By on May 3, 2018

I’ve been saving this one for a while on my Big List of Buy/Drive/Burns. The year is 1993, and you’re shopping the large front-drive sedan offerings from General Motors (rear-drive provides less traction and is archaic). Making a stop at the Oldsmobile, Buick, and Cadillac showrooms, three ruched leather and wood tone sedans await you in top-spec trim. Let’s go.

The ’93 model year was selected because it was the last where all three GM brands had a C-body. For ’94, the DeVille moved on to the Northstar-ready K-body and lost the Touring Sedan variant for a while.

Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight Regency Elite

The Ninety-Eight remained at the top of the sedan offerings for Oldsmobile throughout its final 1991-1996 generation. GM didn’t fit the Rocket brand with its own rear-drive B-body sedan, but opted for the Custom Cruiser estate as its B-body for ’91 and ’92. Ninety-Eight’s Regency Elite trim was introduced for ’92, and came with Buick’s supercharged 3800 L67 engine. The Oldsmobile was the tech marvel of our trio: digital gauges, copious button count, and many trip computer functions across the very horizontal dashboard. Prominence faded from Ninety-Eight by 1995, when the Aurora took over as the new hotness flagship from Oldsmobile.

Buick Park Avenue Ultra

Buick’s C-body is the most upright and traditional of the C-bodies on offer today. Introduced in 1991 next to the Ninety-Eight, the Park Avenue shed its former Electra restraints and struck out on its own. Initially available only in standard trim, Ultra came along a year later. All Ultra models were loaded up, featuring the same supercharged 3800 you’d find in the Oldsmobile. The Park Avenue sat in second place on the Buick model list, slotted beneath the rear-drive Roadmaster. While its interior proved more conservative than the Oldsmobile’s, it was also easier to use. No digital gauge frippery here.

Cadillac DeVille Touring Sedan

The only way to get a V8 (4.9 impressive liters) in your C-body was to head over to the Cadillac showroom. The elder statesman here, DeVille models were part of the first wave of mid-eighties downsizing. It was all new for ’85, as Deville swapped rear-drive for front-drive. The Deville Touring took an interesting mid-pack place in the Cadillac lineup for ’93, above the standard DeVille, but underneath the front-drive Fleetwood and Sixty Special, and rear-drive B-body Fleetwood Brougham. Lengthening and modernization occurred in ’89 and ’91, bringing the DeVille in line with its C-body brethren. Speed-sensitive steering and traction control came standard on the Touring Sedan, as well as special camel-colored leather seats. The conservative interior was rounded out with a horizontal speedometer and minimal buttons and instrumentation. Exterior features included a lack of hood ornament, special Touring wheels, and minimal exterior chrome decoration.

Three flavors of GM’s finest sedan offering of the ’90s. Which one goes home for keeps?

[Images: General Motors]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

86 Comments on “Buy/Drive/Burn: The 1993 C-body Showdown to End All Showdowns...”


  • avatar
    gtem

    Burn on the Caddy (sorry Corey)

    Toss up on buy/drive between the other two, I guess its’ simply a matter of taste in terms of interior/exterior style. More formal upright style of the Olds or the slightly lower more modern look of the Buick? I’ll go ‘buy’ on the Buick just because I think parts are slightly more available in the yards for them, drive Olds.

  • avatar
    dougjp

    I’m partial to the Olds, as growing up my Dad had an 88. I also think the styling of the Olds 88 and 98 was better than the other two brands’ offerings in those segments through the years. Buy drive? Haven’t a clue.

  • avatar
    Booick

    My father had a 93 park avenue. It was incredibly nice for a GM vehicle, and the last generation of buicks that werent subject to ridiculous cost cutting. The next 2 or 3 generations of all the buicks were absolutely terrible compared to the early 90s buicks. Family has owned many buicks. They didnt get back on track until second gen lacross, by then it was too late. Buick is a dead brand… everytime I see a Lucerne I shake my head. Its rear and body writes checks its front can’t cash and it is miserable on the inside. Almost looks like different groups designed the front vs the rest of the car.

