I agree! My ex-Bro-In-Law worked for GM and once brought home an Oldsmobile 98 to test drive. It had one of the coolest gauge clusters I've ever seen. (sigh) I miss those days...
#1 on my gripes with GM. Cadillac had an inferior dashboard/instrument design in the 60s/70s/80s/90s/early 00s. This Olds is a perfect example, the gages look way better than anything Cadillac was doing in 1988.
Always liked this iteration of the Cutlass Supreme. The lines were really good for the times, especially later versions. Funny how Olds was offering rear buckets and powered headrests back in the 80s, something that is now reserved for pure luxury cars.
@@Chevroldsmobuiac Ha! Yeah, GM decided a large 4cyl did not need balance shafts. Those things would idle so roughly they'd shake the lugnuts off of the wheels.🤣
I owned a 1995 Cutlass Supreme coupe. By '95 it had the 160hp 3.1L V6. Still not a muscle car but powerful enough to be a pleasant highway car. For me and my girlfriend (now long time wife) it was a comfortable car to travel around in. We put a lot of miles on that Olds. I don't yearn to have it back but it was one of the best GM cars I have owned. I miss the personal luxury coupe car segment. I loathe today's bubble toaster look alike CUVs.
I remember when I was little my sister having this car as a rental. It had the digital dash but non of the other options. Everyone thought it was a quick car 🤣. Same color scheme as well. Lol
My wife bought a base model when we were dating - got a great price on it. It was a nice driving car - but she had problems with brakes and the transmission. We traded it for a 91 Accord coupe with a 5-speed that we had for 12 years.
I was 9 years old when this generation of Cutlass Supreme debuted. I thought it looked so futuristic. I also liked how they hid the door handles in the B-pillar.
Yeah I wish they would have shown a picture of the previous generation so people here could see just how radical of a departure it was from previous Olds cars
@@AnalogueKid2112 I was gonna say 'doesn't everyone know what a '78-88 Olds Cutlass Supreme looks like' but then I remembered I'm, like, old now and there are a lot of people who don't even know what Oldsmobile is, let alone what one looks like.
I guess we’re the same age and I still remember looking at this for the first time when it came out at the dealership thinking it was an amazing, futuristic looking car w the slim front and rear bucket seats and all the buttons. But didn’t realize how archaic everything else underneath the car was. Did these car sold well? I don’t ever remembering seeing them on the road.
@@Wasabi9111 I think they sold relatively well, although I do remember seeing more Buick Regals and Pontiac Grand Prix which were built on the same chassis... nowadays the only one I see with any kind of frequency is the Pontiac.
@@aayonce4 The reason they were so underpowered is because GM didn’t have powerful FWD engines at the time. These cars were initially engineered to take the 60-degree V6 only. So in 1989, you could buy a $1,700 cheaper V6 Century coupe with a 90-degree 3300 V6 that made 30 more hp and 10 more lb-ft of torque than the 300-lb heavier Regal managed. Just a year after the last GNX’s were sold. It was insane. Only after expensive re-engineering in the early ‘90s did the Regal (and only the Regal for that generation) get the 90-degree 3800 V6 that transformed the car into what we respect today.
The 90 degree V6 was an anomaly and not a volume seller. Sure the initial Regals were underpowered... but compared to the heavy RWD beasts they replaced that barely moved with a 305 never mind a 3800 they were adequate. The Century was mostly fleet sales by that point and would continue to be as it was completely out of date in comparison to offerings from Ford, Honda, and Toyota. And by the mid 90s.. the 60 degree V6s had equaled or exceeded the heavy and bulky 90 degree V6. It only really has a good reputation because of two reasons 1) The few dozen GNs/GNXs/GSs/GTPs that had boosted versions of it that do not represent the bulk of 3800s. 2) Old people who barely drove and took good care of their LeSabres and Park Avenues.
@@Bartonovich52 LOL. The 3300 V6 was not an anomaly at all. It was the best-selling engine in the Century/Ciera at the time. It might have been less popular in the N-bodies (which were also more powerful than the Regal), but they were the 1989-93 A-body bread and butter. And they certainly weren’t “mostly fleet sales” any more than the W-bodies were. Also, the V8 RWD Regal had an almost identical power-to-weight ratio as the 2.8 V6 FWD Regal. But you could also option up to a fuel injected 3.8 or a turbo 3.8 in the RWD car that blew the new Regal into the weeds. The RWD car also had far more torque and didn’t overheat because GM failed to put adequate water jackets in the 3.8 and 307 like they did the 2.8 V6. Also, the W-body coupes were less than 150lbs lighter than the G’s they replaced, despite being significantly smaller. The 3800 gained Wards Auto 10Best Engines awards for several years running... an honor never bestowed on the 60-degree engine. The 3800 was the bread and butter engine in the 1998-04 Buick Regal, as well as the 97-08 Grand Prix. It was standard in the Camaro/Firebird for a time, was the main engine in every Bonneville from 1987-05, and was extremely common in Grand Prixes, Impalas, was the only engine available in the Intrigue for its first 18 months (also its best selling months), was the only engine in the 1986-99 Riviera, all Reattas, almost all FWD LeSabres, Electras, Park Avenues, Eighty-Eights, LSS’s, Ninety-Eights, Regencies, 1986-92 Toronados, etc. There are very good reasons why GM used the award-winning, torquey, dead-reliable 3800 V6 instead of the 60-degree mills in GM’s larger, heavier FWD cars - it was superior. There’s a reason they put the 3800 V6 in later Regals - marketed to younger buyers - as standard, but reserved the 60-degree 3100 for the humble, fuddy-duddy, cheap W-body Century. The 3800 was easily the better engine.
@@aaronwilliams6989 they measured horsepower different before 1972. They switched from gross to net which dropped horsepower numbers about 30% even though the actual power didn't change. Example. A 350 LT-1 Corvette had 370hp in 1970. It dropped to 330hp in 1971 when the compression dropped. In 1972 it was rated at 255 net hp even though it was the same engine as the 1971 with 330hp gross.
@@pdennis93 Good point, however from 73 onward, the compression continued to drop and smog controls were added in more heavily for several years after, so both net and gross figures dropped like a rock through the early 80s
My FIRST new car was a 1995 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme coupe. Fantastic car, great styling and the new-for-1995 dash and console design! I worked for an Oldsmobile dealership, so I was able to lease a $20,120 car for $248 per month. The color was Cayenne Red Metallic, code 96. Mine had CD, leather and five-spoke alloy wheels. Now they are getting to be appreciated more!
This version of the Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme was a sharp looking car that was a great driver. Motorweek should have tested this car with an automatic transmission; most Americans drive automatics, NOT manuals. The instrument cluster was state of the art; this car was underrated.
One of my all-time favorite cars goes on another diet & gains both a smaller V6 & a 5-speed manual transmission. This is Almost exactly the same as the one that my Uncle Jerry had as a company car back in the day. Whenever I would go over to his & my Aunt Sue's house with my parents, I loved to sit in it & pretend I was a fighter pilot due to the cool digital instrumentation it had.
