http://www.ebay.com/itm/322095826345...6345&viewitem=

Advertised as factory 455 but nicely has picture of VIN which decodes to 350-2BBL. I contacted the guy. Curious to see if he revises. Prob not. Nice car otherwise.

 

Scam is a strong word. While intentionally vague, the ad doesn't say it's a factory installed BBO. I'm sure the dual gate and hood are't factory either.

 

From the ad about the car.

This particular 442 was one of those models equipped with the optional L75 455CID V8 and backed by a TH400

 

The seller is Gateway Classic Cars. Enough said.

 

OK, so what is the deal with GCC?

 

The listing says the vehicle has 2,000 miles on it but the picture of the instrument panel clearly shows over 82,600 so the accuracy of the details may be a bit thin. It is a beautiful car though, just maybe not $43K beautiful.

 

Google Gateway Classic Cars customer complaints. Read.

Hope you have a lot of time to read through them all.

 

Wow, not sure why people would deal with them with that much bad ink. With the Internet you can check them out with little effort (like I just did) I guess people buy from emotion and they prey on that, too bad.

 

Yup yup.

 

It's a nice looking car and may even have been equipped with the 442 option from the factory, but I would still want the documentation of what it actually is.
He is purporting that as a well maintained survivor from what I read and I just can't see that as the case.

 

To me, even if it was a factory born 442, how much is it with with a 250-2BBL? at that point its stickers & a sway bar.

I know there are no stats, but I wonder how many 350-12BBL 442's were actually made?

 

Prob a decent number of 350-2 cars were built.

FWIW, I think "2000 miles" suggests an engine build that's relatively fresh, not the number on the odometer.

 

Randy, it could very well be a 442, and maybe the build sheet was found because it's an Arlington car. I agree that it's a very nice looking car, and has been re-created the way I think the 442 should have been built in 72 from the get go. It even has the correct striping. It's not being represented as a survivor though - see this picture.




Ron, in 72 it is what it is. 442 could be performance or appearance depending on what engine and package you ordered. BTW, I think that a 350 12BBL would be an interesting carb if you could find one. I know - slip of the keyboard.

Diego, I think you're spot on. The standard engine for the 72 Cutlass and Cutlass S was the L32 and I'd bet that the vast majority of production followed that formula.

re: 2000 miles - yes of course it's on the rebuilt replacement engine. If anyone had looked further down the list of pictures they would have found this:





This may or may not be the original mileage. Depends on whether there is documentation.

 

For what it's worth, I have 1973 Road Runner numbers. That's the year it went from a standard 400 (the 1972 replacement for the 383) to a standard 318.

Rounding the numbers, we have:

318: 7000
340: 5300
400: 2700
440: 750

Here we have a hi-po car watered down by "malaise." Would the '72 4-4-2 follow the same pattern? We can only guess.

 

I think it's proportionally more drastic with the 72 442. Maybe you can find some references to the number of cars that were produced with the L75 and L77, then add in the L34 and the rest should be L32 cars, no?

 

Since the 442 was an option in '72, the numbers I have from the GMHC won't signify anything other than series like Cutlass, Cutlass S, and Cutlass Supreme. I think it would be impossible to estimate the engine distribution for cars with the 442 package.

 

I agree. It would have made life possibly easier if the 442 had retained its distinction of being a stand alone model.

Just curious, do you know if any records exist for model years like 64-67 where the 442 was an option also? Or is it pretty much the same problem because of the option status? I found it interesting that in those model years, only select models were offered with the 442 package, and that in 64-65 there wasn't an RPO I could find to indicate 442. In 66/67 though it's L78 and only available on CS coupes.

 

I've got some 1964 info but it's all done by code, so I will need a good option code list to go through it. An easy example of this would be "267 M20 4 SPD TRANS" and production in each plant through 7/31/64, but there are many options that I don't know or are combined with others ("467 E/94,N95,P01,P02,P03,P06").

The 1967 numbers I have (the ones that go up to June cuz someone stole or misplaced July, which would feature total production) are separated by RPO code, but there's also a descriptor. Generally, they are divided by series (like 3200 and 3600) but sometimes there's specificity, like if an option was particular to a body style (I know in '70 one bench seat configuration was only for the ragtop). I think the only accurate info (aside of the June issue) would be to 442-specific options.

Isn't the RPO for 1964 B09? And I think 1966 the L69 was its own package, rather than an upgrade over the L78, but I dunno - I certainly don't have any numbers from the GMHC.

I've been spending time lately compiling 1968 Pontiac numbers. Slowly but surely Oldsmobile will be done too.

 

I had to search literature to find the B09 option for 64, it wasn't in the 64 SPECS. I imagine that customers would be drawn to the 442 option through advertising more than anything.
I couldn't find the reference to L69, but did find the L78 in both the 66/67 SPECS booklets as the 442 option. Not saying the L69 wasn't what you say it was, just curious where to source that info.

 

I've seen the L69 thing in a bulletin, I think, but I can't find it in my computer. Must have been on a website, but it's not on that Scandinavian brochure site or oldcarbrochures.com.

 

I was curious to see if it came up in the master list of GM RPO codes. It wasn't listed there, but every other site I looked at had has "L69 : ENGINE, GAS, 8 CYL, 5.0L, 4BBL, HO"
I know that if I convert 5.0 L to CID, it comes out as a 305 or 307 CID engine which we know wasn't offered for those years. It has me scratching my head. Wouldn't this be the engine that was offered on the G body HO's and 442s? Sorry to be taking this off topic from the original thread.

 

The 1964 SPECS booklet that is available on line has a Feb 1964 printing date. The 442 was first shown to the public in April 1964, which is why is wasn't in that printing of the SPECS booklet. The BO9 RPO code is listed at the bottom of this product information bulletin:



Similarly, the 1966 SPECS booklet hosted on line has an Oct 1965 printing date. The L69 3x2bbl engine wasn't announced until later in the model year.

 

Yep, that's the ad I saw and noted the B09 at the bottom. Good info to know about the SPECS printing and later information. Thanks.

 

As already stated, the OAI hood was not available on 350, 2 bbl 442's so that's not original (probably also missing the third hood bumper in the middle by the latch) and the rally pack would appear to also be non-original since there is not a 'fasten seat belt' pod. Still a nice car but the description is certainly misleading to the uninformed. I think most of Gateway's cars are on consignment so they probably just roll with whatever the owner tells them.

 

If the car was built in 1971 as a 1972 model the fasten seat belt pod would not be present. Starting in Jan 72 Rallye pac equipped cars received the warning pod as per Federal law.

 

Just when you're starting to think you know a little fun Olds trivia ...thanks Dave for the clarification!

 

GCC sold a Cutlass for me and did not want titled filled out with anyones name, while I was on the phone with the secretary of state they changed their mind and put buyers name on title. Never deal with them again and there threats.

 

Well they are trying to sell this thing for $50 k. Read the disclaimer at the bottom.



Pat

 

If you read this you'll see the car came with HRx78-15 steel belted tires on simulated wire wheels (hub caps).



And they state this in the description:

Eagle St's weren't made until the 1980's if I remember correctly.

 

If you read the description they were careful not to mention that it is a Hurst/Olds nor does it mention H/O anywhere except the bootleg decals on the car. They also acknowledge it is a Cutlass Salon and not a Cutlass S. I think Golum would call that "tricksey."