(first posted 4/4/2016) Rest assured, this is not a belated April Fool’s Day post. In the August 1973 issue of Car and Driver, the editors lined up a rather unusual comparison test, pitting the newest sedan from Stuggart against the latest from Lansing. Were they crazy?
Actually, the test made some sense. First off, in 1973 Oldsmobile still enjoyed a sterling reputation with American car buyers, and sales were on the upswing. Likewise, Mercedes was rapidly gaining traction in the American market with pragmatic, impeccably engineered cars. Though Mercedes-Benz cars were far more expensive, both brands were targeting affluent buyers seeking something beyond just “standard” transportation. But what would the cars have in common, besides both being all-new designs with 4-doors and wearing body-colored wheel covers? Quite a lot, it turns out.
GM was tentatively dipping their toe into the “European” arena with some of the new-for-1973 A-body variants, offering packages/models with more responsive handling and, at least in some cases, better seats. The Oldsmobile Cutlass Salon and Pontiac Grand Am were the leading examples of this new breed.
Given that handsome, conservative styling was also typically part of the allure of European designs, it made sense for Car and Driver to pick the Salon for the test. The Oldsmobile was more cleanly styled than the Pontiac—the Grand Am, with its ultra-prominent “deformable” snout, severely sloping deck lid and bullet shaped fenders, would likely have been too garish for anyone with more Continental tastes.
The purpose of the test was not to deify Mercedes and embarrass Oldsmobile, rather it was to highlight the different philosophies that produced the cars. The Benz was a technological tour de force, offering efficient packaging, state-of-the-art safety features, sophisticated suspension and powertrains. Naturally, it was priced accordingly ($14,266 as-tested, which is $76,185 adjusted), with a cost-be-damned mentality in the quest for the best—too bad Cadillac didn’t take note.
The Cutlass was also a refined design—at least as far as cost-controlled, tried-and-true American components were concerned. For its size, packaging wasn’t great, and all the technology and features were very familiar. But everything worked as intended, and the Olds represented affordable, mass-produced Detroit iron at its finest. Plus, the Salon offered some surprisingly nice features for the class, with a reasonable $5,231 price tag ($27,935 adjusted).
Interestingly, for comparison purposes, Car and Driver used the 1972 predecessors to the featured cars: the Mercedes 280SEL 4.5 and the Oldsmobile Cutlass represented the swan song of their old designs (remember when GM thought a design was “done” after 5 years—not 15 like the embarrassingly ancient Ciera?). For both the German and the American, C&D noted that in some ways neither ’73 car was as good as the model it replaced.
While the 450SE trounced the Cutlass when it came to the sophistication of the mechanical components, in real-world use their performance was remarkably similar. The Oldsmobile was geared for softness, isolation and “fingertip” control, so it felt different than the precise, mechanical Mercedes. But the numbers don’t lie—the Oldsmobile was in no way left in the dust by the Mercedes.
In fact, in a few key areas, the Olds was superior to the Mercedes. Ride comfort and quiet, typical strengths of American cars, were lacking in the German machine. The jarring ride and higher ambient noise levels in the Mercedes made the environment less pleasant for passengers than for the driver, whereas the Oldsmobile coddled everyone in the car.
The interior trim in the Salon also earned praise, with nice corduroy cloth all around and reclining buckets in front. Too bad more Cutlass buyers didn’t go for this package—most Cutlass Supremes came with bench seats featuring “embroidered” filigree on the backrests covered in brocade cloth or vinyl.
Speaking of vinyl, the MB Tex upholstery in the 450SE truly was some of the toughest stuff on earth—and I know that from direct experience. My Mother-in-law had a 1979 300SD—the diesel-powered S-Class from the last years of this generation—which she drove for almost 20 years and hundreds of thousands of miles. While the car was well worn from a long, rough life in Bergen County New Jersey, the MB Tex looked like it was brand new, even though the seats underneath were sprung. I sometimes wonder if the shredder was even able to eradicate the MB Tex after the car was scrapped…
Car and Driver also went into detail on the testing procedures used to evaluate the cars. Given how incredulous some readers might be about the closeness of the results between the “best sedan in the world” and a “pedestrian domestic,” it was wise for the editors to document their protocols.
In summary, Car and Driver liked both cars and viewed them as good expressions of their manufacturer’s intent. They did offer feedback on how to make the cars better, advising Mercedes to improve the ride and comfort in the S-Class while admonishing Olds to make the Cutlass tighter in structure and improve handling feel.
In spite of its “engineering über alles” mentality, over the years Mercedes-Benz would incorporate market feedback, and the brand’s offerings became quite luxurious in addition to retaining their performance prowess. However, GM certainly didn’t take any of C&D’s constructive criticism to heart, and sadly, Oldsmobile is now gone (which would have been unthinkable in 1973). In fact, the brand entered its death throes with the ultimate bastardization of the once-great Cutlass name, offering a frumpy, rebadged Chevrolet model with ancient mechanicals and cheap materials. Definitely not my father’s Oldsmobile…
Nor did the “European” direction effectively take root with domestic offerings in the early 1970s. Personal luxury was ruling the roost for American buyers, as epitomized by the Cutlass Supreme coupe. While sales breakouts for the Salon aren’t available for 1973, they couldn’t have been that high. The Salon package was only available on the Cutlass Supreme sedan, which sold just 26,099 total units for ’73, compared with the phenomenal 219,857 Supreme coupes sold that year. For 1974, a breakout of cars with the Salon package was listed, and a mere 6,766 sedans were so equipped, about 2% of total Cutlass output that year. Even factoring in the new-for-1974 Salon coupe, which sold 31,207 units, the “Euro” package was just a small blip on the Cutlass radar.
