I’ve been wanting to find a really nice Olds 98 of this vintage for some time. But then two of them suddenly appear at the CC Cohort, as if by magic, this moody shot by Laurence Jones, and the rest by Mike Butts. I guess it’s time to retire my camera.
And why have I been wanting to find one? Because I have an odd fascination with these cars. Odd, as in it’s pretty well known that GM cars of this general vintage have not played an important part of my life, although I’ve come to appreciate them more in recent years, thanks largely to you all. But for some reason, when this 98 came out in ’91, it reminded me of some of my favorite cars from my childhood, from 1961. Odd indeed.
Not so much any particular car, but just the general feeling that the airy and graceful 1961 GM cars evoked. I’d never thought about which model exactly, but if I had to finger one (or two) it would have to be the ’61 Buick Electra.
Or is it its actual namesake, the 1961 Olds Ninety Eight?
Perhaps some melding of both. What can I say? That’s what popped in my head the first time I laid eyes on on of these new ’91 98s.
A more pristine example would perhaps better convey my sentiments, especially so in white or black. Its airy and rectilinear greenhouse was surprising, given that it arrived in the vortex of the aero-era. And the strakes on the lower body evoke more than a bit the chrome still being applied in 1961.
I much prefer the egg-crate grille of the ’91; this one is a ’92 or ’93 or so. There’s just one problem a number of problems with these cars, one of the most obvious being that the exterior trim is junk.
I realize this is not a prime example, but good luck finding one. On everyone I’ve ever seen, trim is either falling off, or mismatched, or discolored with the thin fake chrome veneer peeling off the plastic base.
Actually, this one isn’t as bad as I thought at first glance, but they just don’t hold a candle to the 1961s, obviously. Good luck trying to restore one of these in thirty or forty years. But then would anyone want to?
If I remember correctly, even though these Olds shared so much with the Buick Park Avenue, the Buick generally scored much higher in quality assessments back then. Different plant, perhaps? Or was Buick just much more solidly on the quality bandwagon?
Too bad, because if there’s any GM sedan from these era I ever had any feelings for, fleeting as they were, it’s this one. Odd indeed. That explains it: because of its oddness, actually. It may have evoked a fleeting sense of the ’61s, but it certainly didn’t succeed.
Ah, that would be Buick “Park Avenue”……
We had a craptastic ’85, the first year of FWD….
Within the first month (from new), the transmission would suddenly slip into neutral while driving at moderate speeds. I remember the serial number ended in “500000”. Used to call that car “one in half a million”, if you get my gist…!!
I, too, was quite interested in these. With its cousins more aero-looking, this model was the squarest-off(?) of them all. Oddly fascinating design on these models – the greenhouse. Why the false vent window on the front door? That made for a pretty small piece of glass to roll down. These cars were still affected by GM’s “half-way” mentality of back glass rolling no more than halfway down for reasons never explained and apparently few people other than me kicked about it.
Aside from those odd features, I loved these cars, but the one I loved best was the Olds 88, which to me was the most attractive of all – perhaps because a friend had a beautiful two-toned green-over-silver with a saddle tan leather interior. Gorgeous.
On the Buick side, I liked the LeSabre much better than the Park Avenue.
IIRC, the false vent window in front was there because they tried to keep a true wraparound look from the windshield, and the because the curve was compound, they needed to create the split window so that the main side window could retract.
I don’t think I expressed this too clearly, but I hope you get the idea. Someone correct me if I’m wrong!
I think these were introduced a short while after the Park Avenue was. I remember thinking the Park was at least a major improvement over the sad ’85 B/C cars, but I didn’t know what to think of the 98. I certainly thought it was odd looking and quite a bit retro with the fender “skirt” look.
Makes perfect sense now that I think about it. You are correct, Sir!
