(first posted 9/3/2014) I was in Galesburg, IL last year to attend the Railroad Days car show. On my way out of town, I saw a very interesting car–this 1962 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight at a repair shop. I quickly pulled the car over to check out and get pictures.
This beauty is one of 33,095 Holiday Sports Sedans, the most popular of 1962 Ninety-Eight models. Said model started at $4256, or about $1000 lower than a comparable Cadillac Series 62.
The Sports Sedan gained the four-window styling with thick C-pillar that was ushered into many 1962 GM full-size cars. A simpler six-window Holiday four-door hardtop was also available for $4118. Regardless of body style, all Ninety-Eights received a 330-hp 394 CID V8 engine as standard equipment. However, a 345-hp variant was optionally available.
As Oldsmobile’s top model (the Toronado was still four years away), Ninety-Eights received plush interiors as befitting of its status in the GM hierarchy. Many times, the Ninety-Eight has been dubbed “the thinking man’s Cadillac,” due to its power, luxurious appointments, and markedly lower price of entry when compared to a Cadillac. Power Steering, power brakes, power windows, power seat and Hydra-Matic automatic transmission were all standard.
So, why only four pictures? Well, that brings me to the title of this post. As I was getting out of my car, it was starting to drizzle. Then, about thirty seconds later, it started to rain–hard! So I sprinted back to the car, and that was that. But hey, at least I got a few! Some day I will need to write up my friend K. V. Dahl’s silver-blue 1962 Ninety-Eight with only 9,700 miles. So never fear CCers, one day you WILL see a full ’62 Ninety-Eight CC from me!
Was the 98 really top model or was the Starfire top model? The 345 hp engine was standard on the Starfire.
The 62 Buick Electra 225 interior is I think somewhat nicer.
It’s tough to decide, I was going to post the same thing, the Starfire would appear to be slightly higher trim than the basic 98 sedan, the Starfire had the higher HP engine and the console with the power window switches on it, but the Starfire was a smaller car than the 98, since it was 88 based, I would call it a draw, in the similar way the Grand Prix and the Bonnevilles of the same era were both near the top of the Pontiac model range.
The Starfire, Grand Prix and Buick Wildcat were sport coupes and quite different from the Buick Electra or Oldsmobile 98 sedans. In terms of ride and handling there probably was little or no difference. Oldsmobile’s 98 outlasts nearly everything.
ESTOY INTERESADO EN COMPRAR ESTE AUTO…U OTRO DEL MISMO MODELO Y AÑO, LA CONDICION ES QUE DEBE TENER EL TAPIZADO COLOR ROJO EN BUEN ESTADO…NO IMPORTA EL ESTADO DEL RESTO DEL VEHICULO
I thought the Std. Catalog might settle this, but it is a bit ambiguous.
The book usually lists a make’s line-up from low to high, and from ’61-’65 the 98 wins.
The base price for the Starfire Convertible is the highest base price of any ’62 Olds at $4,744, handily beating the $4,459 98 convertible. Normally, I’d consider the highest base price to be the decider. But, it gets a bit murkier, the base price of the Starfire coupe is $4,131, and the lowest price 98 coupe is $4,180. Technically, this is an unexpected draw, but for single highest price, the Starfire holds the Ace.
In some years, of Starfire production, the narrative in the book refers to the 98 as the top of the line. The Starfire never gets this honor.
Through the ’61-’65 run of the Starfire convertible, the Starfire handily has the top base price.
In ’66, only the Starfire coupe returns, and its base price plummets to $3,450, its lowest price during its ’62-’66 run. All 98 models are higher.
But, the ’66 Toronado is listed as the highest level car, and has the highest base price of $4,585. I’ve always thought of the Toronado as the replacement for the Starfire, as both were usually described as personal luxury cars.
I would call your draw accurate.
The top-line honors go to the Ninety-Eight as it rode Oldsmobile’s longest wheelbase – 126 inches – and used the GM C-body shared with all Cadillacs and the Buick Electra. The Starfire was a smaller B-body car on the 123-inch wheelbase and was basically a sported and plushed up Super 88 loaded with leather bucket seats, console, top Rocket power, Hydramatic, power steering and brakes on both Holiday coupe and convertible – plus standard power windows and seat on the convertible (optional on the coupe).
