Tsandoval33

Hey guy I am just curious about what you guys think the trend is going to be on G-body cars? I know that I have one of the most common ones a supreme brougham coupe.
I am tired of being told to chop mine up and make it into a low rider. I know I live in the southwest but there has to be people who see the classic style value.
Personally I don't really care what people tell me I love driving my olds and it is the most dependable car I've ever had.
I am excited to see your opinions.

redoldsman

I think they are very nice cars but doubt they will ever bring big bucks. Don't worry about what other people think and enjoy your car. You might want to put a nice set of wheels and tires (not 26") and some nice dual exhaust on it if you haven't. We would like to see some pictures of your car.

Allan R

I owned a 78 Calais and it was a fun car. That body style really only lasted 3 years though. The 81-87 versions remained relatively the same till the last RWD Cutlass Supreme Brougham rolled off the line as an early 88 offering. IMO the 87/88 RWD's were the epitome of evolution on that body style. The only thing that really hurts these cars is the efforts of GM to follow pollution control and emission standards by limiting engine size/hp and torque.

The cars that tend to bring higher dollar values are offerings such as the 79, 83/84 HO's, and some of the 442s. Otherwise? There were so many of these body styles built they will take a long time to fall into the niche market of collectible. They will never be truly muscle cars and that's one of the driving forces behind the earlier models Olds put forward. Anyway, that's my 2¢ worth.

rustyroger

GBodyforum.com is a good place to discuss all things concerning G Bodies, not as busy as this forum, but very active, with a wealth of knowledge and help available.
They are among the last Body on Frame rwd with V8 (mostly) cars made. And they sold very well over their production span.
Like most things, they won't command high prices until there aren't many left.


Roger.

1970cs

I believe Allan hit the nail on the head! I have had "87" 442 nice car with all the options but a limited slip diff. I was mainly focused on these when looking for my first "collector car" after seeing rust rockets (no pun intended) at $4-5 k I found my 70 hard top supreme for just a bit more.

Yes, it did some rust in the typical areas but I thought that A bodies were worth the money invested. Put it this way the G body was gone in three years and the 70 is still here after 17 years!

I started driving around 1986 and as Allan stated we had low poined engines then! A standard V8 was around 140 and the performance units 170-180 with carbs. More with fuel injection. (corvette/iroc z)

They are still collectible in my mind but the standard or everyday rigs won't command the big money! It seems that the Hurst have moved up in value for a clean ultra low mile car around the high teens.

Pat

rocketraider

That, my friend, is why I don't foresee values on these cars going up. That gangsta (G-body for gangsta, and yes, I've heard thugs say that's why GM made the G-body) association turns a lot of car guys off bad. Add in these cars have always been near the top of the most stolen cars list (because of that association) and most people tend to have low interest in them if not outrightly dismissing them.

And that's a shame, because they were some of the nicest cars GM and Oldsmobile ever built.

cutlassjim

What is awesome is 30 years later, these things are still around as used cars. One of the first cars Olds built that the body outlasted the engine. I know a guy who has a under 100 mile 83HO that he bought new and thought he would sell around retirement. He paid around 16k for it and I doubt if its worth much more than that now.

Tsandoval33

Thanks guys I added an album with some pics. I have dual exhaust and rallye wheels but I need to paint them.

BlueCalais79

The ones that would get any kind of money as mentioned above indeed would be the 79, 83, 84 Hurst Olds, and the 85-86-87-442's. I've had my 79 Calais since 1984 and it's priceless to me, no one else. Not even my wife. The 79 HO would get you 170 hp or so, but my Calais came with the wheezer, the Olds 260 that cranked out 105 hp out of the factory. The frames in the 78-80 cars can't take a high HP motor too well anyway, and I always cringe when I see an older 455 stuffed in one of them. I think of pretzels when I see 'em

Tsandoval33

What would be the best way to go engine wise? I like my 305 but it's probably putting out 150-165 hp.

