(first posted 8/25/2016) Olds was alone among the GM divisions in continuously offering a variant of its 1960’s mid-sized Muscle Machine—the 4-4-2—all the way through the performance-challenged dark days of the 1970s. Granted, the 4-4-2 had become nothing more than a decorative handling package, but at least it was still available, unlike the Buick GS, Chevrolet SS and Pontiac GTO. So hopes were high for 1978, when GM’s intermediate A-bodies were downsized, that a trim new 4-4-2 would revitalize the Olds Muscle Car for a new era. Let’s see how that turned out.
From inauspicious beginnings as a performance package in mid-1964, the 4-4-2 (standing for 4-barrel carburetor, 4-on-the-floor manual transmission, dual exhaust) came into its own with more marketing emphasis for 1965, and then blossomed through the rest of the 1960s as Muscle Cars captured the imagination of American car buyers.
The peak year for the 4-4-2 was 1968. Oldsmobile’s interpretation of the sleek new GM A-body styling was enhanced nicely on the 4-4-2 and performance was strong. That formula found favor with 33,607 buyers, an all-time high point for Oldsmobile’s Muscle Machine.
The good times pretty much ended in 1971. The next year, the 4-4-2 would revert from being a standalone mid-size performance model back to being a trim and handling package for the Cutlass. But at least it continued to exist, albeit in neutered form. Buick would throw in the towel on the Gran Sport (RIP 1975), Chevrolet would ditch the Chevelle SS (RIP 1973, though the Nova SS lived on through ’76) and Pontiac would bastardize the GTO name (Chevy Nova clones do not make for real GTOs) before killing it in 1974.
Like the nerd who just doesn’t want to leave the party even after it is clearly over, the 4-4-2 just lingered on. By 1977, the 4-4-2 really did seem like the last gasp for a bygone era. To Oldsmobile’s credit, they offered a unique front fascia for the 4-4-2 that year (reusing the one-year-only swept-back “aerodynamic” front-end from the ’76 Cutlass S), and the Olds-built 403 was a reasonable new top-option for performance. Car and Driver took a look at this Muscle Car swan song in March 1977.
In an era that was more “show” than “go,” the 1977 4-4-2 had the potential to play its part well. While conceivably available on any bench-seated Cutlass S Coupe with a wheezy 231 2V V6, a 3-speed manual and single exhaust (somehow a 2-3-1 doesn’t sound right), most 4-4-2s probably at least had buckets and one of the V8s. Properly equipped, the car was handsome in the aggressive, old-school muscle style and the bold graphics looked surprisingly good on the big, burly Olds. Performance, in the context of the times, was also pretty decent. Car and Driver’s biggest fear, actually, was how Oldsmobile would be able to keep the 4-4-2 magic going against the headwinds of downsizing.
Turns out their fears were well founded.
Car and Driver’s editors seemed fairly divided on the merits of the ’78 4-4-2. Some were happy to see some semblance of classic Detroit performance (a little something is better than nothing at all, right?), while others lamented that an opportunity for true reinvention had been missed. After all, where were the excellent seats or aggressive powertrain components that could tempt discerning performance-seeking buyers?
Another miss was that the top engine on offer in the 4-4-2 was the Chevrolet 305 V8. Not that it was a bad engine; performance with the 4-barrel was at least respectable if not overly impressive. But, seriously, Oldsmobile couldn’t see fit to offer a version of its own famous 350 V8? The genuine Oldsmobile engine would have offered better horsepower and torque numbers, while gas consumption wouldn’t have been much worse (plus no one bought a 4-4-2 for fuel economy). Adding insult to injury, this alleged Muscle Machine, with a Chevy heart in an Oldsmobile body, was beaten in the quarter mile by a Ford Fairmont! All the taped-on graphics couldn’t help you look good while losing to granny at a stoplight.
