Dru707

I'm interested to know what the difference is between the 1971 Cutlass Supreme Convertible & the 1972 Cutlass Supreme Convertible. Does the body have any slight changes? Interior? Size? Any thing else differ between the two?

Diego

Takes awhile to load:

https://gmheritagecenter.com/docs/gm...2_Info_Kit.pdf

https://gmheritagecenter.com/docs/gm...2_Info_kit.pdf

1970cs

There are slight differences. Easiest way if they are complete cars is:71 and 70 also has a 3" tall bright work that runs down the complete side about 8" off the rocker panel.

72 had only bright work that covered the rocker panel only.

71 had walnut wood grain on dash, 72 rosewood grain pattern.

taillights 71 plain lenses or flat 72 had egg carton or grid pattern

Vinyl roof covers 71 halo or small band painted color of car between drip moulding and bright trim work for vinyl, no covering on( A) pillar.

72 vinyl ran down to drip moulding and down the (A) pillar

Also there is way more detailed thread on 71-72 differences but includes all of the A body line for Olds.

Pat

joe_padavano

Let me try this a little differently.

There are NO body differences of substance between the 1971 and 72 Supreme convertibles (or any other 71/72 Cutlass models for that matter).

First you need to understand that 1972 was SUPPOSED to be the first year of the colonnade styling that came out on the 1973 cars. A strike at GM delayed those cars to the 1973 model year at the last minute, so GM had to scramble to put new lipstick on the 1971 models and release them as 1972s. The result is that all sheetmetal is identical with one exception. The core support for 1972 is very slightly different from the 1971 core support in order to accommodate the differences in the 1972 Supreme grilles. All other sheet metal is identical.

Obviously, there are trim differences. The side chrome is different. The grilles are different (however you will note that the 1971 and 72 442 grilles, for example, are exactly the same plastic molding but the black and silver paint areas are reversed). The plastic taillight lenses are different, but fit into exactly the same holes in the rear bump. There are minor differences in upholstery patterns. The vinyl top differences discussed above obviously don't apply to the convertible that the OP asked about. The inline six engine was dropped for the 1972 model year (but came back in 73). Available options were reduced. All of these are secondary considerations, however, as the cars are mechanically and dimensionally identical.

Koda

And considering how big a flop those 73 cars were, it's a damn good thing they did strike.

Texas442

There is a very good discussion on this topic here:

https://classicoldsmobile.com/forums...fferences.html

oldsmobiledave

Flop?
Really?


Have you looked at sales #s for 73-77 cars?

Dru707

Thanks for all the awesome feedback!!! 👍😃

Koda

Have you looked at collector values for 73-77 cars?

Bfg

Define flop?

jaunty75

Sales of 1972 and 1973 Cutlasses of all types excluding Cutlass wagons and Vista Cruisers:

1972: 290,898
1973: 381,094


Kind of difficult to call the '73's a flop. They are not as popular today, yes, but they certainly were not unpopular when new.

joe_padavano

And that translates into GM sales and profit numbers how, exactly?

I've never been a fan of the 73-77 cars (even when they were new) but no one can deny that they were a sales success for Olds. Olds hit number three in total sales volume during that period.

Koda

My comment was referring to the artistic flop of the design of the car, not the sales numbers. I don't think anyone who owns a 72 here would prefer to have it look like a 73 as opposed to a 71. I regret that people misunderstood my point.

oldsmobiledave

I love the 1973 body style. The 1973 V code HO & Cutlass & 442 are the last A body cars on my bucket list. They drive better than the 68-72 cars & are only 125-150 lbs heavier than a comparable 1972 model.