The Salon nomenclature couldn’t have helped. While the name was undoubtedly meant to evoke a Parisian drawing room or a gathering of intelligent, artistic people, most Americans probably would have thought first of hair, nails or tanning. For whatever reason, Oldsmobile seemed to like the name—it denoted the “European” Cutlass models through 1977 (the Salon sedan bowed out after 1976). Then it was applied to all the hunchback sedans and coupes with the 1978 A-body redesign, at which time the “sporty” Cutlass Supremes were renamed Calais. Even though the Salon name seemed to die along with the unfortunate aeroback body style, it actually wasn’t gone for good at Olds. The strange name then reappeared for 1985 on the “sporty” Cutlass Supreme coupe, after the Calais name transferred to the N-body.
The other issue was that European brand intenders in 1973 likely did not want an Oldsmobile, or any other “European inspired” car from an American brand, no matter how competent. While the Cutlass was considered classy in Beverly Hills, Michigan, it wouldn’t get a second look in Beverly Hills, California. It was too big, too “styled” and too “common” to be considered desirable by the coastal automotive cognoscenti.
Still, it was gratifying to see an article where a GM car could more than hold its own against one of the world’s best from Germany. It was a testament to how good Oldsmobile once was, and a credit to Car and Driver for producing a surprising and thought provoking article.
A great lunchtime read. Two things stick out to me. First, by 1973, GM really had its mojo on in terms of suspension design and handling. These were really, really good handling cars in their day, and were proving better than the prior champions over at Chrysler. My Stepmom’s 74 Cutlass and my Mom’s 74 LeMans were head and shoulders above most of the 60s iron I was used to driving, and neither of them had radials, either.
Second, this is what really, really frustrates me about GM. The 73 Cutlass really did do almost everything as well as an S class that cost 3 times more. The price point screamed at the Olds buyer in the body structure and interior trim, but in terms of engine, transmission and suspension, that damned Cutlass was a monster. The 77-79 B body with a 350/THM was probably even better. Then, within twenty years, they Just. Forgot. How.
People retire over a 20 year period, or just leave. If they are not replaced by competent new people, then there will be trouble.
It is indeed frustrating when companies fail to keep hold of tribal knowledge. Chrysler for many years were widely regarded as building the world’s best automatic transmission, the Torqueflite. Then they forgot how, and foisted the A604
ProbleMaticUltraDrive on the world, thus swapping their former reputation for its opposite. Volvo forgot how to build a reliable electrical system in the mid-1990s—and I don’t just mean complicated stuff, I mean they forgot basic stuff like how to specify bulb sockets that work and don’t melt. Mercedes forgot how to make cars that last for decades. VW forgot…uh…no, sorry, I don’t have that much time. There are dozens or hundreds of examples if one chooses to shovel this particular sad pile of manure.ProbleMatic, hahaha…great joke name for a transmission.
+100!
Love it!
I wasn’t joking. 🙁
Volvos electrical troubles started in the 80’s. You should have seen how many separate switches and wiring I had to add to my wives 84 DL. She finally sold it when I had to wire a switch to the electric fuel pump because the insulation had crumbled off the wires. To start it, you turned the key to on and pressed a separate switch on the steering column. Her mechanic had done that before I had met her.
Most of that was due to a boneheaded choice of wire insulation material, which turned out to degrade in normal automotive conditions. Volvo replaced a lot of mid-1980s wiring harnesses under warranty, and Volvo owners out of warranty replaced a lot of them under duress. Aside from that and the similarly-boneheaded choice of a corrosion-prone fuse design, there wasn’t much fundamentally the matter with the electrical system design or specification of those cars—not like the idiocy that started in the mid-’90s.
Your right. Other than the homemade wiring and indeed a weird fuse design, her car was actually quite in good shape with 188,000 miles on it. Only other repair it needed was a PS pump. Since Volvo was using Saginaw pumps by then, I simply bolted on the one from my wrecked 80 Buick Electra with the 4.1 V6. By then Buick was using metric fittings as well so the pump bolted right into the Volvo brackets like it belonged there and even the hoses screwed right on. I was shocked.
The problem of crumbling wiring insulation also affected Saabs of the mid-1980s. The companies must have gotten burned by the same supplier.
A Swedish supplier or Lucas!
I had an 82 DL which required an engine overhaul due to the abuse of a previous owner. This is when it was about 6 years old. When I pulled the engine, the big wiring harness that looped under the pulley at the oil pan just crumbled in my hand. It took hours of splicing in wire and heat shrink tubing to get it corrected. Their electrical systems were awful!
I feel for ya my friend.
In retrospect, what jumps out is that no 1973 Cadillac would have been able to keep up with the Mercedes. Cadillac was supposed to be the “Standard of the World,” but it was painfully apparent by the early 1970s that this wasn’t how a large segment of the American market viewed Cadillac. This test should have set off serious alarm bells at GM headquarters.
True, but the Wreath&Crest far outsold the three pointed star. That has to count for something.
Cadillacs were also considerably cheaper than this particular Mercedes, if I recall correctly.
So did the Ford Maverick.
Bottom line was that the Mercedes was damned close to a cost-is-no-object luxury car. Cadillac, by this point, was already a dead man walking, just nobody realized it. A Cadillac wasn’t all that much more than a Chevrolet by the 70’s in build quality. What they had was a name, gew-gaws, and one hell of a profit margin.
And GM was damned fool dumb enough to think they could get away while building a Chevrolet, calling it a Cadillac, and people wouldn’t notice.
Yes, Jim, the Olds and Pontiac 350’s with the 350 THM of that era were bulletproof and ran pretty well given the smog restrictions.
