By on March 13, 2018

The B&B has proved on many occasions that they enjoy a nice Buy/Drive/Burn or three centered around the 1990s. I sense you want more, so have more! Today’s trio sprang to mind as we discussed the article surrounding Buick’s choice to remove the brand name from all new vehicles. In the comments, things naturally turned to the Oldsmobile Aurora and the modified Rocket logo it displayed.

But what other two vehicles from 1995 do you pair with the brand new Oldsmobile Aurora? Will you want to burn any of these? Let’s find out.

Oldsmobile Aurora

Image: 1995 Oldsmobile AuroraFirst, the one you knew was coming. 1995 was the introductory model year for the Aurora. An all-new styling direction for the brand, the sleek sedan was de-badged and decidedly distant from things like the staid Ninety-Eight and its Regency Elite Grandpa Deluxe trim (which remained in production through ’96). Riding on GM’s G platform with the Buick’s Riviera, the Aurora was a unique offering and did not have a GM-branded counterpart. It’s motivated by a 4.0-liter L47 V8, based on Cadillac’s Northstar 4.6. The engine was designed especially for the new Aurora flagship. 250 horsepower travels to the front wheels through a four-speed automatic. Leather, dual-zone climate control, and real wood trim are at your fingertips. As an added bonus, it doesn’t look like anything else on the road in 1995. It would be the last all-new Oldsmobile developed by Oldsmobile.

Volvo 960

Image: WikimediaThe 960 was Volvo’s flagship entry into the world market throughout the 1990s. Introduced in the United States for 1991, the rear-drive 960 would start out with several different engines including an awful PRV V6 of 2.8 liters. Thankfully Volvo developed their own engines, and the ’95 960 has a much better 2.9-liter I6 under the hood. A steady 178 horsepower are available through the 4-speed automatic. Built in Sweden, the boxy 960 would be the last rear-drive car built by Volvo. The 960 received no direct replacement after sales ended in 1998.

Saab 9000

Rounding out our trio of alternative last-of luxury is the shapely 9000 from Saab. Easily the oldest design here, the 9000 debuted all the way back in 1985. The Giugiaro design went through some modernization throughout the years, entering its final design iteration in 1994. For 1995, the CDE (sedan) version of the 9000 was equipped with a 3.0-liter GM-Opel V6 engine that would also see duty in the Cadillac Catera and early Saturn Vue. 1995 was the only year for this V6, as afterward only turbocharged four-cylinder engines were available. 208 horsepower travel to the front wheels via the four-speed auto. The 9000 would be the last pure Saab-developed sedan in production, as the replacement 9-5 for 1999 was very much a GM-sourced vehicle.

So, which of these sad last-of items gets burned at the stake, and which do you take home with you?

[Images: General Motors, Wikimedia (CC BY-SA 3.0), ]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

99 Comments on “Buy/Drive/Burn: Alternative Luxury Sedans Hailing From 1995...”


  • avatar
    IBx1

    Buy the Saab because it’s more powerful than the Volvo

    Drive the Aurora because it’s spaceship cool. My first car was a ’95 Riv on the same platform with a supercharged Series I 3800 and the Aurora was basically a 4-door V8 version of that car. When they both came to market, nothing else looked like them.

    Burn the Volvo because I can’t tell them apart and wouldn’t know that’s supposed to be a fancy version.

  • avatar
    Sub-600

    Buy the Volvo, drive the Saab, and burn the hideous Aurora. Burn it slowly and bask in the glow of that ghastly beast melting back into the netherworld from whence it came.

  • avatar
    Polishdon

    Buy the Volvo, Burn the SAAB, Park the Aurora (as a collector’s item) and drive a Chrysler LHS/Concorde.

  • avatar
    Blackcloud_9

    Close to first, interesting.
    Buy the Aurora – Always liked the styling and the unique direction Olds was trying to go. But it was too little too late. This is the car that should of had the tagline “Not your Father’s Oldsmobile”.
    Drive the Volvo – Mostly because it isn’t the Saab
    Burn the Saab – Never understood peoples fascination with Saab. Under-powered, prone to breaking all the time. Quirky for the sake of being quirky. And on top of all that, over-priced

    • 0 avatar
      A Scientist

      Pretty much exactly what I was going to write, particularly about the SAAB.

    • 0 avatar
      paxman356

      I owned a Saturn L series… it’s basically the same platform. Yeah, I’d pick burn, too… but I care even less about the Volvo.

