(first posted 11/25/2013; Updated with several revisions) This GM Deadly Sin has been long overdue – the 1991 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight. At such a critical time for the division, why did they ever go ahead and roll out one of the most illogically styled cars in the history of automobiles? Could this be the car that killed Oldsmobile?
To answer my own question, “No”. This is not THE car that killed GM’s oldest division, but it’s certainly one of the reasons Oldsmobile went dissolved a decade later. You see, Oldsmobile was once a cash cow for GM. Its middle position in the GM “step” hierarchy meant that Oldsmobile could compete with both ends of the spectrum. Olds could offer Chevrolet levels of equipment with more show, as well as near-Cadillac levels of luxury without the ostentation – and everywhere in between.
For the most part, Oldsmobile was always seen as an “upscale” brand, making it especially popular with upwardly mobile clientele. Olds’ portfolio offered plenty of options to keep these customers returning and trading up. Cutlasses would be traded up for Delta 88s, which in turn were traded for the Ninety-Eight, the largest Oldsmobile one could buy. The Toronado was a possible pinnacle to this succession, but reserved for only the most elite Oldsmobile clientele.
Ninety-Eight sales remained strong through the ‘70s and ‘80s, despite threats such as questionable interior materials, the energy crisis, and two downsizings. However, by the late-‘80s, consumers’ automotive tastes were decidedly different than in previous years. Opera windows, pillowed velour seating, and total road isolation, qualities that had once made the Ninety-Eight so popular, were falling out of favor. Full-size American luxury cars were no longer the ultimate expression of success, nor what most hard-working Americans aspired to. Instead, both old and young drivers alike, but especially younger individuals, aspired to own cars from European or Japanese premium/luxury brands or SUVs.
Without that important consumer group to target for a future customer base, the Ninety-Eight’s purpose in life was threatened. Adding insult to injury was that with the 1985 redesign, to the average person, the car’s anonymous shape could easily be mistaken for almost anything under the GM umbrella.
Thankfully, GM recognized this and began designing cars that actually looked different from one another. So what became of this scrawny, generic-looking Ninety-Eight? Well…
THIS. Yes, this was what buyers were greeted with for 1991. You wanted something distinctive? You got it.
Let’s start with the good. In attempt to correct the ’85-’90 model’s “compact” appearance, the Nineteen Ninety-One Ninety-Eight (sorry, that never gets old) was nearly 10 inches longer and 2 inches wider. Power from its 3.8L Buick V6 was also up slightly compared with its predecessor. Its 4-speed automatic transmission was now electronically controlled. I’d continue, but I think that’s all there is. Regarding the bad, where do I even begin?
Although considerably longer, wheelbase remained the same, resulting in considerable front and rear overhangs. And then there are the skirted rear wheels. This styling feature stopped looking good on cars somewhere around the time of Watergate. Still, GM kept trying to make this look work on a number of models all the way through 1998. Combined with the convex body sides, it gave the car a bulging look in my opinion. A scaled-down “beached whale” B-body, if you will.
Moving up, we get to the greenhouse. Notice how it appears to sit on top of the body, rather than be integrated with it like just about every car design since 1970? For another throwback, designers gave it a long and flat trunk that was just… so awkward.
I’m not sure if this was the intent of the overall design, but the 1991 Ninety-Eight’s profile actually evokes that of the 1961 Ninety-Eight, albeit the front- and rear-ends reversed. Some retro styling features return to prominence, but not everything is destined to come back in style. I don’t think we’ll ever be seeing Dagmars or tail fins again.
Add that to a sad, droopy face, with an egg crate grille and protruding front bumper. Then there’s the horribly tacky (and very cheap, as we all soon found out) lower body trim. I was surprised to find it all intact on the one I photographed.
However, you can see how damaging a minor scuff could be to it. The majority of Ninety-Eights saw their trim pieces peel off in a matter of years. Now here I really could go on, but I think I’ve made my point clear: This was one stylistically challenged car.
Especially so when you compare it to the redesign of its platform mate, the Buick Park Avenue. How could the redesigns of two heavily related cars, once 99% identical in appearance, go so differently?
image: autosofinterest.com
I came across some early design sketches of the ’91 Ninety-Eight that reveal a stronger resemblance to the Park Avenue.
image: autosofinterest.com
Here is a prototype with a more Park Avenue-esque roofline, shorter overhangs, and open rear wheel wells.
image: autosofinterest.com
And here’s a more slab-sided model that bears a strong similarity to the production model. The Cutlass Supreme-inspired front- and rear-fascias, simpler lower trim, and squared-off appearance do it wonders. It’s a shame this much more stately, almost Town Car-esque Ninety-Eight didn’t make it into production. More images can be found (here), as well as many design sketches for the 1985 Ninety-Eight.
Things were marginally better on the inside, which actually greeted occupants with a fairly attractive design, considering they even wanted to open the door to step in. The dash and door panels capitalized on the in-vogue “cockpit” look, despite the expected 55/45 divided bench seat and column shifter being standard in Regency and Regency Elite models. The limited-production Touring Sedan gained special Lear-designed bucket seats with many power adjustments, as well as real polished burl walnut trim and a console with floor shifter.
One only has to wonder what would’ve happened if the Aurora could’ve made it to the market a few years earlier. It certainly would’ve made a better 1991 Ninety-Eight in every aspect. Cutting-edge styling, luxuriously appointed interior, and return to V8 power. Or just badging it as the 1991 Aurora, and dropping the Ninety-Eight altogether could have made even more sense. That was part of Oldsmobile’s struggle. Trying to modernize its image without alienating its traditional clientele — neither of which it was able to successfully pull off.
Fantasizing aside, the fact is that this was the production Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight. As you can guess, it didn’t draw in many buyers. In fact, sales for ’91 models actually decreased over the outgoing ’90 models, whose design was 6 years old. As a young child when they were new, I never saw many of these cars. From a pathetic 54,000 units in 1991, sales steadily fell to a measly 15,000 by 1996, the Ninety-Eight’s last year on the market.
My own personal account to add, is that my grandfather owned a 1992 Medium Slate Gray Metallic over Garnet Red velour Ninety-Eight Regency (pictured above in the driveway of their Cape house, Falmouth, MA), and it was a car I spent a lot of time in the first four years of my life. In fact, it was the first car I ever rode in as a living human being, on my way home from the hospital as a newborn.
(Photographed: Surf Drive Beach, Falmouth, MA c. 1995-1996; Clearly not in summer)
I actually never really cared for the car in particular as a child, as the all-burgundy interior wasn’t so easy on the eyes, and combined with the minimally opening rear windows and the fact that my grandmother always over-bundled me up in layers, made for an uncomfortably hot riding experience. Nevertheless, it is a car I very much associate with both my grandparents, and my happy young childhood in general. For those reasons, this car will always hold a special place in my heart, despite its many shortcomings and its ramifications for the Oldsmobile brand.
I agree that Oldsmobile was trying to hard to tap their older buyers with the styling and appointments with this car. I understand the logic behind the decision, but have always thought it rather poorly executed. The 88 (as well as LeSabre and Park Avenue) were much better executed designs…..More cohesive, somehow. AS a matter of fac t, I’ve always found the exterior styling of those final year 88’s to be the most attractive of all these cars.
I do find as I get older that the final 98’s have grown on me a bit though and their relative scarcity makes them more appealing as time goes on….All the goodness of this particular platform with some more “exclusive” styling…..
I’d own one in the right color and trim combo.
I always felt like one of the reasons they held on to the Brougham look for so long is that it masked a cheapening-out. A minimalist luxury aesthetic demands quality materials or it just looks like not-luxury; in a rococo style you can do fancy for cheap, especially in high volume since the cost of any intricate mold work can be amortized across a lot of units.
No argument that this Ninety Eight was a big misstep. The weird grille/headlight treatment and that terrible A pillar and that fake vent window really made this car not work.
The Buick Le Sabre and Park Avenue and the Pontiac Bonneville of the same era (and of course the Olds 88) had the same fixed-glass “fake vent window” – would you say those cars were equally ruined by this feature?
It is an unattractive feature. But I think the other cars’ styling was otherwise fine.
I was also never a big fan of that A-pillar vent window treatment. Having owned a 1998 Eighty-Eight, though, I can say it made for some of the quietest windows-down highway cruising I’ve ever experienced in a car. So it at least served a functional purpose (intended or otherwise).
I can put up with a certain amount of ugly if it’s practical.
It is the sole purpose. The aero experimental ’96 Taurus in the campus lab had the same design added to reduce the wind coefficient for better MPG, probably when front windows are down.
I wish my PA had them. Looking around the huge drivers side A pillar can be annoying.
Agree. Of the two Buick/Olds H-Car stablemates of that era, Buick definitely drew the long straw – the Park Avenue wears its formal styling cues quite well while the 98 has all the presence of an oversized Achieva.
In the early nineties, I loved the redesigned Park Avenue (still do), but failed to understand the Ninety Eight. It seems that everything that Buick got right, Oldsmobile got wrong – which the article points out nicely. I found this all the more confusing since the similar-vintage Eighty Eight is a really attractive car; more so than the Le Sabre, actually.
Too bad the Aurora didn’t arrive sooner. That was one cool-looking car.
“It’s… it’s… well, … SQUARE!”
Those were the words out of my mouth when I visited an Olds showroom back in the day when these came out.
The 88’s were the model to own, as those were quite sharp.