Unfortunately, all the graphics in the world couldn’t hide the retina-searing shape either. With a rump only a mother could love, the slant-back A-bodies were a disaster. Sales for the hunchback sedans plunged 48% versus 1977, while coupe carnage was even worse—down 55% (not including Cutlass Supreme/Calais sales, which in notchback form held up just fine, dropping only 6% from the wildly successful ‘77s). Out of the 31,939 hunchback coupes produced for 1978, there’s no breakout of how many were equipped with the 4-4-2 option, but it couldn’t have been many.
The bloodbath continued for 1979. Slant-back sedans dropped another 24%, while slant-back coupes cratered an additional 62%, dropping to a mere 12,016 units. Again, no sales break out is available for the 4-4-2 package, but if output was bad for ’78, it was guaranteed to be worse for ’79.
Clearly, something urgently needed to be done for 1980 to get regular Cutlass sales back on track. The 1st generation Cadillac Seville provided inspiration to fix the sedans: a handsome new notchback was added, and sales soared an astonishing 452%. Inexplicably, GM kept the sad-sack slant-back coupes around for one final year of ignominy—Olds only managed to unload a pathetic 4,394 units. Proof positive that jarringly strange, horribly proportioned 2-door slant-backs with trunks simply don’t sell…
But then again some folks never learn.
Oldsmobile did at least come to their senses regarding the 4-4-2 for 1980. Rather than torturing the once great name for one more year on the hunchback coupes, the 4-4-2 package migrated to the Cutlass model that should have offered it starting in 1978: the sports-oriented Calais. The W-30 package 4-4-2 was actually the closest Oldsmobile had come in years to duplicating the successful formula from the height of the Muscle Car era.
The unique 1980 4-4-2 combined many of the elements that had been introduced for the special edition Cutlass Calais-based W-30 Hurst/Olds in 1979, including—drumroll please—the Oldsmobile 350 4V V8! Also carrying over in the new 1980 4-4-2/W-30 “hybrid” were black-and-gold or white-and-gold paint, bucket seats, full instrumentation and sport-tuned suspension.
The W-30 4-4-2 package was found on 886 Cutlass Calais coupes for 1980—quite possibly more units than the 4-4-2 hunchback saw for 1978 or 1979, but not really that impressive. The limited production ’79 Hurst/Olds, by contrast, had retailed 2,499 units. So the writing was pretty clearly on the wall as Olds entered the emasculated eighties: it was time for performance to go by the wayside.
If only Oldsmobile had offered the 4-4-2 on the popular Cutlass Calais in 1978, the concept might have actually thrived, at least for a few years. As it was, the legendary numbers were wasted for ’78 – ’79 and the name slumped as badly as the unfortunate Cutlass slanted-backs.
Additional reading:
Curbside Classic: 1978 Oldsmobile Cutlass 4-4-2 – Esmerelda Had More Sympathy For Quasimodo Than Did The General by Jason Shafer
CCCCC Part 9: 1978 Oldsmobile Cutlass Salon – We Don’t Want No Stinkin’ Fastbacks by Paul Niedermeyer
I had forgotten that Oldsmobile offered a 350 in an A body that late. Oh how I hated the era of performance packages that consisted mostly of decals.
It is funny that back when these came out, I hated the shape, but figured that everyone would get used to it and that these would take over the world – purely because they were what Oldsmobile dealers were selling. GM was king in the midwest then and Ford and Chrysler had been struggling. I simply did not see then how cars from Japan and Germany were soon to become the new kings.
I always figured somebody at GM ordered up that design to prove that Americans wouldn’t buy fastbacks.
IMHO, the “aero” bodies have a rather ungainly look about them, especially in four door form. They always reminded me of a Dachshund “sausage dog”. Yet another GM car that’s interesting for all the wrong reasons.
Interesting, we go on and on about how GM diluted the “formal roof” first used on the Cadillac Seville, and I just realized how these “hunchback” sedans put me STRONGLY in mind of the….2nd generation Seville.
I like these cars BECAUSE they are so different but was always surprised that Buick and Olds got this roofline and not Chevy and Pontiac. Oddly, Chevy and Pontiac got the “slopeback” roofline for the X-body while GM smartened up and gave Olds and Buick the formal roofline.
