HomeHome  PortalPortal  CalendarCalendar  GalleryGallery  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
cdcdguy

avatar

Posts : 45
Join date : 2013-03-21
Location : Ft. Wayne, Indiana

PostSubject: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:50 am

Am going to buy one of these later in the year. Love the RM sedan I have now. Can you all with more knowledge discuss some of the difference in these wagons? I know the CC was only built in 91-92 and had a smaller engine. How many were made? Is the smaller V-8 just as reliable as the 5.7? And as far as sales numbers I think the 94-96 RMW AND CC sold about the same, but I see lots of RMW and almost never a CC. Why? Also, those CC I see usually don't have the woodgrain, but the Buick almost always does.

Any other things I should look for or avoid in these cars?


Last edited by cdcdguy on Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:43 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
cdcdguy

avatar

Posts : 45
Join date : 2013-03-21
Location : Ft. Wayne, Indiana

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:20 am

cdcdguy wrote:
Am going to buy one of these later in the year. Love the RM sedan I have now. Can you all with more knowledge discuss some of the difference in these wagons? I know the CC was only built in 91-92 and had a smaller engine. How many were made? Is the smaller V-8 just as reliable as the 5.7? And as far as sales numbers I think the 94-96 RMW AND CC sold about the same, but I see lots of RMW and almost never a CC. Why? Also, those CC I see usually don't have the woodgrain, but the Buick almost always does.

Any other things I should look for or avoid in these cars?

Sorry, I should call the Olds OCC in the first place. Sorry for the confusion.


Last edited by cdcdguy on Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:43 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Superior Finish
Admin
avatar

Posts : 3353
Join date : 2008-11-04
Age : 50
Location : Savannah, GA

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:28 am

Back to top Go down
http://www.superiorfinishar.com
Olds Weighty Eight

avatar

Posts : 1062
Join date : 2011-05-15
Age : 50
Location : Memphis, TN

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Wed Mar 27, 2013 8:59 am

FYI, the '92 OCC was available with the 350 engine and you'll find that many were so equipped.
Back to top Go down
http://www.lakelandraceway.com/friends_garage
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Wed Mar 27, 2013 9:04 am

No Olds Custom Cruiser had wood grain. It wasn't available. It was standard on the Buicks (but could be ordered to be deleted) and optional on the Caprice.
Back to top Go down
cdcdguy

avatar

Posts : 45
Join date : 2013-03-21
Location : Ft. Wayne, Indiana

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Wed Mar 27, 2013 9:12 am

Olds Weighty Eight wrote:
FYI, the '92 OCC was available with the 350 engine and you'll find that many were so equipped.

Ok, so now I am confused. Was the 350 a different engine than the 5.7 that was in the later Roadmaster? What was the base engine in the OCC?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Wed Mar 27, 2013 9:18 am

There were TBI 305s (L03), TBI 350s (L05), and then in '94-96 the LT1 became the only engine option in the wagons.
Back to top Go down
benn

avatar

Posts : 561
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Ontario, Canada

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:39 am

The LT1 is a 5.7L 350. same motor that's in your '95 sedan. if you like that motor, look for a '94-'96 caprice wagon or roadmaster wagon.
Back to top Go down
81X11

avatar

Posts : 9046
Join date : 2010-06-23
Age : 43
Location : Round Rock Texas

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:58 am

I've had both a gorgeous '96 Roadmaster wagon and my current really pretty 1992 Custom Cruiser. I've loved both cars, but the Buick was my hands-down favorite, mainly for the LT1, but also the wood alone got the car a lot more attention than my solid-white Oldsmobile. It's amazing how much more reaction the Buick got, and most was related to the wood.

94-96 Buick Positives:
- LT1 5.7 350 Power and smoothness

- True factory dual exhaust that's a set of mufflers away from sounding outstanding.

- Much better looking and more comfy high-backed seats (heat and lumbar optional with Limited pkg)


- More Chrome and WOOD, it's half the joke right there. Smile

- Much better exterior door mirrors on the 95-96 models

- 96 was THE LAST of the big Buicks...Collectors Edition badging is sharp

- General luxury items (headliner grab handles, deeper carpet, more sound-deadening in the firewall, much-improved stereo system, dash vents sit higher in the dash for better cooling, and door panels shaped better for "arm on the widowsill" cruising. It just "feels" more modern and fancier.