CRUZN 66

I presently have four G-Body vehicles... Started out with a big dislike in 81 when they first came out.... Purchased a recovered theft 85 with 11K miles and have been hooked ever since... Rebuilt the vehicle with a big block after discarding the low mileage V6 and have enjoyed it ever since... Been to many National events and have done quite well in the judging as a Modified Class Participant.... so well that the vehicle is now in Senior Preservation Class... However, I do have to admit, as other have stated, it is not in the muscle car realm like others such as my tripower 66 442 is... but I will also have to say it is not that far off either..... Enjoy your ride and make it what YOU want it to be.....

sammy

I have a 1985 442 and to me it represents the tail end of an era that I thought were cool cars. The gangsta image I just heard about the other day...so I went out and bought some gold neck chain.
I drooled over the 84HO and the 85 442 when I was in my early 20's....their time is coming........no, they were not muscle cars but they sure looked cool and darn nice to drive...and very marketable to the up and coming drivers / collectors....IMO

oldcutlass

Muscle cars can either be bought as one from the factory or created. I've seen many a gbody grocery getter transformed into a beast. They have a lot of potential as a fun car.

Napoleon Solo

I already desire them - wish I still had my '84 cutlass salon. Loved that car. Still want another one.

Hurst/Olds 73/74

I was in high school when the 1983 Hurst/Olds came out and graduated when the 1987 442 were ending their run. I disagree with those who say they are not muscle cars. They were hot for their time. Remember, things were very dismal in the late '70s and early '80s. When the Hurst/Olds, 442, Monte Carlo SS, and Grand Nationals came out, they were a breath of fresh air in a boring market filled with Chevettes, Cavaliers, and 2.2L turbo front wheel drive Mopars. Finally, the rear wheel drive, 2 door, V8 muscle car had been reborn! No, the G body is not as fast as the new Camaro/Mustang/Challengers, but they were great performance cars for their day. Don't let today's cars take that away from them. They were muscle cars for their day.
This summer, I bought my first G-body from this very forum, a 1985 442. It's not as fast as my 2010 Hemi Challenger, but it is still a blast to drive (I drive my 442 more than the Challenger, BTW). I get a lot of looks and positive comments from people wherever I go. The G-bodies were the most popular cars in the country when they were new. Now they are 30 years old and are few and far between in the rustbelt. Where I live, they are already appreciated. Those still on the road are often clapped-out, primered hot rods, or low-milage, $15K-$20K show cars. The G-body will have it's day in the limelight, just like the '73-'77 Cutlass/442/Hurst-Olds. It's all about nostalgia, about getting the car you wanted when you were younger. Not everyone set their sights on a 1970 442 W-30 convertible when they were a kid.

sammy

X2^^^^ well said...I have been trying to get my head around the G body future in the hobby for a while...

Tsandoval33

Well thanks guys down here in rust free Colorado everyone kinda hates on G-bodies. I love mine and will continue to fix her up however I can!

Hurst/Olds 73/74

Move to Ohio...and bring your G-Body with you!

TK-65

The GN and Turbo Regals were definitely muscle cars. The Monte SS and Olds 442 were not. They had good looks but noting to back that up horsepower wise. Lets not make them out to be more than they were. 5.0 Mustangs and GNs ruled the streets back then. Monte Carlos and 442s were a non factor.

Hurst/Olds 73/74

I agree that the 5.0 Mustangs, '86-'87 intercooled GNs, Turbo 6 Pace Car Firebirds, and (maybe) the 350-powered Camaros were running in the 14s back in the 80s, but I still don't think the Monte SS, 442, Hurst/Olds, and non-intercooled Grand Nationals should be dismissed because they weren't at the top of the pile. Like I said, this was the 1980s and these were considered musclecars when they were new. Are W-31 Cutlasses, 383 Road Runners and 396 Chevelles not musclecars just because they couldn't keep up with W-30s, LS-6s, and HEMIs? When the '83 Hurst/Olds came out, the Mustang GT was only putting out 175 hp and the Camaro Z-28 was at 145 hp, with an optional 165 hp. The '83-'84 Hurst/Olds, '85 442, and the Monte SS were at 180 hp.