It’s too bad, but car companies seem to think folks don’t car about the go, but care more for the show. That’s how we wind up with “mini-me” GTOs and 4-4-2s that are missing crucial ingredients.
lol… Just imaging a V8 Fairmont walking away from the General’s finest in the 1/4 mile.
Two observations though – dang those cars were loud under full throttle, and at least GM seemed to know more about designing a braking system than Ford did.
’78 Fairmont with a 302, a preview to the Fox Mustang 5.0 era.
Yes but imagine how the owner of a “performance” GM vehicle would feel loosing to a pedestrian looking Fairmont.
I’m sure a Monarch with a 351 could have smoked them as well.
The axle hop of the early, non-Quadrashock Fox rear suspension would have been epic.
The Fairmont was a unibody weighing several hundred pounds less, aimed at the budget market segment. The 302 was the way to go fast in one, as the smaller engines were dogs thanks to Ford’s neglect of 6-cyl. development.
Cough * Citation Brakes *Cough
While conceivably available on any bench-seated Cutlass S Coupe with a wheezy 231 2V V6, a 3-speed manual and single exhaust
Not just conceivable, they existed! My Dad bought a 442 with that exact combination brand new!
Wow! That had to have been one very rare car! Did your Dad enjoy it?
I’d say he enjoyed the ridiculousness of it , any time we’re talking cars and 442 of any year comes up he’ll tongue and cheek say “no match for my 76 V6!”. He liked how it looked though, and since he was way on the young side of the Cutlass demographic circa 76 when he bought it(he would have been only 21ish) it was a bit more of a fit than the Broughamy Supreme, which my Grandpa bought at the same time. Plus it may have been the most affordable. I can’t remember exactly how he explained it but he sold the 442 within a year and bought the V8 Supreme from my Grandpa since it was so much smoother and quicker. The V6 was quite rough.
Yes, GM really blew it with these Aerobacks. It was a head-scratcher at the time, and I still haven’t stopped scratching it every time I see one. WTF?
Parked next to an Aztek, it’s ok
The Aztek was ugly, but it at least was a fairly practical package. The Aeroback has no such defense.
The aeroback always to me as if it was originally planned to be a hatchback design, then GM got cold feet and hastily redesigned it to be a two and four door sedan. Whatever the plan, a totally botched job.
One of the funner theories/rationalizations I saw posited here or maybe TTAC in the past was that the aerobacks were a retro evolution of the Collonades, which were initially retro in the 20s-early 30s sense, and the aerobacks naturally followed that up by being retro in the streamlined late 30s-40s sense.
Even back when that generation A-body was as common as dirt, those “hunchbacks” were rarely seen. It must have been slow at the Olds & Buick dealerships for a few years.
The formal roof A/G bodies kept the Buick-Olds dealers busy enough. And they still had B/C bodies too!
Perhaps it was all just a genius upsell tactic. “Here’s the Supreme. It’s just like the regular Cutlass, except with a formal roofline and sour cream.”
The fastback “colonnade” 73-77 Cutlass S and Century coupes sold well, so the ’78 Aeros were a continuation. But the 4 doors were a bit much, and went away after 2 years.
The ’78 Car and Driver 442 road test was a bit optimistic, and I fell for the car, but the looks wore thin. A local Olds dealer ordered a 442 just like the one in C/D, but it sat on lot for months. At least the 305 4 bbl did finally appear in a proper Chevy, the ’83-’88 Monte Carlo SS.
And, the 442 came back for ’86-’87.
BTW: The ’77 442 could be ordered with the 403 V8, which was in many Trans Ams, too. I think these 442’s were the most successful ‘colonnade’ sporty car. ’73 Chevelle SS, ’73 GTO and Laguna S3 didn’t get much attention, but Olds stuck it out and did OK.
Roachback.
I suppose Olds pulled it off best, but no sale.
A pale attempt at making a once-great car, but as GM was in overdrive to downsize, I suppose this was the best they could do.
I’d like to believe that, but somehow don’t.
At least the bumpers were still chrome…
“emasculated eighties”?
