(first posted 5/21/2015) GM’s massive and very expensive investment in new generations of FWD cars starting in 1980 led to some…hedging. Numerous RWD cars that were at one time scheduled to get the ax were given a reprieve. And new FWD models were given…old names. No GM division played that game more aggressively and confusingly than Oldsmobile, which of course had a lot on the line: Its RWD Cutlass had been the best selling cars in the land, or nearly so, for a number of years in the mid-late seventies. So the Cutlass name became a sub-brand, or more correctly, a prefix brand, and found its way on the head end of two whole new families of cars, Ciera and Calais, including this Cutlass Ciera S coupe, a body style that has become increasingly hard to find on the road anymore, especially with the sealed beam headlights.
It’s hard to imagine a time when GM A-Bodies of this generation won’t still be fairly common sights, including that distinctive bit of light showing through the gap between their solid beam rear axle and the body. But the coupe was never all that common, unlike the four door sedans and wagons.
Quite likely the Cutlass name was adopted for the Ciera because in 1982, when it first appeared, the many issues with the 1980 GM X-Body cars had become a national embarrassment. And since these new A-Body were essentially identical to the X-Bodies under their exterior bodies, Olds may have felt that associating it with the Cutlass’ generally good rep was going rub off on the Ciera. Of course, it may also have been that Olds was just hedging their bets regarding the RWD G-Body cars, since presumably the A-Bodies were originally designed to replace them. By 1982, the very worst of the gas price run-up was already over, and as it turned out, The G-Body was given a very long extension on its life.
One thing is obvious: Olds clearly had no ambitions about the Ciera Coupe being any sort of legitimate successor to the overwhelmingly popular G-Body Cutlass Supreme coupe. In fact, this is not a genuine coupe; it’s a two-door sedan, by my definition that a coupe has to have a roof line that is distinct from the sedan. This one…ain’t.
Which may go a long way in explaining why these early A-Body “coupes” sold so badly. They were uncommonly uncommon at the time, and good luck finding one now. I haven’t seen one of these two-door sedans in a very long time, the Chevrolet Celebrity excepted, but then that was probably more a function of its price. That wouldn’t be enough to entice an Olds or Buick buyer. Coupes were all about a bit of distinctive style, and this didn’t have it.
Of course, the real unicorn of the Ciera line was the GT. It was a fairly ambitious effort to mirror Pontiac’s 6000 STE, and Buick had some comparable packages too (T-Type). But while the STE become a substantial hit, the Olds and Buick versions were relegated to obscurity.
The new (genuine) coupe arrived as a mid-model year addition to the Ciera line. It was clearly in response to…a number of things. The prior version was dead in the sales stats. And the new roof line clearly echoes the 1983 Aero-T-Bird’s roof, which was of course an unexpectedly big hit. And the Ciera line and the A-Bodies in general were due for a bit of refreshing, after being virtually unchanged, now into their fifth year.
The new coupe was also a preview of the new roof line that appeared on the 1989 Ciera sedan. I’m alost tempted to say that at this stage, the Ciera coupe reverted back to being a two door sedan, but obviously the C Pillar is quite different, even if the rear window is the same.
Despite spending way too much time carefully looking at 1986.5 and 1987 Olds brochures, I’m not totally sure this is actually a 1986. Olds used a bewildering variation of different grille textures and front end designs on these cars; for instance, the more upscale 1987 Ciera Brougham and GT used the new aero nose with composite headlights. Neither the 1986 nor 1987 brochures never show a grille with this exact texture, but then they just don’t show all the various front ends either. So by the process of elimination and deduction, I’m saying it’s a 1986. But I’d be happy to have someone prove me wrong. (Update, it’s a 1985 grille, so the car is either a 1986 or 1987)
My own exposure to this new coupe came in a rather unexpected way, although one not all that unusual, with new GM cars. I went on a business trip to Chicago in the spring of 1986, and was handed the keys to a Ciera, probably the most common rental car in those years. But when I found the car, it was…a coupe! And one I hadn’t even been aware existed yet. Either I was not reading Motor Trend much at the time, or GM was sending new cars out to rental fleets before or just about the time of their official announcement.
The interior was…typical GM of the times, all-too familiar in every way. As of course was the driving experience. driven one GM X or A Body; driven them all. Well, of course except one of those unicorn GTs.
Let’s just say that despite the array of international flags on its flanks, nobody was going to confuse the Ciera with either a European or Japanese car. They were all-American, if in a new package. The GM A-Bodies simply defined the whole genre of mid-sized FWD sedans for years, until of course the Ford Taurus came along and very much re-defined it. Which soon led to the gradual decline of these cars, as they increasingly became rental, fleet, and retirement-home staples.
In 1986, the engine choices started with the unsavory Iron Duke 2.5 four, and moved up to the Chevy 2.8 V6, both in carb and fuel injected versions, making 112 hp and 130 hp respectively, and the substantially more ample 3.8 Buick V6, rated at 150 hp. With that engine, these cars were quite lively for the times, and made their intrinsic torque steer, or more accurately, sub-frame steer (at least that’s what it felt like), all to apparent.
The new coupe appeared to sell better than the old two-door sedan, but it still was hardly a big hit. The Thunderbird put the kibosh on those hopes. 1990 was the last year for the coupes, so while Ciera sedan soldiered on through 1996, capping an almost unprecedented fifteen year run, the coupe only had a four and a half year run. Which explains why they are hardly common, unlike their seemingly immortal sedan counterparts.