I remember my mom’s bought this same exact ‘88 Cutlass Supreme International series two tone white on grey in ‘93 i was a teenager and thought we was finally looking like money. We we’re living in Jersey City Nj where most people are were poor and drove beat up cars like we used to, but we we’re moving on up like the Jefferson’s with this sexy Olds lol! Love this retro bought back so many memories 💙
I had an 89 with the 3.1 litre. It was an awesome car. Super comfortable, super smooth, lots of power for the time, so many options including those power side bolsters. Common problems with these cars were brakes, fuel pump (removing the fuel tank to change it was not fun), and ignition coils as well as GMs water based paint that tended to flake off like 2010s Hondas do now. I only got rid of it because I felt it should have broken down by then. Should have kept it. Once I fixed a couple things it was super reliable even though I drove it hard.
Oh yeah.. and the dashboard fit was absolutely pathetic. Mine actually peeled right up by the windshield defroster vent. I used some metal spring clamps to restore my forward visibility.
I remember looking at these on the showfloor of Wally McCarthy's Lindahl Olds (the same dealership featured in the movie Fargo) with my dad back in the '80s. Seemed crazy futuristic when parked right next to a new Custom Cruiser covered in vinyl woodgrain appliqué and running wire wheel covers on white wall tires. Oddly, most of the swoopy new Cutlass Supremes I recall still had split bench seats and column mounted shifters. Probably not a terribly high take rate on the stick shift in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area I'm thinking.
Radial tires were a safety feature? Even in 88 they had been standard on cars for 10 years. I guess they needed some kind of filler for the safety feature list!
Had a near identical 1989 CS but it wasn't an International Series; mine had AOD with the 3.1, no power seats, and rear bench, but everything else even down to the rims was the same. I put a lot of highway miles on it in the first year, and always enjoyed the comfort of the ride and also the 3.1's really good fuel mileage with the automatic. Only issue I had out of it over 4 years of ownership was a portion of the digital dash failed in the area of the fuel gage; it was covered under warranty but I seem to recall the book price on the whole display was around $1100 at that time and the whole thing had to be replaced versus just the faulty board section. Still, overall it was a good looking car for the time and I did enjoy it.
Wife had an 89 CS International. Went thru brakes like underwear. Was a nice cruising car. Had more options than this, digital auto climate control, buttons on steering wheel for radio and climate, power everything. Same engine, but they offered the 3400 DOHC in the early 90’s that was a pretty nice package.
They were and they weren't. They would have all these cool high tech features and futuristic styling, then equip the car with an anemic engine and build it with all the quality of a Fisher Price toy.
GM could not build a v6 engine that lasted more than 50k miles for decades. The 4.3 was a beast, I had a 1990 1/2 Blazer with a 5 speed. Loved that thing. The Grand National changed the game.
@@StanSwan The 4.3 was Chevrolet's best V6 and the one they should have kept under the hood of their cars. But nnnooo!!! They instead chose to use the Buick 3.8. Never will I understand that dumb move. Sure the 3.8 was a good engine. But the 4.3 is and was a more powerful engine that was in their own parts bin. That could have saved them wwaayy more money and time. And it would have helped them stand out amoungst the crowd.
@@extremedrivr I loved my 4.3 and with a 5 speed stick it was so much fun to drive with the exception of Boston traffic. Many trips to Fenway Park my left leg felt like it was going to fall off. lol
My Granddad drives a 91 Cutlass Supreme 4 door version of this . About 200k miles . It's survived 3 owners , 7 presidents , an accident , and even a minor flood. Somehow it still runs .... albeit a bit rough . And burns a quart of oil per month...
That's the first I haven't heard a manual transmission in Oldsmobile especially in a Cutlass Supreme. And I put them front and rear bucket seats and a 1988 Pontiac Grand Am SE. It will fit lovely for a sporty ride.
In ‘79, the G-Bodies did have a manual option. Mostly 4-speed with 4th being direct drive. Supposedly, there was a 5-speed option for the Cutlass Supreme.
For 1990, the Quad 4 did debut. All 1990 Quad 4 cars were 5 speeds in both coupes and sedans. Starting in 91 and the last year for the Quad 4 offering in the Cutlass, you could get an automatic tranny.
My older cousin drives one of these, it is a few years newer because the headlights are slightly different, it was my aunts car and it sat in their garage for years and my uncle got it running again.
GM Market Misstep...introduce the coupe before the sedan two years later. The Taurus sedan and wagon had been on the market already for 2 years! Plus they had the aging A body Ciera which went on for another 8 years after this. Be sure to get the TruCoat! They did get a ton of mileage out of the GM-10/W Body platform....the 2005 Buick Lacrosse my daughter is using as her college car is a descendent of this car....with the 3800 V6. GM interiors would go down hill from there. I had a '91 Cutlass Supreme Sedan as a rental car for a weekend...the carpeted trim on the lower doors was glued on and started to peel off...this was on a car that was several months old and had 8,000 miles on it.
This is still a very nice looking car to my eyes. The design has aged gracefully. Even the boxy 80s style interior is attractive. The quality, however, is not. I got to drive an '87 Chevy Celebrity EuroSport wagon and an '88 Chevy Corsica years ago both with the 2.8L V6 and it was very punchy for its low power numbers. Very adequate in those cars. The Cutlass Supreme was a larger car though, so I imagine it felt a bit gutless.
All these retro reviews are great no matter what motorcar is featured. Do hope the Citroen CXs seen in the background of the 89 Ford Probe review will appear in their own clip soon.
I bought a '93 Cutlass International with the 3.4 dual OHC. I had it for 30 months. It handled great and was very comfortable. The interior was cheap & hadn't been changed since 1988. The biggest issue I had was the torque steer. When you pressed on the gas with some force from a standing stop the steering wheel jerked sideways quite a bit. No effort by Oldsmobile engineers to do any torque steer damping. I had & still have an '87 442 bought new. Comparing both cars, I'd say the '87 442 beats this version every time in every way.
In the early 90s my girlfriend had a stripped-out 88 Cutlass. Even had steel ugly Wheels. My parents next door neighbor 89 Cutlass International had a giant tree fall on it. I went over to them and bought all four aluminum rims and tires off the wrecked car and swap them out for my girlfriend's car for $100 before the insurance company took it away
$16k too, not bad. For comparison, a loaded up 944 or 300ZX would have been well in to the $20k's at the time. (Obviously apples to oranges.) 1980's GM gets criticized, but they did offer value.
@@jayda1k_ Yep. It seems GM felt that they had to keep the RWD Cutlass Supreme and Monte Carlo around for one more year to sell to buyers not keen on FWD replacements.
@@SP84Fanatic The G-bodies were already 5 years past their expiration date. They were supposed to be replaced by the Celebrity, Century, Ciera, and 6000 in the 1982, thus the platform name change from A to G-body when they were continued past when GM had originally planned to cancel them.
@@KevinJames-yg9eu It’s like GM got cold feet and did not want to alienate buyers of the old A-Body (renamed G-Body). Also, I read the W-Bodies were originally intended for a mid 1980s release, but kept getting delayed.
@@KevinJames-yg9eu they were just refreshed in 1981. I doubt GM planned to outright replace them in 1982. Maybe the 4 door and wagon but the coupes were freshly redesigned.
I’m almost positive my great grandparents owned one of these. It was the last car they owned. It was white and silver, has the same wheels and the luggage rack on the back. May have been a sedan model. I vaguely remember the car it was the early 00s and I was just 5-6 years old.
