CC reader John Kelly sent me these pictures of a rare original 1967 Olds Cutlass convertible with a six and three speed manual transmission he found at a car show Plymouth, MA. Somebody thrifty wanted a bit of style.
Here it is, the “Oldsmobile Actionline Six”, with 250 cubic inches and 155 hp. It was of course a Chevy engine, proudly painted Olds Rocket Gold, and relabeled. And no one complained about a Chevy six masquerading as an Olds engine, unlike they did in 1977. Looks like the original buyer sprung for power brakes and power steering.
Here’s the column shifter and clutch pedal, for proof it’s not the Jetaway automatic that undoubtedly was in the overwhelming majority of these.
Rear view.
And one more.
Before anyone makes a comment about what a slug this must be, although I can’t readily find a vintage review of a 250 powered manual shift car, the heavier ’66 Bel Air with the 250 six and Powerglide did the 0-60 in a decent 15.5 seconds, and a Chevy II with the 230 six and PG did it in 14.0 seconds. So I’m estimating this would do it in about 14 seconds, or maybe less. Not too shabby, actually.
I just can’t fathom the thinking of the person who ordered this car!
If he was an Oldsmobile Man, why not get the base V-8, at least? It only cost $69 more and added a full 95 (gross) hp! ($2770 vs $2839, base price)
I couldn’t find Chevelle pricing for ’67, but I imagine that a Malibu 6 convertible would have been 15-20% cheaper than this Cutlass.
Mind. Blown.
As time goes on, I’m starting to get it.
I want all my stuff to be dirt-simple, easy to fix, thrifty, lightweight*, and just relaxingly sufficient.
I’m using my whole, beautiful car!
*it’s probably the same weight as a V8, isn’t it
Having lived in Plymouth years ago, there are a lot of thrifty folks there. Back then convertibles were popular and perhaps the buyer wanted to save a few bucks. The show is on Water Street, near the Town Wharf (fishing boats and all) and in the East Bay restaurant parking lot. Old timers will recognize the building as the original “Dearn and McGraths” location that opened in the mid-1960s. Regardless, it’s still a “wicked cah.”
Yankee thrift was invented by the Plymouth Pilgrims ( swamp Yankees) The Puritans that settled Boston had money. The difference is still notable today as there is more” old money” north and west of the city. Never had a bad meal at Mcraths the site of some epic clam bakes in the 50’s.
Agree on McGraths aka Dearn and McGrath’s. East Bay is pretty good.
That and the Lobster Hut are stops on my visits to Plymouth. My Dad and Aunt were born there decades ago at “the Jordan.” Agree that Duxbury and Scituate are “for the swells.”
I’ve been saying “Yankee Thrifty” since the late 1960’s because it’s true .
I’m a (damn) Yankee born & bred and if I get up off a dollar you can be sure I think there’s significant value involved .
_CHEAP_ O.T.O.H. is mindlessly counting pennies instead of watching out for your dollars .
-Nate
“I want all my stuff to be dirt-simple, easy to fix, thrifty, lightweight*, and just relaxingly sufficient”.
I agree.
To me, being able to see the pavement when the hood is open is a very good omen of easy to perform repairs.
I had a 6 cylinder Falcon, you could change oil and filter without getting under the car.
Evan, it wasn’t mainly about saving $69 at purchase; it was about saving money at the pump. Contrary to popular belief, gas wasn’t free back in the ’60s. The overwhelming reason for buying sixes back then was for the fuel economy, and that goes for the manual transmission too.
Almost certainly the original buyer was an older guy who felt no need for newfangled V8s and automatics.
Or, as another possibility, a wealthier gent bought this for the Missus to use to get down to the store, and they could use it on the weekends to go golfing or lawn bowling. His car would have been a Ninety-Eight.
Extremely unlikely. That would have pissed the Missus off. No happy wife; no happy life.
Seriously, having spent time around old money in the Baltimore County area, that was just not done.