In the Consumer Guide look at the 74 cars, hardcover edition, they said Gm’s 350 engines had a sort of biblical fundamentalism to them. They were reliable and lively and didnt need much more than a Rochester 2 bbl to unleash all this goodwill . They also stated that with emission controls they weren’t quite as good as their forbears, but they remained a engine for all seasons and reasons.
I have never thought the Colonnades were as bad as some people here claim, and this pretty much bears that out. For their time they were decent cars.
I thought I remembered this comparo, but I figured it would be a match-up with the Cutlass Salon or Cutlass International Series. But since the Salon wouldn’t arrive until 75 and I don’t know when the International Series ( model or option package? )showed up, my memory was faulty.
I always thought these Colonnade Cutlasses were “a better Matador” coupe.
A good re-read, as I sort-of remember this from back then.
Yes, a properly-equipped Colonnade was quite capable. But one has to keep in mind that the Mercedes was designed for running the Autobahn flat out for hours on end, thus its compromises in terms of its ride. These cars felt harsh and stiff until one got to about 80 mph or so. At about 100 or more, they felt supreme.
And speaking of capabilities, they should have tested the brakes for more than one stop from 70. How about ten stops in a row? That would have been a bit more indicative of their respective capabilities.
I used to chuckle during the Great Benz Mania in LA (and soon the rest of the country) when I saw older folks trading in their Caddys and Lincolns on these, and then complaining about the ride. If you’re going to chug around town or roll down the freeway at 55, this is not the best choice for a smooth ride. But the lure of the three-pointed star was much too great.
A very good point. However, was there anything standing between an Olds of this sort and sustained high speed running beyond a tighter steering ratio, bigger brakes and stiffer springs? Guessing here, but I would suspect that if anything could stand up to it, it would be an Olds 350 and a THM 400. I think that Oldsmobile was closer to being able to do what M-B did with its S Class than M-B was able to do what Olds did with the Cutlass. In other words, while the Benz was undoubtedly a much more finely crafted car that could handle the Autobahn easily, Oldsmobile offered 90% of the Benz’ ability and maybe 80% of its mechanical durability for 1/3 of the price – and even less after factoring in the *much* stiffer costs of repairs and maintenance over several years.
This reminds me of my own experience between my 85 GTI and the wife’s 88 Accord. The German VW just felt like a driver’s car, and really made you feel great behind the wheel. But objectively, the Accord had better numbers for almost every performance test, and a much better reliability experience besides.
Agreed, on all counts. Mercedes was very slow to adapt in any way to American tastes and expectations; typical of the German “we know better” attitude. The Olds was a screaming deal compared to the Mercedes, and undoubtedly would have been a fine cruiser at 100 or so, with the proper equipment/options/mods.
The reality is that Mercedes’ uncompromising ways was a boon for a few select folks: those that actually used its capabilities fully, and those that wanted a bank-vault solid car for the long haul. Which is why these (although not so much the 450) are still desirable as daily driver used cars.
But that did not make for a viable long-term business plan, especially when Lexus showed them how to do it right. And them MBZ threw out their uncompromising approach. Now they’re built like just so many other cars.
FWIW, it was that uncompromising approach, which was flawed in pure objective terms, as this comparison makes clear, that gave them their unique appeal and desirability. Let’s face it, a Rolls Royce hasn’t been an objectively “better” car for eons. It’s a similar situation.
And one that ultimately is all about prestige. Which is why folks who could afford it snapped up the 450SE and not the Cutlas Salon.
…but Merceds of this era were (and are) comfortable for drives below 100 MPH. A few weeks ago, I bought a 1981 Mercedes 380 SL – In superb condition and with only 63,000 miles on it – in Melbourne. My brother and I drove it back to Brisbane, a distance of over 1000 miles. No autobahns here, but quite good highways with mostly 100 or 110 klm (approx 60 and 65 MPH) sipped Li it’s which, by the way, are rigidly enforced every inch of the way!
This model SL shares many suspension design elements and components with the 116 Mercedes in the road test. At highway speeds well under 100 MPH the SL delivered a superbly comfortable ride, remarkable on a car with such a short wheelbase and short overall length. We repeatedly remarked about how comfortable it was, indeed more so than many much more modern cars. The seat springing also is noticeable in working to iron out bumps. Handling was very good as well and the car felt remarkably safe for something that is 36 years old. Spring rates are probably more tuned to comfort than handling, but that said the handling inspires confidence.
My point is that one does not need to be doing 100 MPH on a billiard table smooth autobahn to benefit from the excellent suspension design of Mercedes of this era. Our highways range from course mix bitumen to concrete, nice straight stretches of dual carriageway to narrow twisting mountainous roads – pretty much everything imaginable. The SL handled them all with aplomb and delivered us fresh and with very little fatigue – vasly superior to anything else of its time. ITs handling safety proved itself too, especially during night time emergency manoeuvres when, during a storm, I had to swerve suddenly to avoid a tree trunk that had just collapsed onto the road – the car following us was not quick enough and actually hit it.
I don’t know the Pontiac from the test very well, but I know the Merc and would suggest it is a vastly superior long distance proposition, back then and still today.
As an aside, the effort and resources dedicated to catching speeding motorists in Australia never ceases to amaze me. This trip involved driving through three states – Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland and of the three Victoria seemed the most reasonable. NSW has fixed speed cameras seemingly every couple of kilometre but in fairness tree are always several warning signs. In Queensland it’s different – most speed cameras are deliberately hidden or mobile units with no warning at all and they will book you even if you are doing just 2 kilometres per hour – thats approx 1 MPH – over the limit. This is absurd given that most speedometers in new cars are not that accurate and even slight variations in tyre pressures can put your speedo off by more that that pathetically small margin.
