The new-for-1973 General Motors mid-sized cars were allegedly the product of a battle between John Z. DeLorean and GM styling chief William Mitchell.
In the book, On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors, DeLorean said he proposed that GM downsize its mid-sized cars. Mitchell objected, arguing that this would take “the corporation into a more utilitarian design and away from the longer, lower and sleeker look” (Wright, 1979; p. 182).
One could reasonably question the accuracy of DeLorean’s recollection, such as that Mitchell was the key impediment to downsizing the A-body. However, the resulting cars were clearly “designed in an atmosphere of unlimited faith in the traditional way of building American cars — big on the outside, small on the inside, heavy, posh and thirsty,” as noted by Richard M. Langworth and Jan. P. Noyle (1985, p. 324).
How big were they? So big that the 1973 Cutlass Supreme two-door coupe was roughly the same size and weight of a full-sized Oldsmobile from the mid-50s. By the same token, the 1973 models were roughly 20 inches longer and 1,000 pounds heavier than the early-60s Cutlass — yet had three inches less rear-seat legroom.
Is it any surprise that the downsized 1978 Cutlass reverted most of the way back to its original compact dimensions?
The 1973 Cutlass Supreme two-door coupe was a good five inches and 400 pounds more than the previous year’s model. Trunk space and interior widths were improved but space efficiency was hardly tops in its class (Old Car Brochures).
Cutlass Supreme’s lower status had advantages
Four out of five GM divisions had a version of the A-body. Chevrolet anchored the bottom end of the mid-sized market with its Chevelle. Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Buick competed for those with deeper pockets — sort of.
The Monte Carlo, Chevrolet’s version of the A-body’s two-door notchback, tended to be more expensive than the high-end Buick Century Regal and Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme.
The base price of the 1973 Monte Carlo ($3,415) was sandwiched between the slightly lower-priced Cutlass Supreme ($3,323) and higher-priced Century Regal ($3,470). However, the Monte Carlo Landau soared well above both at $3,806.
Meanwhile, the price tags for the 1973 Pontiac Grand Am ($4,264) and base Grand Prix ($4,583) were around $1,000 more than either the Century or Cutlass.
Interiors for the 1973 (from top image down) Monte Carlo, Cutlass Supreme, Regal and Grand Prix gave a sense of how each nameplate was positioned in the marketplace, although the Regal’s was an optional upgrade (Old Car Brochures).
Although inflation resulted in prices growing substantially between 1973 and 1977 — the last year for this generation A-body — the relative positioning of each of GM’s mid-sized nameplates stayed mostly stable. The most noteworthy change was that the Grand Prix came down in price relative to other top-end, A-body notchbacks.
During this time period Buick’s mid-sized entries were generally lower priced than Oldsmobile’s. This was somewhat different than in the full-sized field, where the two brands traded off who fielded the higher-priced entries.
GM’s traditional hierarchy of brands was getting more muddled as each division’s lineup expanded. For example, the Monte Carlo and Grand Prix were presumably allowed to have unique sheetmetal and priced higher than the Century Regal and Cutlass Supreme because Buick and Oldsmobile already had range-topping halo cars — the Riviera and Toronado, respectively.
In retrospect, the Cutlass’s lower status than the Monte Carlo and Grand Prix turned out to be a good thing. The Oldmobile’s lower price may have helped sales. In addition, sharing front and rear sheetmetal with lower-priced models resulted in less excessive styling.
The starkest comparison could be made with the Monte Carlo, which Paul Niedermeyer memorably described as “downright bizarre, like the victim of a botched breast and hip augmentation” (2014). However, the Cutlass was even less gimmicky than the Century, with its multiple side sweepspears and ponderous front end.
The Cutlass looked cleaner than most of its siblings
The Cutlass’s front end had a then-requisite radiator grille, but its bumper was refreshingly lithe and the twin waterfall grille had a simple elegance. Also note the relatively clean side styling. Without the lower-body creases, the Cutlass would look like a larger version of the Chevrolet Vega.
