GTP Cool Wall: 1992-1993 Oldsmobile Achieva SCX W41
- Thread starter White & Nerdy
- 84 comments
- 10,014 views
- 5,303
- Riverside, Ca
- GTP_Leonidae_MFT
Cool. Just because that motor suits the Pontiac Fiero better.
Wiegert
Premium
- 13,387
- United Kingdom
I... guess eking that much power from a GM I4 in the early 90s was a minor achievement? And along with maybe one or two other models from the same GM platform, it's not absolutely terrible to look at. Especially the 3/5 of them that weren't painted Bright Red (ew). I even like the black rear panels.
Those factors don't help its cause much. And for a car that dull and lacking any soul even in 'sports coupé' trim, the name choice almost seems intentionally ironic. The few redeeming points merely bump it up to uncool.
Those factors don't help its cause much. And for a car that dull and lacking any soul even in 'sports coupé' trim, the name choice almost seems intentionally ironic. The few redeeming points merely bump it up to uncool.
Last edited:
- 2,153
- Great White North
Seriously uncool.
- 4,209
- Wasilla, AK
Where's my dislike button?
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Now I 100% believe that Adam GP votes based on being opposite of what the group votes. The homologation of the car doesn't make it cool, nor does the fact it won in the series (refer to SC430 cool wall thread).
- 17,834
- Florida
- GranTurismo0517
- RandomCarGuy17
Just plain uncool, it came from a period where GM was just making mostly crummy & dull cars. The only positive thing I have to say about it is that I sort of like the color. Oh, and the fact it's related to the silly Cavalier & Sunfire doesn't help its case either.
- 200
- Vatican City
There is a lot I like about this car! I bet it would be a blast on a circuit track. Good engine, good suspension, 5 speed!
Cool!
Cool!
- 4,543
- Bay Area, CA
- Zenith113
I realized that if it weren't for certain controversy on this site, this family of GM cars would probably never be polled.
They're obviously not noteworthy enough to be polled like a Lamborghini or a Hudson, but not even ubiquitous enough like a Camry or most other economy cars to be remembered.
It's not even bland enough to be remembered for its blandness.
They're obviously not noteworthy enough to be polled like a Lamborghini or a Hudson, but not even ubiquitous enough like a Camry or most other economy cars to be remembered.
It's not even bland enough to be remembered for its blandness.
- 5,551
- Controls set for heart of sun
- GTP_RogerTheHors
I'm really not sure if this is a joke or not. Could anybody help me?
- 2,421
- Kentucky, USA
- James_Page
- PageyTheSquid
I think it would be a blast around a track too. I think you can have fun in just about any car, no matter how bad it may be.
- 2,421
- Kentucky, USA
- James_Page
- PageyTheSquid
I never claimed it did. I was under the impression that @Roger the Horse didn't think the car would be fun around a track based on his reply, I was simply saying I agree with @Space Dynamics and I think the car would be fun to rip around a track.
None of that has anything to so with how cool the car is though, we agree on that, which is why I voted seriously uncool.
- 7,313
- Land of the smelly onion
Is that because I'm the only one so far that didn't vote Uncool or Seriously Uncool for this car?
To you, maybe. That would be your opinion.
- 40,696
Its arch rival in American touring car racing was this:
And it beat it for 3 years straight in SCCA World Challenge races; and still won a few races in the 4th.
What has been said earlier in this thread is quite true. The L-Bodies and N-Bodies were, for the most part, tarted up, enlarged J platform cars with a bit of money splashed in the interior and some pieces from the midsized A-body (and later, the W-Body) to round out the package. They tended to suffer from the same problems as they aged as their little brothers, since they at any given time did generally share the same drivetrains and suspensions for the fleet-spec models (though the N/Ls usually came with much nicer engines than the J-bodies, and the N/Ls got chassis improvements first). The main difference was that when GM put together the performance package for the N/Ls (well, when they did for the Beretta and Achieva at least. The "sporty" Grand Ams were pretty half assed too), they did quite a bit more than put a boat anchor V6 in the front and some side molding and call it a day. This Achieva even came with the same adaptive suspension that the newly-christened and highly praised Euro Seville had.
Even though none of this is anything that is particularly relevant to anything in the first place, there is quite a difference between a car being a rollcage and some stickers away from a successful racing model and a car sharing the head and taillight assemblies and literally nothing else with a successful racing model.
Last edited:
- 3,023
- Peruibe, SP
It's a Front Wheel Drive, and it doesn't look cool.
If anything, a better option for me, would be a Chevy Impala SS or Caprice. Or even a Ford Crown Vic.
Seriously.Uncool.
