It was getting mighty dark (and chilly) as we were walking home, but I just had to stop and peel off a shot of this Cutlass Supreme convertible across the street. I can’t remember the last time I saw one; this is not a typical Eugene-mobile. It was built for a few years starting in 1990, during the great convertible boom that was kicked off back in 1982 by the little Chrysler K-car LeBaron rag top. As usual for the times, GM was a bit late to the topless party, and they held back, since it wasn’t even a fully-open car. Modesty prevailed?
Here’s how it looked on a sunny day, with its large “roll bar” necessitated in part because the coupe’s door handles were (unfortunately) integrated into the B-Pillar. I don’t remember seeing these very much even back in the day.
I remember a few cars of that era having the integrated “roll bar”. The VW Cabriolet comes to mind. Does anyone recall if this was some sort of requirement?
AFAIK the Cutlass Supreme “roll bar” does not provide any rollover protection (neither does the one in the PT Cruiser convertible). The Cabriolet and Cabrio rollbars do.
I used to want one of these (after checking out a teal one at a car show, what a 90’s color). Here in western NY, I usually see one or two every summer. Definitely more common than the Infiniti M30 and Mazda RX-7 convertibles, I’ve only seen one each of those around here.
Generally, most manufacturers shied away from referring to the bar as a roll bar and it was not a legislative requirement. The purpose was not roll safety, except perhaps incidentally, but structural bracing. Unitized cars don’t generally take well to having the roof lopped off unless the car was engineered from the start as a convertible, like the Mazda MX-5. With some bodies, you can get by with reinforcing the floorpan and adding bracing between the seats and rear axle. The hoop generally appears when the structural engineers have tried the former and found that the body flexes like an open cardboard box or where the computer models point out that adding enough bracing in the floor and lower body structure to compensate for the lack of roof is going to add so much weight it’ll be like toting your anvil collection anywhere you go.
The rollbar is a handy feature in a convertible because you can stand up in the back and hold the rollbar without stumbling around and spilling your beer. The rollbar also makes hauling (too much) cargo easier since there is something to tie or strap on to. Depending on which vehicles you are looking for the West Coast has a derth of domestic vehicles and the demographics sometimes are totally different from other parts of the country. This topless Olds does not stir my loins nor does it make me gag, it is just there and I probably will be a bit sad when they are all gone. I really wish Chevy had a topless Impala since I want to be able to take 3 of my friends on a fantastic voyage without having to buy a 64.
+1 on the Impala (more likely Monte Carlo) convertible…
Can’t say I’ve ever had the urge to stand up and drink while in the back of a convertible!
From experience…an urge better left unfulfilled.
I’m sure the rollbar wasn’t a requirement, Le Baron for example was a conventional convertible.
It might have been an easier, cheaper and/or lighter way to strengthen the unit body once the top was removed. Unit body conventional convertibles get quite a bit heavier from the bracing required around the beltline. A rollbar is obviously safer in case of rollover too.
Here’s another view from the Wikipedia. Too bad about the cladding on this one, it spoils an otherwise good-looking car.
That’s a good point about stiffening the body. I wouldn’t be too surprised.
Uncle had one. 30th Anniversary of the Cutlass convertible. Green and Tan, 3400 HO engine with the DOHC. Died when the infamous 3400DOHC finally ate its head gasket. He traded it even up with his body shop owning cousin for a 2005 Monte Carlo with the 3800 and SS suspension. He’s been much happier with his 3800 but he does miss the Cutlass for all the other qualities it possessed.
FYI I HATE those wheels, I liked the Oldsmobile wheels of the era quite a bit.
Unattractive, generic, and too little too late for GM.
Succinct and accurate assessment.
This is actually a car I ‘ve seen a lot, relative to its low production numbers. When we still had our house on Cape Cod a few years ago, these were quite common sights in the summertime. I still see one on ocasion today.
Funny story, but back in high school I recall seeing a red Cutlass Supreme convertible during a cross country race on a course that was more main roads than cross country. I almost slowed down to get a closer look. Luckily for my team I didn’t and placed first. 🙂
I see a lot here in CT too maybe they were good sellers in New England for some reason.
“the great convertible boom that was kicked off back in 1982 by the little Chrysler K-car LeBaron rag top. As usual for the times, GM was a bit late to the topless party”
Paul – except for GM’s luxurious Buck Riviera convertible – also a 1982 participant.
