(first posted 5/31/2017) It’s time once again for our ongoing exploration of low volume regular production cars. Today, we look at Oldsmobile, one of the few car brands to have had at least two enduring songs written about it. As has been the case so far, we are looking at cars produced between 1946 and 1995 having a production volume of less than 1,000.
The differences in how car makers report output are considerable and their method of reporting may vary year to year. In this case, Oldsmobile is generally like Chevrolet in breaking production numbers down by engine. While this list isn’t necessarily comprehensive, it is definitely extensive, with some models having repeat performances for consecutive years.
So come away with me Lucille, in my merry Rocket 88…or something like that.
1946 Special 66 wagon
Production: 140
Despite the periodic angst with the numeric and alphanumeric model names currently used on cars, the concept is far from new. In 1946, Oldsmobile had the 60 series, the 70 series, and the 90 series. The second digit, six as seen here, denoted the number of cylinders. Thus, the “66” was the base model 60 series powered by a 100 horsepower straight-six. This was the only Olds wagon available that year.
As we’ve seen throughout, with the exception of Pontiac thus far, wood bodied cars subsequent to World War II just weren’t a popular commodity. At $1,795, these were within $45 of the 98 convertible.
Production for the 1946 Oldsmobiles began October 15, 1945. On November 21, 1945, the United Auto Workers went on strike, with the strike lasting until April 1, 1946. This, combined with an unreceptive market, explains the paltry production number.
1946 Custom Cruiser 98 convertible
Production: 874
The 98s were simply the least popular Oldsmobiles volume wise. Priced at $1,840, it was well into mid-range Buick territory (back when the Sloan Ladder meant something) and the UAW strike as outlined above played a distinct role.
1947 Special 66 wagon; Special 68 wagon
Production: 968 and 492, respectively
As was the case in 1946, the wood bodied wagons simply weren’t appealing to very many buyers. Of note is the 68 designation – Oldsmobile had opened up an eight-cylinder engine option on their base model 60 series.
In a reflection of post-war inflation, base prices were up nearly $400 to $2,175.
1950 Futuramic 76 convertible, Holiday hardtop coupe, Deluxe Holiday hardtop coupe, four-door wagon, Deluxe four-door wagon
Production: 973, 144, 394, 121, 247, respectively
1950 Futuramic 88 Deluxe four-door wagon
Production: 552
How’s this for both being complicated and reflecting tepid sales volumes?
Perhaps the most concise explanation for such a formidable list is that Olds was in a transition period. 1950 would be the last year for both the 70 series and six-cylinder engines, a combination of which help explain five of the six cars seen here.
The first inclination with these findings for 1950 was whether or not the song “Rocket 88” may have influenced buyers, as the engine was introduced in 1949. Such is not the case as the song wasn’t recorded until March 1951. However, if looking at ads for the 1950 Oldsmobiles, one could easily interpret there being no Oldsmobile on the market other than a Rocket 88. It is true that name has a more appealing sound than does, say, Torpedo 76.
Yet there is the wagon seen here that possesses the Rocket 88. For 1950, Olds captured only 1.7% of the domestic station wagon market, prompting its hiatus in wagon building until 1957.
1953 Ninety-Eight Fiesta convertible coupe
Production: 458
This was a limited production run of a speciality car introduced mid-year. At $5,715, it was over twice the price of the regular $2,963 Olds 98 convertible. The Fiesta was introduced along with the Buick Skylark and Cadillac Eldorado convertibles.
1965 F-85 wagon V6
Production: 714 (base) and 659 (Deluxe)
There is an old adage that cylinders sell. For proof, look no further than this 1965 Olds F-85 wagon. When equipped with Cutlass or Jetfire Rocket V8 engines, these sold much better as the V8 equipped wagon in Deluxe trim was the second best selling model of any F-85 that year.
Yet when equipped with the “Econ-O-Way” V6, you get the results seen here. According to some sources providing a higher level of detail, similar sales volumes were realized by some F-85 wagons in 1961, 1964, and 1966.
1967 Cutlass six-cylinder convertible, four-door hardtop, and station wagon
Production: 567, 644, and 385 respectively
Take your pick of body-style on the base model Cutlass in 1967. If it was equipped with a straight-six, there’s a 60% chance it sold less than 1,000 units – and with examples such as the wagon, it may land far below the 1,000 unit threshold.