94-96 Buick Negatives:
- LT1 can be harder to work on, and parts are more expensive. OptiSpark distributor makes service and plug wire changes a larger chore.
- The interior was quickly redesigned in 1994 when the dash was updated for dual airbags, and the door panels especially are made of cheap crack-prone plastic with poorly fitting wood trim that can warp or come loose over time. You never NEVER want to slam the door on an LT1 Roady wagon, especially the front door, for fear of the panels cracking.


- In relation to the door panel notes above, GM also used power window switchgear from the FWD LeSabre/Park Ave on the 94-96 Roadmaster. It looks classy, until the black paint around the switches wears off from use....then it looks worn out..
- Tach and gauges replaced by idiot lights for all but fuel and temp. Z28 cluster is a popular mod!


- The exterior wood, while it gets attention and I think is really pretty, was surrounded buy metal trim that tends to peel. Plan to re-paint/polish the outline trim if it's not been done already, and the wood itself can fade and peel if the car lives in the sun always.
- Stupid half leather/half plastic Buick steering wheel. The painted plastic/rubber area wears early and the black under it shows through, lloks terrible. It CAN be re-dyed however.
- Black lower body trim was glued onto the stainless trim at the factory, and it falls off over time. Use 3M red mounting tape to re-attach.

1991-92 Olds Custom Cruiser Positives:
- Rarity, two-year-only model, you just hardly see them! I have a soft spot for Rocket cars. RIP Olds!

- While it may not get as much general attention as the Roadmaster, the Olds design is really CLEAN and CLASSY. Very smooth! The Buick attracted everyone, but the Olds attracts real "car people". The grill design is my favorite of all the B-wagons, and the grey lower-body plastic cladding was an Olds exclusive. It's sharp, and unlike the Buick trim does not tend to come loose/fall off!

- The door panels, they curve away from you toward the top and are not very "elbow on the windowsill" comfortable, but are MUCH better made and mounted than the LT1 Buick panels. They also make the interior feel wider than the Roady did. The handle and switchgear trim fits really well, and the only real issue on these is the armrest pads (which are MUCH wider than the Buicks) can warp from the bottom-side-up.

- The LO3 and LO5 throttle-body 305 and 350 engines are SUPER reliable and very cheap and easy to work on. These are the same engines GM used in their full-sized trucks and SUV's for years and years. Anyone can work on them, super-simple, and with the '92 350 you still have 300 lb-ft of torque. Not a rocket but plenty of power.

- Full gauges with tach are really nice, and Olds font gauges look sporty.

- In general the car feels very well made. No rattles at all. While it does have more wind and engine noise than the Buick, it's still a luxury car and better than 90% of modern cars!!
- This was the last big V8-rear-drive Oldsmobile car. The very end.

OCC Negatives:
- The TBI 350 is not as smooth and quiet as the LT1 was. Where from the inside the Buick was silent at idle, you can tell the TBI engine is running. The TBI cars use an older-style starter, the LT1 sounds classier on start-up, and being that the intake is right under the dash on the TBI cars and not facing to the front like the LT1 cars, you hear a lot more intake sound when accelerating. Also these have a big engine fan, you hear that as well, and they TBI cars less sound-deadening in the firewall, so again, you hear the engine. It's not horrible, but not an LT1 either.
- The Olds seats, while leather and pretty, are not nearly as sharp and comfy as the Roadmaster's thrones.


- Olds-specific parts are getting harder to find, and while the lower body trim looks the same on both 91-92, it mounts differently, so you need to find the same year for replacement.
- As mentioned the dash vents sit low on the dashboard, so getting air to the back seat is harder.
- You miss the little things like the auto-dimming mirror, the large door mirrors, the headliner grab-handles. Little stuff, but nice stuff!
- Dorky single exhaust....whoosh....

Caprice Wagons:

The main thing you give up here is the Vista roof. I personally love the vista glass, and do my kids, but the Caprice can look both lower and cleaner because it does not have this.

The Caprice and OCC seats are basically the same, the Olds just had different trim and optional leather.