Beware!
Amen. Even my up-hill-wheezy 280SE 116 is a superb highway driver. No real need for me to go over 130kmh when passing and that can be accommodated. The one thing that still has me scratching my head is how low the car and drivers seat is to the ground for a demographic that’s skewed older and better-fed. Makes it feel sportier though. Hehehe
And congrats on the 107.
I must disagree. Nothing is a a better cross country car than a Colonnade. And they just keep going, you can’t kill them.
🙂
Problem with Collonades is that’s how they all end up looking if you dare drive cross country with them!
“And speaking of capabilities, they should have tested the brakes for more than one stop from 70. How about ten stops in a row? That would have been a bit more indicative of their respective capabilities.”
In Road and Track’s test of a 1973 Salon, that appears to be very similar to the C/D car, they did 6 stops for 60 mph at .5 gs. This resulted in a 188% increase in pedal effort to maintain the .5g stop. The car also took 189 feet to stop from 60 MPH and 324 feet from 80 mph. They only gave an overall brake rating of fair. Personally, I always thought the brakes on these Colonnade cars were undersized for their weight. They should have used 12″ discs and 11″ rear drums.
Speaking of the Colonnade Cutlass, I spotted that vintage review from Car & Track.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xe9omy_1973-oldsmobile-cutlass-road-test_auto
And here another one in French when Jacques Duval, who did “Le Guide de l’Auto”, also had a show titled “Prenez le Volant” who was broadcasted on French CBC/Radio-Canada in the late 1960s-early 1970s with a Cutlass Supreme.
It’s Bud Lindemann’s Quebecois cousin!
LOL
I couldn’t help smiling at the sound of the door closing at 5:30 – a good reminder of typical 1970’s build standards.
(clunk…rattle rattle) and if driving with the windows down, a constant rattle from the drivers door due to sloppy latches. I know that sound well, hear it very regularly from my 77 Chevelle.
Of course the Cutlass Salon was European. It even had flags on its fender badge to prove it.
HaHa, yes, I remember these. Not long after my mother bought her 72 Cutlass Supreme, a 73 Cutlass Salon turned up down the street at a neighbor’s house. I remember being confused by the “international” flavor that the car was trying to convey. Just how “international” could an Oldsmobile Friggin Cutlass be? and then the concept sort of got lost under all of the good old ‘Murcan Cutlass Supremes that were flying out of showrooms.
It’s about as International as the International House of Pancakes.
Funny! 🙂
When I was younger I didn’t understand the point of those badges. Now that I do, I still find it stupid.
Great read. Another reason for this particular comparison test may have been that Olds had bombarded magazines with Cutlass Salon ads in which they compared their car to “European Touring Sedans.” (see below)
Car & Driver readers had probably seen those ads for almost a year by the time this test was published, so the article likely helped to answer a question that many readers had been wondering about.
Huh, I didn’t know Salon was anything but a beauty parlor, I learned something!
I think these initial Collonades had a lot more substance than they’re given credit for, my only real dislike is the styling, which is a very odd blend of Studz like neoclassical with swoopy racy shapes the previous generation used… but with fixed quarter windows… The formal roofline coupe versions like the Supreme therefore ended up being the only ones that looked congrous, but then you’re stuck with all those brougham accouterments. But elsewhere, the 73s were as good or better than the 72s, the interiors in my opinion are some of GM’s best (some may vehemently disagree), I mean the wraparound dash/console(if equipped) treatments still are attractive today. I won’t compare it to the Mercedes, but compared to many other domestic cars at the time they were as close as it got in terms of being drivercentric and ergonomic with proper round gauges. Way more so than GMs actual touted S-Class fighter SeVille
IMO the Colonnade two-door should’ve been a straight two-door sedan with the same roofline and glass area as the four-door sedan, just the B post a bit further back.
Now that would’ve looked interesting.
I didn’t really like the style of these either until the 76 models. I like the 76 up grill designs better, especially in the Supreme.
Agreed. That front end looks kinda cross-eyed with buck teeth thrown in. 🙁
Not a good look.
Good article. I actually remember reading this road test a few years ago.
Yes, the Benz was clearly the better car, but was it worth 2.75 times as much as Olds?
In 1973, you $14k was a lot. And $5k was not cheap either.
If you bought an Olds built on a good day, with good parts, it would be more reliable and cheaper to fix. It was more comfortable. It had more low-end oomph.
I like the Benz more, but I like the Olds too. That was the best of the Colonnade sedans. It looked contemporary. I could get a spare Corvette or probably Porsche with the $9000 difference.
Interesting parallel…Years ago, a friend’s mother had a Lincoln, wanted something smaller, so I suggested a 2009 CTS. She leased one. Like car, but complained about the “hard ride”.
I remember this road test because I think it was one of the best ones I’ve read. Informative and entertaining.
nice car and I’m really impressed with how fast the 1973 Cutlass was in the 0-60mph run considering it only had the 350 V8 low compression smog era engine, I liked the Colonnade style Olds but I prefer the 1976-77 headlights/taillights over the 1973-75 models.
This seems to be an unusually fast 350 Cutlass or C/D was up to their old tricks. R&T only got 0-60 in 11.1 secs and the 1/4 mile in 18.1 secs. Even a 1972 Cutlass with the same 350 but the lighter body that MT tested only ran 0-60 in 11.3 secs and 1/4 mile in 18.4 seconds, mind you it had 2.73 gears. Most smogger Olds 350 Cutlass’ seemed to be about 18 second quarter mile cars. They weren’t particularly fast, but they felt strong because of their abundance of low end torque.