My Love of Back Windows That go Down Had given me many sedan car choices to ponder. I never considered 4 Door cars until I was 50 Altho I often considered Cadillac Sedans Etc. Lincolns, just never bought asedan until the 2 intrepids
owned one and loved it, roomy, very comfortable, good on gas, drive anywhere in any weather. nicknamed the “gold snowdsmobile”
There is one down the street from me in the white of the first picture and with a blue leather interior. Trim actually looks ok but the paint is chipping on the trunk between the tail-lights. The car belongs to a lady who works at the local beauticians shop and that is where I see it parked everyday. I’ve told my fiance that after the wedding, once my savings get’s built back up a little, I’m gona stick a fair offer under her windsheild wipper and see if she bites on it.
That would be a rarer car than the Bonneville you tried to get a couple months ago. I’d really like a car with a blue, red or dark green interior.
The really cool one would be a Touring Sedan. Bucket seats, fender skirts and supercharged V6. Perfect.
Paint on all GM 90’s cars were pathetic. I had a 93 Deville I bought new. It was the white pimped out Spring edition with gold trim and dark blue carriage roof with leather to match. Why I bought a garish car like that, I don’t know. Still, it was sharp. The paint started to peel on top of the back fenders next to the tail lights when it was 5 or 6 years old. Fortunately, Cotillion white blends in nice with touch up spray.
In 2003, paint started coming off on both sides of the rocker panels. It looked like duct tape flapping in the breeze. The plastic underneath looked shiny and new looking. Again, a spray can job when necessary. I traded it in 2005 for a 2002 Deville. 7 years later, the 02 still looks like new.
Every so often I see another Deville like the one I had. Very little paint remains on the hood and trunk. I understand why people went Japanese or Euro.
GM struggled with that for about 10 years. Namesake in the avatar? Yup, but only on the lighter blue.
As I understand it they were using a new primer (often light grey) and plenty of colours didn’t bond to it.
They had an off-the-books warranty for it for a while but it wasn’t for long.
That was during a transition to water-base auto paint, if I recall. You saw the issue on all makes, especially white and blue. I think they have it right, now.
All about being environment-friendly, but if you were stuck with one, it stunk…
I bet you the owner of this bumper sticker clad example inherited this car from his grandpa. Not many people who would purchase one of these new would add such character to what is otherwise a very conservatively styled car.
I bet you’re right. It was in the parking lot of a city park set up for nine “holes” of Frisbee golf, very popular here.
http://www.ci.hillsboro.or.us/ParksRec/ParksnTrails/DiscGolf.aspx
Or just bought it as a cheap used car because these things were the kings of depreciation.
I remember not knowing quite what to make of these cars when they debuted. The Touring Sedan, with the alloy wheels, bigger tires and more subdued trim, was obviously aimed at the imported luxury sedans, but didn’t quite succeed.
The greenhouse, with the C-pillar that was offset from the top of the quarter panel, along with the half covered rear-wheel opening, gave these cars an awkward look from certain angles. The last photo makes the car look as though it has a huge trunk (perhaps Oldsmobile was trying to capture the overall look of the 1962 Pontiac Bonneville featured on the site a few weeks ago).
Interestingly, Oldsmobile used the same styling theme on the Achieva sedan, and it looked much better on the cheaper car. The cheaper Eighty-Eight, meanwhile, had the same front-end clip but a much more appealing trunk and greenhouse treatment.
This was when Oldsmobile really lost its way. The Ninety-Eight was losing it appeal to traditional buyers. Those people were gravitating to Buick or Cadillac, if they stayed with GM, or to the Mercury Grand Marquis or Lincoln Town Car, if they had been burned by a downsized GM front-wheel-drive full-size car.
The Ninety-Eight simply didn’t have the workmanship and quality of materials to appeal to those who were enamored of BMWs, Audis, Lexuses or Acuras, even in Touring Sedan trim.
The Aurora was a better effort, at first, but it was undone by serious reliability issues. As I recall, these final Ninety-Eights did have robust drivetrains with very smooth-shifting transmissions.
As I recall these things DID have a huge trunk. We rented one on a family trip to see the grandparents in LA in ’92. My dad and I flew separately from my mom and sisters (FF miles) and got in a few hours early. After renting a Bonneville, my dad decided the trunk might not be big enough to haul all of our luggage, plus my Aunt’s, who was meeting us as well. We went back to the car rental place before picking up the rest of the family, and switched it out for a Ninety-Eight. Everything fit, and I recall thinking it was the lap of luxury with the leather interior, especially when compared to my parents’ Chevys. I think there’s still a picture of me posing with it floating around somewhere.