The Caprice is odd in that you can have a really stripped model or one that's basically as luxurious as the Custom Cruiser. Most of what the Cruiser had was optional on the Caprice, and the later LT1 Caprice's had very pretty wood door panel trim and the sharp 2nd-gen Caprice dash, just like an Impala SS, only trim differences.

All the Caprice wagons used the same door panels, like the OCC has. Again, to me, these seem to be much better made and mounted than the Roadmaster LT1 panels. BUT you give up the Concert Sound with seperate speakers the LT1 Buicks panels could have. To each his own!


I'm sure there is a lot more, and much of the above is my personal opinion after owning both cars. I have no plans to get rid of my Olds anytime soon...but I WILL have another LT1 Roady again!

Good luck on your search!

-Mike


Last edited by 81X11 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:33 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
buickestate
Moderator
avatar

Posts : 3256
Join date : 2008-11-04
Age : 53
Location : London Ontario

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:51 pm

Stingroo wrote:
There were TBI 305s (L03), TBI 350s (L05), and then in '94-96 the LT1 became the only engine option in the wagons.

Ray,

in 91 all wagons got the LO3
92-93 all wagons had a choice of the LO3 or the LO5
94-96 all RMW got the LT1, the Caprice wagons had three engine options the 4.3 v8 (baby LT1) the adult LT1 and the 4.3 v6

rumour was that a few caprice wagons had gotten the v6, but it was later discovered that no wagon was ever optioned with the 4.3 v6, but fred from northstar has seen a few 4.3 v8 caprice wagons.

keep in mind that the base hp of the baby LT1 was 200hp still more potent then a stock LO5, many of the 94-96 9C1's I seen up here had the 4.3v8's in em.
Back to top Go down
cdcdguy

avatar

Posts : 45
Join date : 2013-03-21
Location : Ft. Wayne, Indiana

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:55 pm

benn wrote:
The LT1 is a 5.7L 350. same motor that's in your '95 sedan. if you like that motor, look for a '94-'96 caprice wagon or roadmaster wagon.

Yes, I LOVE that engine!
Back to top Go down
cdcdguy

avatar

Posts : 45
Join date : 2013-03-21
Location : Ft. Wayne, Indiana

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:02 pm

81X11 wrote:
I've had both a gorgeous '96 Roadmaster wagon and my current really pretty 1992 Custom Cruiser. I've loved both cars, but the Buick was my hands-down favorite, mainly for the LT1, but also the wood alone got the car a lot more attention than my solid-white Oldsmobile. It's amazing how much more reaction the Buick got, and most was related to the wood.

94-96 Buick Positives:
- LT1 5.7 350 Power and smoothness
- True factory dual exhaust that's a set of mufflers away from sounding outstanding.
- Much better looking and more comfy high-backed seats (heat and lumbar optional with Limited pkg)
- More Chrome and WOOD, it's half the joke right there. Smile
- Much better exterior door mirrors on the 95-96 models
- 96 was THE LAST of the big Buicks...Collectors Edition badging is sharp
- General luxury items (headliner grab handles, deeper carpet, more sound-deadening in the firewall, much-improved stereo system, dash vents sit higher in the dash for better cooling, and door panels shaped better for "arm on the widowsill" cruising. It just "feels" more modern and fancier.

94-96 Buick Negatives:
- LT1 can be harder to work on, and parts are more expensive. OptiSpark distributor makes service and plug wire changes a larger chore.
- The interior was quickly redesigned in 1994 when the dash was updated for dual airbags, and the door panels especially are made of cheap crack-prone plastic with poorly fitting wood trim that can warp or come loose over time. You never NEVER want to slam the door on an LT1 Roady wagon, especially the front door, for fear of the panels cracking.
- In relation to the door panel notes above, GM also used power window switchgear from the FWD LeSabre/Park Ave on the 94-96 Roadmaster. It looks classy, until the black paint around the switches wears off from use....then it looks worn out..
- Tach and gauges replaced by idiot lights for all but fuel and temp. Z28 cluster is a popular mod!
- The exterior wood, while it gets attention and I think is really pretty, was surrounded buy metal trim that tends to peel. Plan to re-paint/polish the outline trim if it's not been done already, and the wood itself can fade and peel if the car lives in the sun always.
- Stupid half leather/half plastic Buick steering wheel. The painted plastic/rubber area wears early and the black under it shows through, lloks terrible. It CAN be re-dyed however.
- Black lower body trim was glued onto the stainless trim at the factory, and it falls off over time. Use 3M red mounting tape to re-attach.