Maybe the early 80’s. But, by mid decade, at least cars started to actually gain HP, and the 5.0 Stang and Camaro were not slouches.
The aerobacks came out when I was a kid, I liked them then and still like them now. Then again, I love the CTS coupe so maybe I’m just partial to weird body styles.
The Cadillac CTS may have some heafty mechanicals underneath, but the body style is not a good look….in my opinion. Shirley,…the minds that make these design decisions must have missed their morning coffee…gawwwddd!
I’ve always been a fan of these as well, all the way back to when they were just another GM intermediate on the streets. Don’t really know why, but I do. Maybe simply because they’re different. (I, too, like the CTS coupe, though the photo in the article is probably its worst angle.)
The sin of the 442 was not the styling, though, it was the lack of the Olds 350. If the Hurst/Olds got it for ’79, why couldn’t this car have had it for ’78-’80? At that time I don’t think it would have been a CAFE issue, and you’re not buying a 442 for gas mileage anyway. With the 350, it could have at the very least kept up with its 403-powered predecessor, given the diet it went on. Oh well–at least they didn’t saddle it with the 260!
GM had some internal edict about not having a vehicle for sale that would force customers to pay the “gas guzzler tax” at purchase time. But yes if it worked for Hurst/Olds, why not for the 442?
I’ve argued that GM should have kept selling the 350 V8s in B and G-body vehicles and plenty of customers would have ponyed up the gas guzzler tax but I know GM feared bad press with the gas crisis’ not quite a distant memory.
If GM had made a fair number of vehicles that were subject to the gas guzzler tax, it risked having Congress, Ralph Nader, Joan Claybrook, etc., say that the standards weren’t tough enough and thus needed to be tightened.
Although, one could order the 442 package with the 260…and the Buick non-turbo V6.
This was one model year after the Chevy-mobile “scandal” and in ’78 brochures, there were disclaimers of “Engines may come from other GM divisions…”.
It was all due to CAFE and emissions regs. Cali and High Altitude G bodies had 350’s, but not the rest of US.
I liked the aero-back styling. Maybe I’m the only one?
I like it too, at least in 2-dr form, but it should have been a hatchback. As a 442, these looked great (although I liked the 76-77 too) and that review is surprisingly positive. At least GM invested in handling.
I have always liked the aero-back style.
I also like it. But perhaps Chevy and Pontiac should have had this fastback body, and the Olds and Buick the more regular-looking sedans for their more conservative clientele?
I posted a Photoshop here a couple years ago of how I thought GM could’ve handled the aeroback styling more effectively. It was inexcusable it wasn’t offered as a hatchback, given the rear shape. Besides incorporating a hatchback, stylists could have designed a ‘hidden hatchback’ creating the visual effect of a notchback sedan. Which I think would have met more acceptance in the market, and could have been quite popular. Similar to what Chrysler later adopted for the LeBaron GTS/Dodge Lancer and the Dodge Shadow/Plymouth Sundance. For GM, it also would have maintained a family resemblance to the popular previous generation ’73 era Old Cutlass. As well as allowing considerably more trunk space height.
Along with the slight slope to the front clip, that is a really nice redesign.
Too bad you didn’t work for GM back in the day! This is very nice and would have been an excellent styling direction. Might have demonstrated that well-done sloped rooflines could sell well, and saved us from the tyranny of the “formal look” that cursed GM for years…
Looks almost like the ’78 Pontiac LeMans rear.
I like the roof treatment but not the abrupt vertical angle of the tail panel. Give that a modest slope like it had on the notchback cars and I think you’d have a winner–still offering hatch utility (a la the available hatchback on the Nova, as well as the Mopars you mentioned) without the controversial full fastback look. Though I think some bracing would have been required–if you look at a sedan or coupe A-body there is a hefty “X” brace behind the rear seat, and most hatchbacks incorporate folding rear seats.
Looks great!
That has a goofy Holden Australian look to it, but it sort of works.
Either that or you just created a new AMC Matador!
