Mid-priced cars trying to poach buyers from the low-priced league was a familiar tactic even in the early ’60s, but the 1964 Oldsmobile Jetstar 88 was a new escalation: a B-body Oldsmobile with a small-block engine and a two-speed automatic like a Chevrolet Impala? Motor Trend tried the new Jetstar 88 in April 1964 and found that the powertrain worked better than expected, but the downsized brakes were downright scary.
Oldsmobile advertised the 1964 Jetstar 88 as a “brand new full-size 88 series with a brand new lower price!” Motor Trend described it like this:
Offering four models (a four-door sedan, Holiday four-door hardtop, a two-door hardtop, and a convertible), the Jetstar 88 stands in price between the F-85 and the Dynamic 88 series. Yet this is a full-sized Oldsmobile, sharing the 123-inch wheelbase of the Dynamic 88. Model for model, its price is §75 to $100 less than the Dynamic 88’s and from $350 to $400 below the Super 88’s.
The more relevant price comparison was not with any other Oldsmobile model, but with the extremely popular Chevrolet Impala. In 1964, the cheapest Impala V-8 sedan started at $2,768, where the cheapest Jetstar 88 started at $2,924. Thus, for just $156 more than the Impala, buyers could have a full-size Olds, which was bigger (despite sharing the same body shell) and had the added luster of the Oldsmobile name.
The Jetstar 88 also had an important secondary mission: helping Oldsmobile atone for the lackluster profitability of the outgoing Y-body F-85/Cutlass. Sales of Oldsmobile’s 1961–1963 senior compact had been disappointing (at least by GM standards), and it was costly to produce, in part because it shared almost nothing with the rest of the Oldsmobile line. Oldsmobile wasn’t going to make that mistake again, so they looked for ways to share the all-new powertrain of the latest A-body F-85/Cutlass with other Oldsmobile models. (Buick did the same thing with its 1964 LeSabre, presumably for the same reason.)
Motor Trend‘s test car was a yellow Jetstar 88 Holiday Sedan four-door hardtop, with a starting price of $3,058. Unfortunately, I once again struck out finding survivors in that body style, which is why the color pictures in this post are of two-door Holiday Coupes.
As I noted above, the way Oldsmobile had been able to bring the price of the Jetstar 88 closer to Impala territory was to borrow hardware from the intermediate A-body. MT editor Bob McVay explained:
Although the new series uses the full-sized body and wheelbase, its basic components — engine, brakes, and running gear — are shared with the smaller F-85. A brand-new, lightweight, cast-iron engine (called the Jetfire Rocket) and a new two-speed torque converter automatic transmission (Jetaway) are Jetstar 88 items.
The 330 engine was Oldsmobile’s replacement for the troublesome, expensive-to-build aluminum 215. It shared some basic tooling with the bigger Rocket engine, along with the same bore spacing, but it was essentially an all-new engine. The 330 cu. in, 5.4-liter displacement, exactly 50 cc more than a Chevrolet Turbo-Fire 327, was tailored to comply with GM corporate policy on engine size for the 1964 A-body intermediates.
In principle, taking 100 lb or so off the nose should have resulted in better, more balanced handling, but Oldsmobile gave the Jetstar 88 front springs about 10 percent softer than on cars with the big Rocket V-8. As usual, a plush smooth-roads ride was the biggest priority for Oldsmobile chassis designers. Motor Trend observed:
Out on the road, the Olds Jetstar 88 gives a nice, soft, boulevard ride. It felt softer than the Dynamic 88 we tested last year, and it was. Springs are stiffer and the anti-roll bar is thicker on the Dynamic and Super 88 series. Filled with gas, our Jetstar weighed 4210 pounds and gave us much the same sure-footed handling ease of its stablemates, yet it seemed just a bit softer. Body roll on fast turns wasn’t extreme: neither was nose dive or rear-end squat during hard braking or fast acceleration. The car’s power steering, with 3.8 turns between locks, gave a light, positive road feel at all times and let us negotiate fast, winding roads without undue wheel winding. Hard dips taken more quickly than normal found the front suspension bobbing up and down two or three times before settling down again. Tight turns, taken fast, caused the carburetor to flood slightly and made the engine miss a beat or two.