Related:
CC 1991 Buick Century Coupe – If We Make It Forever It Will Be Good
The A-Car may be the all time great post-1980 GM vehicle. Although it’s technically a 70s vehicle; in this case, an ironed-out X-Car.
Not at all glamorous but a car of very honest virtues (especially the wagons). Ten years ago, these were among the very best used car buys out there.
I don’t know that I’d call them great. I’ve always loved Oldsmobiles (and Buicks), probably since that’s what all us teens drove in the 80s where I grew up – used 70s-era models that their elderly original owners were selling off cheap. Carried that love through to early adulthood only to be sorely let down by both a Buick A-Body (’83 Century coupe, bought with 60k miles from the proverbial little old lady, utter junk) and a ’96 Cierra wagon, bought in 1999 with 30k miles. The wagon was much more dependable, but overall still a crappy car. I loved them both, they had character, but thanks in no small part to the two of them I only buy Hondas and Toyotas now.
They were definitely much better once they got the EFI V6 (3.1L ?). Those had a surprisingly good mix of performance and economy, getting mid-20s mixed cycle driving while having enough performance for daily driving.
In the early 2000s the later ones were great candidates in the ‘Reliable Ride for ~$2000’ category.
My wagon had the 3.1. It wasn’t spectacular, but it was a big improvement – much better gas mileage, up to 27 mpg highway, and fewer mechanical problems – over the 3.0 in the Buick (which died at 80k despite regular oil changes).
27 MPG for a car of that size in that era was very respectable. Add in good AC and a sub-10 second 0-60 and you’re looking at a pretty impressive package, all things considered.
In typical GM fashion, the P90/GMX130 platform they developed to replace it was little better.
And that was 27 mpg loaded with a couple kids, camping gear and a clamshell luggage carrier mounted on the roof rack. It was a roomy and practical hauler, just what I needed, and was great in deep snow. But within a year after buying it the interior started to fall apart – door panels coming loose, windows coming out of the tracks – which I could deal with. It also developed a front-end shudder that no mechanic seemed to be able to solve, which I was less happy about. But otherwise it was mechanically sound until maybe 65,000 miles, after which it started to break down every four months or so like clockwork. At 92k it was demolished by some mental midget who rear-ended it at high speed. It folded like an accordion but the wife, who was driving, didn’t get a scratch. Ironically, when I went to retrieve it from the side of the road and limp it to the body shop to verify it was totaled, it started instantly and ran flawlessly for it’s final 5 mile drive.
Sloomis, I owned a 1985 Century Limited Coupe with the infamous 3.0 V-6. Three engine rebuilds in 75k miles! You were lucky to get 80k out of yours, trust me! I loved that car even though it was such a lemon. In 1995 I was looking for a decent used car and my neighbors were selling a loaded to the hilt 1987 Century ‘T’ Limited Sedan, so I grabbed it from them. I put over 200k on that car and loved it. It had the 3.8 SFI V-6 which was a lot more engine than that car really needed, but it was a workhorse and reliable as could be. I still think of that car to this day!
Yeah, I loved that Buick too, despite all the problems. It was two doors, which to me at the time was cool in and of itself, had power locks and windows, which were still a novelty when I bought it in 1990, and a big (leaky) factory sunroof that when removed completely with the windows down practically made it a convertible. Plus it was the epitome of tacky 70s/80s “Brougham” styling, brown with a tan vinyl half-roof, brown mousefur velour interior, giant protruding wire wheel covers, whitewalls, luggage rack on the trunk lid, etc. But it was a POS, slow, 20 mpg at best, constant problems. The trans went at 80k too, I spent $700 bucks to have it rebuilt, only for the engine to self-destruct a month later.
“Ciera” appeared to be a name made up by a committee…typically GM of the era.j
Glad somebody else thinks it’s a funny name, too. Is it another example of GM mis-spelling (like ‘gages’) or….? Weird.
What is even stranger than the weird spelling is that GMC was using “Sierra” at the same time, not to mention Ford was using “Sierra” in Europe.
GM’s use of Sierra/Cierra is why Merkur used the XR4Ti moniker when Ford brought the Sierra to the US.
I just found two on Craigslist. One is a blue 1986 and the other a rough 1987 in a bronze color with maroon interior. Both are PA cars. GM’s decision to extend the G-body line up to 1987-88 was one of the single best things they could have done. Not upgrading the engines on the Olds Cutlass version along with lower tier Regals and GP’s and Monte Carlos was not. The only engine that really got any attention was the Buick turbo 3.8 in 1984 with the addition of SFI and distributor-less ignition and then later an intercooler. It was obvious they were putting the money into these A-body cars by this point starting with the PFI 3.8 V6
I believe that this grille, with small square openings, was 1985-only. The full-width backup light lens suggests 1986, though…85s have a black panel in the middle for the “Oldsmobile” badge. The “S” model also didn’t appear until 1986.
It’s had a 1985 grille swapped in, because the car has to be either an ’86 or ’87.