Variations of this theme repeated themselves in 1968. And again in 1969, when all six-cylinder models were under 1,000. And 1970. Oh, and in 1971, also. For 1972, Olds wised up and dumped the six-cylinder option. Having it was likely more trouble than it was worth.
The lowest of the low was the 1971 wagon as seen here in yellow. Only 47 were built with a six-banger, down from 85 in 1970.
In a sense, given the notoriety of the Olds Rocket 88, getting a six-cylinder Olds seems a bit like going to Burger King and ordering a Triple Whopper only to wash it down with a Diet Coke – it just seems inconsistent.
1978 shown
1979 Omega hatchback coupe
Production: 956
The model year was abbreviated, making way for the new front-drive X-cars.
The Omega hatchback, nothing more than a Chevrolet Nova hatchback with a marginally snazzier header panel and tail lights, had been around since 1973.
1980 Cutlass Salon Brougham coupe
Production: 865
If a picture is worth a thousand words, this speaks for itself. Not a hatchback and not a sedan, these were a galactic styling miss for Oldsmobile. Olds was not alone in embracing this body style as Buick had similar on their A-body Century.
These A-body Oldsmobiles soon received a greenhouse transplant from the Cadillac Seville and sales quickly rebounded.
Brougham series shown, but differences are negligible
1986 Ninety-Eight Regency coupe (not Brougham)
Production: 803
This one was a mild surprise.
The 98 Regency coupe sold well enough during the prior, rear-drive generation, selling 11,000 to 14,000 units per year from 1981 to 1984.
With the downsizing of 1985, to the front-driver seen above, Regency coupe sales volumes dropped considerably to a level of 4,700. However, 1985 saw the coupe split into two series, Regency and Brougham, with combined sales in 1985 being in the 14,500 range.
That split continued for 1986, and combined 98 coupe sales were down to 5,800 with the Brougham (at 5,007) proving itself to be the stronger of the two. GM applied Darwin’s Law and the Regency coupe did not return for 1987.
1990 Cutlass Calais International Sedan
Production: 877
If it weren’t for ads and magazines, would anyone know the International Series even existed? When the J-body Firenza was terminated at the end of 1988, the Calais became the small Oldsmobile. Therein lies the likely problem.
On the low end, the Calais had a VL series, standing for Value Leader, a de-contented car intended to appeal to and/or recapture Firenza buyers, with a base price of $9,995. Moving up the food chain, one could find a Calais in S, SL, and then the International series trim.
The rub? At $14,495 (and $100 less for the coupe shown here), this Calais had a base price nearly 50% higher than the VL model. In turn, this base price was $100 to $200 higher than the base price of a Cutlass Supreme. This is perhaps a case example of one car trying to cover too much sales ground.
Incidentally, the Calais International coupe sold only 1,454 copies.
1990 Cutlass Ciera International coupe and sedan
Production: 411 and 959
This is a watered down version of what can be seen with the Calais directly above.
While base prices of the various Ciera models had a narrower spread than the Calais, the matter of significant price overlap was quite real. With a base price of $15,995 for the International series coupe, and $800 more for the sedan, one could change their mind and drive home in a base model 88 and save money in the process. How much? A few hundred, regardless if you popped for the 88 Royale sedan or coupe. It also netted the buyer what was often viewed as being substantially more car.
By this time not only had the Sloan Ladder been splintered, it had been used for kindling to keep the sales flame alive for some of these models.
1990 shown
1991 Eighty-Eight Royale coupe and Brougham coupe
Production: 234 and 458
For 1991, sales of the Eighty-Eight were just dandy – if you didn’t look at the coupes.
Olds had dumped the two-door Ninety-Eight after 1987 due to dwindling sales and the Eighty-Eight (referred to by Olds as “88” in other years) had experienced similar. To illustrate how coupe sales were in the dumpster, Olds sold roughly 57,000 Eighty-Eight sedans for 1991 and less than 700 coupes. Tastes were changing and this was the last year for an Eighty-Eight coupe.
1993 Cutlass Supreme International Series
Production: 395 (coupe) and 645 (sedan)
Once upon a time, the Cutlass Supreme reigned supreme on the sales chart. By 1989, it wasn’t even in the top 25. Things only got worse by 1993, when sales literally bottomed out at 83,000, a small fraction of its sales from a decade earlier; how the mighty had fallen.