The captions on the above page read:
1) Although the brakes on our particular test car were defective, Jetstar 88 with good brakes took 187 feet for 60-mph stop. With smaller drums than any full-sized GM model, Jetstar 88’s 9½-inch units took longer to cool and heated up more quickly than Dynamic or Super 88s’ 11-inchers would’ve. 2) Lightweight Jetfire Rocket V-8, with thin-wall cylinders, puts out 245 hp in standard form, has two-barrel carb. Four-barrel costs 834 more, adds 45 hp. Either way, new engine is very smooth, quiet, and flexible throughout its rpm range. 3) All four fenders can be seen from driver’s seat, with fine 360-degree view. Four-door hardtop makes getting in and out easy. Car holds six adults, has ample trunk room for luggage. 4) Out-of-the-way spare leaves trunk uncluttered, but it’s hard to get at when there’s a full load of suitcases aboard.
The 1964 Jetfire Rocket engine was actually only partly a thinwall design, apparently due to foundry limitations. That fact, combined with the need to share transfer machinery with the 394, made the 330 heavier than it might otherwise have been; it weighed about 40 lb more than a Chevrolet 327.
The new engine, whose design would soon be shared with the tall-deck 425, had provision for greater use of thinwall casting, so later iterations were a bit lighter.
The photo caption above reads, “Jetstar 88 proved quiet and comfortable on highway or around town. Despite F-85 running gear, performance is adequate.”
Quiet was a key design priority for full-size Oldsmobiles, but Olds presumed that their customers had no more than a passing interest in minutiae like oil pressure or coolant temperature:
At all highway speeds, from a crawl in traffic to over-80-mph cruising, the car was whisper-quiet. Our overall impression was the same as Olds gave us last year — a quiet, relaxing, comfortable car to drive and ride in. Oldsmobile’s integrated air conditioner and heating system worked perfectly, letting us set and keep any desired temperature. Controls are few and simple. The heater filled the car with warm air in minutes after starting on a cold morning.
The only gauge on the Olds’ dashboard is for fuel. An easily read speedometer is the center of attraction, while warning lights tell of oil pressure, heating, and battery troubles. The step-on parking brake proved quick and easy to set or release.
The test car had the L74 330 four-barrel engine, a $34.43 option that gave 290 gross horsepower rather than the two-barrel engine’s 245 hp. Much like the 300 hp Chevrolet 327, the four-barrel 330 gave surprisingly strong performance even with the two-speed automatic and tall 3.08 axle. However, fuel economy wasn’t impressive: Motor Trend averaged a meager 11.4 mpg with the Jetstar 88, and their best recorded mileage was only 13.7 mpg in freeway driving.
MT testers had generally positive feelings about the new transmission, which was a $209.82 option fitted to nearly all Jetstar 88s:
Joining Oldsmobile’s power team for 1964 is the new Jetaway automatic transmission. It’s a variable-vane, two-speed torque converter that uses a die-cast aluminum case and weighs a light 152 pounds. Low and REVERSE gears have five plates each in their drive clutches, and both use a 1.76-to-1 ratio. SECOND (or DRIVE) is a direct hook-up. The variable-vane control gives increased converter torque between 10 and 60 mph. A heavy-duty version of the Jetaway automatic is also available. The Jetaway costs about $20 less than the Hydra-Matic unit.
Driving this new engine/transmission combination felt a bit different from former Oldsmobiles with Hydra-Matic units. The Jetaway felt a lot smoother and didn’t seem to lose so many rpm between shifts as the three-speed Hydra-Matic in last year’s F-85. Under full throttle, it’d upshift at 65 mph, but it had lots of pulling power above 70 mph. Descending steep grades, the Jetaway’s Low range would hold the car between 35 and 40 mph. If we wanted to go faster, DRIVE was necessary. (Here’s where we liked the Hydra-Matte’s intermediate range. It gave more control for climbing as well as coming down steep grades.) The two-speed torque converter is shared with GM intermediates, and the bigger three-speed torque converters (used on full-sized Buicks and some Cadillac models) are expected to completely replace the Hydra-Matic in the near future.
