Road and Track tested three of GM’s new 1973 not-so “mid-sized cars” that were clearly trying to be more European, or had some aspects of European qualities in their make-up ; the Pontiac Grand Am, the Oldsmobile Cutlass Salon and the Chevrolet Monte Carlo. This is the Salon’s turn.
In a number of ways, the Cutlass salon was the most overtly “European” of the three, with its array of international flags and only available as a four door sedan, although that changed later in the model year.
Once again, R&T points out that these cars essentially full-size cars, given that it’s almost 18′ long (212.9″) and weighs well over two tons (4305 lbs curb wt; 4610 “Test weight”). Obviously these had gotten as big as they were going to, and would be substantially downsized in 1978. But in 1973, big was…big.
R&T notes that the Salon’s 180 hp 5.7 L V8 and three-speed THM automatic puts it in the same league as the vastly more expensive Mercedes 450SE/SEL, but that its performance don’t quite match the Benz, and fuel economy is worse. Car and Driver took that comparison to the next level, actually comparing the Salon with a 450SE, which we posted here a few years back. And if that 5.7 L wasn’t enough, there was a 250 hp 7.4 L version available. Now that would have made an interesting comparison to the Mercedes 6.9.
The Olds V8 was praised for good running manners and ready starting from cold, qualities not to be taken for granted in 1973.
The Salon broke some serious ground with R&T in its interior accommodations, in that the front seats were deemed the best seats of any American car to date. Most controls also got good marks, but the shoulder belts didn’t, apparently designed by GM to make it unlikely that anyone would be willing to put up with them in actual use.
The back seat was roomy, able to carry three adults reasonably adequately. Of course the downsized 1977 full-sized cars, which would sit on the same 116″ wheelbase, would be even more commodious, as their space efficiency was better than these “mid-sizers”. The trunk was not as roomy as it might have looked. Needless to say, bit the HVAC system and the AM/FM radio were typically excellent, something the imports were still playing catch-up on.
R&T was “disappointed” in the Salon’s handling package, which was unique to it; slotting in between the standard and optional Cutlass suspensions. It did include a rear anti-roll bar, and had Goodyear steel belted radials. But it was marred by the typically dead power steering, which made cornering something done closer to “remote control”. Straight line stability was “pretty good”, but it lacked the “on center” feel that imports like the Mercedes have. In pure cornering power, the Salon approaches that of the MB 280 recently tested, but there’s more understeer.
The Salon’s ride “is disturbing”; too much like American cars of yore. It floated badly of undulations at moderate to high speeds, and the suspension bottoms out too readily.
The brakes were also poor, exhibiting what R&T suspected was a lack of boost, although that was more of a guess than a definitive assessment. There was extreme fade in the six-stop test, with pedal effort tripling. Oddly, the Grand Am did significantly better on what was presumably the same basic brake system.
The final verdict? The Salon is a viable alternative to the more expensive import sedans, given its significantly lower cost, and permanence is quite competitive. But demerits in handling, ride, brakes and a few other issues keep it from being truly competitive.
Related reading:
R&T Road Test: 1973 Pontiac Grand Am
Car and Driver Comparison: 1973 Olds Cutlass Salon Vs. Mercedes 450 SE
This model was one of the few americans tested by german “Auto Motor und Sport” at the time. Sadly I haven´t read the original full article, only a small review in an anniversary issue, but if I remember correctly the car did its test without any major problems.
Nowadays most car buyers could not care less about “European Sport Sedans”. The Big 3 Germans push CUV’s for suburbanites, and have cushy rides. Their coming EV’s will be similar types of UV’s
BMW/MB/Audi sedans sell fewer each passing year, and are cast off when lease ends. When out of warranty, have to be a die hard fan boy and spend hours and $$ to keep them running. On You-Tube, lots of channels with mechanics calling then “money pits”. So why try?
Don’t know what you guys do (or maybe don’t do?) to cars over there in the US but in Europe, a properly maintained BMW or Mercedes will give you years of dependable service. Audi may not be entirely in the same league with MB and BMW, but also an Audi that gets regular service is considered very dependable transport. All three brands have great resale value.
However, like any other car, these cars can become money pits if they don’t get proper/regular maintenance. Skimping on maintenance -lease companies are notorious for this- is a recipe for disaster and usually the second or third owner will pay the price.
