When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Also, I have no idea why your deck lid is stamped 34257 when it's clearly not. The convertible deck lid has a rounded edge towards the rear window, whereas the HT has square corners.
I was following up until you said "....clearly not." Clearly not - what? I'm sure it's stamped 34257 -
The last picture is the inside side light protector inside the trunk on the quarter panel.
My fenders are also crumple fenders. Look a little closer, I'm sure the stampings are there unless you have repop fenders.
Your deck lid may have been replaced, or the paint build up may be too thick to read A23
Allan, cowl date code is 06B which (as you decoded in my intro post) to be the second week of June 1972. I also double checked for date codes on the front fenders, and zilch, so they must be repops. Also, the deck lid reads A43. And just so I understand, how do the date codes break down?
I found another number on the RH side of the hood lid. I can't make it out in its entirety - R20/29? Probably a REPOP I suspect. I cannot find any number where the A pillar meets the cowl. I have always modestly suspected the vehicle has been bumped in a fender bender somewhere along its lifetime - not completely sure. I examined the frame thoroughly and it's solid - no welding, no bending, that I can detect at least. Next winter I'm planning to replace either the entire control arms of just the bushings (and all associated linkages including a new steering gear box) and the springs. The springs are beginning to sound like a donkey - hee-haw, hee-haw when driving over rolling little bumps. LOL
Allan, with regard to your comment on my trunk deck lid "...The convertible deck lid has a rounded edge towards the rear window, whereas the HT has square corners."
Dave, did you see the car again which began this post? If so, did you look under the hood? How was your car show?
Hey Norm the guy didn't make it to my show, and for my first effort, it was pretty good. Had about 12 cars show up and we raised just over 450.00. It was really neat to see everyone come together for such a good cause, and it was a great bunch of people. I'm already planning on next year😀
Anyone else might be saying to themselves - just why did I open this can of worms regarding original versus non-original body part numbers but I know Allan enjoys sharing this information and I do appreciate his ability to share some history of this stuff.
Anyone else might be saying to themselves - just why did I open this can of worms regarding original versus non-original body part numbers but I know Allan enjoys sharing this information and I do appreciate his ability to share some history of this stuff.
^^^x2...and isn't it funny how when we get this info, we just HAVE to check it right then...never mind waiting till later...lol
So, Allan - recall when we were addressing the rear bumper rubber inserts on Dave's car. Somewhere along that conversation I made the statement (or similar to it):
Supposedly, my car ('71 CS) has a 4-4-2 rear bumper. My only understanding at this point (I have not researched this any further) is I think the 1971 CS had a straight bottom edge bumper with turn down single exhaust (no cutouts to accommodate pass-through dual exhausts). I believe (if dual exhausts were available) you'd still have the straight bottom edge rear bumper but w/ turn down dual exhausts. Is that correct. IOW, the cutout pass-through dual exhaust bumper was not an option on any of the 1971 CS models?
I have examined the exhaust manifolds several times and I have noted the cross-over exhaust on the RH exhaust has been modified (blocked off) to accommodate true (independent) dual exhausts to the rear with no X-pipe. Supposedly they're Flowmaster. The look like Flowmaster exhaust, but I'm pretty sure they were modified from Flowmaster OE since Flowmaster never produced a 1971 CS 350 dual exhaust system. Flowmaster does produce a 1971 4-4-2 exhaust system but I noticed that exhaust system has an X-pipe. So, I really don't know if they are true Flowmaster dual exhaust or not. I'm not losing any sleep over it since they're in good shape and it's one less expense for some time to come.
I would like to know what you think about my rear bumper though. Is it a 4-4-2 rear bumper? What year do you think it is?
Finally, Dave, thanks for allowing us to share your thread, I reupholstered the rear bottom seat and back a couple months ago (Legendary Interiors) - tons better material than whoever did the lousy job with what was in there; and, I did an R&R on the carpeting about three weeks ago. Whatever the carpeting was that was in there was more of an orange/rust color and looked pretty 'dank'. I'm pretty sure it's the original steering wheel (probably the one which came on the car). I did my best to reapply some GM silver outline to the wheel. The steering wheel has several cracks in it which I'm attempting to address by doing nothing more than building up some layers of creative brown 'caulk'. Always a little artistry in these beasts. I like the looks of the original steering wheel, but I sure do like the feel of the four and three spoke wheels much better. I'll keep the original steering wheel as long as I own the vehicle.
