(first posted 9/27/2014) Speaking positively of the GM10 platform is a hard sell given our well-informed audience and given the many well-documented reasons it was such a serious misstep in GM’s history. With that in mind, it might be beneficial to keep things simple, in precisely the way that The General could not (or would not) do. I therefore won’t try to convince anyone the cars riding on the initial generation of the platform were profitable, well-packaged or timely, because those are exactly the deficiencies which made them Deadly Sins for their parent. I have a much harder time denying that they were satisfying cars in many configurations, on the other hand. It’s all a matter of expectations.
It surely helps to have a better example to share with you guys. This Cutlass Supreme convertible is mostly there; it’s a first-generation car with the earlier interior, thereby avoiding some of the more glaring decontenting and vaguely defined plastic moldings which defined GM’s worst. The same techy glam which made the new-for-88 full-size truck interiors appealing is evident here. While that look went a bit overboard with CRT touch screens, steering wheel hubs absolutely covered in redundant controls and shared, console-mounted seat switches, it works well here. If you get the impression that little attention was paid to foreign or even domestic competition, you have the right idea; there’s real brashness on display, but a sense of occasion as well.
Outside, things aren’t as convincing; the ribbing on the growing plastic cladding seen here was making its slow progression to the puffy form it would take on the worst Pontiacs of the later ’90s. And white isn’t the most flattering shade to paint it. The earliest Cutlass Supremes and Grand Prix were actually quite clean, on the other hand, as were the Regal sedans (which are my favorite GM10s).
If one could find a well-preserved example to post, I’d be most appreciative; a lot of work was done differentiating the cars and keeping ornamentation to a minimum. That hood pressing and wraparound glass show honest effort and are truer to the original vision, something worth keeping in mind before trashing these cars.
I felt compelled to write something in the last Cutlass Supreme’s defense after concluding our rerun of the Cutlass Chronicles. A crushed, beige, post-facelift sedan is an excellent expression of the disappointment which marked the car’s run, but doesn’t necessarily highlight GM’s intentions very well.
In understanding and accepting these cars, it’s perhaps most relevant to make comparisons with what preceded them. As we remember the 1988-1997 Cutlass, it provided competition for the likes of the Taurus and Accord, etc. and GM did its best to further this impression. But ergonomic and dynamic characteristics reveal a very different mentality behind its conception, one seemingly rooted a decade or two behind that which defined the “mid-sized sedan” of the late ’80s. Unit body, transverse powertrains and front-wheel drive notwithstanding, these were meant to provide much of the same American flash their G-body predecessors offered and I’ve often felt they were quite successful by that (seemingly unintentional) metric.
It’s a good thing, then, that not too many were offered with four-cylinder power. Even given the output of the Quad-4, the soft, quiet character of these cars was best matched with lazier, bigger displacement engines. GM did a good job with its V6 powertrains by this point, especially once they had multi-port fuel injection, and even the initial 2.8 of 1988 and 1989 offered a relaxed power curve that made a good impression in regular use. Very valid complaints may be made against the maintenance requirements of the 3.4 liter “twin dual cam” 24-valver which powered some examples, but it offered a high-performance option which, when tied to four-speed automatic (that didn’t develop terminal illness at the same rates as those of their domestic contemporaries), offered much more than, say, Ford’s 3.8 liter Essex V6 could. If you’re going to blow head gaskets, you might as well have some fun in the process.
The sort of solid torque and smoothness these cars delivered with six cylinders was a GM strength and, if one considers the dark years of mid ’70s and early ’80s, a return to form. It’s testament to the GM10’s tortured development that such a wide variety of powerplants were adapted for use in the platform, but after so much criticism over cookie-cutter cars, the demand for varied styling and powertrains across four divisions seemingly had to be filled. The most suitable engine, the 3800, was reserved for Regal, where it was assumed its traditional nature would be better accepted. Again, a very big gap existed between the GM10 Cutlass’s market orientation and its fundamental qualities. Aiming Oldsmobile toward import buyers meant that, once GM figured out how to highlight its midsizers’ best qualities with the supercharged 3800 for the next generation model run, the Cutlass’s successor would once again miss out.
No attempt, then, to say that the final Cutlass Supreme could match the demands of the market the way the Taurus could (or the world-class qualities of the SHO). But there are reasons for liking these cars, and a number of their platform-mates, which have always been clear to me. As they were often sold with significant discounts, they offered a high-value way to a cushy, large-ish mid-sizer with a good number of options and competitive performance. These were isolated, heavy-feeling machines but such basic all-American appeal (as I understand it to exist in a family-friendly product) was increasingly uncommon outside of the full-size segment. Some of the final K-platform revisions at Chrysler aimed for something similar, but with a narrow, creaky feel and distinctly geriatric styling–and there’s a difference between traditional and hoary.
