(first posted 11/12/2012) I know that a couple of our regular contributing writers–and they know who they are–will be most interested in my latest CC find, a G-body Cutlass Supreme that happens to be–get ready, friends and neighbors–a Brougham as well. After the GM A-bodies became G-bodies, each division did its own thing when it came to deciding what models stayed in the lineup. Consider the sedans: The Chevy and Buick versions departed after ’83. Pontiac’s G-body Bonneville lasted until 1986, after which it became an H-body. But Oldsmobile, arguably the purveyor of the best A/G-bodies in the corporation, kept its sedans going all the way to 1987. All in all, not a bad run for an Olds model that had flopped (at least in four-door form) when it came out in 1978.
And just why did the Aeroback Cutlass Salon two- and four-door sedans bomb? Well, er…the Aeroback styling, perhaps? While the look was rather European, in a Broughamy kind of way, most folks just didn’t take to it. Their traditionally-styled, three-box LeMans and Malibu cousins did a fair bit better. Still, Oldsmobile probably wasn’t terribly broken up about that, since at the same time they were selling truckloads of (also) newly-downsized Cutlass Supreme coupes.
As well as the CS coupes were selling, though, a laggard like the Aeroback in the lineup was bad for business–especially when buyers who didn’t want a fastback sedan could walk across the street and buy a Grand LeMans or Malibu Classic. As a result, for 1980 Olds treated the four-door to a makeover cribbed from the first-gen Seville, and the restyled version sold much better.
While it may have been derivative of the pricey Caddy, it did look nice. Certainly Olds buyers didn’t mind the resemblance, but the effect of such brand dilution on all GM divisions wouldn’t turn out to be all that wonderful, as an even more blatant corporate sameness permeated all GM divisions during the ’80s.
In 1986, the Cutlass Supreme coupes still looked fresh after an attractive 1981 makeover, but aside from annual updates to trim, wheel covers, grill and tail lights, the sedan hadn’t changed much since 1980. Nonetheless, the CS line was still going gangbusters, and plenty of folks–young folks, even–wanted a Cutlass Supreme in their driveway. These were comfortable, cushy cars, particularly in Brougham trim. Wanna ride through town in your favorite chair? One of these could make it happen.
How did Olds do it? Plush, floating-pillow seating. Although this a coupe interior, the Brougham sedans got the very same thrones. Not everybody wanted BMWs in the mid-’80s, and particularly not Midwesterners. When I was a little kid, Cutlasses like these were absolutely everywhere.
As was previously mentioned, the other GM divisions essentially replaced their RWD A-bodies with FWD versions. Big wagons were history after the ’83 model year, having been replaced by new Chevrolet Celebrity, Pontiac 6000, Buick Century and Olds Cutlass Ciera wagons. The Buick Regal and Chevy Malibu sedans also made their last appearance that year. The A-body LeMans disappeared after 1981, but a face-lifted version took the Bonneville mantle in 1982 and kept it through 1986. But if you wanted a four-door G-body in 1987, you’d have to pay a visit to your friendly local Olds dealer. Just ask for Jerry Lundegaard!
The final changes to the Cutlass Supreme sedan came in 1986. The new federally-mandated CHMSL identified ’86s from the back, while a smoothed-out eggcrate grille was prominent up front. As had been the case since 1980, the 3,320-lb. (3,341 pounds in Brougham trim) sedan’s dimensions were quite tidy compared with those of the current Delta 88, not to mention the previous decade’s Colonnade Cutlasses.
Like the coupes, the sedan measured 200.4″ in length and had a 108.1″ wheelbase. Interestingly, the coupes had one more cubic foot of trunk space than the 15.2 cu. ft. capacity of the sedans. By the 1986-87 period, Cutlass Supremes came standard with a 231 cu in, 110 hp V6; the optional four-barrel 307 V8 added 30 horses to the tally. Also standard was a three-speed automatic. A four-speed automatic with overdrive was optional.
The 1986 CS sedan, which started at $10,872, was the most popular varaint with 41,973 copies sold. Less popular, but more plush, was the $11,551 Brougham sedan, of which 24,646 were sold. And by the way, our featured CC here is either an ’86 or ’87. I know of no way other than the VIN number to ID the year, so let’s just call it an ’86 since Olds built more of them that year.
Befitting their position in the GM hierarchy, these cars were pretty well-equipped even in standard, non-Brougham trim. Standard features included AT, deluxe wheel discs, power front disc/rear drum brakes, power steering, deluxe bumper guards and rub strips, dual outside mirrors, and bright roof drip, rocker panel and wheel opening moldings. All in all, a rather solid choice for young families in Minneapolis, Kansas City or Cedar Rapids–even if the rear windows didn’t roll down.
The flossier Brougham, on the other hand, got lots of extras. Its niceties included chrome belt-reveal moldings, wide rocker moldings (with front and rear fender extensions), the aforementioned plush seating with a 55/45 split front bench in Summit knit velour (in place of the Bronte velour in the basic CS), and the Convenience Group, which added an under-hood light, a trunk light and all-important visor vanity mirror.
If all that additional equipment wasn’t enough, you could load your Brougham up even further with A/C, cruise control, power door locks, power front windows/rear window vents, opera lamps, vinyl roof, front and rear lamp monitors, Soft-Ray tinted glass and intermittent-pulse wipers. You could even get Sierra grain leather inside. The Cutlass logo mudflaps pictured above were most likely dealer-installed.