However, design-wise, the Aurora was my favorite Olds, second only to the glorious Cutlass 4-4-2 of the late 60’s.
+1 on the 442,don’t forget the Vista Cruiser as well.I can’t help wondering where it all went wrong for Oldsmobile.I liked the Park Avenue but this is the ugly sister.
You’re right – the Vista Cruiser – also my favorite station wagon, probably equal with the Chevy Nomad, but worlds more practical, and having enjoyed riding in both, would be a tough choice if I had to choose!
I was never crazy about these when they were new, but they have grown on me over time. Stepping back and taking a broader look I can see what Olds was doing with these.
They even had Pontiac like body cladding on them…that was a little strange.
No argument that Buick got it right and Olds got it wrong. I remember when these came out, and I had to give GM credit – there was no badge-engineering going on here. Same platform, all different sheetmetal, just like the good old days. Kudos on your research, I have never seen those styling studies.
The Olds is undeniably awkward, but I always kind of liked it – at least from some angles. This is a car highly dependent on angle, lighting and color for whether it looks decent or ugly. This may have been the last shot that GM took in trying to translate 1960s proportions to the 1990s. Funny how the Buick, not constrained by the 60s proportions, looks bigger. The sloped nose (mandated by aerodynamics and CAFE) didn’t work with the rest of the car. And I really want to like the skirted rear wheels, but they don’t really work on this car. Funny, Olds was among the first to abandon that look with the 65 models.
I could drive one of these. It is a fascinating car that you will not see in every parking lot. Of course, I like 64 Studebakers too.
I think JP nails it here. But, I’m probably even a bit kinder to this car.
This car was not a GM Deadly Sin. Not every car is going to be a hit, especially when you build so many.
But, it was a correction of GM’s Deadly Sin of too many, too look alike, too sized alike cars. GM didn’t realize it, but by the mid eighties they needed to whack a couple of platforms out of each product line. When suddenly your top wheelbase is limited to about 111 inches, and the bottom is about 100 inches, offering a sub compact, compact, mid-size, full-size, luxury-size, and specialty coupe line is very difficult.
I think Bill Mitchell once said something along the lines that styling a small car is very difficult. By the late eighties, Olds was dealing with six similar small size boxes, as were most of the divisions. Give Olds credit, they were trying to answer the look alike issue with this car.
To me this car is very much a return to the styling cues of the 1980-1984 Ninety-Eight which was quite successful. From the chrome center split grill, lines on the hood, skirted rear wheels and vertical outboard tail lights, it’s a return to what had been a popular Olds look.
I’ll admit defeat. The car didn’t sell very well, but the Aurora was very much a part of that in the final year. If the Aurora had been the 1991 Ninety-Eight, it would have been a daring and forward looking upscale brother to the Eighty-Eight.
The 96 Olds 98 I owned was imo a handsome car (from some angles, not so much) and was excellent and had a fantastic powertrain. My family’s 96 Fleetwood was not nearly as nice of a car if you ask me.
That said the 91 Olds 98 I owned was not a very good car at all.
A big problem for Olds was a dealer network that no idea how to sell modern, well engineered cars like the Aurora and Intrigue. They tried to put padded roofs on them and pass them off to 60 + crowd. I remember a visit to the local olds dealer where one of the salesmen admitted he knew nothing about the cars mentioned above. ? ? ? ?
87 Cutlass Supreme , great car … as well as my 72.
Note: I’m a Olds fan and might be a bit biased.
We had a 91 Park Ave (horrible fit and finish, great engine and transmission) which looks (IMHO) to be thrice the car of the 98.
The straight wheel well cutout acts as a perfect shelf for crap to build up in there that might otherwise roll off a rounded one. These weren’t very old before that area rusted, and the prairies isn’t the saltiest area in our country.
It looks like a stretched Achieva, which was NOT the most attractive of cars!
The Achieva was styled to look like a small Ninety Eight!
Right; and the Ninety Eight came out first, in 1991. The Achieva debuted as a ’92 model.
Regarding why the Eighty-Eight’s design worked, where the Ninety-Eight’s didn’t, a lot of it boils down to the semi-skirted rear wheel openings and the rear overhang.
I understand that these were developed during a time where the price of gas was expected to double (or triple) by 1985, but the decision to have one wheelbase was awful…imagine the design possibilities had the senior models been given a 3- to 6-inch stretch.
I’d be interested in CraigNC’s take, but I’ve noticed that he hasn’t posted in a while. Has anyone heard from him lately?
He was appointed to a Federal Commission/Board in DC, having to do with Transportation (trains, possibly), and told us he was now too busy for us.
Thanks, Paul! I was actually concerned…glad he’s okay.
I always liked the late 80’s version. Roomy and comfortable in a reasonably small package. Some even had the talking computer which may be tacky by today’s standards but pretty high tech for its day. Very impressive to this kid, who wasn’t actually driving them.
As for the ’91, there were a lot of cars with controversial styling back then. Caprice, Lumina APV, Skylark, and even the ’91 Camry. Ford was still selling the ancient square Crown Vic. While I never liked the ’91 98, compared to what all else was out there I didn’t think they were as terrible as this article makes them out to be. The failure probably had a lot to do with the big sedan market in general.
Well done, Brendan. I thought these were odd when they came out, but the study you show with the round wheel openings and Buick-ish greenhouse could have been quite nice. And I imagine they were comfy family cars with decent headroom. I hate what pseudo-fastback rooflines have done the interiors of modern big sedans.
I don’t love it, but I don’t hate it either.
I agree.
Even if I catch flack I’m gonna say it…
Why is this a deadly sin? Because the author doesn’t like the styling?
The Olds 98 was to the Buick Park Avenue what the Pontiac Aztek was to the Buick Rendezvous. Two vehicles that shared a platform, but one was attractive and sold well, while the other one was shunned.
To make matters worse, the Olds 98 wasn’t trying to break ground in a new market segment, but attract the brand’s traditional clientelle.
Ah, but then you had the Ninety-Eight Touring Sedan, which was a half-hearted and/or heavily compromised attempt to reach the import luxury crowd with the same styling, the same powertrain, but a few token “Euro” features and a retuned suspension.
It wasn’t just Brandon. 15,000 units in 1996? This was the booming 90s when everything in this class was selling like crazy. 15K units from a GM large sedan? This was the kind of number you expected from a second or third tier brand, not Oldsmobile that had been the number 3 seller as recently as a decade before these cars came out. It looks like Buick moved about 46K Park Avenues, or three times the volume. And what percentage of those buyers was under age 45? This car painted Olds into a demographic corner. It drove buyers out of Olds showrooms, and the ones who stayed were old timers who were like Buick customers a decade later. This car was one more car that let the air out of Oldsmobile’s tires and turned it from a contributing brand to a renovation project that turned out to be too far gone. How long after this car did GM pull the plug on Olds? It was December of 2000, so 5 years after the end of this car’s run.
This car was only meant to appeal to the traditional Olds buyer, never meant to break new ground.
The full size car market was starting to dry up. The mid size market was the big seller.
The emphasis wasn’t put on this car but instead the Aurora, so how did this car drive people out of the showroom? They also had the Olds LSS, the Touring sedan (also very expensive) etc.
This was a pretty expensive car in the day. The 88 sold much better for that reason alone.
If there wasn’t some money to be made by catering to this type of buyer why did they bother doing the regency treatment on the olds 88 once the 98 was gone?
The market may have been slowing in this segment, but in 1996 Buick sold 3x as many Park Avenues, Mercury sold 104K Grand Marquis and Chrysler sold 2x as many of the appealing but vastly inferior New Yorkers/LHSs . Oldsmobiles 16K Ninety Eights is just pathetic for a model that had always done very, very well.
I understood that they tried a new style that didn’t work. But by the 90s, the days of people buying what was in GM showrooms just because they were in GM showrooms was over. Olds had a slow seller on its hands yet let it go for six years, neither restyling it, killing it, or replacing it sooner. It just languished, selling fewer every year. It was a very good car – I even said that I would drive one today. But this is yet another example of how the internal workings of GM seemed to hamper the design of an appealing car.
That said, Chrysler managed the feat of going from a dying old-man’s car to a vibrant seller of desirable cars, and during the same time period that Oldsmobile was shriveling. Can you imagine what Chrysler would look like now if its big cars had been as good in the quality and durability department as these Oldsmobiles? GM would have gone through bankruptcy several years sooner than it did.
1996 was only a partial production year because of the Aurora.
The 96 Intrepid, a few notches lower on the pole than a 98 sold 21000 cars
The LHS, Concord and New Yorker combined sold 94000.
Chrysler wasn’t close to touching the GM for Ford offerings in the segment. The GrandMA was a huge fleet queen also, but did sell well overall.
Very few were doing well in the large/expensive traditional car category.
You are assuming that they would have saved money by canceling the car. It’s more likely they realized their mistake early on and decided not to invest any more in it. Instead they changed their focus dramatically with the Aurora, so it’s not like they were just clinging to hope with this car.
It was at this point cars like the Acura Legend and Lexus ES300 were eating huge chunks out of the market Oldsmobile was after. This car was a total failure as it simply didn’t sell well enough, while its competition was making huge gains.
GM tried the “youth” thing for Oldsmobile and it failed. They then did the “geriatric thing” for the 98 and that failed. The real reason was the market had changed away from loose pillow and fake wire wheel caps to understated luxury. Speaking from the perspective of a repair shop, owners of expensive cars like this got tired of them needing work right after warranty.