Olds *started* downhill in about 1980, but 1987 is when sales started to collapse. Olds would go from selling a million cars in 1986 to just 300,000 in 1992. And the W-body was emblematic of how deep the rot had set in at GM in the ‘80s. It took 7 years to develop - twice as long as usual - and over $7B to create, only for the platform to be constantly delayed and come out half baked with poor quality, and inadequate power. GM would keep the W in production for the next 25 years and gradually improve it into something solid and worthwhile, but it was a disaster at launch and scared off even more buyers than the 1986 Toronado and the awful “Not Your Father’s Oldsmobile” ad campaign. What a mess.
The W saved GM in the end because they had absolutely nothing to compare with the Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable. The A platform was completely out of date.. yet still soldiered on as an economy option until 1996! Turning the W into a four door was a great way to both salvage the platform that would never amortize itself on sagging PLC sales and a quick and dirty way to have a modern sedan that would almost equal the Taurus/Sable sales across four divisions.
@@Bartonovich52 I think it’s the other way around. In actuality, from 1986-89, when GM only had the A-body sedans to sell against the Taurus/Sable, the A-bodies still crushed ‘em. In 1986 alone, the A-bodies outsold the Taurus/Sable 4:1. In ‘87, it was 2:1. Things stabilized for 88-89 with the A-bodies outselling the Taurus/Sable by 40-45%. Even in 1990, after the Celebrity sedan was dropped in favor of the new Lumina sedan, the A-bodies nearly outsold the Taurus/Sable alone... without the help of the W’s. The truth is, the W-body sedans failed to shore up GM’s market share. The Lumina never once surpassed the sales the Celebrity managed in 1988, its 7th season. The Regal sedan never once outsold the Century sedan, and the entire Cutlass Ciera line outsold the W-body Cutlass Supreme line the entire time they were sold together. The A’s managed to outsell the Taurus/Sable by **massive margins** when they were all GM had. Conversely, the Taurus/Sable managed to outsell the W-bodies in 1993, 1994, and 1996 despite being the 4 year-older design in ‘93 and ‘94. So, as Taurus/Sable competitors, the W-bodies failed to continue the success of the A-bodies they were supposed to replace, which is largely why GM kept the Buick and Olds versions until 1996. There’s a MW review of the 1989 Century coupe available here on YT. Despite being cheaper and comparatively ancient, it was actually more powerful, faster, and more fuel efficient than the all-new W-body Regal coupe. For $1,700 less, a Century V6 coupe got you 30 more hp than the Regal, in a body 300lbs lighter. After the Regal had just got done appealing to GNX buyers the year before. The aging A-body was judged, for the money, to be a better car than the brand-new W-body. In sum, the failure of the W-body to repeat the A’s success is why the A had to hang on so long, partly why GM nearly went bust in 1991-92, and why GM continued to shed market share.
My mom had a ‘91 Cutlass Supreme. I remember it well. It was the first one she bought after the divorce. It made her happy. It scared me and my sister though. The car shimmied when it started. And oil leaked in the backseat. It was weird lol
Please post a retro review for the revised Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme convertible. My mother had a 1993 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme convertible and I would love to see a retro review for that one
Design-wise this was perhaps the best of the GM-10/W-platform trio. Clean, modern and despite some of the cladding and two-tone gimmickry, quite tasteful. The rear end was especially nice and restrained, minimalist yet expressive.
Nice catch. This was such a bad period for GM. There's an awesome book that came out in the 90's (Comeback) that describes in detail of GM during this time period, and how the awful CEO was tanking the company. Really awesome read.
@@MixerVM Both of those steering wheels were used in those cars in these model years. The first wheel is more known in the Delta 88/98 Regency models from 1988-90. But the Cutlass had them as well. I think it actually depended on what was available on the assembly line at the time the car came by for the wheel. Seriously. That's how shoddy things were at GM at the time!
@@joe6096 Correct and incorrect. This is pre production International Series car. No production International Series car received this wheel and horn pad. Only the lesser trimmed Supremes like the SL's.
'At the rate that GM is deploying the Quad 4 it will be obsolete by the time that it is available' ahhh, I never would have guessed GM was where Nvidia got its current business strategy
@@sleeksilver If these were trash why did they sell in the gazillions. A work colleague of mine at the time bought one and racked up tons of kms as a sales rep and never had a problem. Trash my ass.
@@bruceh92 They were trash and sold to the "buy American or buy nothing" idiots who didn't know any better. They sold a ton and quickly disappeared. Same thing happened in the 90s with GM vehicles vs Honda and Toyota but you never see the GM products rolling around but plenty of Japanese vehicles. Junk, they were junk. Stop being an apologist.
The G-body Cutlass, and the generation before that one, were literally the best-selling cars Oldsmobile ever made. Heck -- for *several* years in the '70s, the Oldsmobile Cutlass was the best selling car *in the entire country!* Then they started messing with it -- front-wheel drive, smaller engines, less interior room, etc., etc... Oldsmobile never recovered after that.
Front wheel drive and smaller engines is not what killed Oldsmobile. The average age of the buyer had become older and older. GM discontinued the cutlass the 88 and the 98 in favor of new models that were designed to attract younger buyers who were also import shoppers. Oldsmobile dropped their bread and butter models in favor of the Alero the Achieva and the intrigue. Can’t forget the Aurora. They did not do well and were a turn off to many of Oldsmobiles traditional customers who went to Buick around that time.
The W body in retrospect is probably the best example of unfair "simp" reasoning to covet or dismiss a car. It wasn't RWD, as if that matters in this caliber of a car, but it was much more modern than the dated 70s design that it replaced. Refreshed 94 model was my first new car, and it was a good car, but MW was right on, the interior materials sucked and that was just as true of the Grand Prix and Regal (also owned a 96 GP GTP), and the radio was comically far from the driver...by 94 it offered the 3.1 and the 3.4 DOHC (had the 3.4 in the GP) and it came into its own there. But it wasn't a car for performance enthusiasts, and you really have to look at it in that light. It was a comfortable mid-sized "sporty" car and it was a nice alternative to what the Japanese automakers were making back then. A Honda Accord was an infinitely better car in terms of quality, but it was a boring snoozer too where at least GM was offering something more substantial and more interesting for the same money. Camry too, significantly better car, but i'd take a Grand Prix any day. :) Good times. Definitely miss the 90s for cars. Everything now is too homogenized, it all looks the same, drives the same, and everything with reasonable cost has a diminutive "turboed to the death" 4 banger and some characteristics of a 4 can't be overcome or compensated for no matter how fast it is. It was my reasoning for choosing the Olds over the Honda back then too.
@@jiggity76 the first one was a 2.8 v6, and the second was a lq1. I had the cams reground, and heads ported with an 3 inch exhaust and a 150 shot nitrous and that car ran well. It ran low 13s almost 20 years ago it was the perfect sleeper..I really miss that car!
@@mostwantedjames Holy moly! I would say so! I currently have two LQ1 cars. A 91 Cutlass International coupe and 93 Grand Prix STE sedan. Love the LQ1's!
@@jiggity76 in hindsight, I wanted the Gran Prix lq1, that had the honeycomb wheels and better interior. My Cutlass had the every option,, including the heads up display. Would love to see your Grand Prix!
@@antaeusx believe it or not I saw an old one that made this look like it was on rails, lol 😂 I can’t remember what make / model (80s I think). It was terrifying that it was actually produced 😬
Had a 1989 SL in blue. with the 3.1. Was a great car for the 3 years I had it. I had several Oldsmobiles and had good luck with em all. Miss the brandtoday quite honestly.