My only significant time with this generation of A-body was with a girlfriend’s father’s 1985ish Celebrity coupe with the 2.8 V6/auto. I still remember it pretty well: medium blue wiht blue velour bench seat interior, growly GM V6, thin plastic steering wheel, etc. It was a LOT better than my family’s 1984 Pontiac Pheonix Couple with the iron duke and a 4 speed manual in terms of acceleration. I remember actually liking it’s unadorned appearance and 2-door body. It had the same type of clean, pedestrian lines that the A/G body rear drive Malibu’s did.
Having driven a whole string of 4 cylinder malaise era cars, the extra torque of the V6 made it feel fast to me. I am sure if I drove it now it wouldn’t make that same impression.
In 1986 the Chevy 2.8, which replaced the terrible Buick Carbureted V6, actually came in two versions, the 2.8 with the Varajet carb and the MFI version. The former made 112 HP and the latter 130. For 1987 this was simplified with the new and improved Gen II 2.8 with aluminum heads and MFI and 125 HP and later 130. The 2BBL 2.8 was gone by this point.
Thanks. I’ve updated the text.
“Either I was not reading Motor Trend much at the time, or GM was sending new cars out to rental fleets before or just about the time of their official announcement.” ——- Sending cars to rental fleets before they were officially on sale was a common practice by at least GM and Chrysler. It was a way to test the cars in real-world for a few months and see if there were any alarming issues. I know GM did it with the Corsica and Chrysler did it with the LH sedans.
As for the Ciera coupe, I’ve always liked these. My aunt was one of the few who bought one, a light blue ’89 model I believe. It was her last Oldsmobile before she switched to Toyotas.
Olds also offered a very Brougham-ified Cutlass Ciera Holiday Coupe in the early years.
Hey Brendan – Great find! These are very rare! This 1984-1986 Olds Cutlass Ciera Brougham Holiday Coupe (its’ full name) is very rare. As well, other divisions with the A-body sold a formal-roof package like this; Chevy Celebrity “Classic” coupe and Buick Century Landau. I am unsure if Pontiac sold a 6000 coupe with this roof treatment, or if it was aftermarket. Here is an add for the 1984 Buick Century Limited Landau.
“Either I was not reading Motor Trend much at the time, or GM was sending new cars out to rental fleets before or just about the time of their official announcement.” ——- Sending cars to rental fleets before they were officially on sale was a common practice by at least GM and Chrysler. It was a way to test the cars in real-world for a few months and see if there were any alarming issues. I know GM did it with the Corsica and Chrysler did it with the LH sedans.”
Chrysler did it with the PT Cruiser too…much to the delight of an Allpar author!
I’d wager that the crunch on the front of this coupe was not the first time it happened, since the header panel/grille is definitely a 1985 only item, while this body of the coupe came for 1986. The original probably got crunched an a nice junkyard replacement came from an ’85.
A friend of mine had a 1982 Cutlass Supreme coupe in the early 1990s. He was in a minor accident, and needed to replace the grilles. He went to a junkyard, saw a Cutlass Supreme from a different year (1983 sticks in my memory), and simply removed the grilles from that car and put them on his car. The grilles fit perfectly, and most people couldn’t tell that his car had grilles from the “wrong” model year.
This type of “mix-and-match” repair work was quite common with various GM cars of the 1980s, given that their body panels didn’t change much over the years, while header panels, grilles and light lenses often did.
I actually liked the first year two-door sedan best. Also preferred the actual side markers right next to the grille, it gave a more premium and complete look to my eyes. The filler panels that replaced those lights (when the side markers were moved down by the wheelwell) just looked cheap to me.
At the time, I thought that the sloped front end of the later Cieras looked more modern, but now I prefer the original, upright front. It’s a better match with the more formal C-pillar.
By the mid-1990s, the Cieras had become the equivalent of the old Plymouth Valiant and Dodge Dart. The bugs had long been worked out of them, but they looked dowdy and had a distinctly down-market image. The Cieras were the most popular Oldsmobile by that point, which only made the brand seem even stodgier and more out-of-touch with younger buyers.
I couldn’t agree more that the Ciera and Century were later day equivalents of the Valiant and Dart. Even as a kid in the 1970s I remember thinking that the Valiant and Dart were horribly dated and frumpy, and since they were so prevalent, they shaped my opinion of the Plymouth and Dodge brands. I know people swore by their Valiants and Darts–and Cieras and Centurys too–as indestructible and examples of being the “best built” cars from their respective manufacturers. I find that an embarrassing indictment of these makers: that the only way to make it “good” is to build it “forever.” True credit goes to the “appliance makers” of today, primarily the Asian brands, who keep their offerings fresh and well built at the same time. Unlike my impression of the buyer of a new Valiant or Ciera back in the day (very old and/or very cheap), today’s buyer of a Toyota Corolla could easily be either 18 or 80, and my impression is that they are simply looking for a good, modern car, not bottom feeding on “dependable” left overs from a bygone era. That image of course rubs off on Toyota, which may be seen as bland and boring, but never out-of-date and hardly ever bad.
I just love this oldsmobile.
I had a 1986 Ciera, same blue as in pictures. I am quite sure that its V6 was carburated, altho the Chevy did have injection. My 4-door, by the way, was unusual: leather seats and auto floor shift. Transmission died after 4 years.