I’ve noticed that about the ’70s “tune.” My ’74 Firebird with a Pontiac 350 will absolutely melt the tires (well, tire…it’s got an open rear end), but once it gets revving, there’s just nothing there at all. As soon as it upshifts, it’s all good again.
One thing not mentioned—at least I didn’t see it in my quick skim of the article—is seatbelts. That’s not surprising; belt users in America in 1973 statistically didn’t exist, but there’d’ve probably been a big difference. I could be wrong, but I think in ’73 GM were still faffing around with separate lap and (nonretractable) shoulder belts in the front seats, an uncomfortable nuisance, and all-but-useless lap belts in the rear. The Mercedes would’ve had 1-piece/1-buckle retractable lap/shoulder belts in front and quite possibly in the rear.
Really? three point seatbelts and use of were compulsory here for all outer passengers centre passengers still got their heads smashed in using lap belts but everyone else was ok Aussie ADR rules saw to that in 1971.
Yes, really. See for yourself here. It’s pathetic and stupid, but even now there are still Americans thoughtless enough to view seatbelts (and laws mandating their use) as an infringement on their personal freedumb and libertee. And there are no requirements for old cars to be retrofitted with (effective) belts.
1974 was the year all cars except convertibles (in the US) got combined lap/shoulder belts with inertia reel, (outer front seats only) along with the requirement they could be fastened with one hand. So a plastic wrap to hold up the buckle was also included. The systems in hardtops (no B pillar) were ugly and made it hard to get in and out of the back seat. A big reason why almost all cars now have B pillars, along with other safety requirements. It does seem crazy that 3 point outer rear belts were not required until 1989, although many European cars came into the states with them starting in the late ’70’s/early 80’s. And required center 3 point belts and rear headrests were still years away, even in 1989. Where I live, you almost never see anybody unbelted. Unless in a bus, which still have no requirements to be equipped with them except for the driver and the wheelchair positions. January 1968 is when front outer shoulder belts were required, but they were not connected to the lap belt and had to be fastened by themselves, along with the lap belt. They were almost never used in the early days.
As someone who still drive’s cars of this vintage I actually prefer the earlier two piece belts. At least they didn’t have retractors that slowly tighten up and strangle you while driving. Texas passed its first mandatory seat belt law in 86.
It’s tempting for me to believe you’re correct that a unitized lap/shoulder belt with ELR or ALR (two kinds of locking retractors) and one-hand fastenability became mandatory in 1974, because it’s difficult to imagine the American automakers doing anything but the bare minimum they were legally required to do with regard to safety and emissions
at that time. But despite my extensive grasp and familiarity with vehicle regulation and its history, I find no evidence to support this notion. The relevant standards are FMVSS № 208 and № 209, and there is no mention of one-hand fastenability or a requirement for unitized lap/shoulder belts in the current version of either standard or in any historical version I can find, nor is there any discussion of such requirements in this 1977 NHTSA analysis and retrospective of FMVSS № 208. Can you please point me at the source for your assertion? I’d like to be wrong on this one.The European-specification version of the 1991 Dodge Spirit (of all things), the Chrysler Saratoga, had height-adjustable front seat belts; the ’93 version had rear head restraints (they are not “headrests”). The domestic version of the car had neither.
“…American automakers doing anything but the bare minimum they were legally required to do with regard to safety and emissions at that time.”
I’m reminded of stories of Nissan importing Datsun B210s in the mid 70s through Puerto Rico without seatbelts to skirt laws. They got caught.
I haven been wearing seat belts since 1962 when my dad decided to install them on his cars and use them religiously and required all family members do likewise. When I started driving in 1966 I found I liked driving with seat belts because I did not slide around on the seat, forward or sideways. These are the old 2 piece belts. Today I absolutely hate the retractable seat belts/shoulder harness because they allow you to slide around offering no support or resistance and I find myself having to brace myself when going around corners, something I never had to do with the old two piece lap belts. To me nowadays it is why wear them, you have airbags so whats the reason? I would retrofit my car with old style 2 piece lap belts but I would get ticketed and harassed by the police for not wearing what came with the car. I think if people who had never used them were exposed to them they might agree with me.
I’m guilty as sin. The only time i buckle up carefully after i get pulled over. hell the whole family is guilty. My 7 year old pulled a sneaky buckle up after getting pulled over around town one day. I was so proud.
’74 was the first year for the integrated front 3 point belts.
Also the ignition interlock, so you couldn’t start the engine if the driver’s belt wasn’t latched. It did not last long. I believe the buzzer started in ’72. Grandma’s Cadillac had it.
Must be different for light trucks. My 1974 Chevy C10 pickup has lap belts only, and no provision for a buzzer or reminder light.
yup, the starter interlock was repealed by popular uproar mid year 1974. late model year cars never had em, most early 74’s had em disabled by them dealership before the year was out.
In Europe we didn’t have rear seatbelts at all until the 80s, and headrests at front was not common until mid 70s, in the rear? late 80s. US cars was at the time a lot safer than the normal European car. The Mercedes was the best Europe could offer, the other cars (with some exeption) was usually small, unreliable, noisy and uncomfortable cars with almost no equipment. My grandfather bought a new VW Vento in 1994. His first car with power steering and fuel injection. This was in Norway, the richest country in Europe.
I have a copy of this issue at home, and was just reviewing this comparison test the other night. It’s quite fascinating to read. Interestingly, Road & Track tested a 1973 Cutlass Salon, too, but wasn’t as impressed with the car’s handling and braking. They did not, however, test the Cutlass Salon against a European luxury sedan.
This test shows just how tantalizing close Oldsmobile – and GM – were to making the Cutlass into something special. I remember hoping against hope that my father would buy a Cutlass Salon or Pontiac Grand Am as our family car. Unfortunately, that never happened.