    Should also mention the late 80s through 1996 caprices were also very nice for GM cars….I would definitely considering buying one if I needed a car and could find one in good condition.

    • 0 avatar
      gtem

      My brother and I are of the same opinion, the late 80s and early 90s ones hit a sweet spot. Series I engines are rock solid without the LIM gasket issues, interiors are old fashioned but well made with good materials (real metal trim pieces, nice velour). A late 90s Park Ave/Lesabre is still a fairly safe bet as far as a cheap to run and comfy car, but the “modernized” interiors just reek of cheapness.

      • 0 avatar
        Booick

        Exactly. We had a 1990 blue lesabre limited with the T type wheels on it, that car was fast and shifted just right. rode like a dream-like the tires had always just been balanced and aligned, had super awesome comfortable hard wearing seats, tight steering, etc. Went 274 thousand without any issues and finally was hit while parked. That was a car done right.

        • 0 avatar
          gtem

          Here’s a really clean looking one with low miles. If this was towards fall I’d be already on my way to scoop it up!

          indianapolis.craigslist.org/cto/d/91-buick-lesabre-custom/6578361479.html

          • 0 avatar
            bumpy ii

            “would make a perfect first car for a kid”
            Haha. “If you make honor roll, I’ll get you a WRX. Until you get your grades up, you’re driving this.”

          • 0 avatar
            gtem

            Hell I’d have been pretty happy with a 3800 equipped old Buick, it would have laid waste to my friends’ automatic-saddled 4cyl Japanese economy cars. As it was, my ’90 Wagon with the automatic (FWD, so DPFI D15B2) was the slowest of the bunch. Not sure how my wife would feel about the whole safety thing (and I myself might feel very differently once we actually have one), but if I had a kid right now, I’d be mightily inclined to be shopping this exact category of “classic” 3800 sleds.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        One might consider the LIM issues as tithing in the Church of 3800. It’s a repair you can anticipate and plan for.

        (The one in my Buick finally succumbed last week.)

      • 0 avatar
        bumpy ii

        After GM’s brush with death in 1992, the resulting cost-cutting really cheapened the interiors beginning in the mid-’90s.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      It wasn’t all perfect (especially the small cars), but product-wise, 1988 – 1998 was GM’s best decade since 1955 – 1965.

      And the toughest version of the 3800 is the LN3 from 1988 – 1991. That engine is *the 3800*.

  • avatar
    Marcus36

    This thread would be much better with interior pictures of each vehicle, at least one dashboard picture.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    I’m tempted on the Caddy, but I’ll just drive it.

    Burn the Olds (but save the engine first, amen and hallelujah). I never liked the styling.

    Buy the Buick. Twice.

  • avatar
    CaddyDaddy

    We had a couple of C-Body DeVilles. One was a 4.5 and the other was a 93’ 4.9 Deville. They were reliable and were company cars for the Family’s business. Both went well over 200k without a hitch. The Touring Sedan was red with high quality soft saddle leather interior. Had a Bose system. It really was a ritious ride.

    I always liked the 4.9L, sadly replaced by the garbage Northstar. The Touring Sedan had a slightly shorter final drive gear in the trans axel and in my opinion would really scoot. Many a owner of Fox body 5.0L sadly lost out to the Touring Sedan at the stop light after high school.

    After college, I looked for a used one for sale for as a DD. Went to the GM store which had a used unit in grandma condition. Then drove my 96’ LT-1 Caprice and never looked at FWD car again.

    P.S. The Olds LSS was cool as well! Not available in 93’.

  • avatar
    SMIA1948

    The Cadillac pictured must be a 1992. They changed to a new body in 1993.

