The '92 Olds 88 Royale Wasn't Made For "Car and Driver Editors"

"Blake Noble" (no-bull) 01/26/2014 at 22:19 • Filed to: None

11

97

There was a time in America when — on every street corner, in every driveway, and outside of every storefront — you would need both of your hands and feet, a pen and paper, and an abacus to count all of the Oldsmobiles you'd see in a given day. Your father owned one and your best friend's mother owned another. While today we revere the standard Olds Cutlass as an All-American Classic, previous generations of car enthusiasts growing up in the 1970s and 1980s probably reviled them in the same way we turn up our noses at the Toyota Camry today. An Oldsmobile was what every Grandpa Dick, Daddy Tom, and Momma Sally wanted and owned; they were the default choice for middle-of-the-road middle class Americans wanting comfortable point-to-point transportation.

However, during the late 1980s, trends began shifting. American automakers were firmly displaying a half-hearted unwillingness to commit to quality and reliability, and buyers were willing to give up some usable performance and actual styling just to get to work in the morning without a carburetor failing or some large piece of interior trim falling off. It's for this reason Toyota stands today in the space that Oldsmobile once occupied.

Incidentally, it was during this time Oldsmobile had finally begun its quick unraveling and the elderly brand began to show the first symptoms of dementia. In the early '80s, Oldsmobile was asking Americans if they could build yet another Cutlass or Toronado for them, with the answer being a resounding "yes." By 1985 sales soared to over one million cars per year. Just three short years later in 1988, with the introduction of the dreadful GM10-based Cutlass Supreme, Oldsmobile had begun telling blossoming Generation Xers that they didn't know what in the hell their father was driving, but it sure wasn't anything with their trademark rocket badge slapped in the middle of the grille.

We all know it only got worse from there. But this promo for the 1992 Olds 88 Royale LS clearly shows how bad it had gotten at Olds before the sun finally began to set.

If you popped this into your VHS player back in the day, you were probably under the impression it was something from parent company General Motors' public relations department. You probably thought that after you pressed play, you would immediately be made acquainted with some serene voiceover artist hired by GM. From there, Mr. Voiceover would dish out all of the highlights and specifications of the '92 88 Royale with absolute sterility as five minutes of rolling footage played on your television screen. But you would soon learn that you were wrong.

You're first treated to the standard introduction of so many other automotive promo films of the early '90s — the cheese ball synthesized "music" being played behind some footage of the car you were inquiring about driving down some anonymous canyon road is there. About thirty seconds in, you meet Mr. Voiceover in person for a change and he's going to be your host today. He gushes about the new Olds 88 as you'd expect a paid actor to do. Soon, though, he states that this new 88 "wasn't aimed directly at the hearts of people like Car and Driver editors" and that's where things begin to take a turn for the strange.

Mr. Voiceover, instead of making you feel warm and fuzzy about your potential new four-wheeled buddy, starts to review the car. He states that the seating treatment was something "we liked." Wait, who's we? General Motors? Well, I would hope you guys would like your own seats (even though everyone else usually hated them for years).

From there, doing his best John Davis impression, he goes over specs and gushes over the 3800 Series V6. We're back to normal ... right? Nope. We move on to the interior and he bashes the number of "small buttons" on the dash. Huh? I thought this was a promotional video, not five minutes of quiet self-loathing produced by someone drunk on Motorweek re-runs and hosted by some dime store Baldwin Brother wannabe. You owe me five minutes of my life back now, GM.

It's fairly hard to write more than three paragraphs glossing over old sales training videos and promotional films, but this trainwreck is just in a league of its own. If you ever needed a painful reminder of why one of America's oldest car brands went to the Big Junkyard in The Sky and what was wrong with GM in the early '90s in one stop, this is probably it.

JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 > Blake Noble 01/26/2014 at 22:23

3

Whoa, 8.8 seconds on the 88. This ad sounds like a justification that they even produced the car. Still a decent old person barge, all the same. Thanks for sharing.

lone_liberal > Blake Noble 01/26/2014 at 22:25

7

It's not a great car, but even those of us who grew up in the malaise can't really hate the Cutlass of the era.

dogisbadob > Blake Noble 01/26/2014 at 22:26

4

By the time the Aurora and Intrigue came out, it was too late.

KamikazePigeon > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 01/26/2014 at 22:26

1

This kind of blew my mind as well.

deekster_caddy > Blake Noble 01/26/2014 at 22:29

1

This really doesn't sound like it's from GM. If that was their intent, they did it well. If not, then this whole thing IS strange.