My only understanding at this point (I have not researched this any further) is I think the 1971 CS had a straight bottom edge bumper with turn down single exhaust (no cutouts to accommodate pass-through dual exhausts). I believe (if dual exhausts were available) you'd still have the straight bottom edge rear bumper but w/ turn down dual exhausts. Is that correct. IOW, the cutout pass-through dual exhaust bumper was not an option on any of the 1971 CS models?
Yes, you are correct. The Cutlass Supreme had optional dual exhaust (code N10) which used the regular non-cutout rear bumper.
Originally Posted by Vintage Chief
I have examined the exhaust manifolds several times and I have noted the cross-over exhaust on the RH exhaust has been modified (blocked off) to accommodate true (independent) dual exhausts to the rear with no X-pipe.
The N-10 option was a cap on the exhaust crossover port on the RH exhaust manifold and a separate exhaust pipe/muffler/tail pipe on the drivers side. My first olds (a 1970 Supreme 350) had this from the factory and I think I got the last OEM cap back in the early 1990s as the local dealership had to search the entire US inventory to locate a replacement. Fortunately, the caps are now reproduced and easily available through many restoration parts companies.
Yes, you are correct. The Cutlass Supreme had optional dual exhaust (code N10) which used the regular non-cutout rear bumper.
The N-10 option was a cap on the exhaust crossover port on the RH exhaust manifold and a separate exhaust pipe/muffler/tail pipe on the drivers side. My first olds (a 1970 Supreme 350) had this from the factory and I think I got the last OEM cap back in the early 1990s as the local dealership had to search the entire US inventory to locate a replacement. Fortunately, the caps are now reproduced and easily available through many restoration parts companies.
Location: Edmonton, AB. And "I am Can 'eh' jun - eh"
Posts: 24,525
Originally Posted by Vintage Chief
I was following up until you said "....clearly not." Clearly not - what? I'm sure it's stamped 34257 -
Well it's quite simple, your car is a model 4267 not 4257.
Originally Posted by 72455
Allan, cowl date code is 06B which (as you decoded in my intro post) to be the second week of June 1972. I also double checked for date codes on the front fenders, and zilch, so they must be repops. Also, the deck lid reads A43. And just so I understand, how do the date codes break down?
The date codes are really quite easy; they relate to the production week at FBW - same as your cars cowl tag. The letter prefix is the press they were stamped on, and the number code is the week they were stamped. Your A43 deck lid was stamped in October of 1972. That means it was obviously replaced at some point in the cars life as the production of actual 72 bodies ended in late June/early July of 1972. GM was mandated to produce replacement parts for their cars for a time period up to 10 years following last date of production. Obviously things like fenders, doors, quarters, deck lids that were interchangeable from 70 through 72 were a bonus to them as they could use the same presses for continued production on a 3 year model group. Most of the stampings on your car are A22 or A23 which is totally consistent with the time build code on your cowl tag.
Originally Posted by Vintage Chief
Allan, with regard to your comment on my trunk deck lid "...The convertible deck lid has a rounded edge towards the rear window, whereas the HT has square corners."Is my deck lid rounded edge or square corners? Could my car be a medusa?
Your deck lid has round corners at the top to match the contours of the deck lid opening. Compare these pictures of a vert and HT paying close attention to the deck lid openings. You'll see the square cut of the HT quite easily. The rounded openings were used by verts and sedans.
Your car is not a Medusa unless you decide to call it that. I must admit to being puzzled by the stamping on yours.
Originally Posted by Vintage Chief
I think the 1971 CS had a straight bottom edge bumper with turn down single exhaust (no cutouts to accommodate pass-through dual exhausts). I believe (if dual exhausts were available) you'd still have the straight bottom edge rear bumper but w/ turn down dual exhausts. Is that correct.?
I would like to know what you think about my rear bumper though. Is it a 4-4-2 rear bumper? What year do you think it is?