Bet you sold a lot of these to the faculty at Faber University, Mr. Depasto!
I never did understand why the cars used in the Faber parade were Buicks.
There was a 1960 Cadillac too, I imagine they were probably short for 1962 Oldsmobiles, the only Olds you actually see is when the parade float “hand” smashes through the showroom window, if you slow the film down, you can see that it was a Ford dealer standing in for DePasto Oldsmobile, there is a big Ford oval reflected in the window.
We did sell a good number of the big senior Oldsmobiles to to Faber admin members, the F85’s were popular with the secretarial staff too!
But why was Mrs. Wormer (badly) driving a ’60 Mercury wagon?
Actually Mrs. Wormer was driving a 1962 Chevrolet Wagon.
http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_28112-Chevrolet-Bel-Air-1962.html
We tried to get her a nice Oldsmobile wagon, but Dean Wormer was too cheap!
I just want to know what a ’64 Continental was doing in a film set mostly in 1962, as well as a parade car made from a ’66 Conti.
Ninety-Eight was definitely the flagship series at Oldsmobile as it had the larger C-body. Starfire used the B-body and was basically a “loaded to the gills” Super 88 with leather bucket seats and console along with Olds’ most powerful Rocket V8. For 1963, the Ninety-Eight gained a new Luxury Sedan that included nearly everything as standard equipment except a radio and air conditioner plus even plusher upholstery than the standard line (all Ninety-Eights came standard with Roto Hydramatic, Roto Power Steering and Pedal Ease Power Brakes, while all models came standard with power windows and seat except the Celebrity Sedan, where they were optional). The Ninety-Eight also got a new Custom Sport Coupe for ’63 with standard all-leather or cloth and leather bucket seats, console and the Starfire engine – but was only offered as a Holiday coupe while Starfire was both a Holiday coupe and ragtop. Also, the Ninety-Eight Custom Sport Coupe did come with power windows and seat as standard while those two items were optional on the Starfire coupe though standard on the convertible. The bucket-seat Custom Sport Coupe was a relative poor seller and dropped after 1964 while the Ninety-Eight Luxury Sedan stayed in the lineup for many years (joined by an even more luxurious Ninety-Eight Regency in 1972) and even became the entry-level Ninety-Eight after 1974 following the demise of the standard version.
Sweet looking car! My favourites have always been the 1962 Oldsmobile 98 and the 1964 98.
Among the GM cars, I am usually an Oldsmobile guy. But . . . . . I just cannot warm up to the 62 Olds. To me, it is the ugly duckling of the entire 1961-64 B/C body. I don’t like the front, or the sides. I can live with the back, but it’s still not great. Like the inside, though.
Maybe its just the black car, but this is the first time I have ever really studied the side trim on the Ninety Eight. Just awkward, is all I can conclude. It looks like something I might have doodled in 7th grade study hall. It was like they were afraid to give it too little trim or too much, so they took really thin strips of brightwork then used lots of them.
The other reason you don’t see many of these is that what GM was calling a Hydra Matic was not the same good old 4 speed Hydra Matic that had been in their cars through 1960, but the short lived and troublesome 3 speed Roto Hydramatic that was offered by Olds and Pontiac from 1961-64. You could avoid the Roto in a Pontiac by choosing a Bonneville or Star Chief, but they were in every single big Olds. A shame, because that 394 Rocket would have been a joy mated to a decent tranny. I wonder if the Bonneville unit would swap into an Oldsmobile?
It’s not that bad JP!There were some pretty strange looking Mopars about at the same time(especially the 62 Plymouths,now that’s a range of cars I never liked
I think we could say that the 62 Oldsmobile owes a huge debt to Virgil Exner and the 62 Mopar line. Had those been beautiful (or even average) cars, we may well recall the 62 Olds as being one of the ugliest cars of the 60s. 🙂
I’d choose the 62 Olds Dynamic 88 and 98 any day over the 62 Chevy Bel Air or the Impala.
