The brakes broke, getting me into an accident – on the second day of ownership. The horn button broke, beeping on every bump. The last straw was the driveshaft coming loose at 60mph, nearly killing me. All this when the car was less than 9 years old, an outwardly clean, low-mileage creampuff bought from the original owner (who must have been as glad to be rid of it as I eventually was). I’m a big GM fan who still owns a vintage Chevy, but I CHEERED when Oldsmobile was discontinued.
Sorry big beat. Your 82 sounds like my 80. I found best fix is trade it for an LTD Marquis Town car. I grew up in a gm family. I traded my olds o. A ford LTD n had a big reliable comfortable car that held up. Since then if had 2 78 Ltd s 78 continental 88town car. 93 t bird v8. All excellent cars. Rest of my family drive Toyota and Lexus cars. Only reason I don’t is I don’t like anything smaller than an ltd and I hat front wheel drive and unit body construction. If I had to have a new car would have to be a v8 charger 300 or challenger at least those have v8 rear wheel drive and look decent unlike anything else now made.
I have owned Oldsmobile’s for years and really love the Cutlass and 88’s. All of these reports of transmissions blowing up makes me wonder. Sure the 200 Metric units were undersized and often failed early mostly behind V8 engines. The 200R4 introduced in 1981 was better but had it’s issues. I know a transmission guy who has been doing this for over 40 years. He says that many of these transmission are mis-diagnosed. One of the most common things to fail on 200/200R4 transmissions is the lockup torque converter clutch solenoid which causes a variety of ills such as harsh shifting, delayed shifts, shuddering and lugging. Lots of customers brought these types of cars in being told the transmission was shot and needed an expensive replacement. The fix- a simple $30.00 solenoid that is replaced by dropping the transmission oil pan and a retaining screw. In some cases the TPS sensor in the carburetor developed a fault or went bad also causing many of these symptoms. That too is a fairly easy enough fix. The 200 Metric often loses reverse at first so that is an early sign that it is ready to fail. The THM 350 and 400 units were tough and reliable and I never lost one in any of my 70’s and early 80’s Cutlasses.
Also owner neglect came into play. Not servicing the carburetor and transmission can lead to all sorts of trouble. In fact many G and B body cars I have looked at over the years probably never even had there transmission serviced judging by the dark burnt fluid. The lighter weight engines and transmissions of the 70’s and 80’s often required more from the customer in terms of added service intervals and special care. Much of this was ignored by the general public until it was too late and the car in question was declared a POS. And out of nearly 20 Oldsmobiles and GM’s over the years, I only had trouble with my 1981 V8 Grand Prix with the Metric 200 transmission that lost reverse. Not one 350, 200R4 or 700R4 owned since has failed me and I use them hard and drive them many miles a year.
I have found ford aod is fine if you lock out of when off the highway and seems to be smoother behind the more powerful engines. Weak spot is the 3$ TV bushing in my experience.
Hi All,
I guess I should chime in on the talk. That is my car! It is so cool that so many people like it. By the way the trunk is slightly open because lunch and tools were needed on the site. I have a few of them but they are getting a bit rusty on the undercarriage. Not bad but its not a pleasure to work on stuff like that. The one in the picture has either a timing chain issue or something now and is off the road. The carb has been an issue with starting off the line you have to let off a bit then give more gas or it bogs. I also have a nice black 98 but I hate the 200r tranny. that one stays inside. I have a white 82 2 door 88 as a commuter but it is nearing the end also. I have driven these in and out of boston and all over 495 for years at about 60-75 miles a day. they don’t leave you stranded much and seem to make it home real slow or something. I am not sure if I should fix the one in the picture or just get a grand marques (05-10) years.
