Photos from the Cohort by Hyperpack.
This 1978 Oldsmobile Cutlass Saloon “Aeroback” appeared not long ago at the Cohort. Long-time CC readers know that we’ve already covered on more than a few occasions these controversial downsized Olds models from the late ’70s (as well as its Buick sibling), so this is just a revisit.
Indeed, the model’s first entry in our pages comes from our Chier Editor, way back in CC’s early history. At that time, not many comments seemed to show much love for them. However, a more recent publication found mellower stances. A design getting better with age?
As for myself, I have yet to warm to it. Not even scarcity has found a soft spot for them in my heart. I only remember how odd they looked to my eye when an acquaintance with a 77-’78 Buick Century Aeroback arrived to visit my family in 1987. Is not like I found its design altogether wretched; at least its lines were modern and clean. But it just didn’t look that good either. Something I feel to this day.
So, how about you? Have your eyes learned to accept them for what they are? Even love them?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m glad this one survives, especially in this condition. These just didn’t sell that well, and that makes any survivor a worthy and deserving find. But, for once, though I’m a car guy, of these two I’ll choose the 1979 Ford F250 pickup.
Related CC reading:
CCCCC Part 9: 1978 Oldsmobile Cutlass Salon – We Don’t Want No Stinkin’ Fastbacks
Vintage Review: 1978 Oldsmobile Cutlass 4-4-2 – Right Number, Wrong Car
I like ‘em. Always have. Not head over heels,in love, but they’re better than the formal roofline A/G Bodies. A lot better. And if they had been hatchbacks, they would have had a usefulness to help outweigh the slightly awkward detailing of the profile above the rear bumper.
I absolutely hated these cars when they were new. It pains me to say this, because it’s likely a sign of getting old, but today they have been growing on me.
Weird that they were not hatchbacks, I thought they were until reading on here. GM was selling Monza hatches at this time, then the X car were very popular with the hatch. Weird that they didnt make these a hatch. Probably GM just being cheap, the extra hinges and reinforcing steel didnt meet some arbitrary cost metric by $0.03 a car while the conventional trunk did.
GM didn’t sell the Buick and Olds X cars as a hatch.
GM just got this wrong. Buick and Olds buyers didn’t want an awkward and utilitarian looking sedan like this, whether or not it was a hatch. Also, the line had a practical and handsome station wagon.
I never really liked the aerobacks, but didn’t actively hate them, either. Four-doors at Chevrolet and Pontiac were more attractive and functional, as the rear quarter light opened in certain models, providing much needed ventilation to rear-seat passengers whose windows did not roll down.
Looking back, the A/G bodies were never as well-resolved as the 1977 B/C bodies from a design perspective, continuing a trend seen previously when comparing the Colonnades to the 1971-76 B/C generation. GM just seemed to put more effort into their largest cars.
All of the four-door A/G sedans and wagons have a hinged vent window in the door or the roof pillar.
I didn’t like the styling when new. Today, I still don’t like it. By the way it’s a Cutlass Salon, not Saloon.
Oops, that’s right. Typo fixed.
I liked the Saloon title better. I disliked these then and they look stupid now.
Squared up front end coupled with a triangled end in the rear. Almost like a wannabe Seville.
“Saloon” was, and in some countries still is, a alternative name for cars with more than two passenger doors(sedan).
I’ve always loved these, contrarian that I am, in large part just because there was nothing remotely similar on these shores. It was odd indeed that they weren’t hatchbacks, being that there were GM compacts with a hatch not long before, and one would think it obvious, but hatches have never been particularly popular here (US). They were decent cars however, peculiarities like the not full opening rear windows and the like notwithstanding. And ’78/79 Olds and Buick drivetrains in these were still solid, diesels excepted of course.
Loved them from day 1, just because they were so different! Should’ve been a hatch but those were never popular here. Having had SAABs we found that a hatch was super functional, our old 900s could carry a couch!
