Cohort poster Roshake keeps finding cars in Budapest that used to be prolific on our streets, but no longer. Where did all these budget Sevilles go? To Hungary, apparently.
After the public roundly dismissed the new downsized 1978 Aeroback Cutlass (and the Buick version), GM quickly redesigned to conform to the traditional automotive architecture of the time, meaning three-box-car, in the very literal sense of the word. The Seville started it, GM’s 1977 B/C Bodies seconded it, and the 1980-up Cutlass and Century made it three in a row. And of course Ford and Chrysler fell into line too. It got boring very quickly.
From the looks of the dual exhausts, they’re probably not exhausting the 110 hp Buick 231 V6, but more likely a V8. Curiously, the 260 Olds V8 was rated at only 100 hp; but there was also the 307 Olds V8, with a hefty (for 1982) 140 hp. We’ll assume it’s not the 4.3L diesel, as there’s no badges to suggest that, never mind it surviving this long.
But the Olds 5.7L diesel in the big B Body was quite popular in Europe at time, as it gave folks there the chance to enjoy the American way of driving along with European-style fuel consumption.
The interior is showing some wear and tear; after all, it is forty years old.
I’d never really taken a close look at that rear taillight; with 12 squares, there was some real potential in interesting sequential utilization.
Looking it up in the system it says it has an engine displacing 4387 cm³ that runs on LPG/gasoline.
sounds like the 260 then, which is about 4.3 liters.
4387 cc would likely make it the 4.4 L 267 Chevy V8. The 4.3L 260 Olds was 4269 cc. The 267 was available in the ’82 Cutlass Supreme in Canada.
If it has a gasoline V8 it probably has a Chevy 305. Canadian and export Olds and Buicks at the time used Chevy engines. If you compare Canadian brochures to US brochures for mid 80s Cutlasses and Regals you will notice 305s in Canada and 307s in the USA.
It isn’t an original export car, those had amber rear turn signals (possibly using the styling pattern from the first model year that fit throughout the run).
Could not get used to the fixed rear door windows on these vehicle. I realize the bragging rights for rear seat hip room, but practicality of roll down windows trumps some measurement claim.
Funny thing is, even if they had just gone with normal roll-down windows and non-recessed armrests, the downsized A/G-body intermediates probably would have been class leading in shoulder and hip room, at least among downsized intermediates. At least, until the Taurus came out, perhaps.
No sedan based on the Aspen/Volare, nor the Ford Fox platform, had as much width in the back seat as far as I know, and that’s what the competition was basing their “downsized” intermediates on. The LTD-II/Cougar and Fury/Monaco, as well as the Matador, were still roomier, but none of those were really serious competition when it came to sales.
Could never reconcile with those “fixed pane” windows either.
Bad enough to be a GM deadly sin?
Interestingly, this Brougham has the optional gauge package (called “Rallye Gage Package” in GM unique spelling of the day) – probably wasn’t a common option on these cars.
Great spot. I usually love asymmetrical design. I find I prefer symmetrical gauge clusters, for very quick reference. I meant to place the temperature and gas gauges to the right.
The R.I.O.T.S. bumper sticker says “Live Fast Drive Faster” not in Hungarian. Seems like an unlikely car to have it.
Now we’re all sick of the aerodynamic pinched-bean look of sedans this century. A nice, formal notchback or two like this might help revive sedan sales, but EVs won’t like it on the highway.
The fixed window did keep kids and dogs from falling out, in the age before belts and car seats were mandatory.
I always thought the six-window notchback profile of the Chevy and Pontiac sedans should’ve been used on the Oldsmobuicks rather than dumping the resources that should’ve gone to roll-down rear windows into these “formal roof” notchbacks. That and getting the FWD A station wagons rolled out by 1982 instead of delaying them to 1984.
These 4 door notchback Century and Cutlass were rare sales hits in Chicagoland during 1980 slump. Well off folks traded in older full size GM cars for them.
Who knows why GM thought Aerobacks would sell at staid Olds/Buick dealers? But they had a style fix in the works..
Rare 4-door Brougham without the vinyl top but with the gauge package. The badges on this car are not all correct, including the one in the grille center (Ninety-Eight) and both the grille and trunk have the script from older cars.
It also doesn’t appear to be an export model. That’d explain the engine choice.
Dave: I could very well be wrong on this, but those hubcaps seem to be directly off a 98 Olds as well. I didn’t keep up on these models at all, but I don’t recall those caps being on this model. Any thoughts?
I think you’re right, which would also make them 15″ when a Cutlass would’ve had 14″.
Ya, it’s like the entire car is off in some way. Kind of a mild Frankenstein! haha.