I’m dating myself, perhaps.
In Europe, cars cost more in the first place. People have fewer of them. Hence they are more valued. Hence they are better taken care of.
In urban Europe, where most of the population lives, there is less of a DIY culture than the US. So cars are serviced my mechanics. Some better, some worse. Like DIY, yes, but the DIY spread is much bigger, I think.
In Europe, traffic is bad, yes. But cars are not used for ever transportation event. Europeans walk and take the bus or subway. US suburbanites must use the car for everything. Unlike Europe, where one walks a block or quarter mile for groceries, here, one cannot walk a mile or two. Lots of short trips. Lots of drive thrus with fast food. Lots of fast food crumbs and stains (I don’t eat in my car).
Finally, in the snowbelt, US cars operate in environments ranging from Russian cold to tropical heat. Bigger spread than Europe. The pavement here is in worst shape. Greece may be broke, but the paved roads their are much easier on vehicles. There is no salt.
So, in the US, vehicles are operated in a tougher more forgiving environment, and more motorists here are apathetic about their cars.
This is why, in the 1970s, Fiats did fine in Greece, and in Italy Fiat was like GM, every other car, and when I came to the US, I learned they were junk.
It’s why so many German cars here ‘die’ prematurely.
Japan first, and Korea 30 years later, mastered the art of making cars that stand up to the US driving environment. Modern VW has yet to figure it out… (and I am a big fan of Mk1/Mk2 FWD VW, and I say this)
GM was on the right track for a changing world with these cars, but they were in some ways too little (and too big) and too late.
The pitch the Salon was making worked to a degree. Our neighbor in the early ’70s was an attorney with a young family. He was driving probably a ’70 GTO and his wife had a ’62 Sedan deVille, probably bought used in the heyday of Cadillac having strong resale residual.
He was making it big by 1973, he built a big home in a nearby higher end neighborhood, and traded his fleet for a new Olds Ninety-Eight for himself, and a Salon for his wife. I’m reasonably sure it was the Salon, while I was still very young, I recall the body colored wheel covers really stood out for me.
I recall he was into stereo equipment, had some fancy stuff, and some magazines on the topic. It wouldn’t surprise me that a few car magazines were in the mix.
Unfortunately, I lost track of his automotive journey. Did he buy another round of GM in 1977 or so? Or did the premium import cars finally get him?
“Did he buy another round of GM in 1977 or so? ”
Maybe a downsized B/C body, then to imports in the early 80’s when gas prices spiked again.
Other than those body side scallops, which might be found on some French or Korean crossovers even today, I think this is one of the best-styled domestic GM cars ever. I thought so in 1973 and still like it today.
I think the last page is missing.
Oops; fixed now.
The Salon didn’t undercut the Bavaria by as much as the opening chart seems to indicate. The as-tested price of the Oldsmobile was $5,560 compared to the list price of $6,203 for the BMW. Chances are that the BMW only needed A/C and a radio to match up with the equipment level of the as-tested Salon, since things like comfortable seats, brakes that worked, and steering that didn’t need massive upper body strength were standard. Perhaps the BMW was 25% more expensive when comparing like with like, something that wouldn’t be anywhere near the case a few years later. I’m pretty sure that the 1980 528i cost double whatever GM’s sportiest intermediate sedan sold for with every significant option.
Sure. But how good was the A/C in the BMW? How much did it cost for maintenance on the BMW? Admittedly, a service BMW should, probably, give good service. A serviced 73 Cutlass, WOULD, give good service.
Basically, the Olds was the American interpretation. In place of elegant engineering, it relied on proven, mass-engineering, that used a lot of fuel.
And that hasn’t changed during my life. Americans never really got the hang of making top tier, fuel-efficient vehicles. At best, good cars, but 2nd best. But, for vehicles that use quite a bit of fuel, often the American ones use a little less, or are a little better, or both. Not just pick-up trucks–Camaros, Mustangs, ATS, Traverses, Grand Cherokees–arguably best in their category, and all pretty thirsty, relatively speaking.