  • avatar
    RSF

    Buy Buick
    Drive Olds
    Burn the Caddy

  • avatar
    la834

    It’s hard to believe the Park Avenue was built by the same company that gave us, well, all those awful ’90s GM cars with awful fisher-price plastic interiors. This was the last great Buick, gorgeous inside and out, plus there’s the wonderful 3800 V6 (not as nice as the Series II version that would grace the Park Avenue Ultra in its last year on the market with this style, 1996) but still a winner. I can’t say enough about the interior of this car – comfortable seats, spectacular ergonomics, everything you touch is softly padded unless its real metal, nice touches like a full set of gauges (including oil pressure and voltage) with warning lights as a backup, a strip of warning lights across the top of the dash, a full-width armrest on the door with a separate grab handle rather than a hole in the armrest to close the door which inevitably is right where your hand lands making it uncomfortable. An extra set of sun visors and illuminated mirrors for the rear seat passengers. A whole bunch of other neat stuff, all very well though out.

    So drive the Buick, buy the Caddy, burn the Olds because its outclassed by the Buick in every way despite the same underpinnings.

  • avatar
    VW4motion

    Keep the Caddy. Burn the other useless boats.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    All must be owned, none burned.

    • 0 avatar

      ONE MUST DIE.

    • 0 avatar
      David

      Agreed. All 3 are beauties had Personality-Plus since the day they were born. Olds is my #1.

      Top likes:
      The Olds: Just look at those fender skirts and a face that says “This Olds has a bright-eyed future.” I’ve never been able to take my eyes off this car.
      The Buick: the fresh, sporting wheels and elegant grille detailing.
      The Cadillac: the euro-style (badge in grille, etc) and handling upgrades, married to the traditional elegant Cadillac upright shape.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    Buy: The Buick. Dollar for dollar the best buy and least expensive on a per mile basis.
    Drive: The Caddy. On a lease.
    Burn: The Olds, but I would much rather give it to my F-I-L.

  • avatar
    e30gator

    Great cars. All of them. But..

    Buy the Buick-it’s probably still on the road today, plugging along with its mighty 3800.

    Drive the Caddy–Having worked at a Cadillac dealership in the early 2000’s, these were comfy and capable cruisers. And while perhaps not as durable as a 3800, the 4.9 was a good engine and had a reputation as being a capable high-miler. Like driving a Lay-Z-Boy around with a V8 engine note.

    Burn (if I had to) the Olds–not a bad car, but compared to the Buick and Caddy, it comes up a bit short, with more electronic frippery to fail over its many years on the road.

  • avatar
    seth1065

    Ok Corey back to the 90’s I see

    Buy The Caddy, maybe I can sell it to a rapper in a few years and it has a v8

    Drive the Buick, the best on the list no doubt so that is why I am driving it rather than buying it, a good looking solid effect by GM

    One has to burn so it must be the OLDS, it just looks not right.

  • avatar
    ernest

    Agreed on the Park Avenue- they were terrific cars. A number of our well-off friends bought Park Avenues- this was an early 90’s alternative to a Lexus. Oddly, the Cadillac was the least reliable of the group. I owned a ’87 Old 98. My wife nicknamed it the American Volvo (it was t-square, but also a nice car).

    So… buy the Buick, drive the Olds, burn the Cadillac.

  • avatar
    Roberto Esponja

    I worked at a GM dealership in the early 1990’s. The owner had his mother in a Ninety-Eight Regency Elite like the one pictured, and his personal “demo” was a Ninety-Eight Touring Sedan. I got to drive both. It was amazing how two cars built on the same platform could be so different. The Regency Elite was very “blah” to drive, and its interior was a snoozer. The Touring Sedan, on the other hand, was quite fun to drive for a vehicle its size, and its interior was worlds nicer than the Elite’s.

    My choice here would be either a Park Avenue Ultra, or the Olds Touring Sedan. The Cadillac just looked plain weird in Touring Sedan form.

