1994 Oldsmobile Cutlass Reviews - Page 7 of 10

1994 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Convertible 3.4L DOHC from North America

Year of manufacture1994
First year of ownership1999
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 3.4L DOHC Automatic
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.3 / 10
Distance when acquired26981 miles
Most recent distance37205 miles
Previous carBuick Regal

Summary:

The Cutlass Supreme is a bucket of fun

Faults:

At first the car was using some oil. I replaced the valve covers to correct this problem. The new valve covers had the oil breather in a different spot, this corrected the problem.

Second, I replaced my timing belt at the same time. Even though the car only had about 30,000 miles on it, since it was going on 6 years old at the time I decided to replace it. Plus I have heard of premature snapping on the 3.4L DOHC.

I recently replaced the convertible top and the alternator. Other than that, the car has been great and lots of fun.

General Comments:

The front defroster's plastic dash cover tends to pop up on these models. Mine has started already.

One rear power window has problems going down unless it is helped by hand. The window however has no problem going up so I haven't fixed it.

The one thing I have done consistently is change the oil. Since I only driven the car on a limited basis, I change the oil every 2000-2500 miles.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 23rd January, 2003

7th Aug 2003, 10:25

I just wanted to warn any other cutlass owners about the rear window problem. My window didn't work very well either, and then one day it shattered. It took me 2 months to find one window and I was quoted $450. So fix that problem!

17th Mar 2008, 10:28

WOW I wrote this review 5 years ago. I still have the car and I only drive it about 200 miles a year now. The car is great but I could really use rear quarter window moldings.

17th Feb 2009, 23:29

I bought my 94 Cutlass in 2008 with 46000 Kilometers. This car is awesome. Super fun to drive and looks great. I change the oil every 5000 Kilometers with Synthetic 5w30.I saw the reviews about the 3.4 DOHC. I have had nothing go wrong with the car. I drive it on sunny days. This is one of the nicest cars GM ever made.

1994 Oldsmobile Cutlass SL 3.1 V6 from North America

Year of manufacture1994
First year of ownership2002
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 3.1 V6 Automatic
Performance marks 10 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 10 / 10
Dealer Service marks 10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
9.6 / 10
Distance when acquired76000 miles
Most recent distance81000 miles
Previous carChevrolet Blazer

Summary:

GM new model car that can GO!

Faults:

Spark plugs fell down into headers and blew a couple of gaskets. cost a lot to fix that.

New starter put on with 77,000.

The battery post terminal is a headache.

General Comments:

I love this car. it's a white coupe I have all windows tinted. 5% on backs 20% on fronts.

I just put a racing exhaust with 3.5 tip on it. added 10 hp.

Got a air intake for it. added 12 hp.

16" American racing rims 5 stars. very nice.

Low profile tires.

Only thing really wrong is that it is a hard car to put a decent sound system in. I have to run a separate battery and a capacitor just to be able to run a 1000 watt amp to a 18" sub.

Parts aren't too expensive to buy.

My car can hang with the best and get about mid 13's still got more performance parts to put on for more hp though.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 13th January, 2003

11th Jan 2006, 16:53

13's Hahahahahaha surely you jest. 160 Hp and trust me your mods did not add up to over 20 HP, but OK 190Hp and 3300LB car will not result in 13s unless it is the 1/8th mile. You should be driving a Honda Civic I fear.

12th Jan 2006, 03:10

I have to agree with the previous commenter, as I have a 92 Cutlass Supreme, and while it's not slow by any means, a "mid 13s" quarter mile is just not going to happen with a Cutlass. Just for comparison, Consumer Reports got a 2005 Mustang GT to a 14.2s quarter mile, and a 6.0L new GTO also ran a 14.2. A Lotus Elise ran a 13.7, and a new 6.0L Corvette ran a 13.4, so I guess this guy's car could "run" with those cars.

Also, all those "performance" upgrades advertise these horsepower numbers so they will sell more junk. The air intake advertised 12hp, and the exhaust 10hp. So, the guy figures he got an extra 22hp. But check the car on a dyno before and after, and you'll never see such an increase. You may even see a decrease. Why? Because the parts that came on the car were designed for it by engineers who *might* just know more about building and tuning cars than we mere mortals. When you put those "upgrades" on your car, it certainly gets louder, and you know that you've spent some money, and you probably punch it a whole lot more. So, the car simply MUST be faster, right? Increased volume does not equal increased performance. But I know none of that will stop the "import tuners" from believing their car is faster than a Corvette just because it's louder. Or, apparently, my fellow Cutlass drivers. I look forward to reading the comments from angry drivers of "500hp" Civics.

Average review marks: 7.8 / 10, based on 35 reviews