Also, as you observe in your comment about an 1980 528i (the Pontiac Grand Am was the “euro equivalent” and if I recall, Car & Driver may have even compared it to a 528i)
1973 was early on in the rapid price rises of German cars. By 1977, BMW’s lowest US offering, the 320i, cost as much as new Corvette.
The styling of these has really grown on me, out next door lady neighbor, had a ’73 Cutlass (std model) 4 dr in medium metallic blue that she bought new and I always liked it. It didn’t have as much room inside than you’d think it would, though, for as big as it was.
I’d rate GM’s sorta-Euro ’73 colonnades in this order: Grand Am > Laguna > Cutlass Salon. None of them looked, felt, or drove European, but they were good for what they were – pretty-big American sedans for those who preferred a slightly firmer ride, shapelier seats, nicer trim. The Chevy and Pontiac had the neat Endura nose (ubiquitous now, rare then) and lot of gauges to look at. Pontiac also through in real wood trim on a distinct dashboard (shared with Grand Prix but not LeMans). They were good at American-car things – arctic A/C, cheap parts, room, comfort, that R&T gave too little weight to.
Too bad then Youtube only have the clips showing the coupes then Bud Lindemann and Jacques Duval tested.
My dad bought a ’73 Cutlass S in the exact same color as the top video. The color was called ‘Honey Beige’, I believe. He ordered it, and being the Depression Era cheapskate he was ordered it with dog dish hubcaps, no a/c, no power steering, no power brakes, and a 3 speed manual on the column. 14 year old me was very disappointed and was somewhat embarrassed with it, but the 350, 4 barrel engine could burn rubber when I dumped the clutch.
My dad bought his cars pretty much like your dad. Options included a heater and a side view mirror. That was it. As a new teen, I was not happy!
Swap to a floor shifter, hit Sears for A/C,and that sounds good to me!
When it came time for my then girlfriend to buy her first car I lobbied for a new ’72 Cutlass while her parents insisted on a new ’73 Cutlass.
The ’73 she purchased was a fuglymobile compared to the ’72 but it was one helluva car that gave us 10 years, 150K of reliable, economical service.
Maybe 2 or 3 months after my mother bought a new 72 Cutlass Supreme, some neighbors bought a new 73 Cutlas Salon. It certainly seemed foreign to me, though certainly not in a European kind of way. There was nothing more American than a 72 Cutlass (or any Oldsmobile for that matter) and I could tell that GM was trying to start in another direction with the Salon. By 1974 the traditional American flavor was back.
It was in the 1972-73 timeframe that I discovered Motor Trend and other buff books…the Cutlass Salon, Grand Am and Monte Carlo received prominent coverage. I would have loved it if my parents had come home with a Cutlass Salon or Grand Am. But what GM was trying to do with these cars was lost on my father, who bought family cars by the pound.
This was pretty much true in the Midwestern US at that time. 1st of all a Salon was a premium price over most Cutlasses on the dealer lots. A price few were willing to pay. The suspension, while not quite up to European standards, was still too harsh for typical American non enthusiast drivers.
Another deal breaker for many buyers were bucket seats and a console in a sedan. Today we take that for granted, even pickups can come with buckets and a console automatic shifter. There were a few American sedans that offered that in the ’60’s, but it was not common. Americans then wanted sedans with bench seats for 3 across seating and column shifters.
I was surprised the corduroy seats never caught on. In the cars I sat in that had them they were quite comfortable and gripped very well. I don’t know how well they wore though.
One thing that amused me about American cars at this time, and GM in particular, was this “discovery” of radial tires. Weren’t they around since about 1949 or so? A few American luxury cars offered them in the ’60’s but all of a sudden it was about Pontiac’s RTS (Radial Tuned Suspension) as well as Olds and others offering touring suspensions. GM’s order codes became popular labels on their cars soon too (F41, FE3 etc).
I will admit with all the hoopla back then about radial tires, American car suspensions did improve the ride and handling and safety starting at the time the Cutlass Salon came out.
Ford really hit high gear when Don Petersen was in charge. They really offered better handling cars under his tenure.
Chrysler had pretty good suspensions since they went to torsion bars, and their new cars (sans torsion bars) now are pretty good too.
The suspension, while not quite up to European standards, was still too harsh for typical American non enthusiast drivers.