I agree. The 1962 Chevrolet is not one of my favorites. I’ve always thought that it was a step backwards from the very clean and handsome 1961 model.
I do believe that Chevrolet hit a market share peak in 1962, but that was because Plymouth and Dodge basically imploded with their “downsized” full-size cars.
Funny, as I was about to comment on how much this is one of my favorite Olds designs. I can’t quite say whether I love or hate the patch of brightwork on the front doors, but everything else I love. IMO, the Caddys were always a bit too busy, and the Electra’s rounder front looked like it belonged on a smaller car.
I especially like the ’61-’62s like this one, with their Starfire-like styling and flared front fenders. I never think a Ninety-Eight ever looked as sporty as this. This is one of my favorite Ninety-Eight generations, as they soon got a bit too heavy and weighed-down looking.
What was the issue with the Roto Hydramatic? Where they not durable, or was it the ratios used? There was an elderly lady down the street when I was growing up with a ’63 Catalina coupe, and the engine spooled up in the first two gears and when it hit 3rd gear the engine seemed to bog down with the tall high gear.
It was a simplified and cheapened design of the older Hydra Matic that Aaron Severson covers at AUWM. http://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-technology-definitions/hydramatic-history-part-2/
As I understand them, the ratios were not the greatest, and they also had durability problems. I have seen comments here over the years that transmission shops made a lot of money off of them.
The biggest problem with the Roto-Matic was it’s size! Often called the ‘Slim-Jim’, these transmissions were long but very small in width and height. Natuarally Olds took full advantage of this, and designed the floor to conform to the transmission which resulted in a very small transmission hump. When ‘ol Slim-Jim gave up, you counldn’t replace it with anything else unless you modifeid the transmission tunnel.
I agree with JP on the styling. The side trim looks like an afterthought. The front end reminds me of a 67-69 Thunderbird without the hidewaway headlights, and I was not a fan of that either.
An electric shaver comes to mind on both of these cars.
Hidden headlights were standard on the ’67-69 T-Bird. The 1970 lost the hidden lights and gained a large beak.
I know. I think you misunderstood me. The front of this Olds reminds me of a 67-69 T-bird, except without hide-away headlights.
My thoughts exactly. The Olds was more complicated and I always wondered how they did it in the metal. Might be pot metal castings. I like the ’61 and ’62 Olds, looks like I’m in the minority here.
That front door trim would have looked better moved forward to the fender.
I’d have to agree the ’62 is the weakest 98 of the decade, but I’m warming up to it, simply because I always ignored it, and because of that it is now a bit novel.
I’m not sure if the wire covers are correct for this car. But, they do look a lot like Ford wire covers from the ’60s. They give the car a bit of a ’64 Ford look. In fact, I see a lot of this car in the ’64 Ford, thanks to Ford’s penchant for busy 50’s looking trim in the early ’60s. I’ll give the ’64 Ford credit for doing a better job with this busy look.
I always liked the ’61-62 Olds Ninety-Eights, myself, because of the trim, clean look. However, I’ve heard that they didn’t go over very well with the general public at the time. I think a big complaint was the narrowed-in front-end, which made the cars look smaller, and less substantial, than they really were.
In comparison, I think a Buick Electra or Cadillac from that era does look like a more substantial, upscale car, and the front-ends on them seem more filled-out. They all seem like they’re trying to be a bit more trim and restrained though, compared to the ’59-60 models. And, they probably were going for a lighter look, as there was a consumer backlash against the bigger cars of ’58-60, although it wouldn’t take long before people started demanding bigger cars again.
I like the 1962 Oldsmobile, Buick and Cadillac. My least favourite has always been the 62 Chevy Bel Air and Impala.
I think it’s pretty .
-Nate
Oldsmobiles weren’t ever really on my radar until the Toronado and most importantly the 68 Cutlass…especially the 4-4-2.
1962 isn’t, in my humble opinion, any brand’s good year for styling. Usually a 61 or a 63 beats it by miles….no matter the manufacturer.
I’m not crazy about this particular model, but there’s a ’61-64 B/C car for almost everyone. My favorite ’62 Olds is the Starfire coupe in that “flamingo” color.