A thought: I would have created a divider bar in the back door to allow the window to actually work instead of the little C pillar flipper.
BIG improvement!
Don’t forget the legendarily bad THM200 slushbox in these. The 3 speed was at least reliable.
The really sad thing is how underpowered the “performance” cars were. My 2014 Mazda5 minivan has almost identical horsepower from 1/2 the cylinders and displacement and delivers equal 1/4 mile and 0-60 times plus 50% better gas mileage, better handling and more usable space.
Even worse a 2016 Camry with a 4 cylinder has more horsepower and a faster 1/4 mile than the 4-4-2 and that is the basic model.
As has been noted before, we’re essentially living in a golden age of performance. As good as it got back then…wasn’t very good. So you have to look at it through that lens.
I also wonder how fair the wretched reputation of the THM200 is, given that GM A-bodies of this era aren’t hard to find almost 40 years later. And the take rate for the manual had to be pretty low. Though I’ve heard some had the THM200 and some the THM350; maybe all the 200-equipped cars disappeared first?
I thought the problem was that GM installed the THM200 in some full-size cars, and the additional weight was simply too much for the transmission. That is where it earned its bad reputation.
I honestly don’t remember hearing that the A-bodies had troublesome automatic transmissions at the time.
The trans in my Malibu, which I always assumed to be a THM200 (though I’ve never checked officially) needed a rebuild in the early/mid 90’s, probably around 130K miles. While not exactly a paragon of longevity, I consider that to be more than acceptable for the era. And it was actually rebuilt rather than replaced for what that’s worth.
Funny how these “golden age” 40 years of hindsight comparisons never take the next natural step and compare the elder car to it’s 40 year predecessor. How quick is a 1936 Oldsmobile again?
Not very, but that’s not the point. Automotive publications of this era did indeed do retrospectives and comparisons with prewar cars of 30–40 years earlier — pretty frequently, in fact, as this was the heyday of Special Interest Autos, Old Cars Weekly, inter alia. And publications of the ’80s did frequent retrospectives of cars from the ’50s while ’90s magazines were hyped on ’60s muscle cars.
The sweet spot for automotive nostalgia, generally, is a point old enough that you no longer usually see that model on the street every day, but not so old that some preponderance of readers don’t still have direct personal experience or recollections of that period.
Beyond that, there’s a certain piquancy so far as the Malaise Era specifically is concerned because of the general sense at that time that the normal march of Progress had pretty much stopped, so far as cars went.
I tend to think part of the reason the magazines went so gaga for cars like the downsized B-bodies or even the Fox platform was that there were a lot of new cars that didn’t do anything very well and the prevailing assumption was that it was mostly going to get worse. People in, say, 1936, would probably have just assumed that cars of 1966 or 1976 would be much better, but that definitely wasn’t true of people in 1976 thinking about the cars of the ’90s or ’00s.
So, beyond the usual nostalgia, there’s some extra satisfaction in noting that a lot of very ordinary modern cars are not only faster and handle and stop much better, but ALSO pollute a lot less and drink a lot less gas without most of the hassles of ’70s emissions-controlled engines.
But improved speed/handling/braking/safety/clean burning/fuel efficiency are all points can be made even for malaise era cars compared to cars of the 30s is my point. Cars of 2016 haven’t made any greater leap from 1976 in those measures than 1976 cars did from 1936 (or then to 1896!). Even with the slowdown of progress in the 70s isn’t to say there hadn’t been huge buildup in the intervening years leading up.
This whole “we’re in a golden age” notion is what I object to, people may have been jaded in the 70s but they were still driving cars with hydraulic brakes, valve in head engines, standard seatbelts, tubeless tires, ect. Who is to say what there will be in 40 years to make that claim today?
It’s like saying that an iPhone is faster and has more memory than a 70s supercomputer. Well duh….
Instead of aiming at a real car, Olds tried to out-Gremlin the world. What a fugly redesign.
C&D’s odd compensation plan — the writers were clearly paid by the analogy.