In retrospect, it’s amazing how quickly Oldsmobile and GM lost the plot over the next 5-7 years. Instead of an improved, next-generation Salon, we got self-destructing diesels, Chevy-powered Oldsmobiles, Cutlasses with fixed rear side windows, and X-car Omegas that started falling apart before the first year’s worth of payments had been made.
“In retrospect, it’s amazing how quickly Oldsmobile and GM lost the plot over the next 5-7 years. Instead of an improved, next-generation Salon, we got self-destructing diesels, Chevy-powered Oldsmobiles, Cutlasses with fixed rear side windows, and X-car Omegas that started falling apart before the first year’s worth of payments had been made.”
That’s an accurate depiction of the years 1977 to 1980. It was dismaying to watch. The next several years wouldn’t be any better.
I recall the 1973 Cutlass Salon sedan probably better than most, and got a few rides in a brand new one.
The ship must have come in for the attorney led family that lived behind us in 1972. They built a new house on the fancy side of the neighborhood, – a ’70s modern style that is almost impossible to sell to anyone these days. The fancy new side load under house garage couldn’t be sullied by their 1970 GTO and 1962 Cadillac DeVille. So they bought a new 1972 Olds Ninety-Eight for him and a 1973 Olds Cutlass Salon for her.
The Salon had a black vinyl top over dark brown metallic paint and was loaded. Like their modern style house, it was a looker at the time that might not be appreciated the same way today.
In the American Midwest, you still didn’t need a Mercedes to let people know that you had arrived. A pair of loaded up Oldsmobiles – including the top line Ninety-Eight, cost less than one Mercedes, but still looked perfect plying the roads in an upper middle class neighborhood.
“in the American Midwest, you still didn’t need a Mercedes to let people know that you had arrived. A pair of loaded up Oldsmobiles – including the top line Ninety-Eight, cost less than one Mercedes, but still looked perfect plying the roads in an upper middle class neighborhood.”
As someone who was still a kid in the 1980’s and also grew up in the upper Midwest, I find this utterly fascinating. I never remember a time when Oldsmobiles were asperational. Maybe I just wasn’t paying attention then? I do remember when people still looked up to a Buick, though…
An Oldsmobile said “you have arrived”–at a comfortable middle-class existence, that is.
What was aspirational in the early ’70s changed very quickly. I lost track of the family’s automotive journey, but wonder if the next round of cars was still GM, or if an upscale European car made it into the mix.
I had the Supreme, not Salon, version. Bought it because I was in commercial real estate and was told to get a 4 door car. Never, not once, had client in the back seat. Went months without opening the back doors. When I did try to open one the rubber seal had melted to the glass so when I opened the door most of the seal tore loose. Olds repaired under warranty and the service guy told me that this happened a lot. The replacement seals were improved and the melting problem never happened again.
Otherwise, this was a fine car for me – comfortable, powerful enough, handled up to my expectations, etc. Should have hept it but got a bad case of the “wants”.
Great article. You hit the nail on the head with the Salon name, and conjuring up an image of a beauty salon. Subconsciously, that’s what I had always affiliated it with. Was the Salon the more sporty type package?
I knew the other meaning, but like you I always associated it with the womens’ beauty-type salon.
I had a ’76 Cutlass and it did handle pretty well for a big heavy car thanks to the coil springs 4-link and beefy sway bars. It was even better after I put on a set of gas shocks. Being the 70s though, GM gave it economy rear end gears, trying to squeeze every last MPG out of it. That really killed acceleration and traction. It was terrible in the rain and downright dangerous in snow.
Those “mid-size” GMs mastered the combination of chassis flexibility vs. handling. They were never “tight” cars, but the chassis engineering seemed to account for the flex at speed, and the steering ratios, springs, sway bars, and suspension bushings were calibrated accordingly, and all worked together fairly well under most conditions. The two weaknesses were that the cars were a bit loosey-goosey at high speeds, as the different parts of the car liked to do their own things just a bit, and boy did they squeak and rattle, especially as they aged. Those heavy car doors just sounded like a bucket full of scrap metal when you slammed them shut, especially after a few years and miles. Things such as door gaps, panel alignment, and window sealing went by the wayside with age as well. But the cars just kept going and going, you couldn’t kill them. Here in California, the Colonnade cars got taken out by the bi-annual smog checks, but the older series are still seen now and again as daily drivers and on-the-road beaters.
Yes, my friend Chris still drives his 71 Cutlass to work every day up by the Bay.
I agree about the chassis and body flex in these cars. My experience is they are far from tight, but they did seem to handle decently for their era. That said, the Colonnade we have in our family is rattle free, but you sure can see that long front end flex and move under certain conditions.
My parents had a 1976 Oldsmobile Delta 88 Royale hardtop sedan, and I remember watching the hood and fenders flap when the car was driven over back roads at 40-45 mph. For that matter, my 1972 Cutlass Supreme hardtop coupe felt very loose and willowy. Neither car was in the “beater” category during this time.
I don’t know whether it was because of cost-cutting or a deliberate design philosophy, but GM cars until the downsized 1977 full-size cars seemed to have a floppy structure, even compared to some Ford and Chrysler counterparts.
A friend ‘s family (who I lived with for a couple of years after high school) had a green 1973 Salon (black viny interior, 350) as their family rig. It was nicknamed the ‘Green Latrine II’–‘Green I’ was a 1967 Cutlass that survived the first 3 kids. “GLII” survived the 2 youngest kids-it would take copious amounts of abuse and keep on going. I remember the first time I took it for a spin-I was surprised at the sight of buckets and a console in a 4-door. I remember the seats being comfy and it being an excellent freeway cruiser. ‘GLII’ was always pressed into U-Haul duty. My friend had a band and it was the only car in the family that was set up to tow. (insert picture of mid-Eighties garage band going gig to gig). In retrospect it was a cool car. I haven’t seen another one since.
