The 1978-80 Aeroback cars from General Motors featured fresh and distinctive styling, but American car buyers instantly turned up their noses at the unusual look.
For 1978, General Motors dramatically downsized its intermediate A-body platform, cutting more than 600 lbs out of the mid-sized products (Chevrolet Malibu, Pontiac Le Mans, Olds Cutlass, Buick Century). The A-body’s traditional body-on-frame construction and front-engine, rear-wheel drive layout were retained, but everything else on the package was totally new, including the exterior sheet metal. At that moment the Bill Mitchell era at GM Styling (1958-77) was winding down, and some choices were made that didn’t work out.
The Chevrolet and Pontiac A-body vehicles featured traditional three-box sillhouettes, but the Buick Century and Olds Cutlass Salon versions, curiously, were treated to a radical slope at the rear of the greenhouse. The overall look was vaguely reminiscent of the streamlined GM fastbacks of the ’40s (see our feature on the GM fastback fad here) but probably drew its inspiration more from the Japanese and German hatchbacks then invading the North American market. Offered in both two-door and four-door body styles, the new theme was given the GM label Aeroback, though at Oldsmobile the term Slantback was also used.
While the Aeroback resembled a hatchback, it offered none of a hatchback’s usefulness. The rear glass was fixed in place and the trunk opening was small and narrow. The giant rear side windows were stationary as well, generating claustrophobia for the rear seat passengers. Reliable sources at GM say the bodies were indeed designed as hatchbacks, but the function itself was eliminated as a cost-saving measure, leaving only an odd-looking sedan.
Buyers were repulsed by the peculiar styling, which wasn’t terribly suited to an intermediate-sized platform, we can safely say in hindsight. Sales plummeted by more than 50 percent for both the Buick and Olds versions: For instance, Buick Century’s volume fell from more than 134,000 cars in 1977 to barely 54,000 in 1978, a stupendous decline. What great styling can really do for a car’s sales has been open for debate through the years, but it’s pretty clear what bad styling can do.
GM did offer performance-themed versions of the Aerobacks: the Buick Century Turbo and the Oldsmobile Cutlass 442. They drew considerable interest from the automotive press at the time and could be considered minor cult favorites today. But in general, the Aeroback theme was one of the more notable flops in GM styling history. For 1980, traditional three-box versions of the Century and Cutlass were rushed into production, and for 1981 the Aerobacks were gone.
I think if these had been made into true hatchbacks they would have been much more popular. Hatchbacks were all the rage in import vehicles at that time and some domestics too like the Omni/Horizon.
I remember these, they were ugly as all get out…
Ugly for sure. Like a mud fence. Only one uglier was the Aztek.
They’re just awkward.
The wagons were the same handy size and looked great. For someone who actually wanted carrying capacity, the wagons were the way to go.
Not only were these cars BUTT UGLEY but after a while the car would rust away underneath you.
What I’ve always found odd is that when the FWD X-bodies were introduced – seven months after the downsized A-bodies – GM distributed the four-door bodies in the opposite manner: Chevrolet and Pontiac four-doors were fastbacks (actually hatchbacks), while Oldsmobile and Buick four-doors were notchbacks.
It was an odd decision with the A-bodies, since a fastback is perceived as sportier, and would seem to be better suited for Chevrolet and Pontiac. Makes me wonder if we’d be having this conversation if they’d revered the decision with respect to the various divisions.
For that matter the Chevy and Buick “faces” could’ve swapped places easily, the Buick one was rationalized and would’ve worked for a mass-market value brand while the Chevy was more “important” looking.
Even though not pretty, still better looking than any Lexota ever
Non-hatch fastbacks were enjoying a bit of a fad among Euro semi-premium makes in the ’70s – there were Lancias Beta and Gamma (the former was sold in the US), the British Leyland Princess, and lastly the Audi 80 (4000) Coupe and its’ famous ur-Quattro variant.
Lancia chose not to do a hatch because they felt it would cause undue discomfort for rear passengers while loading, BL to protect their Maxi model which did have a hatch. I’m not sure
But coming from Detroit the most prominent example before these was the Ford Pinto, and with it (and the firstgen Honda Civic which was more of a straight 2-box than a fastback) the trunked model was the cheapskate version, a hatch was offered but cost extra.
I wonder if the 134,000 and 56,000 unit counts for the Century included wagons, and whether they held steady in numbers and took a proportionally bigger piece of the pie making the Aeroback even more of a flop.
Ah the Buttless Cutlass LOL
the door length on that white Buick Century appears to be 6′ long
>> Grand Prix hardtops at the time (1963-68) featured a convex rear glass with a distinctive, scooped-out contour
Concave, not convex.
Thanks! Amazing how these errors sneak their way past.
Even Caddie got in on the slope backs with the Seville. Ugly for everyone! Probably one of GM’s biggest mistakes of the 70’s.
Mike Miller ran the Olds Cutlass version on his ASA/ARTGO stock car in 1978.
http://www.midwestracingarchives.com/2019/08/1978-miller-wins-wayne-carter-classic.html
I’m 90 to 95% American car at any given time. I was born in Detroit in 1955 so I can say I’m lucky enough to have lived through our automotive Golden Age. I’m a Ford man first and foremost, then Chrysler, with only a very few GM cars to ever make my top 10 greatest of all time list, the 66 through 69 Rivieras would be one of them. I also liked the 1965 Impalas but with over a million sold it seems everyone did. We all know the Pontiac Aztec wins first place for the ugliest vehicle of all time, but that said the “Fastback Flops” come in second or third, because that 77 or 78 Buick Regal was just hideous. What were they thinking? I think the 59 full size Buicks were also pretty ugly and always have but I’ve read recently that they are pretty high regarded in most Gearhead circles, a lot of guys really like them and today they are quite collectable. I could go on, and on but I’ll pace myself for now.