I guess I’ve just been spoiled as a kid with my parents’ ’72 Olds 98 Regency. I never did see the appeal of these early 90s versions, nor can I get into them 20 years later. I don’t mean any disrespect towards those that love this vintage, because I’m sure there are those out there that do. Just not for me, that’s all.
I thought these were really classy when they came out in ’91. They were a huge improvement stylewise compared to the ’85-’90 Ninety-Eights.
I get the connection between the ’91 and ’61.
However I agree with Geeber that the 88 looked better in those days. I think these came to be reliable, well-built vehicles but I just remember there were many years where I’d think “no thanks, I’ll just hold onto what I’ve got another year.”
I guess that’s the result when you think of yourself as a bank that just happened to make cars…as was the attitude from the 14th floor of the RenCen in those days.
Really? Huh. I remember these when new, and thinking, “What were they thinking?” The high beltline looked odd among 90s cars, and actually ruined the early-60s effect too. The nose looked sort of narrow, and the plain, chubby sides looked tall.
Compare the c-pillar and squared-off wheel well on the silver one to the “clean look of action” black Buick directly above it. The old car had a distinct visual theme, nose to tail, so visually there was a “reason” to clip the top of the wheel. The only action on the side of the 98 is down below the wheel wells – cutting off the wheel just makes a static shape look even more so.
It could have been lightened with a “kick-up” in front of the rear wheel that would then flow back into the tail lights. You can see a little swelling line where someone sort-of thought about doing this, and then gave up/got overruled.
For some reason GM repeated this rear wheel treatment on the little Achievas and Skylarks. Why?
Edit: Just noticed Geeber hit the same points as I was working on this little rant – great minds think alike… 😉 Although I actually think the Achieva looked MORE awkward, its shortness emphasizing its top-heaviness.
LOL…thank you, 73ImpCapn! When the Achieva debuted, I remember thinking that it looked better than the Ninety-Eight. Of course, neither car is a beauty queen, which was the real problem for Oldsmobile.
They also suffered from something that was quite noticeable with GM cars in general, and Oldsmobiles in particular, at that time. Namely, during the introduction, GM would hype the special version (the Touring Sedan version of the Ninety-Eight, for example), which usually had the best-looking trim and nicer wheels and bigger tires. When that version failed to catch on, and the entire line didn’t sell all that well, the top-of-the-line version was either downplayed or discontinued, and cars with rental-grade equipment and features were soon flooding the market for people who shopped on price and not much else. GM gradually whittled away the interesting options, body styles and trim levels.
I think my tongue wasn’t planted in my cheek strongly enough when I wrote this. I meant that they somehow evoked the ’61s, but in a rather pathetic way, as if the Olds styling studio had run out of any genuine ideas ability.
IF, and that’s a big IF, it had been a more conscious attempt at an early-sixties retro look, than that might have been interesting, but I doubt that’s really what was in their heads. And it would have had to be taken much further.
The question in my mind was essentially: “what where they thinking?” Because whatever it was, it certainly wasn’t successful.
If I conveyed the idea that I actually liked the design of these cars, my apologies. The got me to look at it it, and let my imagination wander, but that’s about it.
I always saw them as the spawn of the 1965-68 Ninety Eights, and kind of really unintentional retromobiles. In an odd way I love them because of that: All of the styling virtues (well with far less chrome) without the pains of owning a 1965 Oldsmobile, which, really would be drum brakes and safety features, and atrocious gas mileage.
There’s still a healthy number of them around here unmolested and not on dubs, but I was thrilled to see one of the early (1991-93) Regency Elites at Whole Foods. There’s oddly more of the dual airbag’d 1994-96 ones, which probably did well enough with their Saturn like “Special Edition” packages to appeal to more financially conservative older buyers. You could save a few thousand compared to a Park Avenue on the “Special Edition” Ninety Eights (the same as the price gap between a “Special Edition” Cutlass Ciera, which either was $14,995 or $15,995 to the nearly $17,500 for a comparably equipped Century).