Norm, your bumper is a stock bumper, and would be the exact same as any other Cutlass from 1971/72 that didn't have the W29 L75 or W30 option. So yes, your thinking is correct and no it's not a 442 bumper. Every 1971 442 however did get the dual cutout with trumpet exhaust as standard equipment.
Originally Posted by Fun71
Yes, you are correct. The Cutlass Supreme had optional dual exhaust (code N10) which used the regular non-cutout rear bumper. The N-10 option was a cap on the exhaust crossover port on the RH exhaust manifold and a separate exhaust pipe/muffler/tail pipe on the drivers side.
Adding to Ken's comment, the N10 was an RPO on ALL Cutlass coupes in 1971/72. One thing that makes this distinction even easier in 1972 is the VIN as it would specify the N10 exhaust there by the letter J (350 2bbl) or M (350 4bbl). The block off plate looks like this:
Allan, evidently my trunk deck lid (number 4257) is of the Cutlass Supreme 2dr Holiday Coupe variety then?
The final number of my trunk deck lid A27 (34257 A27) does coincide with the time period of my vehicles production date (07 C)
From my Cowl Tag (07 C is time build code at FBW - Third week of July 1971).
I noted your previous statement on my original newbie post:
This would likely be one of the last cars built for that model year production before the factory retooled for 1972 models.
; and, your statement above,
Your deck lid would have been produced the week before the car was assembled at FBW Lansing.
If I am deciphering this correctly, this is really peculiar but perhaps not so 'uncommon' at the end of a model year run, perhaps?
My vehicle arrived at FBW and was assembled during the 3rd week of July (07 C) based upon the Cowl Tag data.
The trunk deck lid would have been produced the week before the car was assembled at FBW, Lansing. My trunk deck lid is stamped A27. A27 for the year 1971 translates to the (2nd) week of July 5 - July 11, 1971.
Interesting to note the sequence of events confirm your statements regarding assembly.
I'm curious about the trunk deck lid:
(1) Is it possible the trunk deck lid (based upon the stamp is from a Cutlass Supreme 2dr Holiday Coupe & not a convertible), which I guess is interchangeable between the 1971 Cutlass Supreme 2dr Holiday Coupe & the 1971 Convertible was perhaps overabundant (e.g. more than the production runs for that year and ending in 1971 prior to tooling up for 1972), and since they were interchangeable they elected to put a 4257 in place of a 4267 on my car; or they were running low on the 4267 deck lids and used the 4257 lid instead?
(2) Someone (a body shop) went to an enormous amount of trouble to find a 4257 deck lid which was produced during the exact time period as the vehicles assembly period? Highly doubtful.
Very interesting, indeed. I think maybe they had tons of 4257 lids, it was the end of the year before retooling, they needed to reduce inventory(?). Still, there was a significant amount of these deck lids which would have been maintained in the GM Oldsmobile Division parts supply warehouses for at least 10 years (til 1981 at least). You think it was a mistake?
Norm, your bumper is a stock bumper, and would be the exact same as any other Cutlass from 1971/72 that didn't have the W29 L75 or W30 option. So yes, your thinking is correct and no it's not a 442 bumper. Every 1971 442 however did get the dual cutout with trumpet exhaust as standard equipment.
I'm struggling to understand your statement. My bumper is a stock bumper?
Did the W28 L75 or W20 options have dual cutout bumpers with trumpet exhaust as standard equipment?
You said every 1971 4-4-2 had dual cutout with trumpet exhaust as standard equipment but say I have a stock bumper which would be the exact same as any other Cutlass from 1971/72 and then say I don't have a 4-4-2 bumper.
I"m not tracking on this one. I have a dual cutout with trumpet exhaust bumper on a Cutlass convertible. I think I'm losing it.
Fart knockers, I thought I put up the picture of my bumper - I guess I forgot that piece of the equation - LOL. I was bouncing between my original newbie post and this one so many times last night and posting images I guess I failed to post an image of my bumper.
Location: Edmonton, AB. And "I am Can 'eh' jun - eh"
Posts: 24,525
Norm, I think it's more likely that your deck lid component was stamped incorrectly at FBW. Note the stamping is on the deck lid frame and it's very possible that the frame was just in the wrong place at the wrong time? Likely a mistake in part stamping.
