As much as I adore A bodies in pillared sedan form, it would seem I’m in the minority. So perhaps it’s perfectly fitting that this family sedan from the height of the muscle car era live out its later years with an aggressive rake, dressed in flat black.
Designed with two extra doors crammed into its extended wheelbase, the raked look suits this Cutlass’s chunky hindquarters, and the bumper stickers round out the package. I don’t know if williamrubano, who shared this find with us, had the chance to see it pull away, but I can only picture it doing so in a haze of shredded rubber and half-burned fuel. This sort of bad boy is what should have influenced Oldsmobile’s attempt at reinvention.
Don’t see how you can be in the minority there. I sure like them. Every sedan I ever had came with a pillar. Dust and rattles were issued with “hard tops”. I guess things have changed.
Almost my High School hangout. My buddy had a ’68 Cutlass 4-door hard top dubbed “Olivia.” We spent most of high school within her ivory body and green interior enjoying the hell out of that Rocket 350.
Post high school Olivia gave up her engine to a ’69 Cutlass S named “Erica” when wear on Erica’s crank caused her Rocket 350 to sound like a diesel.
I think the Joe Dirt look only worked on 2-door cars, and at that until about 1985 or so.
I’d lose the rake, the flat paint, the wheels, the spoiler, the stickers, the dreamcatcher and the antennae. But that’s just me, if the owner enjoys it then great.
What do all the papers pasted on the side windows say??
I mean, yeah, I think it’d obviously be better stock. My point is more that it wears the Joe Dirt look rather well, since it’s a rather good looking sedan to begin with.
Four doors make good hot rod for hauling the family around. Everyone can get in and out easy. But that’s just a family man’s view.
Third gen Camaro rims…..SO appropriate for this thing!
And I’m sure that spoiler is factory.
Looks like it was used in that movie “Death Proof” 😀 . Several years back a strange guy a short distance from my place had a ’86 Cutlass 4dr sedan for sale, 3 on the tree, 350, and no other options, not even power steering. Only had 27k miles on it, but it had sat in a less than weatherproof garage and was not in all that great of condition. And of course he thought it was worth a king’s ransom… I passed.
86? or 66?
That’s what I was thinking. PS, PB and AT were all standard on the G-bodies (formerly A) by then. Even the Monte Carlo SS and Regal T-Type/GN were only available with automatics.
Some of the early downsized A-bodies (1978-80 or so) had a floor-shift 3-speed as standard, but they were very rare.
No 350’s in any Olds either, the last “on the tree” A-body was 1977.
Lyzdexia 😀 . Meant to type ’68.
Looks like thousands of pieced together Falcon,Holden,Valiant fordoors with fats that used to be running around hide the primer under some bogan blak and your good to go
this is what happens now that every two door is 10k and a candidate for tribute muscle car status…that said, this IS basically what most of the muscle cars looked like in the late 70s, lol….
Sorry Perry, can’t go with you on this one. Quick, somebody help this car back to the trailer park from whence it came. Someone had to paint if flat black to cover the fact that every body panel was a different color, and to camouflage the unsanded bondo in the lower fenders. Gad, these sedans were unattractive in 1968 and don’t look any better in this condition.
As I look at that rear end, was there ever a more poorly designed bumper? Any impact that hits below the top 2 inches is guaranteed to shove the bumper and trunk lid straight up into the air (as on this one).
Quick, somebody help this car back to the trailer park from whence it came.
Like I said…..’80s Camaro rims….. 😉
I never said it was elegant or classy. I like the pillared 68-72 A-body sedans because they look sorta like bruisers, and it’s a look that suits this beat up, flat black example. I mean, I don’t really think this look would work as well with, say, a ’68 Coronet sedan.
JP – yes, on some modern wagons or hatchbacks where the rear door is level or virtually so with the rear bumper. Looks pretty but almost guarantees ‘proper’ damage from anything but the lightest tap.
I’m definitely not a 2-door only guy either, although thinking about it I have only ever owned one 4-door car compared to 4 2-doors. That is not as strange as it appears on the surface because out of those 4, only one had a 4-door alternative (not including the ute).
“…was there ever a more poorly designed bumper? Any impact that hits below the top 2 inches is guaranteed to shove the bumper and trunk lid straight up into the air (as on this one).”
It was 1968. Bumpers didn’t BUMP in those days, they were a styling element!
As sedans go, this one keeps about the most of its muscle car mojo. Restore it? Nah. Resto-mod it muscle car style? No way. I think itd be killer if it were modified in a ‘post apocalyptic’ or ‘zombie killer’ type of theme. Raise it up a bit, put some knobby tires on those wheels, yank the bumpers and replace them with tubular pre-runner style units, a roof rack with offroad lites, spare tire on the roof, some mock weaponry/armor. Call it good!
Shades of Jim Garner’s Baja Olds???
Wheel arches too small. Hehehe.
That’s not a Cutlass, it’s an F-85. The tell is the Olds badge on the right side of the trunk lid, instead of a Cutlass badge. Cutlasses had “Oldsmobile” spelled out in a bright trim panel that ran the length of the bottom of the trunk lid.
Perry, I gotta agree with you — I like four-door A-bodies. Growing up, I rode in the back of our ’64 F-85 Deluxe, our ’68 Cutlass, and our ’71 Vista-Cruiser.
The dreamcatcher is a nice touch-let me guess, “Cherokee, on my mother’s side,” right?
That is a lovely beast