Ultimately, if we can approach the GM’s H and C bodies, the A-bodies, Chrysler’s K-cars, and even the ’96 Taurus with some degree of objectivity, must we be so tough on these somewhat oversized, ill-fated “mid-sizers?” They were late in coming and they weren’t what the market necessarily wanted (just who asked for a convertible?), but that doesn’t mean there isn’t room to appreciate them. Subtlety and restraint were never the name of the game here and I most definitely have always liked these cars, from the blatty note of their V6s, to their soft rides, their quiet interiors, their blue digital readouts and buttons galore. I’d be surprised if there aren’t a few GM10 fans on our pages who feel the same.
CCCCC Part 13: 1992 Cutlass Supreme – How The Mighty Have Fallen
Curbside Classic: 1991 Chevrolet Lumina Euro – GM’s Deadly Sin # 18 – Where’s The Light?
Curbside Classic: 1996 Buick Regal Olympic Edition – Go For The Gold In Your W-Body
Curbside Classic: 1991 Pontiac Grand Prix – Neither Grand Nor Inspiring To Write About
Well done, Perry. It’s refreshing to read a piece on the GM-10s without them being dumped on. They may not have been perfect, but they don’t deserve all of the scorn that gets heaped on them by people. Ditto the ’96 Taurus, which was actually quite a competitive car that just happened to have styling people disagreed with (whereas I always liked it!). People criticize GM for years of me-too styling, blatant rebadging, poor quality and reliability, but these GM-10s actually were very well differentiated from each other – far more so than their predecessors, I might add!
I think there was a nexus of opinion about these cars when released. I think it was a combination of the “lookalike” A bodies that just preceded them, the coupe-only release and the ascendency of the Camry, Accord and Taurus at that time.
All of the GM-10 family was fairly differentiated from one another, in some regards, more than the current GM Epsilon bodies are now. There were still a few vestigial divisional changes beyond styling, like the Quad 4 in the Cutlasses, the Pontiacs had turbo V6’s, etc.
I think this was another example of how tone-deaf GM was in the 1980’s, releasing a coupe only car that was fairly competitive into the “mother of all car segments” against clearly superior sedan competition from Ford, Honda and Toyota. Even at that time, big coupe sales were waning.
I don’t know if the GM master plan was to see if they could eke out a few more sales on the A-body sedans after releasing the GM-10’s, but it certainly backfired. The A-bodies were pretty long in the tooth by 1989 and Toyota, Honda and Ford were on top of their sedan game at that point.
Roger Smith and GM brass expected all the owners of RWD G bodies to trade in for the ‘all new coupes’, as if that is all they would ever buy.
But many former personal lux coupe buyers moved on to import/Taurus sedans. Luckily for GM in long run, quite a few others switched to Blazers, Suburbans, and pickups.
I guess I always assumed the convertible was inspired by the success of the Chrysler J-body convertibles. There was obviously some market for 4/5-seat convertibles and it had been quite a while since GM offered a big (relatively speaking) ragtop. In the realm of questionable ideas, that ranks pretty low.
I think what they were really after was the two-hit combo of the BMW 3-series convertible and the Saab 900 convertible. Those two cars showed that semi-premium four seat convertibles were in once again, and nobody wanted to be left out. Remember, mid 70’s to mid 80’s, there was a lot of those third party coachbuilders like ASC and H&E making convertibles for larger automakers. But those were in the hundreds or lower thousands. First generation 900 convertibles totaled fifty thousand cars. The J-cars were really in the lower end of that demographic, but Chrysler for once actually made headway with their LeBaron convertible.
I’ve never ridden in one of these cars but thought they looked decent enough. I do remember Car and Driver raking GM over the coals for the languid power the 2800 engine had…but then, at some point, EVERY carmaker goofs and uses a low power engine in an all new model.
Olds does incorporate that rear window wrap around that no other GM model used. But, to my eyes, Ford / Mercury did a better job all around with the Sable.
Agree, H. K.
These “new” GM models made my ’88 Mercury Sable look & drive quite appealing to me in 1993; clearly the better car of the two.
That rear window design also featured on the original Saturn SL and the early nineties Holden VR Statesman/Caprice. The Holden in particular obviously came from same the studio that did the Cutlass Supreme sedan.
Which was a facelift of the 1990 VQ model Statesman, although I think this photo is of the upper-trim Caprice. They both had their roots in the Opel Omega A/Senator B, which was lengthened and widened by Holden.