For comparison.
I’ll take a ’65 Ninety-Eight LS, please!
I would too if I had unlimited access to gasoline, a disc brake upgrade and some more modern shocks I would too.
Then again I haven’t ever attempted to park a 225inch long car…
I was a mean big brother and made my little sister learn how to parallel park a 63 Fleetwood. As big as the car was, visibility was surprisingly good and you could see all 4 corners. It just takes a little practice.
True. Not a car for everyday (today in 2012). Still want one although parking an occasional driver of this size would be a challenge.
I remember that, that was when Saturn and Oldsmobile were almost married. Olds was offering “no haggle” value priced special editions, 30 day exchange and roadside assist like Saturn, too many old line Olds dealers balked, and well, you know what happend.
From what I remember someone with some inside info telling me, they wanted to sell Saturns through Olds dealer(which explains the mini-Cutlass roofline on the SL)Oldsmobile would handle the midline cars like the Acheiva, Cutlass, Shillouette, Bravada and 88 and then there would have been Aurora which would have been a subrand within Saturn-Olds selling 2 high end sedans, the Aurora that came out in 95 was one of them.
Those skirted rear fenders probably help keep these vintage Ninety-Eights from being ‘dubbed’.
Have you ever driven one? These cars do not have a high beltline, they are the opposite, you can drive them with your arm practically hanging out the window, its refreshing compared to the gunslits of today.
Sorry – the Achieva of this vintage is dog-ass ugly. Concur with fellow posters that Olds could’ve done a better job, style-wise, with the rear wheel cutouts for a more “fluid” look. I knew many folks that had these 88/98’s and all were very pleased with the build quality and reliability, although some of those trim pieces did have the crappy mylar-type coating which would become whethered and would start to peel . . . .
However, there were some that were victims of some of those early ’90s electrical maladies . . .
@billy: Remember the SC variant of the coupe? It had the full wheel openings like the car really should have had. About the time I got the Sunfire GT, I passed on an Acheiva SCX with the HO Quad 4 and the 5 speed.
The body was in great shape, but the motor burned oil, IIRC. It was too much of a project car for me. But the interior looked pretty good for a then 10 year old car and had I known now what I know about the miniature Pontiac from Hell, I would have bought the Achieva. But the hi-po motor was hard to find, even back then.
Hey look what you get when you search “olds achieva scx w41” in Google images…
You found Richard Bennett when you searched that up?! WTF?!
Okay that’s really strange to say the least!
Must check this out…
The featured car looks like a later model, 1994-96, with the simpler taillights. The 91-92 had chrome strips to look like combs.
Also, many former big car owners switched to SUV’s and minivans in the 1990’s, and were not as loyal to bench seat big cars as some think.
The 91 reminds me of an ironing board. Flat enough to iron clothes on.
Friend of mine had one of these. I think this car sold a whole lot of Japanese vehicles. I know that she went to Lexus after the Olds. I was still living an upscale sort of life at the time and a lot of my friends were going japanese. A sign of the times. Just because you have money doesn’t mean you want to blow it on car repairs.
One point about these cars worthy of mention was the interior. They had one of the best quality leather interiors I have ever seen, including Jaguar. The leather itself was soft and think, kind of like a Natuzzi sofa. I haven never seen anything as good since.
The rest of the car is nothing to write home about. The electronic dash was a constant, and very expensive, headache. The strut mounts failed the second the warranty was up, like all FWD GM stuff of the era. The brakes were undersized for the car, again like all the GM stuff of the era.
Ws is correct. The GM dealer I worked for sold a lot of these but the quality was so poor that most buyers never bought a second one. They moved to the Lexus ES series.
These cars had a unique problem shared with first-gen Hyundai Sonatas. The straight lip of the rear wheel well tends to accumulate dirt and crap like a shelf, causing them to rust even in mild climes.