I wrote that in a hurry, and was sure I was forgetting someone. The handsome Riviera sure works better than the Cutlass, as a convertible.
Still hate’n on GM. I would say GM never left the party…..or was the last to leave anyway. What was Chrysler building to compete with the 76 ElDorado drop top?
Not the point of my post. You forget that Jeep always offered a convertible with their CJ series of Jeeps. Don’t go pulling that but,but it’s not a car, BS. I wouldn’t consider them trucks either.
The 82 Riv wasn’t really GM built. Technically 1984-85 are the true factory convertibles even though those were built ASC. If one were to check the VINs on those 82-83 drop heads they would show that they were solid roof models. Only the 84-85 models have a VIN that show they are convertibles.
All ’82 through ’85 Riviera convertibles were GM built – at Linden, NJ as coupes. The cars (only finished in white or red and without rear seats) were all shipped to ASC in Lansing for removal of the metal roof and installation of the rear seat, convertible top and a new header. The only notable differences between the ’82/’83 series and the ’84/’85s is the pattern of the grille and the presence of a headliner inside the soft top on the later cars. They were all GM cars sold through Buick dealerships – just like ’50s Buick and Oldsmobile wagons were GM cars even though bodies may have been built by Iona.
Actually he is right, GM was a bit late to the party. The Lebaron convertible came out at the beginning of the 1982 model year. The Buick Riv convertible came out in the middle of the 82 model year and not a lot owere sold since the price tag was to high. The 82 Lebaron is considered the first domestic convertible to be offered since the 1976 Eldorado.
As for whether or not the Jeep CJ is considered a truck or a car by the general public is irrelevant. It was considered a truck by AMC and Jeep and most importantly to AMC was that it was considered a truck by the Federal Government and classified that way because if it was considered a car, then AMC would have gotten boned by CAFE rules due to fuel economy.
Don’t forget the J-car convertibles – Cavalier and J2000/Sunbird, midyear 1983 debut although ones that predate the ’84 facelift are few and far between.
I am usually gaga for convertibles, but this one never did it for me. It doesn’t look really attractive whether with the top up or with it down. It was as though they cheaped out when they got the job 90% done. The roofline is wrong, the fake rollbar is wrong, and the car is just blah.
The Riviera, the LeBaron, the Mustang, the Miata, and even the Cavalier – all of them did what a convertible is supposed to do – they looked good. These, well no.
However, the later Cavalier and Sunbird convertibles (not sure about the first generation) had rear quarter windows that went up and down with the top. This meant you couldn’t have the top lowered and all four windows raised, nor the top raised and all windows lowered – both configurations I often used in my old Bonneville convertible last driven in 1991.
I think Paul clearly wrote that the roll bar was necessary because of where the door handles were located – not because it needed a roll bar for any other reason.
Believe it or not, GM put the door handles on this car – on the B pillar. I believe they thought it was somehow an improvement over where door handles had always been on cars, and where door handles are today located on cars.
Lets just say that the door handles located on the B pillar wasn’t such a great idea. It certainly screwed up turning these cars into convertibles, didn’t it.
And the door handles were made of an incredibly cheap pot metal that had a tendency to break off in your hand. Murilee Martin at TTAC has commented when you see these cars in the junk yard the door handles (if usable) are usually the first thing stripped.
we still sell quite a few of these handles aftermarket, especially considering these are getting to be pretty old pieces….
Oddly enough, removing the roll bar doesn’t really improve the car’s lines at all IMHO. It isn’t the bar that throws the proportions off, as much as the overhangs.
Pardon my rushed PS skills…
Yeah, for me it’s the front wheel drive architecture. The front wheels are too close to the doors. Longer hood and stuff would have improved a bit. It would look longer and sleeker. It already has the long hood/short deck style but not enough.
I still like the way they look though.
Several of these in my area. Take your pick: Red or white. I’ll keep my eyes open and try to get a few pictures.
As to the A-pillar door handles – never a good idea at any time or place or era! One of two major pet peeves with these. Second was door-mounted shoulder belts.
Other than that, Olds did this platform properly, as I always thought they were beautiful.
I miss Oldsmobile…
So you miss Olds, but there are several of these in your area? Where are you living and who is president? Twenty years ago looks pretty good in 2014.
I agree, I think it’s a fine looking car.
I liked them too. Had one (coupe) as a company car the first year they came out. Never had any trouble with it. It was a nice riding/driving car. I never could figure out how GM could get the Cutlass right and my Riviera so wrong. The convertibles were all over Atlanta since they were built there.
