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.
71 Convertibles are based on the fancier Supreme body and interior, while 69 convertibles are based on the lower S model, if that matters to you. The 71s in my opinion are much better looking. The 69 Cutlass, with that overbite front bumper is the least attractive Cutlass of those years in my opinion.
Location: Edmonton, AB. And "I am Can 'eh' jun - eh"
Posts: 24,525
Originally Posted by Drsantos
Looking at cutlass convertible both are the same price very similar condition. The 71 has AC is green with white interior 67k miles. 69 is blue blue interior non ac 93k miles. opionions on which is better purchase
Well based on your 'lack of responses' and information sharing, I'd say just buy whichever one you think you'd look best in. It also doesn't sound like you've done much research into the cars themselves. That would be a good thing IMO. Both cars have an aftermarket supply for parts.
Check these links if you're at all interested. You can use it to do some research on your own. 1969 Oldsmobile product guide and SPECS and this one 1971 Oldsmobile product guide and SPECS
The bad - slight rust on top of rear bumper, small seam on front seat unstitched,oil leak most likely value cover,.
The good - solid frame and body panels (no filler) new rear seat, new alt, new front suspension, rebuilt trans.
Thanks Dave
Sounds good. The rust on the bumper would make me a little suspicious, though -- if it's there, there's a good chance there's more elsewhere. Inspect carefully. All the other deficiencies are small potatoes, to my mind.
If I saw that on a car I would walk away, or be prepared to have the bodywork repaired and repainted very soon. the old bondo is separating and uglyness is underneath.
That pic of the lifting bondo on the 71 is a concern. I'm a 70-72 guy but I'd go with the 69 unless no AC is a deal breaker. Since you are posting, I assume its not. Its a nice looking car that looks complete.
Side note - unless the mileage claims come with rock solid documentation, I'd take it with a grain of salt. With cars this age, 93K could easily be 193K or even 293K, so at that point its dependent on how the car was maintained and what work has been done.
Even though the 69 looks complete, if there are any odds & ends you'd like to do to it (i.e. missing trim pieces, etc) you should account for it. Parts availability is better for 70-72 than for a 69 so parts will cost more.
Location: Edmonton, AB. And "I am Can 'eh' jun - eh"
Posts: 24,525
Personally I'd like to see a lot more pictures of the 69. Up close pictures that show details. Pics under the hood, inside the car, door jambs, pinch welds, trunk floors, underneath if possible. A picture of a car from 12-20 feet away isn't a good representation. We all know that almost any car can be decent looking from 20'. If you're that interested in the car why don't you go look at it and take lots of pictures that can be posted here??
I'm surprised that you're getting input to go buy the 69 based on no substantial pictures and just hearsay about condition and miles. What about documentation on the car? Is there any? Does the owner have records showing maintenance??
Allan I have seen the car in person , reviewed repaired receipts, check frame, door jams quarters fro rust.filler (none found), Numbers Matching 350 2 Barrel V8 Engine, 2 Speed Jetaway Automatic Transmission.
Over $5,000 in Recent Work, Including Rebuilt Transmission, Front Suspension, and Carburetor.
New Starter, Alternator, Voltage Regulator, Alternator, Battery, Oil Pressure Switch, Coolant Temperature Sensor, and Dual Mufflers. New Reupholstered Back Seats.
Last edited by Drsantos; August 7th, 2018 at 11:10 AM.
Location: Edmonton, AB. And "I am Can 'eh' jun - eh"
Posts: 24,525
Car looks nice. Could use some minor detailing but presented nicely. Appears to have some front drivers seat soiling that hopefully cleans up, same on top of drivers door panel. There's something odd happening with those front grills. They shouldn't be drooping like that in the center. But I'm nit picky. Someone rattle can sprayed the engine a while back.
Overall I like it. No AC isn't a deal breaker for me; in fact it's a nice thing when minor mtce like spark plugs, valve cover gaskets, heater core or hoses have to be replaced.
Yes the Right left grill mounting tab was broken, pieces are there could be epoxied. Looks like I will be taking the car trailer and getting it tomorrow , after some engine checks, compression , vacuum readings oil pressure..
I'm a 70 - 72 person myself but that 69 sure looks good. $14k is not bad at all, would cost a lot more to get a lesser car looking this good. The fact that it is not perfect is a plus in my opinion too, it means you can just enjoy the car instead of over babying it. Good luck.
Not being critical of this car or this purchase, but am I the only one that thinks matching #'s is overrated? On a car of pedigree definitely but with a base model is it that big a deal?
To the OP - 69 looks like a great buy @$14K. Good luck with the transaction. I hope everything checks out
Location: Edmonton, AB. And "I am Can 'eh' jun - eh"
Posts: 24,525
Originally Posted by droptopron
am I the only one that thinks matching #'s is overrated? On a car of pedigree definitely but with a base model is it that big a deal?
Ron, to some people it is. I think what the OP was trying to communicate is that the car has the same drivetrain it left the factory with, so it has value to him. Personally I'm not a big fan of the Jetaway when the TH350 could be had that year. But, that's just me...
Location: Edmonton, AB. And "I am Can 'eh' jun - eh"
Posts: 24,525
69 and 70 were the hated cars by mechanics working under the hood for exactly that reason. Personally I think it's a dumb design. Should have been a fixed in place item with the grills and rad support.
August 4th, 2018, 02:09 PM