That rear wheel arch was copied for Holdens Calais and Statesman for 90 91 era
After reading the comments perhaps the perfect Oldsmobile from the era in question is an 88 LSS… (Although I would still take one of the ultra rare 98 Touring Sedans with the supercharged 3800…) Nah, maybe I should just pick up a 1992 – 1999 LeSabre and drop a supercharged 3800 in it, those punk kids in Civics will never see it coming!
A variation of one of my favorite sayings: LSS FTW!
The issue with these is that why they looked “good”, the Park Avenue, which came out at the same time, looked GREAT, plus right around 1991, Buick started offering the RWD Roadmaster sedan again, which kinda looks like a blown-up version of this 98 Regency interestingly enough, while Olds was only offering the Custom Cruiser. I’l bet there was a push to move the 98 back to a B-body for 1991 which can explain some of the styling quirks,and it was shot down by management.
Though the move to “revive the fenderskirt” was big at GM at the time, the Caprice, Skylark, Acheiva, B-body wagons, Roadmaster, 98, Fleetwood, EV-1, and DeVille all got “skirlted” between 1991-1994.
btw, there is a d in olds
There is an ultra-clean 11,000 mile 92 on on ebay right now, base model, cloth bench, whites and wires with no trip computer.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1992-OLDSMOBILE-NINETY-EIGHT-11K-ORIGINAL-MILES-FLORIDA-CAR-LOADED-VERY-NICE-/140684725575?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item20c1768d47
There’s one just like this on a car lot near me, wires and all, only in silver blue metallic. I’ll have to get a shot for the Cohort.
This is the car I was talking about, I also posted it to the Cohort. It was in really nice shape and had an immaculate navy blue leather interior.
I was attracted to this car because I have a weakness for the front-to-back bumper-level straight line, broken only by the front wheel well and defining the rear one. I think it’s a great looking car, always have.
I liked it so much I bought one when the first-gen Sable looked this way. That was a popular car, one of the few hit cars Mercury ever had. Why did the Sable work but this Olds didn’t?
Olds in particular tried to bring a future-looking style to their big cars. Lots of reasons why that didn’t take, only one of which is whether people like the look. SUVs, Lexuses (Lexi?), crap quality, GM’s moronic MBA banker-types (the curse of American business).
I like Nash Airflytes too….what can I say.
PS: Laurence, what a gorgeous picture.
These cars had pretty good quality at the time, they were essentially the same as the 1985 FWD C-bodies with the most of the issues worked out, remember at the time the FWD H LeSabre was pretty up there on the JD Power charts.
I remember these cars when they came out. I was 6 years old at the time and my grandfather was going to trade in his pristine 1980 Delta 88 on one. He ended up coming home with the Delta 88 and a ’91 Accord EX instead. He said that the 98 “was no Oldsmobile.” He drove the Accord around and the Delat 88 went back to sitting in the garage, only coming out for special occasions.
I still see these in Indiana periodically. When these came out, I recall thinking that the styling really needed bigger dimensions to work. This could have been a great concept on the older rear drive B body car, but this one was too small for the look to look right. This car was one of the last to try to take “traditional” proportions and make them smaller.
I tried to like these, and could still consider one. One styling feature I liked was the way that the roof was inset a bit from the quarter panel. The C pillar flush with the quarter that got its start (at Olds) on the Toronado was a look that had kind of run its course, and I liked the start of a new direction, although It probably could have been carried out better.
The contemporary Buicks, by contrast, were really attractive cars. You are right – it seemed that the people styling these were just running out of ideas.
Remember that all the big GM cars were new for 1991-1992 with the exception of the Cadillacs, and the Bonneville of this generation was a real honey, especially the “monochrome madness” SSEi with heads up display and 9000 way power seats, not to mention the “domestic Jag” looks of the Park Avenue Ultra and the re-designed big RWD Bee’s too, there was alot to chose from and these Oldsmobiles kinda ended up stuck in the middle, too conservatve to be sporty.