Thanks Phil
In the late ’90s/early 00s, I owned a ’78 Delta 88 and later on, a ’79 Buick Electra. The Olds had a 350 Rocket/Turbo 350 while the Buick had a 403/Turbo 400. They were both awesome cars, unbeatable highway cruisers. I took 4 of us along with 4 golf bags and a cooler on a golf outing in supreme comfort with room to spare. I like the ’80-up coupes styling better but in all other respects prefer the ’77-’79 cars, which were built with heavier materials and had generally better power trains. These were some of the best designs GM ever made – smooth, quiet, roomy and reliable.
While I prefer the 1977-79 styling I do believe Oldsmobile did a much better job with the 1980 restyling than the Chevrolet and Buick models (though I do like the 1984-85 Buick LeSabre much better than the 1980-83 versions), I also thought the 1977-79 B-bodies offered better powertrains than the 1980-up models.
I had one of these “huge” B body Olds. Visually, to me, it was the best looking after the 71-72s. Fortunately, unlike the initial description, this B body Olds did NOT have straight lines, equally “balanced” over hangs or front/rear glass angles. No competent designer would ever do such things….except maybe to a US mail truck!!
This Olds was a harmonious blend of curves, taught lines and well balanced proportions. Hence the fine visual appeal of a still large car, but with Olds’ design cues.
I did not own mine for long, as the seats were too soft, handling was non-existent plus what fuel economy? Other than that, it looked nice!! DFO
What a wonderful way to wake up from the late shift! Boom! B-body front and center.
Life is good.
“These headlights and grille are the first things that come to mind when I think ’80s Oldsmobile.” I always think of the G-Body Cutlass Supreme, which had an interesting slope to it. My favorite Oldsmobile for certain.
GM design in the early to mid 80s owed so much to the ’75 Seville.
Too much.
I owned an ’85 Delta 88 for many years as my daily driver. It was a great car overall. It was very reliable, comfortable and got great mileage for a car from that era. The 307 was slow, but always ran very well and never had to be opened up. Being a Canadian market car it had a standard Q-Jet with a fully mechanical distributor (mechanical/vacuum advance) and no ECM (not even for the TH200-4R lockup). My car was a relatively low optioned car, with crank windows, no A/C, non-brougham interior (plain cloth seats), and F41 suspension. While it was slow, it was comfortable, and could cruise at 75 MPH all day long while still getting low 20 MPG’s.
For a while, an immediate family member’s ’78 Delta 88 shared the driveway with my ’85. The ’78 was much quicker and more powerful with the 350 Olds (although it was not a particularly fast car), but used a fair bit more gas. I remember the doors being substantially heavier on the older Olds too, but they were pretty similar overall. I preferred the 77-79 styling over the ’85.
I think it’s quite humorous that some people in the comments section feel the need to bash the B-bodies and have to prove that the panthers were superior. I actually had both back to back, and I liked both cars. Each had their pluses and minuses, but overall the Ford Panthers and the GM B-bodies were excellent cars for the time. IMO when Ford went to MPFI in 1986, it definitely had a significant advantage over the E4ME Q-jets, especially for long term ease of maintenance. I am sure this was big factor that help Ford pull ahead in the reliability ratings. As time went on it was harder and harder to find mechanics that could get a electronic Q-Jet to run properly. Once Chevrolet went to TBI in 1989, they were pretty well on par, although the 302 MPFI was a bit better performance wise.
In terms of durability and reliability, those GM B-Bodies were hard to beat. I’ve owned 4 of them, all Caprices. A ’77 Landau Coupe, a ’79 Sedan, a ’84 Wagon, and a ’87 Wagon. Of the group, the ’77 was my favorite, but they all served flawlessly in the time they spent in our garage. Ditto my parents ’79 Cadillac deVille, or my in-laws ’87 Fleetwood.
In fairness, the Panther’s were just as durable and reliable. I had two Grand Marquis that soldiered on for a total of over 300K miles with a minimum of repairs other than routine maintenance. In-laws just gave their ’97 Crown Vic to a grandson last year when they bought a new C-Class Mercedes. I’m still not sure who got the better end of that bargain (The ‘Vic was still like new, even with 200K miles showing).