    • 0 avatar
      Russycle

      Yes to all this. A Saab with a GM V6? Just no.

    • 0 avatar
      Ryoku75

      Saabs have two types of owner’s, those who get sick of dumping money into them, and those that dump so much money into them they have to delude themselves to justify keeping it, be it mods, “being different”, the “quirky ness”.

      I’ll admit, I was tempted into an NG 9-3 once, the constant coolant issues in the records turned me away (that and the mod obsessed fans).

      Their unique cupholders sum up Saabs philosophy well. Unique, neat to look at, but extremely delicate, no it won’t hold your McShake.

  • avatar
    bumpy ii

    Buy the Volvo because you’re a stodgy Europhile, drive the Saab because you fancy yourself a sophisticated Europhile, and burn the Olds because it has all the frangible parts of a Euro car without the cachet.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    Buy or drive either the Volvo or the Olds, but burn the Saab because that engine has a failure proned thermostat that requires removal of the entire intake manifold to replace and that alone should be enough to burn it.

  • avatar
    gtem

    Drive the Aurora, buy Volvo, burn Saab. If the Saab had the Turbo, I’d swap it and the Volvo.

    Love this series Corey!

  • avatar
    spookiness

    Tough one. Buy the Volvo, drive the Saab, burn the Olds.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    Buy the Saab, burn the Northstar equipped vehicle, do donuts in the Volvo.

  • avatar
    Big3trucks

    Buy Olds, Drive Volvo, Burn Saab.

  • avatar
    Middle-Aged Miata Man

    Buy the Saab – it’ll be somewhat valuable for spare parts in 20 years – drive the RWD Volvo, and burn the Aurora.

  • avatar
    ajla

    The Ellesmere V6 is an easy burn for the Saab. If it was turbo-4, it would probably also be a burn for me, but a less joyful one.

    Buy the Volvo. I think it would cause me the least heartache.

    Drive the Aurora. I like it the most out of the three, but I wouldn’t want to deal with it everyday.

    • 0 avatar

      You’re right. This is the right answer. That V6 in the Saab isn’t worth dealing with just to get the looks and aero wheels. Plus, it won’t be the only thing on the Saab to break or fall apart.

    • 0 avatar
      01 Deville

      Agreed.Great field in this comparison.

      Aurora- Best driver of the trio, luxurious and stylish. With the benefit of hindsight of failing N* gaskets, definitely for short term thrill and fits drive category

      Volvo- Stodgy reliable and safe. Buy.

      SAAB- Don’t know about it much, but SAAB’s are hardly know for their V6s, and the only option left is burn

  • avatar
    Middcore

    “As an added bonus, it doesn’t look like anything else on the road in 1995.”

    Actually it looks like a 3rd-generation Ford Taurus, slightly stretched out and with a grumpy frog face.

    But I guess since the Aurora did beat the Maximum Jellybean Taurus by a year or so the “in 1995” statement is technically correct.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Buy the Volvo – you can drop a Mustang V-8 into it.

    Drive the Aurora (preferably in close vicinity to a place that can fix the Northstar).

    Burn the Saab.

  • avatar
    Flipper35

    Take the Olds. What were the other two?

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    The Aurora would probably have sold better if it had been badged a Cutlass and kept the legacy Oldsmobile logo on the deck and grill. GM made many mistakes in the ’90s and their effort to re-brand the Oldsmobile ended up killing the marque entirely rather than saving it. Hey, back in ’72 they touted the Cutlass as, “This ain’t your father’s Oldsmobile.” The re-launch of a new Cutlass would have served that statement well.

    Those other two? Could have burned them for all I cared. The Saab never lived up to the 80’s 900-class coupe and the Volvo lost its aura as a desirable European brand in so many ways. Neither one ever triggered any interest for me in the 90s. I enjoyed my (80’s vintage) Buick LeSabre T-type much more.

  • avatar
    night driver

    It’s amazing how the front of the Aurora in the ad looks like the rear of a five year old Lexus convertible…

  • avatar
    DanDotDan

    Buy the Olds because it looks cool. Others may disagree but I always liked its lines. Also, the Aurora engine saw time at Indy.
    Drive the Volvo because RWD.
    Burn the Saab because it was an old design when new, and the car is a mess of corporate components.