If you didn’t care for the deluxe wheel covers or virtually ubiquitous wire wheel covers (I estimate 95% of Cutlass Supremes had the wires), attractive chrome Super Stock wheels (digitally modeled above) were available, as were lacy-spoke alloy wheels and our CC’s color-keyed wheels with chrome trim rings.
The alloys were particularly good-looking, and I was surprised to find them in the brochure. I don’t think I ever saw these wheels on the street. They look nice, but all those little die-cut slots must have been a bear to keep clean.
Like so many ’80s domestic cars, you really had choices when it came to interior trim. Among the five Cutlass Supreme interior colors were dark red, saddle tan and the dark blue seen here. Also offered were a wide variety of exterior colors, including Light Teal Blue, Light Sage Green, Medium Red Metallic, Yellow Beige, and our featured CC’s classic white.
The Brougham’s back seat was just as cushy, although perhaps a bit claustrophobic with that fixed window. I imagine Zackman would have a few words to say about this! Fortunately, this didn’t become a trend; the GM10 Cutlass Supreme sedan, which finally debuted in 1990, had roll-down rear windows.
I first spotted this Brougham on the road near the Deere Works, in East Moline. All I could tell was that it was in really nice condition. Fortunately, I recently spotted it again just a stone’s throw away from my old alma mater, Augustana College. The Quad Cities might be a sort of Midwestern Eugene when it comes to cool old cars still in service, but this one was especially nice–and also rare, as I don’t see many A/G-body sedans. Coupes, yes, even these days, but not sedans.
It looks like the owner is a Cubs fan, which makes sense–lots of Cubs and Cards fans in these parts. From the original dealer tag–Cuculich Olds, in Berwyn, IL–it appears to have come from the Chicago area. When I attended Augie, lots and lots of students (probably three-quarters) were from Chicago and the surrounding ‘burbs. As a local, I was the odd man out. Every Friday, you could see a stream of older vehicles full of students, all heading for “Scenic 88” and the Windy City.
As nice as this one is, there are just a couple of things I’d change. I’d have to have whitewalls–it’s a Brougham, for crying out loud–and I’d fix that minor rust on the rear-quarter panel. And there, now it’s perfect!
After the last G-body Cutlass Supreme Classic came off the line in 1988, Olds really started to struggle with what to do next. The swoopy new Cutlass Supreme was nice, but their questionable “not your father’s Oldsmobile” ad campaign did more harm than good: It not only alienated Oldsmobile’s traditional customers, but didn’t fool the younger buyers they were trying to attract, many of whom probably wound up buying Acura Integras. After trying repeatedly to recapture that old Olds magic during the ’90s and early ’00s, Olds finally entered the history books after a brief 2004 model year. I still miss them today.
So let’s look back fondly on the Cutlass Supreme Brougham. It may not have been perfect, but it was a real Olds–with all the traditional Oldsmobile comfort, reliability and style–for its time.
For the Aeroback, I heard some stories then Bill Mitchell wanted to revive the 1940s fastback design in an updated version. I also heard they was designed originally as a hatchback including folding seats but the beancounters had a word to say….
Mitchell retired in ’77, so I don’t know how much influence he had on the aerobacks, but on the other hand, it does make some sense.
Bill Mitchell reitred in 1977, yes, but GM didn’t just “whip up” the 1978 A/G bodies over the summer of 1977.
The Aerobacks were locked in long before fall 1977 intro. The new notchbacks must have been ready in case they flopped. Only two years later did these appear.
Bill M had alot to do with the 1977-80 new cars at GM, including the bustle back Seville.
And, my favorites, the downsized-for-‘79 E-Body coupes (Toronado, Eldorado, Riviera).,
My brother and sister in law had a 79 aeroback (4door). Was the two tone yellow/gold. Body color wheels. I remember it drove very quiet,smooth. Traveled from Pgh to Worlds Fair in Knoxville TN. (1982). Of course, back home to Pgh as well.
If you think about it, the Aerobacks may have been ahead of their time. Today, all sedans seem to have abandoned the “three box” look. It’s also interesting to see the Aerobacks suffered from a malady that infects cars of today: Awkwardly shaped trunk openings. Honestly, some trunks are huge, but one feels as though you’re loading them though a mail slot.
If this thread were on a messageboard format, I’d boost this up as an interesting point in light of the NYIAS ’18 Honda/Toyota page’s discussion of sedans dying out in favor of crossovers.
the fixed back seat window is unforgivable, really. As much as I hate the (only half-way) down of many GM cars from that era this just seems sloppy. Just a few short years from the brilliantly designed mechanisms form the mid 70s (they rolled forward then down somehow), this effort was phoned in.
I agree. It’s unforgivable and a good reason not to own one of these POS.
I ride in the back seat a lot. I mean, all the time and it really sucks. None of my family can breathe back there so I get the back seat because I love them so much. I lose 5 mpg due to the air resistance of the ventipanes when they’re open but I always must have the windows down, especially in February. Yeah, these cars are real POSs.
These days, with ubiquitous A/C, would this really matter? The only time the windows other than the driver’s window ever get used in my Town Car is when I run them up and down a couple times once a month to keep the mechanisms from gumming up.
Minivans didn’t have opening windows for over 20 years.