This was almost certainly bought by an old-school thrifty Yankee. As someone else pointed out, New Englanders liked convertibles, as the summers didn’t get very hot. The Cutlass was the cheapest Olds convertible that year, as there was no more F-85 version as in earlier years.
Possibly a well off family and the father was buying a car for the son, daughter, or both to share and specifically wanted one without the added power, and temptation to use it, of a V8. This wasn’t in the northeast (no ragtop in Portland) but I had a girlfriend whose dad did just that, nice car but with a six.
I agree with PDX Electric. Probably a father buying a convertible Olds for the kids with the least possible horsepower. And, he wanted to be sure they knew how to use a manual transmission. Also, the manual would have limited the number of friends who would ask to drive the car.
Possibly a well off family and the father was buying a car for the son, daughter,
The odds of it then surviving are quite low, whereas if an old guy bought it and he got too old to drive and it was stashed away in a garage, it still existing in such apparently original condition is vastly higher.
In fact, that precisely the way the overwhelming percentage of original cars in very good condition have survived.
The kids would have run it into the ground or sold it off for something newer or faster.
My dad was obsessed with gasoline prices. He had a paid up F-41 Impala with 350 and a/c. Yes, it sucked gas like crazy, but it was paid for. After having it for only four years he turned it into a cab. He bought a 1984 Jetta Turbodiesel to save money on fuel.
The Impala cost $8200 when new in 1979. The Jetta, five years later, was $13,000.
Dad wasn’t so good with math.
Here are 1966 prices. Something is out of whack. They do not show a 6 cylinder convertible Cutlass for 1966 and the V-8 is $2965, which is more than you 1967 figure. Anyway, a 1966 Malibu base model convertible without options and freight is $2588, 6% less than your figure for the 1967 6 cylinder.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/uncategorized/1966-new-cars-complete-price-data-what-would-you-buy/
That price list lacks accuracy. For example, the ’66 Starfire was never available with vinyl upholstery. That was standard on the Jetstar I. I’ve never seen one with a bench seat, either. That would have automatically shoved it down onto Buick’s turf. That’s not to say that some occasional quirky exceptions for those who couldn’t do without their date’s direct bodilly contact wasn’t possible, though. Who knows.
Initially, a Cutlass was an upgraded F-85.
My dad bought a ’67 F-85 stripdown 4-door sedan with Chevrolet 6-banger and Jetaway new. The steering was light enough, so that it didn’t need power steering. If I’m not mistaken, power brake boosters were series on all GM intermediates, by 1967? I don’t remember ever seeing anything that new without.
The way this featured convertible was assembled surely makes for some fun detective work. That unnecessary power steering option certainly clues to appointing this vehicle to a female driver, in any case
This “Price Book” was from an independent publisher, and like so many things published, was subject to errors, omissions, typos, etc.
Yes, there was a Cutlass six convertible; it’s clearly listed in every Olds brochure and reliable sources like the Standard Encyclopedia of American cars. And I’m not surprised there are other mistakes too.
Strange that you found this in its homeland, I rather expect to see one like this on my side of the Atlantic where ordering US cars this way wasn’t unusual.
Nearby there used to be a pretty 1967 Impala hardtop fastback with a 250 and I used to have a 74 Chevelle Malibu Classic with the same engine and a 3 on the tree.
The strangest one I know of might be the red white Fairmont futura I had with the 2.3 and 4 speed manual…
Manual was the only way to spec a Fairmont. Who would want to give up the wonderful plastichrome-filigree faux heraldic shield molded into the blanking panel in the dash where the PRNDL indicator would go?