Here's a magazine cover from back when the G-body "musclecars" were new. In that article, they road-tested all three 1985 cars. The Buick Grand National ran a 15.7 @87 mph. The Monte Carlo SS ran a 15.9 @ 86 mph. The 442 ran a 16.6 @ 83 mph. I'm not sure what was going on with that 442, but I remember them running 16.1 when they were new. Even the 5.0 Mustangs were running low 15's and weren't dropping into the mid 14's unless they had a clutch, K&N, off-road exhaust, and underdrive pulleys. At least that's what I witnessed with my friend's '88 5.0 Mustang when we used to race at Quaker City Dragway in Salem, OH back in the day. I was running a 383 Road Runner and we were within 1/100ths of each other all the time. It wasn't until he made all of those mods and it was a crisp fall evening that I dropped to a 14.5 and he dropped to a 14.4. In comparison, my other friend's 1987 intercooled Buick was running a 14.0.

brown7373

If, and when a lot of other people share your view, the price and the collector value will increase. As with any era of collector cars, they are typically the ones that the owners remember seeing, coveting and / or driving.


I am 64 years old. My interest is mostly in the 60s and early 70s cars because I owned or wanted some of them. The older (than me) guys typically are more into the 20s-40s cars. 60s-70s cars have some rare models, special high performance packages etc., and that shoots their value up, and in turn, increases the value of similar cars (like my 72 Supreme Convertible) somewhat. There are no real rare performance options on the cars you mention, so I think they will gain some collectability, but never attain the status of 60-70s cars. A 180 HP option instead of the 150 HP option (or whatever) is not enough to change that.

rocketraider

On perceived "lack of muscle" of the 307-powered cars:

Y-codes were rated anywhere from 130-140 HP while the 9-code boasted 180.

To put that in perspective, the 1949-50 Rocket 88 delivered a blistering for the time 135 horsepower, and it was considered the hottest thing on the road back then. A G-body is probably a little heavier than a 49 88 but not by much. Acceleration and 1/4 mile figures are comparable between them.

Having owned a 5-speed 305 HO TransAm, I can vouch that they weren't "all that" either, but you have to take them in context of their times.

I know that around here, people are wary of all the G-bodys because of: the gangster association, the possibility it's a theft job with a VIN change, and most have had suspension alterations that don't do the car any good. Even when car is sold and the donk stuff removed, the car has been subjected to a lot of stress and abuse.

Kinda like 60s Impalas were when the lowrider/hydraulics craze was everywhere. If you saw any evidence at all an Impala had had hydraulics, you needed to run like hell because that car was going to have frame damage and body stress.

Hurst/Olds 73/74

I agree with you that the G-bodies will probably never reach the status of the '60s and early '70s musclecars. There were some rare G-bodies, though. For example, the 1987 Buick GNX (547 built), the 1983 Hurst/Olds (3,000 built) and 1984 Hurst/Olds, the 1985 442 (3,000 built), the '87 Turbo T (WE4 Pkg) (1,547 built), the '82 Grand National (215 built), the '84 Grand National (2,000 built), the '85 Grand National (2,102 built), the '86 Monte SS Aerocoupe (200 built of 119,010 total Monte Carlo production), and the '86 Pontiac Grand Prix 2x2 (Aerocoupe) (1,225 made).

The problem with the G-bodies is that they fall after the the first musclecar era and are the lower performance beginnings of the second musclecar era that we are still in. They compare poorly compared to the hp figures of their older ancestors and the newer offerings from Detroit.

oldsmobiledave

You left out the 1979 HO & the 1980 442. Only GM A/G body cars to come with 350 cid engine from factory in 1979 & 1980 & both built in low numbers. I have had 1 HO & six 1980 442s. They are great driving cars but slow as hell. Too bad the 403 never went into the HO in 79, that would have been a nice ride.