The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123 > Blake Noble 01/26/2014 at 22:30

1

I've always liked Oldsmobiles. I wish they would have stepped up Oldsmobile the way they did Buick. But oh well. A friend of mine had a 97(?) Oldsmobile LSS with the supercharged 3.8. It was pretty quick for a car that big. Shame the car limited you to 110, it would have kept going. Probably not very safely though.

PyramidHat > Blake Noble 01/26/2014 at 22:31

1

2:09 - the leather seats were "right down our alley." No, they were right up your alley. That's the phrase. No wonder why Olds is no longer around.

Nick Has an Exocet > Blake Noble 01/26/2014 at 22:32

4

If I get it with all the options, does that make it a Royale With Cheese?

Dunnik > Blake Noble 01/26/2014 at 22:32

4

However, I did spot, while looking for beaters for a friend, an Olds 88 LSS. Comes with everything the LS has but it has a supercharged 3800 SII.

As Olds is extinct there's a certain cache now to owning one, perhaps, and that car offers a pretty good base upon which to add a bit more muscle and control. Make an awesome sleeper. "Oh," they'd say, "some old dude in an OldsmoWTF?!?"

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Blake Noble 01/26/2014 at 22:36

2

It's weird having had such insight into the world of GM since such a young age thanks to my mom being at the tech center. Some of my most vivid memories are, oddly enough, some "the public can never know" prototypes and models and sketches deep in the halls of the tech center. Oldsmobile could've been saved. The aurora and some related concepts and bodies to put on the corporate platforms could've given oldsmobile an identity not too dissimilar to what cadillac is today. Modern artistic elements and driver-focused tuning. Cadillac would've stayed at where it was plus maybe some more expensive models to move upmarket a bit more. I don't remember too much about buick because I remember there being quite a few ideas for saturn back in the late 90s. I *think* the idea was to have saturn have some more upmarket compact and mid sized cars and then let oldsmobile take on lexus/Acura/infiniti and whatnot.

But none of what I just talked about happened and GM went bust in the late 2000s. A ton of good designs and ideas were lost to history and to some random 9 year old wandering the halls of the tech center. My favorite is a pre-conept version of the saturn sky. Not the one they sold, not the one they showed off on the auto show circuit (and pictured below) but a different one. The side character line wasn't there and it had larger headlights. I want to say they looked like those on the buicks at the time but I'm not sure if they were, they might also have been prototypes for the L-series refresh. The car was white and it had almost like an inverted trapezoidal like grill (longer side was on top) And I think it used existing saturn wheel designs. Oh and the back seats had headrests (it was a 4-seater convertible) and it had a slightly longer trunk to let you haul groceries while the roof was down. Judging by the success the G6 convertible enjoyed, I can imagine it could've been a real highlight for saturn dealers and been a great product if GM stuck to it. But of course, the other brands complained that THEY didn't have a 4-seat mid-sized convertible so why should saturn get it? Because, you know, none of the GM brands were big enough to have engineers who could do that sort of thing.

thebullfrog > Blake Noble 01/26/2014 at 22:39

0

I honestly can't remember the last time I saw one of these things still functioning. A decade ago maybe?

Darwin Brandis > Blake Noble 01/26/2014 at 22:46

1

My God. $8000 more the the sportier version. They must have sold tens of them.

MisterKim > Blake Noble 01/26/2014 at 22:49

1

Top Gear has come a long way.

Blake Noble > thebullfrog 01/26/2014 at 23:01

3

I actually see them around my neck of the woods occasionally, usually in tired and abused condition piloted by one of my generational peers between liquor stores and second-hand clothing shops.

They're actually more durable than you'd think, and it's really down to that 3800 V6. They had their minor issues, but they tend to rack up 200,000 miles easy.

Kruezerman > Blake Noble 01/26/2014 at 23:19

0

My daddy had a silver Cutlass Supreme sedan. We loved that thing. It had black interior, which in Texas was a disaster waiting to happen! But the best part was the speedometer and the like, which was digital! I thought that was so fucking cool, especially when the car turned over and the meters showed "199" in the speedo itself. I truly believed that car could do two hundred miles an hour.

thebullfrog > Blake Noble 01/26/2014 at 23:38

3

That's just it: I love the 3800. Its a durable beast. But these cars just don't exist any more by me, although that could be road salt more than mechanical failure. To be fair I don't remember them ever being very common around me, so there weren't all that many to begin with. Of course now I'll probably see like 7 of the things tomorrow.