I never had much of a problem with the early GM10 Grand Prix and Cutlass 2-doors. Their styling was refreshing and although not class-leading, I wouldn’t call them uncompetitive. The problem was that they lasted way too long. Even when the sedans were released in 1990, they were already starting to look outdated, especially interior-wise. Then of course, they lasted through 1996.
I will admit that I’ve always been intrigued (pun intended) by the Cutlass Supreme convertible. Especially ones with the rear bucket seats. Although if I had my choice I’d rather a similar vintage, somewhat classier Chrysler LeBaron convertible.
Convertibles with structural stiffeners disguised as roll bars have never appealed to me. It’s a shame they couldn’t get appropriate support from the lower body to make this ca without the basket handle. I have the same criticism of the VW Cabriolet and the PT Cruiser convert.
I heard the hoop was there just because they didn’t want to redesign the door handles
I bought a 94 as a first car for my son in 2001. We went through 5 pot metal door handles from eBay in the four years he drove the car..amongst other things!
After 50K miles, stuff just started falling of the car.
That would be even worse!
For some reason the Viper with its sticker to the effect that “this is not a roll bar” popped into my head!
If you’re going to build a convertible, do it right. It’s not as if Olds didn’t have the DNA to build a truly compelling ragtop. This model and the PT, among others, are an insult to the category.
I have nothing against the GM10s personally, but they can’t excite me any more than, say, a piece of wheat bread with butter on it, since I’ve seen countless models in the parking lots of high schools and colleges all across the Midwest.
“Speaking positively of the GM10 platform is a hard sell given our well-informed audience and given the many well-documented reasons it was such a serious misstep in GM’s history.”
I, for one, totally agree with you for speaking positively about it, although I never owned one.
After all, the Impala Limited (the old one, NOT the new Epsilon version) is quite competent (according to Zackman and many others), is still being sold to fleets, and reportedly will stay in production until 2016. The later Buick version of the GM10 (LaCrosse/Allure) was also said to be unusually good, as well as reliable.
In a manner not unusual for GM of the ’80s, it just took a number of years to get things right. In this case, 17 or 18.
I was a valet when these were introduced and as part of my job I got to race- I mean carefully pilot- the cars up several ramps and around corners in a tight parking garage, Compared to most other cars I sampled at the time, especially American ones, these really had a solid, substantial feel to them. The cornering, as it were, was quite flat too without a bunch of lean. They wouldn’t quite lift a wheel like a Golf, but they were large, comfortable sedans. They had a lot of room, comfortable, if flat, seats and excellent visibility. If I had been in the market for a mid-sized sedan at the time I would definitely have considered one.
GM10 AKA W-body
Re: Rehabilitating
The only ones I have any remote interest in are the 3800, 3.6 VVT, and 5.3 V8 powered.
That is all.
Great article.
As a styling exercise, the initial GM-10s were a win. GM convincingly put into production a lot of the futuristic aspects of their mid 1980s concept vehicles – flush, vertical door handles, wrap-around rear glass, tall and curvy rear decks. The Olds was probably the best iteration. And the convertible was certainly something to be excited about.
GM’s new aerodynamic design language was a little late to the party, but it was uniquely GM. As Perry points out, as fashion-forward as the GM-10s were they still gave a nod to some of the traditional details and qualities of the cars they replaced.
Even if the build quality and drivetrains weren’t total crap, successful styling wasn’t enough to address some of the outstanding competition at the time, particularly from Japan.
These cars Had the new age ride with Port-Fuel Injection along seats that held you in WITH old school spongy comfort. Was not a Full-size and was not a compact, It was Just right. I had the 1991 Regal 4 door with full Digital gauges. The 3.1 was pretty good for passing/merging. 3800 hands down better. EACH division had the traditional styling cues that made it distinct. Only up till 1996.
Cutlass Supreme with vertical pointed taillights and split grille.
Regal with horizontal strip taillights and typewriter tooth grille.
Grand Prix with rear taillights with black checkered lining in taillights.
And Lumina with 3 box tailights.
General Motors executive changes has made each division a joke now that two of them are gone. These cars were super sellers of their time and if major rust on fenders/floorboards wasn’t an issue, I would have kept my 1991 Buick Regal Limted. Kudos to the designers and engineers of the GM-10 project.
Oh and B-bodies as well, Those will always be awsome.
While I think the Cutlass Supreme was by far the best-styled of the bunch, with the wraparound rear window and (on later examples like the featured convertible) “angry” narrow-slit headlamps on the ragtop and coupe, you bring up a good point about the Lumina. Its taillights *were* the classic Chevy 3-box design, tying in with the heritage of the Celebrity, the B-body caprice, A-body Malibu, and going all the way back to the ’58 Impala for the 3 per side inspiration. Subtle, and it doesn’t redeem what is otherwise a bland car, but that’s a nice touch I somehow never managed to catch until you mentioned it.
