Guest cutlass88er Posted April 26, 2003 Report Share Posted April 26, 2003 I was going car "looking-at-window-shopping" to see how much all the nice newer W's are when I drove past the Bob Tolkan Buick/GMC, I saw the Regals and Envoy, a whole lot of Centurys, then as I keep going next to a used Intrigue I spot a bright cherry red CS. MY jaw dropped it said $5000 on the sticker and next to it it said 1988. I pulled in and took a lot at it, 53006 on the odometer, new tires the works, GM sunroof. It had all the options you could get on a SL without going international. IT was the Dark Garnet Red interior and no fading on it at all, it was like I had been in 1988 and bob tolkan was an olds dealer. The jerk that tried and helped me out said because it was such and OLD car that they could not finace it which is bull. But I may just have to borrow $1000 from my stepdad and finace the rest, the blue book on it was $2455 so I'm def going to haggle my way down by a lot!!! This just helps to confuse me, I thought I wanted a 94+ CS/GP but now with this, i dunno. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmokesGTP Posted April 26, 2003 Report Share Posted April 26, 2003 nah don't be swayed, you definetly want a 94+ CS or most likely a GP 8) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TurboSedan Posted April 26, 2003 Report Share Posted April 26, 2003 there is a REALLY nice bright red/grey '89 CS International coupe 3.1/auto here in Laramie at the GM dealership. it has all the options including HUD/DIC/ACC but i don't think it had a sunroof. and a blue interior (quad buckets)?!?! only 75,000 miles or so, and very clean in and out. they post their lowest price on the windshield and they want like $2450 for it... joshua Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian P Posted April 26, 2003 Report Share Posted April 26, 2003 I'd go for it. 88-93 are the best years. Can't beat em :guns: '94+ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian P Posted April 26, 2003 Report Share Posted April 26, 2003 wait a second....$5000?!?!??!??!?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! er...eh...I dont even think $2455 is accurate either. Tell them when they realize it won't sell above $2500 to give you a call Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimp19 Posted April 27, 2003 Report Share Posted April 27, 2003 I dont think $3500-4,200 is would be a high price at all for that car. I dont understand why average cars go down so much just because of the year. I also dont think that blue book values are accurate at all for older cars in mint condition with fairly low milage. Personally I wouldn't think twice about paying $4,000 for that car vs. a 96 with 90,000 for the same price. If a car is cared for well then the year dosn't mean anything besides more saftey features. But the build quility of an '88 is better, I would bet an '88 in same the condition with the same milage as a 96 would last longer. Heres an example of of stupid blue book price's are: My car w/106,000miles and no options in "good condition" is worth $2,100 blue book. The red 88' Sl w/53,000miles power options, and in "excelllent cond is worth $2,500. Thats only $400 more then my car with more options, better condition and half the milage. A 96 cutlass with the same options, condition, and milage as the '88 SL is blue booked at $7,900. So how is the 88 such a bad deal? I would personally rather not have airbags and have rarer car thats built better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian P Posted April 27, 2003 Report Share Posted April 27, 2003 Those prices are ridiculous. KBB is out of control, that sounds like the prices of cars from those dealers where "everyone's approved". Let me put it in this perspective: My mom tried selling her mint (4 years old at the time) '95 cutlass supreme sedan for $3500 with 65k. Ads in the paper, etc, nobody was interested. I bought my '90 Cutlass, which was 9 years old at the time, with 83k and otherwise mint condition, for $2600. Dealer. You have to take into account that the car is 15 years old, and these cars aren't holding their value. If you want to pay that, then you can, but I can pick up a '88-89 W-body in better than average condition for under $1200. And low mileage isn't necessarily a good thing. 58k translates to under 3900 miles a year. That's like 1 oil change per year. Was this car sitting in a garage for a long amount of time? Was it prepped for this storage? Was it driven once in a while to get the moisture out of the engine/oil? Is the brake fluid original? Has the tranny fluid even been changed yet? How are the gaskets holding up? I mean don't get me wrong, it can be a great car, but it's been a known fact that if you have a choice between a 10 year old car with 10k on it, or an identical one with 70k, you go for the 70k one (provided it's been serviced). I dont like consumer reports for certain things, but they did an article on that and it made sense. I'll see if I can dig it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJB Posted April 27, 2003 Report Share Posted April 27, 2003 My grandmother has a '93 Acclaim with only 29k on it. She's had to have alot of rubber parts and hoses replaced because it sits in the garage so much they dry rotted. Low mileage older cars are more ofa headache than higher mileage older cars because the ones with more mileage have had parts replaced throughout their lives while the ones with lower mileage have much more original parts to fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JS91Z34 Posted April 27, 2003 Report Share Posted April 27, 2003 $5000 is more than I would pay for a car that I would be getting rid of in a year anyways. I buy a different car every year just because of how many miles I drive a year(40,000 miles). I've paid at most 2300 bucks for a car. The cars I have now are cars i've acquired since my 16 birthday and are considered rare or hard to find. Thats the only reason why I keep a car longer than a year. Low mileage means nothing in a car. Selling a car for more than its worth is just plain retarded. If someone were to buy a $2000 car for $5000 they would in turn be hurting them selves. You would never be able to sell the car for even half of what you bought it for. Therefore it would be considered a huge loss on your part. Like everyone else said an old low mileage car can be worse than a old high mileage