1991-92 Olds Custom Cruiser Positives:
- Rarity, two-year-only model, you just hardly see them! I have a soft spot for Rocket cars. RIP Olds!
- While it may not get as much general attention as the Roadmaster, the Olds design is really CLEAN and CLASSY. Very smooth! The Buick attracted everyone, but the Olds attracts real "car people". The grill design is my favorite of all the B-wagons, and the grey lower-body plastic cladding was an Olds exclusive. It's sharp, and unlike the Buick trim does not tend to come loose/fall off!
- The door panels, they curve away from you toward the top and are not very "elbow on the windowsill" comfortable, but are MUCH better made and mounted than the LT1 Buick panels. They also make the interior feel wider than the Roady did. The handle and switchgear trim fits really well, and the only real issue on these is the armrest pads (which are MUCH wider than the Buicks) can warp from the bottom-side-up.
- The LO3 and LO5 throttle-body 305 and 350 engines are SUPER reliable and very cheap and easy to work on. These are the same engines GM used in their full-sized trucks and SUV's for years and years. Anyone can work on them, super-simple, and with the '92 350 you still have 300 lb-ft of torque. Not a rocket but plenty of power.
- Full gauges with tach are really nice, and Olds font gauges look sporty.
- In general the car feels very well made. No rattles at all. While it does have more wind and engine noise than the Buick, it's still a luxury car and better than 90% of modern cars!!
- This was the last big V8-rear-drive Oldsmobile car. The very end.

OCC Negatives:
- The TBI 350 is not as smooth and quiet as the LT1 was. Where from the inside the Buick was silent at idle, you can tell the TBI engine is running. The TBI cars use an older-style starter, the LT1 sounds classier on start-up, and being that the intake is right under the dash on the TBI cars and not facing to the front like the LT1 cars, you hear a lot more intake sound when accelerating. Also these have a big engine fan, you hear that as well, and they TBI cars less sound-deadening in the firewall, so again, you hear the engine. It's not horrible, but not an LT1 either.
- The Olds seats, while leather and pretty, are not nearly as sharp and comfy as the Roadmaster's thrones.
- Olds-specific parts are getting harder to find, and while the lower body trim looks the same on both 91-92, it mounts differently, so you need to find the same year for replacement.
- As mentioned the dash vents sit low on the dashboard, so getting air to the back seat is harder.
- You miss the little things like the auto-dimming mirror, the large door mirrors, the headliner grab-handles. Little stuff, but nice stuff!
- Dorky single exhaust....whoosh....

Caprice Wagons:

The main thing you give up here is the Vista roof. I personally love the vista glass, and do my kids, but the Caprice can look both lower and cleaner because it does not have this.

The Caprice and OCC seats are basically the same, the Olds just had different trim and optional leather.

The Caprice is odd in that you can have a really stripped model or one that's basically as luxurious as the Custom Cruiser. Most of what the Cruiser had was optional on the Caprice, and the later LT1 Caprice's had very pretty wood door panel trim and the sharp 2nd-gen Caprice dash, just like an Impala SS, only trim differences.

All the Caprice wagons used the same door panels, like the OCC has. Again, to me, these seem to be much better made and mounted than the Roadmaster LT1 panels. BUT you give up the Concert Sound with seperate speakers the LT1 Buicks panels could have. To each his own!

I'm sure there is a lot more, and much of the above is my personal opinion after owning both cars. I have no plans to get rid of my Olds anytime soon...but I WILL have another LT1 Roady again!

Good luck on your search!