I remember one of the biggest problems with these cars, and other GM cars at the time was the lack of airbags. Fancy audio controls on the steering wheel did not trump safety. They finally got it in ’94 but then only for the driver’s side.
Amen to that…ironic that the first U.S. manufacturer to make airbags available was the last to put them into family sedans to meet passive restraint requirements.
Instead, GM spent who knows how many millions of dollars to develop and certify an alternative system of door mounted seatbelts as “passive restrains,” which instead ended up being a perverse joke. You were *supposed* to keep them buckled and slide under them as you entered and exited the vehicle, and you could…if you were a contortionist.
You know what I find ironic, the same people that were crying for airbags in everything in 1992 were the same people asking if they could be disconnected or deleted in 1998, because now they were told that airbags were “killing people”, proving that most people don’t know jack, and only go with what they hear in a 15 second local news bite….a seat belt, properly fastened, is enough.
30,000 people may disagree with you….
http://www.tbd.com/blogs/tbd-on-foot/2011/12/seat-belts-have-saved-more-than-a-quarter-million-lives-13889.html
With me? Because that article agrees with my statement.
I guess I’ll never get over that these were my dream first “newer” car in High School. If I couldn’t have a old Corvair or 1963 Cutlass, I seriously wanted a lightly used ’90-95 Cutlass Convertible, it would have been the anti-Jetta GLX VR6 or BMW 3 series that was common with affluent kids in my high school parking lot.
I remember at least initially in the Bay Area, til about 2001-02, the Cutlass Supreme Convertible held pretty decent resale value, especially compared to the other W-Bodies, because they were quite sizable investments at $22K+ when new. By inflation these weren’t cheap cars in price (the equivalent of $35-38K today) Too bad about the fragile shelf life of the twin dual cam 3.4 that powered the bulk of the ’93-95 ones has taken a number of them off the road, although you still see more of those on the road than I’m assuming the lower production 1990-91 models.
In all the flaws the GM-10 had in the family sedan market, the ones that really shine, as Perry points out, are the ridiculously well loaded upper market versions. They were totally pointless as practical cars, but they did do something oddly extra when outfitted well (Like the Regal GS being a somewhat fun slightly smaller Buick appointed quite decently in traditional Buick design cues). Then again, the A/G bodies don’t get much respect for me, as they were hoary extensions of what the Grand Prix and Monte Carlo were at the beginning of the ’70s. At least the GM-10s tried their best to reinvent that market segment that didn’t exist anymore. Dream on GM, you make some wonderful mistakes when you do.
I liked W-bodies before it was cool to like W-bodies, true though I have always liked these, I’ve owned 2 W-body cars that provided pretty damn good service, a 1993 Grand Prix GTP and a 2000 Grand Prix GTP, both bought slightly used and driven until they were pretty beat.
The GM-10’s in late 1987 and the Beretta/Corsica N-bodies in mid 87 signaled that GM had finally come out of the “the long walk in the woods” styling wise and that the boxy sheer look cars were finally done, every car after these was progressively better and better looking.
GM really threw tech and money at the GM-10’s, I remember that they were the first new GM cars in my lifetime that were really different styling and component wise, even the majority of interior components weren’t shared between GM-10’s, they all had their own unique HVAC and radio designs, even the window switches were different between the divisions.
I was really enthralled with these when they were new, I tried to convince my mother to buy one, we got close a couple of times, but my mother never signed on the dotted line, I still remember going to look at the new Cutlass Supremes at the now long defunct Cooper Oldsmobile in Coral Gables, they had a grey International Series Cutlass in the showroom with the quad buckets, though we ended up test driving a burgundy Cutlass Supreme SL that was more to my mothers taste.
My cousins dad did buy a new GM-10 though, a white over burgundy Regal Limited with the whites and wires, which was pretty impressive, since he was a “buy a 2 year old Cadillac every 6 years kind of guy” he fanatically maintained the car for almost 20 years, before selling it and getting a V8 W-body Impala SS.
I’m simple about opinions. I’m not really interested in what the Jones thinks.
I liked the convertible in which you started.
I’d drive it with a silly grin of appreciation.
I always thought the GM-10 Cutlass Supreme was a really attractive car, especially as a coupe. I think three changes could have made this a very successful model:
– The sedan should have been introduced at the same time as the coupe. IIRC, the four door didn’t hit the market until a year or so later.
– The 3800 should have been available from the start.
– It should have been sold as a Chevrolet. Oldsmobile, as much as *I* still liked their brand, was dead in the water at this point. This would have been a much better competitor to the Taurus than the Lumina ever was.