Discontinuing their bread and butter models that had been out for years did them in. They dropped the 88, 98, and Cutlass series. Then tried to replace them with crap cars to try to appeal to import younger buyers. The Intrigue, Alero and Achieva are what killed Oldsmobile. General motors turned their back on traditional Oldsmobile buyers and it didn’t work
That wasn’t poverty spec for 88.. lol. Power windows and power locks and power seats and AC were still options on most cars. You think people hate a 57 Belair because it had crank windows and an AM radio? Lol!
The only thing missing in that one was leather sunroof and heads up display. I had the Pontiac Grand Prix turbo in 1990. That is not a poverty spec car. The base model came with a non-power split bench seat and an AM/FM radio. If you got Chevys equivalent the Beretta some of those did come in the base model without power windows and locks or cruise control.
@@josephthornton4206 Right, that one would be nicely remembered if they were all like that. The trouble is that a LOT more had plastic wheelcovers and column shifts than the lacy wheels and FE3.
I have an 89 coupe, that has 55k miles on it. I bought it from my brother who inherited from my parents, who bought it new in 88. Nice car but has more sentimental value than HP
next on unsolved mysteries - why Motorweek posted a picture of the '86 Turbo Coupe instead of the better-looking and more relevant comparison '88 model
It was because of this car that my dad bought a new Cutlass Supreme Classic for my mom in 1988. He wanted one last chance at a V8 (Olds 307) rear wheel drive GM car. He never bought another new midsize GM car again.
Want to help keep our weekly Retro Reviews alive? DONATE NOW: mptevents.regfox.com/motorweek
The vacuum fluorescent gauges look cool!
Had that on my 84 Buick. Great color, very visible and it was easy on the eyes. in 15 years I can't remember if it ever had a problem.
They were cool. I had an ‘89 Cutlass with them. I’ve never seen a better execution of electronic gauges from that era.
I agree! My ex-Bro-In-Law worked for GM and once brought home an Oldsmobile 98 to test drive. It had one of the coolest gauge clusters I've ever seen. (sigh) I miss those days...
It hasn't aged like other digital gauges from the period. That's saying something.
#1 on my gripes with GM. Cadillac had an inferior dashboard/instrument design in the 60s/70s/80s/90s/early 00s. This Olds is a perfect example, the gages look way better than anything Cadillac was doing in 1988.
This car with the 3800 and a manual could have been a good combo for the time
I agree. The clutch would have been replaced many times before the 3800 had any work done!
Heck, drop in the supercharged 3800...
@@johnmc67 at that point, they should have kept it RWD
@@johnmc67 An L67 with a Borg Warner or Aisin transmission would be great!
They shoulda kept it RWD
Always liked this iteration of the Cutlass Supreme. The lines were really good for the times, especially later versions. Funny how Olds was offering rear buckets and powered headrests back in the 80s, something that is now reserved for pure luxury cars.
Still looks classy and hot!
@@jareknowak8712 yup. Later models like like the '91 update really jazzed things up, with better engines.
@@hellkitty1014 Couldn't agree more. My 91 International coupe is my favorite year of these.
@@jiggity76 Olds just had some amazing cars in the early 90's The 98 Touring, Trofeo, ALL of the International Series.
@@Vekurus Absolutely! I wouldn't give up my International Series Cutlass Supreme for anything!
2:49 John: IF YOU WANT JUST AIR, YOU HAVE TO OPEN A WINDOW! LOL
We had a Buick Regal with a 2.8 and automatic. Drove it 285k miles. It was actually reliable.
“At the rate that GM is deploying the Quad 4, it will be obsolete by the time that it is available”
Boy we’re they right lol
Quad 4s still give me nightmares. Terrible to work on.
Ran it up to around 2002.
For some reason, everyone loved the Quad 4 at the time, but to me it sounded as smooth as tossing ball bearings into a blender.
@@Chevroldsmobuiac Ha! Yeah, GM decided a large 4cyl did not need balance shafts. Those things would idle so roughly they'd shake the lugnuts off of the wheels.🤣
I owned a 1995 Cutlass Supreme coupe. By '95 it had the 160hp 3.1L V6. Still not a muscle car but powerful enough to be a pleasant highway car. For me and my girlfriend (now long time wife) it was a comfortable car to travel around in. We put a lot of miles on that Olds. I don't yearn to have it back but it was one of the best GM cars I have owned. I miss the personal luxury coupe car segment. I loathe today's bubble toaster look alike CUVs.
Well said!
@@jiggity76 I concur!
I remember when I was little my sister having this car as a rental. It had the digital dash but non of the other options. Everyone thought it was a quick car 🤣. Same color scheme as well. Lol
Would have been quick compared to my 1984 Toyota pickup lol
Beautifull this Olds Cutlass Supreme, very nice this generation
I saw one of these with NY tags cruising down I81 in Virginia a few months ago. It looked great! What a survivor! An older gentleman was driving it.
Those are the best. Those are like old ladies with a 30-year-old Lincoln town car in perfect condition.
My wife bought a base model when we were dating - got a great price on it. It was a nice driving car - but she had problems with brakes and the transmission. We traded it for a 91 Accord coupe with a 5-speed that we had for 12 years.
Hondas were unbeatable then against any US auto. The 88 prelude here could still be on the road.
That was my 1st car in 9th grade. I’d love to have one now
I was 9 years old when this generation of Cutlass Supreme debuted. I thought it looked so futuristic. I also liked how they hid the door handles in the B-pillar.
Yeah I wish they would have shown a picture of the previous generation so people here could see just how radical of a departure it was from previous Olds cars
@@AnalogueKid2112 I was gonna say 'doesn't everyone know what a '78-88 Olds Cutlass Supreme looks like' but then I remembered I'm, like, old now and there are a lot of people who don't even know what Oldsmobile is, let alone what one looks like.
This Cutlass Supreme 1988 is with engine V6 2.8, what hp and torque?
I guess we’re the same age and I still remember looking at this for the first time when it came out at the dealership thinking it was an amazing, futuristic looking car w the slim front and rear bucket seats and all the buttons. But didn’t realize how archaic everything else underneath the car was.
Did these car sold well? I don’t ever remembering seeing them on the road.
@@Wasabi9111 I think they sold relatively well, although I do remember seeing more Buick Regals and Pontiac Grand Prix which were built on the same chassis... nowadays the only one I see with any kind of frequency is the Pontiac.
A timeless car that I wish I could buy a brand new one identical to it today. Absolutely loved driving those back in the day.
COMFORT.
I feel like these cars would have a better reputation if they would have kept RWD.
I think it needs more power
Yep. They would have been able to use much more powerful engines, certainly.
@@aayonce4 The reason they were so underpowered is because GM didn’t have powerful FWD engines at the time. These cars were initially engineered to take the 60-degree V6 only. So in 1989, you could buy a $1,700 cheaper V6 Century coupe with a 90-degree 3300 V6 that made 30 more hp and 10 more lb-ft of torque than the 300-lb heavier Regal managed. Just a year after the last GNX’s were sold.
It was insane. Only after expensive re-engineering in the early ‘90s did the Regal (and only the Regal for that generation) get the 90-degree 3800 V6 that transformed the car into what we respect today.