  • avatar
    tonyola

    “The 9000 would be the last pure Saab-developed sedan in production…”

    Hogwash. The 9000 was every bit as much of a mashup as the GM-era cars – it was co-developed with Alfa, Lancia, and Fiat and it even shares styling elements with the latter two cars.

    Buy – The Volvo. Stately and square, the way the “real” Volvos should be.
    Drive – the Olds. A free-revving 250hp V8 and a decent chassis should be entertaining.
    Burn – the Saab.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    I’ve got to say “drive” the Olds. I only had two posters on my dorm room wall in the fall of 1995. The Oldsmobile Aurora poster given out at NAIAS and a Penthouse Pet from June 1995. It was also the last Oldsmobile I remember my father actively lusting over, he even gleefully pointed to the original Toronado styling cues in the Aurora.

    Buy the Volvo, when a Volvo was still a by god Volvo.

    Burn the 9000, I don’t need no SAAB story.

  • avatar
    JohnTaurus

    Buy the Oldsmobile. I’m about to do this for real, although a 1999. Love the car, love how it drives, love how it looks. Reliability be damned, it’s a fine car. Drove these when they were new(ish), I wanted one then and I want one now. I was thinking about buying some repop “O L D S M O B I L E” block letters from the 1960s era and put them across the panel between the tail lamps. I don’t care if it is or it isn’t your father’s Oldsmobile. It’s gonna be MY Oldsmobile.

    Drive the Saab. Interesting enough to be cool.

    Burn the Volvo.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus

      Meh, I’ll swap the last two answers upon further consideration. I would much rather have a Mazda Millenia S or a Infiniti J30t.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      Six or eight on the 99 Aurora?

      • 0 avatar
        JohnTaurus

        1999 was the last year of the first gen, so it’ll have the 4.0L V-8. Don’t care much for the looks of the second gen.

        • 0 avatar
          30-mile fetch

          I’ll bet that Olds inhales miles with the small V8 in there, looks like a fun choice. Did the Northstar issues carry over into this smaller version, and is it as big a deal if you do your own wrenching?

          • 0 avatar
            JohnTaurus

            I haven’t heard much about the 4.0L V-8, but the Shortstar V-6 was a basket case. Another reason to avoid the 2nd gen.

          • 0 avatar
            JohnTaurus

            I did a little research on the Aurora V-8 last night. Early models had a two-piece block which was prone to oil leaks, but it was long replaced by a one-piece block by ’99.

            I may have to put off buying the Olds. My boyfriend’s bike got stolen last night, and he has a 3 hour walk to work. This is the second bike that has been stolen. I gotta find him a cheap car.

            I thought about buying the Olds any way and letting him take my Taurus back home, but for reasons I’d rather not discuss here, I nixed that idea.

            So far, the best thing I found him is a 1998 Maxima 5 speed, but it has 310k on it and “runs a little rough, but is a daily driver”. I’m really hoping something better comes along. It looks extremely clean, the paint, body and interior are quite nice. But, those miles and not being home to work on it for him has me in doubt. I love that body style Max, and always wanted a 5 speed, but Imma keep looking.

          • 0 avatar
            JohnTaurus

            Scratch the Maxipad, I found an Iron Duke 1992 S10 for $1k/obo. Either that or I will buy my brother’s ex commuter 2001 Altima GLE, throw a distributor and a radiator in it, call it good.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        V6 not offered until 2nd generation car.

        A mistake in my opinion, they added the V6 to have a “cheaper” version to sell to the “I’m trading in my H-body 88” crowd.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Olds Antares was in theory supposed to replace H-body and Aurora was supposed to slot above it. In the wake of the demise, they simply offered a V6 in the carryover G-body model.

          https://history.gmheritagecenter.com/wiki/index.php/1995_Oldsmobile_Antares_Concept

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      “I was thinking about buying some repop “O L D S M O B I L E” block letters from the 1960s era and put them across the panel between the tail lamps. ”

      I love this. Please send us pictures if you do.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Corey has the falling sickness.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    Saabs should have a turbo 4 paired to a manual transmission, just like Dad’s 1979 900. That’s non-negotiable, so burn this one.

    The Aurora is unique, but I like boxy sedans far more than swoopy spaceships. However, a 250hp V8 will be far more enjoyable than a 178hp small six. We have a car with 178hp already, I’d prefer 250.

    Buy the Aurora and risk the Northstar issues.

    Drive the Volvo even though it doesn’t sound like much fun at all.