The Salon had a mid-level suspension, somewhere between standard (soft) and the optional sport suspension (firm), and as such, it was not as capable as the sport suspension in challenging circumstances. But it’s ride was not really harsh either. didn’t put the firmer sport suspension on it because they knew their market: the Salon was not targeted to genuine sport sedan drivers, but those that were willing to buy into the cachet that their Salon was somehow “European”.
And European cars didn’t have firm suspensions; just better controlled and damped. Detroit’s solution ti improving handling on smooth surfaces and a track was to use quite firm springs and shocks, but that worked poorly once the road surface was anything but smooth.
Radials back then were quite expensive, and required suspensions to be tuned to them for optimal benefits. Typical for Detroit, that was not worth the cost.
FWIW, radial tires were not widely used on typical European sedans and such, except in France, home of Michelin, and some of the more expensive ones. A typical Opel or European Ford or VW did not have radials standard until the 70s or maybe late 60s on the sportier versions.
I appreciate your view Paul, I was going by the Midwestern opinions I heard at the time. I was too young to buy a car then, but I liked the direction car companies were going at that time.
‘Of course the downsized 1977 full-sized cars, which would sit on the same 116″ wheelbase, would be even more commodious, as their space efficiency was better than these “mid-sizers”.’
OK, I need to know once and for all because I have heard a lot of innuendo about it: Were the 1977 B-body cars based on the Colonnades?
Yes. It was basically a rebody.
No it was not. The wheelbase was the same, and that’s about it.
Paging Vince C-
Roger is on the money. They are not the same chassis and this fallacy is continually spread. If I had some decent pictures of each of the chassis, I would just do an article on the subject to show the differences.
The 1973-77 A-Body chassis is significantly “beefier” than the 1977-96 B-body chassis. Anyone who has spent any time under these cars will see that the frame rails on the A-body are thicker and heavier. The A-Body also has more crossmembers. And lastly, the bodies will not swap between frames as they are simply different chassis of a similar design and wheelbase.
The 73-77 Colonnade cars were heavy, and much of this had to with this relatively heavy frame. The 1977 B-bodies had a big diet and were significantly lighter than the A-Cars. Part of this was making a lighter frame. This included the smaller less substantial frame rails, and less cross members. The 77-90 cars use very similar suspension control arms to the 73-77 Colonnades, but they are not identical and are not shown to be interchangeable in parts interchange guides. The control arms are very similar but the 77-96 cars have slightly different geometry and were redesigned to use metric fasteners. Since the suspension components were and evolution of the 73-77 cars, I think this is where people just assume all else in the chassis is the same.
Undoubtedly the ’77 B Bodies had a more rigid body structure too, to allow for a lighter frame.
I wonder why people spend time arguing about this instead of simply comparing the frames. Crossmembers? Where? Why do people deny that these cars share their fundamental chassis designs when you literally wouldn’t know which one you’re looking at without being told?
1977 Impala
1973 Chevelle
Never drove one.
It was too big, of course it was too big. Everything but Pintos and Vegas were from domestic manufacturers. Styling is of course subjective, but to my eyes, it looks pretty good compared to it’s competition. Chevy Monte Sleazo? I’d gnaw both my arm and leg off to get out of one of them without being seen. Slow and thirsty? Of course, that’s what they were then. They’d sell you a car, but only after they made sure you would hate it because of how they dealt with “g’ment” regulations.
As much as I liked it, and I spent many miles in a Bavaria, the BMW shouldn’t have been included, it was a different market segment. And performance wise, I’m surprised it was even competitive, if either it or all had manual transmissions it would have run away and hid from them.
Endlessly fascinating to paw through the specs on these beasts from a half-century ago.
Curb weight: 4600lbs. Like my 4Runner.
Horsepower: 180. Like my 4-pot Camry.
0-60: 11 seconds. From a 5.7L V8. Drink like a pickup, sprint like a 30-year old Civic.
MPG: 11. Holy sh*t, where did all the chemical energy in that gasoline go?
I’m too young to have caught the 60s muscle car era and the 70s malaise. The former would have been fun but I’m quite grateful for missing the latter.
From the linked comparison vs the Mercedes 450SE – the latter surely the biggest mass-made thing in Europe by far at the time – this Olds is 16 inches longer, has 3 inches more wheelbase but has seven inches less room between front and rear passengers! Not really so European, unless, say, you wanted to cover Holland by parking it across it.