I don’t understand the hate, I’m not even sure it was lazy engineering. It was probably actually safer that way with kids in the back, especially in those days when most people didn’t wear seat belts and lock-out switches weren’t around.
These were around for the 1st generation Mopar magic vans, whose greenhouse was everything the back seat of these were not.
In the late ’70s and throughout the ’80s it was super common NOT to buy AC in the northern states.
This car is almost identical to my brother’s ’86 Cutlass Supreme, although his was not a brougham. Other than chrome trim on the lower body and the interior, which was tan in his car, and didn’t have the pillow top seats (which I never liked anyway), this car is a spitting image. He even had the Olds Super Stock wheels with white letter BFG T/A’s (upsized to 215/70-14s) and true dual exhaust with magnaflows (with a custom made transmission cross-member to accomodate). His car was a Canadian market car so it had a Chevy 305 4-bbl inplace of the old dog slow 307 Olds. With the dual exhaust and a few of my tune-up tricks, this car was pretty fast (for it’s day) and still knocked down excellent gas mileage. It also had the F-41 suspension and was an excellent handler. He drove the car for a lot of years and it was a tough reliable car. Although it was loved by him, his wife hated the car and so did many of his co-workers (it was pretty loud). He ended up finally selling a few years ago, but the stories still live on about this car’s greatness.
Personally, I love the look of these cars with the superstock wheels and the white letter tires. It gave them a bit of a sport sedan look vs the “old man” look with the wires and white walls. The A/G body sedans when equipped right (ie without the terrible stock super soft suspension) were great drivers cars. The late 70’s Malibu’s with F-41 suspensions made great cops cars because of there handling (LA Sherriff Dept used them to replace the excellent Nova Police cars).
The lack of a roll down back window was kind of dumb, but remember this was done to increase hip room. The arm rests were actually “inside” the door not on the outside of the door like most cars. So, there was no room for the window to roll down.
About the lack of roll-down windows in back: Yes, it was to increase hip room. These cars did at least have vent windows in back (manually or power operated, depending on how equipped) to mitigate some of the ventilation issues. Sure, it wasn’t as good as having roll-down windows – and I know from experience as our family had a 1980 Buick Century sedan. But it wasn’t that bad.
Wow, I hadn’t ever realized how much the 1980 four-door looked like the first-gen Seville. I suppose Olds did have a lot of luck making the Toronado look like an Eldorado.
My grandparents had a black Aeroback Olds for many years. I do not have fond memories of that car. When I was little, the black vinyl upholstery would inevitably sear something on a hot summer day and the air conditioning gave me nosebleeds. When I was a teenager, I called it a neither/nor car — it had neither decent acceleration nor respectable fuel economy (compared to the imports my parents had, it was a very heavy drinker) and excelled in neither ride nor handling. Its winter traction also left much to be desired, but I don’t remember what sort of shape its tires were in.
“Wow, I hadn’t ever realized how much the 1980 four-door looked like the first-gen Seville”
Said tongue-in-cheek, I presume.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1980-1987-cutlass-supreme-sedan-the-oldsmobile-seville-ccccc-11/
I had missed (or perhaps forgotten) that one..and the only Cutlass Supremes I’ve seen in the metal in over a decade have been two-doors.
Am I the only person who *likes* the Aeroback, especially the two-door?
No, I always found them mildly attractive, too. At least they didn’t look like all the other trunk-back models out there. A nice retro-tip to the post WWII fastbacks.
I like them too. It’s the only G-body made to accept 6″ x 9″ rear speakers. The Century is my favorite flavor, especially a Turbo version with the rear spoiler. Sharp! (pic from deansgarage.com)
I like the Cutlass aeroback, but the Century Turbo Coupe I loooove. Super rare car, too. I’ve never seen one in person and have only come across a few pics of them online (in about 10 years of searching).
I’ll never understand why these cars weren’t hatchbacks and think they probably would have done a little better if they were. Here’s the prettiest one I’ve ever seen…
Back then, Buick really was working on ‘adult’ sporty cars, as opposed to Pontiac at the time, who was brougham-izing it’s way to irrelevancy. I dated a girl who’s folks had a Turbo LeSabre, that was probably the first time I was in a car that large that handled that well until we got my wife’s FE3 suspended 403 powered Delta 88 Holiday coupe…
In a way, Buick could use that turbo powered mojo now.
The sedans made me gag and retch but the two-doors are rather attractive to me. The side profile of the two-door reminds me of that of the Opel Manta B, which I find quite attractive.
I always thought they looked like a budget Seville 2nd generation derivative.
I always liked the Aeroback, if it actually had hatchback functionality I’d like it even better.
My dad had a new ’79 Aeroback “Salon” 4-door. I personally always liked the fastback design, starting with his ’49 Buick Roadmaster sedanette! The Olds was just OK, not very well built but reliable.
Yep! Me too. 35 years later and I still like them. The only thing I never understood why they weren’t hatchbacks. It seems like a perfectly logical thing to do with the car.
These were nice cars. I like the fact that they could be had with an actual Oldsmobile engine. Some fool junked a rather nice black four-door Brougham at the scrapyard years ago in Alabama. I had never seen one so loaded out. It even had the factory tach gauge cluster.