The 90 degree V6 was an anomaly and not a volume seller. Sure the initial Regals were underpowered... but compared to the heavy RWD beasts they replaced that barely moved with a 305 never mind a 3800 they were adequate. The Century was mostly fleet sales by that point and would continue to be as it was completely out of date in comparison to offerings from Ford, Honda, and Toyota.
And by the mid 90s.. the 60 degree V6s had equaled or exceeded the heavy and bulky 90 degree V6. It only really has a good reputation because of two reasons
1) The few dozen GNs/GNXs/GSs/GTPs that had boosted versions of it that do not represent the bulk of 3800s.
2) Old people who barely drove and took good care of their LeSabres and Park Avenues.
@@Bartonovich52 LOL. The 3300 V6 was not an anomaly at all. It was the best-selling engine in the Century/Ciera at the time. It might have been less popular in the N-bodies (which were also more powerful than the Regal), but they were the 1989-93 A-body bread and butter. And they certainly weren’t “mostly fleet sales” any more than the W-bodies were. Also, the V8 RWD Regal had an almost identical power-to-weight ratio as the 2.8 V6 FWD Regal. But you could also option up to a fuel injected 3.8 or a turbo 3.8 in the RWD car that blew the new Regal into the weeds. The RWD car also had far more torque and didn’t overheat because GM failed to put adequate water jackets in the 3.8 and 307 like they did the 2.8 V6.
Also, the W-body coupes were less than 150lbs lighter than the G’s they replaced, despite being significantly smaller.
The 3800 gained Wards Auto 10Best Engines awards for several years running... an honor never bestowed on the 60-degree engine. The 3800 was the bread and butter engine in the 1998-04 Buick Regal, as well as the 97-08 Grand Prix. It was standard in the Camaro/Firebird for a time, was the main engine in every Bonneville from 1987-05, and was extremely common in Grand Prixes, Impalas, was the only engine available in the Intrigue for its first 18 months (also its best selling months), was the only engine in the 1986-99 Riviera, all Reattas, almost all FWD LeSabres, Electras, Park Avenues, Eighty-Eights, LSS’s, Ninety-Eights, Regencies, 1986-92 Toronados, etc. There are very good reasons why GM used the award-winning, torquey, dead-reliable 3800 V6 instead of the 60-degree mills in GM’s larger, heavier FWD cars - it was superior. There’s a reason they put the 3800 V6 in later Regals - marketed to younger buyers - as standard, but reserved the 60-degree 3100 for the humble, fuddy-duddy, cheap W-body Century. The 3800 was easily the better engine.
The official car of white perm hair, large circle glass, kitten sweaters and blue handicap placards.
Hogging the left lane with the hazards on doing 10 mph under the speed limit!😖
You forgot Virginia Slim cigarettes too
You’re right!
In 1988, it wasn't
🎶this is NOT your father's Oldsmobile. This is the new generation of Olds 🎶
And I think that was the problem... my father's Olds was a 65 Cutlass Holiday coupe with a 330 cu in V8 and 315 horses... ;-)
@@Chevroldsmobuiac Almost 3 × that of the new one. What a contrast!
@@aaronwilliams6989 they measured horsepower different before 1972. They switched from gross to net which dropped horsepower numbers about 30% even though the actual power didn't change.
Example. A 350 LT-1 Corvette had 370hp in 1970. It dropped to 330hp in 1971 when the compression dropped. In 1972 it was rated at 255 net hp even though it was the same engine as the 1971 with 330hp gross.
@@pdennis93 Intriguing
@@pdennis93 Good point, however from 73 onward, the compression continued to drop and smog controls were added in more heavily for several years after, so both net and gross figures dropped like a rock through the early 80s
My FIRST new car was a 1995 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme coupe. Fantastic car, great styling and the new-for-1995 dash and console design! I worked for an Oldsmobile dealership, so I was able to lease a $20,120 car for $248 per month. The color was Cayenne Red Metallic, code 96. Mine had CD, leather and five-spoke alloy wheels. Now they are getting to be appreciated more!
This is better looking than most of the modern crap today
???
What!? How dare you question the standard issue silver/grey/white CUV potatoes that all people now drive.
Just another reason GM failed.......butt ugly, with GM quality 🤮
@@dave_riots what don’t you understand?
This car is still better looking than today's car designs.
This version of the Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme was a sharp looking car that was a great driver. Motorweek should have tested this car with an automatic transmission; most Americans drive automatics, NOT manuals. The instrument cluster was state of the art; this car was underrated.
My grandpa had one of these when I was growing up, along with a 1992 Bravada and 05 Santa Fe! the good times, miss those days
Honestly I really like this manual dinosaur! What a rare gem 💎
One of my all-time favorite cars goes on another diet & gains both a smaller V6 & a 5-speed manual transmission. This is Almost exactly the same as the one that my Uncle Jerry had as a company car back in the day. Whenever I would go over to his & my Aunt Sue's house with my parents, I loved to sit in it & pretend I was a fighter pilot due to the cool digital instrumentation it had.
5:53 "ABS is a future option that is needed NOW!"
I remember my mom’s bought this same exact ‘88 Cutlass Supreme International series two tone white on grey in ‘93 i was a teenager and thought we was finally looking like money. We we’re living in Jersey City Nj where most people are were poor and drove beat up cars like we used to, but we we’re moving on up like the Jefferson’s with this sexy Olds lol! Love this retro bought back so many memories 💙
I had an 89 with the 3.1 litre.
It was an awesome car. Super comfortable, super smooth, lots of power for the time, so many options including those power side bolsters.
Common problems with these cars were brakes, fuel pump (removing the fuel tank to change it was not fun), and ignition coils as well as GMs water based paint that tended to flake off like 2010s Hondas do now.
I only got rid of it because I felt it should have broken down by then. Should have kept it. Once I fixed a couple things it was super reliable even though I drove it hard.
Oh yeah.. and the dashboard fit was absolutely pathetic. Mine actually peeled right up by the windshield defroster vent. I used some metal spring clamps to restore my forward visibility.
I remember looking at these on the showfloor of Wally McCarthy's Lindahl Olds (the same dealership featured in the movie Fargo) with my dad back in the '80s. Seemed crazy futuristic when parked right next to a new Custom Cruiser covered in vinyl woodgrain appliqué and running wire wheel covers on white wall tires.
Oddly, most of the swoopy new Cutlass Supremes I recall still had split bench seats and column mounted shifters. Probably not a terribly high take rate on the stick shift in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area I'm thinking.
Definitely a rare option. Especially for the sedans.
That little V6 is crying in pain to move that car lol.
That was the problem with this car. Should have came with the 3800 at launch
It did. My friend had one of these. It ran dead even with my 96 Ford Escort LX hatch. He tried to sell it after that haha
@@thebonefish DAMN!! LOL!!!
@@thebonefish The Cutlass Supreme never got the 3800. Only the Regal beginning in 1990.
9.1 seconds wasn't slow for 88. The 3800 would have been nice, but this was still right in line with competition.
Radial tires were a safety feature? Even in 88 they had been standard on cars for 10 years. I guess they needed some kind of filler for the safety feature list!
Yeah I was surprised by that lol were bias ply tires still around in the late 1980's?
Nice to know I wasn’t the only one to think that😜
That’s ok. I still remember seeing safety options being prominently listed in the 80s like RH side mirror, tempered glass, seatbelt chime, etc etc.