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    Buy the Cadillac because of that peppy 4.9 and shorter axle ratio and a nicer interior than the other two
    Drive the Buick because it looks better and has a nicer interior than the Olds
    Burn the Olds as I never cared for the styling of these both inside or out.

  • avatar
    01 Deville

    With the advantage of hindsight of 2+decades
    Buy the Buick for value, reliability and a design that aged well.
    Drive the Caddy for 4.9, nicer interior and better amenities
    Burn the Olds as it has aged and really cannot compare with the other two.

    In 1993 my choices would probably be
    1. Buy the Olds (It looked beautiful then)
    2. Drive the Caddy.
    3. Burn the Buick

  • avatar
    Dan R

    Burn the Cadillac, same old stuff.
    Drive the Buick, there is a touch og a Jaguar about it style-wise.
    Buy the Olds, there is nothing else like it.

  • avatar
    bumpy ii

    Buy the Buick. The supercharged 3800 can get out of its own way, and the styling fits the ’90s jellybean aesthetic without going overboard. (And, this is the Buick that the Y31 Nissan Cima reminds me of. Even has similar wheels.)

    Drive the Caddy. After a decade of beta testing, GM managed to turn the HT into a dependable low-power mill suitable for the loafy driving habits of its customers.

    Burns the Olds. Why are there digital instruments in an exterior trying (and failing) to be your grandfather’s Oldsmobile?

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      “After a decade of beta testing, GM managed to turn the HT into a dependable low-power mill suitable for the loafy driving habits of its customers.”

      And then they came out with the N*!

  • avatar
    JohnTaurus

    Buy: Oldsmobile (shocking I know). Although I despise the FWDness, that is in common for the rest as well. So, might as well go for the Olds. I like the styling the best, and I trust its power plant over the Cadillac.

    Drive: Cadillac. Hey, its a Caddy.

    Burn: Buick. Looks worse than the other two, styling wise, and the Olds will stick out in a crowd more. Besides, always liked Olds over Boo-ick.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    This one’s rough. In one way or another I’ve driven all three brands as family vehicles and they all had their advantages and disadvantages. For me…

    • Buy the Caddy. It’s the best looking one of the lot. Even if it had already lost most of its mojo by the early 90s, it still looked like a Caddy and not somebody’s impression of a sports sedan.

    • Drive the Olds. Olds never gave me an issue with any one of them I’d owned–barring the nylon timing gear which effectively totaled my ’85 Toronado (cost more to replace the engine (too much internal damage) compared to the value of the car). Engine redesign later replaced that nylon gear with a steel one, IIRC. Outside of that, Olds had always been a nice cross between simple and luxury.

    • Burn the Buick. While the last Buick I owned was an ’86 T-type and a really fun as well as comfortable car, it was the exception, not the rule. Other Buicks were all about comfort over performance even when they had big engines and had a tendency to be too soft inside and too ‘floaty’ on the road–even worse than the Caddy of the same size. Honestly, if it had been me, the Buick would have been killed off in the ’00s, not the Olds, but China had already adopted it for its luxury chops and GM had already effectively destroyed the Olds brands with their bad decisions over the previous decade.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Corey, you may have realized this but two of the three are exactly the same including drivetrain. You could argue Our Lord vs His cousin 4.9, but the differences between Park Ave and Ninety Eight are superficial.

    That being said you own The Lord of Eternal Torque and perhaps drive His cousin, but none can truly be burned.

    • 0 avatar

      Of course, those two come down to styling preference and build quality differences. And there, I think the Buick has both aged better and was built with much more care.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        True. I’ve driven the Deville and Park Ave from the period but never a Ninety Eight. The Park Ave if I recall also felt more like a LWB vs Deville and Ninety Eight, I would probably go with that for ownership and whatever the Deville Touring was at that time. FWIW, from what I have seen of Ninety Eight it would probably suit me better vs Deville. The Deville’s exterior is more to my liking but the interior is very mid-80s in MY93 whereas the Olds was much more modern looking inside and out.