For 1993, the Cutlass Supreme had a roughly $7,000 difference between the base “S” and the International series, putting the higher trim four-doors well into Eighty-Eight territory. To make matters a bit more awkward, there was a $200 spread among the convertible, coupe, and sedan – with the convertible having the cheapest base price of the three.
Stay tuned; there is still much more to come in this series.
I had forgotten that sixes were offered in the F-85 line all the way through 1971. I think the only pre-1980s Olds six I was ever in belonged to the parents of a high school friend who had a strippo 68 F-85 coupe that I rode in exactly once.
Well, we didn’t have the 6 in our ’65 F85, but the 330 V8 was my Father’s first car with a V8…having had 6’s in both the Rambler wagons he owned immediately before the F85, plus the flathead 6 in his ’56 Plymouth (yes, my Father traded cars pretty frequently back then).
The reason for the F85 was that he was in an accident with the Rambler, we were moving from Catonsville MD to Burlington VT, in fact we were staying in a motel in Catonsville ready for the move when the Rambler got totalled, I remember my Grandmother pulling broken glass out of my Father’s skin in the motel. We ended up driving up to VT in a rental car, and at some point my Father bought the F85 at Val Preda’s in South Burlington. It was also a wagon, very much like the brochure picture, except it was green and had a roof rack.
The F85 had a neat “disappearing” ash tray in the dash (it rotated in/out). The son of our next door neighbor managed to get a permanent marker and wrote all over the inside of the tailgate of the F85…it got traded for a ’69 Ford Country Squire (also Green) with the 351. I think the F85 was the only intermediate sized car he ever bought (assuming the Ramblers were “compact” , but I’m not positive of the size difference).
I remember well the disappearing ashtray from my mother’s 64 Cutlass. And the glove box door that popped up to open.
Looking at old car brochures online, the base 1968-71 Cutlass, one step above the F-85 also had the I6 standard.
I don’t know if this counts, but I recall a Toronado with a wrap-around backlight that had a total production of one. Does anyone else remember it?
I believe the production figure of “1” is for the 1977 Toronado XSR which had power T-tops, and was essentially a prototype. A second has apparently now been found.
The ’77-’78 XS also had the wraparound window but there were over 5,000 produced over the two model years.
The Toronado XSR, I think. http://toronado.org/public/FAQs/GenII/xsr.htm
Yup. I covered it here:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/top-10-obscure-special-editions-and-forgotten-limited-run-models-oldsmobile-edition-part-i/
“1980 Cutlass Salon Brougham coupe…Not a hatchback and not a sedan, these were a galactic styling miss for Oldsmobile. Olds was not alone in embracing this body style as Buick had similar on their A-body Century. These A-body Oldsmobiles soon received a greenhouse transplant from the Cadillac Seville and sales quickly rebounded.”
I assume the idea behind these was to establish greater differentiation between Chevrolet/Pontiac and Oldsmobile/Buick, but these “slantbacks” were just dismal sellers. You would be hard pressed to find too many other vehicles that sold so poorly in comparison to the sales levels of similar products made by the same manufacturer around the same time period.
In 1978-79, there were both slantback coupes and slantback sedans. The sedans were replaced with a conventional notchback design for 1980. The coupes continued into 1980 in slantback form, then were simply dropped at the end that model year, not replaced by a notchback successor. The bulk of midsize coupe sales had been gravitating towards personal luxury coupes like the Cutlass Supreme, and the FWD A-bodies that debuted for ’82 were presumably already under development, so I assume GM saw no point in tooling up for notchback non-personal luxury coupes that would only be needed for a model year or two, and probably wouldn’t even sell in particularly large numbers for that year or two. Fixing the problem with the four-door sedans, by contrast, would have been more urgent.
My first car was a ’78 Century sedan, which I owned in 1988-89.
There was no need to replace the slant back coupe because buick and olds had the hot sellng cutlass supreme and the buick regal .I bought a new 78 malibu classic 2door coupe , much nicer than the slant backs.
The notchback sedans were simply called ‘Cutlass’ for 80-81, with base, LS and Brougham trims. For 1982-87, then were called Cutlass Supreme sedans, differing from the Cieras.
A fun and informative article. Hate to be “that guy” but the 1953 Olds illustrated is a plain-jane Ninety-Eight convertible. The Fiesta was two-tone and had vertical A-pillars.