It was interesting that when GM imagined the eighties this is what they came up with. You could buy these a touch bigger with the H body or a touch smaller as an N body, but the style was remarkably uniform. This is clearly what GM thought a modern car should be. The space efficiency is remarkable, cars before and since were bigger but with no more useful room. GM also clearly worked overtime to make sure it kept the big car quiet. This was no easy feat given the smaller size, FWD, unit construction, and big fours and 90 degree V6s that were less happy in their work.
As time has passed, it seems these may start to get there due. The Taurus was sleeker but given how thing turned out with bloated bodies and gun slit visibility being now the norm, these boxier more efficient shapes begin to look better, at least to me.
The 2 door sedans of these fit in least. GM didn’t seam to know what to due with the roofline. My favorite was the 6000LE two door of 83-85 with the landau package. The roof was similar to the Ciera in Brendon’s comment above but combined with the Pontiac alloy wheels and low chrome exterior. The roof gives a little sense of the history of big coupes without clashing too badly with life in 1985. Inside got you a nicely cushy velour interior but with a digital dash and console shifter. My friendly argument would be the Pontiac had the best dash of the A bodies. Under hood could be the optional 2.8FI with 125hp teamed with the new 4 speed auto in a package lighter than a new Chevy Cruze. A good compromise for travel in 1985, the small block of the eighties in GM speak.
The 4 door sedans weren’t that great in terms of roofline – the early formal-look ones are OK but nothing special, while the later revision suffers from huge black cheater panels behind the doors. The wagon just nailed it, though.
Your mention that these cars, especially the International Series, were no match for contemporary European or Japanese sedans leads me to believe GM never took foreign cars seriously. It’s like the closest the GM decision makers ever got to “studying” their competitors was when they saw them pass by on the road.
I do actually like the later coupe, the roofline (vaguely?) looks like the Jaguar XJC. Too bad the instrument panel is sub par.
Nowadays all you can find are station wagons from this series….even the sedans are hard to come by.
1986 Cutlass Ciera – at the top of my short list of truly most loathed cars ever. My wife bought a well cared for ’86 Cutlass Cruiser in 1994 with the 2.8L carbureted V6 and about 64K on the odometer. Almost immedietely problems surfaced. First off the driver’s seat belt retracter broke. Got it back from the dealer and two weeks later it broke again (although its possible the repair was botched). It developed a hesitating and dying in traffic condition that no amount of money or expertise could keep fixed for more than six weeks at a time. Then a dying when hot condition. AAA tried to refuse to tow it because by the time they got there it would have coolled down and would start fine for the tech every time. Then it was the cooling system. The fan motor burned out. Replaced that then the relay burned out. Replaced that and the wiring harness burned out. GM wanted $125 for that harness which wrapped all the way around the engine so started scavenging the salvage yards. I found that every one of the pre 1987 A bodies I could find had some degree of heat damage to the cooling fan relay and harness. About 30% of them had had that system bypassed and were hardwired to the ignition at various points. The transmission lines to the radiator were rubber hoses so no matter what the quality of hose used, they couldn’t take the heat of the transmission fluid and kept failing. Finally I thought we had it running pretty well for about a year but it wouldn’t pass exhaust testing so back to the shop it went. They found that the ECU had just stopped working at some point and it had been running in limp mode all that time. No indication what the problem might be, no codes stored, nothing. After about three full days my guy finally found a tiny ground wire on the bottom of the distributor that had become slightly corroded and broken a circuit in the system causing it to shut down. By this time, of course, all of the windows and locks were in some state of malfunction or non-function, every fluid in it except the washer fluid was leaking in massive amounts from inaccessable places and something in the dash assembly had broken or come loose allowing it to jump up and down an inch or so going over bumps or railroad tracks. (Imagine Marilyn Monroe jumping rope. You kind of get the picture.) When my brother fell on hard times we loaned it to him only to have it returned in disgust after about four months and several hundred of his hard earned dollars were dumped into it. When I finally gave up on it and the Volunteers of America wrecker hooked up to it it had only 125k on the clock.
Wow! It was not many 80s GM cars that could make a guy lust after an early Volare for it’s quality, but it looks like you got one. 🙂
I remember that jumping dash from a ride I got in an early Pontiac 6000 station wagon.
It’s funny you should mention that. Her previous car was an ’80 model Duster version of the Volare that her dad gave her. That car gave reliable service from 1987 until she got the station wagon with not even very good maintanance. The transmission finally gave out at 175K (which was quite good in those days) and the steering and interior were very tired. That slant six probably had another 150,000 miles still left in it!
Despite the Volare’s quality, it’s a much easier car to start with and the design is good.
These cars always depressed me. They sold like hotcakes in the midwest, and they always screamed to me “this is what you have to drive if you want to act like a real grownup.” These cars were, to me, all about a suffocating kind of conformity. But I never gave in, and have made offbeat vehicle choices all my life.
That said, these seemed to serve their owners well (at least owners not named David Cline 🙂 ). I had several relatives who owned these, and they all seemed satisfied. However, most of those people eventually ended up in Toyotas after subsequent GM products didn’t treat them as well.
I don’t envy the GM product planners who had to use a very murky crystal ball to determine what to develop for the 1980s. Of all the U.S. automakers, GM had by far the most to lose if they got it wrong, leading to some very conservative thinking. Ironically of course, GM did in fact lose the most as a result of the botched decisions that prevailed during this era, but hindsight is 20/20.
