One of my primary missions at CC has been to document the decline and death of the big American car. I identified women (and their children) as the primary agents of that extermination, but they needed effective weapons in order to carry out their genocide. There were plenty to be had, starting with the imports in the second half of the ’50s, the domestic compacts starting in 1960, and the intermediates, which came into their own during the years 1962-1964. And for good measure, there was the Mustang and its ilk, starting in 1964. Lots of strong, sharp and very lethal weapons at that. Is it any surprise that the Olds Cutlass eventually became the most effective weapon of all, slashing its way to the top of the US sales charts for the first time in 1975?
We’ve documented the rise (and fall) of the Cutlass in all its generations here (CCCCC). But of course it wasn’t just the Cutlass, as it also had a more modest sibling, the F-85. Finding this delightfully original and gently patinated ’66 F-85 DeLuxe Holiday Coupe gives us a chance to ponder once more how this all transpired.
The whole story is encapsulated in this composite image; Olds coupes from 1946 to 1986, all in model years ending in the numeral 6. The key number is in their lengths, which vary no more than 7 inches from shortest (1986: 196″) to the longest, which ironically is the 1966 midsize F-85, at 204.4″ ( For reference, the 1946 is 204″, the 1956 is 203.3″, the 1976 is 200 “update: it’s 211.7″, so a bit outside of the parameters but still significantly shorter than the 227″ 1976 88).
What does this tell us about Americans’ preference for passenger cars in the 195-204” range? The sweet spot? Pretty much everything.
And of course it explains why the market share of the big full-sized RWD American cars dropped so precipitously, starting in 1957.
The new ’57 Olds (1958 shown) made the first jump out of that length range, with a 208″ overall length. But that was just the starting point. Not surprisingly, by 1958 the revolt against the big car was fully under way.
The 1966 88 coupe, like this one shot by Joseph Dennis, was still around 217″. That jumped to 220″ in 1971, and topped out at 227″ in 1976. By which time big car’s share of the market was down to the teens, for the first time ever.
If I’ve done my job well, this is all old news to you by now, and not very happy ones, to those lovers of really big cars. But the numbers tell the story, much better than my endless words on the subject.
Here’s the numbers in graphic form of how the F85 and Cutlass caught up and beat the 88 (all 88 versions) by 1967. And then never looked back, leaving its older and larger sibling in the rear view mirror. That’s the key element of this car’s story, in terms of its place in the changing landscape of the market.
So how about we take a closer look at this particular F-85 DeLuxe Holiday Coupe? What strikes me most of all visually is how much it looks like a full size car. And it’s not for the first time I’ve felt that the F-85/Cutlass of this ’66-’67 generation does that impersonation better than any other I can think of. I doubt I’m the only one who felt that way in 1966, hence its growing popularity.
Its not inconsiderable 204″ of length draped on a 115″ wheelbase means penalty of overhang, especially at the rear, enhancing that big car look.
The front end is transitional, between the rather simple one on the ’65s, and the even more deeply sculpted ’67, with the headlights set apart (unlike the Delmont 88 the other day, all the ’67 F-85s and Cutlasses had the wide-set headlights).
Which leads to another question: why the “F” in “F-85”? A reference to the F-series fighter planes that were the big thing during the Cold War? There had been an Olds F-88 Futurama-mobile.
Or was it in reference to the fact that the original plans for Olds’ 1961 compact included front wheel drive? The Olds engineers had built a 60 degree V6 and FWD transaxle for what was to be the ’61 F-85. It was scotched, undoubtedly for being too expensive and not yet fully developed. But FWD work continued, and led to the 1966 Toronado.
This is an F-85 DeLuxe, which makes it analogous in general terms to the Chevelle Malibu, meaning nice quality quilted/rolled/pleated vinyl upholstery, and commensurate details in the interior and exterior. This F-85 DeLuxe Holiday V8 Coupe cost $2583, compared to $2484 for the Malibu, or 4% more. That rather modest additional amount bought quite a bit, when one considers that the F-85 clearly says “Oldsmobile” in its more extravagant styling and a number of details, as well as a more attractive instrument panel.
The Cutlass turned it up a notch, with even nicer vinyl upholstery and a large center folding arm rest in front. Bucket seats were optional.