That you do not like them is fine. Then we aren't competing for the few good cars that were made. The value of the 73-77 cars will never equate those of the 72 & earlier cars (that is a given) but they are a part of the collector car hobby.

davebw31

You could hear the 73' s rusting as they went down the assembly line! True that.

lemoldsnut

As someone who has now owned 65 Oldsmobiles and that covers most models and most years as well. I like the 70-72 body cars the best. In fact I like the 72 trim the best of the three. I have owned 5 73-77 cars and they ride very well, didn't have the power the previous years offered. They came in many different configurations. I have had from the basic Cutlass to a 73 Hurst Olds and I still prefer the 70-72 body more. I own several 66-67 cars, a 70 442. I got hooked on 67's mostly because my folks bought a 67 442 new and my first car was a 67 442. (my 67 convertible has many parts from that car on it now) I think my favorite road driver however was a 79 Cutlass Supreme fully loaded and with only a 260 in it. It got great mileage, It drove very well and was extremely comfortable.
I ran the body shop at an Olds Chevy dealer for years and I had lots of fun and enjoyed the G body cars as well, not so much the Ciera cars, but they were very popular and actually are a great car.
There are many different bodys and many different models and I just enjoyed how much Olds took the steps to make a much classier car even when they all became basically one GM.
We all like something different. That is wonderful and it is so great we get to pick and choose now. Wish there was more for us to pick from.

Dru707

What do you like better about the trim on the 72 VS the 71? Just curious to know. Can you post pics of the differences? Thank you.

442much

If that's the only reason you got into this hobby, then you're in it for the wrong reasons. You should sell your car, and enjoy the money while letting someone who really loves these cars enjoy it.

The values are lower for the 73-77 because so many were made. But the values are rising as they are becoming more rare. Perhaps they are not as popular because they didn't have the factory power some of the earlier models had. That's not a hard fix; just like the 64-72 cars getting brake and suspension upgrades, so they can run with the better handling, driving and stopping later models.

For every fifty 68-72's you see at a show, you may see one 73-77. I happen to like that. You won't see rows of these, some of which may or may not be the real thing. We can go year by year starting at 1964 and pick each year apart, but what would that prove? Everyone likes a particular year or model and that's what the hobby is all about. If we all liked the same year it would get boring pretty fast. There are certain years of the 60's and 70's that I personally don't have a taste for, however I would never say it here. To each his own.

If you want to trash other years other than 68-72, then why don't you start your own 68-72 forum? Why come on here where all Oldsmobile enthusiasts are welcome and run down a particular year or model? However, if you want to enjoy all the cars, stories etc. on this forum, and respect what other members are driving, we're glad to have you.


Rant OFF - Flame suit ON.

jaunty75

No. Their values are lower because there is less demand for them now. As popular as this era of Cutlasses may or may not be becoming, they're not yet as popular as the '72 and earlier cars. When and if they ever are, their values will catch up.

442much

The easiest way for me to tell the difference? The 72 has egg crate tail lights. The 72 has the headlight doors painted black while the 71 is stainless.

jaunty75

There's a reason for this. For every guy who wants a '73 to '77 Cutlass, 50 guys want a '68-'72. I agree that it's nice to go to a car show and not see row upon row of the '68 to '72 Cutlasses, but the fact that you do says something.

442much

Yes it does, and I'm fine with that.

bccan

Other than headlight/tail light trim the first thing I think of between 71 & 72 was the relocation of the horn relay & wiring. PITA dealing with wiring back there on 72's especially A/C convertibles!


I had a 76 Cutlass Supreme w/ swivel bucket interior, it was quite a nice car. I loved my room mate's 73 (74?) stick shift Cutlass back in the early 80's. The colonnades will never have collectibility or parts support but certainly were good cars.

joe_padavano

The only place I've ever seen that is at an OCA Nationals, where the 68-72 cars are like first gen Camaros everywhere else. Of course, in the real world, there is no such thing as "row upon row" of Oldsmobile anythings...

Destructor

I almost bought a 75, the person sold it to someone else who had a check with him. I then found my 70 Cutlass. I always liked the pre smog, pre 5 mph bumper cars more. I had 3 caddies all 71 and 72. I just think those years are nicer looking and are pre smog, that being said I do think Olds put out some of the best looking cars of the mid 70's. a few friends of mine had later A bodies and I liked them. I soon found out that the 70 to 72's also have good support for parts.

Koda

I'm not in the hobby for the money, and I have never claimed to be. I have more than one classic car, and I think I care for them well enough.

My personal opinion is not at stake here; I was merely reflecting the general view of the people. I'm not really into resto-mods, but, sure, you can stick a 455 in any Olds RWD.

Rare does not necessarily equal desirable. If it's really "to each his own" then why are you all up in arms? Calm down.

My Olds is a 67....


Don't say anything on the internet you wouldn't say in person. Makes you sound like a fool.

442much

I am calm, and they were desirable even when they weren't rare. The reason I even mentioned it at all is because you said the 73-77's were a "flop". And since you can't write the inflection of the words you are saying, it can come off with a different meaning than what you may have been trying to say.


The 73-77 cars were hardly a flop. That's not my opinion, that's a fact. Had you come out and said, they will never have the value of the 68-72, you'd have no argument from me, or that you never liked them, and still don't, then that's an opinion and that's fine too. But the way your comment came across to me was that these cars (73-77) were a mistake and were not worth the steel used to build them. Perhaps I was wrong in my assessment, and if I was, then I am sorry.

Would I trade mine for a 68-72. No, I wouldn't. That is based on love of the car, the look of it, the driving of it, the handling, the control, the memories, the experiences... (I've owned mine for over 36 years)... no, I would not trade.

Now if we're strictly talking money or investment, then yes, of course I would. No feeling, just cold hard cash. I'd be crazy not to. However, since when has this hobby been logical? What smart business man buys an old car that needs fixing, costs thousands to restore, and then keeps it and drives it on the street where someone, not paying attention can smash into it, or does the work themselves and proudly shows it off at a car show? There's no logic to it, but that's the hobby.

It sure worked for Donald Trump.

kjr442

I am surprised I don't own a 73 442, (455/ 4 speed of course) I have always liked them. My Dad bought a 73 cutlass supreme new. By the time I started driving it, the car was six years old, but I remember that car having plenty of power.
BTW, my first car was a 69 cutlass.

chip-powell

Gotta agree with you there. I don't think that I have been to a car show in the last 10 years that had more than 4 Oldsmobile's (of any year or style).

Face it everyone! We're odd, we're strange, we're different! Revel in it! In a world of camaros and mustangs, we ride against the tide in our Olds. Honestly, is there a person out there that has not had at least one person come up to you and ask "What kind of car is that?" or say "I have not seen one of those in years."

Don't we all take a little perverse pride in being different?

jaunty75

Perhaps I should have been more clear. I was referring to Oldsmobile shows such as hosted by local chapters. I have been to shows hosted by the Western New York chapter as well as all of the chapters in Ohio over the years, and, yes, I think it's safe to say that I've seen "row upon row" of pre-'73 Cutlasses at these events while, at the same show, over in a corner of the parking lot, were two or three '73 to '77 cars.

But, no, at the local Lions Club car show, where any car is allowed, you see few if any Oldsmobiles. No argument there.

leepear

My first car was a 1971 442. Guess what year I favor. I like the black grilles, cleaner taillights and the fact that it was a 442 and not an option on a cutlass. Never owned a 73 up olds but have had many 1970-2. The 1970 has higher value because of the horsepower but the tooth!!!!!!!!!! I still have memories of my bleeding head. If I was five years younger and an olds fan I would probably love the later cars. Funky hurst shifters, swivel seats, t tops. Decent sporty styling. Lots of reasons to like the cars. Good discussion. Lee

Koda

Ok, upon reflection, I'll amend my statement. "Considering that the 68-72 design aesthetics are more timeless and appealing to classic car monetary values than the popular, but maybe a bit more trendy, looks and appeal of the 73-77, I am glad that the UAW striked and delayed the model change."

Hopefully that's better.

Finn5033

Good lord, do we really need to tip toe around this? I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of people think the 73-77 cutlasses are ugly. They have weak drive trains and as of yet they are not desirable. Some people like them and that is great, to each their own.

JpMotorsports

Both cars are very similar it just comes down to what you like better. I bought my 72 because I like the blacked out headlamp buckets and the 442 grille color pattern better and like the way the tail lamps look with the grids in them. Other than that they are the same car. You will see people around with 71's or 72's with the other years trim and grilles 1 because they don't know or they do know and just like the others styles better to fit their tastes.