  • avatar
    Sub-600

    The Aurora, the Intrigue, the (under)Achieva, the Alero with those ridiculous taillights…the wheels really came off Olds towards the end. The Bravada was the only decent offering they had left and it was long in the tooth. The Intrigue had that failed tie-in with the ‘X-Files Movie’. Painful stuff, watching a once proud brand languish. Better to die that way I guess, than to be turned into vapid CUVs.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Buy/hold: Volvo 900 series.
    Drive: Olds Aurora.
    Burn: Saab 9000. Ye gods.

    • 0 avatar

      Well we all know you’re an RWD Volvo enthusastical.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Not so much these days, but of those three it is the safest choice (although the 2.9 I6 is no “redblock”). Aurora seemed to be hit and miss.

        • 0 avatar
          PrincipalDan

          When Steve Lang was still writing here he once claimed he would buy a V8 Aurora but not a Northstar Cadillac.

          When I pressed him about why, he never responded.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Perhaps the Olds 4.0 was not as susceptible to the Northstar design issues? I have seen them with miles a Cadiwreck of the period could not put up.

          • 0 avatar
            JohnTaurus

            I’m hoping whatever issues they had would have been resolved by 1999. The rest of the car benefited from several improvements from the introduction through 1999.

        • 0 avatar
          Ryoku75

          The whiteblock I6 had a really narrow timing belt for the first few years (belts would snap at as little as 20k), later on it was an okay engine.

          My biggest concern with the 960 would be the rear Corvette-inspired suspension.

          My only real experience with these was looking at a V90, well trying to at least. Everytime we’d drive to meet the owner he’d be elsewhere.

          In one day:
          “Meet me at this restaurant”
          We’d go there, no Volvo
          “Meet me at this address”
          Go there, no Volvo
          “Meet me at this location”
          We gave up, no Volvo

          I could make a song with that!

          • 0 avatar
            krhodes1

            The nice thing about the early 960 belt setup is that you can change it in 30 minutes. BTDT. The bad thing is you really do need to do it every 20K miles to be safe… Super, super easy to do. Wish all cars were as well thought out for that.

            The early 965s do not have IRS – though many of them have Nivomat self-leveling dampers which are a bit of an acquired taste. Same live axle suspension as a 945 until ’96. All sedans are IRS. The only real issue with the IRS is that literally NOBODY makes decent shocks for it anymore. Even what you get from Volvo are crappy Monroes in a Volvo blue box. So they tend to be a bit nautical in ride and handling. Which the float-boat lovers around here would probably adore.

  • avatar
    MRF 95 T-Bird

    Buy – the Olds. Space age styling a great cockpit and a 250hp V8.

    Drive – The Volvo. Torquey straight 6, A traditional Volvo.

    Burn – the Saab 9000. The V6 is troublesome the Turbo-4 is far better and more appropriate.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    When I look at these three cars I think; burn, scrap, or hit-to-pass!

  • avatar
    dal20402

    Buy the Volvo, because it’s the easiest to sell of the three, and then sell it to finance improvements to my 1995 Acura Legend which I’d rather have than any of these cars.

    Drive the Saab for turbo lag sh!ts and giggles. (I think this may be the laggiest factory motor in any car I’ve ever driven.) Edit: I see you chose the V6. Drive the Saab straight to the repair shop.

    Burn the Olds because GM was so ashamed of the brand as to try to hide it from the public.

    • 0 avatar

      You’re breakin rules. The buy is a keeper, no sales.

      • 0 avatar
        Ryoku75

        If the Legend requires one to sell a Volvo to improve it, I’d sell the Legend.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          Right now it needs new struts, strut bushings, and engine mounts. The sale price of a crappy 960 should about cover that.

          Once it gets those things it will about as perfect as a near 200k-mile car gets.

          • 0 avatar
            Ryoku75

            Theoretically we’re talking $800-1200 with that.

            I’m always at a toss up between old Japanese cars and Volvos, do I deal with crappy interiors or do I deal with crappy rust protection?

            I can safely say that at near 200k my Volvo 745T needed more than suspension work. Like my 240s, the interiors wound always find new ways to fall apart somehow. Then you had a radiator leak, piston slap, transmission issues (wouldnt go in reverse sometimes), in-operative AC (despite a recent conversion by the PO), in operative electric fan, steam boiler noises, in operative heated seats, blech.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Ouch. Since buying the Legend, I’ve had to do:

            – Timing belt + water pump + EGR cleanup
            – New radiator (previous one was original, developed a crack)
            – Valve cover gaskets
            – New front ball joints
            – One new rear control arm
            – Vehicle speed sensor (very common failure)
            – Spark plugs
            – Rear pads

            Every interior and exterior feature works except that there are two burned-out dash lights.