I’m partial to the earlier single-headlight front ends and think the earlier Buick Limiteds were the most stately looking versions of these. Back when I was ten-ish, my aunt & uncle traded their dark green ’72 LeSabre in on an ’80 or ’81 black Century Limited. It was a beautiful car. I remember it having the gray velour pillow-top interior and the “4.3 Litre” emblems on the front fenders, signifying the lil’ 260 Oldsmobile V8.
I just noticed the featured car has opera lamps without a vinyl top — how strange!
I just noticed the featured car has opera lamps without a vinyl top — how strange!
Mine was optioned the same way, thank god. Polishing all that chrome was enough without worrying about the vinyl top.
Much as I loved the look of the White Vinyl tops of 1975, then beiger as time wore on, … They turned out to universally rot and trap water and rust… So it is always good to see it without that.
Lack Of power back windows would kill the deal for me, much less not going down at all. I would never stop hating that, really odd, and rather gawling that they never added proper windows.
edit to add; AHH I see I am not alone with what follows here on the window situation. How Many of Us Just saw this bean cutter move and it sat with us.
Per “Vent-L-8” above; fixed and/or half-way-down mentality was THE reason for my seething HATE of GM for 27 years.
I rest my case with the exhibit A above, the sad subject of this article.
I’m leaving the thread for now, as the old anger is buliding…I don’t forget OR forgive for those sins.
Broughams. Gag! Retch!
I hold a love those those typically-tasteless-American-lets-show-off-even-though-we-don’t-have-the-money-to-back-it-up cars as much as Zackman loves fixed rear windows. Easily the nadir of the American car industry, and a wonderful reason why all three manufacturers should have gone into bankruptcy without a government bailout.
And yes, back then I would have killed for an E30 BMW, even a four cylinder model. Still would, for that matter. I still miss my 325i
The windows don’t open because we’re trying to add to hip room. What aspiring Draper came up with that line of hooey to justify a cynical cheap-out?
Why stop there? To reduce weight and complexity, we’ve removed all the hardware from the rear doors and attached them to the front doors.
To increase headroom we’ve removed the seats entirely, in favor of attaching loose-look pillows directly to the floor.
To make the wire wheel covers easier to clean, there are only two wires for each wheel.
I wish I was Bruce McCall so I could paint these up convincingly!
That was the truth in why GM did this, to increase hip room and save weight. Part of it also had to do with the door shape, but this could have been fixed with a quarter window on the door (like the 1992+ Crown Vics). Obviously it was not a good idea, but you have to remember the 1978 A-bodies were much smaller than the 1973-77 Colonnade A-bodies. The overall width was drastically reduced, and GM’s goal at the time was to have comparable interior space, and this was the comprimise they came up with. Even with this comprimise, the car still had significant less hip room than the earlier models.
Here is a Popular Science Article that discusses the design (on the second page of the article):
http://books.google.ca/books?id=lwAAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA30&dq=1978+Malibu+rear+windows+hip+room&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IhuhUKaDNsqDyAHVx4EY&ved=0CEQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=1978%20Malibu%20rear%20windows%20hip%20room&f=false
This was not a good design, but I am surprised how many people were upset over it. Having driven my brother’s Cutlass like this many times, I never was bother at all by it especially with A/C.
That’s a fascinating link. It shows how Detroit was on the cusp of a new era. I’m surprised at how critical the review was of all three cars (the Malibu, LTD II and Monaco).
My 1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Brougham was white with the blue brougham interior, 307 V8, four speed auto, posi-trac, and the ubiquitous Olds wire wheel covers. What I WANTED to do was install dual exhauts like the car in the picture (couldn’t afford it) and then I wanted to add Olds rally wheels and raised white letter tires. I got the white letter tires (Firestone 500s) but never got the wheels.
I know this isn’t MY car however because it was stolen on Thanksgiving weekend in 2001 and discovered as a stripped chassis before Christmas.
Nice quiet car but the front frame rust had already set in, the transmission was slowly dying, and you couldn’t go faster than about 65 mph in the sucker without having the 4brl constantly open full, even with the 4 speed auto.
I worked at an Oldsmobile dealer for 3 years in the mid-eighties. We sold many of these cars. They were popular because of the full frame, front engine, rear wheel drive design. They drove and rode much like the larger cars, but in a compact, more economical package (for better or worse). I owned a loaded out ’78 Cutlass Supreme Brougham coupe for about a year, and my in-laws owned a ’84 Cutlass Supreme Brougham sedan for several years. They were overall very reliable cars. They did suffer from the usual GM problems of the era, such as the 260 V8 diesel option. Here in central Texas they all were equipped with A/C, so the non-opening rear windows were not a problem that I know of. I do not care for the Aeroback design, but my experience is that is they were dressed out, and wore a decent color, then they did not look too bad. It seems like most of them were plain with an unattractive color. I think the Century Aerobacks looked better. I would not mind owning another one. They make good drivers.
At this moment, Richard Bennett (user: Supremebrougham) is probably secretly MM’ing about this car right now.
Let’s just say I am smiling from ear to ear 🙂
Ok, that’ll do for now.
The Aerobacks were stupid, but in a way I prefer them to this. At least they were an attempt to break new ground. They looked better without all the Brougham crap tacked on, but then most customers in this era wanted all the Brougham crap.
Come to think of it, that makes it all the more amazing that they didn’t use this roofline right out of the box in ’78. The more European look of the Colonnade sedans was a dud compared to the formal Supremes, Monte Carlos, etc. Why would you amplify that disparity with a look like this?
