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’ll always choose the car with a joystick control on the stereo for fader and balance.
Dynasty for the win.
That was a great feature! They should do that on a touchscreen today.
Both of these trade on nostalgia and it’s hard to beat a woodgrained wagon for that.
The Dynasty puts up a good fight with Hollywood behind it – Bryan Cranston’s character drove one in Malcolm in the Middle, and Mulder and Scully occasionally used one, a reflection of the car’s real-life presence in the GSA motor pool fleet which in turn was a reflection of Lee Iacocca’s late-career bet on launching a car whose styling was 10 years out of date the day Job One rolled off the line.
Dr. House drove one, too.
Both of these cars are utter piles. I have had experience with both-my mom had an ’89 Cruiser and several friend’s parents had DY-nasties. The Cruiser’s A/C broke 2 weeks into ownership and was never fixed-very thankful my mom is cold-natured especially in the South. The stop on the right side of the bench seat also broke at some point sending the front seat passenger’s knees hurtling into the dashboard when the braking hard-kind of a funny party trick when I had to drive it when I got my license. The Dynasties were low quality, higher-priced disappointments. Both had velour interiors that sent piles of dust into the air every time you sat down.
My vote is for the Cruiser simply because of the rear-facing third seat.
The Olds has a bulletproof drivetrain, low mileage, and is elderly-owned. The clear indication that this contest is rigged, though, is the fact that it’s a wagon and a woody wagon at that! Olds all day, every day.
Looks like Wagon Wednesday came a day early, by the votes.
My grandfather had a Dynasty that he was very proud of. Every time I got in, he gave me the same spiel about how comfortable it was, but the engine still had a good kick, at which point he’d floor it and—to be fair—the thing would surge forward.
But I’m still taking the Olds wagon.
Both are priced kind of high, but I voted for the wagon
Wagon for me. That has to be the cleanest 93 Olds Wagon on the planet. Usually by now that fake woodgrain is super faded. It looks comfy and I could roll in it and carry a lot of crap around. It also seems like it would be around for alot longer than that Dodge.
As far as who sat in the front middle seat? It was kids. Always kids. And we really didn’t care too much. We could see all the gauges and what our parents were doing. It was as close to driving as we would get until we turned 15.5.
It has taken me a long time to develop begrudging respect for GM. Looking back, the family 67 Malibu wagon, 76 Cutlass, 89 Cutlass, and my 04 Impala all went the distance and more without any drama. And were pretty comfy doing it.
A friend of mine loves those A-body wagons though they have become rare here in New England. I wouldn’t mind having one.
Somebody managed to keep a Dodge Dynasty going on my block until three or so years ago. I assume it immediately went to the scrapyard when the owner passed.
I voted GM.
My mom had a 1991? Plymouth Acclaim. Nope nope nope.
I’ll take crummy GM over crummy Chrysler any day. Same as yesterday.
Normally I’m pretty insync with you, Mark, but this time? THPPFT!!!
I’ll arrange a test drive of the Olds wagon and, instead, make an offer on that glorious fourth gen copper Cougar sitting beside it. If I’m plonking down cash for a boring to drive car, it’s gonna be a big baroque PLC, and the 77-79 T-Bird, Mark V, Cougar triplets are some of the finest PLCs of malaise you can spread on a sandwich.
Yeah, I saw that Cougar too. What a two car garage that guy has going. Fill ups must suck but what a comfortable pair of rides.
I was gonna do personal luxury coupes from the ’70s. Couldn’t find any worth owning for under five grand. The collector’s market has found them, apparently.
I know how K-cars of this vintage drive, at least it does not have the blue smoke blowing 3.0.
I am voting for the wagon. Usable space.
Considering I came very close to buying a Cutlass Cruiser S for $400 from the government facility my Dad worked at when I was in high school, I’m going to stick with that instinct of 20 years ago. Gimme the Cutlass.
The older I get the more I appreciate the outdated GM cars of this era from a design perspective. I find that wagon to be very good looking and it certainly seems comfortable. With only 45,000 I’d buy it and send it to the shop to get the various rubber components replaced, have fluids checked, and make sure a life in the very slow and seldom used lane hasn’t left any lingering rot.
From a time when manufacturers thought the two most important volume models to keep in production were station wagons and four-door sedans.
Definitely the Dodge. A-bodies are loathsome
Giving us easy ones this week, I see!
These cars aren’t of interest to me. From my perspective both are overpriced by at least $5,000.
I voted for the wagon, though. While I’m not interested in this car, I can at least appreciate how well preserved it is. The Olds’ only obvious flaw is the paint on the bumper, and that is easy enough to fix. While I wouldn’t take this car for free if it came with a brick of pure Bolivian nose candy in the trunk, I can see where this car would be good deal for the right buyer.
The Dodge is nice at first glance, but between the obviously low-quality tint (also, what is with that random stripe on the rear window?), the mismatched wheels, and the hanging exhaust, I have a feeling this car probably isn’t as nice as it looks in the pictures.
I have nothing against the Dynasty, but the Cutlass is clearly already comfortable sharing space with a bronze Mercury Cougar and therefore would be right at home in my driveway, so I’m obligated to vote for it.
Shaggin’ Wagon for the win!!!
My first car was a 1984 Celebrity wagon I inherited which my parents bought years earlier to replace a 70s Corolla wagon with woodgrain panels. So as much as I like the Dodge it’s not even a choice today – nostalgia wins.
and completely independent of nostalgia that late 70s Couger behind it looks really nice too.
I think we all knew the wagon was going to win by a landslide. Still, I’d like to tip my hat to the owner(s) of that Dynasty for taking such great care of a disposable car. When originally introduced, Chrysler supposedly expected K cars to last about 7 years before completely going to shit. The stewards of this example seemingly took that as a challenge.
Always a wagon if its an option, duh!
You can always tell if an A-body wagon has a third row, by whether or not it has vent windows at the rear of the rear quarter glass. This one does, so it has three red benches.