I do get that it’s the Euro-possibilities in driving that they’re talking about, and the C & D comparison says it gives it a fair fight, but I wonder. The Bud Lindemann test above does not show the good-handling car they describe: it shows a fairly unwieldy tank, really. This review says it’s not bad despite faults, so the truth is likely in between.
And it seems only very few took up handling options anyway. The vast majority presumably handled (and stopped) as well as the one Msr Duval shows in the video (forward to about 7.30 unless you speak French), which is decidedly atrocious, although mighty entertaining.
For the big, heavy car on relatively skinny tires segment, the Colonnade era GM cars really did it as well as it could be done. Softly sprung with masses of body roll, the Cutlass maintained neutrality of sorts in the corners, especially at high speed with just a bit of understeer, as seen by how the front tires tucked under, but not much. That’s as good as it can get, in this sort of thing. Compare it to most larger, heavier cars of the day, especially Detroit iron, and these things were really well done, comparatively speaking.
I’ve no doubt that’s entirely right. But given this is the “best” of the lot, what I’m thinking of is the basic attitudinal problems that could be seen in car mag stills years ago, and, in this age of the ‘net, in these fun old videos. I mean by that the suspensions that still appear to have solvable issues (and they result in the things complained of in the tests).
The vids show visibly poor rebound damping – that most Euro of dark arts of the time. They also show the outside front wheel falling out at the top when the body rolls over, making big understeer inevitable, yet if you look at some equally rolly French job, the wheels stay more or less upright, and grip and steering is maintained. And the vids show poor pitch control, with massive nose dive under brakes (not to mention good ole GM brakes that completely rotate the car in the French-Canadian vid!)
It’s quite mysterious to me why these (surely?) known quantities weren’t addressed, if at least in the handling package ones. Even a Euro that was simply suspended more like a live-axle US car, like the Fiat 131 of the time, did all of these things so much better. Of course, it could also be that once you get to a certain size and weight and you want a compliant ride, a simple set-up can only do so much, but even that I’m skeptical about.
(Boy, that was along muse upon your very straightforward point, and I’m still not sure I’m clear!)
But given this is the “best” of the lot,
It wasn’t. The Salon had a mid-level suspension, somewhere between standard (soft) and the optional sport suspension (firm), and as such, it was not as capable as the sport suspension in the challenging circumstances.
American suspensions were designed primarily for a good ride over good roads, which America was blessed with in great abundance. Their shortcoming was limited suspension travel and cheap shock absorbers (damping). The way to make them handle “better” was primarily to increase the firmness of the springs, and starting around this time, to add a rear anti-roll bar.
That helped to reduce understeer and increased maximum roadholding speed in curves, but on smooth pavement. The seeming objective was to maximize the skid pad number and slalom test on a track, numbers that the magazines focused on. This is why American cars could do pretty well on race tracks; just keep making the springs (and shock) harder. And the ride ore miserable.
But the inherent limitations of this approach were obvious: ride quality deteriorated, and although the shocks were firmer, they still weren’t up to the standards of the best. Upgrading to Koni shocks was extremely common by enthusiasts in the 60s and early 70s.
Many European cars’ suspensions were designed from the get-go with different goals and priorities. They were much more focused on a controlled ride over difficult road conditions. This required long suspension travel and that absolutely demanded effective shocks, since the springs were relatively soft.
One example: Peugeot spent a lot of time developing its own shocks for the new long-travel strut front suspension on the 404. They were massively more effective (and expensive) than anything ever seen on an American car.
I could go on, but the reality is that in the late 60s and early 70s, Detroit was trying to teach its old dog suspensions new tricks. That only went so far.
And yes, the massive weights of these cars were a big impediment.
The other Detroit impediment was the live rear axle, which meant that the car was never going to be able to handle very well on rough pavement. The linked videos show the car on smooth pavement. The trick was to keep the car from going into oversteer no matter what (including rough pavement), yet keep understeer to a minimum. Not only at different roughnesses of pavement, but at different driving speeds. High speed handling for American drivers needed to be in basically understeer mode, despite the tendency for most reasonably well-balanced handling cars to grow in oversteer as speeds got higher, all other things being equal.