Indeed – it could have been a cancelled foreign order. There were many such unlikely (from a US PoV) cars in Israel where I grew up in the 60s and the 70s; heck, I knew of a 65 442 drop-top which was CONVERTED into 6/Powerglide. Fuel was expensive even back then and speeds were low so it made sense. As for the Fairmont, the Israeli police had a few with the 2.3/auto which is even crazier. They were relatively quickly replaced with 2.0L Ford Sierras – there is a limit to the stinginess game at some point…
Now that, in my eyes, is a truly wonderful antique car. What a pleasant change from the overwhelming hordes of pony and muscle cars.
You’re so right …
“ACTIONLINE 6” .
!
Shoulda been ‘PENNYPINCHER 6’ or similar .
I love inliners so this car calls to me in spite of being so darn BIG .
-Nate
I learned to drive in my Dad’s ’67 F-85 with this engine/transmission combination. No power steering or brakes, though. When I went for my driving test, the cop cut the drive short when he saw me shifting and directed me to the parallel parking test. Guess he figured if this kid could handle a three-on-the-tree, he could handle anything else on the road.
Good story! I assume you passed the driving/parking test the first go round?
Yup!
I had the same experience when I took my driving test in December 1965. I used my mother’s 61 Falcon with three-on-the-tree because it was the smallest car in our fleet and hence easiest to park despite the lack of power steering. The examiner also was favorably impressed with my manual transmission skills and gave me an easy parallel parking chore, behind a car with no corresponding car behind my car. Needless to say I passed, unlike my classmate who unsuccessfully tried to parallel park her family’s full-sized Chevrolet station wagon. They had smaller cars in the family fleet but she could not drive them because they were – stick shifts!
Love it. Thanks for sharing this, Paul.
I always love the way one can see straight to the ground in places on a lot of old American engines such as this. I’m surprised makers didn’t factory install under engine plastic covers to prevent possible fly up of rocks/gravel into the engine bay with potential to damage parts of the engine. They do that now and it’s a good thing.
Those under engine shields are strictly for aerodynamic reasons, and are called “aero shields”. Damage from objects below is/was not likely ever an issue. Rocks thrown from the front wheels would end up in the fender wells.
I’ve always seen them called “splash guards” or “splash shields.” But whatever you call them, Paul is right – they are mostly there to smooth out the airflow underneath the car.
Also get in the way with oil changes and various underbody work.
*swish* into the dumpster.
@ Longhorn ;
If you go back into the 20’s, 30’s & 40’s they did indeed have shields between the frame and engines in many cars, this helped direct cooling air flow more than anything else and they were discarded usually straight away .
The modern plastic thing is there to improve airflow and so suspension dynamics, the fact that they also piss off Mechanics is just a plus to the manufacturers .
-Nate
I have owned many a six cylinder car in the past, currently own five six cylinder cars, all with three speed on the column. NEVER had a problem with anything coming up into the engine bay from the road, never heard of anyone else who had this happen to them.
Water. Went through a flooded lane with the C10 pickup and same engine. Distributor on the side immediately drowned. Now, I had to step in ankle deep water to dry it out. At least I could reach it.
Those plates were intended to improve aerodynamics for fuel economy.
I’ve never had any road debris hit my engine. If anything, it always went the other way around where a piston rod ended up littering the roadway
All it needs is factory AC to complete the odd ball package!
As if a 250 six with a three-on-the-tree wasn’t slow enough already, LOL! Besides, that’a what the convertible top is for! I’m guessing that back then, the convertible option cost about half the cost of the optional air conditioning, so convertible top it is!
Also, I don’t think you could get A/C with the six, that would have forced an upgrade to at least the base V8 (326?), so as you can see, the costs begin to rise rapidly once A/C enters the option list.
Yes, A/C was available with the six.
You’re speculating. The info is readily available.
Really? I’m surprised. I’ll take your word for it, but that’s not always the case. If someone were to order that combination, it would make a slow car even slower!
Before I read the text the first thing I thought was “Wow! The 250 Chevy six was actually painted gold like the Olds engines of that time period!” I knew the inline six was offered but had never seen one even in pictures. I once saw a ’64 F-85 at a wrecking yard that had the Buick V6 in it and thought it was pretty rare also. I don’t remember that one being painted gold though.