I think the roll bar is actually sort of cool. It’s just a shame the rest of the car is so late ’80s/early ’90s generic.
If there were a huge need within GM to make a W-body convertible, it would’ve made the most sense to have Buick or Pontiac take on the project. The Lumina and Cutlass Supreme were fielded as import fighters. I never did see a large FWD import convertible in the vein of what Chrysler offered in the LeBaron, which in retrospect, should have been GM’s bogey. That car, with its concealed headlights and Iacocca-chic interior, was more in the American idiom.
That said, it’s a shame the Cutlass Supreme convertible wasn’t more successful. There’s a lot to like; strong powertrains, a soft ride, plenty of gadgets. It just seems so half-baked, sadly, and that roll-bar I like so much only adds to the impression.
I think Toyota joined the game with the Solara.The Mercedes E (although many slots higher on the ladder). Infinity M30? Eh, I guess not really.
The Toyota was later and not so floppy. The Infiniti was an even bigger flop and the Benz was cost four times as much.
The Cutlass had a smaller cousin–the Chevy Beretta convertible–that was introduced to the press (I remember it was in an Automobile convertible comparison) but never came to market.
I was never a fan of these W body Cutlasses in the first place. The basket handle on the convertible was just another compromised GM design. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
How is this “decoration” a crime on the Cutlass but not, let’s say a 69-70 Shelby GT350/GT500 convertible? It wasn’t a legit roll bar on the Shelby either. Plenty of other models out there but I don’t share the hate of the basket handle that everybody here seems to have.
I don’t believe the basket handle was a decoration. I recall reading that it was structural in three ways…..
* Served as bracing for the open body that was not designed with a convertible in mind.
*Served as a cheap, easy way to mount the shoulder belt. Belts integrated into the seat are more expensive.
*As Paul mentioned, they didn’t have to mess with the goofy W body 2 door pillar mounted door handle.
It was all about compromise – on a car that repelled this former two time Cutlass owner, and a lot of other Cutlass owners. The W body pretty much killed the Cutlass franchise – and Olds with it.
I’m not that familiar with the Shelby you refer to, but I’m not crazy about any basket handle. In ’69 – ’70 I’d have been at my Olds dealer pondering any of the three convertible options in those years. Probably go with a Cutlass to park next to my Ninety-Eight 4 door hardtop.
These wheels look good on this car, otherwise, never cared for the Cutlass ‘vert with the Easter basket handle.
All commentary on the bodystyle aside, the featured car looks strikingly similar to the one I briefly owned – right down to the aftermarket wheels.
I seem to remember reading at the time that the “roll bar” was, in fact to help structural rigidity. These cars weren’t originally designed to be ‘verts and had a bit of flex to their platforms…I’ve ridden in one of these and even with the bar, they are pretty loose, even by the standards of their day. GM was on a pretty low point, engineering wise with some of these cars, IMHO.
I have never read any definitive explanation for the B-Pillar door handles, so I’ve always assumed they were a styling thing, but as several commenters have noted, the ones that came on the cars were pretty cheap crap. I’ve known roughly a dozen people over the years who have owned cars with these types of handles and almost every one has had one (or more) break. Not just as the cars got to be older either…This wasn’t a “wear” issue…Sort of like the plastic retaining clips that hold the windows in their trays on GM cars…I’ve owned a Pontiac, Oldsmobile, two Buicks, a Chevrolet and a Cadillac and they ALL had to have those little, plastic, .35 cent clips replaced on at least one or two of the door windows of each car. This wasn’t necessarily a “wear” issue either, as a couple of these cars I owned from new and nobody ever rode in the back to use those windows.
Also, PMC remembers correctly. GM DID hype a Beretta ‘Vert that sported one of those roll hoops (the Beretta also had the crazy B-Pillar Handles), and it was used a Pace Car to help show it off. The car didn’t make it to production though as it was later admitted that it wasn’t structurally sound enough for production, even with the hoop.
I always thought that was a stupendously bungled PR move, to hype something that they hadn’t fully tested yet
I owned two of these back in the ’90s. A ’92 with the 3.1 L V6 and a ’95 with the 3.4 L 24-valve V6. Both were very comfortable cars, roomy, quiet and pleasant to drive with smooth-shifting transmissions. The ’95 was fast, and it had better brakes and a better-sorted suspension than the ’92. Unfortunately, both were unreliable and expensive to repair.