        • 0 avatar

          That’s some truth on the DeVille interior. They didn’t do -anything- between 1985 and 1993 to update it.

          I think Twilight Sentinel went from optional to standard, and the heated windshield button was replaced by a blank panel. That’s it.

          Guessing they were selling enough DeVilles (and had new K-body incoming) to not bother with doing anything to the interior?

          Still you’d think in ’89 or ’91 they’d have done something, since customers were paying much more than the Olds and Buick prices.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I’m not really sure why the interior was not altered in that period, perhaps simply because it was C-body FWD the whole time as the platform itself changed little? The MY89 nose and model lengthening were all sheetmetal changes. May have been because GM was in dire financial straits by about 1990 and they simply used the Cadillac models as cash cows of the period. The disorganization of GM itself probably also played a role, Olds mgt was doing Ninety Eight, Buick mgt did a new Park Ave, Cadillac mgt was focused on Northstar and losing out to the Japanese?

            Hehe, hey buyers, your ’89 Cadillac is coming with length :D

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    It’s weird that GM did not switch the designation of the supercharged 3800 when switching from Series I to Series II, and it was L67 for both. The Series II 3800 didn’t arrive until 1996, with some modest power bumps and full support for then-mandatory OBD-II.

    Now, your question:

    Buy the Buick, Drive the Oldsmobile, Burn the Cadillac.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    I’m late to this party :-(

    I love Oldsmobile but if I’m stuck with the least hp of the trio then the Oldsmobile drops to “BURN” status. If I could still get the Touring model plus supercharger it would be in the “drive” category.

    Buick – drive, this is when the Park Avenue got it’s MOJO back. I can’t stand the tiny little 1st gen FWD ones. Couldn’t tell the difference between a LeSabre and Park Avenue at 50 paces from about 1985 to 1992.

    Cadillac – BUY. Someone will want to buy it when you’re done because it was a vast improvement in every way over the 4.1 ltr “Grandfather of Northstar” abominations that GM forced on the American Public.

    • 0 avatar

      Having owned a 4.9L, I think the Buy for me ends up being the Buick, with a Drive on the Caddy and a Burn for the shoddily constructed Ninety-Eight.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        Yes but my father (born in 1954 into a fiercely GM family) having lived through the horsepower wars into the malaise, eventually going from 1978 Monte Carlo (305 V8), to 1982 Celebrity sedan (Iron Duke) to 1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme (307 V8) to 1992 Bonneville (3800) finally got an opportunity to drive an early ULTRA belonging to one of his buddies.

        After a 15 or 20 min of in down driving he stopped in a parking lot, popped the hood, and got out. His Buddy said: “Where the [email protected] are you going?”

        Dad: “Checking for the V8, that ain’t no 6 under hood.”

  • avatar

    This post is NSFW due to its pornographic content. At least in my eyes.

  • avatar
    tonyola

    Buy the Buick – it’s the best-looking.
    Drive the Cadillac – it’s the plushest.
    Burn the Olds (with regrets) – One has to go and the Olds is the plainest-looking.

  • avatar
    RHD

    Burn all three of those Grandpamobiles. Sorry, I was too young back then to even consider any of those wallowing 4-door gas-chugging mediocrity machines, and I still am.
    The allergy to automatic transmissions automatically takes them out of consideration, and GM “quality” puts the nail in the coffin. It would have been much smarter to buy stocks and hold them then buy a 4-door depreciation machine with a bench seat.
    Sometimes you just can’t choose one to buy, one to drive, and one to burn.
    “What would you like for lunch today? We have blood sausage casserole, liverwurst on pumpernickel with horseradish, or haggis.”

    • 0 avatar

      All these flavors, and you chose salty.

      • 0 avatar
        gtem

        Hahaha perfect response Corey.