Finding exact pictures for some of these cars has been as big a treasure hunt as anything – in fact, I think I’ve spent more time looking for pictures than I have writing text.
Often, I’ve had to go with something as close as I could get. Buick is presenting itself as an even bigger challenge in a few instances.
I’ll be interested to see the buick numbers, especially the Buick version of the 1971 yellow Olds 6 cylinder wagon you show. We had a very similar wagon in a Buick. I think ours was a 1970 or 1971 Sportwagon because it had the five spoke buick mag wheels, and it was black over black, but it had the six cylinder. Mom said it struggled up hills and her previous car was a 1968 VW Squareback!
Yes, the 53 Fiesta Convertible Coupe had “wrap-around” windshield. This was standard on the new 1954 models. This also explains the price tag.
I fell in love in a Cutlass slantback…so they look good to me
If the slantback looks good to you, I’m afraid to ask what your date looked like.
I have to admit, I love the look of the Salon slantbacks. But the lack of a hatchback is a baffling omission… What was this, British Leyland?
I don’t think it ever even occurred to GM to make these hatchbacks. In the U.S. market at the time, hatchbacks were associated with small cars, mainly subcompacts. I don’t think anyone had ever built a midsize car as a hatchback, and there were few if any four-door hatchbacks of any size. The largest hatchbacks around were probably the RWD GM 2-door X-bodies, which had proven to be poor sellers.
I think what GM had in mind was sedans from the mid-to-late ’30s, when manufacturers first began to make sedans with internal trunks.
Not British Leyland, but the American equivalent in some respects.
Motor Trend had drawings of the upcoming Aerobacks, as they were called, in a “1978 Preview” article. And the editors were assuming they’d be hatchbacks.
The other incorrect assumption was that 400 ci V8’s would still be optional on the new downsized A bodies. MT was eager saying “the ’78 LeMans 400, that’s lighter than a Ventura, will fly!”
No one wanted a “HB” , that big in those days. By then, the “Nova” and it’s alter ego’s wasn’t even sought after much in it’s “HB” , body style.
We were in the car, not outside looking at it. She was much better looking than the car….
“Roachback”.
Hated every single one, and every single X-car ever made.
I’ll take the brown one in the opening photo, though!
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a 68-69 Cutlass wagon that didn’t have the “Vista Cruiser” option. I’m also surprised that Cutlasses in the 60s had V6 AND inline 6 engines…I just always thought of these cars as having V8s.
I am a fan of the unusual so I actually like the slantback Cutlasses. I managed to find a pretty decent Century 2 door slantback a few months ago, and kick myself for not trying to buy it. At $2,100 asking price, I don’t think I could have gone wrong. But it was a lowline trim, so that made me pause….too long (?).
And I sort of like those “aero” Ciera coupes.
The cratering sales of Oldsmobile’s coupes in the 1980s is yet another reason why the GM-10/W-Body launch was such a disaster.
Oldsmobile really did try and push the International-Series but none of them really sold all that well.. I covered Oldsmobile’s attempt at sporty cars in the 1980s here:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/curbside-unicorns-the-sporty-oldsmobiles-of-the-1980s/
Olds’ I-Series were supposed to take the place of Buick’s T Types. GM HQ ordered the brands to switch market roles for 1988. Automotive News reported at the time.
Fun series.
The lead photo – wow, there isn’t anything in the 1970 Olds line-up that I’d kick out of my garage. The foundation for Olds mania in the ’70s was laid in no small way by the 1970 line. Just really good looking and running cars.
You gotta love crazy marketing photos. How, why, what the hell is that Omega doing sitting in a creek? How is it going to get out? If I parked in a creek, my wife would contemplate stepping into the water only after making sure I caught some serous dirty looks from her.
Just amazing that there was a 1991 88 coupe given the volume. While not bad looking it its own way, all the reasons for owning a big coupe were pretty much drained away from this car. A premium price for what? Door mounted seat belts? A practical but none too exciting V-6? Styling not very different from the sedan? That confused traditional / modern late ’80s GM styling? Having owned and enjoyed the prior generation 88 coupe (1982 Delta 88 Royale Brougham) I had zero interest in this car.
I like the Omega, it has solid bones from being made for a decade, the mechanical bits have all be sorted and the front looks better than a Nova. It’s bound to have a little more plush interior. If I had one, I’d swap in a Olds 350 over the Chevy that’s bound to be in there.
