1968 Cutlass S convertible

[West Peterson]

My brother recently purchased a very nice, very low-mileage 1968 Cutlass S convertible. It is equipped with the 250cid six-cylinder engine. He realizes that this is not a very desirable package, but he's interested in knowing how rare it might be. He's not trying to equate rarity with value, he's just curious.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

I would guess fairly rare, West. We sold a '68 Cutlass "S" convt. not too long ago. You probably know but "S" in that year is an appearance/accy. package not performance. Buckets, console shifter, rallye wheels, sport hood and some badging, I believe was that option. Assume it is a two speed auto?

Sharp cars, but surprisingly some items are tough to source unlike a Chevelle or Pontiac variant on this platform.

[trimacar]

I bought a brand new 1969 Cutlass, in 1969, as a high school graduation gift (oh, OK, my PARENTS bought it, but I picked out the options).

I don't even remember a 6 cylinder being available, but I just researched it on line, and it was a Chevy-built 250 with a two-speed "Jet-Away" automatic transmission. I can tell you that the salesman then, even though I was ordering a car for gas mileage (three speed on the tree, believe it was a 2.93 rear end), never even mentioned a 6 cylinder.

I would say this combination, then, and more so now, is extremely rare. A perfect case of "rare may not be desirable", but if you want some interesting reactions when you open the hood at a cruise-in or show, this'd be the car to have!

I'm sure the die-hard Olds guys will hop in, but I can tell you I've looked at a lot of 68-69 Cutlass cars over the years, as I always wanted another one (and found the right one a few years back), but until today was unaware such a beast existed!

[West Peterson]

I'm in agreement. I suspect that hardly anyone was aware that the six even existed. It's really an oddity. He says it's fun to drive, and really doesn't seem underpowered for normal driving. I'll post a few pictures, as soon as he sends me some.

[Oldsfan]

Oldsmobile produced 410 6-cylinder Cutlass S convertibles, the third rarest in the line, lead by the 2-seat wagon at 354 (saw one of them in a junque yarde once, with vacuum power door locks!), and the Holiday sedan at 265.

By comparison they built 13,667 8-cylinder Cutlass S convertibles, and another 5,142 442s.

Rare? Yes. Why? 'Cause nobody wanted them when they were new. These were days when Olds owners wanted their Oldsmobiles with Rocket V8 engines. Remember that business with the Chevrolet 350s in the mid 70's?

Desirable? I don't know.

Novelty? Definitely.

Send him to the link below and have him join the NAOC! We recently raised our acceptance year to a rolling 35 year cut-off.

Paul

[joe_padavano]

I'm in agreement. I suspect that hardly anyone was aware that the six even existed.

Well, SOME of us were...

The six cylinder cars had unique VINs in those years. It was the base engine in the F-85 (VIN starting 331...) and Cutlass (VIN 335...). The V8 cars had VINs starting 332... and 336..., respectively. I suspect that most dealers did not order six cylinder cars to have on the lot, as if you were looking for a bottom of the line low cost car, you probably weren't shopping at an Olds dealership in the first place.

An interesting bit of trivia: The 1964-65 Cutlass cars used the Buick 225 V6. The 1966-71 cars used the Chevy 250 I6. There was no six cylinder offered by Olds in the 1972 model year. In 1973, the I6 returned as the bottom of the line engine.

[West Peterson]

Thanks for the information.

Dave, speaking of economy, he has just reported the car gets more than 20mpg! He bought it from the original owner and it has just 41,000 miles on it. Still completely original, including top, interior and paint. Here are some photos.

Edited August 17, 2011 by West Peterson (see edit history)

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Interesting - different wheels, no console but AT - I could be wrong about what comprised the "S" package but thought that was part of it. It does look to have the "S" insignia on the fenders, though, and the sport hood.

Mine had a vacuum power trunk but it really did not work that well.

I bet, like the Mustangs of that era, the 6 is plenty for everyday driving. Nice car.

[Oldsfan]

The wheels look Buick to me (with maybe Olds centers). No doubt a car so sparsely equipped originally came with plain wheel covers and these wheels were added at a later date.

The bucket seats were standard on the S convertible, optional on the S coupes. Console was most likely optional on all three models if bucket seat equipped. Bench seat was standard on the S coupes and more than likely a no-cost option on the convertible. My '72 Supreme convertible was like that. Buckets were standard, but the original owner had 4 kids. They needed all the room they could get, so they opted for the bench seat.

This brings to mind a '72 Supreme convertible I see every now and then - Sequoia Green with Saddle top and interior. Bench seat, no power steering or brakes, 3-speed column shift and poverty hubcaps. And a ton of miles - like over 300K.

Paul

[trimacar]

Wow, neat car. Not to be a vulture (well, OK, but I won't circle much), but if he ever wants to sell it have him keep me in mind, that is SO cool.

I keep telling my 15 year old son (he wants my '69 Cutlass convertible to drive!) that we're looking for a Sherman tank with a small 4 cylinder engine in it, to keep him out of trouble. A Cutlass 6 cylinder might work too!!

[West Peterson]

The wheels look Buick to me (with maybe Olds centers). No doubt a car so sparsely equipped originally came with plain wheel covers and these wheels were added at a later date.

Paul

I believe they are correct Oldsmobile Rallye SS1 wheels, are they not???. They are not reproductions, but they were added later... as in a few months ago (Craigslist find).

I found this site with the wheels.

http://www.antiquetyres.com.au/oldsmobile-ssi-style-rallye

Edited August 17, 2011 by West Peterson (see edit history)

[Oldsfan]

I think they are these:

Buick Style Rallye | Antique Tyres

Close, but not the same. The Olds wheel has spokes that get wider as they reach out toward the rim. The ones on the car seem to be the same width. Also, the spokes on the Olds are flat as they taper out toward the rim. The wheels on the car seem to have spokes that are dished, which is what Buick did.

