24th Oct 2005, 15:04

Original poster here, with a few additions to benefit the above commenter, as I failed to mention a few things in my zeal to hate imports. I don't, really. Anyway:

The rear brake calipers were targeted in a class-action lawsuit in the early 90's, as they use the same part for emergency brake and normal rear brake. This does not mean they engage simultaneously; they just use the same channel. I've never had a problem with it. In fact, I once accidentally put the e-brake on, and released the throttle before I put it in Park, and the car never budged. That isn't exactly a good idea, but it makes you feel safe parking on a hill. Also, the throttle doesn't act like new throttles, import or domestic. It's very smooth, but I think it was made so the little old lady who can barely see over the wheel can easily control the amount of throttle applied. If you press the pedal halfway, you get about 25% throttle. But from there to the floor, it's normal. This problem can be solved by scooting the seat up. The Cutlass has tilt-steering, no telescope feature.

As far as being nicer than the Lumina or Grand Prix, I can't say much. However, historically, Olds (I know, it's surprising, think pre-90's) has been GM's luxury performance line. It fully lives up to this reputation.

The Lumina is the same platform, but the Cutlass will be much nicer as far as materials. The Lumina is a family sedan, and has one awesome feature for kids: Scotchgard on the seats. the Cutlass doesn't. I don't know about the Pontiac line from the early 90's. But overall, if you drove one then the other, you might say the Lumina does its job, but the Cutlass does it luxuriously.

By the way, this car is a 92, even though the title says 91. Maybe I picked the wrong button.

E-mail dankraft@hotmail.com with any questions, I'm always happy to promote a solid car.

25th Oct 2005, 07:53

Second commentor here: if you like the Cutlass Supreme, you would really like the Olds Intrigue. That car is actually the direct replacement for the Cutlass Supreme, built on the "W" platform and all... Forgot to mention that I have one of those as well. They did a REALLY nice job on that car, especially the engine. Mine is a 2002, with the 3.5 liter Twin Cam V-6. It's got a hearty 215 HP, and it is the smoothest engine I have ever encountered in my life. It has a really nice look to it, with very nice lines on the body, and the interior looks very modern, yet not gawdy. It's a very nice, user friendly, smooth riding car. My personal suggestion is to drive one with the 3.5 rather than the old school 3800...The 3.5 is a much smoother and refined motor. So far (for the last 2 yrs. and 40,000 miles) this car has been just as reliable as my Lumina. You have to understand that the Lumina is my personal benchmark for quality... Not some weed wacker Honda Accrap... Check it out if you ever get the chance... JC.

25th Oct 2005, 14:23

Original commenter again: Slight mix-up with my response timing on that last one. It was meant in response to the first comment. I posted it, then saw your comment already there, and knew it'd seem like I was downing your car. Sorry, was unintentional. Just trying to cite differences.

Actually, as the Lumina is so similar, just a different emblem on the front, I would totally have one, especially the last ones (circa 2000, I think).

As far as the Intrigue: I was just reading an Edmunds.com review yesterday comparing it to an Accord, a Sable, Regal, and Camry. I use Edmunds because they're less biased (i.e. paid) by Honda, but they still have a small bias. They ranked the cars, and the Accord edged out the Honda for some ridiculous reason. They knew very well the Intrigue was better in every way. Even the slightly biased Edmunds said they thought Intrigue was the type of car that could breathe new life into GM, and Olds. How I wish they were right. Test was for '98 models.

In another test, Edmunds said the Intrigue went to 60mph in 7.9. I know, it's not really important, but I'm 20, and still care about such foolishness. Anyway, consider that AutoWeek found the same time, 7.91 seconds, with their own test Intrigue. Several other cars in the test also matched. All, but the Accord. Where Edmunds said the Accord went 0-60 in 7.9, all the major auto websites (MT, Car&Driver, R&T) agree with AutoWeek's time of 6.12. Closing in on the Porsches, right? That's all I have against the big H. Not really against the Accord as a car; I'm sure it runs fine. But you don't see quite as many signs of GM stuffing people's wallets to conduct "independent tests" padding their stats.

Dang. I've written too much again. Before I go, does anyone know why GM quit making the Lumina? Was it so tied to Olds? Maybe they thought it was just like the Malibu. Except that it still had that strong, attractive styling.

27th Oct 2005, 16:19

Original poster again.

My dad just bought an 03 Buick Century. Same 3.1L as in the Cutlass. Not sure if it's DOHC or OHV, as I have yet to pop the hood. It's not the kind of car you really feel like popping the hood on. It's like I don't want to know how they got GM's 3.1L to be so quiet. Edmunds described the motor in the Century as unrefined and loud, while the Accord (comparison test) motor was the model of refinement and silence. Please. The first time I started the Century, I actually thought I had stalled it, as I heard nothing, and felt no vibrations. I had to open the door to hear it. If it's zero-overhead-cam (it's in the middle on an OHV), then they've made some huge strides in firewalls since 92. Despite its 175hp and 195lb-ft, the Century wouldn't beat the Cutlass in a drag race, but it's not geared for the Geezer Racing League like an Olds.

With cars like Intrigue and Alero (either engine, 4 or 6-cyl), it must have been absolutely necessary to stop Olds production, after introducing cars that clearly showed the Japanese companies who the leader in cars was, and still is.

30th Nov 2005, 15:16

That 7.5 0-60 time is for the 3.4L DOHC model. Not the 3.1L. I have a '91 with the 3.4L and have many friends with the 3.1L in olds and chevy's. Mine has 210hp and can't even do 7.5 even though it only has 80,000 miles, and I destroy all of my friends every time we race. There is also a website that says all factory stock vehicles accelerations and my exact model has a 7.5 0-60 time. Just thought I'd comment because you were so proud of it.

1st Dec 2005, 16:44

I won't say what I want to here, except this. I've seen a few sites with 0-60 times too. One said, with a '93 convertible, 8.5. Another said 9.3 with the sedan, and one said 9.7. If we assume these times are all accurate, then the slowest would be mine, with the 3.1L and auto, at 9.7. Those times are, at best, off by a bit, but more accurately described as made-up.

How about this. I (sort of) raced a new Mercedes-Benz ML-350 from a light. We weren't really racing, but I knew he wanted to cut me off because his lane ended soon, so I, in turn, wanted to cut him off. Very unwise for us both. Anyway, he floored it, as I did an instant after, and we were door to door until I let up at 50mph (limit 45). I then found out that his new ML-350, with its new 7-speed automatic, gets to 60 in 7.8. You can find that information at Edmunds.com, or Consumer Reports. Not some unreliable compilation of made-up times. Since he floored it an instant before I did, and we were door-to-door until I reduced throttle, I can assume my 0-60 was also about 7.8, maybe 7.7, because he started earlier, yet could not gain on me. That was with my old engine, with 100,000 miles or so on the out-of-gap spark plugs, and with my old, out-of-shape transmission.

You have no reason to believe this, with all the ridiculous stories of 0-60 and 1/4 mile runs on this site. I'm just saying that was close enough to confirmation for me. I've read some of the other reviews here of this car, one funny one from a former Civic owner. He described the Cutlass as underpowered. Cos that Civic was so fast. Get your facts straight before you spout off arrogant comments. And did you once drive a blazing fast Civic CRX Si? And beat Porsches daily, only to downgrade to a mere Cutlass? If you don't like your car, trade it off and get your stupid Civic back.