Had a near identical 1989 CS but it wasn't an International Series; mine had AOD with the 3.1, no power seats, and rear bench, but everything else even down to the rims was the same. I put a lot of highway miles on it in the first year, and always enjoyed the comfort of the ride and also the 3.1's really good fuel mileage with the automatic. Only issue I had out of it over 4 years of ownership was a portion of the digital dash failed in the area of the fuel gage; it was covered under warranty but I seem to recall the book price on the whole display was around $1100 at that time and the whole thing had to be replaced versus just the faulty board section. Still, overall it was a good looking car for the time and I did enjoy it.
Wife had an 89 CS International. Went thru brakes like underwear. Was a nice cruising car. Had more options than this, digital auto climate control, buttons on steering wheel for radio and climate, power everything. Same engine, but they offered the 3400 DOHC in the early 90’s that was a pretty nice package.
Gm was truly ahead of its time back in the day, boy have things changed so much
They were and they weren't. They would have all these cool high tech features and futuristic styling, then equip the car with an anemic engine and build it with all the quality of a Fisher Price toy.
GM could not build a v6 engine that lasted more than 50k miles for decades. The 4.3 was a beast, I had a 1990 1/2 Blazer with a 5 speed. Loved that thing. The Grand National changed the game.
@@StanSwan The 4.3 was Chevrolet's best V6 and the one they should have kept under the hood of their cars.
But nnnooo!!!
They instead chose to use the Buick 3.8.
Never will I understand that dumb move.
Sure the 3.8 was a good engine.
But the 4.3 is and was a more powerful engine that was in their own parts bin.
That could have saved them wwaayy more money and time. And it would have helped them stand out amoungst the crowd.
@@extremedrivr I loved my 4.3 and with a 5 speed stick it was so much fun to drive with the exception of Boston traffic. Many trips to Fenway Park my left leg felt like it was going to fall off. lol
A manual in an Olds, wow! I wonder how many of these are still around.
I would suspect not many are left. In the 80’s manuals were available on many GM vehicles
My Granddad drives a 91 Cutlass Supreme 4 door version of this . About 200k miles . It's survived 3 owners , 7 presidents , an accident , and even a minor flood. Somehow it still runs .... albeit a bit rough . And burns a quart of oil per month...
They made the Alero with a manual, although few were sold.
@@herbiehusker1889 Calais as well
I'd guess less than 2000 are still road worthy and registered in the entire country.
Wow. This car is actually quite stylish for the time, especially when you consider almost everything else at the time was square and boxy.
That's the first I haven't heard a manual transmission in Oldsmobile especially in a Cutlass Supreme. And I put them front and rear bucket seats and a 1988 Pontiac Grand Am SE. It will fit lovely for a sporty ride.
In ‘79, the G-Bodies did have a manual option. Mostly 4-speed with 4th being direct drive. Supposedly, there was a 5-speed option for the Cutlass Supreme.
What Roger Smith did to GM, summarized in one car.
Yup he killed GM with his stupid ass ideas of making EVERYTHING front wheel drive.
He basically destroyed GM
That car still looks good.... I expected to see the HO Quad4 under the hood tho.
It was a design ahead of its time.
For 1990, the Quad 4 did debut. All 1990 Quad 4 cars were 5 speeds in both coupes and sedans. Starting in 91 and the last year for the Quad 4 offering in the Cutlass, you could get an automatic tranny.
A manual transmission in an Oldsmobile???? I didn’t even think that existed after 60’s. Wow
My older cousin drives one of these, it is a few years newer because the headlights are slightly different, it was my aunts car and it sat in their garage for years and my uncle got it running again.
Motorweek '88. This is gold.
GM Market Misstep...introduce the coupe before the sedan two years later. The Taurus sedan and wagon had been on the market already for 2 years! Plus they had the aging A body Ciera which went on for another 8 years after this. Be sure to get the TruCoat!
They did get a ton of mileage out of the GM-10/W Body platform....the 2005 Buick Lacrosse my daughter is using as her college car is a descendent of this car....with the 3800 V6.
GM interiors would go down hill from there. I had a '91 Cutlass Supreme Sedan as a rental car for a weekend...the carpeted trim on the lower doors was glued on and started to peel off...this was on a car that was several months old and had 8,000 miles on it.
My 91's door panel carpet is still intact. Pretty impressed with that.
This is still a very nice looking car to my eyes. The design has aged gracefully. Even the boxy 80s style interior is attractive. The quality, however, is not. I got to drive an '87 Chevy Celebrity EuroSport wagon and an '88 Chevy Corsica years ago both with the 2.8L V6 and it was very punchy for its low power numbers. Very adequate in those cars. The Cutlass Supreme was a larger car though, so I imagine it felt a bit gutless.
Oh man. I saw a Corsica recently and wished I hadn't seen it. 😆
Sorry but those were not a car I would want a Chevrolet badge on. 😆
All these retro reviews are great no matter what motorcar is featured. Do hope the Citroen CXs seen in the background of the 89 Ford Probe review will appear in their own clip soon.
I bought a '93 Cutlass International with the 3.4 dual OHC. I had it for 30 months. It handled great and was very comfortable. The interior was cheap & hadn't been changed since 1988. The biggest issue I had was the torque steer. When you pressed on the gas with some force from a standing stop the steering wheel jerked sideways quite a bit. No effort by Oldsmobile engineers to do any torque steer damping. I had & still have an '87 442 bought new. Comparing both cars, I'd say the '87 442 beats this version every time in every way.
That 93 International car is a unicorn! The 3.4 was the popular choice as the 3.1 International cars are actually even more rare.
Wish i could find one of these. A very nice looking coupe... and it's an Oldsmobile.
Just bought one. Two k
Love this so much, grew up with one in the early ‘90s when they were still new. Wasn’t aware until now that the International was anything special.
In the early 90s my girlfriend had a stripped-out 88 Cutlass. Even had steel ugly Wheels. My parents next door neighbor 89 Cutlass International had a giant tree fall on it. I went over to them and bought all four aluminum rims and tires off the wrecked car and swap them out for my girlfriend's car for $100 before the insurance company took it away
Cutlass Supreme, the car of choice for Tenacious D
😂❤🤘
$16k too, not bad. For comparison, a loaded up 944 or 300ZX would have been well in to the $20k's at the time. (Obviously apples to oranges.)
1980's GM gets criticized, but they did offer value.
6:16, it’s odd to see them use a picture of a pre-1987 Thunderbird.
Even more odd considering these sold alongside of the G-body Cutlass Supreme for 1 model year
@@jayda1k_ Yep. It seems GM felt that they had to keep the RWD Cutlass Supreme and Monte Carlo around for one more year to sell to buyers not keen on FWD replacements.
@@SP84Fanatic The G-bodies were already 5 years past their expiration date. They were supposed to be replaced by the Celebrity, Century, Ciera, and 6000 in the 1982, thus the platform name change from A to G-body when they were continued past when GM had originally planned to cancel them.
@@KevinJames-yg9eu It’s like GM got cold feet and did not want to alienate buyers of the old A-Body (renamed G-Body). Also, I read the W-Bodies were originally intended for a mid 1980s release, but kept getting delayed.