It just occurred to me while reading this post that while Buick and Olds got stuck with the Aerobacks while Chevy and Pontiac got the notchbacks for the A bodies, the situation was reversed for the X-bodies! Maybe Chevy and Pontiac were thumbing their noses excessively and Buick/Olds complained?
At least the X-bodies were actual hatchbacks and therefore a bit more practical, especially with FWD. The General then tried to placate the divisions with the FWD A bodies and said, “Fine, everybody gets notchbacks now!”, but couldn’t resist throwing a hatchback in with the otherwise notchback J-bodies.
Those didn’t sell, nor did the hatchback Corsica years later, or the “hatchback” Malibu Maxx years after that. Have CUVs finally ended the hatchback/fastback issue once and for all?
Hatches are back, but they have the SUV look which sells like hotcakes.
Motor Trend had drawings of the coming Aerobacks in spring ’77 and they claimed they’d be hatchbacks.
They also wrongly claimed that the A/G bodies would still get 400 ci V8’s. Said about the coming ’78 LeMans, “this new lightweight Pontiac will fly with a 400 in it”
Base weight before options of the ’78 A-bodies started not far above 3000 lbs, so a LeMans with a 400 and appropriate gears would have flown indeed!
Oldsmobile did bring back the 442 later for 1985 and it the cover of Car & Driver, July 1985 issue when they compared it to the Monte Carlo SS and Buick Grand National.
http://www.stangbangers.com/85_BuickGrandNationalvsMonteCarloSSvsOlds442_Article.htm
And I won’t mention the 1990-91 FWD Calais 442 with the Quad4.
I saw one of those FWD 4-4-2s at Christmas time, it was being driven by an elderly coupe….perhaps they bought it new? Car was red with gold rocker striping. Very Christmasy looking.
No No No….. Just read the ad for the 1st 442. It is NOT 4 for four speed (they came with automatics too) its 4 for 400 ci engine, 4 barrel and 2 exhausts
No No No…..just read the ad (below) for the first 442 (1964). It clearly stands for 4-barrel carb, 4 on the floor, and dual exhausts. In the case of this one, the 4 could also stand for 4 doors. The original 442 had a 330 CID V8; the 400 V8 didn’t come until 1965.
Wow that would be insanely rare. Talk about a unicorn! A 1964 Olds 442 4 door sedan!
Many of the Oldsmobile Two Door Coupes shown on this Photo Montage Compilations were within each other size ranges so they were ALL true Intermediate Size Cars of their own right.
A much better example shown from stem to stern shown here in clear exactly accurate scale size details of these 1979 Oldsmobile Cars size comparison photo which I had created.
The GM ad for the ’77 model claims a 260ci V8 could have been ordered with a five speed manual shift. Would have never dreamed of that combo in a Cutlass. How many of those were built? I will probably witness a herd of Unicorns prancing in a grassy meadow filled with four-leaf clovers before that model appears at a local car show.
That detail jumped out at me as well. How many were ordered? 5 or 6? I doubt if it exceeded 3 figures.
I agree with most of the comments here. The hunchback aero design just was ill-conceived. I give GM credit for taking a risk, but to me, it just looks too similar to a Gremlin. I’m a Cutlass fan, but I have to admit that is my least favorite Cutlass body style, with the late 70’s-mid 80’s four door Cutlass being my second least favorite (none of the sportiness of the two door, and very little to distinguish itself in its styling….essentially, it’s just a notchback version of the hunchback).
It would have been interesting if Olds had updated the package with their small new 260 but with a four barrel and dual exhaust. It would perhaps been a 452 with the 5sp offered then. The 260 was just offering extra smoothness over the 3.8 in 1978. A 4 barrel and dual exhaust might have gotten the output higher than this 305 and the five speed would have allowed a more sensible axle ratio,( say 3.60), without harming economy. It would not have matched the old 400 V8 but would have been true to the tradition while keeping up with the lower weight smaller on the outside future
The extra certification and cat. conv. would have upped the package cost to something prohibitive though. Unless it was a hit like the against the grain at the time Trans Am and Corvette. Nostalgic sure. but well updated for people still interested in American cars.