Yes, A27 coincides with your vehicles production but you've got the concept wrong. FBW stamped those parts and used them to build the body of your car. There's no definitive date on when the part was produced and stamped other than the third week of July. You are mixing up the FBW function and the Final Assembly functions. FBW built the body, interior, paint, glass and deck lid and sent that completed body to Final Assembly where it was mated with it's chassis/drive train and front clip, plus bumpers and whatever else was needed to complete a finished automobile. FBW would need about 4-5 days to build the raw metal and materials into a finished body, then ship it to Lansing Final Assembly which only needed 1 day on the line to roll it out as a finished car.
As noted in my earlier post and response to your line item 1:
the vert deck lid is interchangeable only with VERTS, and SEDANS, not CS HT's. Look at those pictures that show the difference and the light bulb should go on...
Ok, that bumper on your car IS a 442 bumper. It has the matching trumpet exhausts. That was never a production item for a SBO (with the exception of the 1970 Rallye 350), which means it was either added by the dealer or Previous owner. I like it and think all dual exhaust A bodies should have had that styling cue.
Line item 2:
no non nein nyet. Refer back to previous comment about production. Anyone desperate enough to find a proper date coded deck lid would also be desperate enough to ensure it was the proper design.
It was not uncommon to have leftover components from year to year. Deck lids are inconsequential - they would be an exact fit for the 1972 CS HT's and Sedans heading down the line shortly. As a matter of interest, in 1971 there were a significant number of A bodies that were produced with 1970 fenders; which is a great example of this carryover. As you might remember, the 1970 fenders don't have the crumple feature which was mandated for 1971 production. So GM got off with not meeting federal legislation for awhile, what's shocking about that?
Location: Edmonton, AB. And "I am Can 'eh' jun - eh"
Posts: 24,525
Originally Posted by Vintage Chief
I'm struggling to understand your statement. My bumper is a stock bumper?
Did the W28 L75 or W20 options have dual cutout bumpers with trumpet exhaust as standard equipment?
You said every 1971 4-4-2 had dual cutout with trumpet exhaust as standard equipment but say I have a stock bumper which would be the exact same as any other Cutlass from 1971/72 and then say I don't have a 4-4-2 bumper.
I"m not tracking on this one. I have a dual cutout with trumpet exhaust bumper on a Cutlass convertible. I think I'm losing it.
Yup, responded to your question above. But WTH is a W28 and W20?? Fat fingers today??
An FYI for you. The only CS verts that came stock with the cutout bumper were the 1971 442's. NONE of the CS HT's came with the dual cutout bumpers from the factory - ever.
Norm, I think it's more likely that your deck lid component was stamped incorrectly at FBW. Note the stamping is on the deck lid frame and it's very possible that the frame was just in the wrong place at the wrong time? Likely a mistake in part stamping
When you say the 'frame' I'm not sure what that means. My stamping is in the exact same location as Dave's deck lid stamping. What's even more interesting/peculiar, your deck lid stamping is not in the same location as either Dave's or mine, although you both have a 1972 model year vehicle & mine is a 1971.
Location: Edmonton, AB. And "I am Can 'eh' jun - eh"
Posts: 24,525
Ok, Let's whoa down here. Yes, both you and Dave have Cutlass Supreme's. I have a Cutlass S which is a completely different deck lid - different dimensions and shape. It's not interchangeable with anything but the 3677 and 3687 models from 1970 - 1972.
I've seen countless CS deck lids that are all stamped the same as what you guys have, and in exactly the same location. It's actually something that was discussed on CO maybe 7 years ago and I remember that stamping being a common theme. The deck lid is composed of 2 pieces of sheet metal. The outer skin is bonded to the inner 'frame' or 'support structure. Look at the edges of your deck lid and you'll see what I mean. There are openings in your frame where you can clearly see the upper skin of the deck lid.
A point of clarification on the 71 442 which was still it's own model. This from the dealer brochure spells out some of the nice features.