This was a promising direction because the Vega’s designers eschewed GM’s typical gingerbread styling in favor of a subtle, rounded upper-body character line. Oldsmobile designers were apparently going for a more European look than other GM divisions.
The 1973 Cutlass Salon was an optional package that was somewhat similar to the Pontiac Grand Am in offering a lower-priced American alternative to European grand touring sedans by the likes of Mercedes and BMW (Old Car Brochures).
One might argue that the rear of the Cutlass was rather plain. Perhaps, but it also looked . . . normal. You couldn’t say that about the wing-tipped taillights on the Monte Carlo or the trunk lid on the Pontiac LeMans, which resembled a skateboard ramp.
1973 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme, Chevrolet Monte Carlo and Pontiac LeMans (Old Car Brochures)
One could also criticize the Cutlass for its derivative styling touches. A case in point were the ribbed side-marker lights, which mimicked those on a 1969-72 Grand Prix.
The 1973 A-body notchback that compared most favorably to the Cutlass Supreme was the Grand Prix. Designers did a nice job of developing a brougham look that was relatively understated.
Unfortunately, the Pontiac’s styling arguably was hurt the greatest of the A-bodies by the addition of beefier front and rear bumpers in 1974 due to federal regulations.
Before and after: The 1973 (top image) and 1975 Pontiac Grand Prix (Old Car Brochures).
Cutlass Supreme sold almost as well as Monte Carlo
The public seemed to like the Cutlass Supreme well enough. For 1973 output of the two-door coupe soared almost 89 percent to just shy of 220,000 units. That got within striking distance of the Monte Carlo, which saw almost 286,0000 cars leave the factory.
The Cutlass Supreme’s showing was surprisingly good because it did not have the cachet of unique sheetmetal. Nor did it help that Oldsmobile’s dealer network was smaller than Chevrolet’s.
Could it be that the Oldsmobile’s relatively clean styling was a key factor in its success? Whatever the reason, by 1977 the Cutlass Supreme had edged past the Monte Carlo in output — and never looked back.
The 1973-77 A-body notchbacks sold well despite a gas crisis, which depressed sales in 1974-75. Production rose from roughly 751,000 units in 1973 to almost 1.3 million in 1977. In the latter year the Cutlass Supreme surpassed 424,000 units.
One could thus argue that GM was right — Americans really did like bloated mid-sized coupes. However, it should be noted that once the A-body personal coupes were downsized, their collective output was almost 11 percent higher in 1978-80 than in 1975-77. That was despite a second oil crisis and a deep recession hitting in 1980, which decimated the market for mid-sized personal coupes.
The times had irrevocably changed. Despite downsizing most of their passenger-car fleet, the Big Three automakers were losing market share to imports offering more fuel-efficient designs.
The luxury of hindsight allows us to see more clearly how the 1973 A-body notchbacks were veritable blimps. The Cutlass merely wore its bloatedness less extravagantly. GM could plausibly have gotten ahead of the market by taking DeLorean’s advice to downsize the A-body, but since it did not we are blessed to have this fading monument to the automaker’s predilection for bigger, glitzier and more powerful cars.
NOTES:
This story was originally posted August 31, 2018, updated on Nov. 6, 2020 and expanded on Dec. 3, 2021 and May 8, 2023. Specification are from the Automobile Catalog (2023). Prices and production figures are from Gunnell (2002) and the auto editors of Consumer Guide (1993, 2006). Data gaps were filled by drawing upon other sources.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
oldcarbrochures.org: Buick Century (1973); Chevrolet Monte Carlo (1973); Oldsmobile Cutlass (1972, 1973); Pontiac Grand Prix (1973, 1975); Pontiac LeMans (1973)
Indie Auto’s latest Sponsor of the Week is the legendary Auto & Debt magazine, whose January 2023 issue road tests the hot new 36-inch wheels. Of course, this is a fake ad that mocks the […]
George Romney may have been one of the U.S. auto industry’s best post-war leaders, but he made eight big mistakes while leading AMC from 1954-62. Some of his bad moves were costly enough to almost […]
George Denzinger recently wrote a lengthy — and quite nuanced — comment that I would like to highlight on the front page as a letter to the editor. His missive was in response to the […]
6 Comments
I find it interesting how the Olds has aged the best of all of these intermediate cars. This is also the time when Oldsmobile really hit its stride. But like so many American brands, it would go into decline, and we would lose the division in the 2000s. And you can blame that on GM’s stupidity. Clearly, they should have listened to John DeLorean about downsizing the cars. That should have happened no matter what.
