bulldog

Can anyone tell me the production numbers for a 1972 Cutlass 2 door post. I've been told they are pretty rare.

wmachine

1972 Cutlass S Sports Coupe. 4141.
Yes, that is a low number.

jaunty75

Whoever told you that is correct. It has the smallest production numbers of any 1972 Cutlass. It was officially called a Sports Coupe.

Here's the 1972 production figures:

Cutlass Town Sedan, 38,893
Cutlass Hardtop Coupe, 37,790
Cutlass Cruiser 2-seat wagon, 7,979

Cutlass S Sports Coupe, 4,141
Cutlass S Hardtop Coupe, 78,461

Cutlass Supreme Hardtop Sedan, 14,995
Cutlass Supreme Hardtop Coupe, 105,087
Cutlass Supreme Convertible, 11,571


Total of the above production: 298,917. More than 1/3 of all Cutlasses built that year were the Supreme Hardtop Coupes. Cutlass S Sports Coupe production amounted to only 1.4% of all Cutlasses.

As a wild-assed guess, survival rates are typically around 1%, so there might be anywhere from, say, 40 to maybe 100 of these still in existence.

Diego

Something's not right with the math . . . ?

I think the math is wrong again . . . 1%? You weren't kiddin' when you said "wild-assed!"

jaunty75

Go back to school. Total production, as I mentioned, is 298,917. Of that, 105,057 are Supreme Hardtop Coupes. 105,057/298,917 = 0.3514 = 35.14%. 1/3 exactly would be 33%. I said it was more than 1/3.

What's not right?



When you go back to school, stay there at least two days. Production of Cultass S Sports Coupes was 4,141. 1% of this is 41.41. Round to 40. I said ABOUT 1%, and I'm guessing it could be a bit higher than that because these were popular cars, so I thought maybe 2 to 3%.

4,141/298,917 = 0.01385 = 1.385% which I rounded to 1.4%.

Again, where's the error?


The 1% survival rate number is not mine. Typical vehicle survival rates are available on government websites. Over enough time, vehicle survival levels off as those that remain do not get discarded as they are generally kept as collector cars. But this is a very round number and could be higher for more popular models.

Diego

Hold on a sec . . . count to 10 and calm down, will ya?

Cutlass S Hardtop Coupe production amounted to only 1.4% of all Cutlasses.

This is the math I was questioning.

The other thing I was questioning was the 1% rule of thumb. I am not in agreement with it, but that's neither here nor there.

Will I see you in summer school?

jaunty75

Yes. I'll be the teacher.

Diego

You better brush up on your math, teach!

jaunty75

I would be curious to know what you think a good number for this is.

Certainly we can put an upper bound on it. For example, I would argue that 10% is too high. I don't think that one out of every 10 1972 Cutlasses built is still around today or that 1 in 10 of any car from that era is still around today. That's way too high. That would mean that there are 30,000 1972 Cutlasses alone still out there. So what is a good number? 5%? Could be, but even that could be high if you do the math.

The problem that people sometimes have with the 1% number is that it just sounds low. But you have to remember that we're talking about cars that were produced in overall large numbers, and 1% of a large number can be a large number.

Look again at the '72 Cutlasses. Just under 300,000 of them were made. 1% of that number is 3,000. Does it seem reasonable that there could still be that many or that few '72 Cutlasses in existence today? If it's as high as 5%, that number would be 15,000. That's a lot, even when you spread it across the country.

Yes, you see the '68-'72 Cutlasses turn out in droves at any Oldsmobile car show, and that gives the impression that there's a lot of them around, which gives the impression that there must be a high percentage of the original production still around.

But, again, do the math. Total Cutlass production for the entire five-model-year, 1968-1972 era was just over 1,300,000. That includes F-85s and 442s, anything that looked like a Cutlass.

1% of this total production is 13,000. 5% is 65,000. Divided by the 50 states, the latter number would be 1,300 per state. Seems high to me, especially when you consider that the less populous states will have fewer, which means more populous states must have more. If there were on the order of 1,000 to 2,000 '68 to '72 Cutlasses on the road per state in states like New York, Ohio, Michigan, and Illinois, I think you'd see them more than at car shows.