I had a 73 Omega Hatch
which i honestly wish i still had
IIRC it had the Olds “Rocket” 350
Same Color as mine different car
The 73-74 Omegas did have Olds v8’s as optional. But after ’75, the “musical motor choices” started, and was called “optional V8, made at any GM division”
Did the 60s A-body Oldsmobiles have a unique straight six, or were they using the Chevy 250? I can’t imagine Olds made their own I-6 for so few cars.
But as for dismal I-6/V-6 sales from WWII until the FWD era, it makes total sense to me. If a person was a cheapskate who wanted a 6, they weren’t at the Oldsmobile dealer, and if they felt flush enough for an Oldsmobile, they sure weren’t going for a six!
IIRC the Buick V6 was used in 1964-65, replaced by the Chevy inline 6 thereafter.
Evan, you just hit the nail on the head. From my experience that is exactly why 6 cylinder Oldsmobiles of that era were so rare. Yes the V6 engine was from Buick and the straight six engine was a Chevy.
By the ’60’s, Oldsmobile had gained a very strong reputation for good V8’s. Even if dealers were ordering for dealer stock, they ordered V8’s. You had to special order the 6. Heck if you want a low line GM wagon with a 6 Chevy is right there for you.
I know this because my parent’s 1st new car was a ’66 Olds F85 Deluxe wagon. And they were on a tight budget so no power steering or power brakes, no AC and not even a power rear window. But it had the 330 cu in (2bbl low compression “economy”) V8.
And while maybe the Olds V8’s of the ’70’s were really no better than the Chevy V8’s, I don’t know, but Olds had developed that reputation. That was so badly squandered when they started putting Chevy 350’s into Olds 88’s in the late ’70’s.
Since the Chevy V-8 design was 10 years older than the Olds V-8, Olds had the advantage of newer technology, and that made their V-8 a much better engine. Also, as I can attest, the Olds quality was much better, in doing many engine rebuilds, the chevys all needed a rebore of up to 030 over, at around 100K, where the Olds only needed new rings at 100K, the metallurgy of the Olds engines were far better. Chevy must have used the cheapest iron possible for their V-8’s in that era.
Two enduring songs…and a band!
I like the looks of the 1985-1986 Ninety Eight Regency/R Brougham coupes.
Unlike their Buick Electra/Cadillac Coupe de Ville brethren, they came standard with a vinyl landau roof, giving them a much more formal look than the Electra/Coupe de Ville.
An even more rare bird was probably the 1986/87 Ninety Eight Grande Edition with the pigskin (yes, pigskin) leather interior. This was a $975 option.
The interior…
I remember a British TV show of the time that featured a highly-desirable pigskin suitcase. Interesting that they changed the woodgrain to the same color in vinyl.
I found this somewhere on Google as someone had created similar sized Oldsmobile sedans as shown here.
Now from that same source, the coupe versions.
Comments on some of these:
1979 Omega hatchback: We already saw the Pontiac equivalent of this car on the Pontiac list, and its Oldsmobile sibling makes the Olds list for the same reasons. After making a minor splash upon their 1973 introduction, the RWD X-body hatchbacks proved to be poor sellers over the long haul, enough so that a truncated 1979 model year put the hatches below 1,000. As with Pontiac, Olds only offered the hatchback in base trim, so the total quoted in the article represents the whole of ’79 Omega hatchback production.
1980 Cutlass Salon Brougham (slantback) coupe: Already discussed in other comments. For 1980, the slantback sedans were replaced by notchbacks, but the coupe continued in slantback form. This was the fancier of the two trim levels this body style was offered in for 1980. After 1980, the slantback coupe was dropped and not replaced.
1990 Cutlass Calais International Series coupe: The Calais I-Series returned for 1991, when both the coupe and the sedan were below 1,000. For 1992, the Achieva replaced the Calais. Mercifully, it didn’t offer I-Series models.
1990 Cutlass Ciera International Series: Though the Ciera would continue for several more years, Olds dropped the I-Series version after 1990.
1993 Cutlass Supreme International Series: While Oldsmobile’s I-Series program as a whole obviously wasn’t very successful , the W-body Cutlass Supreme version was a stronger seller than the others in its early years, so it lasted a bit longer. 1993 was its last year.