Imagine the dilemma in the late 1970s/early 1980s when these cars were developed: stringent government regulations on one side, a “schizophrenic” buying audience with younger buyers and affluent buyers choosing imports while middle-aged mid-America went wild for broughams and velour. How to reconcile those divergent tastes while keeping the Feds happy? Compounding the problem was the fact that the design leadership at GM had undergone a massive transformation for the worse. Love them or hate them, there was no denying that Harley Earl and Bill Mitchell had a profoundly positive impact on GM, and their vision, leadership and taste defined automobiles for decades. All this was swept away when Irv Rybicki was appointed as Mitchell’s successor. Easier to get along with, no doubt, and a consummate corporate politician, but what GM desperately needed then–probably more so than at any time in their history–was a great design dictator. Imagine if GM had appointed Chuck Jordan instead–truly the legitimate heir to Mitchell. With his style and international design capabilities (great Opels penned under his watch), I think he would have been far more successful in maneuvering GM through the dramatic taste change underway in the 1980s. Jordan’s design leadership did come through for GM in the early 1990s when he ultimately got the job, but by then catastrophic damage had been done.
So the poor product planners had no guiding light from design. The Finance-led mindset that gradually gutted divisional identities left them with nothing more than “corporate” platforms and no real desire or budget for differentiation. I often wonder how many proposals they went through trying to keep their midsize mojo from the 1970s going. I think their only guiding light was “make money and don’t lose sales” versus “create desirable Chevrolets, Pontiacs, Oldsmobiles, Buicks and Cadillacs.” You had these FWD A bodies, which I am sure were meant to replace the G Sedans, but uh, wait–keep those! The GM20 N Cars were envisioned as the replacements for the G Special coupes, but nope, those cars must stay, so squeeze the N’s between J’s and A’s. And what was the GM10 program originally supposed to be and when would those cars have originally released? Based on naming, and my assumption that since “10” comes before “20,” that the W cars were underway before the N cars were conjured up. Just an indication of the amount of turmoil these guys must have faced. And the sad truth for why a car like this Cutlass Ciera coupe was a day late and a dollar short, whoring on the Cutlass name in a desperate quest for desirability.
Another factor is that in 1978-80, GM was the only domestic company that had the financial wherewithal to develop what it wanted to develop. Chrysler, AMC and even Ford were struggling and were having to make do with band-aid solutions in many (if not most) segments. That is, to me, the saddest part – GM had a virtually blank check, yet by say 1987, were also-rans in so many parts of the market, despite their huge early lead in resources.
GN, you really hit on a lot of what GM was faced with during the dark days of the late ‘deadly sins’ period. The energy crisis and economic problems in the US made GM start to decontent the cars and sacrifice quality. At the same time they had to move away from the large/moderate size, rear drive configuration that GM had mastered and then honed to a fine point by the end of the 1960’s.
Suddenly they had to make cars cheaper, more fuel efficient, cleaner on emmissions and also attract a range of tastes that was wider than ever thanks to their foreign competitors. So they had to move to front wheel drive, develop analog emissions systems AND keep the cars afordable… when you want a job done, it’s the old ‘cheap, fast, high quality’ story: except due to so many corporate problems, they could only deliver a job with one of those traits.
Well done comments. It is hard not to agree with your thoughts on the design chief, it’s not likely that the results could have been worse.
Watching the car / platform proliferation felt like seeing a slow motion train wreck during the ’80s – leaving GM with lots of cars cannibalizing other sales WITHIN the Divisions, ensuring few cars would be on best seller lists. The confident GM of 1977 with their bold new full-size cars seemed to become unable to tell themselves and their customers that they were confident that their new models were the wave of the future. Tracking a zillion near look alike parts in lightly differentiated cars also assuredly took a toll on quality control.
You may have written the opening paragraphs on why the succession of the A designation at GM was a Deadly Sin despite some of the merits and success of the FWD A platform. The A seemed to be the beginning of the whole X, A, N, W era of overlapping vehicles.
W-Car was a clear size up from the A-Car.
L-Car and P90 were complete wastes of resources though.
Great post. Even at the time I thought it spoke volumes about GM’s new offerings that it no longer had the confidence to completely phase out the old model as it introduced the new one.
Can anyone imagine the GM of 1972 keeping the “old” A-body intermediates around just in case people didn’t like the new 1973 Colonnade intermediates?
Even at the time I thought it spoke volumes about GM’s new offerings that it no longer had the confidence to completely phase out the old model as it introduced the new one.
Much of that was because the dealers loved the A-Car, they sold well and were pretty well sorted by the end.
In my opinion Pontiac would have been much better off keeping the 6000 (which by the end had sedan/coupe/wagon variants along with a well-sorted powertrain and an AWD option) than launching the Grand Am.
Irv Rybicki indeed has limits in his skills. The goal in GM was to meet all Feds’ requirements without sacrificing the customers ( unlike Chrysler when they couldn’t afford building cars meeting the CAFE, they left the cost to customers on M-Bodies ) maintaining the standard of the comfort and roominess. And eventually what we got was the dorky C-Body DeVille.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to consider the A-Car a ‘Deadly Sin’ considering its longevity and rough virtues. To me, the true sins of that era are the cars developed (nominally) to replace the A-Car, the L-Car Corsica/Beretta and the various N-Cars (Also the oddball P90 Malibu Classic/Cutlass Whatever).