If anything, a better option for me, would be a Chevy Impala SS or Caprice. Or even a Ford Crown Vic.
Seriously.Uncool.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
No it's your track record, it'd be stupid to just say that based on one thread, and from my post you can see I've just no come to that conclusion thus some time was probably involved to do so.
So you base the coolness of a car on a car that isn't anywhere remotely the same as the production car just a few pieces here and there? Or other race cars that though are tuned version of the production car cost multiple thousands to get them there and don't perform that way in production form thus not really a realistic performance car.
This is what you seem to find cool, but the car we're voting on isn't this just a hollow shell
Last edited:
- 3,023
- Peruibe, SP
The normal car itself looks boring and bleh. But this racing one, I gotta admit.
How sexy.
How sexy.
- 40,696
Except:
That was the one he was talking about.
There's another one. The one that won several championships and quite a few races in showroom stock racing in the early 1990s.
Not the one that raced in IMSA GTU that you dug up. If you want to go on a tirade about how his reasons for voting are your business, it would help to make it a bit more well-researched. You could have even read the post immediately above yours in response to yours that noted how similar the road car was to the one that won races and specifically contrasted it with the Lexus SC.
Last edited:
- 5,000
- United States
- GTP_Johnny1996
I'm Meh on this one. I wouldn't mind one for going from Point A to Point B, but that's it.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Actually if you read my post you'd see I talked about both versions and decided to go with the IMSA picture cause I couldn't find a good Firehawk one. And was actually looking for one to edit the post later as I tend to do. But hey if you want to play cynical Nancy that's cool.Except:
That was the one he was talking about.
There's another one. The one that won several championships and quite a few races in showroom stock racing in the early 1990s.
Not the one that raced in IMSA GTU that you dug up. If you want to go on a tirade about how his reasons for voting are your business, it would help to make it a bit more well-researched. You could have even read the post immediately above yours that noted how similar the road car was to the one that won races and specifically contrasted it with the Lexus SC.
Bold part is the IMSA car. The other is the production showroom class. Also it doesn't really matter which or both he finds cool in the context of the car we're voting on because Race cars are auto SU anyways in relation to the cool wall.
- 40,696
No you didn't. First of all, the failed IMSA car is irrelevant to this thread, and while one of the reasons is because of what you mentioned about how it had nothing to do with the road car beyond the engine block, more importantly it's irrelevant to this thread because he never said anything about the IMSA car despite you repeatedly making comparisons to it. He said that it was a homologation model of SCCA World Challenge, which it was. Oldsmobile went so far as to sell an options delete package to make it even more enticing to race the car. You brought up the Lexus SC430 and its JGTC success as a reason for why homologation specials are irrelevant to road cars to claim something to beat him over the head with, culminating in you posting a picture of the IMSA car to prove your point; misunderstanding his original point, the Lexus SC's position on the market and the differences between SCCA World Challenge rulesets in the early 90s and JGTC rules 8 years ago in one swoop.
Second of all, the first (and only) time you even indirectly acknowledged the SCCA car (that he was actually talking about) was here:
If an SCCA Showroom Stock racer from half a decade before Speedvision started mucking with the class format of the series isn't an example of how a road car's performance can be defended with its subsequent racing success, then literally no postwar road car ever made has racing provenance.
And, again, this is an awful lot of runaround to try to defend your faulty assertions for why it's your business why he votes in the first place.
Last edited:
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
He said it based on what you said, first off. I brought up the general rule that it doesn't matter what car was what type of race form and used the most recent thread that came to memory. Not one that was strictly an exact comparison to what we have here. Cause I don't remember the last one we had this situation in. But I do recall that a car was voted cool based on it's race for and that really doesn't matter when talking about the production car that is for the road. Race cars that mirror in any degree to their road going counterpart are irrelevant is my point that you seemed to miss and then split into some direct absolute form that I never made but rather I made a general statement on the matter. I didn't misunderstand him at all hence why once again in my post I do talk about both cars, and had planned to edit my post the fact that you want to harbor some cynicism on the matter and ignore what I'm saying now is beyond me.
Well considering that unless it was just a roll cage and sponsor logos on the car, and not the fact it was completely stripped inside, given a bit more power, race tires and a racing fuel cell and other bits then sure I could see how it's a realistic point.
Since we tend to always argue each others point of view on these threads, I find it hard to understand why some people come out and be defenders of others. "Why do you care about his/her opinion?" As if we should vote and then move along, and in general these threads have many people directly or indirectly doing this.
You yourself have done this, but yet you get to play both sides of the fence in this moment and question me on it? I'm confused. If I want to ask someone why they vote and then debate points of perspective I will, if you have issue with that, then I guess we can expect more of these. Which really I don't mind.
