bullmastiff13

So awhile back I got my hands on a 72 Cutlass S that was kept in a climate controlled storage unit for about 20 years. The body is in great condition except for a little rust on the floor. The car is currently disassembled and I'm looking at selling it since I got too many projects to work on. I have been told by some friends not to sell it since it is a post car. I've been told that it might be rare. Is this true? With some cars, I realize that just because it's rare doesn't always mean that it's worth a lot. The vin is 3G77H2R154529. Any info would be greatly appreciated! Thanks

joe_padavano

Post cars are rare because they were unpopular when new in the 1960s. The post cars were primarily bottom-of-the-line loss leaders. Everyone wanted the hardtops, which look much better, and therefore sold in much greater numbers. The whole concept of post cars being rare AND valuable was created by sellers trying to polish a turd.

Some people like them (some people bought Azteks, also). Post cars are marginally lighter than hardtops (there's under 100 lbs difference in most cases, when equipped the same) and are also marginally stiffer. This made them desirable race car fodder (the lower base price didn't hurt, either).

joe_padavano

To head off the cards and letters from the lovers of post cars, let me clarify that I wasn't implying that post cars are turds, only that sellers after a fast buck are trying to artificially inflate the price of less desirable vehicles by claiming rarity. The fact remains that if the car was less desirable when new, it's probably less desirable (and thus less valuable) now. As an example, a 442 is MUCH more rare than the same year Chevelle SS (by about 10:1). With the same condition and level of equipment, which one will sell for more on today's market?

Allan R

As Joe already mentioned, Post coupes had much lower production numbers - hence there would be much less of them left all things being equal.
Here's what your VIN decodes as:
3 - Oldsmobile division of GM
G - Cutlass S
77 - Series 77 - Sport coupe (post) - note series 87 was Holiday coupe; also referred to as hardtop
H - 2 bbl 350 engine rated at 160 hp
2 - 1972 model year
R - Arlington TX production
154529 - production sequence at Arlington.

This car is worth as much as someone is willing to write on a check for you.

Joffroi

I can't tell you why, but I really like the look of a post car.

oldspackrat

Joe,
Just being a wise guy here, but what about the unpopular Superbirds & Daytonas? They languished on lots for a year or two cause they were unpopular then. We should have grabbed a few right?

bullmastiff13

Thank you for the responses guys! I was kind of thinking the same thing and it helps with my decision to just sell it. Now, if it was a Superbird or Daytona that would be a different story lol I love those cars!

oldspackrat

I tell my Chevy friends that when I rule the world, I'll restore all the LS6 chevelles & then have a big demolition derby with them all!! HA!

wmachine

Generally, any premium on a post car comes only in the high performance version of that series. Because it is lighter than its hardtop counterpart. And all else being equal, it is thus quicker. To some, and you can count me in, it makes a more desirable high performance car than a hardtop or convertible. If you want a high performance car, why go slower?

lunaboy

Production FiguresTotal Oldsmobile Production for 1972762,199Total production of Cutlass for 1972298,881Coupes37,790Cutlass Cruiser Station Wagons7,979Cutlass Supreme Convertibles11,571Cutlass Supreme Holiday HardTops105,087Cutlass Supreme Holiday HardTops14,955Twn Sedans38,893'S' Holiday Hardtops78,461'S' Sports Coupes4,145

TK-65

I own both a hardtop and a club coupe 65. I cant see where the weight difference is. The hardtop has no extra bracing in the roof. Also the sedan doors are heavier due to the window frames. Both body shells are exactly the same, except the sedan has window frames.

I think the whole "lighter" thing is a myth. Stiffer yes, but marginally.

joe_padavano

Kinda what I said. The weight difference isn't in the body shell, but in the window glass and regulators. The fact that post cars have window frames allow the use of a less complex and thus lighter window regulator. Again, the difference is in the tens of pounds or less. Also, these bottom feeder cars tended to have less sound deadening and often rubber floor mats instead of carpet. This obviously wasn't because they were post cars but because they were loss leaders.

TK-65

From holding carpet and an original rubber mat, the mat is heavier. Most if not all the weight savings on a 65 is in the chrome. A club coupe has no side chrome or rear chrome panel. That die cast adds a lot of weight to the car when its on a Cutlass. Take a Cutlass sports coupe and a hardtop and there is absolutely no difference in weight.