A few additional qualifiers, based on production data in the Encyclopedia of American Cars, that must have missed Jason’s cut, but caught my eye:
1987 Firenza: three body style/trim level combinations, including both variants of the two-door hatchback, were below 1,000. None of the three returned for 1988, the J-body Firenza’s final year. As noted in comments to the Pontiac list, the J-body hatchbacks were never popular, and this was their last year across all GM brands.
1990 Cutlass Supreme convertible: similar to the ’83 Sunbird convertible, this is likely an artificially low total, due to either being a late introduction, or Olds just needing time to ramp up production. Sold in much larger numbers in the years that followed.
I was at a car show once and a guy had a ’67 Cutlass 4 door sedan that had the 442 package on it. Maybe it was a fake, but he did have a window sticker and a convincing argument that the 442 package was available on any Cutlass, and a handful were 4 doors. There was also a run of ’67 Delmont 88’s with 425’s built for the California Highway Patrol. Now sure how many strippo Delmont’s were built with the Rocket 425, but my guess would be not many.
Thanks for an interesting series of articles!
Hi Bob,
That sounds confusing. When the 442 package came out in 1964, it was an option on everything except the wagon. So it could be a 4 door 442 in 1964. Even then that had to be super rare.
From 1966 until 1971 iirc the 442 was a separate model, However you could get a 320 hp 330 cu in V8 with a 4 speed and a handling package in 1966 and 1967. But it would still be an F85/Cutlass
In the summer of 1972 a guy in my military unit had a ’64 Olds Cutlass 442 4 door sedan. I remember thinking at the time someone went to a lot of trouble to make a 442 4 door.
Years later I read that 13 of them were built. Probably the rarest of all Oldsmobiles.
How about the low-volume Jetstar1? I had a 64 with a 394. It was called a banker’s hotrod.
There also was a very low production run of Cutlass Ciera Holiday coupes in 1984 and in 1988-1990 they offered the XC special edition package but I don’t have the number breakdown for those but few were offered in coupes or wagons.
All the different 88 trims offered in the early/mid 60’s can be confusing. Dynamic, Super, Delmont, and Jetstar 88*.
Best that Olds went to all being called Delta 88 in 1969.
* Jetstar 88 was the bottom of the line, not to be confused with the Jetstar I, above.
In 1979 during the last abbreviated year for the RWD X-Bodied Nova based Oldsmobile Omega and the newly downsized FWD E-Bodied Eldorado based Oldsmobile Toronado, many Oldsmobile offerings from that era were very much all similar in size especially the 2nd Year downsized versions of the RWD A/G-Bodied Cutlass Salon and Cutlass Supreme so they were plenty of mid-sized cars to choose from. As shown from one of the photos I found on Google, this is probably how each of the similar sized Oldsmobiles measured up against one another which means physically these cars were not really that significantly larger nor smaller with one another. I have to commend the person who created this montage because he was able to exactly scale size each of these cars as accurately as possible.
I’d like to know how that Omega hatchback got to be parked in the middle of the creek 🙂
The 1960 Ford had a rear bumper with an indentation of the tail lamp design pressed into it, upside down, as though there could be a 1960 Ford model with a tail lamp recessed into that indentation. You Ford fans know what I mean by that. Well – now I see something very similar – the 1967 Cutlass does something very similar. I am so used to seeing Cutlass with that bumper tail lamp, I am taken aback with this design. Makes sense that they had it – but up to now, I don’t think I ever had before.
The “young mobile”, phase!!
It seems that this year, the usual tail lamp assembly was for either a red stop light mounted into the rear bumper, (see below), or a white back-up light. The model shown above doesn’t have either. Out of the dozens of cars online, none of them had this light-less bumper design. Hence my surprise on seeing this model’s rear bumper treatment.
Is it possible that this is a printing error?
That unlike the same model on the same page of that brochure – there was supposed to be back up lights on that red convertible? The difference between the two models on that page is that the circular design of the backup lights can be seen, and the red convertible’s didn’t print correctly?
Has anyone ever seen a Cutlass from 1967 without back up lights?
Looking futher into this, Oldsmobile’s full sized cars had a similar look – a two piece tail lamp where there was a bottom half mounted in the bumper. However, the more inexpensive Deltas had a completely different bumper design instead of the same bumper used by the Ninety Eights without the bumper tail lights.