Even at this point, GM had huge excess capacity. Its volumes could not justify Oldsmobile, so it was chopped.
The 98 wasn’t going after the same market as the Legend and ES300.
Then it was going after a market that did not exist…..
I would disagree with your assertion. Lexus and Acura cleaned up during that time, when Boomers had the money to get into near luxury. GM did not adapt to this change in demographics, and they paid a big price for it.
The government of Canada just sold its GM shares. Hardworking taxpayers lost $1,000,000,000 on that.
Back up the bus.
1. why get political?
2. Your government still owns GM stock, so don’t count your losses yet
3. Complain to your representatives if you don’t like the game, don’t blame the company that wasn’t given a choice in the matter. There were not the only one at the table getting money, just one of many. Had they gone through a normal BK they probably would have been better off but then someone else would have been bitching too (pro union guys).
Olds did get in the “game” with the ES and Acura, it was the Aurora. Lexus and Acura hardly cleaned up by the numbers.
Nobody cross-shopped a 98 with a Legend. Two markets. One expanding, one dying. Olds didn’t try for the Acura/Lexus market until the Aurora.
Edit…looks like you beat me to it by a minute Philhawk.
The 98 wasn’t going after the same market as the Legend and ES300.
That’s the problem.
XR7,
The 98 wasn’t going after the same market as the Legend and ES300.
That’s the problem.
Why is that a problem? What is wrong with offering an American luxury car? Why does it have to be aimed at the same people that want a European and Japanese car? The only thing that has accomplished is that it has gotten us to our current offerings where everything is pretty much the same and boring as hell with little character.
There’s nothing wrong with making a traditional American luxury car, the problem with the Ninety-Eight is that it did absolutely nothing to keep the American luxury car paradigm from dieing. If anything it plunged it further into obsolescence and bolstered dull European/Japanese Luxury.
The funny thing about saying the full size market was drying up is that fuel was cheap when these came out, many “traditional American buyers” were avoiding these like the plague in favor of SUVs and, most bizarrely, midsize cars have grown and grown to the point where they are now bigger in nearly every dimension from an H-body, and heavier to boot. Had there been something truly modern and remarkable in the segment in 1991, it likely could have been nursed back to health, but putting new sheetmetal on the ancient Panther or B platforms and de-stubbing the H-body wasn’t the way to do so. The Ninety-Eight simply comes of as it is, a dieing whimper, and it ultimately set the tone for the remainder of Oldsmobiles life.
Again, I offer the Ninety-Eight Touring Sedan as counter-evidence to the first point. That obviously wasn’t the big push, but it suggests something seriously amiss that Olds thought it could lure import luxury buyers with a “Euro” package on this car.
And I again offer the Aurora as evidence they did know what import luxury buyers wanted, and any trim packages were just a method to make a bigger profit, not meant to target an entirely different market.
Taken by themselves, I certainly don’t mind a car with more overhang and skirted rear wheels. I also don’t mind that the greenhouse “sits on top” of the body instead of being integrated. Some of my favourite cars have these things in common. 🙂 However, I agree that it doesn’t work on this Olds 98.
The designers somehow made it look bland AND ugly at the same time. The ribbed lower body cladding doesn’t look good on any vehicle, and even worse on the examples that don’t have two-tone paint because it’s more obvious. The rounded grille and headlights form such an unbroken surface that they look painted on, and the grille wrapping around at the top just looks weird. The roof should have a more formal and upright C-pillar and rear window, just as the contemporary Roadmaster has versus its Caprice sibling. The sculpted sides which some of the concepts, and the Aurora, had may have helped too.
I don’t like the Aurora either. My favourite of these would be the Park Avenue by far.
I am a little different. Preferred the 98 to the 88. Always thought the 88 was dog ugly. Could not understand the weird grill on the early 88’s and the body cladding with the open rear wheels on the 88 just did not work for me, was ok on the 98 though. I will agree that the Buick Park Avenue was the better looking car, though. Would love to have a good condition 91 or 92 98 similar to subject car preferably in burgundy with the honeycomb wheels. Those wheels set it off well where the wire caps or the later teardrop ones did not do quite as well. The 2 tone with the gray cladding also seemed to work better than the single tone on later models.
In 2005 a friend of mine passed away who had a 95 98 with about 70000 miles on it in immaculate condition. I was offered the car for very little by the family. I ended up selling it for them at quite a bit more than they offered it to me for. I had just gotten my Roadmaster Wagon and did not have room for a sixth car. Anyway that 98 had the same cushy ride as my Fleetwood which was surprising for a car so much smaller.
Anyway great write up even if I do not totally agree with it.
+1, I really like these, however with the caveat that I liked the ’92-up Eighty Eight too.
I first saw the ’91 Ninety-Eight Regency Elite at the 1991 Chicago Auto Show. I was 11. I really, really liked it then, and still like it now. But, I prefer the 1991-92 with the lacy-spoke alloys, and in a dark color with the silver two-toning on the lower section.
In fact, at the time I thought the Ninety Eight and new-for-’91 Custom Cruiser were versions of the same car! I knew the Caprice looked way different than the Olds sedan, but the CC and 98 were so similar from the front I initially thought they were different body styles on the same model. Of course I know better know, but I still like them. I still really like the 1991-92 Custom Cruiser too!
That 1975 ad depicting a politician extolling the virtues of his red 98 is a classic that I have posted on Facebook each election day for the past several years. It is impossible to imagine that ad message used today, except sarcastically!
You’re right Robert. That is comical to see. They wouldn’t dare touch politicians, or politics in general today. Way too polarizing. haha
That was back when we still trusted politicians in general…
So we take someone else’s article, add a few more photos and slap the title GM DEADLEST SIN #20 on it. Wish I could remember what this is called. I know that is a sin.
This 98 does not rank anywhere near a Vega, 4,6,8 etc.
What are you implying? Brendan wrote this post 100% by himself; I never even read it until a couple of days ago, and zero changes were made.
Would you please clarify your accusation, or apologize to the author for accusing him of plagiarism.
Fully agree Paul.
And kudos to you for standing up for Brendan immediately.
This article is well done.
+1, Paul.
+2 I’m also happy that the author took the time and effort to post his article, and am constantly pleased with all of the postings on a variety of subjects. I’m also sure that the author’s have other things going on in their lives, and I appreciate their postings.
On another subject, I was sad to see that Craig in NC won’t be posting for the time being, and offer congrats on his new position.
I am saying this article is not very original.
In my younger days as a journalist I would have been fired for writing something like this.
Enough rehashing of Google research both for authors and comments. I have read most of this information before. Was it a ’91 98? Was it it for an Alero or Achieva? Was it CC or that site with the mad Prussian who hated short haired women?
The only ‘fact’ that was unknown to me was that there were only 15,000 98’s produced at the end. But that too is an Internet find. That and the fact he states that was his first ‘ride.’ Maybe this should have been included in the series of ‘My First Rides,’
That he typed with his own fingers does not add anything new to ‘This Deadly Sin.’
If you can do better, why don’t you?
I also grow tired of the GM hate on here but this guy put in more effort for this car than I ever would have bothered to. So I at least respect the effort, if not the opinion.
He doesn’t get compensated. 99.999% of the articles on here are only opinion pieces, almost none of them have anything to do with actually driving the cars written about, they are mostly armchair quarterbacking the past from a different perspective on life.
If you had searched, you would see that he actually did write something a long long long time ago about this being something that was part of his famly when they were oldsmobile people. In this case his “first ride” was his first ride home from the hospital as an infant.
If you are looking for original first-party research and interviews with GM people who were involved in these cars, you are at the wrong site. That would probably be a site (or a publication) that would have a subscription fee. Brendan wrote this piece on his own time and on his own dime, as does everyone else here. Actually, I thought his piece was pretty well researched with the prototype pictures that he found for us. Sure, it is all out there on the internet, but aren’t most things these days? This is a place where people who love cars find them out and about and find something to say about them. Just for the fun of it.
Brendan considered this car to be a GM Deadly Sin, and he told us why. You may not agree, and many plainly don’t. If you have some unique insight into this car, we would love to have a submission. Judging from the comments, it would surely get a pretty good reception from a number of readers. Maybe you could start a fiction series on how General Motors grew and prospered in the 90s and beyond by making cars that most of America fell in love with and bought. But until then, while we welcome disagreements, we are just not that interested in attacks on the volunteer author who had some content up on the site this morning for everyone to read and discuss.
Well said JP.
No one here says they are automotive journalists. These are opinion columns. A former journalist would know that. This is an automotive blog where Paul and guest columnists express their thoughts on a given topic, backed with the facts and experiences they have available to them. And they post it for others to agree or disagree upon… hopefully in a civil way. I am very new to this site, and I am so far very impressed by the knowledge and experiences of the column writers and the comments readers submit. And the casual, respectful tone here, free of personal attacks, is refreshing. I’ve learned a lot. And find it a fun site to discuss and debate the merits and shortcomings of old cars.
For the first point, people might want to check out Dean’s Garage (http://www.deansgarage.com/), run by former GM stylists Gary Smith, who IIRC designed the Oldsmobile Achieva, inter alia.
Jesus JP, had to get your anti-GM shot in there somehow no matter what eh 🙂
What could possibly be said about this car that was “original” or hasn’t been said before? Please enlighten me. It’s certainly not the kind of car that generally stimulates a lot of profound insights, deep technical analysis (another GM drive train like so many millions others), or….???