I wonder if the LS4 from the late Impala SS could be successfully swapped into an early Cutlass Supreme coupe? Hmm…
These cars were very attractive to me. Shame the TauruSable and MN12 ThunderCougar kicked the W-Body’s rear in every other aspect…Sigh.
P.S. My Grandma has a 9th Gen (2009) w-body impala (LS) based on this platform. She likes it for what it is. It will probably become a car like Jason Shafer’s 1993 Century (grandparent’s low mile car).
I have always liked the 88-96 Grand Prix coupes. Especially the 94-96 coupes. I think they were the best looking of the GM-10 cars. I saw one in white the other day and it looked good.
I think the Buick and Oldsmobile GM-10 cars were kind of pointless as Both Olds and Buick had viable alternatives in their own lineups to compete with the cars. Unlike Chevy and Pontiac which killed off their A-body cars when the new GM-10 cars came about Buick and Olds kept theirs going until 1996. As the Century and Ciera offered a big car ride with comfort at a cheap price and in 1992 Buick and Oldsmobile came out with the restyled LeSabre and 88 so there was no reason to buy the Regal or Supreme. Those that could afford to spend a little more money bought a Lesabre or 88 and those that could not afford those cars but wanted a softly sprung car that felt like a big car, bought a Ciera or Century.
Now I will hand it to Oldsmobile, at least they tried to offer a sporty W body car with a convertible
Annnnnd….another white car! 😉
It’s a sign from God. A sign of what, I do not understand.
I think I’m being told to acquire a car which looks good in white. A 91-94 Legacy Sports Sedan, maybe? Or an 86-88 Audi 5000 CS Quattro? A Volvo 740 turbo? I need a project car.
Friends of my parents once had a white 740 Turbo wagon with black interior. It was pretty sharp. But I liked my Dad’s red ’88 740 Turbo sedan better…
Audi all the way, man. As many problems as my Dad’s ’86 5000S had, I still have fond memories of the car both as a passenger and as a recently licensed driver. If it’s still on the road today, it was probably one of the good ones, right?
The RWD Volvos are nice machines too but white isn’t their best color. (A white 780 with the blue/black interior would be kinda cool, but it’s still not the best color.)
You know what *does* look good in white? A New Yorker Brougham, that’s what. Now that you’ve driven that brown one, maybe you need to take the plunge on a white one if it floats across your path…
The 1997 and 1998 W body updates made the cars more competitive. Widespread availability of the 3800 and introduction of the supercharged 3800 really helped. I believe those updates were originally scheduled for around 1993, but GM’s financial situation forced it to delay the cars. Continuing to build the A bodies after the W body sedans debuted also hurt.
GM was really showing their lack of direction with this platform. As Leon pointed out earlier, the Buick and Oldsmobile versions were redundant. They had a successful A body, and could have restyled/upgraded that car instead of a whole new design. Pontiac had just released the H body Bonneville. They could have expanded the line up as opposed to a new W body Grand Prix. Only Chevrolet really needed a new medium/full sized car. The A body was gone, and the B body was about to grow up a size.
In spite of the poor/unknown direction GM was heading, they did come up with some good cars. As I have shared here before, my current driver is a ’94 Cutlass Supreme sedan with a 3.1. I bought it in 2001 with some collision damage. I had it repaired, and have driven it ever since. My wife used it as her car for about seven years, and it has been mine since then. It currently has 217,000 miles on it, and averages 24 mpg in my combo city/highway driving. I have always preferred a full sized sedan for my driver, and it has something few new cars have – – visibility. It still looks good from 20 feet, and yes it is white. I plan on driving it until it becomes unreliable. Then I am not sure what I will do, Today’s new cars are too complex for my simple mind.
The more I think about this, the more parallels I see between this Cutlass and the Studebakers we have been discussing recently.
The original design is a very good looking coupe, followed by a not nearly as good looking sedan. They kept trying to update it by adding bits to the original body, and they kept it production too long.
Maybe stretching a bit, but I’ve always seen some design similarities between the 88 Cutlass and the ’53 Studebaker.
Does that make the Aurora the Avantii of the Olds story? 😉
Here’s an early one I shot last winter..true survivor car. Not a spot of rust on it & clear coat still shines like new. Not sure why I waited til winter to shoot it though. I had seen it several times before the snow flakes started flying. I thought about making the kid an offer on it but decided against it. After 8+ years with my 3800 powered Regal coupe, I don’t think I could drive a 2.8/3.1 powered W again. My first car was a 2.8 powered 88 Regal. Too much car, not enough motor.
I can remember when these cars were released that they made a good bit of a splash in my peer group. The major “innovation” was the so-called “beer-tap” door handles, the rest of the car had spaceship styling that was fairly different than the A-bodies that preceded it. I liked the styling of the early cars, but when this later gen of the Cutlass came along, I was really liking it.