The base V8, with 330 cubic inches and 250 hp was decidedly beefier than the 283/195 V8 in the base Malibu, and equivalent to the optional 327/250.
An optional 320 hp 4 barrel high compression version of the 330 V8 upped the ante considerably. And of course the 4-4-2 package was available on any F-85/Cutlass coupe or convertible, as it was a package, not an actual model.
The six cylinder, which was chosen by all of 1,002 F-85 DeLuxe Holiday Coupe buyers, was the Chevy 250 six. There was some talk of using the 60 degree V6 developed for the still-born FWD F-85 in 1984, when the new A-Bodies arrived, as a counterpart to Buick’s 90 degree V6 as used in their Special/Skylark, but in the end it was more expedient to just use the Chevy six. Good call, as the percentage of buyers opting for a six in cars like this was dropping rapidly, thanks to improved real wages and ever cheaper gas, in adjusted terms.
The Jetaway automatic was a two speed, but had a switch pitch torque converter that compensated somewhat with additional torque amplification when starting off.
Of course the main stylistic feature of all of GM’s restyled ’66 A-Bodies was the tunnelback roof.
That stylistic feature seems to have first seen the light of day on this superb 1954 Ferrari 375 MM coupe especially commissioned by director Roberto Rossellini from Pininfarina for his wife, the actress Ingrid Bergman. Those were the days…
And I’m seeing the ’56 Corvette’s front fender scallops too. GM owes a huge debt of gratitude to Sr. Farina.
Mustn’t forget the rear seat. Was it really worth springing for an extra 7.4% markup for the Cutlass version?
I would say not, as the lack of the Cutlass’ chrome side trim looks cleaner and actually more upscale.
I found this just a couple of weeks ago across the street from Home Depot, and it’s sporting a California license plate. I wouldn’t be surprised if it spent most of its life in San Diego, as the climate there has to be the most benign of any in the country, for both cars and people. Perpetually mild.
Which would explain the exceptionally even and almost artistic patina on its skin. It’s bronzed, but not ravaged from the sun. Its owner most have made sure it had plenty of sun screen on.
The patina reminds me of our copper kitchen counters, which develop a wonderful mottled patina. I love this car, most of all for its superb original condition and its patina.
I’ve run out of things to say, except that this was probably my best find of 2020, at least so far. This is a curbside classic in its ultimate expression.
Which is why I couldn’t stop shooting it.
One more for good measure:
More reading:
The Curbside Classic Complete Cutlass Chronicles (CCCCC) Portal
Eric’s CC of a 1967 Olds Delmont 88 Convertible
Great cars. As you note, they split the difference stylistically between the perhaps-too-plain 1965 and the slightly overcooked 1967. I’ve always been skeptical of the 320 hp claim for the 330 4 barrel. It certainly is out of line with similarly sized engines.
I never heard of a 320hp 330. I think it was 290. At least that what my 64 had.
Is seeing believing? From the ’66 brochure:
The brochure lists 2 330s in 66 – a 310 hp and a 320 hp. It has to be wrong, as it claims that the only difference between them was that the 310 took regular gas (with its 10.25/1 compression) while the 320 hp version required premium.
Oldsmobility.com shows a 2 bbl 9:1 compression regular gas engine that put out 250 hp (as well as the 320 version as above) for 66 but does not mention the 310 hp version.
Oldsmobility says that one was offered in 67 that was a 4 bbl carb with 9:1 compression and regular gas (as well as 2 bbl versions in both compression ratios for 250 and 260 hp, so four versions in all). It’s a little confusing, but both sources are clear on the 320 hp as the output of the top version for 66.
It is not surprising that they could squeak another 30 horsepower out of that engine that was brand new in 64. For one thing, I think Olds began using a much lower restriction exhaust. Our 64 Cutlass with the 290 hp 330 was whisper quiet, while later ones had a throaty rumble even when stock.
If the Chevy 327 L79 made 350 hp with a hydraulic cam, why couldn’t Olds get 320?
But then I wouldn’t stake my life to all of these advertised gross hp numbers.
This Goldilocks really is the most delightful bowl of porridge,and with just the right amount of San Diego cooking (and staid engineering as baked-in). Someone was sitting in just the right chair for this one.