But I see you’re a former journalist, so that gives you the right to look down your nose. Well, we’re not journalists, and nobody gets paid. This is just a bunch of guys doing what they like doing. Which means nobody gets fired. Except you, maybe, for being so condescending.
But I take these customer complaints seriously: tell me your mailing address, and I’ll send you a refund for your subscription.
You are right. I got exactly what I paid for. And that is why journalism is so screwed up today. Just passing on bits of ‘knowledge’ they quote back from Wiki sources. This is the reason for the fall and death of the quality mag rags.
I was lucky and had a top damned good editor. Makes all the difference in the world. Good luck.
(reading all your personal stories, you thin I am a DB? wow!)
Do you not get the difference between a blog and magazine?
And you still haven’t answered my question: What new and original information about this car would you like to have been served on a silver platter?
I didn’t invent the internet, and the model of how it works. There are pros and cons, undoubtedly. The major pro is that it allows folks to write about things as they see them, from their vantage point.
As a matter of fact, this article is better than many here, as the author took the time to find images of styling concepts to back up his argument about the direction Olds took. That’s a lot more than many posts on car web sites.
I edited my comment, but the truth is you are a DB for being so incredibly insensitive. This is a volunteer site. if you don’t like what you see, don’t read it.
Your comment/attitude is the equivalent to going to a potluck dinner without bringing anything yourself, and then complaining loudly that the food isn’t as good as at an expensive restaurant. If you did that everyone would think you’re a DB. Right?
Sorry to be so direct, but you really stepped into this pile of your making.
We are not professional journalists, and never claim to be. Everything at CC is written by amateurs, in the best root sense of the word (“lover of”, from Old French). Put another way, CC authors are skillful and passionate lovers. Of cars.
Riko77 – Your comments are very sad to read and I hope you find a new job soon (I hear Cat Fancy is hiring). You know good and well that this BLOG has nothing to do with the ax you want to grind about journalism. Look at how silly that seems from anyone’s perspective but your own. You’re saying that a bunch of guys who all have real jobs outside of this, who just throw it together in their spare time, are what’s RUINING THE INDUSTRY, MAN!!! ? YOU have (or had) the resources, buddy. We’ve only got our idiot brains and a forum to use them here – which was never intended to compete with what’s available at your local newsstand. It’s one thing to say that the internet and short attention spans are ruining news, but automotive magazines? Give me a f-ing break. That says way more about you than the people who write articles and comment here.
But the kicker for me is that the specific criticism is “it’s unoriginal”. The go-to critique of all bullshit contrarian mopes the world over. I know you look at this and think “ughh I could have done that” – well, you didn’t. And you’re apparently old and out of touch, probably no longer in business… just like this Oldsmobile. Next time you need a place to dry your old, shitty, tears, skip this CC and try Csaba Csere’s beard instead.
Even paid journalism is often painfully unoriginal and sometimes sloppily researched, and that was true even before the marked decline in numbers of paid journalists (news editors, reporters, copy editors, photo editors, etc.) during the past 10 years.
An informal site such as this has advantages that a traditional monthly magazine never did supply. An obvious example is that it’s interactive; a conversation about a given post sometimes even leads to a correction or amplification from the original writer that would probably not take place in traditional journalism (print or online).
If the commenter in question was in fact laid off from such a job, I can understand some of the resentment that others here have perceived. And I do agree that there is societal value in having better sources of facts than Wikipedia, with (among other attributes) paid, experienced editors. But sites like CC didn’t vitiate traditional journalism; the decline in ad sales did.
gottacook: agreed! Which is why I pay to get my national/international/local news from the best sources. And am happy to do so.
We have never claimed to be anything other than what we are. We like to find old cars and talk about them. Sometimes the result is as good or better than anything else out there; other times not. But that’s not anything to either apologize about or be criticized.
Since we make no claim or pretense, it’s up to the reader to decide whether they want to read and engage in our very varied fare or not.
All of the writers here are very happy to engage in debate about the opinions expressed, and to accept additional facts and information. This is essentially an interactive, collaborative process, not a one way preaching.
What is not acceptable is wholesale criticism of our volunteer writers and the site, for not being something that we make no pretense to be.
“This is the reason for the fall and death of the quality mag rags.”
“I was lucky and had a top damned good editor.”
These are not sentences a decent editor would have published. Maybe just refrain from commenting when you have nothing to add.
How many articles have you posted here, Riko?
I have never been made more angry by a comment on this website than by Riko’s comments just now. You disagree with an author’s opinion? Fine. You have a rebuttal? Go ahead, this site prides itself on a diverse and passionate group of commenters. You take issue with the style or tone of an article? You can definitely leave some reasonable constructive criticism in the comments. But how absolutely rude to come to this site and lambast the founder and all of the authors, and refuse to back down and just continue making rude comments.
This is a free site, with unpaid contributors. We don’t have access to one-on-one interviews like Dean’s Garage, but we research our articles and if they are just opinion pieces, we make it clear that they are. And need I remind you that anyone can contribute here?
Your attitude is unwelcome. If you don’t like it here, go to another site.
A troll by any other name is still a troll.
It’s unfortunately that this exterior style started by the 1982 Celebrity / 6000 / Century and Cutlass Ciera became like a ball and chain for GM. Why did they go to this well so often? This look may have appeared new (but not necessarily fresh) in 1982. But after being implemented on countless GM designs by the mid to late 80s, it was almost appearing like a contempt for buyers by then… still presenting this style. This Olds 98 could have easily have been introduced in ’82 or ’83 right after the first A Bodies were introduced. Was upper management directing designers to stay with this look?
Or was it a default look they could resort to, if the new clay proposals were not accepted?
I remember when I first saw the Celebrity, 6000, etc., in 1982, I was underwhelmed.
But I thought, a corporation like GM must know what they are doing. It seemed it was the division logos and other design cues like the Pontiac grill, that gave these very boxy designs their limited character. The car bodies themselves, were very non-descript. It was a very conservative look in ’82, but it seemed very practical for the uncertainty of the future. And rising gas prices. So, I forgave GM for the A-Bodies. But by the time the GM N-Cars came out in ’85, I pretty much felt GM was hopelessly no longer a style leader… but stuck firmly within this styling box. Pigeon-holing themselves further, the more they widely adopted this bland look.
I would like to hear from someone on the inside at GM, to hear what the rationale was at GM. Styling-wise GM really lost their way in the 80s, producing many forgettable designs like this one.
I have to say I didn’t find these that awful at the time, though I think it was mainly because I was relieved they were longer and less generic than the previous model. However, I do remember the styling being bashed by Motor Trend and others, who referred to it as “Nash-like” or something. The skirted wheels were terrible, though, and of course even worse on the Caprice.
What was the purpose of the non-vent vent windows? I see in the post with the design sketches that the author believes they were to give the (unconvincing) appearance of a wrap-around windshield. This seems a bizarre reason, and I recall from riding in a friend’s Park Avenue that they were intrusive and cut visibility. My wild guess at the time was that there was some sort of structural reason for them, but that made little sense too. Anyone have insight about this?
Those fixed windows in the front doors have curvature around more than one axis (a near-vertical axis in addition to the horizontal axis for curved side windows) that would have prevented them from rolling down if those sections had been part of the glass area that did roll down. In other words, it’s like the fixed-glass portion of a Subaru SVX door on a much smaller scale.
I remember reading something about them in a car magazine, to the effect that they reduced wind noise or something. Whatever the reason given, it was likely an excuse.
As I posted above, they work! I found my 1998 Eighty-Eight quieter with windows down than any other car I’ve owned.
Aesthetically you eventually get over them. I kinda like ’em now, to be honest.
Brendan, I remember you making this argument in another Olds 98 article and I thought you were crazy… but now I get what you’re saying and think you’re probably right. IMO, one of the biggest reasons for GM’s failure was that until very recently they kept building cars as if they were still the top dog in the US auto industry. When they downsized, they kept trying to apply the same old aesthetic to cars where it was hopelessly out of place and out of date. I actually REALLY like the way these 98s look specifically because they’re like a 60s take on what a car from the 90s should look like, but I guess that just goes to show how ridiculously out of touch the people who designed this thing were with what was going on outside of GM at the time. I also agree that Buick pulled off a similar approach with the LeSabre/Park Avenue much more effectively, somehow.
Since these cars pretty much all came with the 3800 and are frequently seen nowadays with crazy amounts of mileage racked up, I’d also say this (yet another) example of something that is both a Deadly Sin and a very solid piece of machinery at the same time.
It’s too bad Olds didn’t go with the prototype pictured in black and white up above. Are there any more pictures of that car around?
I found it was that flat, slab-sided look combined with the very upright, formal roof line that made so many of these GM cars look alike and seem so corporate and conservative. The Saturns had the same slab-sided look, almost a straight line down to the curb. Even the Dustbuster vans had the slab sides, with no character lines and limited curvature towards the rocker panels. I believe buyers of the 98 back in the 60s and 70s, expected more style/character than this.
This 98 looks like a big brother to the ’82 Cutlass Ciera… 9 years later.
Last June I bought a ’95 NInety Eight Regency Elite for $2,200.00 from a neighbor who had stopped driving. It is “old gold” w/ the same color leather and fully optioned. The mileage is currently at 66,800, The ride comfort is incredible, and the car has no rust whasoever as it was originally purchased in, and is currently driven in, the Southwest US. I love the styling, including the fake vent windows, and truly love driving the car.