When I was selling cars in the early 90’s, I had a memorable drive in a slightly used Cutlass Supreme International Edition sedan, complete with 3.4L Dual Twin Cam. We had to drive a bunch of auction cars to our sales lot and I ended up with that one. It was a rocket (pun intended), having grown up with muscle cars I worshiped often at the temple of V8 power. I had no idea that a V6 could pull so hard, for so long. Of course, knowing now what I do about the 3.4 DTC, I’m glad I never saw fit to buy one. I even turned one down last year, installed in a well preserved mid 90’s Monte Carlo SS.
When Mopar released the LH bodies in 1992, I fell deeply in love with the styling. I forgot about all other domestic large sedans, and I desperately wanted one, although I couldn’t afford one. A couple of years later Oldsmobile updated the cars with a rather extensive MCE and this car was on my radar. I dug the convertible, but coupes are more my style.
About two years ago, I found a black version of the pictured car in the back of an iron lot here in Grand Rapids. It clearly had been rode hard and put away wet, and someone was slowly stripping it of parts. (I spent 20 minutes looking on several different devices for the photos I took, I think they’re stranded on a dead computer…) I hadn’t seen one for a while and forgot that the upper level cars were very well optioned. It was real shame, I would have loved to take the car, but there were too many missing parts (the entire drivetrain, for one) to make it worth my while.
Somewhere in my MM Garage, there’s a space for these last FWD Cutlasses.
How do you like minep
I really like the styling of the early Oldsmobile W-bodies, both coupe and sedan. The first of the Pontiac coupes were really good looking, too. And for the most part, they were very solid cars. I nearly bought a Turbo Grand Prix when I was younger, and actually owned a ’90 Grand Prix coupe for a very brief time – so brief that I really can’t remember anything about it (in fact, until the last time these came up on CC, I had completely forgotten about it).
I love all the details Perry mentioned, as well as the Olds taillights and those retro-futuristic wheel covers seen in the ad. There used to be a Cutlass Supreme International sedan with the H.O. Quad4 and 5-speed that raced SCCA Solo2 locally, and that’s always been my “dream” W-body. It even had the power sunroof and leather interior – probably the only one they built quite like that. All of the later ones had some kind of fatal flaw that really turns me off from them, and the styling just got worse and worse. I did think the 6-light front end on the later Olds’ was cool, though.
These cars did look better than the ugly, boxy, rear drive G bodies that they replaced. However the 1988 W body Cutlass never took off in sales. Infant, the Cutlass never regained its sales successes like the prior rear drive G body did. The styling was probably too radical and Cutlass buyers were generally older folks who were used to a more conservative formal style. I remember renting one of those new W body Cutlasses in 1989 and not being at all impressed with it. It suffered from poor build quality, very cheap interior parts like the door pull that pulled right out of the door when I closed it! This was an era when GM was falling hard. The Japenese competition were swallowing GM alive with high quality rivals that no GM product of the era could remotely match.
I’d prefer the same year Cougar, thanks.
GM loyalists who loved the boxy G bodies, went over to Blazers in the late 80’s. In my Chicago neighborhood, peers who had Cutlasses in 1978-84 had Jimmys, Blazers, and S-10’s by 1986-89.
But, then Explorers made the Blazers look like 70’s disco suits in the early 1990’s.
And those of us who kept the boxy G-bodies through the 80’s, and the 90’s?
We drive Panthers nowadays.
I want to find a one of the Quad 4 HO 5 speed manual International Series. I hope that the eBay and Craigslist spirits can bring me one just so I can own the most unusual of the W’s. Has anyone ever seen one outside of a car magazine from that era?
Believe it or not, I saw one in a tow/impound yard in the 90’s, it looked like it had been towed from an apartment.
Yes, 3-4 have popped up in the last two years. I know a guy in Wisconsin who has a white one. A 90 International coupe.