-Mike

Thank You Mike. Appreciate the time you put into this post. Great info. I actually think the OCC has the cleanest look. I think I want to try a 94-96 woody though, and I guess it doesn't matter too much whether it is a Buick or Chevy. I don't like tan interior much, and seems a lot of RMW came with it. Still, if a great OCC came my way, I would think about it.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Wed Mar 27, 2013 4:35 pm

I had a 91 OCC for about 9 years and a 95 RMW for almost 3 years.While the 95s power is nice and feels GREAT I still drive my OCC most of the time.You will get slightly better gas mileage with the LT-1 and pulling away from traffic is effortless and getting up to speed when entering the interstate is a hoot.Driving the OCC is not as much fun but its still a smooth comfortable car and I will always have the OCC but am considering sellling my RMW since it sits most of the time anyway.The OCC is definitely the better looking of all 3!
Back to top Go down
cdcdguy

avatar

Posts : 45
Join date : 2013-03-21
Location : Ft. Wayne, Indiana

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Wed Mar 27, 2013 4:47 pm

Flasheroo wrote:
I had a 91 OCC for about 9 years and a 95 RMW for almost 3 years.While the 95s power is nice and feels GREAT I still drive my OCC most of the time.You will get slightly better gas mileage with the LT-1 and pulling away from traffic is effortless and getting up to speed when entering the interstate is a hoot.Driving the OCC is not as much fun but its still a smooth comfortable car and I will always have the OCC but am considering sellling my RMW since it sits most of the time anyway.The OCC is definitely the better looking of all 3!

Ya know Flasheroo, in a way the OCC is the nicest looking wagon. It is a bit more simple, which makes the car look nice, while the RMW is all dressed up, and the Caprice in between. I don't know if I could give up the 5.7 thats in my sedan though.

Another question for anyone. Of the three, what kind of car and miles could I get if I am willing to spend say, 6500 on my next wagon? Can I get excellent condition, and under 75k miles? I want to be realistic. I plan to search the south for rust free and garage the car in winter.

And who is this Fred guy I hear so much about? Can he help me find something? Trustworthy?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:05 pm

Personally I dont think you can get a 75,000 mile wagon for under 6500 bucks unless you find it yourself.I have never heard anyone say anything bad/negative about Fred only good things.He has bought and sold about 1000 of these wagons and has a gift for finding the really nice low mileage ones.Definitely only buy a southern wagon unless its a garage queen thats only driven in the summertime.There are some very knowledgable people here who will help you with any questions you may have so dont be afraid to ask.
Back to top Go down
benn

avatar

Posts : 561
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Ontario, Canada

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:10 pm

IMO you can get a VERY nice low mileage wagon for 6500 or less. search ebay and craigslist like a hawk, they're out there.
Back to top Go down
Cadet57

avatar

Posts : 3046
Join date : 2010-04-13
Age : 29
Location : Chicopee, MA

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:17 pm

buickestate wrote:


rumour was that a few caprice wagons had gotten the v6, but it was later discovered that no wagon was ever optioned with the 4.3 v6, but fred from northstar has seen a few 4.3 v8 caprice wagons..

I thought it's been long debunked that the only 4.3 V8 wagons were the GM test mules?
Back to top Go down
cdcdguy

avatar

Posts : 45
Join date : 2013-03-21
Location : Ft. Wayne, Indiana

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:19 pm

benn wrote:
IMO you can get a VERY nice low mileage wagon for 6500 or less. search ebay and craigslist like a hawk, they're out there.

It took me about 6 months of searching to find my sedan. So I am getting used to this!
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:32 pm

About 2 months ago a 10000 mile 96 RMW popped up in Fla on CLs.I was made aware of it on
a saturday but it was already gone.It was posted on CLs on wednesday afternoon and was sold
the next morning so you had better be ready to move with cash in hand.
Back to top Go down
cdcdguy

avatar

Posts : 45
Join date : 2013-03-21
Location : Ft. Wayne, Indiana

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:38 pm

Flasheroo wrote:
About 2 months ago a 10000 mile 96 RMW popped up in Fla on CLs.I was made aware of it on
a saturday but it was already gone.It was posted on CLs on wednesday afternoon and was sold
the next morning so you had better be ready to move with cash in hand.

I have seen a few on ebay with less than 40k. BUT, not willing to pay 12k. I really doubt they can get that, but could be wrong.
Back to top Go down
81X11

avatar

Posts : 9046
Join date : 2010-06-23
Age : 43
Location : Round Rock Texas

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:31 pm

http://dallas.craigslist.org/mdf/cto/3663444322.html

Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:39 pm

Well somebody is spending big bucks for some custom painted wagons down south and driving them back to canada.He has 4 or 5 on ebay right now and wants big money.If you want to get real good money for your wagon,leave it bonestock.The wagons that consistently bring big money are the unmodified ones.The cleaner and lower miles the better.I am talking about ebay wagons but this rule is for all wagons.
Back to top Go down
Sprocket

avatar

Posts : 5300
Join date : 2008-11-04
Location : Palm Beach County

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:57 pm

Don't get hung up on the mileage so much, as they are all 20 you cars. If properly maintained, a 140K car that's garage kept is better than a 75K car parked outside. especially in the sun.