GM could have made it through the 90s with the J/A/W Cars with no problem whatsoever, especially once the 3.1L V6 came on line. Put the $$$ into upgrading their junk interiors and you’d have had some pretty nice cars.
And that doesn’t even get into what a waste Saturn (and their unique powertrains) was…
Saturn might have been a bad move for GM, but our Saturn SL2 was vastly superior in all ways to our two A-bodies. Drove better, handled better, was built better, got great gas mileage and had no major issues (apart from a trans rebuild at 120k) for 200,000 miles of ownership. Ran like a top and was still completely reliable for daily driving when we got rid of it.
A handsome car for the time. The photos show the pitfalls of red interiors. They always seem to take on a slick sheen.
My maternal grandmother had a 1986 Ciera 4 door sedan from 1995 or 96 until 1999. It was white with red interior and a V6.
It was also the first car I ever drove on an actual road. I was 13 and she’d let me drive from her house to the end of her secluded road.
My dad purchased a mid to late 80’s Cutlass Ciera sedan. My father was concerned that the car would have enough power for an extended road trip through the Rocky Mountains for my parent’s 40th wedding anniversary. The salesmen assured my father that the car had a six cylinder engine. After the trip, dad popped the hood to show off the new car. Just by looking at the gaps in the engine bay, I know it was a 4 banger, but I didn’t have the heart to tell him the truth.
A year or two latter, he was complaining about the lack of get up and go and my brother (big mouth) made the pronouncement of the 4 cylinder. Several months later, the car was stolen out of the driveway and found in a rough part of town. The only thing missing was the engine. Apparently the thieves thought the Iron Duke 4 has some redeeming value!!!
I remember reading that the sedans were used by businessmen. I knew a family who had an ’86 sedan, perhaps a little over 10 years ago. It was black with a tan interior, quad headlights and tinted windows. It had matching rally wheels, crank windows, manual door locks, bench seats with a column shifter and a dreadful 4-cylinder engine. It was passed down to the youngest son who was a bit younger than me, which eventually led to its demise. I remember how easy it was to steer but I never got used to seeing over the square hood. The hood ornament had an interesting design, being held up by a spring, which made it impossible to break off. The 4-cylinder engine developed a noise like a diesel truck. Rust, age and abuse had finally caught up with it and it had to be scrapped. At the time I think it had around 80,000 km (49,710 mi) or somewhere within 100,000 km (62,137 mi) which I thought was low.
Another A-Body coupe unicorn has to be the 1989 and up Pontiac 6000 LE coupe with the “bubble-back” window. I think I’ve seen one on the road, and that was probably 20 odd years ago. Even Google Image Search can’t turn one up. These oddball cars by GM just seemed to be made because, well, we’ve always made a 2-door version.
I don’t think the 6000 2 door ever got the sloped rear window.
Nope, it was replaced by the Grand Prix in 1988
I never thought we would have lost Oldsmobile in the way we did, In the ’80s I thought that “Cutlass” would become an actual “marque” and overtake the Oldsmobile brand in the way Pontiac overtook Oakland in the 1920s!
This car would be a deadly sin if it weren’t so pointless.
The GM-10/W-body program had been massively hyped for several years by 1986, so the A-body appeared to be nearing the end of the road, never mind that a new Cutlass Supreme sedan was still 4 years off and that the Ciera would ultimately last another decade. Moreover, the G-special Supreme, which was technically replaced by the A in 1982, survived through ’88.
Three overlapping coupe models (five if you count the nominally bigger FWD Delta 88 and Ninety Eight) in a market that could support zero coupe models.
This isn’t an unattractive car by any stretch, but it was already outdated compared to the E/N body coupes that appeared around the same time, let alone the radical Taurus which Ford smartly didn’t bother offering as a two door.
I can understand why GM hedged their bets in ’82 by selling the FWD As alongside the G body, and this proved smart when gas prices didn’t skyrocket as expected. That said, GM should have either killed the G when this body style debuted or not bothered with two door As in the first place.
Agreed. I’d have spent the coupe money on moving the wagons forward two years; they were so much better at being wagons than the G-bodies were (Third-row seating! Opening back windows! Brake lights that weren’t tucked away as low as physically possible!) that all divisions immediately fully replaced them when they finally did appear in ’84.
Probably G-Body wagon was something GM cooked when they figured Chrysler F-Body wagon had some potential.
I don’t care what anyone else thinks I love these cars. I drove my friends mothers 87 sedan all the time in high school. It was a great little car I would love to find one of the older two door sedans. I always liked the look.
There’s something about the design of the Ciera and FWD A-body in general I just find completely unappealing and offputting. It’s hard to describe but they look boxy, tinny and unsubstantial. The aforementioned clearly visible rear beam axle always made them look like little red wagons with a car body draped over, and the narrow tires and convex protruding hubcaps don’t help.
Some will say it’s an honest efficient utilitarian design, but I disagree with that too. You could definitely see where style and flair was attempted to be added but it always looked disconnected, and this coupe roofline is no exception. This car to me looks like GM took the aero Thunderbird roofline and simply pasted on top of a Radio Flyer, then for the GT pasted IROC Z ground effects to the bottom of a Radio Flyer.