So I go with a number lower than 5%. I agree that 1% is probably low, especially for cars like this era of Cutlasses, which were very popular and recognized as something worth keeping even back when they were new. A few percent (3 or 4?) seems reasonable as it appears to account for the number of these cars you actually see out there today.

BlackGold

My first car, purchased my senior year of high school, was a '72 Cutlass Sports Coupe. It was 9 years old and already had 125,000 miles on it. Great car!

I had no idea it was so rare at the time. In fact, for the five years I owned it, I always thought the "S" emblem meant that it was a Cutlass Supreme. I didn't get educated about such things until years later.

scr8p

if i could ask, where do you guys get your production number info from? site, links?

jaunty75

You want rarity, here's some '68-'72 Cutlasses produced in very low numbers. Not surprisingly, they're all 6-cylinder models. But find any of them today, and you've got something unusual.


1968
Cutlass S 6-cylinder convertible: 410
Cutlass 6-cylinder Holiday Sedan: 351
Cutlass 6-cylinder 2-seat station wagon: 354

1969
Cutlass 6-cylinder Town Sedan: 137
Cutlass 6-cylinder Holiday Sedan: 236
Cutlass 6-cylinder 2-seat station wagon: 180
Cutlass S 6-cylinder Sports Coupe: 483
Cutlass S 6-cylinder Holiday Coupe: 566
Cutlass S 6-cylinder convertible: 236

1970
Cutlass 6-cylinder Holiday Sedan: 238
Cutlass 6-cylinder 2-seat station wagon: 85
Cutlass S 6-cylinder Sports Coupe: 484
Cutlass S 6-cylinder Holiday Coupe: 729

1971
F-85 6-cylinder Town Sedan: 769
Cutlass 6-cylinder Town Sedan: 618
Cutlass 6-cylinder 2-seat station wagon: 47 (rarest of the rare!)
Cutlass 6-cylinder Sports Coupe: 113
Cutlass 6-cylinder Hardtop Coupe: 297

jaunty75

I'm sure there are other references, but I get mine from "Setting the Pace - Oldsmobile's First 100 Years." Written to coincide with the 100th anniversary of Oldsmobile in 1997 and before it was announced that Olds would end in 2004 (hence the "First" in the title).

Available at Amazon.com for $5 used plus shipping and well worth it. Lots of info, including production figures, base pricing, basic vehicle dimensions, and engine availability for all models from 1897 to 1996.

http://www.amazon.com/Setting-Pace-O...4827460&sr=1-1


I don't know of any website with this info.

jensenracing77

i had a friend in high school that had a 72 cutlass post with a 3 speed manual. it was a bench seat and Hurst floor shifter.

Blk71SX

that is a very common. you can see it on eBay often


one of those cases of rare, but not sought after

Diego

I have a number of books that have production figures, but many of them don't agree with each other.

For example, Chrysler usually tabulates things in Total and US-spec so, for example, 1070 Challenger R/T ragtops were built in 1970, but 955 were built for the US. The difference was sold in Canada and Export markets (which also included Americans stationed overseas). When you see Mopars like "1 of 9 Hemi Challenger R/T ragtops built" that's only for US-spec cars, so that means it's out of the 955 built and not of the Total 1070 built.

Many books don't specify this, so it leads to lots of BS numbers, not to mention a lot of old wive's tales on a car's rarity that somehow manages to be perpetuated by magazines and people on the Internet.

Now that I've gone over the Mopars, what about GM? That's the funny thing - each division did things differently. General production figures existed for Pontiacs, but the nitty gritty didn't exist (aside of some engine options for GTOs and Firebirds like Ram Air IV) till Fred Simmonds counted invoices. For Buicks, general numbers and some muscle numbers (like Stage 1 by bodystyle) have existed for years but only recently have the factory records been available to those willing to hit their library in Flint, MI. Chevy? That's more difficult, but lots of numbers you see, such as "1 of 18 LS6 ragtops" have no documented proof.

So where does that leave Oldsmobile? There's the general numbers, like 4-4-2s, plus some deeper ones, like W-Machines. And there's a few letters from execs floating around that show how many M21 Cutlass Supreme ragtops were built in 1970, for example. But there's a lot of misinformation, such as 1968 Ram Rod Cutlass Supreme info, and even a recent Barrett-Jackson "only 126 4-4-2 W-30 ragtops had the Dual-Gate shifter!" I can't say I've seen documentation showing either of these, but I've seen them promoted in print.

Also, don't go by any marque-specific book because they too can be wrong.

From Jaunty75:
would be curious to know what you think a good number for this is.

I don't know, but I can tell you that the rule of thumb has to be chosen carefully because it has to be statistically correct. What do I mean?

Let's say the rule of thumb is 10%. That is to be applied to the aggregate, as in total cars. When you start applying that number to smaller samples, such as 4-4-2 ragtops, it is statistically incorrect because that 10% was chosen for a population, not a sample. Or, to use the Mopar terms that I am familiar with, let's say 3% of US-spec Challenger R/T ragtops were painted FM3 Panther Pink. And let's say 10% of R/T ragtops were equipped with wheelcovers. You can't take that 10% of wheelcover R/T ragtops and then apply the 3% to determine how many of those were pink - that would be statistically incorrect. There is no way to combine options to arrive at a number, so any time you see magazines or people on eBay making claims like that (usually with "1 of 1" status), chances are it's absolutely wrong.

Confused yet?

jaunty75

I don't disagree with any of this, and I admit I'm the first to throw lots of numbers around, but I also think that this is getting into a bit more analysis than is really necessary.

In the end, people just like to know roughly how many cars like theirs might still be around. They don't need to know to the nearest half-decimal point what that number is. Just a ballpark figure.

aliensatemybuick

Assuming the numbers transcribed aboive are correct, I get more like about 26%. The 1.4% figure appears to apply to the Cutlass S Sports Coupe (the stats for which was also emboldened). So perhaps you don't need to attend summer school after all.

Not sure I buy it either, my feeling being that survival rates vary by model/body type. I would expect a greater survival rate for convertibles and 2 doors hardtops than say for 4 door cars, because these are the more desirable models, and were restored (even lovingly kept), whereas the 4 door cars would often have have been the abused workhorses, and ultimately crushed or even parted to help with the restoration of the more desirable models.

scr8p

well, what does one of your books say about production numbers on a 68 cutlass s 2 door post? v8 if it matters......

looks as if i'll be putting one together for myself, so just curious.

Kace

Wow! You guys are The S####. I bow down.

jaunty75

Forgive my French, but what the hell are you talking about?

You get more like about 26% of what?

What do you mean APPEARS to apply to the Cutlass S Sports Coupe? The 1.4% IS the fraction of 1972 Cutlasses that were Cutlass S Sport Coupes. I SAID this. I DID put that line in bold because that's the specific car that the guy who started this thread said he had.


Like I said once before, I think the aliens ate more than your Buick.

Diego

Since the answer to that is impossible to determine except with certain cars (think Trans Am ragtops, for one), I don't see the purpose in speculating.

It's much more interesting to me to learn something concrete. And while something like "1 of 200" certainly is very rare, there are so many 1 of 200s out there that ya gotta pick and choose which ones are interesting.

aliensatemybuick

What you need to do it look at your first post to this thread, 3 down from the top. Then you will realize that you mis-spoke (or I perhaps I should say wrote) that:

"Cutlass S Hardtop Coupe production amounted to only 1.4% of all Cutlasses."

Then perhaps you can apologize to Diego.

jaunty75

It does matter. Production figures are give for Sixes and V-8s.

16,662 Cutlass S Sports Coupes (2-door post) were made in 1968. Production of Cutlass S Sports Coupes with 6-cylinder engines was 1,431.