car. The decision you make is what you have to live with. You really should weigh your options and make an educated decision on what you think you should pay for the car. IMHO I would take the car you have now, and put it up. Go buy a little beater with a heater and drive that into the ground while you fix up the car you were driving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldsmoBeast Posted April 28, 2003 Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 aren't the older model years made a lil better quality? like didn't they cut corners to save money later on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian P Posted April 28, 2003 Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 yeah 88-89 cars were the shit. Glass headlights, everything generally better quality. Example: The 89 cutlass grills are heavier and flexible plastic; '90-91 is a cheaper plastic that cracks extra easy. What else.... wiring is thicker in '88-93 than 94+, interiors are thicker plastic, seats (quad buckets, lumbar controls, etc), trip computers/compasses GALORE, 6 gauge clusters, velour fabrics use. Not to discount the newer models, there are improvements in the ABS, general braking system, safety, etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldsmoBeast Posted April 28, 2003 Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 yah...kinda proves the whole "they don't make 'em like they used to" sorta mantra......altho all that 'extra weight' mite not help ur acceleration Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperBuick Posted April 28, 2003 Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 My Buick only had 16 thousand miles on it when I got it in 2001. Since then I have put on more than ten grand without a problem, the only thing that went was the brakes and the alternaor, and on these cars both are considered "disposeable". From my experiences cars with lower miles are just fine. My car is tight and runs like a top, and if it runs like other w-bodies, it should have a ton of miles left in it. -tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian P Posted April 28, 2003 Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 yah...kinda proves the whole "they don't make 'em like they used to" sorta mantra......altho all that 'extra weight' mite not help ur acceleration The 2.8 isn't helping acceleration either, but heck maybe it still runs like new. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robby1870 Posted April 28, 2003 Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 yeah older things were better quality, not doubt. my sisters 96 GP is less reliable, than my car, a 92. Things are harder to replace on hers and more expensive. And, what you said about the 2.8L is funny, but true, Brian Robby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian P Posted April 28, 2003 Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 yeah older things were better quality, not doubt. my sisters 96 GP is less reliable, than my car, a 92. Things are harder to replace on hers and more expensive. And, what you said about the 2.8L is funny, but true, Brian Robby Well I dont mean it's slower, the 2.8 runs so close to the 3.1....what 10 more hp and 15 lb-ft? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robby1870 Posted April 28, 2003 Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 okay, I thought you meant slow, but yeah 10HP, but I think 20lbft. Yeah its pretty close to the 3.1L. Robby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted April 28, 2003 Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 nah don't be swayed, you definetly want a 94+ CS or most likely a GP 8) Yeah, if you like intake gasket and tranny problems! Seriously, the older ones hold up better. Most W-bodies with low mileage are just headaches ready to happen. When it comes to W-bodies, low miles just means there's that many more parts you'll need to replace on it! At least one with higher miles, the previous owner has already replaced most of those parts. It's true too that these cars are considered disposable. They don't hold their value at all. Heck, they go so cheap people can afford to buy perfectly good cars to dismantle even if they're just after one part. I see lots of late 80's, early 90's W-bodies end for 3-digit prices on Ebay. That's probably also why a lot of us hardcore W-body enthusiasts often have 2, 3, or even 4 of these cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimp19 Posted April 28, 2003 Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 I paid $2,400 for mine in the spring of 2000, I looked around quite a bit and atleast in my area $2,400 was a good deal. Around here both new and used cars have been alot cheaper since 9-11 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmokesGTP Posted April 29, 2003 Report Share Posted April 29, 2003 Yeah I was just kidding with the 94+ but the styling is definetly better. Intake gaskets are a once in a 40k thing (generally) and my tranny has 130,349 original miles with fluid changes and filter changes and shifts excellent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted April 29, 2003 Report Share Posted April 29, 2003 My TGP with 82k miles cost me $2000 back in August '99. As far as styling, I guess that's all subjective. I like the styling of my '89 Cutlass better than the '94, it's just cleaner looking IMO. I think the 88-91 Cutlass body style de-trimmed and with rims and tints will look smoother than 92-97 (I'll be finding out for sure soon). I also like my TGP's composite headlights better than miniquads also for the same reason - it looks cleaner. I do like the B4U on the 94-96, but I think the 89-93 B4U looks more aggressive near the wheels where the ground-effects flares out more at the bottom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperBuick Posted April 29, 2003 Report Share Posted April 29, 2003 I think the 88-91 Cutlass body style de-trimmed and with rims and tints will look smoother than 92-97 I agree, and also about the earlier B4U package, it definetely looks cleaner when de-trimmed. I also like the earlier regals come to think of it, the later GS's look too "plain" if you know what I mean. -Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
89oldscutlass Posted April 29, 2003 Report Share Posted April 29, 2003 Alright guys watch the 2.8 jokes.LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.