godofthunder Posted May 1, 2004 Report Posted May 1, 2004 Debs and I saw a few today, and shes short of obsessed with them. We saw a tripple white convert today, top up even, and she went ballistic. Ive been dreaming for a convert for a while, and wouldnt mind picking one up as a second summer car. I dont want anything to fancy. Do they come with cloth interiors? And also, ive heard you can get them with the 3.1 also? And I dont see many locally...best bet to possibly get it off ebay? Just wanted to know what some of yall guys paid for yours, and what you think. just shooting arround ideas here jon Quote
KRH20 Posted May 1, 2004 Report Posted May 1, 2004 Mine cost me $4250, with 92,500 miles on it. I dont believe they come with cloth, all the ones I've seen 90-95 have leather whether 3.1 or 3.4 I'd say hope you can find one locally with ebay being one of the last resorts. Quote
topless94style Posted May 1, 2004 Report Posted May 1, 2004 Got mine for $6000 after lisence and taxes. Had 85K on the clock, perfect interior and a intake manifold gasket leak. It was by far the cheapest one I have seen around here, with most of them going up to and a few past $8000. Quote
NORBI Posted May 1, 2004 Report Posted May 1, 2004 They came with cloth interior but they were very rare i seen one with cloth interior and about 90k miles with 3.1 enigne and was going to 5k, they are sweet cars i used to own one and loved it but get a 3.4 engine its fun to drive it. Quote
WhiteOut Posted May 1, 2004 Report Posted May 1, 2004 I got mine for $5,000 last summer. It was fully loaded and had 93k on the odometer, it was in great shape body/interior wise but not such great shape mechanically. It needed brakes and tires on all four corners when I bought it, and as I found out it had been pretty much neglected as far as maintenance went. It did however have a brand new top that had only seen two months of use. Overall I'm happy with what I paid since most 95's seem to go for considerably more in this area. For example I saw a bare bones 95' with the 3.1 and 121k on it go for $5800 ealier this spring. I believe the leather interior was standard on convertibles, at least for the 93 and up cars anyway. About the only differances between the up level and base cars were the climate control, stereo, and performance package (3.4, stiffer suspension, 225 tires, dual exhaust and a spoiler). Other than that everything is standard. The 91-94 also had the 2+2 configuration as opposed to a rear bench in 95'. And obviously pre 94' is the square dash, 94' has the frankenstein dash, and 95' has the new style dash. O Oh, and I'd definitly recomend the 3.4 over the 3.1. The car isnt' exactly what you'd call "fast" with the 3.4, so I don't want to think about what the car would be like with 50-60 less horse power. Quote
1stgenbird Posted May 1, 2004 Report Posted May 1, 2004 I got mine last September. '95 with 3.4 dohc with 56,000 miles. Red with graphite leather interior. Paid $5500. Damn fine car! Quote
95DropTop Posted May 1, 2004 Report Posted May 1, 2004 I got mine in March...95 red with white top/interior with 77k on the clock for $5500. 3.4 was a must! Topless is the only way to go! Thomas Quote
godofthunder Posted May 2, 2004 Author Report Posted May 2, 2004 hrm, so sig higher than my series 3....5000 2.5 years ago. jon Quote
Pselus Posted May 2, 2004 Report Posted May 2, 2004 I got mine with 64,000 miles on the odometer and a newly rebuilt engine for $6,000...(engine was newly rebuilt to fix the oil leak)...appears that I got a deal on mine... honestly (and no offense to anyone elses verty) I have seen a few other Cutlass verts around and NONE of them are near as pretty as a nice triple white one...get that thing NOW! Quote
Z34door Posted May 2, 2004 Report Posted May 2, 2004 IMO........ 3.1's are more reliable than 3.4's Quote
93CutlassSupreme Posted May 2, 2004 Report Posted May 2, 2004 IMO........ 3.1's are more reliable than 3.4's maybe, but 3.1's arn't exactly 'easy' to work on either Quote
Guest Anonymous Posted May 2, 2004 Report Posted May 2, 2004 IMO........ 3.1's are more reliable than 3.4's maybe, but 3.1's arn't exactly 'easy' to work on either I think the 3.1 is simple to work on. Quote
93CutlassSupreme Posted May 2, 2004 Report Posted May 2, 2004 IMO........ 3.1's are more reliable than 3.4's maybe, but 3.1's arn't exactly 'easy' to work on either I think the 3.1 is simple to work on. i was brought up working on rear drive cars, imo all front drive cars are 'fun' to work on Quote
kcac Posted May 2, 2004 Report Posted May 2, 2004 I overpaid - $7,500; 62000 miles. triple black. It is in good shape, and had a new top. Wish I'd known about this site beforehand and asked the question you are asking. Regarding the 3.1 vs 3.4. The guy who runs the shop were I take my cars has strong opinions about the 3.4. He doesn't like it. His point was that just about every maintenance/repair is costly because there isn't too much that is somewhat easily accessible, plus the oil-leak O-ring issue, the timing belt issue, the alternator issue...He was pretty much hinting that I shoud ditch the car. I just started driving the Cutlass, so I don't yet have an opinion one way or another. My '90 Beretta has the 3.1, which has been a pretty good engine. I bought that car new and it has 200,000 miles on it. I just wonder if the 3.1 would have enough get up and go for the Cutlass, which weighs 900 lbs more than the Beretta. Quote