RyanFrew > Blake Noble 01/26/2014 at 23:43

2

Hmmm. Based on the stats listed on the stat frame alone, can anyone name a modern car with similar numbers?

Price: $21,950
Engine: V6
Horsepower: 170
0-60: 8.8 Seconds
18-28 mpg

Icarus8 > Blake Noble 01/26/2014 at 23:45

1

Dare I defend the 1992 Oldsmobile Delta 88? My father bought a white one new to replace his 1984 Delta 88 Royale Brougham (yeah, pimp huh?). I eventually bought it from him, at 100,000 miles, and it needed a rebuilt transmission. Other than that, it was a mechanically sound and very reliable car until I sold it at about 170,000 mi. I always thought it had a great ride and, never mind the dismal 0-60 time, it accelerated well at highway speeds and achieved 27 mpg at a 75 mph cruise. The car was roomy, the trunk huge, and overall, it was solidly built. I won't defend the interior, however, because other than roominess, it didn't stand out. Fit & finish and material quality were mediocre and the seats were just OK. As for design... yeah, it's completely forgettable. But if Oldsmobile produced bad cars near the end of its life, this wasn't one of them. It was a comfortable, dependable, boring big car for cruising the open American roads.

Pockets > MisterKim 01/26/2014 at 23:49

1

That's clearly not Top Gear, he never sits on the car or puts his foot on the bumper.

(also, at 4:38 I thought it was going to burst into the Baywatch theme, but no.)

Blake Noble > RyanFrew 01/27/2014 at 00:14

2

Oh, wow. Now here's a real riddle. Let's see ...

Yeah, I've got nothing really. I can't think of any V6 engine that produces a horsepower rating that low these days. The 3800 V6 was a tank, but it was totally underwhelming when it came to power output.

I think the 2007 Saturn Aura might be the closest you'll come, but it's a smaller car and slightly faster.

Base price: $20,595

Base engine: 3.5L V6

Horsepower: 224

0-60: 7.9 Seconds

MPG: 20 City/30 Highway

Vincent Davidson > Blake Noble 01/27/2014 at 00:19

2

After high school, I scooped up a friend's '83 Cutlass Supreme that he had swapped in a mid 70s 350 Rocket.

Rode like a cloud. Accellerated like a, well, Rocket. Handled like a wet condom though...and I miss it dearly.

I wouldn't mind DDing an old 88 like this or even like an LSS. Find one of them stereotypical 'grandpa's survivor' with 30-40k or some shit...

moldsmobile > Blake Noble 01/27/2014 at 00:23

3

Is anyone interested in my olds 88 lss?! its a boosted 3800 l67 that does 0-60 in the mid to low 5 range if it has good set of tires and does high 13's low 14's in the quarter

MUCH SLEEPER

Got the car for 3k with 600$ worth of bolt on's on it.

moldsmobile > The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123 01/27/2014 at 00:25

0

scroll and look at my video and need wonder no more ( also had the limiter tuned out)

Blake Noble > The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123 01/27/2014 at 00:30

1

A '72 Cutlass Supreme has been in my family since 2008, when I was a senior in high school. Oldsmobile is one of my favorite brands, but I think Oldsmobile's drastic year after year sales loss made GM hesitant to put any real effort into fixing the brand. That was down to standard GM ignorance, really. GM didn't understand that only they understood the whole "Not Your Father's Oldsmobile" advertising fiasco. They didn't make a real effort to really see why their breadwinning brand was being squeezed out of the marketplace.

True, Olds did build the Aurora, Intrigue, and Alero and they were all three probably the best cars GM was managing to mint during the 1990s. But by introducing new and unfamiliar names instead of using established ones like Toronado, Cutlass (forget about that Malibu-based blob), and Calais or Ciera, changing the logo, and doing a poor job to advertise the brand, they were pretty much swept under the rug.

Blake Noble > Vincent Davidson 01/27/2014 at 00:35

1

Dude, if you're in the Bluegrass State, I've found the car for you .

The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123 > Blake Noble 01/27/2014 at 00:44

0

72 Supreme ay ?

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

They introduced a lot of new models under Buick and they seem to be doing OK. Same for Cadillac, plus their logo changed a bit too. They introduced new models under Pontiac and they died. I think there's more to it than new names.

Barry Land > Blake Noble 01/27/2014 at 00:45

0

I don't think this came from GM at all, I think there was a syndicated show where cars were reviewed on for a short time, like a year or two. I pretty much never forget a face, and I think the guy in this film was/is an anchorman of some kind. I'm almost positive I saw it once where they reviewed a Camaro or Trans Am.