I rode in one of these as a kid (friends’ car) and remember the cool thermometer-style speedometer…very nice!
I have always liked the style of the ’62 Olds. Of course I also have fond memories of the ’62 Dynamic 88 wagon my folks had. We took it on many vacations and I got my licence driving it. My brother and I really were a little rough on it. I agree on the transmission. It shifted slow and hard. While on vacation in Colorado when it was 2 years old we lost a day of the trip so the Olds dealer in the town we were in could rebuild the transmission. Dad kept it until he traded it in on a new ’66 Galaxie. Four years later he bought the Olds back for use as a second car. They used it as that and pulled a camper on more vacations for the next 8 years or so. It was always my folks’ favorite car.
I don’t know how popular these actually were when new but on our block there were 3 others, all sedans. My aunt and uncle also had an 88 hardtop.
As to the ’62 Mopars. The ’62 Dodge took the weird award from the ’61 Plymouth.
I agree with the ’61 or ’63 sentiment over the ’62. Tail lights don’t make sense to me and grille is too busy – but I bet it sure was a nice car to drive when new and that its owners were proud.
My dad had a ’62 Dynamic 88 four door sedan and I remember the trip to the dealer to order it. Of course I pleaded for a Starfire but that was not gonna happen. I did get a promo model of a Starfire coupe out of the deal though.
I wonder what possessed GM to over-emphasize the rear overhang of that car in the brochure? It’s not like it didn’t have enough already 😀 . BTW, quite the coincidence you posted this today, as last evening I found a ’62 88 for sale not far from my apartment. Not quite as original as that example but still very serviceable.
That’s funny Roger! In that era when cars were extra-wide and long the brochures had artistic renderings (rather than photographs) that made them appear even wider and longer! Pontiac’s mid-60’s brochures were classic works of art for over-glamorizing those already beautiful cars. Cars used to be 80% art and 20% engineering and the public seemed to like that…now it seems quite the opposite, doesn’t it?
I think it’s time we brought back the rear fender skirt…starting with the LaCrosse!
Not only the illustrations. Boulevard Photographic, the legendary Detroit photo studio, invented a curved film holder to create distorted photos for ads and brochures. They had to be careful, though – too much distortion and you wound up with oblong wheels!
And while Doyle Dane Bernbach rightly gets credit for using “straight” photography in their classic VW Beetle ads, they weren’t above clever staging. When shooting the front end head on or in 3/4 view, they often set the camera unusually low, too correct for the droopy appearance you get when you shoot a Beetle at normal height; the tip is that you can see part of the undercarriage in the shots.
Not to mention the people in those renderings were drawn so tiny to give the impression of roominess. I recall seeing one print ad featuring six happy, smiling adults comfortably ensconced in a Ford Falcon.
Call me crazy but there’s not a single car from the 1960’s that I do NOT find attractive in some way or another. Perhaps it’s because in those pre-pubescent and early teen years I was OBSESSED with cars and sketched thousands upon thousands of renderings…every one inspired by one car or another. Every -and I do mean EVERY car on the road had at least some element that I found attractive- be it just a taillight lens or a fender curve or sweep of chrome -and boy did I ever love chrome! This particular Olds had me all fired-up over the “floating” front end which extended beyond the front fenderline. It was a fresh idea and remember just going beserk with all sorts of drawings with similar lines. You can only imagine how excited I was when the ’67 Thunderbird came out! Dad almost bought the 4-door T-Bird but chose a ’67 Pontiac Bonneville instead because it had a bigger backseat for his carpool buds.
IMO, Olds of the early ’60’s always were the plain, dull, drab weak sister of the Buick & Pontiac relatives.
Those raindrops bring back a specific memory. My parents bought one of these in a mistaken move toward higher status. As a carcrazy adolescent, my job was keeping it clean and waxed. I enjoyed watching raindrops on the freshly polished Midnight Blue surface.
The car had a nice finish but that was the ONLY nice part. All those power accessories failed all the time. Parents never bought a fancy car again…. stuck with Valiants and Darts after that.
Nice car, Tom. Bummer about the rain. I’m iffy on post-dogbone Oldsmobiles, particularly into the 70s but this is a nice clean design. Came across its stable mate a few months ago.