Fred, goes by the name Ruphraxe on here. Shoot him a PM as he always has something going on. He has sold over 700 wagons although as the sources get scarcer so do the availability.
He's based out of SC these days. Many forum folks have bought from him and he truly loves these cars. If he's selling it he will divulge all that is wrong with it. He's picky about what he buys and any rust is a big turn off for him. Chances are if it's a sweet wagon on CL he already knows about it, lol.

There was a nice 92 OCC last weekend and I waited 4 days to call on it. I missed it by a day I was told....Oh well, keep looking.
Back to top Go down
cdcdguy

avatar

Posts : 45
Join date : 2013-03-21
Location : Ft. Wayne, Indiana

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Thu Mar 28, 2013 5:12 am

Flasheroo wrote:
Well somebody is spending big bucks for some custom painted wagons down south and driving them back to canada.He has 4 or 5 on ebay right now and wants big money.If you want to get real good money for your wagon,leave it bonestock.The wagons that consistently bring big money are the unmodified ones.The cleaner and lower miles the better.I am talking about ebay wagons but this rule is for all wagons.


I prefer them totally stock. Just like they came off the line.
Back to top Go down
cdcdguy

avatar

Posts : 45
Join date : 2013-03-21
Location : Ft. Wayne, Indiana

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Thu Mar 28, 2013 5:17 am

Sprocket wrote:
Don't get hung up on the mileage so much, as they are all 20 you cars. If properly maintained, a 140K car that's garage kept is better than a 75K car parked outside. especially in the sun.

Fred, goes by the name Ruphraxe on here. Shoot him a PM as he always has something going on. He has sold over 700 wagons although as the sources get scarcer so do the availability.
He's based out of SC these days. Many forum folks have bought from him and he truly loves these cars. If he's selling it he will divulge all that is wrong with it. He's picky about what he buys and any rust is a big turn off for him. Chances are if it's a sweet wagon on CL he already knows about it, lol.

There was a nice 92 OCC last weekend and I waited 4 days to call on it. I missed it by a day I was told....Oh well, keep looking.

Rust free is my highest priority for sure. Engine parts are easy to find. Trim and body parts. That is a challenge. And you are right, 140k garage kept is better than 75k not treated well. Sorry you missed out on the 92 OCC.

Thanks for the Ruphraxe info. May contact him.
Back to top Go down
cdcdguy

avatar

Posts : 45
Join date : 2013-03-21
Location : Ft. Wayne, Indiana

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Thu Mar 28, 2013 5:50 am

The car that is for sale in Dallas......

I learned something new. This car has tan seats, but the rest of the interior is blue????? I thought the seat color always matched the dash. Am I missing something????
Back to top Go down
silverfox103
Moderator
avatar

Posts : 2624
Join date : 2008-11-05
Age : 68
Location : Littleton, NH & St. Simons, GA

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:25 am

cdcdguy wrote:
The car that is for sale in Dallas......

I learned something new. This car has tan seats, but the rest of the interior is blue????? I thought the seat color always matched the dash. Am I missing something????

The seats in the picture are blue.

Tom C.
Back to top Go down
cdcdguy

avatar

Posts : 45
Join date : 2013-03-21
Location : Ft. Wayne, Indiana

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:59 am

silverfox103 wrote:
cdcdguy wrote:
The car that is for sale in Dallas......

I learned something new. This car has tan seats, but the rest of the interior is blue????? I thought the seat color always matched the dash. Am I missing something????

The seats in the picture are blue.

Tom C.

That makes sense. Must be the way they were shot or my monitor, because they look tan to me!
Back to top Go down
81X11

avatar

Posts : 9046
Join date : 2010-06-23
Age : 43
Location : Round Rock Texas

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:49 am

cdcdguy wrote:
silverfox103 wrote:
cdcdguy wrote:
The car that is for sale in Dallas......