Look at the roofline and trunk of this Olds – now you know why today’s sedans with their swoopy rooflines and tiny trunks are being abandoned in favour of CUVs.
True. Now look at the V8 motor in the front, drive wheels in the back, and check out full-size pickup sales since this car was built. Americans never stopped buying full size V8-powered family vehicles- they just adapted to different body styles.
The sorriest face that Olds ever put on a car was the Super Sad Sack front of the ’54.
The drooping right & left sides and lumpy, protruding canines were soggy & stodgy. How did this ever get into production, fronting a new sleek, streamlined body?!
Best face-lift ever — in ’55.
Crisp, clean, exciting & modern.
I agree the ’77-’79 Olds front end looked too much like a tall wall, but other than that I weigh in on the side of the ’77-’79 cars vs. the ’80-up units. Look at the very front of the beltline where it comes to meet the trailing edge of the rear fender. That’s a graceful, attractive upsweep on the ’77-’79 cars. On the ’80-up cars it’s a drunken course correction that looks like “Dammit, we’re gonna miss our exit! Quick, turn, TURN!”. The sail panel/C-pillar and the backglass rake angle on the early cars is more attractive, to my eye, than the more upright ’80-up design. The ’77, ’78, and ’79 taillamps all strike me as smartly integral to the overall design; on the ’80-up cars they look too fat. The early car’s face is too blocky? Okeh, but the later front end looks thrown-together to me. Too, there’s that sideview mirror. The mirror head, with its random bloatassed shape, is apparently the same as used on a great many ’71-’76 B-bodies (themselves a sad mess of bloat). The ’77-’79 B-cars got a rounded-rectangle chrome sideview mirror, which looked much more appropriate with the overall body.
And why, why did they have to paint so many of the later cars in this rancid-meat colour? Gross.
My dad had a 1980 and a 1983 Delta 88 as company cars. I remember that there was a toggle in the dashboard near the radio that controlled the passenger side door mirror. I was mesmerized how the cable was able to manipulate the door mirror from such a distance. There was a yellow button in the glove compartment that released the trunk lid electrically. The glove compartment had a simple hole from which the illumination light would shine through it, which I thought was kind of crude. I was gratified that the rear windows actually rolled down on these cars unlike the Cutlass Supreme of the time.
I remember thinking the same thing about the mirror in my grandfather’s ‘85 model. I also thought the warning lights in the middle of the dash were pretty cool.
An old taxi driver I once worked with had one of these cars that he kept in great shape. It was the same shade of light green as the 77-79 model in the brochure picture, but he later painted it white and some years later it was written off in an accident. But it was a regular sight on the West Coast of Barbados for many years. RIP Harold.
> I’ve never really cared for the ’77-’79 88s. Their headlights were too tall, and lacked substantial wraparound turn signals.
The green car in the brochure shot is a ’78; in ’79 the wraparound turn signals were enlarged. The ’77 by contrast didn’t have wraparound turn signals at all, and neither did the Custom Cruisers from all three years which had different front fenders.
I agree that the 1980 facelift improved the looks of this car (and the 98 as well). Some of the B/C bodies looked better pre-facelift, some post-. The interior didn’t change much throughout the entire run and was always a nice place to be.
I read at the time that, in addition to aerodynamic improvement, the ’80 restyle was intended to make the B/C cars appear larger, rather ill-timed right after the ’79 gas crisis. They also lost several hundred pounds of weight, which to me made them appear flimsier, as if the sheet metal were thinner. The puny engines didn’t help.
I remember being surprised as a teenager, how much larger they seemed. Compared to the ’77 to ’79 versions.
Daniel M:
The B’s got bigger yet, for model year 1991, with the aero reskin for Caprice, Roadmaster, et al. For the Caprice at least, this meant a marginally longer, wider, taller, and slightly heavier body on the same 1977 B-chassis.
I have a brother-in-law who “LOVES” the BIG Olds Delta 88’s. He owns a small “JUNK YARD” and has 6 of these as either his winter cars or summer cars – he switches with the Michigan seasons!