supreme_style21 Posted May 2, 2004 Report Posted May 2, 2004 Regarding the 3.1 vs 3.4. The guy who runs the shop were I take my cars has strong opinions about the 3.4. He doesn't like it. His point was that just about every maintenance/repair is costly because there isn't too much that is somewhat easily accessible, plus the oil-leak O-ring issue, the timing belt issue, the alternator issue...He was pretty much hinting that I shoud ditch the car. I'm sure most know my opinion on the 3.4. Perhaps I had a lemon.. I don't know. It was a nightmare. My mechanic(s) had the same opinion. Out of the 8 shops I stopped at, ONE took the car in. The other seven shops refused to work on it. Don't ask me why, they just said no.. take it elsewhere. The one shop that did accept the car, charged me up the ass. I've come to the conclusion that if you know what you're doing with the 3.4, go for it. If you don't, stay away. I knew NOTHING about the engine when I bought it ... If I knew what I knew now, I wouldn't have even given the car a second look when I was shopping around. It's an ungodly expensive engine to have maintained by someone other than yourself. Quote
Z34door Posted May 2, 2004 Report Posted May 2, 2004 most have found the 3.4 to be a pain in the ass to work on. My boss has a 94 red/graphite convert with a 3.4 and its been through 8 timing belts and 2 timing chains in its 130,000 miles. Quote
DOHCRagtopguy Posted May 2, 2004 Report Posted May 2, 2004 Bought my 93 about 2 years ago with 66K for $5K. Only major repair has been the timing belt (blew @74K-cost about $500)). Doesn't leak a drop of oil or any other fluid anywhere. Now has 115K. Leather interior, seam just starting to come apart on driver seat. Bro in law selling his triple black 95 for around 3K. I know his has about 112K and needs a top and some other stuff. I forgot, I had to replace the intake gaskets, also. Cost around 35 bucks. Quote
1stgenbird Posted May 3, 2004 Report Posted May 3, 2004 Since I had once owned a '92 GP with the 3.4, I knew the 3.4 was susceptable to a number of "maintenance" issues whiich is why I bought an extended warranty soon after I bought my Cutlass. I figured the price of replacing the timing belt, alternator, and other repairs would more then justify the warranty cost. I didn't even consider the 3.1. I couldn't drive a car with such a dog engine. Quote
GnatGoSplat Posted May 3, 2004 Report Posted May 3, 2004 I paid $3000 1-1/2yrs ago for my triple black convertible. I don't know if it was worth the price, but Penny loves it. It's a 3.4 DOHC, fully loaded with every option except HUD (which now it does have HUD, and DIC too). 112k miles when I bought it. It needed: - Intake manifold gaskets. - New rubber lines on the tranny oil cooler. - New power steering pressure line. - Various quality control problems fixed in the interior. - Domelight switches fixed. - RH Taillight. It still needs: - Various door dings repaired. - Deteriorating paint on lip spoiler and rear 1/4-panel repaired. - New piece to fix broken linkage on convertible top. The 3.4 DOHC actually has not needed much, and it doesn't stall or give any weird problems after I fixed the intake manifold gaskets (which were probably already bad when I bought the car, but didn't surface till the weather got cold). It burns a little oil, but so far the car has been Penny's reliable daily driver. Maybe it has a lot to do with the way she drives - calmly and hardly ever exceeding the speed limit by much. I agree that the 3.4 DOHC doesn't make the convertible a "fast" car so I wouldn't want anything slower. Quote
z34_nut Posted May 4, 2004 Report Posted May 4, 2004 well to be honest, i dunno why, but i havn't had any UNUSUAL problems with my extra high milage 3.4. in fact with 225,ooo miles on it, its gone threw 4 timing belts, 1 timing chain, 3 alternators, 1 starter, and new timing covers. take a dodge neons and see if it even last that long, take any 93 vehical and put 225,000 miles on it and see how it does. personally, i don't think that the 3.4 is bad on maitnence. its "average" the only thing that scares people is the fact that theres a little room to work on it, but if your a real good mechanic, or like us enthusiasts, just know alot about them, then its really not that bad. Quote
93CutlassSupreme Posted May 4, 2004 Report Posted May 4, 2004 Since I had once owned a '92 GP with the 3.4, I knew the 3.4 was susceptable to a number of "maintenance" issues whiich is why I bought an extended warranty soon after I bought my Cutlass. I figured the price of replacing the timing belt, alternator, and other repairs would more then justify the warranty cost.I didn't even consider the 3.1. I couldn't drive a car with such a dog engine. have you EVER driven a 3.1? sure it doesn't make 200 horsepower, but it isn't a total dog. the torque curve makes up for the lack of horsepower at high rpms. .its plenty quicker than many cars on the road, and while it isn't exactly a bundle of laughs to work on, doesn't frighten people like the 3.4 you wanna drive a dog, drive a 4 cylinder ranger, or a 80's 3.8 liter thunderbird, or any 3.0 liter aerostar, or a 4.6 liter ecoline van, or a 3/4 ton 4.3 liter express, fully loaded, i could go on with many others that are 'doggier' than a 3.1... Quote
1stgenbird Posted May 4, 2004 Report Posted May 4, 2004 Yeah, I've driven a 3.1 and yeah, it's a dog. Not to say that the others you mentioned aren't but I wouldn't own them either. But ya know, I bet the other ones you mentioned have enthusiastic followers too that would tell many reasons why their's is the greatest. Quote
93CutlassSupreme Posted May 5, 2004 Report Posted May 5, 2004 Yeah, I've driven a 3.1 and yeah, it's a dog i'm sure the 3.4 will light up the front tires also Quote
1stgenbird Posted May 5, 2004 Report Posted May 5, 2004 Never said it would. There's more to driving a responsive car then lighting up the front tires...unless you're in high school. Quote
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.