Yet another car here on CC which triggered a memory; I got one of these, blue with a vinyl top, as a loaner for a day in late 1981. I don’t remember whether it was V8 or V6, I was too enthralled by those plush velour seats, bright blue in this car. I had to go pretty far from home to find a dealer that would sell at sticker price when I bought my ‘82 Civic. Other dealers either charged $500 for “paint protection” and Scotchgard on the seats, or just charged ADM. The dealer I used even loaned me the Cutlass for a day while they installed my Honda-branded stereo … as Japanese cars rarely came from Japan with any audio system installed. And in my case, the price and quality seemed competitive with aftermarket. Apparently somebody else thought so too, as within a year my window was broken and the stereo pried out with considerable damage to the dashboard. My insurance company did not provide a loaner during that repair.
How quickly we label a car a flop. When this generation of GM intermediate was unveiled, it seemed that for Buick and Olds, all anyone could talk about was the silly aeroback design. By the time these cars dropped that look – the spotlight swung away from them. That was our loss because these cars weren’t just about hunchback trunks and cheap rear doors.
With this traditional design, we have very good full size car replacements. Perhaps GM really thought that their full sized cars would keep their market share, but during the economic disaster still effecting auto sales during this time, there was a new strong interest in intermediate, compact and subcompact cars with brougham touches. Buick and Oldsmobilie might not have had the spotlight on their cars anymore, but these cars were ideal for a sizable number of buyers looking to replace their full sized vehicles.
As a smaller brougham replacement – these cars were good. They offered all the frou-frou comforts in a smaller, more affordable package. GM stumbled into a good thing with them. Many traditional full size car buyers discovered that these cars were dependable and reliable replacements.
We see a very nice array of similar vehicles competing in this same niche. The Fox Ford/Mercury brougham sedans were also very popular. By the time the Taurus/Sable appears, we are still seeing hundreds of thousands of these Fox bodied brougham sedans being sold annually. After the Aspen/Volare disaster, we see Chrysler strike gold with another similar vehicle to these Cutlasses, Cougars and Regals – the Fifth Avenue.
So, what we see here is more than what it appears to be. This is a car that helped ween full size buyers out of their gas guzzling float boats. Cars like these were transistional. They were pretty good cars, using existing proven mechanicals, dolled up into satisfying traditional car buyers – at a huge profit. These cars brough in the dough that ended up being used in designing the next generation of US vehicles.
I remember a styling nitpick, that I noticed as a teenager at the time, on the formal roof A-body sedans. By chroming the frame on the rear door pop out windows, GM drew attention on the outside, to that area visually. On a ‘luxury’ car, with a Seville look, surprised they didn’t manage to find a way to make that window frameless. With the glass pressed directly against rubber moldings. Without needing the chromed metal surround. Increased theft issue? Frameless presents a cleaner look, without drawing your eye to the economy car-like pop-outs. They would have been more discreet as well, when opened. I thought it cheapened their looks then.
A flat black surround would be noticeable went opened. Frameless would be the elegant way to go. Extra engineering/detailing here, would have been worth it, IMO.
The frameless door glass on my dad’s ’77 Cutlass was a little wind-noisy and water-leaky by the time the car was six or seven years old. It was worse on both counts in my sister’s ’97 Neon when it was younger than that. It was somewhat better in my mother’s ’00 Subaru, but I’m still not convinced frameless glass is such a hot idea.
I do recall several times the keys were forgotten and the frameless glass made it extra-easy to pop the lock on the Cutlass with an unbent wire hanger, so there’s that.
Quarter windows on the Aerobacks were frameless. And as you can see, a much cleaner, and tidier, aesthetic appearance. They look great. GM’s handling of the pop-out window on the formal roofed ’80 Cutlass and Century sedans, look like early 70s solutions IMO. Something you’d expect on a Pinto or Duster. I haven’t heard wind whistling, or easier theft, as an issue on the Aerobacks. Not sure why they went with the chrome frame. Aesthetically, frameless was the way to go. But security and wind noise may have been factors. Surely, for such a small area, at the trailing end of the door, they could have ensured a tight seal. I was in high school, and thought it looked like an inferior solution. 🙂
I sorta see your point, a little, but it’s hard for me because to my eye, “cleaner and tidier aesthetic” does not compute in context of the Aerobacks. I don’t think the frameless quarter glass saves them; nor do I think a framed quarter glass would’ve made them look appreciably more unpleasant than I think they already do.