So I’m thinking this was either a possible model design for the Cutlass at the time of the brochure printing, or the brochure print was off and the back up lights on the red convertible didn’t show up?
OR the back up lights were always ordered by the dealers, even though this was an option.
Donno, VD; that brochure pic you posted looks to me as though it shows (in typical tiny-brochure-pic low fidelity) an upper red stop-tail-turn and lower white reversing lamp, like this car:
That seems to be the conclusion I reached as well. I find no examples of a rear lamp-less Olds bumper as seems to be shown in the brochure. Now – I can see that the tan drawing has those rear back up lights – but not the red one. So much for drawn cars of that era, right?
1958 Packard: Please note that drawn vehicles for our ads show them stretched out and lower than what is actually offered.
I know emphasizing, ‘long, low, and wide’ was big at the time, but the Cutlass S in the lead pic would have presented better with a wider track. And wheels and tires that filled out the wheel wells. This is not the most flattering view selection.
Wait, the Cutlass Salon Brougham coupe is not a hatchback? That’s just a trunk? I absolutely hated those cars new and still find them ugly, yet hypocrtically I love the bustleback Seville and even own one today, it’s the same angle, without the bustle.
Yes Jeff, just a trunk, not a hatchback. It’s peculiar that GM styling and management signed off on the fastback design, so they thought it looked great. I always thought they looked great, and elegant, but as we know the buying public didn’t care for that styling. It’s a good thing we all have different tastes. I own a few second gen Sevilles, and find the design fantastic, but have met people who find those ugly.
I’ve come to appreciate the gen 2 Seville as a piece of automotive sculpture but think it was a definite step in the wrong direction for GM since it actively repelled the “import intenders” the firstgen had managed to resonate with while the people it did appeal to would’ve bought a Fleetwood anyway if they hadn’t built it.
I’m wondering if it was a cost cutting measure by GM. Use the existing structure with rear seats and rear deck, etc. And just reshape the rear window and trunk. Rather than a more extensive redesign for a hatchback.
I’ve never seen a 2 door in person, and never a Buick fastback, but at least a couple 4 door Olds fastbacks. Guy in high school had one. And saw one at a car show last summer. Owner was messing in the trunk so I made sure to go take a look to satisfy my curiosity. The trunk is a bit small and awkward but it works.
I happen to own two very rare Oldsmobiles. 1979 Cutlass Supreme 5 speed diesels. No break down of 2 or 4 doors, but the number produced is only 267. Does anyone know of any more in existence? I’ve heard rumors of one or two more out there. Both of mine are coupes, the restored one is fun to drive, and usually over 25mpg, with long trips always over 30 mpg.
Yes Duane, that production figure of 267 is believed to be correct. The 5 speed diesel Cutlass was a one year only offering for 79 and hardly anyone ordered it. There are a few still floating around including a beautiful Cutlass Supreme Brougham coupe with the diesel 5 speed and factory T Tops which I saw at a car show several years ago.
There is also another 5 speed diesel Cutlass Calais coupe, stored in somebody’s garage for years.
Would be nice to know the names of the owners and locations, just to have the reference. Or just to have the locations. Maybe they’ll see these comments and respond, or someone else who’s aware the remaining examples. My best guess is that Oldsmobile manufactured these so they could advertise, “Up to 35 MPG with available 5 speed manual trans and Diesel engine”. That wording was in fine print at the bottom of the Cutlass advertising. But fuel wasn’t that expensive in 1979, so few were interested.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-for-sale/cc-for-sale-1981-oldsmobile-sport-omega-1-of-700-made-heres-your-chance-to-own-a-unicorn/
I’m surprised as many as 700 were sold. I lived through that era and have only seen a few X body Omegas at all. Plenty of the other 3 brands.
“It’s peculiar that GM styling and management signed off on the fastback [Aeroback]…”
Asked often, but these were meant to replace the 1973-77 base Cutlass/Cutlass S coupes. While the Colonnade’s trunks were not as severe, they were still fastbacks, and get overlooked by the formal roof Supremes. Same with Aeroback Buick Century.
Calling them all Cutlass Salon, and slotting below Supreme, after being a step up trim for 73-77, was confusing. Should have just stuck with plain Cutlass or ‘S’ names.
Or better yet, just used the LeMans/Malibu rear windows.