When you say the 'frame' I'm not sure what that means. My stamping is in the exact same location as Dave's deck lid stamping. What's even more interesting/peculiar, your deck lid stamping is not in the same location as either Dave's or mine, although you both have a 1972 model year vehicle & mine is a 1971.
Norm, I think by "deck lid frame" Allan is referring to where the trunk closes and these date codes...
As far as the trunk lid itself, my date code is in the same exact location as yours.
Ok, Let's whoa down here. Yes, both you and Dave have Cutlass Supreme's. I have a Cutlass S which is a completely different deck lid - different dimensions and shape. It's not interchangeable with anything but the 3677 and 3687 models from 1970 - 1972.
I've seen countless CS deck lids that are all stamped the same as what you guys have, and in exactly the same location. It's actually something that was discussed on CO maybe 7 years ago and I remember that stamping being a common theme. The deck lid is composed of 2 pieces of sheet metal. The outer skin is bonded to the inner 'frame' or 'support structure. Look at the edges of your deck lid and you'll see what I mean. There are openings in your frame where you can clearly see the upper skin of the deck lid.
A point of clarification on the 71 442 which was still it's own model. This from the dealer brochure spells out some of the nice features.
Ah ha. That makes complete sense. Thanks for the clarification regarding the stamping locations. Also, yes I have seen what you're referring to as the delta between the frame and the skin. I never thought of it in that matter but makes complete sense thanks for identifying what the frame of the deck lid consisted of.
I have the exact same printed 1971 OLDSMOBILE brochure and I just looked at it. I've seen it and reviewed it previously; but, I've never been able to get anyone with any authority to validate if my bumper was from a 4-4-2 and which model year 4-4-2 bumper.
Norm, I think by "deck lid frame" Allan is referring to where the trunk closes and these date codes.
Thanks, Dave. No. Allan is referring to the fact the deck lid is produced in two pieces: (1) frame as the underlying support for the (2) overlay (skin). Got it now.
Last edited by Vintage Chief; May 5th, 2019 at 11:04 AM.
Reason: sp
Location: Edmonton, AB. And "I am Can 'eh' jun - eh"
Posts: 24,525
Dave, I'm assuming (and that's dangerous) that it's from the same year. It could easily be from any of the 70-72 production. But yes, likely from 72. You keeping the wing on it? Some people like it but it was never offered as an option on any of the 70-72 Cutlass Supreme models, just the fastback design. The pedestals don't even have the right angle for the wing to sit properly.
You fellas are making me laugh. We’re talking about a 50 year old vehicle that has likely had multiple owners who have modified it to their liking over the years and you may be the first one that has any concern for its originality.
Dave, I'm assuming (and that's dangerous) that it's from the same year. It could easily be from any of the 70-72 production. But yes, likely from 72. You keeping the wing on it? Some people like it but it was never offered as an option on any of the 70-72 Cutlass Supreme models, just the fastback design. The pedestals don't even have the right angle for the wing to sit properly.
For now, yessir, the wing is staying, for the same reason the scoops are staying:. They balance each other out...one wouldn't look right without the other. Don't get me wrong though...when the day arrives that I decide to bring it back to its original glory, then yes, the scoops and the wing will go the way of the dodo bird.
As far as the pedestal angle, well, that's a topic for the experts to muddle over, and I don't intend to take any 99 point scores in a concourse, so I'm happy with it...I've always liked the wing on the 70-72 Oldsmobile A bodies, but as always, I welcome and appreciate your input 😀
But...just for the sake of knowing, what can you tell me about the angle of the pedestals?
You fellas are making me laugh. We’re talking about a 50 year old vehicle that has likely had multiple owners who have modified it to their liking over the years and you may be the first one that has any concern for its originality.
I hear you, Kenneth. It's a conversation piece for me being able to ascertain some of its history. There are some good points in identifying the history in particular w/ regards to replacement parts and which parts are original and which are not. Identifying & knowing some of those pieces does have merit - some more important than others - engine, transmission, rear end, front end, carburetor, etc.
I hear you, Kenneth. It's a conversation piece for me being able to ascertain some of its history. There are some good points in identifying the history in particular w/ regards to replacement parts and which parts are original and which are not. Identifying & knowing some of those pieces does have merit - some more important than others - engine, transmission, rear end, front end, carburetor, etc.