KilgoreTrout53 > dogisbadob 01/27/2014 at 00:48

1

Those 3.8s are stout-hearted engines. Solid, not like the 3.6 self-destructing V6 of today. I had a '98 Intrigue; beautiful car. It and the Aurora were being sold alongside the sorry-ass (Chevy based) Cutlass and the Olds 88. The later / crappy Alero only hurt Olds more. GM was very confused.

I always felt that these two models were like big brothers to the Saturn line, which GM also proceeded to screw up.

Jimmy Joe Meeker > Blake Noble 01/27/2014 at 01:19

2

Oldsmobile was mortally wounded by GM corporate in the 1980s. It just took awhile for it to die.

Olds tried to stagger back to it's feet with the quad four only to get knocked down again.

Not in the mood for posting long stories right now, but look into all the corporate struggles of Oldsmobile to survive with an identity while GM corporate tried to turn it into badge engineering for the sake of cost cutting.

DayWooTang > The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123 01/27/2014 at 01:35

0

I think the name"Oldsmobile" itself had a hand in killing off the brand. Good luck reinventing that one for the new age.

Buran > Blake Noble 01/27/2014 at 01:58

1

I grew up with an '81 Cutlass Supreme in the family.

Diesel.

It blew up two engines and GM never installed stronger header bolts on it. Two bucks in parts would have saved them thousands of dollars in new engines.

Parents got rid of the thing and have never bought another American car since and are only now starting to come around to diesels — it took a lot of work for me to convince them that not all diesels were noisy, slow, shaky pieces of shit that would eat engines as soon as the warranty expired.

Even I still have trouble trusting GM now even though I know that cars now aren't what they were then. They spoiled their reputation that badly. And this coming from someone who loves VW's TDI engines and is very glad to see diesel returning to the US at long last.

John Static > Blake Noble 01/27/2014 at 02:19

1

I drove my mom's old '92 Eighty Eight Royale in college. White wall tires and wire spoke hubcaps.

I absolutely loved that car. Ignorable on the road (it is the only car I've never been pulled over in) and was actually not too bad on its feet with power, comfort and handling. It was also bulletproof.

Ironically, I lived with my very elderly grandparents when I owned that "old man" car. They, on the other hand, drove a brand new Olds Alero with a spolier. An odd role reversal.

OttoMaddox > Icarus8 01/27/2014 at 02:31

0

Road and Track's Peter Egan wrote a column about a winter beater car he bought-a late '80s Buick LeSabre with the 3800 engine. He grew to love that car due to the uncommonly good fuel economy and the fact that it had a stalwart reliability and no flaws that could be described as "character" in his other cars, usually old, worn-out British crocks. It gave him comfortable and reliable service and demanded nothing in return.

People on car-guy sites bash bland cars, but the vast majority of Americans just want a car that's reliable, roomy, economical, and won't make you feel fatigued at the end of a long drive, or leave you stranded with dirty hands smelling of too-rich exhaust.
These big front-drive GM sedans fit the bill, and were generally better than the cars that preceded them. Today they have some excellent choices from domestic and Asian manufacturers.

Still the Olds version was a little too bland, and the Pontiac Bonneville with it's aggressive body cladding (ribbed-for HER pleasure) just tried too hard. I kind of liked the supercharged Buick Park Avenue Ultra, which aped the Jaguar XJ6 and was probably more reliable. The Car and Driver editors generally gave that one good marks at the time. The optional suspension and tire package (FE3 on the Olds) didn't turn it into a sports car, but gave it somewhat decent handling characteristics when compared to previous GM sedans.

Iagocassius > Blake Noble 01/27/2014 at 03:21

0

My God, I miss the 1966 Delta 88 my parents had when I was growing up. The car was a freaking boat, crazy room in the back seat, and was fun to be in. The radio didn't work, the heater blew Luke warm air, and iirc the speedo was all funky, but I loved that car. Hell, I'd be driving it today if my pops didn't run head on into a garbage truck. The olds was trashed, but he walked away unscathed.

Jones > Barry Land 01/27/2014 at 04:08

0

That was my impression, too. This was probably a Car and Driver production that they syndicated.

