I've got a 72 442 convertible (allegedly) I'm doing a frame off on. I'm building it the exact way I want it (no options stock original) with W-25 455 4spd non A/C. It's a code 65 Flame Orange/ white top & interior car that came with the H code 350 2V TH350 combo. There's lots of the indirect evidence it was a original 442 like the boxed rear arms rear sway bar that had - groan - NEVER been off the car, the original fenders that only have ever had the 442 holes drilled and receipts from previous owners back to the early 90's claiming it as a 442.

I have the original owners manual(s) and - surprise - in it was a letter written from a D. Stehle Milwaukee zone manager for Olds to the original owner - a D.L. Byrd from Marshfield Wisconsin. It's kind of like a thanks for buying it and making sure you perform the service work at the dealer it was bought from. It has the VIN number at the top, but it states that the car purchased is a "1972 Cutlass Supreme Oldsmobile". I know that this does not confirm it was orginally a 442, but does it categorically deny it is? Since in 72 there was no separate series for the 442, would the letter have called it a 442 if it were a legitimate 442? Does anyone else have one of these letters that has a documented 442? Thanks!!

 

Hmm that is a good question. 442 in '72 was just an appearance and handling package, so my guess would be it was addressed as a Cutlass Supreme and not 442. I have a letter from zone manager thanking my grandfather for his purchase of an Oldsmobile that came with the protect-o-plate and it didn't even specify Cutlass Supreme. Build sheet, window sticker, sales order slip, etc will be your only true way to document it in fact is a W-29. Now if you had an "X" in the VIN, (W30) then by default it is a 442.

 

I am not familiar with the letter but would imagine that the author was not intimately involved with the sale of the car. It was most likely a form letter he sent out to all new owners working off the paper work of the sale. The VIN calls it a Cutlass Supreme, like all '72 convertibles were. I don't think this indicates in any way that it was not originally a 442. JMO.

 

Is this the same car that you posted here a few months back sitting on a flatbed that had white Cutlass Supreme-type stripes on it (instead of 442 stripes)? Prior repaint, maybe?

 

Per the VIN, ALL 1972 442 convertibles were Cutlass Supremes with the W-29 Appearance and Handling Package, so the handwritten note neither proves nor disproves anything.

 

Is this the picture you are talking about? Mine did have a whole mish mash of incorrect exterior stuff on it. It has been painted at least twice since new before now.

 

Thanks Joe - the note is actually typed on Oldsmobile letterhead. It's cool the letter actually stated the original dealer for the car was Crown Olds/Cadillac - somewhere in Wisconsin. A google search turned up nothing.

 

Yep, that's it. I guess you'll never know for sure whether it came with the 442 option. That dealer letter you have is a neat little artifact but as you've already heard it's not going to help one way or the other. Gonna be a nice car when it's done, though .

Also, I assume all of the mounting "pins" used for any side and rocker moldings it would've had IF it were originally a Cutlass Supreme WITHOUT the 442 option would've been ground off the body by the time you got the car.

 

I think the best bet for a 1972 442 is if you have a numbers-matching car and engine with the 455. This also applies for the 350 motor, but all previous 442s had the 400/425/455 motors in them (might have misspoke here, but the mainpoint is it never came with a 350) up until 72 when you could order the 442 package on a 350 car. For instance, I have a #s matching 72 442 convertable with the 455 and all the correct 442 "stuff", so I am confident to label it or advertise it as a true 442-optioned Cutlas Supreme. If the engine numbers didn't match, I would be dubiuos. At the same time, any "normal" 350 Cutty Supreme can have all the 442 stuff added on, but you just never know if it's real, then, do ya?