It does seem wry to someone outside the States for this big bugger to be called mid-size, as it’s mid-way only to gigantic for many other places. And though it has a bottom of considerable generosity, the styling as whole silences such thoughts. It’s GM at it’s finest time. Knife edges, swooped hips, no pillars, clean, and simply, classy.
A very lovely find indeed.
Perfect. I lived what you described in realtime, with parents who never bought full-sized in the 60s (at least when spending their own money, as opposed to getting a company car). Between both parents I lived each generation of F-85/Cutlass in the 60s with a 61, a 64 and a 68 (with a 72 and a 74 to follow them). This one really reminds me of the 66 Vista Cruiser in this exact color combo that was owned by an aunt and uncle.
There were a handful of neighbors who stuck with the bigger class, but those cars seemed to be mostly owned by older (or more traditional) people by then. My parents were in their early 30s in 1966 and the big cars seemed a little old fashioned to them.
I don’t think it’s possible to overstate just how successfully GM nailed this segment with that 1964-67 A body. Despite Ford more or less inventing the category, it was this car that rolled through the industry like an 800 pound gorilla, seamlessly filling the void left by the growth of the “standard” models. These cars (from Chevy to Buick) had it all with styling, great quality, great performance and a feeling of substance that lost nothing from the big cars but the brute size.
Ford’s Fairlane (and the short-lived Mercury Meteor) were introduced in 1962 and used unibody platforms stretched from the Falcon (similar to the larger Chrysler K-car based models of the 1980s). Fairlane was a big seller in 1962 and 1963 but the GM intermediates stole the show in 1964 thanks to more modern styling and BOF construction along with the availability of larger V8 engines (the Fairlane could not fit anything larger than a 289 Windsor), and Ford had nothing like the Pontiac GTO with its 389 V8. So Ford had to regroup with larger intermediates including an all-new Fairlane (and upsized Mercury Comet) for 1966 that would fit the FE 390 and 427 to better compete with the GTO and its corporate siblings along with the restyled Dodge/Plymouth intermediates that were available with up to their 426 Hemi.
Everyone’s about powertrains today, but the A body as a whole package was so far ahead. Even the 66-67+ Fairlane was undersized and felt light, small and less expensive than the GM cars. The Mopars were Mopars, mired in distant 3rd place and with metal interior door trim that burned your arm on hot sunny days. These cars felt solid, were really nicely appointed and catered to almost everyone in style.
Olds started using F in the ’30s. In 1934, F34 was the six, L34 was the eight. No obvious reason for the letters, since both engines were L-head and GM never made an F-head. Later in the ’40s they switched to the more familiar 66/68, 76/78, 86/88, 96/98 setup.
Dad had one, same color.
At a very young age it had to be driven home in reverse because it lost all forward motion.
Dealer replaced it with a Cutlass.
Great find Paul. My dad was car shopping in 1966 and wanted a new Cutlass. He actually was cross shopping with full-size cars, but preferred the slightly smaller Cutlass. He couldn’t swing it financially so he ended up with a low mile ’65 Impala. Really by the late 60’s and 1970’s, intermediates were full-size cars in all but name, while full-size cars were supersized.
One minor nit. The 1976 Cutlass was actually the longest of the cars listed. It was about 212″ long, which was the same length as the 1977 Chevrolet Impala/Caprice.
Actually 209.6″, still longer than the bad number Google gave me first. I will amend the text.
Blame those extra inches on the 5 mile bumpers; without them it would have been right around 200″. 🙂
I have never seen 209.6″? I have multiple sources that cite 211.7″ in length for the 2-doors and 215.7″ for the 4 doors. Regardless, the point is the 70s versions were the biggest and pretty much the same size as a downsized Caprice.
FWIW, the ’73 was only 207″ long, and it shot up to 211″ in 1974. So yes, sans bumpers it would have been much closer to the 204″ mark. Same goes for the ’77 Caprice though too. 🙂
Strange. I got that from the automobile catalogue.com, but now I just went there again and it’s 211.7″ I must have put in the wrong year.
Whatever…. 🙂
For what it’s worth (nothing?) , the 1976 Oldsmobile brochure shows 209.6 for the coupe. The brochure can be found at old car brochures.