By the time GM got it right, the Brougham look was already fading. After two years, this G-sedan was an also ran next to the Ciera, and by the end of production, it was completely archaic next to the Sable you could get at the competing Mercury dealer.
I always liked Oldsmobile, but I would have gone for a cheap front drive Delta 88 over this in 1986.
I forgot to mention my opinion of the so-called “aeroback” design:
I call it “Roachback”©.
While the 2-doors were much more attractive than the 4-doors, for a so-called “premium” or “upscale” model, the design was not acceptable in my book.
For the record, shortly after we married in September, 1977, we looked at a new car. Our first choice? A Malibu. We drove one – a sedan. When sitting in back, I wanted to roll down the window. Not happening! What??? The salesman told me the C-pillar window popped open! I said: “are you kidding?”. No sale. We looked at a Nova. Soon reality set in: Do we want a car or save for a 10% down payment for a house? We made the right choice. We saved for our first home and the final nail in GM’s coffin for me was driven home.
For the next 27 years we motored happily in our Gremlin and assorted Chryslers and Fords and Honda.
© Copyright me, on advice of the esteemed Geozinger.
I knew a guy who had an ’86 or 87 Cutlass Supreme Brougham much like the featured car, except it had the usual vinyl top. I never rode in the back of that car, but I remember the one time he proudly showed me that the c-pillar vent windows were power-operated and could be opened and closed from the driver seat. I was pretty impressed. He didn’t bother to mention that the main rear-door windows didn’t go up and down. I don’t think I would have been nearly so impressed if I had known that little tidbit!
“As well as the CS coupes were selling, though, a laggard like the Aeroback in the lineup was bad for business–especially when buyers who didn’t want a fastback sedan could walk across the street and buy a Grand LeMans or Malibu Classic. As a result, for 1980 Olds treated the four-door to a makeover cribbed from the first-gen Seville, and the restyled version sold much better.”
Buick did the same with its Century. IINM, the non-personal luxury Olds and Buick coupes remained in Aero form for 1980, then were completely dropped, leaving the personal luxury coupes (Cutlass Supreme, Regal) as the only coupes in the midsize lineup for 1981. Chevy and Pontiac retained both their non-personal luxury (Malibu and LeMans) and personal luxury coupes (Monte Carlo and Grand Prix) through 1981.
“After the GM A-bodies became G-bodies, each division did its own thing when it came to deciding what models stayed in the lineup. Consider the sedans: The Chevy and Buick versions departed after ’83. Pontiac’s G-body Bonneville lasted until 1986, after which it became an H-body. But Oldsmobile, arguably the purveyor of the best A/G-bodies in the corporation, kept its sedans going all the way to 1987.”
Without having any reference in front of me, I had thought that Buick continued the sedan through 1984. Another way in which each division did its own thing is in how they badged the new FWD A-bodies versus the old RWD G-bodies. When the new FWD A-bodies came out, Buick used the Century name for that, and badged the G-body sedan and wagon as Regals. As noted in the article, all divisions dropped the G-body wagons after ’83, as a wagon was added to the A-body for the 1984 model year.
Vinyl tops, opera lamps, power rear vent windows, power antennas, whitewall tires, wire wheel covers…these all sound so antiquated today.
The four-door Cutlass Supreme Brougham sedan was a cool-looking car in its day.
Not to bring up a sore point for one of our esteemed commentators, but wasn’t Bill Mitchell really big on the aerobacks? If I recall correctly, they reminded him of the good old days of GM’s late-40s fastbacks.
I’d agree that GM deserves points for even trying something different than the usual brougham fare. But it was odd that they put aerobacks on their more luxurious brands. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to instead use them on the Chevy and Pontiac?
The other problem with the aerobacks was that they lacked GM’s usual styling finesse. They looked too bulky because GM apparently lost its french curves. Fastbacks work best on larger cars when they have some degree of tapering, but Billy seemed to have forgotten this.
He retired shortly after overseeing the downsizing of the 1978 mid-sized cars. With all due respect, perhaps that was a good thing for GM.
It’s also interesting to note that, among the X-cars, the fastback sedans were offered by Chevrolet and Pontiac, while Buick and Oldsmobile offered more conventional notchback sedans.
By “CHMSL” I’m guessing that Tom means Central High-Mounted Stop Light. I’ve always thought that the extra brake light was one of the Nanny State’s better ideas. I recall seeing several years ago an elderly lady carefully piloting a late-fifties Rambler down the street on a Sunday morning, presumably for her weekly trip to church. It was pretty interesting to see a Used Car Salesman’s Favorite Lie come to life! The only deviation from stock other than 30+ years of patina was an aftermarket CHMSL on the rear-window package shelf. It really brought a smile to my face!
The CHMSL was actually green lighted by Elizabeth Dole when she was in charge of the DOT during the Reagan Administration. To me that signaled that she was clearly a practical person not just a political hack.
Its funny, the CHMSL was one way to i.d new cars when they first came out, now they are so common its strange to see an old pre-86 car without a 3rd brake light.
Some people still call them “Liddy Lights.”
I think the CHMSL started out as an extra aftermarket light used by livery vehicles (taxis). When they were shown to be effective in use, the Feds mandated it as a requirement.
My first car was a ’78 Century four-door Aeroback. My parents originally bought it used in 1982 as a car for my mother. When we first bought it, I remember being shocked that the back windows would not roll down. My parents had a lot of problems with it. At one point I remember an issue with the car repeatedly stalling, but of course never when the mechanic was driving it.