Id argue the Cutlass optioned sedans were not loss leaders. They were cars sold to people that wanted a sedan, for whatever reason that was. Wind noise? Water tight windows? Whatever it was they were not all bottom feeders. Olds made 32,500 Cutlass sports coupes compared to 46,000 hardtops in 65.

joe_padavano

Fair enough. I'd argue that Sport Coupe style looks better with the squarish 1964-65 bodies than with the 68-72 bodies.

wmachine

A myth? Hardly. Marginally lighter is still lighter and marginally faster is still faster. And astute racers knew to order the carpet instead of the rubber mats. Performance is one thing, style is another. To the real gearhead, the favorite style was "fast".

TK-65

Weight difference between a 65 sport coupe and hardtop is 24 pounds. Hardtop is 24 lbs heavier. That number flips easily by the weight of the drivers.

People toss around the lighter and stiffer claim like it really made a difference. Order a hardtop without a radio and its lighter than a sedan. Sedan with a full tank of gas is heavier, etc..

Im sure a radio delete car is soooo much faster than a car with a radio because its lighter.

Hairy Olds

Having the tail panel would help with traction right.

oldcutlass

Don't forget the heater delete, bench vs buckets, no power anything, etc... When I was a kid the reason we liked the post cars was purely financial, they were less expensive. People just didn't want a stripped down grandma's grocery getter.

Seff

How's the wind noise in a post car?

Allan R

If it's anything like my 83 Ninety Eight 4 door, it should be fairly low because all the windows have channels on 3 sides (L,R,Top) that snug the glass pretty nicely. Only place I get significant wind noise from in my 72 Cutlass right now is from the worn 1/4 window rubbers.

Seff

I get a bit in the corners. Aftermarket rubber of a dubious quality.

White_Knuckles

Okay, at risk of answering this wrong, I'm thinking the stupid Chevelle would fetch higher dollars? When I looked at Hagarty's car values, same year Olds lost out every time to Chevelle. I thought it may be a desirability issue? Perhaps they had a groovy grill?

I spotted the below tidbit in a "loss leader" Wiki. Who knew?

Chevrolet's Corvette was originally intended in the 1950s to be an "image builder" and loss leader for General Motors, the idea being that men would go to showrooms to look at this "automotive Playboy Bunny"—which they knew they could not afford—and end up purchasing a lower-cost model.

Allan R

It seems that Olds is always the wallflower at the dance. You're right that there's a bigger and stronger market for the Chevelles, Vettes, GTO's etc and for the most part they're also better documented. That's not to say that an Olds with documentation isn't worth much, it's uhh I think the words I'm looking for are 'under valued' and 'under appreciated' by a lot of peeps. That's ok though as I appreciate my car for what it is and the enjoyment it gives me.

oldspackrat

Good thing about Oldsmobiles being less valuable to some people is that the parts cars are cheaper too!!

Allan R

Really Scott??? I haven't found that very often. IMO, after market pricing on a lot of replacement parts is getting way out of control by a lot of the vendors. You really have to shop around for deals nowadays.

oldspackrat

I meant complete or partial cars to part out. Not the repro. parts. I've bought over 20 parts cars this year, most of them were $300.00-$500.00 cars & pretty complete most of the time. Not like a rusted out rolling chassis of a chevelle for $5,000.00.

joe_padavano

Whoever wrote that Wiki article sure doesn't know the definition of "loss leader". (But... I thought EVERYTHING on the interweb was true! )

A "loss leader" is a bottom of the line car at the lowest possible price. These are strippers that the company sells at at a loss (hence the term) to generate showroom traffic. The plan is that the low price entices the customers into the showroom, where they see how sparsely equipped the car is and elects to purchase a better equipped (and thus more profitable) model. The Corvette was what's known as a halo car - a top end car that was similarly intended to generate showroom traffic. The H/O, Shelby Mustangs, and other cars were similar halo cars. These cars would draw dad into the showroom, where sanity would prevail and he'd buy a four door instead.

droptopron

I'd take all the "LS6"'s and restore them to their original state of bench seat column shift light green 307's.
There are more LS6 Chevelles now than there was then.

White_Knuckles

OoooooooooooooooH, I hate those Chevelles !!!

People at the gas station often call out - "hey, what year Chevelle is that?"

I simply reply - sixty seven. It's just not worth correcting them as they always look confused.

Eric Jerome Brodberg

I had a 72' Cutlass S back in the 90's. Had to sell it because I was getting married and it helped pay for the wedding. I keep looking for another one and haven't had any luck.

johnnyjaws

my old 1970 cutlass s was a post car that's were the front door has a vent window and a frame around the front window plus the post right?

oldsmobiledave

Do you still have the woman you sold the car for?