1994 Oldsmobile Cutlass Reviews - Page 8 of 10

1994 Oldsmobile Cutlass supreme SL 3.4 liter, V6 from North America

Year of manufacture1994
First year of ownership1994
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 3.4 liter, V6 Automatic
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 9 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.0 / 10
Distance when acquired200 miles
Most recent distance90800 miles

Summary:

A great car if you enjoy driving, it is a lot of fun!

Faults:

Alternator went out when it was still under warranty not that long after I got the car.

Brakes came next, brakes have to be replaced fairly often.

Just recently, the air conditioner compressor was going out at 90,000 miles.

Insurance is pretty high on the car even at nine years old because it is considered a performance car.

General Comments:

The car is great fun to drive! I love this car. I like the way it handles.

The seats aren't that comfortable especially on long drives. Not padded enough.

I haven't had much trouble out of the car.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 8th January, 2003

1994 Oldsmobile Cutlass SL 3.4L DOHC from North America

Year of manufacture1994
First year of ownership1998
Most recent year of ownership2002
Engine and transmission 3.4L DOHC Automatic
Performance marks 10 / 10
Reliability marks 5 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 6 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 4 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.4 / 10
Distance when acquired65000 miles
Most recent distance90000 miles
Previous carSubaru Loyale

Summary:

Great Performance If You Can Get it Worked On

Faults:

Alternator went at 67K.

Power window at 70K.

Timing Belt at 75K.

Skipped timing again at 80K.

Brakes need replaced yearly.

General Comments:

This car has been great overall the 16" wheels make it handle well and the SL package has everything, but the moonroof. The heads up display is great for keeping your eyes on the road. This car is nice and comfortable and with the DOHC motor it doesn't lack power at all, but no one wants to work on it. I can't afford to take it to the dealerships, their bills are huge, but the average mechanic opens the hood and shakes his or her head. The timing belts are problems on these cars and cost over 500 to get replaced each time, and to change the alternator you need to drop the suspension. Do not buy one of these cars with this motor because it is too delicate. I should've went with the 3.1 Liter. GM also has frequent electrical problems, the air bag light and service engine soon light are flashing constantly. This car however can out run most hondas though, and overall it's been reliable.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 3rd December, 2002

2nd Jul 2010, 15:13

I have a 1994 3.4. It has 175000 kilometers. If you get a good service manual and have any mechanical skills, it is not hard to work on, and I will take its race bred power over 3.1 any day. It even beats the Mustang GT of that era. I love mine.

1994 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme S 3.1 from North America

Year of manufacture1994
First year of ownership1997
Most recent year of ownership2002
Engine and transmission 3.1 Automatic
Performance marks 10 / 10
Reliability marks 7 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 6 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 9 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.8 / 10
Distance when acquired36000 miles
Most recent distance129000 miles
Previous carPontiac Grand Am

Summary:

One of GM's best cars for the year!

Faults:

Rear transverse composite spring.

Rear struts (one set defective from auto parts).

Battery (normal).

ABS motor pack sensor, still not working... bad year for ABS on this car.

Turn signal switch (also a bad year).

Burns thru brakes after 20 to 25,000 miles, but probably due to how fast I drive this thing.

Air conditioner toasted in 1999.

Drivers outside door handle broke (cast aluminum) and window motor fried and the parts are all internal inside the door panel, that is a bear to try fix. Another poor design.

Rear passenger door lock has never worked.

Glove box latch broke.

Hood release pull inside the car broke completely.

Alternator failed.

Tie rods are getting loose now at 129,000 miles.

General Comments:

Great motor in this car. They put together a great motor and tranny with this car. Has a lot of power that I still love to hammer on. It has only stranded me once at 65,000 miles - the alternator toasted and it died on the side of the road.

The interior trim and functional parts are poorly made. The design seems to be adequate, but the manufacture and longevity of the parts suck. The doors are especially poor because they use many plastic fasteners that wear out after 100,000 miles. Can GM ever fix their window motor problems? The rear struts with the fiberglass composite leaf spring is a joke! What the heck were they thinking? That cost me $100 for the part at the junkyard and $200 to have it put in.

Overall though this has been the most reliable car I have ever owned. Well worth the price of $10,700 when I bought it with 36,000 miles on it.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 20th July, 2002

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