Diego

People are starting to restore 1980s-era Monte Carlo SSs, and Bandit-era Trans Ams are already beyond affordable. If the Gen Xers haven't warmed up to your favorite Cutlass, chances are it won't happen anytime soon aside of some stick shift cars and a select few 4-4-2s and Hurst/Oldses.

Later in time, there could be some interest - check out the Pacer as an example, although it has an interesting design and history going for it, while your regular 1982 Cutlass is just another beater to the collector car world.

Hurst/Olds 73/74

I was trying to make an argument IN FAVOR of the G-Body. I left them out on purpose.

TK-65

Thats not a 79 H/O nor an 80 442.

TK-65

Muscle cars from the original era have a reputation for being fast. Even the low end cars could be made fast with minimal effort. And even if they were not "fast" that have the reputatoin of being so today. GNs and Turbo Buicks were faster than the muscle cars of old, and everyone knew it back when they were new. Monte SSs and 442s were not fast, even for the era. They were turds. And everyone knew it.

What I dont get is with the explosion of LS powered cars, why havent G bodies taken over? They are cheap and the LS fits in them very easily. Id love to have an 87 442 if it had an LS swap. Yes I said it.

oldcutlass

rustyroger

There are plenty of LS into G Body threads on GBodyforum, they run the same gauntlet for Olds Cutlasses and Buick Regals as anyone suggesting a non Olds engine swap on this forum.


Roger

Redog

So I guess my B Body stands for Yeah Boi!!!!!

IDK I think the value of the G Body is still high. They have a strong aftermarket as well as a strong ghetto following. You can buy preformance parts for the G Body with just a few clicks of the mouse instead of research. Plus a crappy G Body will go for the same price as a nice looking B Body.

That's why I like my Delta. Only 300 lbs heavier than a Cutlass (or the same weight as a Monte SS) and you have to research for parts for the car instead of going to Summit, clicking on Cutlass, and having a credit card.

Just MHO, but saving any old car is good in my book

Hurst/Olds 73/74

So the B-Body is the full-sized Olds?

rustyroger

The '77 on 88s were full size according to GM.
Certainly they had as much interior space as most of their predecessors, the 98s were a little longer but both were full size cars.


The H and C bodies that followed from '86 on were also called full size, but their interiors were noticeably more snug.


Roger.

76olds

How long will it take before 78-87 Cutlass become more desirable. I'n my opinion the 76-87's ( 442/Hurst/olds exempt of course ) will take forever likely never. Alot of guys like them but they will never have the muscle car status even if built to perfection. I own a 76 with more $$ in it than it would ever be worth on its best day. The wife and I love it no matter how desirable it becomes.

White_Knuckles

^ hey 76, what's the deal with your sub title "Hookers under Hood"? You may be running Hooker Headers or Canada has loosened up safety laws for under-hood passengers?

76olds

I think the safety laws are still tight... if you can fit em' in.... you can do em', I should update that seeing as I'm married now, I went with head man since I got married but we keep our belts on for safety.

88hurstolds

Well I would compare it to the guys who liked the 60's/70's cars and started restoring them in the 90's/00's.
The market is starting to rise on them, granted slowly, but I would say over the next 10 years the guys who were in high school in the 80's that start to get in their 50's would start desiring these cars more with their disposable income.
Come 2020 you should see a high demand for them IMO.

Longhorncutlass

Why such a close gangsta association with the G-body? I've seen lots of older 1960s, 1970s and 1980s GM cars tricked out gangsta style.


Personally, I like the classic coupe styling of the G-body Cutlass. Classic GM styling there. Hopefully as time goes by and quantity dwindles, the remaining ones will get more and more valuable!