Combinations of relatively soft springs with stiffer roll resistance (roll bars and shock compression rates) on the big, heavy cars, made all the difference, and that was with generally low budget shock absorbers. And then matching the handling behavior of the front of the car with that of the rear of the car, which is the final way in which mismatches can screw up the handling. GM seemed to seriously work on the issues, while Ford just banged out cars where the suspension held the car up, but didn’t do much more than that. GM generally used coil springs and multi-links in the rear (the exceptions being the Nova and Camaro, which also had a “relatively” good handling reputation), which allowed for all sorts of chassis tuning and dynamic axle movements, while Ford stayed with leaf springs, which were much more difficult to fine-tune.
GM cleared an admittedly low bar fairly well. The similar Fords of the era would often literally shred the front tires, at speed, at full steering lock, while the car continued to go straight ahead. Getting a large Ford to rotate, at speed, was an exercise in threading a needle and the driver being very sensitive to steering slip angles and “working” the car into a turn. With the GM cars, just turn and go, within reason. Effective in a messy way, but mostly effective. The GM chassis engineers did very well, given the overall weight, front end weight bias, and live rear axle constraints baked into the cars they were trying to improve. A Fiat 131 and the Peugeot 404 aren’t too much more than half the weight of the Cutlass, and that, right there, is a massive head start on getting the handling squared away.
American suspensions were designed primarily for a good ride over good roads, which America was blessed with in great abundance. Their shortcoming was limited suspension travel and cheap shock absorbers (damping). The way to make them handle “better” was primarily to increase the firmness of the springs, and starting around this time, to add a rear anti-roll bar.
I will add to what Paul said, by saying they were designed primarily for a good ride and low cost. Performance handling was really not a high priority, which is quite evident by the poor geometry that many of these SLA suspensions of the era had. The cheap way to get these jet smooth rides was with flabby springs and shocks. However, for the era, most North American customers were fine with these suspensions for their typical driving and road conditions. Enthusiasts, especially those who had driven more sophisticated suspensions of Europe, expected more.
Despite the short comings of the suspensions of this era, there were real improvements made from the mid-1960s into the 1970s. Chevrolet is a great example of the vast improvement with the same basic design. The recent article on the ’66 Impala showed how badly these cars handled. By 1970, an Impala with F41 suspension was quite a competent handler. Same goes for the Chevelle. A 1966 Chevelle SS396 was berated as unsafe handling in a Road Test muscle car comparison test from 1966. By 1970, the SS454 was doing laps quicker than a 289 Cobra and Boss 302 Mustang around the track in a C/D comparo. Just don’t try that with a base Chevelle.
Further, these 70s era suspensions did get better. The 1977 Caprice F41 had a front suspension that evolved from the 1970 F-body and the rear suspension really wasn’t all that different than the 1964 A-body. By 1996, this same suspension was used in an Impala SS with stiff springs, modern shocks and appropriately sized sway bars handled and rode well, even by 1996 standards. Sure it was more crude than a lot of other 1996 cars, but it was pretty good overall especially for a old compromised design.
Colonnades this era are often universally lauded as good handlers, but the fact is that many were not that great in handling. There were so many variations in their suspension over the various makes, models and years, to summarize them as all good handling is a gross generalization. I didn’t watch the videos in their entirety, and I am not sure what suspension packages those Cutlass’ in the videos had. Even with the same suspension package, there were variations in the suspension components depending on the cars options.
I will also comment on the spring, shocks and sway bar combos, since I have done some real world tuning on suspensions from this era. Unlike the European suspension that Paul describes, these cars typically do need a fairly stiff spring to handle well. The stiff spring is needed for roll stiffness, to keep the suspension geometry in-check and to cope with the high weight. Even with a substantial sway bar, much stiffer than base level springs are needed. There is a fine balance through as too stiff results in a bone rattling ride. However, it is entirely possible to have a good ride (by modern standards) and respectable handling/control. I have done this with my Colonnade, with stiffer springs, larger sway bars and modern monotube shocks. The ride is good and it handles very well for a car from the era, undoubtedly better than any factory setup. It is certainly not as controllable as a modern car on rough roads, but it is not a bone shaking ride like a 1984 Corvette. My suspension essentially is very similarly setup to a 1996 Impala SS, which also handles and rides pretty decently. I will say R&Ts steering comments are spot on. I still have a stock steering box on my Colonnade and it has very little road feel, albeit better than a the Ford and Mopar of the era, and is not great for spirited driving. I have a freshly built box with much better road feel and a quicker ratio (very similar to an Impala SS box) ready to go in.