300hp30mpgrwdfor30k > Blake Noble 01/27/2014 at 05:15

3

I hate everything about 70's and 80's era Olds, Caddy's and Buicks. In the 80's you got the shit box you see above, in the 70's you had these dumpy barges with disgusting feeling cloth or vinyl seats that tore and poked you. They smelled weird, they felt weird and grimy and cheap (at least they did by the 80's/90's when I was stuck riding in them). They made you think whoever owned the car was gross and had something wrong with them, you felt dirty riding in it. The 80's were just generally terrible looking, while the 70's had baroque styling that is at least 10 years away from coming back and looking somewhat ironically cool and vintage.

Fuck these cars, may they all be crushed, they are a blight on any community they're still parked in.

zyodei > moldsmobile 01/27/2014 at 05:57

0

Not bad :)

zyodei > Blake Noble 01/27/2014 at 05:57

0

Now there's a car with mad sux appeal.

JayHova > Blake Noble 01/27/2014 at 06:23

0

The early 90s were an era of beige.

DipodomysDeserti > RyanFrew 01/27/2014 at 06:26

1

No, because modern V6s make a lot more power. There are a handful of four bangers making around that power that can be had for $22k or under.

PogosRevenge > 300hp30mpgrwdfor30k 01/27/2014 at 06:46

0

Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel. Get it all out.

blacksapphire08 > RyanFrew 01/27/2014 at 06:47

0

Sounds about right, i had a '87 Buick Lesabre with the 3.8L V6. Damn good car.

nvb928 > RyanFrew 01/27/2014 at 07:16

1

$21,950 in 1992 money is $35,000+ in 2014 money, so you really wouldn't struggle finding something better at all.

DipodomysDeserti > 300hp30mpgrwdfor30k 01/27/2014 at 07:27

0

Now tell us how you really feel.

Hooperdink > Blake Noble 01/27/2014 at 07:42

0

My wife's grandmother had one of these (she's a retired line worker for GM). She kept it around as her winter beater when she bought an Aurora (which she still drives BTW). We used to use the 88 when we'd fly in to visit. It wasn't as much fun as my college roommate's '69 Olds 98 with the 455, but it was pretty quick. The handling was pretty numb but it par for that time. Unfortunately my brother in law totaled it one night after a stop for some barley sodas...

We have an Olds in the driveway right now - my wife's 2002 Alero 4 cyl strippo model. The car has 160K miles on it and still runs well. It's a seriously boring car but it has been reliable and economical.

deekster_caddy > Blake Noble 01/27/2014 at 07:46

1

Never overwhelming in hp but it had nice low end torque and a broad torque curve. Plus they supercharged it in later years. The supercharged 3800 makes much better power and has a LOT of mod potential, but wasn't in a $21K car. (hmm, trying to find sticker price of the '97 GTP)

deekster_caddy > thebullfrog 01/27/2014 at 07:48

0

The 3800 is one of the best engines, if only GM had stayed away from plastic intake manifolds it would have been perfect. I had a '94 Regal with the same engine as this Olds, it's still running to my knowledge. I also had a '98 Riviera with the series II 3800 supercharged. Modded that with cam, newer blower, headers etc and it was PDQ and a total sleeper. My brother is driving it now, just turned 250K last week, still modded and running great!

thebullfrog > deekster_caddy 01/27/2014 at 07:51

0

I had a GTP with the 3.8 S/C. Intake, exhaust, pulley, tune. Loved it. What I didn't love was he number of halfshafts it broke lol.

deekster_caddy > thebullfrog 01/27/2014 at 07:53

0

Yeah, the transaxle and halfshafts weren't deserving of that motor! Definitely the weak link! But my Riv is still on it's OE axles. I think the bigger cars got tougher halfshafts.

mallthus > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 01/27/2014 at 07:56

0

The issues at GM were never about talent or ability. They were ALWAYS about vision and leadership.

As another child of a GM insider, I saw the same sorts of things you did (albeit earlier). The challenges were always around alignment.

I can think of no more telling example than the launch of the Colorado/Canyon. For a change, they let the engineers (vs the bean counters) make the call on the engine. "Let's do a 5 cylinder!" they said for reasons of space, size and efficiency. Then the marketing guys said "Hey, we're hearing bad feedback on the S-10 name, let's use a new one." Then the bean counters stepped in and said, you've got this much for the interior and you have to use this old transmission.

Net result, a brand new truck with no link to the past, a crap interior and an engine that, in marketing speak didn't sound as good as the (less powerful or efficient) V6s in comparable product from Toyota, Nissan and Ford. In other words, nothing a little planning couldn't have avoided.

rctothefuture > Blake Noble 01/27/2014 at 08:06

1

Underwhelming but damned reliable and torquey, after all it was as old as the people driving the damn car anyway!