I walk by this exact car quite often. Always meant to get a shot of it, but never got the chance.
I found the Park Avenue and Aurora very refreshing designs… brave, like the 1966 Riviera and Toronado. A sign that GM’s styling mojo was on the rebound.
Can someone explain to me how GM’s hierarchy was ever supposed to accommodate both Oldsmobile and Buick? Every other division makes sense to me, but I never could come up with a compelling reason why a given Oldsmobile couldn’t just be a Buick (or vice versa).
The profiled car has a little black bar on the front license plate, which is a transponder for highway tolls. They’re used when the car has some sort of funky windshield that prevents the usual interior windshield-mounted transponders from working. I think it’s usually related to an integrated defroster. I’ve never driven a car with one of these in the front window, and I think they’ve all disappeared. Anyone know if they were any good?
The theory was a hierarchy of divisions based on price going (lowest to highest) Chevy, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick and Cadillac. The devil was always in drawing the lines between the various divisions, which always wanted to spill over and poach some sales from its neighbor. I grew up in a family of Oldsmobiles, which put me in the middle of the middle. Buicks were for richer people than we were, while Pontiacs were something we could settle for if necessary. Somehow, the whole thing changed over to a “five flavors of the same car” theory. There was just no reason for four or five versions of the same car (which, with differing powertrains and styling, had never been the case in GM’s glory days.)
They didn’t start out that way. For a long time Buick’s sole purpose in life was to be “almost a Cadillac,” for those buyers who couldn’t quite afford the Standard of the World, or who didn’t want to flaunt their wealth. This was when Cadillac was catering to a more exclusive club. Olds, in the meantime, up through the early 50’s was the engineering and performance division — first with innovations like Hydra-Matic and the “Rocket” OHV V8. Pontiac, back then, was the conservative old guy’s car.
Then, starting in the late 50’s and accelerating in the 60’s, due to changes in GM’s strategy for Cadillac and more widely available credit, Cadillac started going for higher sales volume and appealing to a broader market, which pushed Buick downward. In the meantime, Pontiac was revived by making it the engineering and performance division. Olds got squeezed. As to the full size cars at least. The Cutlass was a different story; it hit the sweetest spot of the marketplace (the current Camry/Accord spot) dead on for so long.
I would disagree with a fair bit of this.
The important thing to remember about GM’s divisions prior to the ’70s was that they were largely autonomous and very competitive. They shared body shells but not styling; they sometimes but not always shared transmissions — otherwise, they were a lot like separate companies that happened to have a common financial backer. Together, Buick, Olds, and Pontiac had about 25 percent of the U.S. market; their nearest outside competitor could barely touch one of them, much less all three.
The brand hierarchy was more a notional thing than something that was actively imposed at that point. Occasionally, one of the divisions would do something that would tread too heavily onto Cadillac and Cadillac would squawk, but that was about it. Buick went downmarket quite aggressively, Pontiac and Olds went upmarket, and GM made a lot of money in the process. (Really, from a corporate standpoint, is it a bad thing to have your divisions competing to see who can get buyers to spend the most for a product?) Each of those divisions had its ups and downs in the ’50s and ’60s, but that was more because they periodically stumbled rather than that there wasn’t a space for them to exist.
In the late ’50s, the corporation began slowly exerting more top-down control, the first real example of that being the Y-body cars, which nonetheless ended up being more different than alike. Throughout the ’60s, there was more and more pressure from senior management to commonize components, which became more pronounced in the ’70s due to rising costs.
Then in the mid-80s, Roger Smith decided that letting the divisions exist autonomously was a waste of money and reorganized everything with the goal of making the divisions essentially just marketing organizations that would be dressing up the same basic pieces in different combinations. That was really the point that Oldsmobile started struggling to find its place in the world. It wasn’t helped by the general trends at GM (lookalike styling, engineering conservatism, downsizing at a time when people had again lost interest in fuel economy), but it meant that the corporation itself didn’t know what it wanted to do with Olds. They eventually tried to make it their “import fighter” division, but in a way that suggested the disconnect in their understanding of the market.
I would put it like this: As soon as you reach a point where you have to ask, “How do we reconcile having all these divisions?” one or more of them is going to lose out. Really, I don’t think it was so much a matter of GM lacking a brand strategy so much as it was an object lesson in the problems of top-down management. The same thing happened with Rover and Triumph at British Leyland.
Thanks Aaron, I always appreciate your informative comments.
It’s hard to imagine that GM was once so dominant that it could afford to spend its resources on interdivision competition. Along similar lines, I sometimes wonder what will be the fate of the Hyundai/Kia organization.
+1
AMC had their Levi’s, Lincoln had Givenchy and Bill Blass.
I didn’t realize that Olds had developed interiors with 1-800-MATTRES. Wonder what they left the last “s” off for.
Too bad Nash didn’t think of this treatment. Would really have worried a lot of potential FIL’s back in their day.
I think it’s a great-looking car and I always have. I like the Achieva’s styling too (rotten name though). One caught my eye in traffic just this morning. Olds defined a new look of their own, which looked rather futuristic to me at the time. That’s their traditional role in the GM ladder. Can’t fault them for escaping from the GM brand-engineered look, nor for over focus-grouping it into something bland. A lot of us like the skirted rear wheel, it allows that line to stretch unbroken from the front wheel all the way around, increasing the sense of length. It’s sleek, like those stainless steel classic rail passenger cars.
This ’91 was designed right when their Mercury Sable competition was a big hit, one of the best-selling Mercurys ever. You can see the influence. Even though the wheelbase was unchanged, it was already four inches longer than the Sable’s.
How about the interior and the trunk space? You didn’t mention them. Roomy I would think.
Great big American luxo-cruisers are not my cup of tea, I’m an EV nerd after all. But I appreciated and loved them, and I like the ’91 Ninety-Eight. Besides, my Kansas rancher granddad was always an Oldsmobile man.
Had a 91, in black with the grey interior, loaded to the gills with everything except the sunroof. One of the best cars I’ve ever owned.
In some ways, it’s important to remember that GM at that point was pushing for Buick to represent “American Luxury” and Olds to represent “International Style”. (Remember the International Series on the Cutlass versions? And the deliberate “dechroming” of the Aurora, including no/few divisional nameplates–just like a lot of grey-market” foreign cars?)
I see this version of the 98 as an attempt to create an American Audi 100/5000…..aero, minimalist (at least, for an Olds) but with enough traditional luxury cues to at least capture the interest of the buyer base.
Like I said, one of the best cars I’ve ever owned. Comfortable, roomy, “fast”, mine had good build quality, plus got great mileage, and had only wear items repaired during it’s 150k mile life.
The deadly sin of this car wasn’t the car–it was the marketing, and training the dealers to sell it–and that same problem bit their ass when the Aurora came later.
Trunk space in this body style is HUGE! The same goes for the interior. I am 6’5″ tall with a 38″ inseam and I can sit in the rear with the driver’s seat all the way to the rear with no problems or discomfort.
Finally, someone with some taste. I admit I greatly prefer the 1993-1996 models over the one pictured here (mostly due to the cleaner front and rear ends and less Cutlass Ciera-looking interior), and naturally there are countless Ninety-Eights I like more than the final one, including my own 1984 model, but if I ever need a smaller, more economical car for daily commuting a final generation Ninety-Eight is at or near the top of the list. I will admit, this car does age horribly, almost as badly as the original Taurus, so if it’s not in absolutely mint condition I can kind of see how people wouldn’t like it, but in good condition they are right up there with the 1990s Town Car and Fleetwood in terms of classy yet modern designs.
I don’t think this car’s styling is poorly resolved when compared to the 88 and the Bonneville. The Buicks have a Reubenesque grace about them and are solidly traditional, so no complaints there. But remarketing Oldsmobile to be dynamic and sophisticated like imports without driving away older customers is what did the company in. The 85-90 model was a much better effort in this regard, being lean, glassy, and upright, but with old fashioned detailing.
It couldn’t be kept around forever, obviously, so this new model was hatched. I think it’s fine from the A-pillar back, but the front end belongs on a curvier car. Adding some Japanese inspired switches and exterior door handles doesn’t convince me this is an import competitor, either.
What should’ve been done instead was to offer the Supercharged engine as standard on some trim levels of both the 88 and Ninety-Eight, while leaving the import inspired interior decoration for the former and making the latter more like the Buicks.
Cool. Another person that prefers the ’85-’90 stuff.
Oh, I thought the only main issue with these were the excessive front and rear overhangs. Except for falling off trim pieces and a lack of vent windows everything else looks fine even the partially wheel skirts since they accent the slab sided styling. After all, look at the 2004 Cadillac CTS, it is boxier than this. I see the Corolla in front has the uber rare Green and White plates which I have not seen in person since I left the East Coast.
I still like these. My mother-in-law purchased a used 98 Touring Sedan (yes with the SC 3800) to replace her beloved LeSabre that was destroyed in an accident. This would have been the late 90s and long before I ever met her daughter. She liked the car but after a few years it developed horrible electrical problems that the local dealer couldn’t seem to figure out.
There a white model with a blue leather interior that still roams Gallup, NM and it has the ubiquitous Oldsmobile wire wheel covers that many of these had. The only flaw I can find with it is chipping paint on the vertical surface of the trunk lid between the taillights.