And please don’t call me Shirley. 🙂
lol. This is what I love about CC. Mechanics, engineers, writers, hobbits, designers, editors, developers, students, etc., can all come together in respectful discourse. Even if we aren’t always on the same page. 🙂
Frameless glass draws less attention to itself, than having a clumsier and dated looking chromed frame. It cleans up the looks, by having one less unnecessary visual element. I just pulled the Aeroback example, as that’s what they were doing previously for the pop-out windows. Not as an endorsement of the Aeroback’s styling. I was just referring to the pop-out window specifically. I’m sure they went with the frame for two reasons: more theft-proof, and a tighter seal. If it wasn’t as clean, aesthetically.
We (I?) made the mistake of buying a clean, low milage used ’82 Olds like this, but unfortunately for me it had the 350 diesel. What handling, what rapid, straight stopping.? It did come with a 100% warranty on the recently replaced diesel. That warranty wa$ u$ed, too.
I learned my lesson and traded it, IIRC, it morphed into my first 4 wheeled Honda…a base “88 Civic HB: EXCELLENT lil car. :):) The re$ale value of the Olds was very, very low….gee what a $upri$e!! DFO
Really? Comparing a base 88 Honda Civic to that car? Kind of an apples to watermelon comparison?
Since you purchased your Olds used, you did know you were buying a diesel didn’t you? So if purchased used, wouldn’t that “very, very low” resale have been to your advantage?
From 1981 on, the 350 diesel was a very good engine for those who knew how a diesel is. I grew up on a farm in the mid-west where many of these big GM diesels roamed the roads and with few issues, lots of miles on the clock, along with 28+ PMG highway driving. That in a time when the average car would get under 20 MPG. It was the city folks who mostly had the issues as they were not familiar with how a diesel worked or the unique ways about them. And yes, for many years the resale was poor (bad for the original owners), but that was a huge incentive for buying one used.
I have great difficulty believing this idea that the ’81-up 350 diesel is a very good engine, and all its many well-documented flaws and problems were due to city slickers who didn’t know how a diesel engine works. If you have evidence to support the claim, will you please show it? If you can, I’ll gladly wear however much egg is on my face, but there were a lot of diesel VWs and Mercedeses sold to cityfolk, and somehow they managed not to have the failures of the Olds diesel. Also, most car buyers know about the same very small amount about how a gasoline engine works as they do about how a diesel engine works. Or an alternator, or a starter, or a radio, or a transmission. Nevertheless, their cars generally give the level of dependability engineered; designed, and built in. If you had to know in detail how your GM diesel engine worked (and its quirks and special needs, etc) in order for it to give basically dependable, durable service, that implies you had to apply that knowledge—futz around under the hood; remember special procedures and needs, etc—which spoils the idea that the cars hummed (clattered) along without issue.
Daniel S: The Olds 350 V8 diesel was introduced in late 1977 as I believe the 1978 lineup. It was a converted gasoline engine that was not made to withstand the high compression a diesel needs. In late 1980 (for the 81 model years basically), they revamped the entire engine making a lot of improvements over the 78-80 engine and made changes so that it would hold up better with the higher compression. Thus, the 1981 through 1985 (last year of it) was a much improved engine. Was it perfect without issues? Not at all, but it was much better. I have knowledge of many farmers who knew the ins/outs of diesel that purchased them because they could pull up to the 500 gal. fuel tank and fill their cars along side the tractors (the EPA/GOV changed that now due to taxes). Many of these farmers would put 100 or 150 or 200K on the odometer before retiring them.
What do I mean by city folk not knowing them as well? To start, as I said I grew up on a farm. I have personal experience with friends of my parents who purchased them, but had issues with the cold winters in IL. They were used to jumping in a gas powered car and pumping the pedal a couple times and hit the key. They were basically “trained” on how to start a cold engine gas car. The diesels were much different. Turn the key, wait for the light to go off, and turn the key to start without pumping the pedal. Keep in mind that many of the sales reps (as is still the case today) didn’t know their product, and thus they didn’t properly “train” diesel buyers on how to correctly start their new cars in the cool and cold. What’s more, back then, it was even more important to add diesel fuel anti-freeze to the tank at each fill up when colder. How many actually did that and instead just assumed the gas stations were properly mixing the fuels for winter blend?
On another note, there was the issue with water in the fuel. There was a light that would come on and it was important to have that serviced. Many didn’t pay attention to it and that caused problems. Lastly, one of the “selling points” the dealers and advertising used was longer oil change intervals and the “lower maintenance”. This was NOT true and soon after the customers would pay the costs of that mis-information.
To end, I not only grew up on a farm, but I also started working at a Buick, Cadillac, GMC and Honda store back in 1988. Of course, it was still common to see many of the big GM diesels on the road. We traded in many of them and I even purchase 3 separate cars with them (1980 Park Ave, 1981 Olds 98 and a 1982 Cadillac Deville). All three of those cars had the original engine. All three had higher miles. All three ran like champs and would get me 31 to 32 MPG on the highway. In my sales time there, I spoke with many customers who really liked their GM diesel cars and many wished GM would have continued with them. I was able to speak with many customers who lived in the city vs. those who lived in the country. There was a stark difference between them and how much they liked the diesels. I also saw many in the service bays over those 12 years.