Just noticed the grille on this car echoes what was an Olds style trademark from 1937 well into the Fifties: bold horizontal bars.
http://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/christmas-classic-1937-oldsmobile-six-a-christmas-story/
Whats also interesting is that after the 98 was dropped in 1996, Olds put the 98 front end and the plus base 98 interior on the Delta 88 to create the short lived Oldsmobile Regency just in case the occasional 98 owner drifted in the showroom there was something with some chrome and a bench seat to greet him.
And from what I’ve heard the suspension on the “88” Regency was complete mush. My father (being a consumate Oldsmobile man) was fooled by that trick a time or two. “Hey look it’s an Olds 9… aww nah it’s just a fancy 88.”
The Base H body suspension on all but perhaps the Bonneville is complete mush. A FE3 grade equipped Olds can be fun, but the base cars (normally bestowed with the wire wheel covers) are boats….
I always found this to be a very interesting variant. However, we did not get this model in Canada, as, our little country is seen as “too small a market”, so I have researched…!
Tellingly, when my grandparents were ready to trade their ’85 Ninety Eight Regency in 1991, they ended up buying the boxy, old-look Eighty Eight Royale. As much as the ’85-’86 H/C body GMs were a stubby-looking, awkward departure from tradition, the last-gen Ninety Eight managed to have even crappier proportions. The roofline and rear skirts look like they belong on a different vehicle.
The Eighty Eight that followed for ’92 was a much more attractive, better proportioned car. And the concurrent Park Avenue was great.
Hmmm…sorry, the styling cues on this one echo more of the 1958 on the rear end and especially on the rear quarters..and the car to me embodies the long decline in domestic autos. In particular, it reminds me of the one pivotal point in automotive history, one that to this day irritates me to no end: The day the automakers discovered flash plated plastic, and started using it for most if not all bright trim, in and outside. As an former owner of the mentioned 1966 Olds 98, in my case, the convertible, let me tell you from experience that the crappy drum brakes and jello ride and handling was forgotten when behind the wheel, with the dash in front of you slathered in all the best plated pot metal that the General could provide on one car. Whoo-hoo! Good times!
That’s it, yes, the tall rear fenders and that horizontal trim, echoes of ’58. These cars never did anything for me; they seemed like a sad way for the Ninety-Eight to bow out. The ’91 Park Avenue is a much, much better choice; it still looks elegant today.
I love these cars; the greenhouse, the torque the series i produces, and the ride. I can attest to the quality of materials used in the Buick, the paint, leather, etc. in mine are like new.
I find the styling a nice mix of old and new, but from behind it looks an awful lot like a Town Car.
But it looked like a current Town Car ten years before the Town Car looked like that.
It looks like the Lincoln Town Car that debuted for 1990. Both Olds and Lincoln came out with this look at roughly the same time. The Lincoln just looks better balanced.
Sorry, I dont see the square 1990 Town Car in the curvy Park Avenue body, the fat melted looking 1998 Town Car, yeah, a little, but not the 1990.
I believe that Scott was comparing the Ninety-Eight to the Town Car, not the Park Avenue.
When these came out, I thought they were the same body as the Custom Cruiser and Roadmaster (give me a break, I was 11). The car MikePDX found is a ’94-’96, judging from the alloy wheels.
I actually saw one of these in Touring Sedan guise a month or two ago, in gunmetal gray. Looked pretty nice.
When I was a kid I always thought the Custom Cruiser was just a 98 wagon. Boy was I wrong. Someone near me has an early 90’s Custom Cruiser, which is surprising since they didn’t sell well at all.
We had a ’71 Custom Cruiser wagon; outside trimmed like a 98 with 98 grille, 98 tail lights and 98 wheel covers. Inside it was trimmed like an 88. GM’s fanciest wagon in those years would’ve been the Buick Estate Wagon.
Estate Wagons are kind of the same, the best trim they have on the inside is like the fanciest LeSabre/Centurion trim, even though on the outside the 1971-1974 Estate Wagons have 4 portholes and Electra crests, the 1975-1976 ones have 3 portholes and regular Buick tri-shields, why they changed in 75? I have no idea, the trim for the fanciest Estate was still the same.