In my opinion having owned a few 4-speed gbodies, I could overlook the design if it has buckets, console and a B/W or Saginaw 4-speed w/limited slip and a 305. If its gonna be ugly it better at least be fun to drive
78-79 were very strange years for the Cutlass line. You could get this, or a brougham, or something almost as stripped as a base Malibu. You could get the horrible 5.7 Diesel or the even more horrible 4.3 Diesel, on top of a half a dozen (or so) gas engines.
If you liked to use your left foot, the 78-9 Cutlasses were some of the very few American models that offered your choice of 3, 4, or 5 forward gears – depending on engine choice, of course. The 5-speed was the Borg-Warner T-50, late of the Chevrolet Cosworth Vega.
After the inspiration/success of the 1975 Seville, GM went nuts pursuing formal styling.
I wish they had tried it again in the last 20 years, but aerodynamics trumps all. I’m so sick of the same slick rooflines and inadequate rear headroom. It had to contribute to the collapse of sedan sales when they all looked more or less the same.
I remember when the 442 came out. Barely, I wasn’t driving yet. But even at the time I was disappointed/confused with the name and lack of performance. Great name, don’t get me wrong, but the implications were far more than what you got, my adolescent brain was guessing HP or at least cubic inches. Who cares about dual exhaust, or quad, or single as long as it responds to your right foot. Eventually it became more of a stud, but still NBD in those days performance wise. Looks were ok, but not up to Mustangs or the best of GM.
Flash forward to the late 70’s and it had really become a joke. And that styling, hatchback styling with notchback utility. I mean how did they come up with that stuff? Really? I thought drugs were more coastal and the upper midwest was relatively unaffected then. I guessed wrong I suppose because I can come up with no other reason for it to look and perform like it did.
15.4 wasn’t too bad for a small block car of it’s size in 1964.
I remember when these were unveiled and the reaction was Aztek-level disbelief. They immediately looked like rolling mistakes. I have no idea how such a bad design made it through to the point of production. Few were sold, we saw few on the roads. After two years, it was gone. Mistake fixed. It really hurt Oldsmobile.
I bet no one was fired for it either.
The back ends on these things has to be among the goofiest designs ever. The side profile is jarring to look at. Its like the front half was designed by one person and the rear half was some 4 year old kid’s idea of what a car looked like.
Yea, that looks right, send it off to engineering to get the tooling built.
There was poster on car message board who swore up and down that the Citation and Aerobacks were “the same cars” and wasn’t convinced. “Just look at them, they are same!”.
Were trying to look like Rover fastbacks of the time, but fixed trunks. The 1980 A body notchback sedans arrived fairly quickly, and designers were probably working on them before the intro of Aeros, “just in case”, and were correct.
But, there are some fastback that are “loved”. Example, collectors prefer the 1965-68 Mustang fastbacks to the notchbacks. There are shops that convert notches to fastbacks.
Aeroback?
My EYEEES
My EYEEES
These Aerobacks remind me of the 49-52 Chevrolet Fleetline (as opposed to the notchback Styleline). The other brands had them as well. They sold back then, but were discontinued for 53. These cars seemed like a way to bring back that body style. But making them hatchbacks like the Citation would have made them useful. Otherwise they were just ugly.
I grew up in Lansing Michigan where Oldsmobile built the mighty Cutlass and Delta 88. My school bus ride passed Final Assembly every day, with it’s massive lot of shiny new 442’s and massive Delta 88’s parked side by side for acres next door. I vividly recall my innocent eight year old eyes glaring at the bold “442” decal on the front fender of those two tone machines and thinking, “COOL!”. I also recall that as my third grade school year passed by and 1978 turned to 1979, those shiny, cool Cutlass 442’s with the weird backend I passed on the bus everyday were…….UGLY……
I remember seeing alot of 442 Hunchbacks . Maybe they never moved my whole third grade year and sat unsold!
Older brother traded in a 79 Monza for an 80 Cutlass Supreme.
My first ride …….78 Fairmont….inline 6