        Funny how “gas chugging” gets brought up for something like these but never if it was a bunch of old Germans luxoboats or something like an old Porsche (which I can almost guarantee a supercharged 3800 would wallop on highway mpg). Also with the reliability, at least the Buick was about as good as it got for anything domestic, definitely better than almost anything German from the era I can think of, and nipping on the heels of some of the better Japanese entries and besting many.

      • 0 avatar
        RHD

        It’s like choosing between grapefruit, Brussels sprouts and okra. Personally, no thank you. Some people like them. Fantastic. I’d choose something else.
        Having worked in parts stores in the past, I got a pretty good idea about what to drive and what to avoid. There were lots of GM owners who were very loyal to their brand, but upset with how things that shouldn’t break often did. Your mileage may vary.

  • avatar
    JEFFSHADOW

    I worked at Browning Oldsmobile in Cerritos, California when the 1991 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight “arrived”. The Buick Park Avenue was in the competitive dealer’s (Buick Mart) showroom by early August. We had to wait until near Thanksgiving to receive an allocation of 98s.
    Many customers longing for the lengthened C-body came to visit us and then drove across the street to buy the available Buick instead.
    Mr. Browning’s mother drove a Ninety-Eight (I delivered it to her home and taught her how to use the dash controls) and Mr. Browning drove the 1991 Touring Sedan.
    A customer at the Long Beach Auto Show walked up to the demo, as it was now on display here, and said “I’m buying THAT car!”.
    And he did. I was the salesman as well. In four years he leased an Aurora from me.
    Notes: The supercharged 3800 was an option on the Ninety Eight until 1993. When the grille and dash changed in 1994 the car became a bit more cushy and had less instrumentation. But there was the beautiful Elite variant and in 1995 and 1996 we had the Series II version under the Value Pricing plan.
    I bought a 1995 Ninety Eight Elite at an auto auction in 2006 for $1,900. It had 54,000 miles and was in mint condition and had been traded in at a Toyota store in Marina Del Rey. It was owned by the same customer who had spoken to me about purchasing an Oldsmobile and then had to wait awhile to speak with his wife. They also lived closer to “Peninsula Pontiac-Oldsmobile-GMC” and bought the car there. It was build number 0003!
    Another car I should have kept. . .
    Oh, in answer to the main query here: Buy/Drive, Buy/Drive, Buy/Drive ALL THREE!
    Jeff “Shadow”, president of the Toronado-Aurora Chapter Oldsmobile Club of America

  • avatar

    Dear god these are all shit.

  • avatar
    MRF 95 T-Bird

    I’m a fan of all three though I always thought GM should have designed them RWD. They would be today’s CTS and CT6

    Buy: Buick-The 3800Sc is robust and the interior trimming is far superior to other GM products of the era.
    Drive: Oldsmobile-Smooth highway cruiser. The last of the pre Aurora Olds.
    Burn: Cadillac-Nice ride always a fan of the Touring Sedans but not worth the extra money.

  • avatar
    Scoutdude

    Easiest B/D/B ever. The Olds gets the torch and it can’t be done soon enough. This is not my father’s Oldsmobile and that is not a good thing because it isn’t mine either because it is ugly. Buy the Buick simply because Buick, and drive the Caddy.

  • avatar
    DEVILLE88

    i have 3 cars now, so i’ll keep all three i’ll drive the Olds and buy the Caddy and drive the Buick. I’m not burning or destroying any of these beauties!!! The Caddy is for weekends

  • avatar
    RatherhaveaBuick

    Buy the Buick. Its the one I’d want to live with.

    Drive the Olds. I love these too, its just not the one I’d want to own. Now I’m pretty curious about how boaty and gigantic it would feel but with the sound of the S.Charger.

    Burn the Caddy. Not a bad car, and I would probably own or drive one IRL under the right circumstances, however in comparison its just outdated and boring and doesn’t have any of the weirdness of that year’s Olds 98 or the solidity of the Buick.

    Personally, the rare “sporty” spec barges (i.e. Ultra, Touring) from Buick and Olds always attract me more than Caddys.