I agree with Mr. Forbes. General Motors by 1971 was a mess heading for disaster, although it would not hit the wall until the late 1980s. Too many models, too much overlap with too much badge engineering. The 1973 intermediates were basically good cars, but the Chevelle / Laguna and the Oldsmobile Cutlass / Supreme were the only “successful” cars. Yes, a number of Monte Carlos and Grand Prixes were sold, but the Buick was not as lovely as the 1970-1971-1972 intermediates had been, in my opinion, and Pontiac had lost is styling leadership after 1970, with the 1973-1977 LeMans interesting but not exciting. My aunt’s 1973 Monte Carlo drove just like her husband’s 1972 Cadillac DeVille, although Chevy handled slightly better. The view over both hoods were ponderous and the gas mileage abysmal. What if the front overhang of all of the G.M. 1973-1977 intermediates had been trimmed just a couple of inches. Would the styling worked ? Of course one problem was the Nova-Ventura-Omega-Apollo “compacts”. Would a slightly shrunken A-body looked too much like the compacts ? G.M. needed a “deep-think” in its product planning in 1967-1968. Just like Chrysler made strategic mistakes because of the inter-divisional conflicts over which cars each division would offer, to the point that all divisions offered the same cars in the lower and middle price ranges, so too did General Motors succumb to the divisional marketing managers and dealers, so that except for Cadillac, and the Corvair / Corvette / Camaro-Firebird / Vega-Astre, each division had their own version of the very same cars, differentiated by only by price and outer sheet metal, but mostly assembled in the same assembly plants, as per Frederick G. Donner’s dream ! So much for Alfred P. Sloan’s hierarchy of branding and price from Chevrolet to Cadillac. Maybe by 1973, it no longer mattered, but I do know of several people in the 1970s, followed the Sloan hierarchy until each owned Cadillacs.
I believe it was a writer for Road & Track who, in the 1960s, said that because GM was so big, if it were to be run poorly, it would take the public 30 years to notice. This turned out to be accurate.
You raise an excellent point there about the overhang. Of course it could have been reduced, but you’d have had a battle royal on your hands fighting Bill Mitchell! For some reason I’ve never understood, he seems to have favoured big merely for the sake of being big. It just doesn’t make sense. Especially with the figures Steve gives us about interior space actually decreasing. That is inexcusable.
Taking the Cutlass as an example, there’s no reason for the grille to stick out what, four or five inches beyond the headlights? It’s never looked right to me. We can save a few inches there. Not a completely flat front, but more subtle – having the grill bulge outward an inch would be quite enough. A look under the hood would show there’s no reason we couldn’t slice out another four-five inches. The fender top line could be redrawn a few inches lower to maintain that sweeping curve down to the lights.
Going around to the rear, much the same thing could be done. The interior package would be the same, but at least the driver wouldn’t be carrying around so much unnecessary bulk.
Olds positioned the Cutlass Supreme as an alternative to the Chevrolet B body coupe. Same price point. Same luxury
Equal or better prestige. Relative to the number of Impala and Caprice coupes sold prior to the ’73 oil embargo, one might conclude that this was a combination of a good strategy and good timing. Buyers of 2 door cars were never much concerned with space efficiency anyway. The back seat was for kids, and only occasionally adults.
Your data analysis is interesting as always, but the ’78-’79 numbers for Buick and Olds are skewed by the unpopularity of the aerodeck fastback styling of their A body sedans, which pushed many loyal consumers into the A special coupes instead.