From Detroit, EVERYTHING in that era needed better shocks. (Indeed: that was true for many American cars into the 90s.) GM coil-spring front ends had poor camber curves and minimal anti-dive. (So did most Fords.) This car being somewhat nose-heavy (57/43 balance-and look how far the engine/trans mounts in the article!) exacerbateds the problem.
One issue was that most buyers WANTED the soft, floaty feel. A common criticism of Chryslers of the 60s and 70s was that, due to their stiffer (unit-body) structures, they were “harsher”.
For the big, heavy car on relatively skinny tires segment, the Colonnade era GM cars really did it as well as it could be done.
Not really. The Salon had a mid-level suspension, somewhere between standard (soft) and the optional sport suspension (firm), and as such, it was not as capable as the sport suspension in the challenging circumstances.
The Pontiac versions were my fav.
All other things argued, there was no way that these cars could ever be like a European sedan. No way. Unless the comparison was somehow to the Rolls-Royce or the M-B 600. But then they fell way short in all sorts of other measures. The whole thing was an attempt to market to the rubes. The Cutlass was well received, but more likely because it was a bit of a size and road manners improvement on what Detroit had offered before in the full-sized segment, which had ballooned out of control. The “European sedan” thing was probably not even on most buyers’ automotive radar screens.
A better comparison would be the big Opel (Kapitan, Admiral, Diplomat).
These were an attempt to inject some aspects of European car qualities into an American car. As such, it was actually mostly successful, as most folks were never going to drive their cars, European or American, in ways that they could tell the ultimate differences.
For many/most American buyers, it was a viable alternative, but the cachet of a genuine European was missing, the most important part. Most Mercedes buyers back then drove very conservatively; all that engineering was utterly wasted on them. All that really mattered was that star on the hood.
There! I knew I couldn’t be the only one to have said it before: there’s a sturdy case to be made that the US auto industry deliberately treated vehicle regulation as a passing fad to be snuffed out by whatever means necessary, and one of their oftenest-used tools in that war was to comply with the regulations in the nastiest possible ways in an effort to spark popular and congressional backlash against the regulation of vehicles. Oh, your brand-new car is hard to start, stalls, knocks, hesitates, gets lousy gas mileage, buzzes at you if you don’t fasten the complicated and uncomfortable seat belts, and has ugly bumpers? Gee, »tsk« what an awful shame. Not our fault; the government made us do it. Guess you should run go write to your congressman or something.
This is interesting. My dad’s 1977 Cutlass Supreme sedan had a floorpan-mounted kickswitch, which implies non-Salon ’73s also had kickswitches. So they spent money on two different turn signal switches, two different wiring harnesses, and two different carpets in order to make a halfassed effort at providing (only) Salon buyers with a European feel by dint of the dipswitch’s placement…at the same time as they were making lame excuses for not putting in usable lap/shoulder belts which were common in European cars at the time. I’d bet the money spent on duplicative components for the two kinds of headlight dipswitch would’ve easily bought much better seatbelts.
Yeah, careful what you wish for; instead of doing it the right way (wipers on their own stalk) GM responded to this request the cheap and nasty way, by cramming all the wiper controls onto the turn signal stalk along with the cruise controls.
And if the Salon is so Europeanly European in its Europeanness, what’s with the pathetic brakes? The numb steering? The floaty suspension? The 11.5 miles per gallon? And flashing the brake lights to almost kind of approximate the function of real turn signals? Oh, wait, never mind; there’s a little emblem with a variety of flags on it.
It’s interesting that, for the 1974 model year, Oldsmobile did switch to a combination lap and shoulder front safety belt across its line-up (except for the Delta 88 convertible). One would think that GM would have phased in this new seat belt design for its intermediates in conjunction with the debut of the all-new body and chassis for 1973.