Ahh…I figured it out. I forgot for a moment there were two style front ends for the Olds Cutlass in 1976. The Cutlass S with the slanted front end is 209.6″ long and the Cutlass Supreme with the flat nose, is 211.7″. Auto catalog shows the length for each at these numbers too. I was just checking Cutlass Supreme, which is why I didn’t see the shorter length.
All is well in the world of automotive minutia. 😉
I’m glad the mystery is solved.
I believe that ’57 & ’58 Oldsmobiles had the same wheelbase and overall lengths. The 88s were 208.2″ long, with a 122″ wheelbase both years.
A BIG jump in size came in 1959 . . . 10″ longer!
Fixed now. I must have gotten a number for the 98.
The introduction of intermediate-sized cars was well-timed with the earliest Baby Boomers getting married and starting families. Unlike their parents, who grew up longing for Packards and Cadillacs, many were not of the belief that bigger is better.
Typical Boomer family of 2 parents & 2 kids was suited just fine for an intermediate, and if they needed more room than that, there were intermediate station wagons.
You gotta wonder what Oldsmobile was thinking calling this the F-85. The McDonnell F-85 was a goofy experimental parasite fighter. The North American Aviation F-86 on the other hand was a highly successful fighter built in five countries and used all over the world.
Come to think of it, the Vought F7U Cutlass was also a flop with 25% of production destroyed in accidents.
The era of the Land Barge was about 40 years.
The era of the CamCordAltiFusion was about 40 years.
The era of the Minivan was about 40 years.
So – I suspect the SUV age will last about – hmmm – 40 years? Thanks to technology, there won’t be a fuel shortage shortening it. So, I would say that if the modern SUV era began with the Ford Explorer/Jeep Grand Cherokee in 1995, we until 2035 for the new era to begin.
We already can read here about how the AMC Eagle, various JEEPs, Bronco and Land Cruiser were the pioneers for the current SUV era. Just like that 1955 Chevrolet spawning the CamCordAltiFusion era, we can see those old 4WD vehicles blazing the trail for Generation X, Y and Z buyers.
So “Goldilocks” went from Land Barges to Intermediates, to Minivans, to SUVs. A Goldilock is whatever that generation believes to be “just right”.
I would like to add the Blazer to the list of pioneering Compact Utilities. I drove one for a few days as a rental, and I found it quite sporty. It had lots of body lean to it and every bump was transmitted to the passenger cabin. Quite bouncy in fact. It must have been based on a truck platform.
Great story! My mom had the same car same color, with a 250. My dad had a ’67 442. I’m now restoring a ’67 442.
That stylistic feature seems to have first seen the light of day on this superb 1954 Ferrari 375 MM coupe especially commissioned by director Roberto Rossellini from Pininfarina for his wife, the actress Ingrid Bergman. Those were the days…
And I’m seeing the ’56 Corvette’s front fender scallops too. GM owes a huge debt of gratitude to Sr. Farina.
Thats a really interesting car, not just the coves and buttresses, but also the gills on the side, this thing contains elements that span from C1 to C3. Interestingly most of the buttressed cars that copied this weren’t completely true to the source, where the pillars start initially dropping down inline with the back window before flowing into the buttress in a somewhat flat reverse arch shape that continues all the way to the edge of the trunklid. The 66-67 A bodys in profile don’t look this way from the side, nor does the 68-70 Charger that imitated them, they could have the glass flush with the pillars(which the Charger did for racing) and they’d look totally conventional. The C3 Corvette is closest to pure GM did but it’s still subdued, as was the 71-73 Mustang Coupe and Jaguar XJ/S. The car most true to the original design weirdly was the 71-73 Cougar
Good point about that Cougar. I hadn’t thought of that one. Rather startling, right down to the finlets, some 16 years later.
It is interesting looking at the styling on these in a fresh way, as opposed to seeing them as “normal” as caused by my upbringing. Among the many interesting details is the way Oldsmobile stole the full, round rear wheel cutouts from Buick, where that feature had lived in the 50s. The 65 88 and then the Toronado and F-85/Cutlass for 66 brought that feature to popularity and it has never gone away. But nobody in the US else was doing it in 1966-67, with the exception of the Mustang.