@@KevinJames-yg9eu they were just refreshed in 1981. I doubt GM planned to outright replace them in 1982. Maybe the 4 door and wagon but the coupes were freshly redesigned.
I’m almost positive my great grandparents owned one of these. It was the last car they owned. It was white and silver, has the same wheels and the luggage rack on the back. May have been a sedan model. I vaguely remember the car it was the early 00s and I was just 5-6 years old.
This is right before Olds started downhill.
Olds *started* downhill in about 1980, but 1987 is when sales started to collapse. Olds would go from selling a million cars in 1986 to just 300,000 in 1992. And the W-body was emblematic of how deep the rot had set in at GM in the ‘80s. It took 7 years to develop - twice as long as usual - and over $7B to create, only for the platform to be constantly delayed and come out half baked with poor quality, and inadequate power. GM would keep the W in production for the next 25 years and gradually improve it into something solid and worthwhile, but it was a disaster at launch and scared off even more buyers than the 1986 Toronado and the awful “Not Your Father’s Oldsmobile” ad campaign. What a mess.
The W saved GM in the end because they had absolutely nothing to compare with the Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable. The A platform was completely out of date.. yet still soldiered on as an economy option until 1996!
Turning the W into a four door was a great way to both salvage the platform that would never amortize itself on sagging PLC sales and a quick and dirty way to have a modern sedan that would almost equal the Taurus/Sable sales across four divisions.
@@Bartonovich52 I think it’s the other way around. In actuality, from 1986-89, when GM only had the A-body sedans to sell against the Taurus/Sable, the A-bodies still crushed ‘em. In 1986 alone, the A-bodies outsold the Taurus/Sable 4:1. In ‘87, it was 2:1. Things stabilized for 88-89 with the A-bodies outselling the Taurus/Sable by 40-45%. Even in 1990, after the Celebrity sedan was dropped in favor of the new Lumina sedan, the A-bodies nearly outsold the Taurus/Sable alone... without the help of the W’s.
The truth is, the W-body sedans failed to shore up GM’s market share. The Lumina never once surpassed the sales the Celebrity managed in 1988, its 7th season. The Regal sedan never once outsold the Century sedan, and the entire Cutlass Ciera line outsold the W-body Cutlass Supreme line the entire time they were sold together.
The A’s managed to outsell the Taurus/Sable by **massive margins** when they were all GM had. Conversely, the Taurus/Sable managed to outsell the W-bodies in 1993, 1994, and 1996 despite being the 4 year-older design in ‘93 and ‘94.
So, as Taurus/Sable competitors, the W-bodies failed to continue the success of the A-bodies they were supposed to replace, which is largely why GM kept the Buick and Olds versions until 1996.
There’s a MW review of the 1989 Century coupe available here on YT. Despite being cheaper and comparatively ancient, it was actually more powerful, faster, and more fuel efficient than the all-new W-body Regal coupe. For $1,700 less, a Century V6 coupe got you 30 more hp than the Regal, in a body 300lbs lighter. After the Regal had just got done appealing to GNX buyers the year before. The aging A-body was judged, for the money, to be a better car than the brand-new W-body.
In sum, the failure of the W-body to repeat the A’s success is why the A had to hang on so long, partly why GM nearly went bust in 1991-92, and why GM continued to shed market share.
My mom had a ‘91 Cutlass Supreme. I remember it well. It was the first one she bought after the divorce. It made her happy.
It scared me and my sister though. The car shimmied when it started. And oil leaked in the backseat. It was weird lol
Great imagination you have there.
Missed opportunities - couldn’t shake off the desire to take out cost to please the ELT. Interesting styling for it’s time, that’s about it.
The 5 speed manual was a rarity.
I am still waiting for motorweek to put out the 1988 Buick Regal Review
Please post a retro review for the revised Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme convertible. My mother had a 1993 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme convertible and I would love to see a retro review for that one
The later models like a 1993 or 1994 were really nice cars, especially the convertible models.
Design-wise this was perhaps the best of the GM-10/W-platform trio. Clean, modern and despite some of the cladding and two-tone gimmickry, quite tasteful.
The rear end was especially nice and restrained, minimalist yet expressive.
Whoa, it looked like that thing was gonna flip over going around the turns.
I've noticed that the Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme has body side moldings on the driver's side but the passenger side doesn't.
They show two different cars at different times, too. Notice the steering wheel changes between shots at least once.
You’re right! Well spotted, no wonder everyone drives Korean and Japanese cars now; such a shame. This was a cool car.
Nice catch. This was such a bad period for GM. There's an awesome book that came out in the 90's (Comeback) that describes in detail of GM during this time period, and how the awful CEO was tanking the company. Really awesome read.
@@joemcdonough7509 Thanks for nothing, Roger Smith!
@@joemcdonough7509 That CEO was Roger B Smith, and he is widely regarded as the worst automotive CEO in history.
The NASCAR verison of these olds are some of the sexiest stock cars I seen. Looked tough and quick standing still.
did anyone else notice that the steering wheel on the car changed between the first interior shot and the second?
It's not uncommon for automotive journalists to receive pre-production vehicles with minor differences between each other.
@@MixerVM Both of those steering wheels were used in those cars in these model years. The first wheel is more known in the Delta 88/98 Regency models from 1988-90. But the Cutlass had them as well. I think it actually depended on what was available on the assembly line at the time the car came by for the wheel. Seriously. That's how shoddy things were at GM at the time!
@@joe6096 Correct and incorrect. This is pre production International Series car. No production International Series car received this wheel and horn pad. Only the lesser trimmed Supremes like the SL's.
I didn't know Sigourney weaver did motor week back in the day
I really think that the volume of cars that they were building was part of the quality issue with how the dash pieces fit
I would agree with that
'At the rate that GM is deploying the Quad 4 it will be obsolete by the time that it is available' ahhh, I never would have guessed GM was where Nvidia got its current business strategy
Whenever I see this body style Cutlass I think of NASCAR's Harry Gant. This car proved to be a pretty good NASCAR body style from 1988-93.....
These were one of GM's best cars - still nice!
These were trash, are you being serious??? Horrible fit and finish, build quality, and reliability.
@@sleeksilver If these were trash why did they sell in the gazillions. A work colleague of mine at the time bought one and racked up tons of kms as a sales rep and never had a problem. Trash my ass.
@@bruceh92 They were trash and sold to the "buy American or buy nothing" idiots who didn't know any better. They sold a ton and quickly disappeared. Same thing happened in the 90s with GM vehicles vs Honda and Toyota but you never see the GM products rolling around but plenty of Japanese vehicles.
Junk, they were junk. Stop being an apologist.
@@bruceh92 Also, if these weren't trash would you like to explain how GM lost so much market share from the 80s - 2000s?
@@sleeksilver Fake username mouthing off on the internet. How old are you anyway LOLOL.
The G-body Cutlass, and the generation before that one, were literally the best-selling cars Oldsmobile ever made. Heck -- for *several* years in the '70s, the Oldsmobile Cutlass was the best selling car *in the entire country!* Then they started messing with it -- front-wheel drive, smaller engines, less interior room, etc., etc... Oldsmobile never recovered after that.
Front wheel drive and smaller engines is not what killed Oldsmobile. The average age of the buyer had become older and older. GM discontinued the cutlass the 88 and the 98 in favor of new models that were designed to attract younger buyers who were also import shoppers. Oldsmobile dropped their bread and butter models in favor of the Alero the Achieva and the intrigue. Can’t forget the Aurora. They did not do well and were a turn off to many of Oldsmobiles traditional customers who went to Buick around that time.