I learned something new. This car has tan seats, but the rest of the interior is blue????? I thought the seat color always matched the dash. Am I missing something????

The seats in the picture are blue.

Tom C.

That makes sense. Must be the way they were shot or my monitor, because they look tan to me!

My blue interior looks great in person but weird in some pics too. It's the glare. That Dallas car is pretty. Just wish it had less miles.

There is a low-mile '96 Roady over in Houston that should be rust-free, but it has a salvage title, meaning it was wrecked. Have no idea how bad it was wrecked, but only 86K miles is attractive...
http://houston.craigslist.org/ctd/3702857557.html
Back to top Go down
etsfl

avatar

Posts : 17
Join date : 2012-01-07
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:15 pm

Prices are going up
$12K is now a steal


http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/COLLECTORS-/151002932768?_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&forcev4exp=true
Back to top Go down
200OZ
Moderator
avatar

Posts : 1688
Join date : 2009-08-06
Age : 42
Location : Farmington NY.

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:40 pm

Wow, who's the hat rack that bid $16,000 for a nice, but not that nice gold woody?
I bet that car gets re-listed in a few weeks. Passenger rear quarter, front lower fender just behind the tire, nasty carpet....??????
Maybe it's me, but something's not right about this car....
Back to top Go down
cdcdguy

avatar

Posts : 45
Join date : 2013-03-21
Location : Ft. Wayne, Indiana

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:12 am

16 grand with 55k? I must be missing something. Seems like it should be worth half that. Has anyone seen one sell for this much before?
Back to top Go down
buickwagon

avatar

Posts : 903
Join date : 2011-06-10
Location : Muskoka, Ontario

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:07 am

Well I paid more than that for my '92 -- but that was in '93 and it was still sitting on the showroom floor. At the time, I thought it was a heck of a deal...
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:47 am

200OZ wrote:
Wow, who's the hat rack that bid $16,000 for a nice, but not that nice gold woody?
I bet that car gets re-listed in a few weeks. Passenger rear quarter, front lower fender just behind the tire, nasty carpet....??????
Maybe it's me, but something's not right about this car....

You are right about it looking strange,front end around the grill and headlights looks photoshopped to me.Of course I'am blind in one eye and cant see out of the other. Rolling Eyes
Back to top Go down
81X11

avatar

Posts : 9046
Join date : 2010-06-23
Age : 43
Location : Round Rock Texas

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:37 am

Looks like it was hit in the front to me. Bumper is touching the grill, and headlights are under the hood edge. Bumper itself seems to be angled up just a bit.
Back to top Go down
Mark 96 Roady



Posts : 728
Join date : 2012-06-30
Age : 58
Location : Cleveland/Ft Myers Beach FL

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:49 pm

I paid 5200 for my 96 Roady from Fred last May. 96, no wood, all options, 75,000 miles. Body is a little beat, but zero rust. Runs like a champ, great gas mileage, smooth as silk. Good luck with your hunt, and by all means contact Fred if you are serious.
Back to top Go down
mp775



Posts : 115
Join date : 2011-09-06
Age : 38
Location : Pawtucket, RI 02860

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:39 pm

81X11 wrote:
Looks like it was hit in the front to me. Bumper is touching the grill, and headlights are under the hood edge. Bumper itself seems to be angled up just a bit.

Autocheck didn't come up with any accident records, but the seller most likely purchased it from Copart.
Back to top Go down
buickwagon

avatar

Posts : 903
Join date : 2011-06-10
Location : Muskoka, Ontario

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:48 pm

[quote="mp775"]
81X11 wrote:
Autocheck didn't come up with any accident records, but the seller most likely purchased it from Copart.

Same serial number. Interesting that the hood is unlatched and up in the Copart photos. I see Copart sold it last September. I wonder how much it went for?
Back to top Go down
81X11

avatar

Posts : 9046
Join date : 2010-06-23
Age : 43
Location : Round Rock Texas

PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:09 pm

$16K?? That's NUTS! Rust all under the hood, and I'm sure the underside looks the same/worse.

Low miles yes, but still....PSYCO!
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC   

Back to top Go down
 
RMW Vs. CW Vs. OCC
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
GM Longroof Forum :: Longroof Tech :: Wagon General Discussion-
Jump to: