Oldsmobile Intrigue

ab348

Too bad it wasn't an Accord. Nobody would miss it!

v8lincolnguy

You could probably find an identical model(exact to every feature and color) of that Accord at the next used car lot. Funny thing, the only other Intrigue which I saw which was petty much exactly like mine(black GLS with PCS package and gold trim) was the one that got wrecked in the Matrix Reloaded. One the roads, I think I've only seen one other GLS with the PCS badge, chrome wheels, spoiler, and sunroof and it was Silver.

focus

purchased couple winter wiper blade from crappy tire for $12.50 each last night. I called around this morning to find who carrys the bosch microedge, hard to find but finally got them at British Auto Supply on Ossington Ave, good price and great service (put them on for me no charge).
Bosch quoted me $22 each, one supplier quoted $18, British Auto - $13!
i'll be back to crappy tire again tonight, for a refund. (they told me bosch doesn't make wiper anymore)

bchuc

My 2002 Intrigue (3.5L) has about 42K miles and I am finding it used a quart of oil every 3,500 miles. My friends tell me that is burning too much oil. What do you guys think?

dindak

Not a bad deal. Let me know how you like em.

I have OEMs back on mine. Doing a good job in this horrid winter weather we have had!

ketch

I use more when i rev it near redline, the more i do, the more oil used, but never have seen it down more than a half quart in 4k miles. Also now, i have what seems an oil pan gasket leak (at 35k miles on my '00) that drips a drop a night. No plans yet to get this fixed, but will need to at some point.

ketch

Well after seeing this new Buick, to break cover at the Chicago Auto Show, it seems, IMO, to be the only mid size car to come close to the great looks of the Intrigue. I love it, and would buy one (a CXL with the 3.6 VVTi CTS engine) in a heartbeat if i was replacing the Olds.

dindak

It's has all the goods but the look is a bit old for me. At this point (if I was looking), I would wait out the G6 and get something a little sportier.

b4z

Have you been to the "Future Vehicles" section of edmunds and seen te Lacrosse thread?

I wish that GM would have kept the Shortstar around a couple of years to fill the gap, but it was not to be.

msw13

Shortstar maybe, but you'll have to get a '04 Bonneville GXP or a Cadillac to get the Northstar V8 power and torque.....As far as getting the PCM flashed to allow a higher top end, the dealer could maybe re-flash to the AutoBahn code if you had the Brakes and Tires to match (12" Rotors & 'H' Rated tires). You could ask and see what they say. BTW, just got back from my Tahoe trip, and got 31 mpg on one leg of the trip. Not bad for an old pushrod 3.8. Great road car, drove over 500 miles with only two stops, in under 8 hours. I got a set of Michelin Pilot HX tires just before the trip, and man are they nice. The road noise is minimal now, compared to the OE LS' they replace. Great skiing and nice casinos too.

evandro

A regular Intrigue most likely cannot be flashed with the code for that with PCS. Not only would the speedometer state the wrong speed due to the different axle ratios, but it would probably go into "lame mode" because it cannot find the PCS software in the brake system...

Of course one could flash the brake system with the PCS code, but I'm pretty sure that the hardware is different.

ozznet

Well the Intrigue and I survived two -50 days(with windchill)in a row in Winterpeg. The car started like it was a hot summer day in July. It did take 10 minutes for heat but thats besides the point.

dindak

I have NEVER had trouble starting the Intrigue no matter how cold. The shifter does stiffen up in extreme cold, but I'm sure that's nothing new.

lmacmil

I may have mentioned this before. Anyone have this problem? I've got a TSB on it which says replace the thermostat. I don't know how a car that never gets above the 1/2 way mark in the summer could get halfway between 3/4 and the red zone when the temp is single digits as it did today.

ketch

Sorry msw, yes perhaps the LX5 is not a true Norhtstar, but is Northstar derived, and was even built in a the same factory as the v8. ALL were part of the "premium V" series. So you'll have to humor me as I still say mine is "Northstar powered" (tongue in cheek).

