Good morning! We’re looking at all domestic cars this week, and you may recall yesterday that I said I was going decade-by-decade. Yeah, forget that. I have skipped 1980s cars because the good ones have just gotten too damn expensive, and I skipped the 1970s because I wanted to show the best Detroit had to offer, and, well…
We looked at a couple of 1960s trucks yesterday, and I thought they were fairly comparable. Most of you disagreed, and the vote came out much more lopsided than I expected. The basic six-cylinder GMC was the winner by a country mile. The mention of Bondo on the Dodge scared off a lot of you, but the general consensus seemed to be that Mopar was just outclassed by GM here.
I tend to agree. I’m a Chrysler fan (just in case you’re new here), but when it comes to pickups, I go for GM every time. The Action Line trucks are great looking, just enough more modern to drive than earlier trucks, and always guaranteed to get attention these days. And a six with a three-on-the-tree is the definitive old truck drivetrain.
The 1970s were brutal on the car industry here in the US. The combination of two gas crunches, a bunch of new regulations, and near-constant labor issues made for a bunch of slow, poorly-made, ungainly cars. We romanticize them sometimes, but the truth is they were awful. The 1980s got better, eventually, but that decade started out with new technologies that took a long time to perfect.
Today’s competitors come from the early 1990s, a time when the designs of the ’80s had gotten as refined as they were going to get, and the build quality problems were more or less ironed out. No one is going to call either of these cars exciting, but they’re reasonably nice, reasonably well put together, and they both have a nice comfy red velour bench seat across the front. That has to count for something, right? Let’s check them out.
1993 Oldsmobile Cutlass Cruiser S – $4,500
Engine/drivetrain: 3.3-liter OHV V6, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Odometer reading: 45,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
GM’s second foray into front-wheel-drive (after the Olds Toronado and its derivatives) got off to a rocky start. The X-body was a rushed design, poorly built, and it spent more time being recalled than it did racking up miles. The A-body which followed a couple of years later fared much better, and stayed in production for fourteen years. This Oldsmobile Cutlass Cruiser is from towards the end of the run, when the A-body was down to just Oldsmobile and Buick variants, and just four-door sedans and station wagons.
Several different engines were offered in the Cutlass Ciera and Cruiser over the years. This one has a 3.3 liter V6, commonly known as the 3300, which is a smaller-displacement, simplified version of the revered 3800. It drives the front wheels through a four-speed automatic. It’s not an exciting combination, but it should last a long time with proper maintenance. This one has only 45,000 miles on it, all from one elderly owner. The seller’s mechanic says some gaskets and seals need to be replaced, just because of the low mileage, but it does run and drive just fine.
Even in 1993, this interior was outdated. But I think that’s part of the reason the Ciera and Cruiser stayed in production so long. The newer W-body Cutlass Supreme was advertised as “Not Your Father’s Oldsmobile,” but this one definitely was, and that appealed to a certain segment of buyers. Outdated or not, it does look comfy, and it’s in great condition inside. There’s no photo with the tailgate open, so I can’t tell you if this wagon has the third-row “wayback seat” or not. But we can hope.
The dominant characteristic of its exterior is the fake woodgrain trim, which is also a throwback. I’m not particularly a fan of it, but I know some people are. It’s generally in good condition, but there is some faded and thin paint on the front bumper. The rest of the paint looks fine, and there isn’t any rust on it.
1991 Dodge Dynasty – $3,500
Engine/drivetrain: 3.3-liter OHV V6, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Rockwall, TX
Odometer reading: 109,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
While GM was learning hard lessons with the X-body and applying them to the A-body, Chrysler was busy putting its business back together with the K-car. It spent the next decade creating endless variations on the same theme, including the longer-wheelbase C (later AC) cars like this Dodge Dynasty. Though it was introduced in 1988, it looks much older; this car was intended for a demographic that wasn’t ready for the future, too.
One aspect of its drivetrain was thoroughly modern for 1991: the A604 Ultradrive transmission. It’s a computer-controlled four-speed overdrive unit that gained a bad reputation early on, but any problems this one might have had have long since been fixed. Its engine is a Chrysler-designed 3.3-liter V6, not the Mitsubishi 3.0-liter engine of earlier cars. It runs and drives well, but that’s about all the seller has to say.
This one looks older inside than it is too, though it wears its vast expanses of fake woodgrain on the inside. It has a bench seat, making this a full six-passenger car. But did anybody ever actually put someone in the middle front seat? This one hardly looks sat in at all; it’s in great shape. And the seller says the air conditioning is nice and cold.