The Jetaway was actually manufactured by Buick, which called the two-speed transmission Super Turbine 300. Its dry weight was actually 135 lb (the figure Motor Trend quoted was with fluid) — surprisingly, it was a few pounds heavier than the three-speed Hydra-Matic, although it was cheaper to build. The two-speed provided crisper shifts and was more reliable than the leaky Hydra-Matic, and its two-position stator partly compensated for its lack of an intermediate gear. (While Buick offered Turbo Hydra-Matic on the smaller-engine LeSabre, Oldsmobile buyers who chose the 330 were limited to the two-speed Jetaway.)
The photo captions read, “We’d prefer gauges to usual Olds red warning lights. Directional air vents allow even cooling and heating. Body mounts directly to frame side rails via torque boxes at each corner of Guard-Beam perimeter frame.”
If the Jetstar 88 powertrain was completely adequate, the smaller A-body brakes were not, something even Motor Trend‘s usual conciliatory tone couldn’t really paper over:
The brakes on our test car just didn’t feel so effective as they should have. Even though the Jetstar is a bigger, heavier car, it shares 9½-inch, cast-iron drums with the F-85. Effective area is up this year to 155.6 square inches (over 127 square inches for the F-85 last year). The Dynamic 88 uses 11-inch drums and has 163.5 square inches of effective lining.
Our test cars brakes heated up quickly under hard use and took a long time to cool down. Braking distances were 35 feel from 30 mph and a long 210 feet from 60 mph. The car pulled to the left and swerved left on hard application, so we took off the drums and found that the secondary lining on the left front shoe had disintegrated and that all linings were badly glazed from someone’s abuse before we got the car.
Oldsmobile immediately furnished us with another Jetstar 88. We’ll have to admit its braking was smoother and more effective than our initial test car’s, but even at that, it was only a little better than adequate. After less than 10 miles of hard mountain driving, we managed to stop from 60 mph in 187 feet. We came to a halt with the pedal against the steering column and the brakes almost completely faded away. All other full-sized GM cars use 11-inch or larger brake drums and have greater effective lining area than the Jetstar 88. For those who want more than marginal braking, we recommend the optional metallic linings.
Even the 11-inch brakes were marginal in GM B- and C-body cars, so installing the even smaller 9.5-inch drums on the B-body Jetstar 88 was shockingly irresponsible for what were intended as family cars. While Motor Trend seemed prepared to accept Oldsmobile’s contention that the brakes of the first test car were “defective,” badly glazed linings are a product of excessive heat, and the “abuse” of which the editors spoke was likely just another magazine’s brake tests.
Motor Trend noted that the Jetstar 88 was available with both a three-speed manual transmission (with unsynchronized low) and an all-synchro four-speed, but both were very rare. According to Automotive Industries, only 0.5 percent of 1964 full-size Oldsmobiles (all series) had a three-speed stick, and just 0.1 percent had the four-speed. There were a few, however; the car below has the four-speed, and was special-ordered with the hotter 310 hp engine from the Cutlass 4-4-2, which wasn’t normally offered in the Jetstar 88.
McVay concluded:
Getting back to the Jetstar 88, our test car reflected good fit and finish, as we’ve come to expect from the Oldsmobile division of General Motors. We found the new torque converter [automatic] quite a bit smoother than the Hydra-Matic. Teamed with the new Jetfire Rocket V-8, it should please the family looking for Oldsmobile room, comfort, and quality in a full-sized package for less than a full-sized price tag. Oldsmobile’s making an honest effort to please most of the people most of the time. Their fourth-place national sales standing proves they’re doing a good job.
Oldsmobile continued to do very well for 1964, building a total of 546,112 car (including 1,666 for export), up almost 15 percent from 1963.
The Motor Trend car was fully loaded, with nearly every option other than trailering equipment, including air conditioning. This brought the sticker price to a hefty $4,498.93, which was hardly in the bargain league. A similarly equipped 1964 Impala wasn’t cheap either, but it would probably have cost around $300 less. Air conditioning was a big-ticket item on either car — Oldsmobile charged $430.40 for it — and it wasn’t yet common. Only 39.5 percent of full-size Oldsmobile buyers ordered air in 1964.
Here are the performance figures from the data panel:
- 0 to 30 mph: 3.8 secs.
- 0 to 45 mph: 6.0 secs.
- 0 to 60 mph: 9.2 secs.