BTW, I also recently got the Pilots and love them!

ketch

Ok, just read the future cars thread, and it appears to be a pretty slim place to get coming GM related car info. I get mine at Cheers and Gears, where they have allot more on this. Oh, and I still love the LaCrosse (but only with the 3.6) and feel it is a worthy Intrigue replacement perhaps.

taycron

My 2000 Intrigue's transmission seems to slip a little when I hit 40mph.. It's nothing serious. It feels like it's either hunting for a gear or maybe third gear is just abrupt.. I have read that others have had this problem.. I think it only happens when it's cold.. I have 114,000 miles so I should change the tranny fluid and get a new filter.. Not that it will cure the problem..

again, it doesn't seem serious. It's mostly a little annoying..

msw13

I know the lineage of the Shortstar well. But, you really must drive a Northstar to see what a V8 can do. The 3.5 is a good motor, but got axed by the bean counters or some idiot. They still don't get it I guess. I only have a lowly 3.8 in my Intrigue GL, but it runs good, has about the same torque as a Shortstar, and gets good mileage. It moves out of the hole almost like a V8. I only have the K& N cone on it too. I am going to test drive a Bonnevill GXP soon. Do you like Vegas so far? I have a couple of cousins who live there. Have a good one.

dindak

3.5L was axed because it was expensive to build and would have been expensive to upgrade to the new emissions standards. I hope a new 3.5/3.4 is spawned from the 3.6L in the Cadillac CTS soon.

I'm tempted to buy a Colorado Crew Cab to get the new I-5 spawned from that cool I-6 in the Trailblazer.

evandro

You're at least 14000mls past a fluid flush and filter change, so it might be it. Or, depending on your driving habits, you're 54000mls past due...

Either way, that tranny needs new blood ASAP! Just hope everything gets well afterwards.

evandro

The Shortstar was a strategic mistake. It should have been a 60° design, not a 90° V which limited the applications it could be installed on. That's why even 4000lbs minivans sport the meager 60° 3.4 OHV V6, not the cost-efficient and torquey 90° 3.8 OHV V6. Not to mention international applications which usually don't provide much room under the hood (and everywhere else, for this matter).

But bad packaging is not its only problem. Even for its time it was a bit underpowered and didn't reach its expectations among GM divisions, especially for heavy applications which required a flexible torque curve. The potential for improvements was also short and would require about as much money as starting from scratch. GM chose the latter and thus the 3.6 V6, the 1st of a family that'll range between 2.8 and 4.0l.

taycron

I called a mechanic I know about a transmission fluid flush and he thinks that flushes are a waste of money.. He believes that mechanics do it just to make more money.. He says he's been working on cars for a long time and he's never seen an auto tranny that needed it. He did recommend a fluid change and a new filter which I will be doing soon.. Thanks..

Does anyone here think that a flush is necessary?

sda

I think it was a mistake to make the 3.5 a 90 degree engine instead of the more space efficient 60 degrees. However,you can hardly claim the 3.5 as underpowered. Horsepower can easily be boosted from 215 to 240+ and it has a decent torque curve. Uses regular gas, too. As a comparison, the 3.5 Intrigue will accelerate 0-60 mid to high 7s,and in the heavier Aurora, low to mid 8's. That is almost as good as the 4.0 Northstar Aurora. Granted, not the fastest, but I don't think it qualifies for being underpowered. Heck, I remember in the late 70's, early 80's anything that could do 0-60 in 10 seconds was considered quick. Mom's 78 Olds 98 with the 403 4bbl V8 was in this category, but only got 13mpg. We've come a long way since then.

evandro

I mentioned the flushing because you may be 54000mls past due and there may be a lot of debris in that fluid, so removing all of it before it clogs some passage and ruins the whole tranny sounds resonable.

Use your best judgment. Good luck.

evandro

Relatively speaking, it is underpowered. By '98, 200HP was commonplace for a 3.0l engine running on regular. 215HP is about 20HP shy of what would be normal (67HP/l).

Its peak torque, however, was consistent with its displacement and its torque curve was typical of multi-valve engines without cam phasing.

However, don't get me wrong, it's no slouch and I enjoy driving it. But I understand why GM abandoned it and moved on to the new V6 family.

Yet, another casualty of this move to better packaging is the passing of the venerable 3.8 OHV V6. I guess nothing can last forever.

dindak

By today's standards, the 3.5L is nothing too special in terms of power. Back in 99 it was better than any other sedan in class aside from the Max. I still think it has great power, more than I need but I like that ok.

Would have loved to see an 05 Intrigue with the 3.6L under the hood. Ah to dream!

sda

When/where did you learn of this? I thought GM would never retire the 3.8, just keep introducing new Series...III IV V VI...Boo hoo. I had the original 3.8 231 V6 105hp w/out balance shaft in my 1976 Pontiac Sunbird that I drove during my college years. Not very quick even with the 5 speed. I think it ran 0-60 in 13.5 seconds. Good lumpy idle. It would get 30mpg highway.

msw13

I saw the new Impala SS and Monte Carlo SS at the GM Auto Show in Motion two weeks ago, and they both have Series II 3.8 Supercharged engines in them... I don't think GM is phasing it out yet...As a matter of fact, I have the '04 Pontiac sales brochure, and they show the 3.8 Series II in the Bonneville SLE, and the Series III in the Grand Prix GT.

b4z

Shortstar not really underpowered.
In '99 Accord had 200hp from 3.0L but only 200lb ft. torque.
'99 Intrigue only had 15 more hp, but 34 lb ft. more torque.
The Intrigue had noticeably more off line power than the Accord I drove.
I test drove the accord first and 30 minutes later test drove te Intrigue. I bought the Intrigue. Honda was slightly smoother though.
But I don't think anybody here is surprised by that.
Accord had much steeper gearing and Intrigue had noticeably better hwy mileage.

evandro

I did point out that it's torque is up to the task, especially in a mid-size as the Intrigue, but it would hardly be a good engine throughout GM, as was the case in the Aurora, and over the next few years.

Certainly, with the proper development it could become what the 3.6 is, but its 90° design was the straw that broke the camel's back.

evandro

The Series III is the last iteration of this venerable engine. It's been upgraded to the emissions standard that'll be in place until 2010/2015 and it'll have no further development. But it'll be around for a good few years, but don't expect to see many new models sporting it.

The 60° 3.4 has been overhauled into a 3.5, and soon into a 3.9 as well with comparable power to the 3.8. It will be the base of a "value" family of OHV V6 and the 3.6, of a "high-feature" family of DOHC V6.

evandro

And in '99 the Maxima had a 3.0 V6... In other words, the 3.5 was a very good engine for a "3.0". :-)

But I don't want to trash it. I like it and can live with it for, hopefully, years to come in my Intrigue. ;-)

rhall4

All I know Is that I have a real delemia when it comes time to replace my 2000 intrigue as I will
never again drive behind an OHV engine that pretty much limits my next purchase to import or Caddy,
I just love the silky smoothness and free revving
nature of my shortstar and havent really driven
a car yet I would like like to buy to replace it with, cost for value wise anyway.

evandro

Yep, the domestic choices are quite limited. I myself want to check out the upcoming Buick LaCrosse with the 3.6 DOHC V6 and the Ford 500 with the known 3.0 DOHC V6, based on the Volvo S80's platform.

I drove a Taurus with the 3.0 DOHC V6 and, in spite of disliking everything else about the car, save roominess, the engine was very similar to our 3.5 DOHC V6.

b4z

I think we are all basically on the same page here, but I feel that I have to reiterate the gearing thing.

I prefer to say that Honda/Nissan/Toyota made up for their engines lack of low end power and torque by putting steeper gears in, therefore hurting highway mileage.