Should have at least had a hatch as an option. Honestly, the Malibu and Lemans sedans and coupes looked better. Which brings other observations. the Malibu coupe looked cleaner and sleeker than the Monte Carlo? And why did the less expensive Lemans get the body colored, fared in Endura covered bumpers while the higher priced Grand Prix got the heavy looking chrome RR ties with the inane dual rub strips which came loose within a year of purchase?
The concept of an aerodynamic fastback sedan in the late 1970s was fresh and forward-thinking, but GM blew the execution big time. Too bad the end result wasn’t closer to the contemporary Rover SD1/3500.
I agree. I felt the same way about the front wheel drive Chevrolet Citation and Pontiac Phoenix. IMO, they both came across as very generically-styled hatchbacks.
GM was trying extremely hard to maintain interior space while making their cars lighter without spending money on exotic materials. That called for maximum packaging efficiency, which really takes an inspired designer to make look good. The Rover SD1 wasn’t about packaging efficiency. It was supposed to look enough like a Ferrari Daytona to stop people from asking why Rover stopped spending money on chassis components and interior materials.
The 1983 Mazda 626 five-door, had a strong modern and advanced look, for the 1980s. The 1980 UK Escort five-door hatch, looked more modern and purposeful, than either of the GM products. The Citation and Phoenix exteriors, reeked of blandness.
As these were not that popular, with no evolution of this design, they remain a unique timepiece for that specific era. Does take you right back to 1978.
I didn’t find them attractive. A strange mix of the slightly progressive sloped roof, and otherwise standard bland formal GM styling, typical of the era. I think GM was perhaps hoping they would sell, given that specific styling details were similar to other popular GM cars at the time. People generally trusted GM stylists, knew what they were doing. But this design, didn’t back up that sentiment. The slopped rear roof made them different. In a negative, non-commercial way. If you wanted to fit in, these were not the car to buy.
Just an anecdotal observation, but I found them popular with older buyers at the time. People over 40, or significantly older. The two door version, seeming more popular with people under 30. Not convinced, either group cared too much about styling. Or conformity.
Was not a fan of the Aeroback. Maybe the two door, but not the sedans. Maybe GM used them as a precursor to the Citation & Phoenix. GM moved to a notch back design on the Cutlass and Regal in 1980 which sold very well in my neighborhood. Though considered midsized, they were still considered aspirational and families were happy to have them in their driveways.
If I had room, would like a ’80 thru ’86 Cutlass Sedan with a V8.
My first exposure was back in the when a shiny new beige two door appeared in the parking lot at Acme (our local grocery) while out with Mom. I did a double take. An intermediate Buick hatchback? Nope. Looked very out of place to me. Downright fugly. A real odd ball. I’m cured now as I drive an Aztek
The butless Cutlass. just heard that today
With its low power engines, it would be a nutless buttless Cutlass.
My Dad worked at the Chev-Olds emporium in our town when these came out. They were pretty much dead on arrival. The dealership manager wouldn’t order any for stock after the initial draught from GM, and the few orders required a hefty deposit. I gather the situation was much the same at most other Olds dealers in BC.
At the same time the Cutlass Supreme formal coupe was a hot seller, so the zone office or whoever began “suggesting” that delivery of those could be held up awhile. Gotta work on getting rid of these sedans…. The manager got the message.
So there were some real deals to be had on these almost as soon as they came out, and they still ended up hanging around forever. Once the formal roofline sedan arrived in ’80 or ’81 sale were quite brisk, but these aerobacks really laid an egg.
This is a nicely preserved example, and equipped pretty much the way most of them were with the cheap hubcaps. A lot of them seemed to be this color or else a pastel baby blue. Probably has a 260 under the hood too. Not Oldsmobiles finest moment.
The Cutlass Salon was a very special top of the line series during the Colonnade years. This one is nice as a survivor, but should have just called it a base F85.
Are those “Olds” hubcaps? Don’t recall seeing one of these without wheel covers, or body color wheels.
My brother/sister in laws was a nice riding car. The bench, front seat kind a got in the way of the “a/c” though.
Traveled from “Pgh” burbs to “Knoxville” TN for “82 Worlds Fair” in it..