It’s really clean outside, but there is a little weirdness I feel compelled to mention. The passenger’s side has the original wheel covers, but the driver’s side has terrible aftermarket covers that I think are supposed to look like ’70s mags, but don’t. The muffler is also hanging at a funny angle, making me think there’s a hanger missing from the back. That’s an easy fix, but it should be taken care of before the muffler decides to part ways with the rest of the car.
If you’re looking for excitement, look elsewhere. But if you want comfort, durability, low maintenance, and cheap insurance, these are your rides. And if you’re anything like me, you appreciate a nice red velour interior. Which one would you take home?
I can’t remember the last time I saw a Dynasty. My dad had a Blue on Blue one for a company car for a while when I was very young.
I still voted wagon. That thing is a time capsule and I’m always surprised when I see “normal” cars out there with no miles on them. That’s under 1400 miles a year on this thing.
Life happens I guess. I put 72K miles on my RX8 between Sep 03 and Nov 07, in the 20 years since it’s grown to 92K miles, and over half of them were driving to, on, and back from a track. I moved to a city where I’m better off not having a car but can’t bring myself to get rid of it.
A body all day and every day! Not my favorite A body, but it is a wagon!
I recall the Olds Ciera (and Buick Century) having some sort of a loyal following, which is why it was sold alongside the Achieva which covered the same ground in terms of size and price point. The Celebrity and Pontiac 6000 were discontinued years earlier. I guess it was for the blue haired crowd who couldn’t afford an Olds 98 or a Buick Lesabre?
Anyway, wagon is always better than no wagon.
These Dynasty sedans still populate the Tennessee landscape where I live due to no inspection program of any kind in the state whereas the wagon is, a wagon.
Bears, beets and Battlestar Galactica and wagons.
But black bears, or brown bears?
Mark, you’ve doomed that poor K car putting it up against such a clean low mile wagon.
My thoughts exactly. It’s a good thing there’s no confirmation that the wagon has the way-back seat; I think the vote would be even more lopsided than it already is.
If there is, can we nickname it the WayBack Machine?
UPDATE: The wagon ad says it’s an 8 seater. WAY BACK SEAT CONFIRMED.
CowabungaWayBack Machine it is!Wild idea of the day, would a Fiero rear subframe bolt up to the back of the wagon without too much fuss?
Either way that’s where my money goes. I’d either drop ion the Fiero drivetrain in the rear, or a supercharged 3800 to make this thing a fun FWD menace that doesn’t look the part at all.
Wouldn’t even fix the paint on the bumper.
The engine in this is the same block as a 3800, so just swap and play.
These cars with a regular 3.8 are a riot, let alone an l67 version had it existed in these.
Yeah I figured it was simple as, as the Aussies would say. I’d probably do a full engine and trans swap just to be certain I didn’t break anything. Heck, I could probably just drop the front subframe out, and pop the new one in.
Yes, I’d keep the whitewalls and wire wheel covers.
Woah… QA1 makes a handling upgrade for these things.
It’s a ludicrous amount of money to spend on something like this, but it’s the kind of lunacy it deserves.
My grandfather had a fleet of those wagons (after moving on from a fleet of Chevettes). When he passed, the family got them all. My first car was an 89 celebrity, my brother got the nice century cruiser (wood paneling but with leather), and two other family members got the oldmobiles. Pretty solid cars, the Celebrity surprised 16 year old me with the 2.8’s surprising peppiness.
And yeah, my brother and I squished in the front seat with my grandma more than once to sit 3 across. Voting for nostalgia!
Easy choice this round.. one of my elementary school carpool parents had a Cutlass Ciera and the nicest thing I can say about it is “it got the job done”.
Sucks not a roadmaster or some type of RWD wagon but still a wagon is a wagon and much cooler then the Dodge which I find pretty ugly.
Wagon for the win. Plus I feel that the 7xx Volvos were the only cars where that kind of edgy boxiness actually worked.
I don’t care about the manufacturing date, those are both ’80s cars. As 1980s as Cheers, even if that show ended in the 1990s.
The rococo late-Iacocca-era designed with a T-square Dynasty. Suspension of Jello, transmission of glass, pushrod V6 tying to ape a big cube V8 of yore.