I’m a bit late to this topic, but It appears that I’m the only one here that appreciates these cars. My first car was a 1996 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme coupe. By the time I was reaching driving age in the mid 90s, I had a strong preference for Oldsmobile styling. I was blown away by the 1995 Antares concept, and went out and got a savings account specifically to save up for the production version, even as my friends asked “why would you want that, people will think it’s your parents’ car?”. The production version, which ended up wearing the Intrigue name, came off as a bit too importish for my tastes. No coupe, no bench seat with column shift, not even any interesting colors, especially on the interior. My automotive preferences were always driven solely by styling, things like safety, reliability, power and driving dynamics didn’t measure on my radar, perhaps making me the perfect customer for one of these cars. I did like the ’95+ Buick Riviera, which was slightly out of my financial reach as a teenager, but I would absolutely never cross-shop with Honda or Toyota. By the time I had my license, and a job to start saving real money, I had my sights set on the Cutlass Supreme. I specifically wanted the 95+ dash, because I liked the way it looked (ergonomics or the passenger airbag didn’t come into play here). I decided that I wanted the coupe, and there was a catch… I wanted mine with the bench seat and column shift (which ruled out the ’97) After many months of searching, and visiting every Oldsmobile dealer in SW Pennsylvania, I happened to stop into a dealership where the salesman remembered me and my quest. This dealership was a mile from the auto action where they picked up used inventory regularly, so he struck up a deal with me to scour the auction weekly until he could find a car for me. Six months later, I finally went to pick up my off-lease ’96 with 25,000 miles in the all too common dark teal with beige cloth. I LOVED my car, and kept it for almost 7 years, when it finally started to nickel and dime me to death. It had all of the problems common to these cars, head/intake gaskets, alternators, etc. The trunk leaked, hood latch broke, and it sounded like it was going to rattle apart whenever I would drive over an expansion joint or hit a pothole. The doors curved up into the roof, which caused them to freeze shut on multiple occasions. The 3100 was loud and underpowered, but the car fit my criteria: it looked good, fit my lifestyle (single guy, but I loaded it up with 6 on a few occasions) and hugged the road like a sports car compared to my parents car, a 1990 Buick Century that I was driving around before. I replaced it with another W-Body, a 2003 Impala and currently have a 2009 Impala.
My 14-year-old self was fascinated by these cars when they appeared. I loved the grille treatment of the Buick and the sporty character of the Grand Prix. I liked how GM managed to give each of the three a different personality.
However, it was the Oldsmobile that captured my imagination. I loved its swoopy styling, the (to my eyes) perfect proportions, the interior. I still smile when I see a nice original drive by, which isn’t uncommon.
When the four door sedan arrived I was surprised that they couldn’t find a way to keep the nice proportions — the sedan always seemed quite off to me; far from attractive in any way.
I still think these were pretty good cars, though history seems to judge them differently. To me, the vehicles showcase the best and worst of eighties GM.
As a teenager, when these came out I was smitten with the looks. The Olds was the smoothest, sleekest, most attractive of the W bodies inside and out and didn’t get as ergonomically weird as either the Buick or Pontiac. The Olds had somewhat logically arranged HVAC and radio buttons, whereas the Buick and Pontiac decided to arrange the radio and HVAC buttons in random places in identical squares. They all had that bunker slit dashboard for some reason. The Cutlass Coupe and Sedan were absolutely beautiful and didn’t go for the blobby Taurus look or the even worse bloated blob of the Camry. it wasn’t stodgy looking like the latest reskin of the K car either.
Too bad they weren’t GREAT drivers. GM had something of a good idea by giving each division different engines; the Lumina offered the 2.2 or 2.5 L 4 and the 2,8 optional, Olds had the Quad 4 and 2.8 optional, i don’t remember what Pontiac had and I think Buick was only 2.8 v6 in the beginning. But they had a generic GM FWD feel that GM put in everything from a Cavalier to a Ciera to the bigger cars. But I think they drove better than the critics said, and as though Bill Williams and his wife, Sarah are exploring the car at anywhere beyond 4/10ths?
I had one of these, a 93 model in 1997 with the awful 3.4 engine. It was a beautiful car, very nicely appointed and very luxurious for the day. Hey, back then power windows, tilt, cruise, cassette, automatic, power mirrors, locks, seat, top, and the steering wheel controls for the radio and HVAC was really, really, a luxurious car. Plus, unlike today’s cars for which even the entry level econoboxes have “features” the car felt luxurious and the materials were attractive and felt high quality. It didn’t have cheap, hard, unattractive plastics like most cars do now, and it had the four bucket seats and a lot of room front and rear.
I really enjoyed that car but it got very quickly to the point where it was costing more to keep it going than it would be to buy a new car and then I went and bought . . . a Catera, which I wrote about. The Cutlass was at least fun; the Catera was boring AND unreliable.
Dad had a 1995 Sedan which was a very good car and had been very dependable, so of course the Convertible seemed like a great buy.
It was NOT. That 3.4 engine was a horrible engine and although I didn’t have the head gasket problems, the alternator was mounted underneath the engine and it HAD to go back to the dealer and it was very expensive at the time to replace alternators. The Air never worked, one of the rear windows didn’t go down, it developed oil leaks, the power steering hose went out, and I went through a lot of those beer tap door handles. Whatever GM was making the door handles out of was very poor quality metal, and for a door handle which is guaranteed to get daily use.