            Fortunately around here there is no rust. :)

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Breaking the law, breaking the law
        Breaking the law, breaking the law

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        Then burn the Volvo, buy the Olds, and leave it parked along frat row at the university of your choice with a big poster in the windshield that says “SMASH ME.”

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      Legend had engine issues

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        Addressable by cleaning the EGR system every 60,000 miles. Do that and the C32 is indestructible.

        • 0 avatar
          Ryoku75

          “This car sucks, buy a Mazda”

          My old joke still stands.

          My biggest issue with the Legend is when Honda stripped its cool name away and made it into a FWD Lexus, rather than a FWD Bimmer. They fixed the engine at least.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Yeah, the 3.5RL is a tank that will run forever on oil changes and brake pads, but the joy was gone.

  • avatar
    Ryoku75

    Steve Lang bought a Volvo like that one, he later made a portrait of it as it was the most troublesome car he’d ever gotten at that point.

    Buy the Oldsmobile, GM over built these and if I need parts they won’t be hard to find for the most part. I’d still prefer an 88 though, something with a good ol 3800.

    Drive the Volvo. I wouldn’t want to own this one, by then Volvo transformed the decent 940 into a RWD 850. Ugly exterior, cheap interior with seatbelt buckle buttons that love to break (an oddity for a carmsker that prides itself on safety). At least it’d be okay to drive though.
    If this were a 940 I’d swap with the Olds.

    Burn the Saab. I get the weird backwards engined 900 (as flaky as they are). I don’t get these nor many similar Saabs. Most were overpriced and did little beyond eat at GMs wallet, along with their owner’s wallets.

    From my understanding, the one reliable Saab was the early 9-3 NG series? New keys cost a solid $1000 though, and when I ask a Saab forum about reliability I get more posts about hp numbers and tunes (I didn’t ask about mods).

    Ultimately I’d have either an Infinite I30 or a Town Car over these three.

    • 0 avatar
      krhodes1

      A new key, singular, costs no more than any other modern chip key and less than many as long as you still have a working key in hand. The problem is that if you lose ALL the keys to a modern Saab (NG900 and up), you get to buy a new computer too. That is why it costs $1000+. You need a key wed to the computer to unlock the computer so that it will accept another key. An anti-theft feature, allegedly.

      My old 9-3SC is now up to 150K or so in the hands of the person I sold it to, with no particular dilemmas. They are quite well sorted cars, at least as long as you didn’t get one of the late ones with bad block castings. Those that were sold by GM got fixed under warranty, but beware the 2010 and 2011 cars. Sweet spot is the ’07 and ’08s, I think.

      I think the most reliable Saab is a NG900 (’94 to ’98 900). Still had the old motor that didn’t have sludge issues, simpler electronics by far, and better rust protection than what went before. A close second is a 9-5 Aero. My Aero lived in the NYC suburbs most of it’s life so it is a bit battered, but at 170K everything works just fine, it goes like a bat out of H3ll, the interior looks like new and so far it has had nothing go wrong that isn’t perfectly normal for a car with 170K and 16 years under it’s belt. Brakes, exhaust, a couple motor mounts and some vacuum hoses since I have owned it. And changed all the fluids. I slapped the new DI cassette it came with in it when I changed the plugs just because, but the old one was working fine.

      It was the right car at the right time for the right price, but ultimately I would rather have a Volvo 945 for this slot in my car life, and if the right one comes along the Saab will go.

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    One wonders why GM didn’t ever put the Northstar in the Riviera. Then again, both the Series I (’95 only) and Series II 3800 N/A and supercharged engines were very good. For ’98 and ’99, only the supercharged engine was available.

    And anyway, GM did build a single Northstar Riviera prototype:
    https://www.mecum.com/lots/CH1009-84684/1998-buick-riviera/

    To answer your question: Buy the Volvo, because it will probably be a collector’s item someday, since it’s among the last of the RWD Volvos. Drive the Oldsmobile because it’s brilliant and looks sharp. Burn the Saab; I don’t need justification for that.