So to ask me for “proof” of something that you can easily Google and read up on old articles is just kind of silly IMO. It’s a way for you to attempt to call me out because you didn’t like what I said. So I give you the above and my personal experience as proof. I encourage you to Google some of the writings of those years. I encourage you to seek out retired GM techs who can give you some insight into those years and cars. But I’m not taking it any further than that. If you choose to do this, you will find what I said to be accurate and true. Will it say that the GM 5.7 diesels were the best out there? No way. But just like some other things on this site that I’ve picked up on (how most love to jump on the anti anything Cimarron), I truly believe the GM diesels deserve better. When I read something that comes across as quite slanted, I feel it’s ok for me to give my counter point. That’s what I did with the person above who left a comment that comparing his Olds Cutlass Diesel to a base Honda Civic.
It’s not that I don’t like what you said, it’s that it differs pretty sharply from a whole lot of other sources of information and experience on the subject, that’s all. Thanks for sharing your views.
Some real life proof of the Olds 5.7 diesel being a good engine are the 9 cars that I own and drive with this engine. Some have 125k, some have 280k. All run. I’ve never found one with the “catastrophic” engine failure so often mentioned. It boils down to whenever there is “news”, the bad news gets all the air time, but the good news doesn’t make the air waves. I believe this is the phenomena that created all the negativity about the diesel. There is a online Olds diesel community with happy owners also. The earlier diesel did have more issues, any water in the fuel was deadly, but Olds made the engine close to bullet proof by 1981 with the DX block, they were committed to the diesel concept.
Duane: Thanks for this backup on what I’ve experienced over the years. If after the 1981 year, most issues they had were the result of poor ownership and people who drove them like a gas 350. My experience has been that you could drive the wheels off these diesels, but just in a very different manner. Plus, they were so prone to oil leakage, that the bottoms of the cars were normally covered in a thin coating of oil. Thus they didn’t rust out the same as other cars. Kind of a built-in benefit! haha.
The same could be said about the Cimarron that everyone loves to bash on. We all know the 1982 was a disaster and they should have waited till 1983 to introduce it. I could go on for a long time on this one, but let’s just say that it’s reputation is worse because people read something negative and then it all snowballs from there. Just like the diesels.
@Daniel S: Just thought I’d put this out there. I often go to a site called testdrivejunky where there’s a lot of really cool videos from the years. Most are from the 70’s up to the early 2000’s. Anyhow, maybe you have been on that site?
I just love to watch any old videos about cars, including the factory promos and test drives, etc. So last night I clicked on the Olds and came upon a fantastic video from around 1982 that went into depth on the 5.7 diesel. It’s around 24 minutes long, but worth the watch. It’s not much, but they even touch base on the ills of the 78′ late 80’s engine but then quickly move on (for good reason) to the improments, etc.
Great to know about this video! Thanks for the tip. I think Oldsmobile created marvelous vehicles with diesel engines that are quiet at speed and deliver 25 mpg in a big Olds 98 or Cadillac.
Thanks, Dan. That’s certainly a cool site!
Most if not ALL vehicles after 1972 are NOT worth looking at.
While the Seville resemblance is most significant the resemblance to the facelifted Delta 88 is big too, I used to not be able to tell them apart if all I saw was the front end! I think that did the Cutlass as a distinctive product in, there was no identity to these, just a last Gen Cadillac clone and/or full size alternative. The aerobacks were a bit frumpy but at least they were distinguishable, and for that matter same with the Collonades where the Cutlass reigned supreme(some pun intended).
I can’t remember where the footage was from, probably some 1960s documentary, but I remember a journalist interviewing a hippie and I remember his quote being along the lines of “hey maaaan, we don’t want to be those people driving around in boxes” and it always stuck with me because it had to have been recorded around 1968 and I have forever been acutely aware that cars were getting all curvy and coke bottley at that point, so what the hell was this guy smoking? And I now wonder did Bill Mitchell see that same interview and thought “hey, now that’s an idea!” and made a rough drawing of the Sheer look Seville? Talk about a self fulfilling criticism.
My mother in law had a loaded Cutlass Brougham….4 Dr bronze with vinyl top, wire wheels, cassette player, pillow velour… everything. The only option missing was operable rear windows. My mother in law was stingy with the AC, thought it lowered her mpg! My poor father in law was stuck driving a very basic c10 pickup…small V8, 3 on the tree, vinyl bench, no air, small tires and dog dish hubcaps.