I had just got my license I’m December 1972 so most of my automotive knowledge was gleaned from car magazines. Certainly both CD and R&Tjust gushed over the new GM intermediates, at least the Cutlass Salon and GrandAm. So naturally, though I was basically a Euro-car buff, I figured they must be good. And in fact they still seem far more sophisticated than a contemporary Satellite or Torino. By contrast, the ’73 S class MB seemed ungainly, if not just plain ugly, compared to its elegant predecessor. Today, I’d far prefer to own the Cutlass than any Mercedes of the’70’s.
As much of a true blue Ford fan that I am, and in spite of owning a 74 Montego that’s been in the family since new, the Torino was nowhere near as sophisticated or engineered as the more high end collonades. Even I will readily admit that. It did seem to have the quietest interior though. But cornering, not even close. And no more interior space than a 4 door Maverick. At least in the more popular 2 doors, like my Montego.
If you compare a base Torino with it’s too soft springs to a high end Colonnade, you’d be accurate. However, base Colonnades were nothing to right home about in the handling department. Get a Torino or Montego with a decent suspension setup and there wasn’t much difference between a Colonnade with a good suspension setup. I have a ton of wheel time behind both platforms (and still drive them to this day), and to be honest the Colonnades are overrated on sites like this. They do have superior front suspension geometry over the Fords, but the overall engineering in each platforms is quite similar. I also have a lot of suspension tuning time with each platform and I know what it takes to get each one to handle well by modern standards. I would also argue that the Ford’s have tighter body structures versus the GM’s which I always found a little on the loose side (both are not stiff by modern standards).
The interior space on the two cars is also nearly identical, and neither was overly space efficient for their large exteriors. In fact between the two cars in our family, I’d argue the Ford might have a very slight edge in rear leg room, but the GM has slightly more head room. That said, people always make these cars out to have less space than a compact. Not true at all. The seats are far wider and have larger cushions than most smaller two door and as a tall person I can tell you the bigger cars are roomier. Most modern day two door cars today have literally ZERO leg room when I push the seat all the way back (I typically drive every car with the seat maxed out). At least with a 1970’s Ford or Colonnade, I can push the seat all the way back in the front and I can still fit in the back of each car (and I am 6’4″).
After all these years the coil springs on the Montego have collapsed a good bit which makes them stiffer. However as I said, it’s been in family since new and I well remember how soft those spring/shock combos were. There was a low spot on our street for drainage that would bottom the suspension out over 25 mph’s. And it wasn’t that deep. Now I can take it at 40 plus and never scrape the front crossmember. By the way, tell me more about your Montego. Ours is a 2dr MX Brougham. 351w. Which was the predominate drivetrain. Here’s the Marti Report.
Another part
Last part
Hey Guy,
thanks for sharing your Marti report. Sounds like you have a nice car, and it’s great that its been in the family since new. My car is not a Montego rather a 1972 Gran Torino Sport fastback, which has also been in the family since new. My father special ordered it in 1972, and he also ordered the heavy duty suspension which makes a big difference in these cars handling. There was also a Competition suspension option in 1972-73 that was part of the Rallye Equipment Group. This suspension was limited to the Q-code 351C and the N-Code 429, but it seems that a fair number of cars got this suspension as per the Marti reports I see popping up.
My dad also later bought a very lightly used Chevy Colonnade so I had the pleasure of growing up with both the competitors in the same house. The Chevy is still in the family too, but my brother owns it. I regularly get to drive it though, which is nice I spent more time as a teen driving the Chevy alone (My dad rarely let me take the Torino, for fear I’d come home with bald tires). Both cars are original unrestored cars, although in the last few years have done some suspension refurbishment because the parts needed to be replaced due to age and wear. I did upgrade both cars, while keeping them stock appearing. It’s amazing how little work and proper tuning can really increase the road manners of these cars to be much closer to a modern car.
One point though, coil spring do not get stiffer when the sag (my originals were sagging too, I still have them boxed up). Spring rate is determined by three basic things, the diameter of the steel wire, the diameter of the coils and the number of active coils. As a spring sags none of these things change so the rate will not change. The rate does change when you cut a spring to lower a car, as this reduces the number of active coils.
If you haven’t come across it yet, check out this forum, it’s the best resource on the internet for intermediate Fords/Mercs:
http://forum.grantorinosport.org/forums.html
You should take a read of the Road Test Magazines test of the 1972 Montego. The car tested had the cross country suspension (same as the heavy duty on the Fords) and they had nothing but good to say about the car’s handling. In fact, RTM pick the 1972 Montego as it’s car of the year.
http://wildaboutcarsonline.com/cgi-bin/pub9990262549620.cgi?itemid=9990473027007&action=viewad&categoryid=9910392828548&page=1&placeonpage=2&totaldisplayed=50
Yup, I’m on grantorinosport. I also have a 74 Chevy, my grandma’s Impala with 72,000 original miles. And a 79 Thunderbird. I’m thinking of converting my T-Bird brake booster to Hydroboost from a 79 Lincoln. My vacuum booster leaks, but replacements are $100 plus. I’m just too cheap. I already have the Hydroboost. But I can’t seem to find anyone on the above mentioned website that’s done it. So it looks like I’ll have to make a sticky on it.
What’s your user name there? I will PM you.
Mxbrougham..I haven’t been there in a while..I’ll look for your pm tommorow
Car and Driver tested a 1973 Ford Torino GT with the Sportsroof. It had the heavy-duty suspension option.