If I ever see it for sale I’d be tempted to make an offer just to try to prevent it from something truly awful happening to it in the hands of some teenager. Hell the leather still looks good.
I always have had mixed feelings about the look of these cars. My Dad loved it – I remember us getting into a heated argument about the new Ninety-Eight back in 1992. He loved his ’90 deVille and thought the styling of these new Oldsmobiles was beautiful. I still think it is a strange design, mixing too many styling cues together – almost trying too hard to be too many things. In comparison, Dad’s deVille was clean and beautiful.
I have always loved Oldsmobiles and was sad to see the nameplate go away. I think GM’s marketing was to blame for their demise.
Yeah see the overhangs never bugged me(I don’t think overhangs look bad in general), I actually think this car is proportioned very well for a front driver and it’s just the execution that looks ungainly. The whole body seems to taper inward from the beltline down making it look like a boat out of water.
I’m iffy about the D/S status(frankly I think it’s predecessor or the H/C-body in general deserves that title) but it certainly didn’t help Olds or GM as a whole, that’s for sure.
Sorry – this was NOT a GM deadly sin. The touring versions looked somewhat integrated and the latter models’ simpler grillework was much more attractive. I believe this FWD 2G 98 helped to translate some of the earlier models’ styling evolutions towards a more ‘modern’ look. I do agree that the prototype designs are quite attractive and that in retrospect, if Olds adopted the Park Avenue roofline, it would’ve made for a more attractive machine (and would’ve kept production costs down – important to the GM Bean Counters who drove GM into the grave).
GMH lifted the rear wheelarch design for their Calais model
These seem to be sought after. One went up for sale down the road from me and was gone in a day. It was dark blue, nicely taken care of. I went to go take a peek and it was gone with the wind. Then there was a sad one at a used car lot where I was scoping out another Regal. I was not interested AT ALL but the salesman said he’d had it out for a week and several folks had already been by scoping it out.
So even though I agree it looks like an oversized Achieva, maybe it is just unique enough to attract attention. Hell, the Aztek is practically a collector’s item already.
Sorry, this isn’t a “Deadly Sin” because you don’t find it attractive 22 years after it was released, at the current age of ~20. I’m sure your grandpa thought it was a great ride, at age ~70 in 1991!
They were great-riding boats that lasted. 300k easy. One of my favorites was our ~1996 Regency Elite dark-cherry type color, omg it was gorgeous! Smooth as silk! Initial build quality was wonderful. Didn’t age so well, but no nightmare stories at all.
Times change. And not everyone did the whole “aspirational” thing with makes/models. My grandpa loved Ninety-Eights while my grandma loved Eighty-Eights, and that’s what each drove.
From what I have read, Oldsmobile really wanted to use the Park Avenue’s roof line, but Buick said NO WAY! So, Olds had to come up with something else, and this is what we got.
Like many of you, I found the Park Ave to be the more attractive car, but I like the Ninety Eight for the fact that it is one of the better GM cars, but in a flavor that is rarely seen on the road. It’s probably the same reason I love the Alero so much, you see probably three times as many Grand Ams as you do Aleros, and the Alero is the more refined looking version.
Back in 2000-2001 when I worked for a small Olds dealer, we took in on trade a 1991 Touring Sedan. I got to take it for a ride a couple of times, and it was a really nice car. The body shop manager snapped it up for a nice commuter, and he was crazy about it.
As for this car being a Deadly Sin, I too am a bit hesitant to label it as such, instead I would agree with some of the others and say it was Oldsmobile’s marketing and muddled brand positioning that messed things up…
I almost forgot…when I was reading the story and came to the picture of the Aurora, my first thought was “Wow, that looks a lot like an Aurora I took a pic of!”, and then I looked down and saw it WAS, LOL!
I think the 1991 98 was partly an attempt to recapture the sleeker look of the 1965-1970 model:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:’65_Oldsmobile_Ninety_Eight_(Orange_Julep).jpg.
They did the two straight lines on the sides, the rakish windshield, and the squared ends. Unfortunately, I don’t think those cues work that well with the more rounded passenger cabin, and there is an overall curvature that makes the car look topheavy even with the 1980s-Benz cladding below.
In response to the comments above, from the 90s onward I think the American (or American market) luxury car became two things, SUVs and cars from the Lexus/Infiniti/Acura/Mercedes/BMW/Audi/other EU makes group. (With Ford Panther variants for those who didn’t like these changes.)
The deadly sins that lost Oldsmobile may be a combination: (a) the Bravada had no advantage over a Blazer or Jimmy, and it didn’t get much better even when a fancy SUV (Lexus RX, Mercedes ML, later BMW X5) was demonstrably a license to print money; (b) brand dilution, as Oldsmobile had nothing proprietary to offer in a premium market had moved back toward the engineering-based values that prevailed up through the 1960s; (c) the 98 couldn’t beat the Panther for nostalgia, nor did it seek or command a place in either branch of the new-premium-car market; then (d) nobody seemed willing to believe that the Aurora was the 1990s 4-door 442/Turnpike Cruiser or anything else really nice.
Here’s that photo. Nice, I agree it’s the same sleek sides, updated. Same eggcrate grille too.
Now THIS is an Olds Ninety Eight!
I’ve always hated these and was stunned when they came out. The new Lexus LS400 and Seville STS left me, and everyone else, scratching their heads about the Olds.
Pointing out how beautiful the Park Avenue was goes to show it wasn’t the positioning that failed, it was the design execution. I did not know sales were lower than the last year of the outgoing car, very telling.
Your best article yet Brendan!
Deadly sin? Maybe yes, and maybe no. Judging from the sales numbers, I’d at least nominate it for “Nail in the Coffin.”
I was totally underwhelmed by this gen’s restyle of the 88 and 98. Curvy in all the wrong ways and bloated-looking. More Hudson-like than Nash… and not in the good way.
Fast forward to ’03 and a recent layoff followed by major mechanical issues on my old ride and I find myself with a pretty decent 1994 88. Still wasn’t a fan of the styling, but after a few very minor bugs were worked out, it was a very decent runner. The 3800 V6 was as smooth as silk and it had respectable pep. The OD transmission helped it get decent mileage, too.
It nearly killed me (my pride) when I ruined it by running it into a tall concrete sewer cap when visiting family and ran the right front corner into a tall sewer cap in their back yard. The crumple zones did what they were designed to do. The radiator twisted enough to break the electric fan shroud, which locked up the fan. Repair was not practical for me at the time, so it was replaced by a fairly bark-beaten ’00 Malibu.
As for other contemporary Olds models, I never really “got” the Aurora, Achieva, or Intrigue. I felt Olds was in trouble, offering $35K vehicles. (You can tell I was definitely not in touch with Cadillac, MB, BMW, Lexus, etc. 🙂 )
The Alero, OTOH, I liked. Too bad all of the existing 2 door models here in Salt Country have rotted rear quarters. For some reason, the 4 doors seem much more immune to serious rust in that area.
(I forgot… Kudos on a fine article, Brendan!! More, please!)
Seeing this car makes me sad. Shows how horrific the 1980s and 1990s were for GM. Through my formative years, my mother drove a series of Ninety-Eights: a 1971, a 1975 and a 1979. She always got the “base” trim (LS level starting in 1975) so we never enjoyed the wonders of pillow-tufted seating, making do with tough wearing vinyl. These were our family cars, subject to all sorts of yeoman duty, and they performed admirably. I also liked the styling, especially on the 1971. I learned to drive on the 1979, and discovered the wonders of the 403!! Hard to believe, a mere 12 years after our ’79 Ninety-Eight rolled off the line, Oldsmobile was reduced to this. So sad, and definitely a deadly sin for a once great division. Also, kudos Brendan on finding the styling studies–I’d never seen them before, and it’s sad they didn’t make it into final production.
This is a huge improvement over the hideous 85 olds 98. Dare I say lincolnesque styling??? Still would not buy it as the Lincoln is a much better car. Its not awful and not deadly sin.
I have to disagree with the writer’s assessment of the 1991-1996 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eights. I was very young when this model first came out in 1991 and remember thinking right off the bat that this car was going to be a classic someday and that I wanted to have one of my own. I saw quite a few on the road and they have always been eye-catching with their beautiful and classic styling. The “throw-back” styling is one reason why I like them so much. They are very classy cars and I prefer them greatly to the newer designs. They stand out (in a good way in my mind) from the plethora of foreign-looking designs with stubby trunks of today. Today, I own and drive a ’93 Ninety-Eight and love it! I’ve found it to be an excellent and reliable car! If you keep up with the regular maintenance, they will last a long time. I’ve had practically no trouble with the side trim and the car was very well made, overall. Of course, like any car, there are a few areas that could have been improved. This could have been done if GM had had the insight to keep them around longer. I believe they (like other GM cars of the same time frame) will be sought-after classics in the not-too-distant future. It’s too bad that more people don’t realize that. As far as I’m concerned, GM made a big mistake when they stopped making Oldsmobiles, especially the Ninety-Eight!