- Standing start quarter mile: 17.6 secs. at 83 mph
- Top speed: 105 mph at 4,500 rpm (actual observed top speed)
Despite its surprisingly good performance, the Jetstar 88 wasn’t a big success: Production for 1964 totaled 62,505 cars, about 40 percent of those the plain four-door Jetstar 88 Celebrity Sedan, followed by 55,437 cars in 1965 and 30,247 in 1966.
I think the problem was that the Jetstar 88 was really only $70 cheaper than a comparable Dynamic 88. Most people who could afford the Jetstar could also afford the Dynamic 88, which probably seemed like a better deal. For 1967, Oldsmobile consolidated the Jetstar 88 and Dynamic 88 into a new low-line Delmont 88 series, which was available with either the 330 or the 425. It sold better than the Jetstar 88, but more than half of Delmont buyers took the bigger engine.
Like the Impala 327 and the LeSabre, the Jetstar 88 demonstrated that the smaller V-8 engines were perfectly suitable for full-size cars, offering fine acceleration with less weight on the nose than a big block V-8. However, unlike Chevrolet and Buick buyers, most Oldsmobile customers expected big engines in their big cars, and it would take an oil crisis to change their minds.
Related Reading
Curbside Classic: 1964 Oldsmobile Jetstar 88 Hardtop (by Dave Skinner)
Car Show Classics: 1964 Oldsmobile Dynamic 88 Convertible — 394 cubic inches and 3-on-the Tree (by VinceC)
Vintage Car Life Road Test: 1964 Oldsmobile Jetstar I – A Loaded Stripper (by Paul N)
Vintage Car Life Road Test: 1965 Buick LeSabre 400 – Small Block Big Body Buick (by Paul N)
I had never thought about this, but a Jetstar 88 may have been a better long term car than the bigger Oldsmobiles if only by getting rid of the troublesome slim jim 3 speed Hydra Matic. The 330 was not a weak engine, and most Olds buyers would have probably been fine with it.
My mother’s 64 Cutlass had the 4 bbl 330, and she always said it was a fast car. I don’t ever recall her checking gas mileage with it, but it probably wasn’t great, even in the smaller car. That it required premium gas didn’t help, but she got rid of the car around the time people started paying attention to gas mileage in the early 70s
It is a head scratcher why they felt the need to put the tiny brakes on the Jetstar version. My guess is that they were desperate to shave more cost out of the car.
Two years later this same division would roll out a heavy, high-powered front-wheel-drive car with front drum brakes and no proportioning valve (that wasn’t added until year two of production).
Braking performance does not appear to have been a priority for Olds division management during this era.
Aaron, I was just a kid when these quiet automotive sagas were playing out. I always look for your byline, to read your thorough, deliberate and sober analysis. It’s quit a hat trick to pull of, making stories like this come to life. Thanks, and keep it up!
Quite a nice looking car. All the heater controls “slid right”! Trying to divert heat from the motor? H’mm.
As an aging Boomer I find this car very pretty .
In the early 1980’s a kid down the block from me’s bigger brother bought one like this but in the light metallic green, it didn’t run well so my buddy (about 18 at that time) went to work on it and in a few days it ran like new .
Ne dents and good original paint, I gave them a can of wax but being kids neither one ever bothered to clean it up .
My buddy and I took it out for some Sunday drives and the brakes were fine even when hustling it across Los Angeles’ Mulholland Drive at some what extra legal speeds .
Not everything needs to be a Sports Car .
-Nate
I always thought that the Jet Star was offered to meet the competition of the Chrysler Newport. During this time period, Chrysler spent much advertising promotion on the $2964. list price of a new Newport sedan. That price sold a lot of cars, and hurt sales of Plymouth and others.
Good point. Seems like all the mid price makes in 1964 were decontenting in order to lure Impala, Galaxie and Fury buyers. Buick made the 300 cubic inch engine standard this year and trim levels of the standard 88 and LeSabre were comparable to a Chevy Belair, not Impala. Curiously, Pontiac kept the 389 across all full-size models. I suppose DeLorean didn’t want to sully the division’s performance image.
That was probably a consideration as well, although there were a lot more sales to be stolen from Chevrolet than for Chrysler.