I guess it’s a minority opinion here, but I think the 1962 Oldsmobile is gorgeous in a subdued way. But I like all the early 1960s C & B bodies from GM.
Bill Mitchell’s genius is on display here, especially when compared to the frumpy offerings from Ford, and the rather bizarre stylings of Virgil Exner from Chrysler during his later tenure there.
The build quality was generally very good on these cars.
I always thought these photographed best at profile, it emphasized the length and clean lines. The four door hardtop looks especially good this era, and I’m not really a fan of four door cars, but these looked youthful and optimistic, perfect for the JFK era.
I always had a soft spot for those “J hook” A pillars on ’61 and ’62 GM cars.
My grandfather had a ’62 88 sedan, but I wish it had been one of these. This car looks great in black, I think.
Tom: what source do you use for production figures?
The numbers came from my Standard Catalog of Automobiles, 1946-75.
It looks just like my long-gone grandmother’s Star Chief.
Anybody ever heard of a 62 flower car that was never completed?
For sale in oz…
The ne plus ultra of business coupes?
“Good morning sir, I’m Ned Poindexter from Acme Canoe Company of Winnetka, IL. Would you like to see some canoes? I have several samples in my car.” 😉
Seems unreal today that back in 1962 an Olds 98 buyer had his choice of two different 4 door hardtops. This was in addition to the usual 4 dr. sedan, 2 dr. hardtop and convertible. With pages of a la carte options to choose from, along with 20 or so paint colors, cars could be quite unique.
I always liked the deep dish steering wheel with the little horn buttons that first appeared on the big Olds in the late 50’s. Ditto the ribbon speedometer, which disappeared in 1963.
I do like these. GM didn’t put a foot wrong on their 1961-64 lineups. Given that, if I were shopping in this price class in ’62, I think a non-letter Chrysler 300 coupe would have been my pick.
“GM didn’t put a foot wrong on their 1961-64 line ups”????
IMO, the 1962 & 1963 models were some of the dullest looking GM cars since the early 1950 Chevys.
1963 in particular.
I’ve always preferred the Starfire. But I wouldn’t turn a nice ninety-eight down.
I do like the 1962 Oldsmobiles, although it’s not one of the marque’s better years. But then I’ve always thought that 1962 was an “off year” for the full-size Chevrolet and Buick, too. Only Pontiac and Cadillac hit the nail squarely on the head with their restyled 1962 models.
While most of the ire seems directed towards the front end treatment, I never liked the taillights on the 1962 Oldsmobiles.
For 1963, Oldsmobile began differentiating the 88 and Ninety-Eight with unique fenders and taillight treatments. For both the Ninety-Eight and Electra, 1962 was the last model year where the main distinctions between these cars and their “lesser” brethren were greater overall length and different rooflines. GM gave the 1963 Ninety-Eight and the Electra distinctive rear fenders and taillight treatments to set them apart from their less expensive siblings.
Judging by the look of the whitewalls and the interior color fade, it appears this car has been sitting in that spot for a while. Granted that this is not a very sought after vehicle, but I hope they don’t end up letting it rot away there. It’s in very good shape for a fifty-three year-old car.
It’s not. I saw it at a car show a few weeks ago.
Back in 1976 when I was working at GM Fremont I had an older lady co worker who had a ’62 Starfire coupe. She had bought it new, it was immaculate and fastidiously maintained. At the time it was already 14 years old,and the mileage was approaching 200,000 miles. At the time I had never seen a car with this type of mileage, in this condition. She told me that she had the motor rebuilt a few years back. She had looked at replacing it with a new car, but she couldn’t find anything that she liked as much. So she decided to have the motor and transmission rebuilt.
I love that picture that Rio posted of the pink four door hardtop. I’ve had two four door hardtops, a ’56 and ’57 Cadillac DeVille. I would easily choose a four door as soon as a two door hardtop. I loved driving with all the windows down. I used to drive in my ’94 Seville with the sunroof open and all windows down, but it wasn’t the same.
It seemed like Buick and Pontiac “did more” with the same shared basic body shell than the other GM divisions did in this time period?