By the summer of 1986 my mother had become sufficently exasperated with the Century that she wanted a new car. At that point it was replaced by a new, early-1987 Plymouth Sundance that my parents got on a lease. The Century was parked in anticipation of me getting my license (I was 15 at the time). I eventually put it on the road in the spring of 1988 and drove it for about a year before the motor gave out.
I have very mixed feelings about these. On one hand, they were the slightly smaller version of the one kind of car GM was uniquely good at. These certainly felt heavier than the Fox Marquis, although they probably were not – GM’s strength was in making a car feel “substantial.” Also, the proportions were pretty good on these. These kept a lot of traditional GM customers happy and coming back. However, if you want a big heavy slow ponderous GM sedan from the 80s, then get one. It was called a Ninety Eight Regency. Go big or go home.
I will go into the camp of hating the Aeroback. I had a girlfriend in the 80s who got one from her grandfather. It was that horrible washed out yellow with a medium tan vinyl interior. Ugh. I hated that car. I once drove it 100 miles to our hometown to visit and to put in a starter. Then I drove it 100 miles back. I was happy to never drive it again. Nothing horribly wrong with it, but it just did not a single thing for me. I don’t think that the Brougham would have lured me in much more, although it was certainly better looking.
Back around 2000, I was visiting a friend near Columbus and happened upon an ’87 Cutlass Supreme two-door for sale. It had those rare lacy-spoke alloys that Tom pictured above, silver with a 350, t-tops, sport buckets w/ console and around 60k on the clock. I think they wanted $6k for it and I would have paid every penny if I had it. But I was equally enamored with the brougham G-bodies, I remember looking at an old-lady Regal two-door around the same time, also out of my price range.
This title inflation reminds me of kiddie beauty pageants where the proliferation of prizes has inflated the top title to “Ultimate Grand Supreme”, which strikes me as ridiculous.
Back on topic I did occasionally drive an Aeroback in the mid 80s and found it compared poorly with my 1974 Volvo 164.
I had an `87 Cutlass Supreme Brougham 4DR back in `00. It replaced an `80 Cutlass LS 4D. My CSB was similar to the feature car, except mine had the chrome SSIII wheels (with whitewalls!) and the dark red interior. I love my power vents, even though I wish the windows went down. Fun car, especially with that 307.
I have an 86 Cutlass Supreme Brougham that I use as a daily driver. Found it cheap with only 44 thou miles. If you remove all of the primitive emission garbage and replace the computer controlled feedback carb and distributor with regular versions, the Buick derived 3.8 performs decently enuf to at least get out of its own way. Not gonna win many stoplight races with it tho. That being said, it makes a decent winter beater for Iowa’s salty winters where I prefer rear wheel drive and chrome bumpers instead of a bunch of plastic. Sandbags, snow tires and knowing how to drive. Have not gotten stuck yet!
Brougham-tastic! Comfortable enuf in the front seat for daily duties. A bit small and claustrophobic in the back with those crappy vent windows. Terrible idea that was.
And a pic just for the author. When I bought it, it had whitewalls on it.
Really nice! That’s my favorite color on these. I found that the feedback carb could be made to work well enough, but literally everything had to be right. You couldn’t have the slightest vacuum leak, you couldn’t have a sensor even slightly out of spec, you couldn’t have any leaks at the carb itself. Lots of small, easily breakable and hard to diagnose parts. I actually kinda enjoy working on stuff like that so I kept mine… but I had an MPFI manifold and all the wiring to go along with it that I was planning on using eventually. IMO that’s the way these should have come from the factory and it’s ridiculous that they didn’t – the fuel injected FWD 3.8l motor in those years was good for 150HP, which was 10 more than the Olds 307 made. Would have been a huge improvement, but they cheaped out and kept selling their Rube Goldbergian Malaise era crap system up until the bitter end.
I have considered a turbo addition to the Cutlass. It would be fairly easy to find and swap the components from a T-type turbo Regal or Grand National into it. Wouldn’t that be fun? To bad the finances are not available for such a project….
Nice car. I have to agree with Sean C, that gunmetal gray looks great!
And yes, I like the SS wheels with whitewalls–at least on a car like this 🙂
I gotta tell you, those are some of the most comfortable seats I have ever sat in. I had a 1987 Supreme Brougham that I drove from Florida to Michigan and back in more than once and I felt refreshed every time after spending hours behind the wheel.
My previous car was an ’87 Cutlass Supreme (non-Brougham), but it was a coupe. It was totaled by some idiot EXACTLY one year ago today… really weird!
I loved that car because I’ve always thought they looked great (the sedans look OK too) and it had been my grandmother’s, so I had a strong personal attachment to it… but if I’m being completely objective, it was a pretty bad car. Actually, that’s not fair to say. It was a very decent late 70’s car and a dinosaur for 1987. Mine was a base model with the V6 and 3-speed auto. Slow, floaty and cramped – but it was a great companion and served me well for the all too brief time I had it. I had planned on keeping it for a long time and I still have a garage full of parts I never got to install on it. Put tons of work into it (hadn’t moved or started in 5+ years) and learned more than I ever wanted to about GM’s ludicrous CCC feedback carb system. That poor old Cutty went to the scrap head with just a shade over 50k miles on it… me and the car were both crushed 🙁
Here it is on the job in the summer of 2011:
Wow, where to begin!