The Buick and Olds wagons had mostly vinyl interiors since familes with kids would tear up the crushed velour of the Regencys and Park Aves of the time.
And then there is me…
I personally like these cars. I’m not sure why, but maybe it’s the mix of modern and baroque in the styling.
I read somewhere once that when these were being developed that Olds wanted to share the Park Avenue body shell, but the powers that be at Buick said no way, so Olds had to come up with something else, and well, this is what they came up with.
Like most of the C and H body’s from the 1990’s, these are rather good cars. It’s kind of surprising that up here in northern lower Michigan, I still see these regularly, and more often than not, they still look pretty good.
Well, you guys are a little ‘cooler’ than those of us in Southern Lower Michigan… 😉
Maybe that’s why they hold up better?
I Dont Know Why, but As Soon As The End came for Oldsmobile , I wanted them 100% more. Then a Trofeo, Not This 4 DSoor Version of the 91 Trofero with a Much Larger easier to access OPen Rear Seat Area. You Coud Make Babies back There.
WE Recently replaced Intrepid #2 with a 99 Olds Silohette, Our 1st Minivan Tan leather!
I pushed For It, Because as a Gift Car, under 3k that was ‘as Nice” as car appt ments were goin 2 get…. Id Like the 98 Regency with Red Leather?
Would love 2 have a 92 98 Regency. BUT Not On My Bucket List … Owning a Cadillac Kind Of Is, I Have Owned 2 Olds not, 89 Trofeo too.. Curbside Classic a Trofeo Please Paul. …. My !ST 98 Impression was my First GERMAN IMMIGrants to my grade sch in Nj, He was picked on for his squeeky voice.. english 2nd language
His MMom Had a 1963 98 Luxury Sedan Regenscy plastic seat covers! Over $$$$ Original Luxury Trim
she was scary as a driver in NJ.
“Coca Cola give You Heart Attacks”
her husband drove a 68 vw
I absolutely love my ’95 Olds Cutlass Supreme Convertible! Its got so much more room than you’d expect a 2 door to have and with the DOHC I love the fact that if Im sitting at a dead stop and punch the gas it burns rubber! ^_^ Love the power this car has and the body style…All in all still my favorite car I’ve owned so far. Don’t know if I ever want to let it go! haha
I Always liked These… The 3 or 4 Headlights on each side ! The Rollover bar, that *Technichally wasn’t one…. the cladding, yuk, the, weird rear windows… In TEAL, Blue, Red, even… The Nicest looking of the 90s Supremes. Why Do The Steering Wheel Buttons Get lost so often?
I don’t really know…Ive only seen one other one besides mine EVER….and mine hasn’t lost any buttons or anything just the top black piece that covers the roll bar! >_< It stripped all the screws and tore off going down the highway with the top down!!! I really hope I didn't hit anyone with it…
Ah, the winter of GM’s discontent…lack of direction.
I have no memories of this car. They were, to me, eminently forgettable; and they didn’t figure into any personal memories. Others, as Paul alluded to, have better memories for their connections to the model.
But this model demonstrates all that was wrong with GM’s slow reorganization up to this point. Styling was corporate; the same Bright Young Men (and gals, yeah) would dash off an Olds, then a Chevy, then a Pontiac…all the while trying first and foremost to keep exclusive stampings and parts to a minimum. The even brighter lights in the front office, felt that a brand-badge and a template marketing campaign were enough brand distinction to last.
They were not; and it did not. Last, that is. Olds was on its way to becoming generic CAR; one with a premium price tag. Habits die hard, but eventually brand loyalty disappeared, and the Oldsmobile name shortly thereafter.
I drive a 1992 Oldsmobile Regency Elite everyday. It has 68,000 miles on it now. I had to search for it for 3 months and walk away from about four of them before I bought the one I have. When I got it it had 57,000 miles on it. I just put on a set of the rear taillights from a touring sedan I found in the junkyard the other day. It’s quite an unusual car to see on the road today and it’s not all that difficult to work on either. I love the car and have no complaints but I completely understand why someone who was into GM back in their heyday wouldn’t be interested by it. However, I don’t think GM has made anything much better since….