V8Demon - Prefers Autos for drag racing. Fite me! > Blake Noble 01/27/2014 at 08:06

0

My very first car was a 1978 Oldsmobile Regency with the Olds 350. Couch. On. Wheels. Still wish I had it. Sadly, it spun a rod and it had become a burden economically. I was 17 at the time working low wage jobs. I sometimes hunt for the Cadillac version - the Coupe deVille to replace it. I'll gladly take the extra 75 cubic inches under the hood.

V8Demon - Prefers Autos for drag racing. Fite me! > Blake Noble 01/27/2014 at 08:06

0

My very first car was a 1978 Oldsmobile Regency with the Olds 350. Couch. On. Wheels. Still wish I had it. Sadly, it spun a rod and it had become a burden economically. I was 17 at the time working low wage jobs. I sometimes hunt for the Cadillac version - the Coupe deVille to replace it. I'll gladly take the extra 75 cubic inches under the hood.

juggaho > moldsmobile 01/27/2014 at 08:07

0

Haha that's awesome

JimSlade > Blake Noble 01/27/2014 at 08:12

0

We had this car. Then a 98 regency elite. Then several auroras.

Whhhyyyyyy??!!!

Melvin-the-mop-boy > Blake Noble 01/27/2014 at 08:48

0

I had a 1990 Olds Touring Sedan that was a fantastic automobile. Called it the "space ship" casue the dash had 4000 gauges. Had wheel mounted stereo controls and aut dimming rear view mirror and auto headlights (which caused me to kill batteries by leaving the lights on in all other cars for years). Had a nice trans mounted v6 that could really run.

But the best part of the car was the seats. Made by Lear they were thick softy blue leather with 27 way adjustment and lumbar support. The car was the best to drive to the beach in the summer with the always reliable sub zero gm ac. Loved that car.

Bought it in 1998 for 1,000.00 sold it 3 years later for the same price to a guy my wife worked with. He recently junked it with 280K on it and sold the seats for 750.00.

Jedidiah > Blake Noble 01/27/2014 at 09:02

0

How many Opponauts own 72 Supremes? I thought it was just me until I saw matp's review.

D-Dubya > RyanFrew 01/27/2014 at 09:09

1

Adjusted for inflation $21,950 is more like $36,500. Also the MPG converted to today's standards are 16/26 (19 mixed). I'd say pretty much any midsize sedan with a 4 cylinder can do those mileage numbers and be .5-1.0 second faster to 60mph. The bonus is that they'll do it for about $10 grand less (inflation adjusted), be much safer, more reliable, turn and stop much better, and have many more features. You're probably giving up some interior and trunk space, but not much.

For example a 2014 Mazda6 with the 2.5l four makes 189hp, will do 0-60 in 7.8 seconds (MT test) and is rated at 26/38 MPG. The Mazda is 8 inches shorter than the '88, but width and height are very close and it actually has a longer wheelbase. Sticker is $21,675 (also according to MT).

I do not miss the old days.

Jedidiah > Blake Noble 01/27/2014 at 09:09

0

It really is a shame that corporate arrogance and stupidity killed off one of the oldest car manufacturers in the world. The brand had such a great history—it deserved a more dignified death. Unfortunately, I can't think of a more appropriate time for it to die than when it did and that's sad.

Stradale > RyanFrew 01/27/2014 at 09:29

0

If you account for inflation, sure its pretty easy. Thats $36,446 in today's money.

Toyota Camry SE/XLE

Price: $33,500 Loaded.

Engine: V6

Horsepower: 268

0-60 : 5.8 seconds, 1/4 mile at 14.3

21/31

jamisparker > RyanFrew 01/27/2014 at 09:31

0

Not produced for the last few years, but the Kia Rondo with a V6 would have been pretty close to those numbers I think.

Lars Vargas was hoping 2020 would be quieter > Blake Noble 01/27/2014 at 09:47

0

Great write-up and a sad reminder of how awful GM cars could be. We had one of the later LSS(?) supercharged models in the company stable. It was quick-ish but had a terrible soft, wallowy suspension. The handling was awful, as well. I called the steering wheel the "suggestion wheel" and it was, until you stomped on the gas and torque steer ripped it out of your hands.

I drove it once. I much preferred the crisp handling of the Jeep Grand Cherokee of similar vinatage.