Then the Olds. Woodgrain sides like it’s the ’70s, fake wire hubcaps, but except it could actually use fuel sort of sensibly, instead of gluttonously. GM could stick ’em together halfway decent; not bad after a decade of practice. The General’s front-drive understeer into mediocrity continued unabated.
The dying light of an era when American cars sold just by virtue of being American to a generation who bought nothing but American.
Then Toyota introduced the 1992 Camry, and the jig was up.
I kinda want both, but mostly because I didn’t have to fix/deal with them at the time. Nostalgia’s a hell of a drug. If I have to choose one, the Olds.
If I remember correctly, the Olds Ciera was considered “reliable” compared to the rest of the GM lineup, probably thanks to the fact it was produced for so long.
Big part of the Ultradrive’s issues stemmed from transmission services. Up until that transmission, Dexron 3 and Mopar ATF+3 were pretty interchangeable, so it didn’t matter which one you used for whatever vehicles took them. However, with these 4 speeds, they introduced ATF+4, which wasn’t compatible to GM fluids, and pretty much only told the dealerships who wouldn’t tell their wholesale accounts that they needed this new fluid. Many transmissions were filled with Dexron 3 and thus has a very short life. Very first year (1990) Ultradrives definitely had issues, from Iacocca pushing for a debut that transmission was like a year from.
I’d imagine that Dynasty still being on the road shows that transmission has held up over the years of non-driving.
Can’t stand fake wood grain on the outside of a car. So I’ll go Dynasty.
No contest. My family burned many comfy highway miles in an olds cruiser like that except blue interior. Comfortable and good power for the time. We even towed our pop-up for s while until my parents upgraded to a southwind. Not as huge as our incredible hulk (70s Ford ltd) but plenty of room for people and luggage.
Today’s Shitbox Showdown is sponsored by PTSD.
The PTSD from my parents owing a Cutlass Ciera is less than the PTSD I have from K-cars so I’m going wagon.
I know that I should go for the wagon with the fake wood, BUT… a 1990 Dodge Dynasty that looked just like that one (save for the fact it was blue) saved my life in an accident when I got t-boned by some lady in a Lincoln Town Car that blew a stop sign at 45 MPH. It was a comfortable cruiser. So I have to vote for the Dodge, because one of them took the hit and I walked away with nothing more than a dinged rib.
They will both be meh to drive, so might as well take the long roof. I am not a fan of the wood grain, but I like it better than mismatched wheel covers.
The pictures of the Dynasty show two sets of wheel covers. Sketchy.
Perfectly cromulent Dodge, but it is going to get slaughtered by that woody wagon. That is a legit nice car that has me checking my bank account and my vacation calendar.
—
My father’s Oldsmobile, by the way, was a 1984 Delta 88 diesel. We lived on a farm and he could fill it at the tractor pump. Slow coal rolls were the order of the day anytime it needed to accelerate – including when we tried to pass a cop headed up the mountainous interstate in the Rockies. We also chased the N&S 611 steam engine through Warren County, Indiana with the oil burner belching more black smoke than the coal burner.
Dad loved it because of the range with the diesel and the huge fuel tank. We made an annual pilgrimage to grandma’s in Florida at Christmas. Dad drove the first leg at night, straight through no stops, 600 miles from Indiana to Georgia.
Barney the Olds was a surprisingly comfy car with a good ride / handling compromise for a big RWD sedan. It outlived two head gaskets, then a gas V8 swap, and eventually both my brother and I learning to drive. My younger brother hated it with a white-hot passion and did his darndest to kill it, but its durable GM crappiness survived even him.
I had my parents’ Celebrity wagon (1986) with the Tech 4. No major memories, other than it was a pretty useful and basically reliable car. It was blue, but emotionally it was beige…
The wagon is in better shape and useful, as long as the AC works.
the long roof by a mile. no hesitation. id even keep the whitewalls and wire wheel hubcaps.
I’d like to really know what’s going on for someone to justify the Chrysler.
Olds be in better shape. Very much feels “first car” coded for my generation. I haven’t got much more love for it than that, but at least all the wheel covers match and the muffler isn’t coming off.
I can’t believe I’m picking a GM something over a Chrysler product, but that Olds wagon is just too attractive. Also, the Dynasty has more than twice the miles, mismatched wheel covers (though they did the right thing by matching them on each side of the car, rather than by axle), and I still don’t trust an Ultradrive automatic. The 1977-79 Cougar behind the Olds also looks tempting.
Wood?
Wagon?
Would!!!