Much to the dismay of many here, the Cutlass Supreme Brougham is without a doubt, my all-time favorite car.
Tom, I love all the brochure pics you used. I have all those brochures, and I recalled reading the prose that came with them.
I will admit that by the late eighties these did seem awfully antiquated when placed next to the sleek and modern Taurus and Sable, but there was just something about them-undoubtedly that “solid, substantial feel” that they had, that just spoke “Oldsmobile”.
I’ve waxed eloquently way too many times around here about my old 1987 Supreme Brougham coupe, in Light Chestnut with matching landau roof and velour interior. To say I loved that car would be quite the understatement.
If finances and room in my garage permitted, I would love to have a 1985 Supreme Brougham coupe, in burgundy with matching landau roof, gold pinstripe, velour interior (like the ’85 interior pic above), matching Super Stock wheels, 307 V8, four-speed trans, factory Astroroof, gauge package, full power accessories including lamp monitors, the rare-but-believe-it-or-not-factory-available-CHMSL, Delco UX1 stereo, FE3 suspension and one heck of a security system! No doubt at this point in time I would have to have one “created” from several different cars, but at least I would have what I wanted!
The “cover photo” on my Facebook page is a burgundy 1985 Cutlass Supreme Brougham Coupe, and, I recently acquired another 1985 Cutlass showroom brochure that I am hoping to have framed one day 🙂
My email address is even supremebrougham…
Hey, I’m not known as “supremebrougham” for nothing…
The G-body Cutlass are also my favorite cars of all time followed by the B-bodies of the same era. I have never to date seen a 1985 307 non 442 equipped with a 200R-4 transmission for some reason or other. Literally every single one is a 200 metric 3 speed. The 442’s of course only came with the 4 speed tranny. Conversely many 86 and 87 Supreme’s had the 4 speed trans and all 1988’s came with it std. I once saw a dark blue 1988 Brougham coupe on Ebay with the 307/4 speed and it was loaded to the hilt with gauges, FE3, Sport wheel, limited slip, optional 3.08:1 gears, power everything and it was mint! I think that car brought over 8 grand!
I’ve actually seen the “lacy spoke” wheels on some two-doors (I believe they may have even been standard on the Cutlass Salon for ’87), but never on a 4-door.
I found a beautiful example of a 1987 Supreme with the rare lacy wheels. Truth be told, if I could have that Cutlass of my dreams that I mentioned earlier, I wouldn’t mind having a set of these too, so I could switch them around whenever I felt like it!
I wish GM kept the ’78-only CS Brougham silver speedometer or at least offered the U21 gauges in silver or optional clock in silver.
Twenty-something years ago, my future ex-wife had a black ’79 Cutlass Supreme with the 3.8, black vinyl top & A65 notch bench interior. I loved driving that car! The one mod I did to it besides adding the 2-spoke sport steering wheel was change out the black-faced instrument cluster with a silver unit from a ’78 Brougham (preserving the odometer of course!).
The brushed “steel” steering wheel spokes went with the silver cluster and it was sharp!
Looks quite nice in the two-tone. I’m liking those lacy-spoke alloys more and more…
This Cutlass above is what younger adults would drive back in the mid 80s, compared to the featured CS Brougham Sedan. But, these owners did not go for the W body.
On the one hand, a great example of how GM usually gets a car right if they work at it long enough. On the other hand, at various times in the late 1980’s, Olds used the Cutlass name on four different platforms, sometimes three of them simultaneously, quickly stripping the brand of any meaning whatsoever.
I’m glad my dad opted to get our Buick Century Sedan in 1980, as opposed to the just introduced GM X-body cars we were considering at the time. One of my uncles had a ’78 Regal Limited then, with the pillow velour upholstery and urged us to get one. Well, being a teenager at the time (and destined to spend time in the back seat), I said, fine, but get a sedan as the coupe was too clautrophobic.
We had the car for around 15 years, fairly troublefree. Imagine all the nonsense we would have to deal with if we got the X-car instead.
GM’s second Greatest Hit, after the Chevy big cars, I say.
Also, not every 78-87 Cutlass was a Brougham. Many younger buyers got vinyl or cloth bucket seats and console in other trims, including the 442.
Many Chicagoland 20-30 y/olds had Cutlass Supreme coupes in the 70s and early 80s. But, when the boxy look got passe*, eventually swtiched to SUVs, trucks, Fords, or imports. By 1988, Cutlass had a ‘parents car’ image. The W body CS coupe flopped, and we know where Olds ended up after that.
* Taurus/T-Bird made G bodies look 20 years old.
It would have made more sense to have made the car wider so that the rear windows could roll down. Making the windows stationary never made any sense to me at all, even as a preteen when these cars first came out.
I currently own a black on burgundy ’86 Cutlass Supreme Brougham sedan. I also owned an ’83 sable on sable Cutlass Supreme Brougham sedan. Since I rarely had anyone in the backseat, the stationary window was a non-issue for me. And since I rarely use the ’86 these days (just for my own pleasure), the back windows continue to be of little interest to me. I have always considered the car to be very sharp looking, a bit sophisticated, and with a very plush, beautiful interior.
Another view of my ’86 Cutlass Supreme Brougham sedan. I love it.