Deadly sin??? If anything this was a step in the right direction from the horrible cut down boring celebrity lookalike it replaced. From the back it seemed to resemble a town car. At least it gained some length. While not as pretty as a park ave it looks better than the ugly Bonneville. This was the best looking of the fwd big olds cars. Would I buy one? No. It has no v8 or rwd. I prefer a big ford. If I had to have FWD i would get a lhs Chrysler because its beautiful. But this car was a step in the right direction. The 85 was the deadly sin. I think an 85 looks like a child drew it. This one has some style. Its not awful. I give it a c+. The 85 was so sinful could you really expect total redemption?? Pity it never came like it did for the baby Electra when the roadmaster came out. The auraura was not that great either. The 98 was better. Auroura had a leaky debored north star and looked like a Taurus with a bland interior. And if you had the windows down there was some how no breeze on the highway but you couldn’t talk over the(absence of???) Wind noise. Also Aurora guzzled gas horribly. This last 98 was not a deadly sin. It was an effort to fix a sin. It may be a less than perfect result but I appreciate that they tried. As a gm hater a c+ is high praise.
I actually liked the 98 when it came out. It had a “Lincolnesque” rear, giving up an upscale look. There really wasn’t anything wrong with the style. The full sized olds were designed for an older clientele, so it had to have a “tranditional” look. I remember reading somewhere at the time that the average Buick buyer at the time was in their late 50’s, so Olds was probably splitting customers with them. The biggest problem GM began experiencing in the 90’s and continues today is that Americans do not buy American cars.
Lets keep in mind that GM was trying to differentiate the styling on Pontiacs vs Buicks Vs Oldsmobile during this time era. And the fender skirt like wheel look wasn’t just being done at Olds. Just take a look at a similar year Mercury Sable for example. And Chevy initially did this to the then all new 1991 Caprice. It was I think a retro nod to the past that didn’t always work but in this case wasn’t all that bad. In fact we had a very nice clean 1995 maroon Elite model on the front row of our dealership several years back in perfect rust free condition and it drew in more customer enquirers than any SUV or pickup sitting nearby.
If anything I think the deadly sin was the 1985 shrunken version that Olds passed off as a full size replacement for the grand old C body cars of the 1977-1984 years.
What a turd that ’91 ninety-eight was. Even too much of a dated old man car for an actual old man, my grandfather, who owned it all of two years before eighty-sixing the ninety-one ninety-eight in favour of its stablemate, a ninety-three Park Avenue, undoubtedly an old man car as well, but a much nicer looking one…and yes, the abundance of spelled out numbers in my rambling here was indeed done purposely, and was indeed fun.
After their “below horrible” 87 Sedan ‘d Ville, my boss’s wife bought one of these in Appliance White. One of the most boring non-descript styling exercises ever! However, it remained trouble free until I left in 94. Have no idea how long she kept it.
Was the car in the article photographed in Boston? I’m guessing…Huntington Avenue? Possibly the Back Bay?
Summer Street, right outside South Station
I used to have a 1991 Park Avenue Ultra. While I didn’t like the car much, I think it’s styling still looked great when it was about 10 years old! But the mechanical issues made me want to stay away from GM products in the future! I still have 3 old Buicks that I like but they are pre-1980 models!
As for the Olds version, I think it has strange exterior styling.
As a non-resident, non-American, I feel able to say this was a striking car. All the features Mr Saur dislikes endear it to me. I’d really like to own a car like that. When I saw one in California circa 1995 or 1997 I made a point of photographing it. That was about 20 years ago (plus minus) and I recall it vividly.
Later: I’ve reviewed a lot of images. The market left the car. And GM were confused about the positioning. Stylingwise this car has a clear concept and the bodyside has a simple profile to spell out length. The front and rear graphics say “width”. It’s opulently modern with retro-touches. I think it’s superb. We don’t do this kind of car in Europe so it has extra impact for me. I believe it’s also fitted with among GM’s best interiors – a title shared with the equivalent Buick.
That’s the different perceiving of automobile designing. As a person enduring those Honda Accord and other similar imports cars in few ways during my earlier stage of life, I dislike those cars as much as how the perceived customer base wants to distant from the traditional American larger sedans. Each of the deadly fault from Oldsmobile 98 can be found with a corresponding deadly fault from Acura TLX, or Lexus ES ( few more faults from Infiniti ) and I would say either type of Oldsmobile 98 or Acura Legend is all up to preference.
I am back again having re-read the article. To my surprise I have already said what I want to say: all the features that the author doesn´t like make me see this as a then-modern interpretation of the characteristics of the earlier 98s. I´m not in a position to do so but if I was going to import an American car, this is the one I´d go for, with perhaps a late 80s Cadillac de Ville coupe or perhaps a Buick Park Avenue as runners up.
Later: I’ve reviewed a lot of images. The market left the car. And GM were confused about the positioning. Stylingwise this car has a clear concept and the bodyside has a simple profile to spell out length. The front and rear graphics say “width”. It’s opulently modern with retro-touches. I think it’s superb. We don’t do this kind of car in Europe so it has extra impact for me. I believe it’s also fitted with among GM’s best interiors – a title shared with the equivalent Buick.
I don’t know if it was a “best” interior, but it’s comfortable and inviting. It’s the right interior for a road car like this.
It missed the market styling boat and the shift towards SUVs, that was its actual problem.
What I get tired of now that the Brougham Epoch has decidedly ended is the Cult of Sport. Nit everything should, or even can, be sporty. If you’ve ever driven a real sports car or sports sedan, all the appliances with a “sport” model are laughable, some are just straight up appearance packages.
But, I suppose that’s the way things go. We had a time where Cutlass Cieras were loaded up with fake wires, white walls, hood ornaments and all that to try to make a fleet queen look “luxurious” and now we have Cruzes loaded up with RS badging, more aggressive front clip styling, “sporty” rims and all that to make a fleet queen look “sporty”.
I can imagine few marketing people in the car companies cursing, those stupid customers! Can’t revert the trend though.
My brother and I had one of these for a rental car when on vacation in south Florida. It was quiet, comfortable, and able to eat up the miles in a hurry without tiring the occupants. And the couple of days we spent in Key West, I swear it was the biggest car there. Would I buy one? No way. That IS my fathers Oldsmobile. And with Florida so far away from Oregon, I didn’t have to worry about anybody I know seeing me in it 🙂
It was ok, except for that ribbed body cladding. That just looked stupid, same with the Pontiacs that had that feature but at least they were supposed to be “sporty” (sic).
I actually kind of like the last generation 98, it was bland compared to the Park Avenue and was straight up forgettable compared to the old RWD Regency 98 Broughams. They could have at least had a hood ornament.
All the GM luxury and near luxury cars of this era were nice but kind of a let down at the same time.
I would take the white over silver one pictured in a heartbeat…guess I’m in the minority, as I always liked these.
Something got lost in translation with Old’s take on this generation of H and C body. Buick really nailed their versions of these, and they ended up in middle class driveways everywhere. The Old’s just doesn’t look special. I think the squared off rear end with the side skirts really kills the look. Don’t knock that greenhouse though. That’s one of my favorite elements of these cars. It makes them really pleasant to drive, especially combined with the excellent powertrain.
While I agree that the 91 Olds 98 is not nearly as good as the Park Avenue, both car are ever so much better than the 85 versions, which looked too much alike.
The Regency interior is flashy, but not really all that great. When this was first introduce (1972) it was new and different. Buick’s comparable interiors (which came a few years later on) were more refined I think. Certainly my 76 Rivier R/
S interior was much nicer than my 78 Olds Regency.
I don’t think Olds ever had a “true” opera window on the 98’s.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…I’m one of this car’s few fans. I love the styling, especially in its Touring Sedan trim. The only thing that bugs me is, just like its other full size GM cars at the time, that useless vent window they made. Other than that I love it.
Tough one. The stylings is off, but otherwise it’s a very good car. A high school friend’s dad had one and though I only rode in it once, it really felt special. The interior feels just as spacious as a D-body Fleetwood and didn’t feel any cheaper (that may be a mark against the Caddy more than a point for the Olds). The 3.8 makes good real-world cruising power and delivers surprising fuel economy.
But sure, the Buick version looks a whole lot better in hindsight. But the Buick version always looks more elegant and understated in hindsight, pretty much since forever.
If I did not know better, I would have not doubted being told this was one of the last ditch attempts made by Russian car makers after the fall of Communism to try and compete with Western cars, now freely imported into the Russian Federation. And I agree with all of those who commented on how Buick’s efforts were so much better; in fact, the Park Avenue sold here in Austria quite well (for a large US-made sedan) – with its slightly Jaguar-esqe silhouette it did not look as out of place as the Oldsmobile would have.
I have to disagree with all of the comments re: the Olds 98. I drove a 1995 98 Regency Elite for a year and a half until last November. The trim never fell off and it was a very comfortable ride. I even liked the styling! Gold w/ Gold Leather. I’m now the captain of an ’05 Park Avenue. The quality of the leather was much better in the 98. With my 38″ inseam I enjoy the column gear shift that both cars have/had.
I actually like the skirted rear wheels. I think they make the short WB seem longer. Heck, all the second-gen C/H-bodies from 91-onward really did their best to make the 110.8″ WB seem like 114 or more.
I really like one of the earlier clays that had a lot of touches from the GM10 Cutlass. It’s almost like every single change they made from that one just made things worse.
Edit: heh, it’s been so long since I last read this article that I forgot this was included!
I will tell you, I never had a truly adverse reaction to these, but the more time passes, the more they grow on me. I like the overhangs. I think I could have really liked this car if it was Caprice-Roadmaster sized.
I guess I’m part of the minority… I never cared for the Buick Park Avenue.. I guess it’s styling was “too busy” for my tastes… the Buick also just seemed bland in the interior..