’95 is the model to have. It was the last year for these. ’95 models have a much more functional dashboard with two airbags, and they moved the seat belts from the doors back to the pillars, which was more convenient and resulted in noticeably lighter doors. ’95 was the only year for a dark green exterior color. It is also the only year that a tan interior and tan convertible top were available.
All of these convertibles were assembled in Doraville, Georgia, outside Atlanta. In ’96 GM moved Cutlass Supreme production to a different plant, and they discontinued the convertible.
I really enjoyed driving mine, but too often I found myself driving them to the shop for expensive repairs to the brakes, electronics, valvetrain, alternators, cooling systems, etc.
Just curious if anybody did any research on what years these were made, and if production figures are available. I’ve seen more than a few around here in Central Ohio, both back in the day and up until the last few years. Have seen them in green with a tan top and interior, and also in red. Perhaps other colors as well. Really have seen more than a few being driven (or parked at the supermarket) as well as others on the used car lots. Never had a strong like nor dislike for them. And, I’m perfectly OK with the “basket handle” roll bar which isn’t a true roll bar.
Also a little curious how pricey they were, or rather, what they MSRPed for.
1988: 50
1990: 460
1991: 1383
1992: 3912
1993: 6626
1994: 8638
1995: 4490
These always looked like an updated 1980s Mazda 929/Cosmo coupe to me- not a bad looker, but not really soft top material.
I don’t care what function a “roll bar” serves; it has no place on a convertible. It’s like drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa.
Haha, I like the analogy.
I think they look ok on some convertibles.
My dad has owned a few convertibles from different makes (German and Japanese), and the ’96 Cabrio was the only one with a roll bar but it looked fine on it. I think it helps it that it’s a short square-ish car.
I think it looks good on the PT Cruisers too.
Outside of Mustangs, I don’t like ‘roll bands’ on ragtop cars. It usually just looks silly, or in the case of the PT Cruiser, it comes off looking like a ladie’s shoe.
I always liked the looks of the W body coupes though. The Olds always seemed a bit stodgy to me, but the widebody GTP Pontiacs are WAY hot looking. The looks always made me think ‘coulda had a V8’ since it would’ve been the perfect muscle car for the time. Much better than the 3rd gen F body which is a flimsy mullet mobile. The 4th gen is just a warmed over version of that, style wise…even if it IS a much better built/driving car.
The hidden door handles came off as GM attempting to make a ‘factory customized’ car. Shaved door handles are great on customs but an el cheapo half assed job from the factory just comes off as lame. That said, 4-door sedans would be a LOT easier to accept if the rear door handles got this treatment. At least TRY to lie to me and make it sort of reach for cool!
I just remembered…anytime I see a W body olds, it reminds me that some of these were graced with one of the neatest looking fwd offset wheels ever:
http://www.wheelsandcaps.com/oldsmobile-cutlasssupreme-1990_p-19926-aluminum-wheel-rim-16×65-1632.aspx
These are a perfect example of how GM got their factory wheels just right back in these days. These couldn’t have fit the W body coupes better, since all at once they look hi-tech and modern yet with the ‘mag’ look to them its a nod to the old school performance coupe.
This pic has them on a pace car: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/oldsmobile-cars15.htm
The blacked out ‘scooped’ area of the wheels are EXACTLY what I would do, since it mimics the Fuchs wheels on older Porsches. If I had a ’84-86 Daytona Shelby Z I would do whatever it took to get these wheels onto it!
I think the roll bar is because without it old would have had to build an entire different door for the convortable
I bought this one in 2010 and is my daily driver. I love this car and wouldn’t drive anything else. The car is dependable as long as you maintain it.
I also own the 95 convertible , 3.4 DOHC, 81,000 miles. i will keep her being the last of the Cutlass Convertibles.
I bought my 1993 Teal colored Cutlass Supreme International convertible about 22 years ago with about 54,000 miles. It now has 154,370 miles. Just drove up from Naples, Fla last weekend. The car ran perfect, kept up fine doing 75 to 80 with all the newer vehicles out there. My Cutlass drove better than all the cars I have owned over 54years, and thats a lot of cars. It got about 26mpg average with my 3.4L Turbo charged speedster. It has never broke down, only normal maintenance items in 22 years. I had many other drivers complimenting my car on this last trip, some would pull up close, roll down their windows and give me a Big thumbs up, how cool was that: an old 72 year old guy driving a great looking Classic car.!