I think it should be noted some see these as endearing by being a cockroach of the roads due to their shocking resilience. Well cockroaches are impressively resilient pests, Pests nobody wants to see and attempts to eradicate them never work. That is not an endearing quality! lol
Space efficiency can be grabbed easily using vertical roofs, but it won’t look too nice in most cases. Narrow tires help improving the mpg, but it doesn’t look good neither. GM didn’t sacrifice space and comfort and didn’t let customers take the extra costs of gas guzzler tax ( unlike Chrysler Fifth Avenue, or imports exotic cars like BMW 6 Series ) but they couldn’t make everything good, as something must be cut off short, then the styling went all bad.
At the time, Chrysler’s offerings like New Yorker Turbo just looked as bad as those dorky GM cars, and Ford was wondering about what could be done to the Fox-body ( and I think they figured that chassis is really vulnerable too, and eventually they put together the Taurus )
I don’t mind the formal roof, I do own and adore a 1994 Cougar 😛 It’s the main body that gets me about the Ciera, there’s creases and curve stamped into the bodysides but it somehow comes off as completely flat and square no matter the angle. Also the efficiency of narrow tires is true, but these also have unnecessarily narrow tracks to boot, which is likely a result of crafting a slightly bigger bodyshell on the otherwise completely unaltered Citation hardpoints. It’s perfectly possible to design a transverse FWD car with narrow tires without looking dorky, VW/Audis and the later Taurus and even the aforementioned Citation all looked good and were are equally(or much more) efficient designs. The Ciera just looked compromised from day 1 and got worse and worse with every attempt to stylize it more as Max P. points out.
Also, I agree the initial K-car mutations aren’t much better, (Dodge 600 et al) but then again I’d argue the Dodge Lancer was a MUCH better execution than the Ciera, all the way to the end.
Plus GM was a titan of a company when the Ciera was designed, Chrysler was in line for a firing squad awaiting a pardon. GMs lack of design flare in this period is inexcusable.
Good point about the tires and hubcaps. The front clip on the later ones with the more “aero” nose designs also accentuates how much front overhang it has in proportion to the wheelbase, making the styling even more awkward. I think the original 1982 models with the upright nose and rooflines are the most “pure” version. Boxy as can be, but at least uniformly so throughout the design of the car unlike the later ones.
The more I look at the side profile of the “aero” coupe, the more the design disparity between the curvy rear window and the razor-straight edges on the rest of the car become unsettling. It’s more passable on the sedan, but it’s so obvious the car did not start out with that design theme at all.
It reminds me of the 1988-1991 LTD/Grand Marquis… inappropriately smooth front and rear styling plopped onto boxy car bodies designed in the late-70s. To be fair, facelifting older designs around 1987 was probably a daunting task, given how much of a seismic shift the areo look was from the “formal” styling that dominated styling studios just 5 to 10 years prior.
I think adding bigger front overhang makes it easier for an older/uncapable platform to pass the crash test ( not in the case of M-Body Chrysler Fifth Avenue though, but I suspect it could be the case for GM A-Body, H-Body )
Also I believe the front overhang was extended to allow the Buick 90 degree V6 to fit. It wasn’t in the related X body.
It was originally done to fit the 4.3L Oldsmobile diesel, which hardly anyone bought. It was gone after 1985.
I had to have a good laugh at the second ad down. Oh, the sophistication of turtleneck wearing Mr. Gordon Lightfoot look-alike and his model ship building expertise. I hope that’s not the Edmund Fitzgerald! You too can exude pretentiousness in your new Cutlass Ciera Coupe LS. Just don’t let your anal retentive attention to detail get too carried away while inspecting the fit and finish quality of Oldsmobile’s finest new classic, whether on land or sea!
In all seriousness though, I have a strange affection for the Cutlass Ciera and the Buick Century. Maybe it’s childhood nostalgia? These cars are a transition between traditional american car design and modernity. I wouldn’t be ashamed to own one, in a hipster cool kind of way. I do like the rwd g-body infinitely more though. My family had a 1978 Cutlass Supreme when I was a kid. The first family car that I can remember.
I found one of those international flag badges from a Ciera fender in the backyard of a house we lived in when I was very young. I remember my Mom teaching me the name of each country represented on the badge. I then asked, “Does that mean they drive Oldsmobiles in all of those countries?” To which I’m pretty certain my Dad laughed.
I always thought these were OK cars that hit their target market. They weren’t perfect by any means, but they were roomy and comfortable and had decent resistance to rust. The same can’t be said of Japanese imports at that time.
Really, I wish modern cars were more utilitarian and comfortable like these were. Not everybody wants to be boy-racer when hauling their family around. Unfortunately the media has conditioned us to value performance over practicality. Not that I’m against high performance, I just don’t think it needs to be the top priority in every vehicle on the market.
IMO, the Olds version was the dullest of all the GM FWD intermediates.
The Buick Century Luxus was the most luxurious and quietest model, the Chevy (with the 2.8 V6 engine) was the peppiest of the group, the Olds version was….just there.
Anyone recall the louder, rorty, booming exhaust system on the Pontiac 6000STE models?
When new it sounded mellow; a few years later much louder and irritating.