That gauge cluster was AWESOME
Ahhh the 80's... 😊
I had a 91 International 4 door. My favorite car ever i miss it so much! so sad it caught fire in a walmart parking lot.
Would love to see that car!
@@jiggity76 I had just hit 100k too. My 08 Lacrosse just doesn't feel as nice to drive, even being 18 years newer and having the 3800
Had a 94 with the 3.4. Loved that car
I have a 91 with the 3.4. I totally understand where you're coming from!
The W body in retrospect is probably the best example of unfair "simp" reasoning to covet or dismiss a car. It wasn't RWD, as if that matters in this caliber of a car, but it was much more modern than the dated 70s design that it replaced. Refreshed 94 model was my first new car, and it was a good car, but MW was right on, the interior materials sucked and that was just as true of the Grand Prix and Regal (also owned a 96 GP GTP), and the radio was comically far from the driver...by 94 it offered the 3.1 and the 3.4 DOHC (had the 3.4 in the GP) and it came into its own there. But it wasn't a car for performance enthusiasts, and you really have to look at it in that light. It was a comfortable mid-sized "sporty" car and it was a nice alternative to what the Japanese automakers were making back then. A Honda Accord was an infinitely better car in terms of quality, but it was a boring snoozer too where at least GM was offering something more substantial and more interesting for the same money. Camry too, significantly better car, but i'd take a Grand Prix any day. :) Good times. Definitely miss the 90s for cars.
Everything now is too homogenized, it all looks the same, drives the same, and everything with reasonable cost has a diminutive "turboed to the death" 4 banger and some characteristics of a 4 can't be overcome or compensated for no matter how fast it is. It was my reasoning for choosing the Olds over the Honda back then too.
That was my first car back in 2003 a 1989 cutlass supreme very reliable
And still people wonder why these brands do not exist anymore..
I actually had 2 of these with a 5 speed manual transmission. I had a 88 and 92 and they still are some of my favorite cars!
The 92 car was uber rare! Low production numbers for 92. I'm guessing it was also an LQ1 car. Was it an International as well?
@@jiggity76 the first one was a 2.8 v6, and the second was a lq1. I had the cams reground, and heads ported with an 3 inch exhaust and a 150 shot nitrous and that car ran well. It ran low 13s almost 20 years ago it was the perfect sleeper..I really miss that car!
@@mostwantedjames Holy moly! I would say so! I currently have two LQ1 cars. A 91 Cutlass International coupe and 93 Grand Prix STE sedan. Love the LQ1's!
@@jiggity76 in hindsight, I wanted the Gran Prix lq1, that had the honeycomb wheels and better interior. My Cutlass had the every option,, including the heads up display. Would love to see your Grand Prix!
@@jiggity76 is your international a 5 speed? They also came with a 2.3 quad 4 engine,which was ultra rare. Now I have a 04 CTS-V, and an 14 Audi S6
I had this exact car except mine was black with the gray bottom trim.
Who doesn’t like a car that plows gently but swings it’s tail out ! 🤣
It’s a touring car that appeals to the serious driver.
@@robertc5200 yes, when I saw that Oldsmobile Cutless on the road, I thought 💭 to myself, lookout ! That’s a daring driving enthusiast there ! 🤣
@@maples328 🤣
@@maples328 That slalom was horrendous. 🤣🤣 Cars have come a long way. Lol
@@antaeusx believe it or not I saw an old one that made this look like it was on rails, lol 😂 I can’t remember what make / model (80s I think). It was terrifying that it was actually produced 😬
I remember a time this was my dream car
the 4th gen prelude grille and taillights...just a few years in advance ;)
Had a 1989 SL in blue. with the 3.1. Was a great car for the 3 years I had it. I had several Oldsmobiles and had good luck with em all. Miss the brandtoday quite honestly.
Oldsmobile was already sick by this time, and this fwd Cutlass put them on life support.
Yeah. They never should have gone FWD. Thats what ultimately did them in.
Discontinuing their bread and butter models that had been out for years did them in. They dropped the 88, 98, and Cutlass series. Then tried to replace them with crap cars to try to appeal to import younger buyers. The Intrigue, Alero and Achieva are what killed Oldsmobile. General motors turned their back on traditional Oldsmobile buyers and it didn’t work
Gotta love Olds. Loved equally by grandmas and Mexican gangsters.
I admit, the convertible version of the Cutlass Supreme that came out in 1990 was a good looking convertible.
And very rare! Only 460 first year 1990 convertibles were made.
I think that a lot of cars would be remembered more fondly if they had all been decked out instead of poverty spec.
This was pretty decked out then. It didn't have leather or a sunroof, but aside from those 2 things there wasn't a lot it was missing for 88.
That wasn’t poverty spec for 88.. lol.
Power windows and power locks and power seats and AC were still options on most cars.
You think people hate a 57 Belair because it had crank windows and an AM radio? Lol!
The only thing missing in that one was leather sunroof and heads up display. I had the Pontiac Grand Prix turbo in 1990. That is not a poverty spec car. The base model came with a non-power split bench seat and an AM/FM radio. If you got Chevys equivalent the Beretta some of those did come in the base model without power windows and locks or cruise control.
@@josephthornton4206 Right, that one would be nicely remembered if they were all like that. The trouble is that a LOT more had plastic wheelcovers and column shifts than the lacy wheels and FE3.
@@kgbeezr75 Neither of those options weren't available in 1988.
My first car. Loved it. Got up to 110mph in it.
Look at it shudder and rattle off the line at 4:16. John: "WE FOUND SUBSTANTIAL FRONT END SHUDDER WHEN LAUNCHING."
The import brands were really taking all of the American buyers during this time
Lol and still is 🤣
I have an 89 coupe, that has 55k miles on it. I bought it from my brother who inherited from my parents, who bought it new in 88. Nice car but has more sentimental value than HP
Nice! Is it an International?
@@jiggity76 No, just the SL. Its dark red on top and gray underneath.
@@ledsled01 Still very nice!
I remember Olds used this body style in SOOO many racing series at the time. NASCAR, Trans Am, IMSA GTS, NHRA pro stock and funny car...
GM: Downsizes EVERYTHING in the mid 80s.
Sales tank
GM: 😲
You know I love my 89 Oldsmobile cutlass supreme SL
I had a maroon one like this but an automatic. I miss the tach gauge animation as the engine started.
2:01 The carpet has completely unglued from the passenger door panel. Dang!
Ouch!
Major issue with these cars. The 88-92 Pontiac’s did this as wel
next on unsolved mysteries - why Motorweek posted a picture of the '86 Turbo Coupe instead of the better-looking and more relevant comparison '88 model
I feel bad that I didn't appreciate this elegant, attractive car when it was new.......
The Americans had loads of of cars bro choose from . I like these throw backs
Impressive braking distance. Styling was great, too.
It was because of this car that my dad bought a new Cutlass Supreme Classic for my mom in 1988. He wanted one last chance at a V8 (Olds 307) rear wheel drive GM car. He never bought another new midsize GM car again.
Odd that the car has two different steering wheels in the segment! I guess Motor Week was sent 2 versions?
Excellent!!!! Please upload the Cavalier Z24 test