I LOVE these final generation 98s.. they have a nice, formal look.. kind of Lincoln-esque.. but they also look modern for their time.. the Buick just looked like it was a mish mash of 90s styling mixed with the styling of the previous Electra…
as I said, I love the look of the 98 and the interior is a perfect blend of luxury and sportiness…
And with that, I searched for a 98 Touring Sedan, and now I have myself a 1993 98 Touring Sedan, and I love it! It’s a pleasure to drive and looks fantastic! and yes, it also has the supercharged 3800, and this beast moves!!
I thought the Park Avenue’s IP sucked – so flat and dated looking at the time. But the body was very attractive. I still enjoy looking at these 98s. Can’t agree with everyone all the time I guess. Anything was better than that truncated previous generation.
Are there 3 turn indicators in the lower trim?
I just bought this complete, sitting for only 1 year, 95 Olds 98 at a storage shed auction for $25. Let the fun begin.
Let’s not forget the competition. The 1990 Lincoln Town Car was being heralded by all the auto magazines and won the “Car of the Year”. Compare the Town Car to the Ninety-Eight and it is no contest. Everything about the Lincoln was superb, compared to the Olds. The new Town Car sucked all the oxygen out of the market and had a spectacular sales success at the expense of the other near-luxury and luxury domestics.
GM was outclassed by a set of old Panthers in new bodies. Ford’s Modular V8 released the following year, kept up the accolades for Ford.
I don’t see many Oldsmobiles of this generation. They got outclassed.
I was looking for a late (maybe ’95 or ’96) one of these after the sad demise of my ’62 Lincoln in the mid-2000’s. The deer that leaped in front of it in Maine was the last straw.
A modern car getting twice the mpg but similar luxury and style plus tons of cubic feet inside and in the trunk. I liked the clean retro styling with the last of the half-open rear wheels and thin roof with graceful semi-full C pillar – much more in common with the Lincoln than any newer Lincoln. Far better than the curvy Buick version. And the dashboard was way better too.
I got the idea when I perused a really nice one parked at a roadside rest area. Hadn’t crossed my mind before that. Still remember it – metallic blue.
I was hoping to find a nice low mileage church lady one, ideally with leather, and that that they might be reasonably priced because of being so unfashionable, but I didn’t and they weren’t. So I went with a more practical but still futurey low mileage and cheap Trans Sport I found – actually with a lot of similarities in style, no doubt by some of the same designers.
I find the comment, that the market left the big Oldsmobile, and they didn’t know how to respond, to be quite insightful. I knew a few people that thought that an Oldsmobile was their perfect fit, a luxurious car that spoke to their success, but wasn’t overbearing about it. Like the corresponding Buicks, they were cars for people that liked “nice things” and could afford more, if they wanted to stretch a bit.
It’s apparent that GM really did lose their way at this time. I had a ’94 Cadillac Seville STS bought a couple of years used, and it was a dream car. Beautiful, brawny, but sleek American styling, supremely powerful, combined with a smooth, cleanly styled upscale interior worthy of a top of the line Audi.
When I went to look for a newer replacement I was shocked. The new Art and Science styling was a bit quirky, but okay, however the interior was such a let down! A grey and black plastic center stack with brushed aluminum trim. What happened to my real Zebrano wood?
That was the end for me, I have never lusted after a Cadillac since. When it comes to luxury interiors, it was Lincoln that stepped up the game with their Navigator and recent Aviator models. American luxury is reborn for me.
Maybe I missed it, but does anyone else think the Buick competitor to the 98 was not the Park Avenue, but the Roadmaster, which rode on the same RWD platform. I mean, along with the ‘bubble’ Caprice/Impala, the 98 was definitely the weak link of the three.
Ninety Eight was on the FWD C platform and had nothing in common with the RWD B body Roadmaster, although the Roadmaster did share its platform with 1991-2 Custom Cruiser.
I always liked the 1991 Ninety Eight; thought it resembled an updated 1965 Ninety Eight. But interest in big cars dwindled after minivans and SUV’s became popular and baby boomers shied away from old man cars.
Oldsmobile did sell one million cars per year most years between 1975 and 1985. The FWD C and H bodies sold well when debuted but sales declined steadily each subsequent year.
Yes, it’s awkward. But it does have a family resemblance to some other Oldsmobiles, which are also awkward. The body cladding (nineties equivalent of tail fins?) is inappropriate, the bumpers jut out too far, and something about the relationship of the rear wheel and C-pillar just doesn’t work for me.
Okay, I’ll ask the unthinkable: Was there a need for a Ninety Eight at all any more? I know it was ‘Traditional’ (since, what, 1940?), but were these still selling in the numbers to make having both an Eighty Eight and a Ninety Eight really necessary? I’m thinking probably not.
98 sales were 169,432 in 1985 (long model year), 124,572 in 1986, 84,762 in 1987, 87,633 in 1988, 73,103 in 1989, and 62,395 in 1990, so I would say the numbers were good enough to have both the 88 and 98, especially since planning for the 1991 model probably started in 1986 or 1987,
Fair enough. Thanks.
Okay I admit I really like these. The Olds and the buick skylark look distinctive and vaguely retro in a way that appealed to me as a kid. and the fender skirts looked amazing on the Sable!
They should have stopped with the prototype in the black and white photo. Pure Oldsmobile. Instead, they went on to give it the full Achieva look. The prototype is unmistakably an Olds- with the round, open wheel wells, the sporty stance, the tail lights. The Oldsmobile cues are all there in a youthfull, sporty package. No need to go in a new design direction, with a new logo, nomenclature, or anything else.
I had a very nice 1997 88 Regency which was essentially a 98 front clip attached to an 88 body and with more gadgets inside than a base 88. I enjoyed the blue interior and bench seat and the controls on the steering wheel to control the HVAC and stereo were really awesome. I had it for about 1 year and the only reason I unloaded it was the 2011 snow storm I tried to drive it through. Ended up making it to the dealership on 4 cylinders instead of 6 and the coolant was making things smell very syrup-y LOL. Never left me stranded though in the year I was driving it!!
Before the Regency, I had a 97 Bonneville that was completely base and even had hub caps and manual bench seats. The Bonne was no non-sense and extremely durable except for an overdrive that would sometimes lock out during hard driving and when the car was running long distances. Of course when that happened I went from 27 MPG highway to about 16 MPG and it was a real money sucker on interstate travel.
Only could afford two fresh tires when I bought it but I got what I paid for it after 2 years of zero headaches and tons of Chicago Winter abuse. Both cars really did well for being over 10 years old and being cheap used cars bought with cash.
I myself drive a 96 98 and it is by far the best car that I have ever had the pleasure of driving. With the many power options, and the plush leather seating it’s like I’m driving a recliner down the road. Unpopular opinion, but I think the 98 was the best car that Oldsmobile ever made. I think the 96-98 was ahead of its time. It has all the features that most car manufacturers are just now putting in their cars in the 2020s.
And the rear door cut line. Ugh.
Everything about the exterior of the 11th Gen 98 grates on me, but especially the chubbiness and the sense that it really didn’t relate to any other Oldsmobile.
After the fiasco of the August 1983 Forbes cover, this was GM’s first chance to redesign it’s two C bodies: the Park Avenue and the Ninety Eight. And because the 1985 Electra and Ninety had been text book examples badge-engineering, sharing doors inside and out, and quite obviously whole elements of their interiors… both Buick and Olds had no choice but to go big or go home. Olds should simply have gone home.
A family friend drove one of these back when I was just out of high school, and I rode in it a few times. It seemed like a pretty decent car, and I only remember that a couple of the buttons below the radio had a hole poked through them… I think his was the same color combination as the featured car. Another thing that always stuck out was that the cornering lamps and that full width reverse light bar were made out of polycarbonate that turned yellow even quicker than the headlights.
Not sure what they were trying to achieve-a with the styling, but it is a bit weird. The tail end looks like it’s trying to be a Lincoln, the ribbed-for-no-one’s pleasure lower trim might have been channeling Pontiac, and the combination of covered rear wheels and the aforementioned ribbed cladding in silver made it look a bit like a road-going bumper car… I always liked the way they integrated the side marker lights, though, as it reminds me of the Olds of old. Overall, I don’t really dislike these last 98’s, but it’s a world apart from the 1995-99 Aurora that I’ve always loved… though the Bumper Olds would end up being much more lovable once the warranty ran out on those Aurorae.
OK everyone now don’t hate on me for this, but in all honestly with how many car-obsessed people there are out there (and certainly in here 🙂 there’s got to be others who feel the same on this, so here goes…
This whole ’88’ ’98’ thing… Oldsmobile in fact did use ’88’ for the 88 nomenclature but they used ‘Ninety Eight’ for the Ninety Eight cars, not 98. To me it doesn’t matter if people say they typed it that way because it was faster or something, the car was not tagged or emblemed ’98’ it drives me nuts… maybe also because i worked at/for Oldsmobile (huge local Dealer) from 1979 thru 1991 & even represented Oldsmobile Division at the Chicago Auto Show for 5yrs consecutive at that time.
So I’d say it bothers me almost as badly as those who still, in 2024 continue to write about or reference the Cadillac Eldorado using the mythical city of gold ‘El Dorado’ as the car’s name. grrr.
So in the end, it is what is is… not an opinion or interpretation, but the car’s actual proposed, assigned, approved, used and correct name.