I am in the minority as I truly love these cars. I owned three of them, a 1984 Century Limited Coupe with the horrible Buick 3.0 V-6, a loaded 1987 Century Limited Sedan with the rare ‘T’ package and phenomenal SFI 3.8 V-6, and a nicely optioned, low mileage 1989 Ciera Sedan with the MFI 2.8 V-6 that my elderly neighbor sold to me for $500 bucks that I drove for 6 months and resold for $1900! I always thought these cars were roomy, comfortable and aside from my 1984, reliable. Maybe the ones I had were optioned right, unlike most of the rental car offerings, but you could eat up the miles on a road trip in these cars. Not too big or small, good on gas, comfortable and nice, unoffensive looks….what more could you ask for?
Oops – I just realized in my previous post that I stated I had a 1985 Century Limited Coupe when it was actually a 1984……my bad!
I worked for the local Buick dealer wayyyyy back then. I always tried to order several graphite grey Century Luxus models, burgundy cloth interior with fold down arm rest bench seat, 3.8 SFI V6 engine, the “Gage Package” dashboard, touring suspension, Buick chrome “road wheels”, AM-FM-EQ factory radio and every power option available for dealer stock.
Whenever a potential buyer drove up in a BMW or Volvo I’d try to steer them to one of the above equipped cars.
I can honestly say that the dealership sold every one I had ordered for the new car lot.
Mark, are you in Canada? I remember the Luxus name for Buick back in the 70’s but not on these models. Maybe it was the equivalent to the Limited model here in the states?
The car you describe is equipped like the white 1987 Limited ‘T’ package that I had. It was white with blue pillowed velour interior, console, 3.8 V-6, Gran Touring Suspension, alloy wheels with Eagle GT tires and the Delco AM/FM Cassette with equalizer. That car handled beautifully and was a joy to drive. I sold it with well over 200k miles on it and saw it for years after I sold it too. To me, that car was the perfect blend of sport and Brougham. I think of that car all the time!
You’re correct, Tom, I meant “Limited” and not “Luxus”.
“Luxus” was the name for the top-of-the-line Opel Mantas Buick sold in the early/mid 1970’s.
I keep telling myself NOT to post online until “the coffee kicks in”.
My driver’s ed car was a brand-new ’82 Ciera: The dashboard squeaked. Drove a relative’s during a trip in ’88: The dashboard squeaked. Had an early 90’s rental: The dashboard squeaked.
And…we’re done.
My Uncle used to work in the Framingham plant which built these.
Did miss it or is there really no mention of the 800 or so Cutlass Ciera Convertibles commissioned for conversion by GM to Hess & Eisenhardt in this thread? ! 🙂
I’m still driving a 1986 2.8 fi cutlass ciera coupe with 95k on it. Bought it 2 years ago in quite remarkable shape from an elderly couple, invested like 600 to get all sensors and shock absorbers changed (since its been basically sitting for years in a garage)… Runs like a kitten and serves me very well as an every day driver/ travel car… Couldn’t be happier with it!
Pic
Pic2
Pic3
This is a 1986 MY Olds Cutlass Ciera S Coupe 2.8 EFI International Series , in its original condition with 84059 original miles.
Splendid! I wish you many more pleasant and safe miles in the car! Thanks for sharing.
The curvy new glass added to the A body sedans in 1989 doesn’t interchange with the Ciera/Century coupe glass – the window has more slope in the coupes, and the C pillar has more slope where it meets up with the rear glass. The parts numbers are different.
Amazing to think GM thought the upright, ungainly A-body two door sedans would satisfy those that had bought the past three generations of stylish GM mid-sized coupes in droves. Some of those didn’t just have sleeker rooflines than their sedan counterparts, but also longer hoods or shorter wheelbases to keep the coupe proportions intact. GM cheaped out by making the FWD A body “coupes” use sedan rooflines, but it probably wound up costing them serious money in the long run as their customer base moved on to competitor’s products.
We had two early nineties A-body sedans. Good utilitarian vehicles until each finally succumbed to structural rust. Both were 3.3’s, one with a three speed, and one with a 4 speed transmission. Each was totally reliable and durable mechanically, the one exception being a failed converter lock-up solenoid. Both of these made it beyond 200,000 miles with nothing but routine maintenance. Our 2000 Lesabre was about one fourth as good as either of them, and that’s being very generous. It got replaced with a 2004 Vibe (Toyota Matrix) which is well on its way to outlasting all of the above, with no real evidence of the dreaded New England tin worm yet!
I worked at an Oldsmobile dealership in 1990 and these things were everywhere back then, mostly 4 doors. One of the ladies in the front office had a dark brown one with equally dark brown interior and the diesel V6. I remember it smelling like an old farm tractor inside and was noisey as hell.
I thought the rear window was stolen from the MB SLC.
I like your definition of a 2 door sedan. I’ve long referred to many, but not all, 2 doors as 2 door sedans, but admittedly without a clear coupe/sedan distinction aside from the old I know ’em when I see ’em.
As to the basic topic of Cutlasses, with rare exception, good riddance to bad rubbish.
Paul: the second photo captures the car´s character very well with the vertical lamps and the zig-zag on the c-pillar. As a foreigner, I think I am given extra licence to say I like all these sober saloons and coupés from this period. The whole “Cutlass” naming convention is beyond me though. What was Cutlass-ness? And how did it stick to so many different cars?
I saw one of these in traffic yesterday. Reverse CC Effect?