That ended in 1977 when GM started painting all engines “Corporate Blue”. Sometime in the early ’80s that was changed to black industry-wide for remaining iron blocks and steel parts like valve covers. I’m not sure why but at a guess engine paint had been formulated with a lot of lead to stick to cast parts that might not have been thoroughly degreased and the only replacement ingredient was carbon black, maybe?
I was working at a chevrolet dealership when the change to black engine paint took place around 1982 and the technical info provided by GM stated it was so leak tracer dye would contrast when viewed under a blacklight . There where probably other reasons as well.
Wow! This seems like it would be a “one-of-one”!
Beautiful car. I’ve always liked that shade of yellow.
Great Car! I hope they keep it all original. What scares me is when the present owner passes, the family will sell it to someone who’ll “restomod” it, by dropping in an LS or LT series crate engine in it, and convert the “three-on-the-tree” to a floor-shifted five or six-speed box with a console! There needs to be room in the hobby for cars like these, if for no other reason than to show kids what most cars looked like back in the day!
The pseudo Olds 250 ci 6 was NOT popular at the Olds dealer I worked at in L.A. circa 1969. I had asked for a 6 Cutlass or F-85 for my demo; I could have gotten a better result asking for a W-30 442! The dealer didn’t stock those either!! 🙂
OK, I’m cheep and found the 6 perfectly adequate. I even bought my first new car at the time I worked for the Olds dealer. My purchase did have the 250 ci 6, but it was under the hood of a gold ’69 Nova coupe!! The fact that the “bullet proof” Chevy 6 I had ate exhaust valves repeatedly; well there was no extra charge for that as long as it was under the 50K mile warranty! I finally traded the Nova for a new ’71 VW Super Bug: that car my wife loved! OOPZ!! DFO
Dennis ;
I’m sure by now you know that simply removing the V-Belt from the ‘A.I.R.Pump’ would have $aved you endless grief .
-Nate
I truly feel in this day and age of seemingly everybody putting LS engines into many classic cars(GM or otherwise), painting the engine in the brand’s classic color helps immensely to ease the blasphemy of it, and here is case and point. I wouldn’t have known this was a Chevy 6 at a glance.
Ironically that’s probably a part of what fueled the backlash, by 1977 the divisions abandoned their unique brand engine colors in favor of a generic corporate blue, so if you weren’t savvy enough to spot the tells you didn’t know what you got in your new Olds! I wonder if the brands simply stuck with their specific orange/metallic blue/gold/etc engine finishes of the 60s anyone would have even noticed enough for it to be a controversy.
I’d definitely be staring at this the most at an auto show, I wouldn’t care if there was a 442 W30 right next to it.
Something is odd here, I always thought the standard engine in the Olds Cutlass was the 225 cubic inch v-6 which was used as the standard engine in both the Cutlass and the Buick Special. Doing some research on the internet seems to confirm that.
Buick sold the tooling for the v-6 to Jeep in 1967 to go in the Jeepster; and in 1968 the Chevrolet 250 cubic inch six became the standard engine on Oldsmobile and Buick intermediates (or so I thought).
Perhaps a mid-year switch in engines for the 1967 model year?
Here’s the brochure page for the 1967 Cutlass (not Supreme) that includes the convertible. The base engine is this one with the 3-speed.
In 1966, Olds dropped the Buick V6 for the Chevy six, and used that for a number of years, in the Cutlass and Omega.
I suspect that the Chevy 6 was cheaper to buy than the Buick V6 and certainly smoother. And maybe Buick had already tipped them off about plans to ditch the V6 after 1967?
It could be interesting to wonder what if Oldsmobile used the OHC Pontiac six?
“And no one complained about a Chevy six masquerading as an Olds engine, unlike they did in 1977.”
