Water pump failed at 85,000 miles. Yes, I bought it at 89,000, but I knew the previous owner.
Neither I nor the original owner ever changed spark plugs on this car, and I let it go for 5,500 miles without an oil change, so the engine blew at 105,000. New engine (exact replacement) works fine. The moral is, change your plugs well before 100,000 and oil every 3000 or 4000, no matter what the manufacturer says.
Center console cover has cracked after 14 years of legendary Alabama winters. All other vinyl okay.
Um...it uses gas. I'd be happier if it ran on happiness, which doesn't cost 3 bucks per gallon. Also, it exists in linear time, and will get old, so I'll eventually have to replace it.
The example said to say "This car is seriously quick and handles like it's on rails." So there it is. In truth, the car holds its own in the newer car market. For those who care, it can do 60mph in 7.5 with the auto. With mine being 14 years old, it probably can't anymore. Flooring it will produce excellent acceleration along with quite a racket from the engine. Governor sets max speed at 125, but I've never been there to see it. Car feels confident at 105mph, the fastest I dared to go with our wonderful Alabama lawmen around. The engine uses old pushrod technology, which car mags seem to hate, but the new Corvette uses pushrod rather than DOHC, so whatever. Both ways work. All accounts I've read agree that pushrod engines produce loads of torque at low engine speeds, and this car is no exception.
DISCLAIMER: The following portion of this review will not be well received by die-hard Japanese car fans. Keep in mind, all this is my opinion; I welcome comments expressing yours.
Bottom line, no Accord or Altima can compare to this car overall. And I mean my 1992 model versus a new (1999 or later) Accord or Altima. I don't say Camry, because the newer Camry models are boring, yes, but comfortable and competent. And, they doesn't claim to be speed racers, like some others.
The Cutlass Supreme has a highway ride beaten only by newer GM sedans, or top-model Japanese cars (Lexus, Acura, etc.). Of course, pretty much any German manufacturer makes a better-riding, just plain better car, but that's OK, as they've built reputations through decades of quality cars, not with noisy commercials showing a Civic flying through the air like Spiderman.
My car is the "base" Cutlass Supreme, which in Honda terms means no A/C, base radio, and power nothing until recently. In a base Altima (2.5, no S), this means no A/C and no stereo. In my car, this means cassette/radio (1992, remember), A/C, cruise, V6, power everything. And that was 14 years ago (1992 model sold in '91).
As stated above, performance is fine. On paper, this car's 140hp and 185 lb-ft of torque cannot match any V6 today, but it gets power quickly, and has a well-geared transmission. Matches 2005 Accord V6 0-60 (testing by Edmunds.com), as a result of low-end pushrod power. An Altima 3.5 SE is faster at 6.8 (auto), but that low gearing means it's turning 2700 rpm at 70 mph, with its vaunted 250hp, while my smaller 3.1L turns 2200rpm. By comparison, the well-geared Accord V6 turns 1700 at 60mph; mine turns 2000 (see, I'm not a total Honda hater). As far as "refinement," a favorite term among car mags, the Cutlass would be peerless in the Japanese family-car(around $25,000) market. I know, it's impossible for an American car to be good in any way, but my big, gas-guzzling, capitalist-pig, unrefined American boat is smoother, quieter, and more comfortable than any Accord I've been in (lack of experience with Altimas).
If I get in the mood to race my Cutlass, then I'm an idiot and should see a counselor. A 7.5 second 0-60 time is nothing to brag about, yet some carmakers sell much slower cars as high-performance street racers. My car's fair amount of real-world power means I don't have to slow down to get up a hill, not that it's a "stoplight drag race" contestand. It's funny to me that my "old man sedan" is just as fast as these new "hot hatches" (Focus SVT, Sentra Spec-v ABCD whatever, Lancer Ralliart, Civic Si). Maybe I should get a big aluminum wing and rice-can muffler, as my car seems to have performance qualifications.
Okay, that last bit was unnecessary. Anyway, the Cutlass Supreme has 15.9 feet of trunk space, a 17.1 gallon tank, and gets about 21.5 mpg in the city if driven well (I've gotten as low as 17.9 driving poorly), and 30 highway at 70 mph or so. After all my import-hating comments above, I should note that while my car was in the shop for 6 weeks (never use an auto shop in Alabama. The stories are true.), I drove a loaner 1988 Accord DX with a 2.0L carbureted 4-cyl and 98hp. That car, with its 5-speed manual, impressed me a great deal more than any recent Honda I've been in. I think I now understand why people love new Hondas. They drove cars like that '88 Accord before. With "only" 98 hp, it never felt out of power, and I found myself going up mild hills in 5th gear at 40mph! Without slowing down! Awesome. It's rpm-to-MPH relationships in various gears were almost identical to my larger V6. But it seems the new Hondas have taken a few steps down since then.