They claimed that the Torino had a better ride than the 1973 Oldsmobile Cutlass S that they had tested earlier in the model year, while still offering decent handling.
FWIW, the GM intermediates had an edge in handling with Fords being softer. It seemed at the time more GM cars were fitted with fatter anti roll bars and rear sway bars. In terms of comfort I think the Ford intermediates were better and seemed better made too. Drivers probobly favored GM, but in terms of outright gitty-up they were very close, with Chevy having an edge back then in terms of cheaper header and intake options.
Someday I am going to build a Lincoln MkIV with a stroked 460 (521) and keep it stock looking. Beat downs on unsuspecting Audi A8s etc.
This article is another example of why I (thru my Father, later my own) kept an over 30 year subscription to “Car & Driver” magazine.
Today’s “C&D” in no way resembles the irrelevant, thought provoking, tongue-in-cheek, sly humor of the David E. Davis version from the 1970’s.
When my current mail order subscription expires this year, I will NOT renew.
What? You don’t like bar graphs, pie charts, and overblown short-attention-span page layouts? DEDjr must be spinning in his grave…
You should read C&D now. My feeling is that it’s not worth the paper it took to print nor the fuel it consumed to be delivered to the bookstore.
Sad but True.
C/D of today reads like it is a website created my twenty-somethings who haven’t driven all that many cars in their short lives….or may not even have a valid driver’s license.
“… resembles the irrelevant, thought provoking, tongue-in-cheek, sly humor of the David E. Davis version from the 1970’S”
Maybe meant to say irreverent, not “irrelevant”.
The Salon name was originally going to be Saloon, the European name for sedans. But of course saloon has a different meaning over here, so GM went with Salon instead.
Here’s Ford’s take on the Cutlass Supreme and Monte Carlo vs Grab Torino Elite.
Where did the “Colonnade” name come from? These cars are almost universally known by that name today. Was “Colonnade” played up in advertisements?
Was the contemporary Monte Carlo/Grand Prix/Cutlass Supreme/whatever the Buick version was called considered a Colonnade?
It came from GM’s marketing department: “Crap, they don’t wanna spend the money to build hardtops and convertibles that’ll comply with the new rollover safety standards, so we have to come up with something that makes it sound like we deliberately chose to sell only pillared cars!”.
There were “Colonnade” callouts on some of the 2-door cars to drive the point home with buyers. No such callouts on the 4-doors and wagons, but the name is used, at least on here, to refer to these ’73-’77 GM A-body cars regardless of marque or body style.
I never, ever wore seat belts when I was a kid. I’d ride in the beds of pickup trucks, in the cargo areas in the back of station wagons, and even in the “waybacks” of Volkswagen Beetles. The seat belt law was passed at about the time I started driving, so I quickly got used to putting them on and now I put them on EVERY time without even thinking about it.
I believe there was a study decades ago that found that while people who wore seat belts fared better in accidents, they also caused more of them because they felt more secure and took greater risks than unbelted drivers. But you can probably find a study that “proved” otherwise, too.
I am shocked how much they complained about the Mercedes’s harsh ride. I don’t remember that at the time–or since. I’ve never ridden in one, but I sat in the SEL at the dealer. The high door sills made it difficult to get in and out even with the longer wheelbase. The sunroof made headroom pretty tight, and Mercedes knew the correct steering wheel angle.
Here in New Orleans, with it’s rough & pot-hole strewn streets, it’s usually humid and often hot climate, the Olds Cutlass Salon was a much better compromise car than the Benz.
It’s typically superlative HVAC, more cushioned seats and softer, more compliant ride made it the better car of the two for this American city.
I must have missed this the first time. Thanks for the rerun.
A very interesting read. I learned that what I really should have bought in 1973 is a well optioned 1972 Cutlass.
I wonder if you’d then installed dual exhaust, aluminum heads, intake & wheels, lighter spare tire if that would have made a quantifiable improvement in the driving experience.
It probably would have made a more quantifiable impact on your wallet than the driving experience. 🙂
Yes. Not sure if alloy heads for the OIds 350 were available but intakes would have been. Better breathing, especially with duals. Rejet the Quadrajet & recurve the distributor, full time vac advance, and plug the vac line to the EGR.
Unfortunate, more Cutlass Salon four doors weren’t sold with Super Stock wheels. Combined with blackwall tires, it transforms the car’s looks. Definitely sportier, and more European. Too many were sold with nondescript flat-faced wheel covers.
Not a fan of how GM portrayed the Cutlass Salon sitting so low in their marketing images. Made them look unnecessarily heavy and ponderous. They look more agile sitting higher.
+1 on that one. I found a loaded Cutlass Brougham the other day, really nice interior, but the flat wheel covers on the car made it looked like a period rental car.
A $ 4350 or so Oldsmobile Cutlass Salon can’t disguise is just an average Chevy Nova with certain sporty aspirations . And to compare an Olds who costed $ 4350 or so in 1973 with a 1973’s Mercedes which already had a sticker price of around $ 14,500 isn’t a very fair comparison , mainly because a ’73 Olds Cutlass Salon was a very good car within the American built lot of cars offered . Secondary althought most important : a Mercedes Benz is a Mercedes Benz , it only competes to itself . The only serious contender for a Merc was and still is a BMW of the same category in engines . All other brands , including nowaday’s snob Audi , belong to the overwhelming populace’s trademarks for the average owners . With the exception of very niched marks like Ferrari or Rolls Royce . In defense of America’s popcars , the 1973 Olds Cutlass Salon was a nice vehicle, a good value. It makes no justice then with the cost of acquisition of a Mercedes 450 sedan 1973 it’s as much as buying 3 units of Olds Cutlasses !!!