Rather than to say the shortstar wasn't that much more powerful than the competitions' 3.0L motors.

If anything the competition gained nothing by having a smaller displacment engine.

Not only was there not a gas mileage advantage, there was a DISADVANTAGE!

The Intrigue got similiar acceleration, and BETTER higway mileage out of a larger engine.

Think about it, Honda put gearing in the 4.00s to
keep up with Intrigue's 3.29's.
The Honda had 30% more torque multiplication than the Intrigue did!

I gotta tell ya' I am so good i scare myself. LOL.

To me the Intrigue had the better package of acceleration, and efficiency. All in a car that offered more room than the competition.

Too bad all the people that bought Honda's didn't feel that way too. LOL.

dindak

Don't forget, the Max sucked premium fuel! Still does I think.

As for OHVs, they are getting real good. I tested the new 3.5L in the Malibu and it's very smooth, responsive and peppy. The new 3.9L which is based on the 3.5L should be even better with 240hp. My thinking is in a few years when i replace the Intrigue I'll get a G6 with a 3.9L.

msw13

Dindak has it right, the OHV 's are getting a lot better. I recently drove the Z06 Corvette, with the LS6 OHV making 405 hp, it has 465 lb. ft of torque that move the car quickly. And makes more hp than most OHC motors of similar displacement . Doing it with less moving parts and maintenance and better reliability. GM has done their homework, and the next generation of OHV engines will have Variable Cam Timing like the OHC engines now have. I'm keeping my options open.

jjpowell2

Our '01 GL is back in the shop for an extended stay. On our way back from shopping on Thursday(a 5 mile trip)we heard the awful whirrrrrrrrrrrrr and clunk from the transmission. This happened once last year and they only had to replace some small computer chip. Luckily we were only 1.5 miles from the dealership. The car's only got 37,000 miles and we have the 5 yr/60,000 warranty so GM supplied a loaner car. The transmission is being overhauled and we don't know how long til we get it back!!

It's been such a love/hate relationship with this car and only great service from the local dealership and the warranty has kept us going.

Our laundry list of major work:
5 alternators for dimming lights(still happens when temps below 55), new tires within 2 weeks, new starter, new struts, new tie rods, new right front wheel hub, replaced ISS and now transmission.

evandro

I agree, even without being a brilliant engine, the 3.5 was a much better deal. But nowadays it would require major developments and wouldn't fit the needs for better packaging.

I concede that calling it a mistake perhaps gave the wrong impression. It was a mistake, in light of GM's needs, to build a 90° V6.

Had the 3.5 got the cam phasing from the Northstar, I have to wonder how many HP it would be unleashing...

b4z

There was a 225 hp version that Oldsmobile had already developed, but when Olds was killed in 12/00 any further improvements were stopped.
Also it apparently couldn't meet 2003 emisssions regs without more development(standard version).

ketch

msw, ya the Northstar v8's are awesome, as will the XV12 coming, but the shortstar is outstanding in its own right (and as you know was a Wards "top 10 engines" list maker).
I agree with many here for packaging, and natural balance too, that a 60 degree design would have been better, but there was some savings by chopping two cylinders of the v8 and using the same line to build it.

Overall, the 3.5 was not underpowered, esp. in that it uses low octane, and the torque was competitive. Overall a great engine, still is, and why I love the car (that and the styling).
getting the Northstar system like the limp-home mode/no coolant/air cooled and other fucntionality is great.

BTW, msw, you asked about Vegas- it's insteresting, really a "suburb" of LA, and allot of CA have/are moving here. Drivers are the worst I have ever seen, overly aggressive, run light, no signals, no courtesy at all. Great recreatioinal areas close by and cost of living low (but home prices soaring at about 20% a year). Overall we like it but are still homesick after being near Chicago for 40 years (been here a year).

evandro

I don't fall for the hype about OHC. In the past, OHV limited the red-line, but much less so nowadays. For family sedans, OHV engines have a similar red-line as OHC ones.