I find it interesting how the Olds has aged the best of all of these intermediate cars. This is also the time when Oldsmobile really hit its stride. But like so many American brands, it would go into decline, and we would lose the division in the 2000s. And you can blame that on GM’s stupidity. Clearly, they should have listened to John DeLorean about downsizing the cars. That should have happened no matter what.
I agree with Mr. Forbes. General Motors by 1971 was a mess heading for disaster, although it would not hit the wall until the late 1980s. Too many models, too much overlap with too much badge engineering. The 1973 intermediates were basically good cars, but the Chevelle / Laguna and the Oldsmobile Cutlass / Supreme were the only “successful” cars. Yes, a number of Monte Carlos and Grand Prixes were sold, but the Buick was not as lovely as the 1970-1971-1972 intermediates had been, in my opinion, and Pontiac had lost is styling leadership after 1970, with the 1973-1977 LeMans interesting but not exciting. My aunt’s 1973 Monte Carlo drove just like her husband’s 1972 Cadillac DeVille, although Chevy handled slightly better. The view over both hoods were ponderous and the gas mileage abysmal. What if the front overhang of all of the G.M. 1973-1977 intermediates had been trimmed just a couple of inches. Would the styling worked ? Of course one problem was the Nova-Ventura-Omega-Apollo “compacts”. Would a slightly shrunken A-body looked too much like the compacts ? G.M. needed a “deep-think” in its product planning in 1967-1968. Just like Chrysler made strategic mistakes because of the inter-divisional conflicts over which cars each division would offer, to the point that all divisions offered the same cars in the lower and middle price ranges, so too did General Motors succumb to the divisional marketing managers and dealers, so that except for Cadillac, and the Corvair / Corvette / Camaro-Firebird / Vega-Astre, each division had their own version of the very same cars, differentiated by only by price and outer sheet metal, but mostly assembled in the same assembly plants, as per Frederick G. Donner’s dream ! So much for Alfred P. Sloan’s hierarchy of branding and price from Chevrolet to Cadillac. Maybe by 1973, it no longer mattered, but I do know of several people in the 1970s, followed the Sloan hierarchy until each owned Cadillacs.
I believe it was a writer for Road & Track who, in the 1960s, said that because GM was so big, if it were to be run poorly, it would take the public 30 years to notice. This turned out to be accurate.
You raise an excellent point there about the overhang. Of course it could have been reduced, but you’d have had a battle royal on your hands fighting Bill Mitchell! For some reason I’ve never understood, he seems to have favoured big merely for the sake of being big. It just doesn’t make sense. Especially with the figures Steve gives us about interior space actually decreasing. That is inexcusable.
Taking the Cutlass as an example, there’s no reason for the grille to stick out what, four or five inches beyond the headlights? It’s never looked right to me. We can save a few inches there. Not a completely flat front, but more subtle – having the grill bulge outward an inch would be quite enough. A look under the hood would show there’s no reason we couldn’t slice out another four-five inches. The fender top line could be redrawn a few inches lower to maintain that sweeping curve down to the lights.
Going around to the rear, much the same thing could be done. The interior package would be the same, but at least the driver wouldn’t be carrying around so much unnecessary bulk.
Olds positioned the Cutlass Supreme as an alternative to the Chevrolet B body coupe. Same price point. Same luxury
Equal or better prestige. Relative to the number of Impala and Caprice coupes sold prior to the ’73 oil embargo, one might conclude that this was a combination of a good strategy and good timing. Buyers of 2 door cars were never much concerned with space efficiency anyway. The back seat was for kids, and only occasionally adults.
Your data analysis is interesting as always, but the ’78-’79 numbers for Buick and Olds are skewed by the unpopularity of the aerodeck fastback styling of their A body sedans, which pushed many loyal consumers into the A special coupes instead.
It’s not the Supreme but Bud Lindemann who hosted the tv show “Car & Track” did a road test of a 1973 Oldsmobile worth to check.