My grandfather had the ’78 Century version which was a gas crisis downsize from a ’73 Impala. I think it had a 3.8 putting out 105 horses.
By the mid 90s when it was the 2nd car to their ’87 LeSabre, this stuck out like a sore thumb from another era to the point in people in town recognized the car. He sold it for 500 when they got a ’95 LeSabre.
Funny though a 2008 LaCrosse now might look like an old car but not as bad as this did in 1994. In fact, I think these were almost like the Aztek of their time.
Quite an attractive car, unlike those weird ‘formal’ sedans that followed. They were an overreaction, and just too boxy.
I can’t help thinking how odd it was that Chevy and Pontiac got the three-box look to start with while Buick and Olds got these. I’d have thought they should have been the other way around.
My mother’s Aunt had one that exact color. I have always liked the G-body cars and the many versions offered! I wish Pontiac had a fast back G-body like this. I always liked the styling and when you look at some of the other late seventies CAFE ( corporate average fuel economy) compromises of that time period, these actually look pretty good!
These were never good looking cars and never will be.
The big sin was they made it look like the ugliest hatchback possible but didn’t even make it a hatchback.
I always have had a perverse liking for these, especially the two door 442 and the sporty century variants. In profile, these are closer in overall line to the 68-72 cutlass S/442 coupes with their sloped rear ends, than the formal-roofed G bodies. A nice alternative to the cookie-cutter brougham look.
http://www.amcri1.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/442-side.jpg
I quite like the “rare 442”, edition too. Remember one that sat on our local “Olds” lot for a bit.. Silver/blue, color duo..
I saw 2 of these at the Oldsmobile show in Lansing. Both 2 doors, beautiful shape, dressed up with body color rallys and 442 graphics. One had a spoiler at the break point of the trunk lid. Whether that was a factory package on the aerobacks I don’t know. I saw another one at a show a few years back, don’t remember if it was a 2 or 4 door.
In the wild, I don’t remember the last time I saw one. Unless it was high school in the 80s/90s when a student had one. Light to medium blue 4 door, with the flat hubcaps. Don’t think I’ve ever seen the Century version in person.
They’re unique, but that’s only because hardly anyone bought them. I don’t really care for them. First of all, you get the looks of a hatchback with none of the benefits. Essentially you get a sedan with reduced trunk space. Also, to me they just look rather rear heavy and droopy. The rallys help some, but with the hubcaps I think they look sad and droopy.
A blue “Century” model was a “daily driver” in my neighborhood until about “2006-7”.
It aged but retained it’s looks too.
Older couple had it so it sat a lot, traveled short distances..
Today’s Accord, Civic, Hyundai Sonata and other sedans sell decently as fastbacks with folding rear seats. It was a clean design. GM was ahead of its time on this. They also came from the wrong divisions – Pontiac and Chevy would have done better with these, as they did with the Citation and Phoenix hatchbacks.
Exactly! Given these were slow sellers why GM approved the bustle back Seville is even more criminal. Sorry…..Bill Mitchell was way out of touch by this time. Giving him that Seville in 1980 sealed Cadillac’s senior citizen retired NJ firefighter image for the 1980’s and beyond.
And the Old / Buick aeroback flop predicted that as the outcome.
It really is a matter of personal preference. I’ve always preferred these to the notchbacks, which are utterly conventional, while the fastbacks are unique and in my view, elegant. I also adore the 80-85 Seville. Keep in mind, the design was approved by GM styling and GM big wig management, so they should know what they’re doing. Of course as we now know, the public didn’t prefer this style, they wanted the notch back. A Cutlass with the 260 V8 is fantastic, easily cruises all day at 80, gets 20mpg, even though it won’t burn rubber.
The only thing I’ve warmed to the front end. i miss cars with front end personality. But the Aeroback looks just so awkward, especially from the opening front corner picture. That it wasn’t a hatchback with that ugly back end was just criminal.
I must be on the wrong website…this has to be the second ugliest car ( and boring) ever made.who actually bought them.
I like this a lot more than any CUV sold in 2024.