I wouldn't bet my life on it, but I think they are Buick style rims.

Something else that wondered me about this bare-bones car was the fender peak moldings. I had a '68 Delta 88 Custom and they were optional on that car. I couldn't imagine someone spending the money for these moldings on this convertible when they didn't spring for anything else other than a radio and an automatic transmission. Turns out these fender peak moldings are standard on the S models.

Oh, and the bench seat - a $68.46 credit option.

Paul

[West Peterson]

Subtle indeed. It takes a keen eye to see that. Thanks for the information.

[Oldsfan]

My dad doesn't call me "Eagle Eye" for nuthin'. Critical to a fault...

Paul

[joe_padavano]

The wheels are Buick, clearly not original. Most folks confuse them with the SSI wheels (AKA Magnum 500s). Also, the "sport" hood was standard on all convertibles, regardless of trim level.

[Guest]

West, I'm the original owner of a 76 Omega. Originally looking for a Ventura-2, I found out that Pontiac had changed the base engine to the Buick V-6 which I'm not fond of. The Chevy I-6 is a IMO a better engine with it's seven main bearings. My engine is still painted in it's original Chevy orange. I know in 1964-65 Pontiac Tempest painted the straight six 215 from Chevy Pontiac Blue. Seems like Olds did the same for a while. My 1976 service manual shows the Chevy I-6 as the standard engine for Omega and Cutlass (F-85 for that year is the price leader Omega) and would be the last time Olds would use the engine as 1977 Olds makes the switch to Buick V-6. My car used to get 32 HWY MPG until ethanol. Now at 10% ethanol is mileage is 28MPG. Never thought I would say this, but that car is the most trouble free car I've ever owned. Still in it's original engine and body paint and original interior (brougham model). At 110,000 miles it even has it's original rear brake shoes, carb, fuel pump, P/S pump, alternator etc. etc. When I'm at car shows the car will attract tons of attention. At first they think Nova, then they expect a V-8, but always a crowd and questions.

Don

Here is two pictures; http://www.pismoderelicts.com/photogallery/new%20format%20830/images/p1080789.jpg

http://www.pismoderelicts.com/photogallery/new%20format%20832/images/img_0124.jpg

[West Peterson]

Nice car.

I had a 1976 Nova with the I-6 and 3-speed manual. Loved it. Very powerful (relative, I know). I'm not sure why I sold it, but it went gone after I got out of college. I guess I figured I was going to conquer the world and needed something other than a Nova in which to do it. It was a very low-mileage car, too, but was just a used car at the time, less than 10 years old.

Edit: Just remembered. I sold my 1973 Camaro Rally Sport and the Nova because neither had air conditioning, and I was moving to Georgia.

Edited August 18, 2011 by West Peterson (see edit history)

[Guest]

One thing I forgot to mention was that if anyone out here decides to choose/collect these type of cars that at least AACA and OCA people generally are very nice and accepting and have the attitude that if it came that way it's OK with me. There are some clubs that wouldn't be as accepting. If I showed up at a Pontiac event with a car that was just like my Olds except a Ventura 11 I would be getting comments like " Nice Chevy Nova" or Pontiac power only.

Does anyone know how Cadillac clubs react to LaSalles and Mid 70's Seville's/ Eldorado's with Olds engines? Or how about Cimmeron? I'm curious because I really like 75-79 Seville and 79 Eldorado.

Don

[West Peterson]

When saying LaSalle, are you referring to the oft used but incorrect thought that it used an Oldsmobile engine? Same displacement, but different... or so I've been told.

[Bleach]

I looked at one about 30 years ago an even then I remember it was a rare model. The seller wanted $2000 for it. It had a new top and interior but sadly was a rust bucket which the seller conveniently neglected telling me before seeing it. If it would have been solid I would have certainly bought it.

Timacar, if you want a tuff car for your son that will never get him in trouble, get him a mid 80's Mercedes 240D with an automatic. Those cars are extremely safe, are slower than snails, get excellent fuel economy, but last almost forever.

[Guest]

When saying LaSalle, are you referring to the oft used but incorrect thought that it used an Oldsmobile engine? Same displacement, but different... or so I've been told.

West, yes I was referring to the straight eight. According to the Standard Catalog of Cadillac which states; some of the changes to the 34 LaSalle for cost cutting measures were the use of many components from other GM divisions including the use of the Oldsmobile straight eight. What I'm really interested in is what Cadillac clubs think of Olds engines in 1975-79 Seville and 1979 Eldorado. Would they look down or think less of these cars like Pontiac guys who look down on a late 70's California emission equipped Trans Am with a Olds 403, or a 1979 Bonneville instead of having the standard 301 real Pontiac V-8 engine has the optional Chevy built 350? Also many people in the Pontiac community do not consider Canadian Pontiac's with Chevy narrow track/shorter wheelbase and Chevy engines to be Pontiac's at all-just glorified Chevy's. As I said before, I really like some of those mid 70's Cadillac's and might like to get one.

Don

[trimacar]

Interesting thought on the Mercedes. I had a 240SL a while back, the scary part was high parts prices (brake pads $250 each, rear brake drum $1800, those kind of high prices, although you could find reconditioned/used fairly reasonable).

Thanks.....

[Bleach]

Prices for the SL's parts can be spendy if they were specific to the model. Many of the Benzes of the 70's and 80's use parts interchangeably between the models. Parts can be had for fairly cheap if you can figure out what interchanges. I have a '84 300D and I've been able to keep it going for no more than a common Ford or Chevy model. I recently got a good set of brake pads for less than $20 delivered from ebay.

Sorry for the hi-jack.