Okay, this review has been really long, and strayed from the subject at hand, sort of. But consider that this car ran for 85,000 miles without a single problem. Routine maintenance (oil, tires) only. Few, if any, new "ultra-reliable" Japanese cars can match that. If I have to get another car, I'll first look for the other GM versions of the Cutlass design, the Buick Century or maybe Chevy Malibu. Oh yeah, a Ford Taurus would be fine too.
And as this last type of comment seems to generate lots of response, I must remind all "import tuner" owners that my old-man car will smoke your stupid Civic Si or Sentra Spec-V 12345 whatever. Think about that when you rev your weed-whacker engine at stoplights next to real cars.
Data on other cars was taken mostly from Edmunds.com, and the "import tuner" info can be found at Motor Trend: http://motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0507_citylites/index8.html
I have looked into buying an older Cutlass of that generation and they do look like good cars. Certainly better than a Lumina or a Grand Prix sedan.
I am in complete agreement with your review. I like it a lot, and yes, the Cutlass Supreme is a very nice, quick vehicle. My sister has a 96 with the 3.1, and I was amazed at how that gets up and goes. It has 113,000 miles and very little in the way of maintenance. Personally, I have a 91 Chevy Lumina, which is the Chevy version of your car, and it has 372,000 miles, still running strong on it's original engine. Second transmission, but still, I think it's doing really well. I have put extremely little amounts of money into the Lumina, and I think it has paid for itself 10 times over. I know for a fact that what you are saying about the power of these old 3.1 engines is true. My Lumina has that motor. Gotta love 'em! Great review!!
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.
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.
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. An interesting read at http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=43915/pageNumber=5. 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.
Hello, it's me again. Actually, they never really quit making the Lumina. All they really did was put a new nameplate on it: Impala. They quit calling it the Lumina because over time that name started being associated with rental car fleets, and just basically a boring overall car. Sure, it has new sheetmetal and an updated interior, and a modified 3.1 called the 3.4, but underneath the skin (minus the structural improvements), it's exactly the same. My mom has had to of them now, the first one was an '01 with the 3.4 that she got brand new, and she traded it in a year ago on an '04 LS with the 3.8L. But none the less, it still is made in the same assembly plant (GOOD JOB OSHAWA, ON.!!) and still offers pure reliability and durability. My mom drove the first one for 80,000 miles without so much as an oil change, and now on this one she's got almost 20,000 miles with just the same. So anyways, the Impala is the Lumina, just with a new name.
I completely know what you're saying about those auto magazines being completely biased. They'll sit there and knock the Intrigue and the Impala, really any American Automaker at that rate, but yet Honda and Toyota blah blah blah can do nothing wrong. Their cars are perfect and everyone should have one. I'll take my American "piece of scrap metal junk" and drive it any day over some "wanna be powerful, have to sink an easy grand into it to make it anywear near powerful" ugly Honda. I'm 21, so acceleration time is pretty important to me too. I can't begin to tell you how many of these modified Type Z Q P S whatever Civics and Sentras and even Corollas and Accords I've left in the dust with my Intrigue. It's really pretty funny. On a side note, I would be interested to drive a Cutlass Supreme with the 3.4 DOHC or the Lumina z-34 with the same motor. I've never driven one, and they sound really nice taking off from a red light...
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.
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.
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 laned 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. Cuz 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.
Very interesting review. I've looked at getting an early 90's Cutlass and your review is very helpful. I'm 21 myself and my main car is an '87 Caprice coupe so I'm looking for something similar in room and comfort, but with adequate power as well. Sounds like a good car fro what you describe. Never knew the Intrigue was an upgraded version of it.
By the way, I thought they dropped the Lumina name because it was dated, like Pontiac used to have the Trans Sport, but renamed it the Montana.
Hi, I wrote the original review. To the person with the Caprice, I was unaware they made a coupe version of that car. Must have some get-up-and-go. Speaking of which, I don't know if your car has a good-ol' 3.8L or a V8, but either way, expect a downgrade in power. The 3.1L is great for a V6, but won't compare at all to even the 3.8L, and don't even get me started about GM V8's. Not to down my own car, and I've never driven a Caprice, but I would think of the transition from that to a Cutlass (or Lumina, or Century, or whatever) might be like going from Cutlass to Cavalier. Gas mileage will be better, though, if that's your main concern. If you're looking for some sportiness in a relatively new car, that Intrigue gets good reviews from Consumer Reports and Edmunds.com. Good luck with whatever car you end up buying.
The 1987 Caprice was available with either a TBI 4.3L V-6 or a 5.0 4bbl V8. I owned a 1988 with the V-8 and typically saw 25 MPG overall and mileage as high as 30 MPG on the highway. At least as new cars, gas mileage was never an issue.
Note: A Comments RSS Feed 
is available. New comments appear in the Members Area before the main site