That car is a beauty! I don’t recall ever seeing a Supreme sedan in black; most of the ones I remember were gray, white, beige or brown.
I know this thread is ancient but I had to share the one time those rear windows came in useful. My father was driving home and got hit by a water balloon a few blocks from home. He came home and filled up his pump up fire extinguisher with water and asked me to sit in the back and put the nozzle out the little vent window. We went back and did a good humor drive-by on those kids.
I came across this thread looking for a picture of an 80 cutlass supreme brougham like we had. It was maroon with a vinyl top and the hubcaps had some matching color in them, it was very regal. I’ve never seen another one like it. The taillights may have been unique to that year, they were 3 section but without the squares like 81-84. It also had only 2 headlights. We kept that car until the mid 90s. It was my first car when I got my license in ’94 and I remember cramming 9 people in it once. It was pretty gutless with 150,000 miles on it when we sold it.
The computerized carb would give us trouble so my dad would only put it on for smog checks. The rest of the time it had a Holly Economizer.
The headliner and vinyl too went around 1990 so we had them replaced. It had the 305. We also had a ’78 Seville. A Cadillac with an olds motor and an olds with a Chevy motor. I never noticed the similarity in profiles either. It looks like they had the same rear doors, but the Cadillacs would roll down and it never felt cramped. In fact I never once used the arm rests in the olds. But it would have been nice to crack the window when parked, or wave goodbye to grandma or talk through the window if it opened.
My wife and I had the same experience growing up and having one of these in the family. Both our parents went from 2doors to 4 doors and we were excited to have our own door and window. And my brother and I and her and her sister were both disappointed it didn’t roll down.
Anyone have a parts car lying around? Looking to lightly retstore my two-tone blue ’86 Supreme Brougham Sedan & need a few parts. My first car…still love it.
Mein Auto seit 29 Jahren
Viele Grüsse aus der Schweiz
Ooo, original export taillights! Nice!
(Ding!) +1
I really like this body shell. I rode in one exactly once, in the rear seat, a ’78 Malibu Classic, which in Uruguay was a very uncommon and expensive car. That one had a 305 (or is it a 307)?. I think its only major option was AC.
I was a kid then, but had I been in a position to buy a car like that, the non-rolling-down rear windows would have been a deal breaker, AC or not.
I actually liked the aero sedans. i felt that a hatchback would have been the Supreme move on these cars. would love to snag a Buick or Olds aero sedan. thay are very hard to find now.
Olds always seemed to be the mediator at the General, in terms of styling. If Pontiac and Buick were too extreme for your taste, and Chevy was just not luxurious enough, then the Olds had the most widely appealing styling. Nothing offensive or extreme, a bit upmarket from the bowtie was all it took. Millions of customers liked that combination over the years. However maybe leadership found the formula a little too milquetoast for their liking, and Olds was a long way from the days of the 4-4-2 performance beasts and the 88-98 luxury boats by the time of their demise in 2004. Here even in 1986, the 40,000+ copies sold was a long way off from the hundreds of thousands they churned out in the 70s. This 86 is a nice looking car, a friend of mine had one and he loved it. It was a big improvement from the Aeroback polarizing design. Nice find, thanks for reposting this.
I liked the styling of the aerobacks, maybe I’m the only one! My uncle had ’78 4dr in the late ’80s, red on red. It had red cloth seats but they were the base level ones, not the fancier brougham ones. It rode nice, and seated 6 (3 in back were not that happy however). The back seat was comfy but seemed very confining esp. with the fixed door glass. I don’t think it made much difference to overall hip/elbow room IMO.
A year after these were introduced the new front-drive X-bodies came out. I rode in one. Though they were several inches narrower overall, the interior esp. in the back seat, seemed roomier and airier and those back door windows did roll down too. So it was just GM cost-cutting in the A-bodies.
The aeroback is one of the ugliest cars ever, but the conventional sedan looks nice. And I like that it didn’t get the ugliy 1981 coupe shovel nose makeover. The no rear window mechansm was a terrible cheap out.. I don’t believe the hip room thing. Why worry about hips? There also was no legroom if anyone tall was driving. The whole car was crampped and the Buick 6 most got was slow but strong enough to break the lousy transmission. It was not to good on gas either. The shortcomings made it a good car to pass over to get a full sized Marquis or crown Vic to have comfort and reliability and style and lower operating cost.
How does an aeroback get approved? That thing was so ugly it hurts the eyes. I don’t like the downsized aeroback either better known as a citation.
“How does an aeroback get approved?”
So what? They took a risk.
It was meant to be new version of the 1973-77 Cutlass S fastbacks bodies. Olds Cutlass line wasn’t just the formal roof Supreme coupes that some bloggers assume.
The arrow back was hideously designee. And what’s really sad is you could get a Ford LTD 11 or cougar sedan that was way nicer looking, riding and more comfortable that didn’t break down all the time and the windows went down.
The aeroback was an abomination.
Checked oldcarbrochures . org to clarify Olds Cutlass [RWD A/G body] 4 door sedan names.
78-79 Cutlass Salon/Salon Brougham [Aeroback]
80-81 Cutlass [no 2nd name*] Base/LS/Brougham [first notchbacks]
82-87 Cutlass Supreme/Supreme Brougham
*1982 forward, Olds had the FWD Cutlass Ciera, so the RWD 4 doors were then under Cutlass Supreme, instead of plain Cutlass.