NipperDawg > thebullfrog 01/27/2014 at 10:07

0

Go to any church with a bunch of little old ladies, you will find them. They are starting to thin out but they are there. My mothers best friend (read little old church ladies) just got rid of hers as it just blew a head gasket and got a Hyundai . There are still two more running from other church ladies.

nikiaf27 > Blake Noble 01/27/2014 at 10:40

0

Don't forget that the Series II 3800 was brought up to 205hp and 230 ft.lbs torque. I have a '98 LeSabre with the series II and it definitely isn't fast, but it's very smooth and very quiet.

nikiaf27 > Blake Noble 01/27/2014 at 10:42

0

My grandfather had a 1969 Delta 88, which he kept until the early 90s. Not that it had a lot of milage, he had quite a few company cars during that time period, but the car kept going for quite a while. In the end the engine seized up and that's what killed it; but it never ceased to amaze me that a family sedan was offered with a 455 cubic inch V8.

thebullfrog > NipperDawg 01/27/2014 at 10:50

0

I never actually saw old people driving them after about the late 90's. What I saw were the "single teenage mom" types driving them when they were handed down from Grandma. You know, the type of people who do zero maintenance until the thing just dies from lack of oil or trans fluid.

Rob > RyanFrew 01/27/2014 at 10:58

0

Not saying it was inflation but yeah... inflation. It's a thing you have to account for.

RyanFrew > Rob 01/27/2014 at 11:21

0

Of course it was inflation. It was also engineering - V6s these days are putting out more power and better mpg. The challenge was just to see how close we could come as a game. For example, it occurred to me that a 2.0L Focus is a similar price, similar power, and similar 0-60. But way better gas mileage and a 4cyl.

MallardDuck > Blake Noble 01/27/2014 at 11:22

0

My dad bought one new in 92 and 4 years later it was given to my brother and I as our first car with 189k miles on it. It was massive inside, so I ended up driving my friends everywhere and it rode like a couch on wheels. The digital dash was was something from the future and the trip computer's 1000 buttons was unlike anything offered by anyone at that time (or since). I once tried to see how fast it would go, and when the dash finally hit triple digits I hit a small bump that sent the body into some type of resonance. We bounced uncontrollably down the road while I tried to slow the car. The brakes were some of the worst I'd ever felt, even at low speeds. One time a friend of mine jumped out in front of me as a joke. I slammed on the brakes as hard as I could and the reaction was underwhelming. Luckily he was smart enough (and agile!) to keep moving.

The car finally died when someone decided to drive on the wrong side of the double yellow line. That was my first and only experience with an airbag and it was a good one.

ohhellowder > 300hp30mpgrwdfor30k 01/27/2014 at 11:27

1

It's even more amazing when you compare them with their Mercedes/BMW competition. How anyone could choose a hump-backed hearse-looking Caddy over a W114/W123 (other than "because 'MURICA") is truly mind-bogglingly to me. There must've been something in the water in the 70's/80's. Only explanation I can think of.

dogisbadob > KilgoreTrout53 01/27/2014 at 11:28

0

How is the 3.5L Shortstar? They offered it from 99-on in the Intrigue.

BeetleCamry > RyanFrew 01/27/2014 at 11:38

0

Needs an Eaton M90!! lol

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > nikiaf27 01/27/2014 at 11:52

1

And with a supercharger, they got as much as 260HP out of it and with a single turbo (grand national) they got at least 300HP out of that engine.

nikiaf27 > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 01/27/2014 at 11:56

1

The 3800 they put in the Grand National was so powerful the car ended up being heavily underrated; apparently because it made the Corvette look bad.

Agbayanni > JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 01/27/2014 at 11:57

0

barge . Haha!

ezeolla > RyanFrew 01/27/2014 at 12:08

1

An avenger is around that price and mileage but 100 more HP

RyanFrew > ezeolla 01/27/2014 at 12:14

0

God that's embarrassing.

sounbwoy > RyanFrew 01/27/2014 at 12:17

0

If 1996 is modern, the Nissan Maxima would come close. Probably slightly more expensive (back then), 190 HP, mileage in the same ballpark. BUT you could get it with a 5speed manual

RyanFrew > ezeolla 01/27/2014 at 12:17

0

I think the Mitsubishi Galant might be the winner in my book. Sure, it's a 4-cyl, but everything else is virtually exactly the same.

ttopolds > lone_liberal 01/27/2014 at 12:17

1

I want one in black with black interior and T-tops. Preferably a Salon. :)

Rob > RyanFrew 01/27/2014 at 12:27

0

My Jeep liberty was a V6 and that thing had horrible MPG lol...