From 20 feet away, I think the ’62 Chevy is much, much better looking than this Olds. I can’t speak for the plushness of the interior however, or the relative engine performance. There would have been Olds loyalists who would never have bought any other car, even if others were easier on the eyes.
One summer apart, I had a 62 Olds 98 and a 62 Buick Electra 225. The Olds was 12 years old when I got it and had plastic seat covers – evidently since new. While the car was a typical 12 year old Wisconsin rust bucket, the seats were immaculate. It was the same color as the one in the picture, but not as nice. I only kept the Olds a single summer for transport to my summer job at an excavating company. The Olds took a trashing driving it to various job sites. It was such a gas hog, I got rid of it when I went back to college. The next summer, I bought the Buick from my boss at the city bus company. The engine had a knock, so I bought it cheap and babied it far more than the Olds. It lasted the summer without me having to tear into it. I always like the Olds better. It could be driven roughly while the Buick needed to be driven gently. I always loved the change color speedometer ribbon. The Olds was the only car I ever saw that treated the passenger to a similar light show. A colorful plastic insert on the right of the dash spelled out “Ninety-Eight” in glowing back lit letters. It was pretty impressive at night.
A handful in Seattle, 1961-62 (World’s Fair still under construction):
I agree with everyone who said 61-64 were not great years for gm styling. This car is dull compared to a 58-59 oldsmobile. even perhaps the 60 oldsmobiles. I cannot imagine trading in a 58 or 59 for this car. It is better looking than the vaunted 61-62 chevy but compared with the 58-59 rocket age styling and beauty? This is the olds ciera of the 60s, the car which blends in with dumpsters.
I agree with everyone who said 61-64 were not great years for gm styling. This car is dull compared to a 58-59 oldsmobile. even perhaps the 60 oldsmobiles. I cannot imagine trading in a 58 or 59 for this car. It is better looking than the vaunted 61-62 chevy but compared with the 58-59 rocket age styling and beauty? This is the olds ciera of the 60s, the car which blends in with dumpsters.
The days of the annual styling change: if you didn’t care for the current styling, simply wait for next year’s new cars, maybe they’d be more palatable.
Mitchell tried out the full-length sculpted sweeps with light chrome accents before he moved completely into cleaner sculpted surfaces. It was fascinating to watch the transition from year to year.
I have always loved the Oldsmobile Deep Dish steering wheels.
Chrome trim on front doors looks more fifties than sixties. I find the rest of the car nondescript and the flat side windows look dated. Some of the ’61s still had the neat cantilevered roof which apparently was dropped in 1962. Still I somehow like it.
I think the side trim on the 62 Oldsmobile is just too over done. I do find it impressive that each division had such different looking vehicles. Chevrolet had the simplest design. But they did manage to make each model year look different. I have always liked the 63 Chevrolet the best. Maybe it’s because my family had a 63 Belair wagon for my whole childhood.
I see people here commenting that they like some 50’s GM’s better. In the early 60’s a taller car like a 57 Chevrolet, or a finned car like the 59 batwing Chevrolet looked ancient compared the the sleek 60’s cars. Also, the classic 57 Chevrolet looked old compared to the sleek Mopars (quality aside) in 57.
For 1962, I still like the simpler Chevrolet design. I like the Pontiac next. The Buick and Oldsmobile are a draw. Cadillac is a whole different thing. In my opinion, they are all better than the dowdy Ford that year.
With the sole exception of Pontiac, 1962 just wasn’t a banner styling year for not only GM, but Ford and (obviously) Chrysler, too. I can appreciate those who consider the 1962 Buick better looking than the Oldsmobile, but it’s not by much.
For me, it would be quite easy to choose a 1962 Pontiac Ventura hardtop over everything else, which is one of the few years in the sixties when the choice would be that easy.
The irony is that if Chrysler hadn’t messed around with the ill-advised, last-minute downsizing of the full-size Plymouth and Dodge and stuck with the original proposals, they might have actually done quite well for 1962. As it was, with the Ford and Chrysler styling blunders, even the mediocre GM cars cleaned-up for 1962.