No Olds buyer would ever have complained because he would have outed himself as someone not worthy of an Oldsmobile. 🙂
None of the many Olds buyers in my world would ever have chosen the six. These people bought Oldsmobiles because they had earned them from years of hard work and thrift. And an essential part of the Oldsmobile experience was that Rocket V8, which everyone could hear.
I never saw one but the Olds F-85 was still available in 1972. It came with the 250 inline 6 cylinder engine and a 3 speed on the column. Wish I had known that then as I bought a 72 Cutlass S with a 350 in it.
I suspect AC was rare unless you bought a luxury car. The South or West sold more AC. This car was the least expensive Olds convertible and a step up in brand for some buyers. A large dealership would have had 15 sitting next to each other and each sticker increased. Some GM dealership would have had Pontiacs mixed in. The end of the row had a 98 with all the options. Maybe a 225? Great car!
I’m more amazed that this Cutlass has a manual trans than the fact that it has the six. I believe Paul is straight on that this was all about the fuel mileage. Even with the added weight of a convertible, that six with a manual trans was not a terrible slug. I like it.
I recall that Pontiac (US) also used a Chevy inline six in their Tempests for a bit, at least in 1964. However, they downsized the 230 ci Chevy to a 215 ci variant. I can’t think of any reason to do that other than to disguise the fact that it was a Chevy engine. A then girlfriend on mine had such a Tempest in the early ’70’s. That was bit of a slug with a 2-speed auto and a too tall rear axle ratio.
Hank ;
I owned a 1964 Tempest Station Wagon with that 215 CIT i6 , Power Glide and P.S., it wasn’t fast by any means but it wasn’t slow either, when properly tuned these were peppy little cars that gave great fuel economy .
-Nate
It’s been 50 years since I drove that GF’s 215 Tempest. You’re correct that it was adequate power and good fuel economy. At that time, I had been used to only 3 speed automatics or 3 or 4 speed manuals and V8’s at that. My impression back then was that it was only sluggish from a stop.
Your wagon variant of the Tempest sounded like an especially good vehicle to have. A friend back in the same era had a ’67 Camaro with 230 I6 and Power Glide. It must have been relatively light weight with single leaf rear leaf springs. I believe that it rarely dropped below 20 mpg.
I own a 1965 Studebaker Cruiser that I am currently restoring. It has a 194 with 3-speed & overdrive. Most common in the topline Cruiser was the 283 V8 with Flightomatic.
No way this Olds would do a 14 second quarter mile. The article you link to there has the 230/PG equipped Chevy II at 19.2 seconds. I’d guess you’d be pretty close to that in our featured car.
That being said the straight six would move it down the road just fine, and be a very fun cruiser so long as the driver doesn’t feel the need to impress folks with black stripes down the road. Beautiful car & color.
4 can look like 9. I was also surprised and powerglide 230 would be quicker than a 250 3spd though the Chevy 2 was (I’m guessing) 500 lbs lighter.
I think the buyer was a conservative male, who was the primary driver.
Advertising (for automatics, of course) emphasized how much more pleasant it was, especially for the ladies, not dealing with changing gears.
Of course, larger torquier engines work better with automatics, so Detroit could get away with vague shifters and heavy clutches.
The imports, with smaller motors, and far less affluent customers (in that era), NEEDED manuals, and a better shifter and clutch were selling points in a way they were not on US cars.
Regardless, this is a neat car!
Doug, time for new glasses! It really is 14.0 seconds. And the whole gist of the article was that the Chevy II six was quicker than the V8 Fairlane.
Note that the other vintage review I linked to was for a full-size Bel Air with the 250 six and PG: 0-60 in 15.5 seconds.
Having read and posted a slew of these vintage reviews, I’ve yet to see an American car with a six take 19 seconds to 60. The typical range is 14 – 17 seconds. Maybe you Canadians drive slower? 🙂
Seriously, these pre-emission control sixes are not nearly as slow as many folks make them out to be. My 240 six F100 will scoot right along, when I give it the spurs.