For the math-challenged around here, that means that a total of 18,093 Cutlass S Sports Coupes were made in 1968, with the 6-cylinder versions accounting for 7.9% of those (1,431 divided by 18,093 with the result multiplied by 100). That means that the V-8s accounted for 92.1% (100-7.9).

Diego

This is the crux of our comments - you said 1.4% hardtop coupe. Scroll up and look.

And then you make disparaging remarks to both of us?

It's okay to think one thing and type another, as it happens to all of us. But I think you need to reel in your attitude a bit and relax - everything's gonna be alright.

jaunty75

I didn't mis-speak at all. That post says that 1,431 Cutlass S Sports Coupes were made in 1972. Total Cutlass production of ALL types was 298,917. Divide the first number by the second number (1,431/298,917), multiply the result by 100, and you get 1.4. That means 1.4% of 1972 Cutlasses were the S Sports Coupes.

No apology necessary, at least from me.

jaunty75

Oh, hell, that's a mis-type, and I've fixed it. The fact that I used the term Hardtop Coupe twice in the same line indicated the error. It was clear to anyone who cared to look what I meant.

If everyone on classicoldsmobile.com was called on the carpet for mis-spellings and mis-wordings, we'd have no postings.

Diego

Oh, brother!

aliensatemybuick

Indeed, it does now, haw haw! Presumably no apology is neeeded because you went back and edited your post 5 minutes ago. The proof (beyond the fact that such edits are tracked) is that I had cut and pasted what you originally wrote in my post a few above.

So we can add intellectual dishonesty to your list of character flaws.

ON EDIT: Ah, I see now that you admitted it (because you HAD to) in a subsequent post before I could finish this one. Then chalked it up to an honest mistake. Which is what it was, before you compounded it by the unforgivable bravado.

Strictly, though, you should also edit your post #26 (if you are going to acknowledge your "historical revisionism"). ON EDIT, AGAIN: Don't bother.

bulldog

Thanks for the information. I guess I should buy this one and restore it.

Diego

Not so fast - what motor? What else?

In the grand scheme of things, it may just be another 350-2 Cutlass regardless of body type. Rarity probably won't play much of a factor if it's equipped like most Cutlasses except to the most die-hard Oldsmodude.

bulldog

Diego, I believe it has a 350/4bbl and a manual transmission. Not sure if its a 3 or 4 speed.It is a bench seat,floor shift,and has tilt steering. However for me its taking it to a show and probably having the only one there.

stevengerard

I read recently (somewhere ????) that the attrition rate of a car is typically 10% each year for the first 10 years than it levels off. And yes just because a few cars were made does not mean it ends up being desirable - though the one this thread is about definately sounds like a nice car - all depends on price

wmachine

I find that to be quite appealing. When it comes to performance, post cars rule!
And "...having the only one there" also has an appeal. For many of us, that is one of the reasons we are into Oldsmobiles. To have something more unusual.

Diego

I agree with Kurt!

And maybe it's one of the rare ones with the 4-4-2 package (hard to determine without docs), or maybe it's one of the rarer ones without the package . . . either way, a floor-shifted car no matter what engine is desirable. May not be worth what it would take to fix it up (if that's what it takes) but it's a collectible car.

Diego

Plus, if it's a Canadian car, you can get docs from GM of Canada - you can't lose at all!

wmachine

"Canadian car" here meaning built in and/*or* sold new in Canada.

BlackGold

Even if it's a 2-barrel engine, it's worth buying. That's what mine was, and it was a lot of fun to drive. There's no shame in a 2-bbl, as long as it's a Rocket V8!

Diego

True, a stick on the floor would be fun no matter what, and I'd be willing to bet a 2bbl. car with that tranny would be rarer than a 4bbl. car . . . Holiday coupe or Sport Coupe!

wmachine

Well Diego, in this case it would certainly be rarer because it would be one of none!
If it is an original floor shift SC, it has to be an M20 wide ratio 4-speed. That was the only floor shift option in '72 (even with the W30), and it mandated the 4-bbl 350 or a 455. Standard was still the ol' three-on-the-tree.