    I would also submit the Mazda Millenia as an excellent near-luxury car from the 90s, even if it wasn’t executive-sized.

  • avatar
    road_pizza

    Buy the Saab, because fond Saab memories from my youth.

    Drive the Olds, because it’s not a Volvo.

    Burn the Volvo, because bad once-repressed memories of an ungodly unreliable 164E just came flooding back to me.

  • avatar
    slavuta

    “it doesn’t look like anything else on the road in 1995”
    Well, in 1996 there was Ford Taurus that really like Aurora from every angle.

    Ok, buy Volvo, drive Olds, burn Saab – only one GM car allowed

  • avatar
    whitworth

    The Aurora really was a beautiful car, probably the best looking sedan GM made in the 1990s. I heard they had an insane amount of issues though.

    Problem was, the car was simply too expensive. Oldsmobile should be somewhere between Chevrolet and Cadillac. I saw these sticker at like $45k in the mid-nineties, that’s like $60k in today’s dollars.

  • avatar
    ernest

    Buy the Volvo. (wish I had- waited too long, and no wagons in a color I would take were available).

    Drive the Aurora. Owned a Riviera of that vintage- not bad cars.

    Burn the Saab. I loved earlier Saabs… by this time they were quirky, less reliable GM product.

  • avatar
    krhodes1

    The 960 never had anything but the Volvo 2.9L I6 in it (in the US – there were diesels elsewhere). The PRV V6 died with the 760/780. There were two versions of the I6 – the early cars had more hp but less torque, then they revised it for more torque at the expense of hp later. 210hp vs. 185hp, IIRC. There was also the one-year-only ’91 940SE which was a 960 with the redblock turbo in it. The last year or two were badged S90/V90 but are otherwise the same car. 960s have slightly different sheetmetal ahead of the A pillars (long hood no cowl, different fenders) than 940s, but are basically the same.

    I owned an early 210hp 960 wagon before they went to IRS. Nice car, fairly fast for a Volvo. The engine is good, but nothing like as bulletproof as ye old redblock Volvo tractor engine, because nothing is. Timing belts can be an issue (early cars had a 30K change interval, as well as oil leaks – they have kind of a weird head design.

    As to the question, buy the Volvo, drive the Saab, and burn the ugly Oldsmobuick. Though I did like the second gen Aurora, had a couple as rentals back in the day.

  • avatar
    amca

    The Riviera and Aurora of ’95 were the last two great GM big cars.

    My criterion here is that they casually wasted space to offer style. The pinched tapered trunk of the Riv, the bobtail of the Aurora, the long, long hoods. Big, beautiful wasteful cars. What the GM line aspired to do from the early ’50s onward, and which they never really did again after Aurora and the last Riviera.

    (I might allow you to argue with me on the basis of the Cadillac XLR, or possibly even the CT6. But somehow, the aesthetic is slightly different.)

  • avatar
    rpn453

    Buy: Volvo. RWD and I like the boxy styling. Apparently Volvo seats tend to be comfortable.
    Drive: Saab. I’ve never even been in one but I always found them interesting. I could use that for winter highway trips.
    Burn: Olds. I’m just not a fan of the “melting” look. Might as well use fire to advance the design straight to its logical conclusion.

  • avatar
    rolando

    Buy the Aurora, tell Elon Musk that this spaceship belongs in orbit. I always loved it!

  • avatar
    Ermel

    I’ll have to pass — I couldn’t burn either of these, for entirely different reasons. The Volvo is too good, the Saab too cool, and the Olds too strange to justify torching.

  • avatar
    DweezilSFV

    Buy the Volvo, drive the Olds and what is the Saab doing in this comparison anyway ?

  • avatar
    jfk-usaf

    Buy the Volvo (soft spot for the old boxes)
    Drive the Saab… More HP
    Burn the Olds … Complete GM plastic 90s suck-atude.

    Someone mentioned a Chrysler LHX…. UUgh… Horrible trash


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Lorenzo: My first long drive was when I picked up my car in Providence RI and drove it to my Navy base in San Diego....
  • ToolGuy: theBrandler, A thought I had in the early days of EV’s/hybrids – why not use a small...
  • HotPotato: It would be good MPG for an AWD compact CUV, but the Kona is a subcompact FWD hatchback with CUV styling...
  • ptschett: #RadicalSandwichCrossoverHatch backAnarchy
  • SC5door: Fiat build quality for $30K? Pass.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States