Of course, for better breathing in high RPMs, more valves are desirable and currently it's easier to do so with OHC designs. However, without cam-phasing, there may be too many compromises between low and high RPM, as we all know. That's, why unlike most of its competition, the Intrigue sported a bigger displacement, so as to provide a good amount of low RPM torque, while harnessing the better high RPM qualities of multi-valve designs.

However, GM developed a cost-efficient multi-valve OHV design that should be seen in the upcoming 3.9. It sure looks overly complex in the drawings I've seen so far and I have to wonder about its long-term reliability.

But, more importantly, the same 3.9 will also sport cam-phasing, a first in OHV designs, and in and of itself it should improve both low RPM vibration and high RPM torque.

There should be some good alternatives out there in the next 1 or 2 years for those who have been hooked by a car like the Intrigue.

dindak

3.9L shoould have DOD on it in 2005 which will be cool.

v8lincolnguy

Remember that the bulk of those buying Honda Accords aren't even buying the great performing V6 model, but the mundane 4 cylinder model. I'd like to see a break out of Accord sales by trim line. I'd dare say 70% or more are the 4 cylinder LX model. I said this before, maybe Olds should have offered a base Intrigue model which had a 4 cylinder engine, 15" wheels with plastic covers, no ABS, no traction control, rear drum brakes, and none of the little extras the car had like auto door locks, auto on-off lights, etc. They could have sold the car for the magical "under $20K" price of $19,999. That and some advertising and Olds probably would have sold 150K or more annually.

v8lincolnguy

I know exactly how you feel. My experience with my Intrigue(2001 GLS) went from love to love/hate. At least you've got a good dealer to take care of you. I had one lousy dealer and one that was merely acceptable. Actually, my biggest problem was every time the car needed parts, it was as if they were coming from Iraq. It would be 1-2 weeks for many of them. The transmission was a major problem on mine. It was rebuilt twice and finally last spring when it continued to slip, they replaced it. Alternator was replaced once, but didn't fix the "winking" headlights. P/S high pressure line ruptured in the parking lot of a shopping mall 2 days before Christmas 2002. Car was towed in to the dealer and I didn't see it again until the first week of 2003. Then last summer while on a trip the steering gear started binding and making a loud noise when making a right turn. Took about 10 days for that part to come in. Car was purchased 07/01 and only had 35K on it when I traded it last September. Surprisingly, I didn't have the suspension problems that many others have had. They only problem there was the components needed lubricating fairly often as the bushings would get dry and I'd get noises. Also, at 35K the brake rotors hadn't warped.

ab348

If Olds had built a base Accord-like Intrigue you just know the automotive press would be dumping all over it, saying "this is what's wrong with the American auto industry", etc. It amazes me how Honda, Nissan, Mazda, etc., can do that and essentially rook the buying public into paying top dollar for a pretty basic car because of the Japanese-car mystique that it somehow won't break. And the automotive press lets them get away with it. The hypocrisy is amazing.

b4z

A lot of dealer's screamed for a bench seat option on the Intrigue. They never got it of course.
It seemed to alienate a lot of older buyers.

Also, I feel Olds got the suspension all wrong.
But I will save that rant for another time.

vcjumper

Altima is getting lots of changes this year, including an overhauled interior and changes to its front and rear end. Apparently the clear tailights are changing.
Could be a very improved option for Intrigue owners looking to move on.

For me really, one of the best things about the Intrigue was that it pretty much tanked by the end of the 99 model year in the marketplace. Enabled me to get a pretty good car dirt cheap.

b4z

You are correct.
Mine MSRP'd at $23,000. Bought it march 1999.
Paid 21.5K for it.
Got a special lease deal, but that was it.

Now you can buy cars for 6-7K off.

v8lincolnguy

A bench seat, your kidding right? What an abortion that would have been in a car like the Intrigue. Although I've never seen one, the 97-93 generation GP and the current generation Bonneville offer a bench front seat option. Somehow I just don't think it would look right in either of those cars.