Is this also the last time GM introduced the full set of 4 varieties of a car that had such varied styling personalities, every one of which was really attractive and successful? Everyone here knows I am no GM apologist, but these A bodies of this generation could hardly have been better – offering the Turbo HydraMatic is about the only thing I can think of, but nobody seemed to mind back then.
Some days I think I’m the only one who doesn’t get the appeal of the tunnel back A-bodies. Only the ‘66 Buick might be better than the year before for me, but I’m still on the fence there. That said, I’d rather have a ‘68-70 Satellite over a same year Charger as well, so it’s clearly some sort of problem I possess…
I hear what you’re saying, for me I group 64-67 A bodies together as a generation, not split ,I find the tunneled window less of a defining feature than a lot of other styling aspects on the 66s following the 65s, as well as the Charger, for which I think the double diamond body sculpting is more striking than the tunnel back roofline, in fact other than the bland grille the 69 Charger 500 looks exactly as attractive to my eye as a standard Charger. I don’t think it detracts from the designs mind you, but the execution isn’t as stunning as it’s made out to be, even though I do tend to prefer the 66-67s overall.
This absolutely looks like a full-sized car. It was the first thing I noticed about it when I checked into CC this morning. It says something when you get the deluxe version of the car that’s below the Cutlass in the lineup, and can’t even say you have a Cutlass.
Also, in the first composite image, the juxtaposition of that Colonnade Cutlass Supreme against the 88 below it is jarring. I’ve often thought the last 88 coupe looked good, but removed from decades since they were common on the road, that the Cutlass outclasses it in the looks department speaks volumes to how a little extra visual flair goes a long way.
I bought a 3 year old F-85 Deluxe in 1969 while stationed at England AFB in Alexandria, LA. Purchased from Walker Oldsmobile. Mine was one of those rare 6 cylinders with “three on the tree”. When they took it on trade the block was cracked, so they replaced it with a low mileage Chevy engine from the junk yard. They never bothered to change the valve cover, so it still had the Chevrolet script on it. I drove it home to western New York on leave, and then on to Alaska where I was stationed at Eielson AFB near Fairbanks. As you stated, this was a good sized car, but the inline six never lacked for power, I even got a speeding ticket near Erie, PA on my way home from Louisiana.
My first exposure to the Olds 330 was when a teenage friend of the family came down to spend the summer and to further her education at our local junior college. She had a ’64 F85 coupe In powder blue..man was that engine smooth!
Her stepdad had a Kaiser Darrin BTW..
Anyway when I needed a commuter for a 100 mile daily drive, I found a ’66 F85 4 door hardtop with that same smooth 330.
It was a great car, cheap to run except it was hard to keep the front wheels aligned. But I sold it for 200 bucks less than I paid for it to some farm workers after putting 60,000 miles on it. I saw it 2 years later, smoking from the valve guides a bit but still running fine.
It was a tough car. One day at work I was told a 2000 pound skid of steel had fallen onto the back of the car.
What actually happened was one of the 4X4 members of the skid landed right on the tail light bucket, and the weight of the skid sheared the 2 bolts that held the bumper support bracket to the frame rails…a new taillight and a tweak of the bumper put me back in business, no body damage at all.
The only V8 I have ever seen that was smoother than the 330 was the engine in our LS430
.I wish I still had it…good times.
My Dad bought a new ’65 F85 Wagon at Val Preda Olds in South Burlington, Vt after he was in an accident with the ’63 Rambler Wagon in Catonsville, MD. We were actually in a hotel room when he had the accident, had moved out of our home and transitioning to Burlington, Vt.
It was light green (all Dad’s wagons were green for awhile, after all he was Irish) with 330 2bbl. It had the strip speedometer (not the round dial shown) and a neat “disappearing” ash tray on the dash. It was the last “midsized” wagon we were to have as he traded it in in 1969 when he got a ’69 Country Squire (also green). It had an electric rear window in the tailgate that had to be lowered to open the gate (no 3 way gate like the ’69 Ford). Our next-door neighbor’s son scribbled on the inside of the tailgate with a black magic marker (he was a handful and always underfoot). Funny what you remember from 55 years ago.