The variations in the location of the dimmer switch is strange…wouldn’t this have also required different steering columns? I do remember that this feature was only on the Salon versions. The other Cutlasses had a conventional floor-mounted dimmer switch.
Everyone switched to combination lap/shoulder front outboard seatbelts for ’74, not just Oldsmobile. GM’s dumb ’73 excuse as reported in this article translates as “We won’t spend the money or effort until the law forces us”.
I am guessing the steering column was the same whether or not the dipswitch was built into the turn signal switch, but I could be wrong.
Daniel you raise a good point about stalk mounted switches. I thought the idea was to operate wipers, turn signals, and dimming headlights etc. was to keep your hands on the wheel and eyes on the road. GM comes out with their “multi function switch” (does it have a jack knife or can opener in it too?) My1979 Fiat Strada had separate stalk controls for the dimmer, wipers and turn signals. Which did the job just fine.
Now it seems many automakers have gone to this multi function switch. My Honda has it too. I’ve had it for 5 years and still get confused on turning on basic functions (my daily driver is a Ford Focus). Honda even puts their headlight on/off switch on the stalk! On top of that automakers don’t have standardized functions. Must be a real treat in a rental car. They are just not intuitive to me.
I had a 1974 Salon and it was the nicest American car I had ever been in to that point. The variable ratio steering was as superior to Ford and Mopar steering as the MB S class was to the Olds. Seats were amazing and the look of the interior was so totally foreign. Handling was better than any other American sedan. This was the best American sedan, unfortunately they insisted on comparing it to Mercs and BMWs
“American suspensions were designed primarily for a good ride over good roads”
I spend a summer in Michigan in ’74 on a job assignment and came away with a different perspective than I’d had before as a California kid. Domestic manufacturers, GM in particular, made cars for Michigan. Cool summers, no mountain passes, no 110F going up a 6% grade, no winding thru the mountains, just flat with bends in the road, not tight curves. And guess what, they did better under those conditions. Now I can’t and won’t excuse the arrogance of that mentality, which eventually led to bankruptcy, but I can see why they made the cars they did. At least to a certain extent.
My step-aunt and her husband got a Salon in ’73. I remember the ribbed vinyl seats, so I must have ridden in it once. A few years later, the husband got a Corvette and a girlfriend and a divorce, in that order.
From Detroit, EVERYTHING in that era needed better shocks. (Indeed: that was true for many American cars into the 90s.) GM coil-spring front ends had poor camber curves and minimal anti-dive. (So did most Fords.) This car being somewhat nose-heavy (57/43 balance-and look how far the engine/trans mounts in the article!) exacerbateds the problem.
One issue was that most buyers WANTED the soft, floaty feel. A common criticism of Chryslers of the 60s and 70s was that, due to their stiffer (unit-body) structures, they were “harsher”.
I remember reading this article when current…the last sentence “..and thoroughly American” stuck in my head back then.
Indeed, I think “the winter of our discontent” had set in by this time, where American car companies like GM kind of half-heartedly tried to indicate that their cars could be made to resemble especially European cars. That they were much bigger in size kind of makes it seem a hollow argument…I’m sure they could design a car from scratch to resemble one, but adapting an existing one wasn’t going to cut it.
The funny thing to me is now that I’m in my 60’s, I’d really like to own a full sized car, one that rides well and that you don’t have to sit down into when entering, and they’re no longer available (as new cars). Trucks have seeming replaced large cars, but what if you don’t need (nor want) the utility of a truck? Does a car normally have a smoother ride than a truck?…if so, such a truck really isn’t a replacement. I know people are abandoning cars in droves, and manufacturers are responding to that, but I think with all the baby-boomers entering elderly status, that’s kind of too bad. Certainly a truck comes in handy at times, but there’s seldom a need for most older folks to own one (unless of course they enjoy them)…but the irony is that other than foreign cars, there’s no longer an option if you want to buy one new.
We bought a 1976 Olds cutlass.supreme new .it was a great car..no issues..yeah it drove like a big.olds..on the road..it was a great driving car.350 auto car…ac..great seats..no issues..1 carb rebuild..run great..yeah..12 miles per gallon..we should have kept the car..I loved driving the car.then…it sure beat my worn out 66 chevelle..rj.