    When I look at that Olds its hard to imagine who they thought was going to buy it spec’d like that new and as with many used cars I often wonder who did. Which I guess is why in 94 they neutered and sedated the Ninety Eights for good…

    I guess that while they did lead to Oldsmobile’s eventual demise, some GM marketing decisions left us with kinda interesting old cars…

  • avatar
    NoID

    I saw an unbelievably clean (like showroom floor pristine) C-body Deville V8 at a gas station near Silver Lake State Park a few weeks ago. It wasn’t the highlight of the trip, but it was close. Not a restoration or a garage queen, just well taken care of by someone who cares and not driven in the winter time.

  • avatar

    Managed to miss this entire series….or not, although I greatly enjoy Corey’s write ups as a fan of minor product differences in USDM cars. :)

  • avatar
    sgeffe

    So apparently these weren’t built in the same factory? Did they build the LeSabre/88/Bonneville in the same place?

    Just seems weird that the Buick would be better-constructed than the Olds, if it’s essentially the same car coming down the same line, especially given that “badge-engineering” had taken hold at GM two decades prior!

    • 0 avatar

      I was never too sure about assembly locations, so I had to look them up.

      DeVille and Ninety-Eight were at Orion Assembly in Michigan.
      Park Avenue was built at Orion, Hamtramck, and Wentzville, Missouri.

      So now I want to check examples from all three places, and see which is best. Makes me think that there are some crappy Orion Park Avenues out there.

  • avatar
    delerium75

    The Deville Touring Sedan also got a slightly numerically higher final drive ratio (2.97 vs. 2.77). I’d definitely take the Deville TS…nice controlled ride, best carpet and room out of the 3.

  • avatar
    road_pizza

    Ooof, a toughy. Had an ’89 Sedan De Ville many years back, got great service from that car other than two water pumps in 50k miles (and they’re a mother to change). Can I buy the Buick, drive the Caddy, and park the Olds to drive later?

  • avatar
    Spartan

    Buy: Olds 98 RE
    Drive: Park Avenue Ultra
    Burn: Caddy. Just burn it. Kill it with fire.

    That Oldsmobile 98 Regency Elite looked more like a Cadillac than the Deville did in 93. It was a head turner. It had a classic, yet modern look and they rode incredibly well.

    The C-Body Deville was ugly as sin throughout its entire generation. That Olds, in concours condition, would turn heads today. The C-Body Deville always had a frumpy look to it that I’ve always hated.

    The real question here is whether the 4.9L will fit in the Olds. That’d be the car you’d want.

  • avatar
    delerium75

    The normally aspirated 3800 was standard on all 98s in ’93. Only the 98 Touring Sedan had the supercharged 3.8 available as an option…it was not available on the Elite.

  • avatar
    gearhead77

    Burn the Olds. This is most definitely “Your Grandfathers Oldsmobile” and it’s just too old looking.

    Drive the Cadillac. Plain (compared to the others), I have a soft spot for Cadillacs thanks to my 84 Eldo and my folks 94 Deville Concours. In blue collar Pittsburgh, a Cadillac in those days always got more of nod to “making it” than the other two.

    Buy the Buick- None of these are stellar automobiles compared to their forebearers wearing the same badge. But the Buick doesn’t look as Old as the Olds nor as rich as the Caddy. Supercharged 3800 would have more than enough oomph compared to the 4.9 if not the smoothness, though I did like the sound of the 4.9

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • bunkie: Winter tires do work better on ice, but probably not enough to override your desire to stay home.
  • bunkie: If I could have found steelies, I would have bought them. It’s an interesting exercise to try to find...
  • gtem: I’m with you 3800FAN, and it’s definitely an industry wide problem, except in the cases of the...
  • larrystew: Not to mention butt-ugly.
  • mcs: @schmidt trigger: EV batteries using newer technology are being produced now that will outlast an ICE engine. At...

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