deekster_caddy > nikiaf27 01/27/2014 at 12:58

0

keep in mind that the GN and RWD turbo cars had the last of the old "3.8" or 231 CID V6s. The FWD 3800 is the start of a new generation of engine for GM. Although displacement was the same, it was the opportunity to redesign for metric mechanicals. The Series II and III 3800s is where they really put out better power, but the block couldn't handle the advances with VVT so it was again redesigned to become the 3.6 VVT engine.

tl;dr - the FWD 3800 is not the same as the GN's 3.8

deekster_caddy > Rob 01/27/2014 at 13:01

0

Just because it's a V6 doesn't automatically mean it has horrible MPG. 1998 Buick Park Ave. with the Series II 3800 could get 30 MPG hwy. It's a very efficient package when geared properly and in an aerodynamic body. I know many of them still in heavy use today.

Rob > deekster_caddy 01/27/2014 at 13:05

0

No I just meant that even though it's new it still sucks.

deekster_caddy > Rob 01/27/2014 at 13:06

1

Ah okay - because Jeep liberty!

nikiaf27 > deekster_caddy 01/27/2014 at 13:07

0

You're right. The FWD engines are more the spiritual successors but both are quite good in right. I would have loved to see a series 2 or 3 with a proper turbo on it; that would have put some serious power on the ground.

deekster_caddy > nikiaf27 01/27/2014 at 13:16

0

I have seen them, and they do. Unfortunately the FWD transaxles can't take it. Broken half shafts, input shafts, diffs, etc when you start making that much power. That can all be overcome, but it's a $3000 transmission build :(

nikiaf27 > deekster_caddy 01/27/2014 at 13:21

0

Sounds about right. From what I've read those units were built for just as much torque output as the engine could produce and nothing more. Even the heavy duty ones weren't significantly better.

phoghat > Blake Noble 01/27/2014 at 13:34

0

Your father owned one and your best friend's mother owned another.

I had two (2) 442s, one a W-30, a Rallye 350, and a Custom Cruiser, with a 455, at various points in my life, and I am neither my Father not mother of a friend

DancesWithRotors - Driving Insightfully > Blake Noble 01/27/2014 at 15:54

0

So, my Mazda3 is quicker, has a higher top speed, better seats, comparable power and better fuel economy... How far we've come in 22 years.

pieceofSchmitt > moldsmobile 01/27/2014 at 17:51

0

i think i prefer the buick ultra, but all i really want is a regal gs

moldsmobile > pieceofSchmitt 01/28/2014 at 01:16

0

love both of them! park avenues have my vote though

JasonStern911 > 300hp30mpgrwdfor30k 01/28/2014 at 02:14

0

What a shame your views are so close-minded. While the 80s were definitely the weakest time in the American automotive industry, to *hate* every GM product for two decades irrationally discards the few (and, I have to admit, they were few) exceptions.

Blake Noble > Barry Land 01/28/2014 at 02:20

0

Nope, it's official Old GM — uh — garbage? Yeah, that's what it is.

Want to know how I know? Easy enough. Check out this other Olds 88 promo I found on YouTube.

Watch the video until you hit the 32 second mark. See the footage of the interior? Okay, now go back to the video I featured and play it starting from 2 minutes and 9 seconds in.

Yeah, that's the same footage in both promos. The dashes are the exact same and the background you can see through the windshield is the same. What I don't understand is why the panning is reversed in the same shot from one video to the other, but whatever. It's hard to understand the "review" promo I found to begin with.

300hp30mpgrwdfor30k > JasonStern911 01/28/2014 at 04:24

0

I'm not hating all of them, just the shitty ones, which most were. Most were. Yeah this is a nice one, I just don't like that style on the whole. You put a lot of work into suspension, wheels, paint and definitely motor and you'll come up with a nice example of almost anything, and I'd love to see it run 10's at the 1/4 mile, but it's not for me, nor was I talking about diamond in the roughs like this one.

Barry Land > Blake Noble 01/30/2014 at 00:21

0

I guess it is, but it sure is odd that they let the remarks about the dash having too many buttons into the final edit. I don't think I've ever seen a dash with more buttons on it.

Barry Land > Jones 01/30/2014 at 00:24

0

I'm pretty positive that I saw a similar review with the same guy. I'm rarely wrong about that stuff, I'm kind of famous among friends and relatives for recognizing and knowing the names of almost any actor on TV or in movies, even the obscure ones. In that one on the Camaro/T/A, they complained about a few things too, like the "crude" dash, etc. They were very happy with the car's performance though.