One thing's for sure...no CO poster will be looking for information pertaining to fender & deck lid date stamps w/ a thread titled "Look what rolled up in the parking lot at work today..."
Last edited by Vintage Chief; May 5th, 2019 at 05:40 PM.
Reason: sp
One thing's for sure...no CO poster will be looking for information pertaining to fender & deck lid date stamps w/ a thread titled "Look what rolled up in the parking lot at work today..."
This is true Norm...oh how we have digressed! And to think it all started with that pic of the '70 Cutlass 'vert😀
Oh, and btw, not only did I learn a thing or two about date stamps, but when I first looked at the '70, I was immediately able to see the difference in his hood and mine...something I was always curious about.
Location: Edmonton, AB. And "I am Can 'eh' jun - eh"
Posts: 24,525
I had a nice informative post ready to submit here. Took me about 20 minutes to format. It's gone....suffice to say it's not going to magically appear again.
Location: Edmonton, AB. And "I am Can 'eh' jun - eh"
Posts: 24,525
Well Lord Tundering Jaysus an Marry! I used the restore auto content and guess what showed up??? I didn't think it would work but here ya go.
Yes, the thread digressed, but then what thread doesn't? I appreciate Ken's comment but in all honesty the information here wasn't about trying to make sure all the car was original. He's right - that's out the door with a succession of new owners.
I'm luckier than that as our car has been in the family since new. It's suffered some scrapes and dents through its life and I would be a lie to say it's all original. I've replaced the quarters, front fenders, rear bumper and drivers door. But the rest of the car is original OEM parts. The interior is original with the exception of the drivers seat lower and upper. The whole point of the stampings was to provide information about the cars history when it was being built at respective Fisher 'Body Works plants, nothing more. If the parts are date stamped from other time periods, so be it. That would only hurt a car if it was being judged as a survivor.
And let's be straight about this - no one here is judging each others cars. We're just appreciating them and sharing with each other.
Dave, I can't give you the exact angle of the pedestals on the deck wing, but if you look at this picture of the fastback with a deck wing, you can see how much steeper the back deck is raked compared to the CS and how the wing ends up being horizontal. To achieve that result on a CS the wing has to be mounted waaay back on the deck lid where the contour takes a significant down turn. Norm has a 71 Assembly Manual and can post a diagram showing the mounting locations for the deck wing. Best I can suggest is see if your wing is mounted as such and go from there.
Also understand that the deck wing is to all intents and purposes ornamental. To be functional I believe I read the car would have to be driving at speeds in excess of 110 mph, and that's just not something we do routinely with old technology. I do like the look of the wing on the fastback cars, it makes them look fast even standing still.
I guess one question I would also ask you is, When you look in the rear view do you see the deck wing? On fastback cars you don't. There's no sight line loss at all.
I don't really need to post a picture of the CS as both you and Norm own them. You'll get the idea though looking at the roof design and flow to the back of the car.
Well Lord Tundering Jaysus an Marry! I used the restore auto content and guess what showed up??? I didn't think it would work but here ya go.
Crisis narrowly averted. In theory, the Restore Auto-Saved Content is supposed to maintain your last key-strokes for this thread. So, in theory, if you try to perform a Restore Auto-Saved Content right now as a new post, it should embed the last key-strokes you made in your last thread (in theory). I've found it works sometimes & it doesn't work other times. Much like Las Vegas - a crap shoot.
I guess one question I would also ask you is, When you look in the rear view do you see the deck wing? On fastback cars you don't. There's no sight line loss at all.
I don't really need to post a picture of the CS as both you and Norm own them. You'll get the idea though looking at the roof design and flow to the back of the car.
Allan, I checked the sight line looking in the rear view, and I can just barely see the top of the wing.
The only thing that can really be seen are the tips of the wing, but other than that, no sight line loss.
Does anyone know what color the original pic? I am repainting mine and it has a tan top, I like the combination as shown. It looks like Galleon Gold but I've seen a few different golds that vary slightly?
thanks,
Steve W
May 4th, 2019, 05:46 PM