One of you guys is talking 0-60, the other is talking quarter mile….
I checked as well, the acceleration times stated were 0-60 mph. Not much slower than some small V8 heavier cars.
Oops, I read the little tiny Car Life article text correctly but not the actual post. Yes that’s 0-60, Sorry!
I owned a 1971 Ford Galaxie 500, with a six cylinder engine, 3 on the tree, manual steering and brakes. It actually ran and drove well for a full size car. Bought it in the early ’80’s, sold it in the early ’90’s, and just saw it on facebook in 2023 for sale!
Come on guys stop picking on the 6 cylinder. Back in the sixties my parents owned a 1964 Chevy Impala four-door with the 230 6 cylinder. It had the Powerglide and yes it had air conditioning. And although you weren’t going to win any race with it, I don’t believe it was the slowest thing on the road at the time either. Multiple Interstate trips from central Pennsylvania to Naples Florida over several years. Never broke down on any of those trips that I ever recall. Those in line 6 cylinders go all the way back to what they called the stove bolt era.. so perhaps it was something more along the lines of what this man knew and understood as reliable. And they were. They all were. Think about it. This car is at a car show with it’s original stuff. That speaks volumes.
I believe, 1961 was the last year for the Stovebolt to be dropped in.
Its successor is a completely new engine, sharing some parts with the smallblock Chevrolet V-8, as did the first generation 153 c.i.d. “Iron Duke”
1962 was the final year of the venerable 235 in passenger cars .
It was in use in various commercial / industrial until 1964 .
The new ‘thinwall’ 194 / 230 / 250 engine is a nice one, it’s basically the same engine as this Olds, Pontiac used it too as did Buick albeit with different bores .
-Nate
I stand corrected.
Didn’t Buick stay with their V-6s?
The Pontiacs all had overhead camshafts, until production ended. Upon when they used the Chevrolet 250 in their compacts thereafter. There is very little on those which will interchange with the Chevrolet sixes, despite visual similarities.
The commercial Stovebolts used until 1964 were likely the stroked out to 261 c.i.d. versions previously used in small school buses and larger panel trucks
Sal ;
As I mentioned, Pontiac used the Chevy thinwall i6 with a different bore size, the sump, alternator, water pump, on and on all interchanged .
I don’t know the model years but Buick sold (IIRC) “Apollo” sedans that were essentially re badged Chevy Novas in the 1970’s .
The good folks here will tell you definitively what Buicks in what model years used the V6’s .
-Nate
The Apollo, Ventura and Nova were identical to one another, except for badging and trim. These were 3rd generation Novas of which none of them ever had Buick V-6s. Those were only installed into Buick’s intermediates.
Thin-cast Chevrolets also shared the same distributors with the Pontiac sixes, except maybe for the distributor’s centrifugal weights and vaccuum advance units of whom were fine tuned to the OHC sixes power curves
Kind of the opposite of a convertible, my Dad bought a new ’65 F85 Wagon..his was automatic, and was his first V8 (replacing straight 6’s in his ’56 Plymouth, ’61 and ’63 Rambler Classic wagons…it was the 330). Bought at Val Preda Olds/Cadillac after his ’63 Rambler was totalled outside our motel room after we’d vacated our home preparing to move to Vermont (the first time, we also lived there 10 years later in the mid 70’s). Shortly thereafter he bought his first “2nd” car, a used ’59 Beetle which was also totalled parked in front of our house, by a teenager who hit it, replaced with a new ’68 Renault R10.
One thing that strikes me is the instrument panel with round gauges….of course the wagon had the typical strip speedometer..was it unusual to have a completely different gauge layout for different models back then? I don’t just mean extra or different gauges…since round ones aren’t mistakeable for the horizontal strip speedometer that our wagon had. Guess that wouldn’t cut it for a sporty model even back then.