A good friend of mine is proving that the 3.4 (LQ1) motor is indeed very reliable. He daily drives 4 of them. Yes, you have to keep up on the maintenance just like any other motor but if you do (as you should), it will reward you with years and miles of service. I agree that you have to have patience with these motors and it helps if you are mechanically inclined and can work on them yourself. The motors require more from their owners and if you can’t or won’t give them they attention they need, move on to a something else.
My mother was in the market for a large fwd sedan in 1990 and looked at the Grand Prix. She ended up buying a Bonneville LE. Other than at Chevy, I think that until the ’92 Camry came along, this was the GM10 sedan’s problem. The H bodies were much roomier, had nicer interior materials, far better powertrains (other than the Regal, which was the same), and cost only a negligible amount more. Plus which by ’90 the H bodies were well screwed together and dead reliable. Personally I preferred a Sable for her, but she didn’t like the aero look. Her second choice was the Eagle Premier.
I’m sorry if I come across pollyannaish, but the 1st gen GM10 / Ws were unattractive, riddled with compromises that you didn’t have to settle for with a K car and were roundly deserving of Deadly Sin status. I was a GM loyalist, a two-time Cutlass Supreme owner, and a three-time Oldsmobile owner. These cars put a Panther and a MN10 in my garage and lead to some Mopar years before a becoming a current Ford loyalist.
I’d put any K konvertible in my garage before this car.
Hopefully I haven’t been too confusing! Cheers all!
My head would always snap around when I saw an International Series with their block
like high seatbacks. Loved that!
And the 3.1 is practically unkillable.
It was amazing how fast the Cutlass fell off the sales cliff – the rear drive coupe version was such a massive seller. I wonder how much of this was the fault of the car and how much was just changing automotive tastes?
I could write a book on my 91 Lumina Z34.
There were other sins here too – door mounted seat belts, no ABS.
ABS was first offered as an option in 1989 on the W-body’s. Concerning the Lumina line, 1990 (coupe and sedan) and 1991 for the first year Z34.
“offered much more than, say, Ford’s 3.8 liter Essex V6 could. If you’re going to blow head gaskets, you might as well have some fun in the process”
I’d disagree with that statement, if we’re considering the 1989 Thunderbird SC–the supercharged version of the Ford 3.8 Essex. At 315 ft/ lbs of torque at 2800 rpm from a 232 CID engine, it will light up the tires like you would not believe. I’d still wager that even with the abundance of turbo’d and FI modern engines, that the engine has one of the highest factory torque to displacement ratios from a mass produced car.
This following picture was admittedly when I’d swapped the pulley for a 10 percent overdrive and a couple of other mods that brought out the power more (the car was engineered with quiet power in mind), but you get the idea. This wasn’t a burnout, just a straight stomp on the pedal.
Our rental fleet was filled with these cars. They were discounted like they had the plague. There was a lot wrong with them, and they were never the best in any respects in that market segment. What they had going for them was an attractive exterior – and they were dirt cheap.
The GM 10 failed to leapfrog the bench mark Taurus and Sable. Although they showed up late to the party, somehow they forgot to even match what Ford did with every one of their cars.
Everything about the interior showed us that regardless of design trends, these cars were going to ignore those trends. The interiors were cheap plastic and the quality of the plastic was cheap. The dashboards sat low and out of view of the driver and seemed like they were updated 1960 styles few enjoyed back in then. No one wanted a horizontal style instrument panel. No other make was offering that throwback.
There was no leg room. There was no air bags. The cloth material was subpar to the cheapest economy cars of the age. My god, remember that old transmission? It looked like it came out of a 20 year old car, for Pete’s sake!
It was exciting to see manufacturers upping the ante when one of them resets the market. It is not fun to watch GM totally fail with their GM10 vehicles. Nice looking exteriors, don’t mean a nice car, right?
I love reading articles and everyone’s opinion on these cars whether good or bad. I’m just excited seeing people still talk about them. I was a pre-teen when these were hitting the showrooms and I still vividly remember seeing brand new ones running around and instantly fell in love with their styling. So ahead of their time I believe. From their digital clusters, B pillar mounted door handles, wrap around rear glass, and full lit up front/rear tail light bars on the GP sedans.
It took me years to find mine due to their rarity now. I have two prime examples and never letting them go. People can say what they want but I can’t be swayed in how I feel about them. I love em and that’s just how it is.
My 91 CS International Series coupe with the LQ1, HUD, moonroof, and factory CD. It’s the ONLY red cloth interior 91 International Series coupe made. A true 1 of 1 car. My 93 GP STE sedan. The LQ1, HUD, moonroof, factory CD, trunk luggage rack, and Graphite cloth interior. Only 2 made in this configuration.
Here’s my Olds.