In honor of our slow re-run of the legendary Cutlass Chronicles, I’ve dug up pictures of this 1969 Cutlass S convertible that I took this past spring. It’s a very likable car, in spite of some major flaws: if you can’t tell from here, that’s not a very high quality repaint and the wheels are decidedly unappealing, too. Shame.
When taking pictures of the car, I got to talk to the owner and take some interior and underhood shots. And whatever my impressions of the wheels and paint, this makes for a great illustration of the average mainstream offering from the muscle car era and also a good example of what would make the cars so popular in the coming decade: you could get a car with a prestige factor somewhat above that of the very similar Chevelle or LeMans in a wide variety of bodystyles, from an extra cool extended wheelbase wagon to this rather athletically proportioned ragtop.
I’ve gotten flack for my love of 68-72 A-body sedans before, but I think all the A-bodies of this era are kinda hunky, even if they are also slightly soft around the edges. One can look strong when a bit thicker than “ideal,” and the GM intermediates of the era are a good translation of that idea to four wheels (though I understand why someone might prefer their leaner predecessors). I’ve mentioned before that Oldsmobile might’ve been well served by gleaning some inspiration for this aggressive era during their final, import-chasing years but on the other hand, few cars of the ’90s looked like they would steal your lunch money, and I’m sure Olds didn’t want to appear antisocial.
The ’69 Cutlasses got a pretty cool rear-end styling treatment; the fussier set-ups from 70-72 seem to be more popular, but I like this simpler look with the inset taillights a lot better. Is there some jet-engine inspiration here or is it just me?
Well, if not evident from the rear, these Olds logos show some jet plane influence. This detail would also be gone the following year. If I recall correctly, the owner wanted about $9,000 for the car, whose odometer showed 35,000 miles (who knows how many times its turned over). This corner of the car makes a good example of why that’s too much to ask .
Here’s an even better example. I’m told the power top works and it looks relatively intact, but the same obviously can’t be said for the interior. It’s hard to match the carefree conviviality of riding three-abreast in a convertible with a big V8 and this convertible would be a great way to be seen, even with that disgusting seat.
Cruising around during a balmy summer evening on the way to the local drive-in, with unburned hydrocarbons wafting into the passenger space, would be a supreme (pun intended) way to conjure up that high-octane late ’60s feel, so this Cutlass would make a fun $4,000 car in its current condition.
Speaking of which, it looks like the engine’s gotten a few modifications, but it’s hard to know exactly what was done to it. I can’t tell what engine is under the hood without any air cleaner labels or seeing what color the block is, but I’m guessing it’s a 350 with a four-barrel set-up.
The shift quadrant showed D,S, and L, so this car has the Turbohydramatic option (it was the final year for the Jetaway two-speed) and as it backs a V8 of a full 5.7 liters from the days of high-compression, I’m sure it makes for a more than satisfying combination in this chassis, even if it was not out-right fast.
If the increasingly bejeweled Cutlass Supremes of the ’70s became America’s sweethearts, this Cutlass S provides a nice contrast to Brougham-inspired understanding of Cutlass many remember today. Compared to the GTOs and Chevelle SSs with which it competed, this convertible sibling offers a dapper touch to temper their testosterone-laced aesthetic without looking effete. As such, it represents a highly appealing middle ground as well as a textbook example of GM’s soon-obsolete marketing prowess. Though the additional glitz of the Supreme would win out in the seventies and early eighties, there would be sad attempts to recapture the magic of cars like this over the following decades. Don’t let the green paint fool you.
I like it but would rather have a ’68. At the time I thought the lack of vent windows was cool, but now I know better.
I side with gottacook here. I have always preferred the details of the 68 to the 69. I also prefer the 70-72. Truthfully, I prefer the prior generation even more (except for the really awkward 67).
I get so tired of seeing cars with shiny paint in the wrong color, pitted chrome, badly worn interiors, rust bubbling up all over, and upper 4 figure price tags. I might buy this car for $2k, but only as a driving resto project. That is, if I wanted one of these at all. Everything that has been done needs to be redone because it was done badly, and then there is everything that has not been done and needs it.
+1 there should still be plenty nicer Cutlasses around for $9000.
+1 More time was spent polishing the paint, than attempting to fix the rust.
I think that’s the first time I’ve ever heard anyone say they prefer the ’68! The grille on them is so funky – Olds really loved the hell out of that weird “dual barbell” headlamp look going back to ’59. I kinda like it as an oddity, but this one is definitely more attractive to me.
And yeah the price is total crackpipe. Ridiculous.
Here’s a nice ’68 I saw parked on the street recently, much better re-spray. Not my best photography, though. I liked how the color of the car blended in with the buildings and got distracted by that. Gotta say I prefer the ’69 tails to this, too:
And frontways for a look at that funky face:
I like the ’68 front end better because it lacks the central, 6-inch-wide “tooth” of the bumper of the ’69, which protrudes too much for my taste; if you’re gonna have a central protruding section, you have to go all the way (as with the contemporary Pontiac) for it to really work, and even then it doesn’t always fit the rest of the car. The headlamp treatment of the ’68 versus ’69 is secondary to me.
I just try to pretend that part doesn’t exist (it’s invisible when viewed head-on), although I do like the way Perry photographed it here – makes it look like the face of a cartoon villain with a severe underbite!
Sean, I love that line ” the face of a cartoon villain with a severe underbite!” Brilliant!
+1 on preferring the lights set together instead of the ‘two pairs of glasses’ look. Still….that car is MUCHO sweet. Great color combo and Magnum 500s FTW.
Saw one of these recently in blue but cant find the pic even with the crap condition someone would ask 30-50k for this here we get lots of tired overpriced junk being pedalled as collectable that needs 100k spent on it to make it presentable mail it to NZ.
’69 is my favorite year of this body; esp if it is equipped with the “Rocket” 350 4-BBL and 3 speed turbohydramatic transmission.
Ever notice how many of these loose their dashboard headlight switch knobs?
The repaint is unfortunate, mainly due to the non-period color and the type of metallic used. It is probably 10-15 years old and it appears that it was a decent quality job. It appears that they did a proper dis-assembly with removal of the trim, badges, ect rather than masking it.
For a driver status car I fully understand and support the choice of wheels. The fact is the stock wheels weren’t really intended to be used with radial tires in sizes that are commonly found today. They are just too skinny and with the traction of modern tires it isn’t that hard to flex the wheel to the point it shoots off the hubcap. I had that problem with my Scout II. I lost a couple of hubcaps when using modern radial tires in the closest commonly available size on the stock wheels. I used 2 different strategies to deal with it before settling in on what I use now. For one I bought some slightly rusty used “chrome modular” wheels that were slightly wider and put the hub caps on them. The hubcaps now stayed on. For the other I used wheels similar to the ones found on this car, again found used. Eventually I was able to find some of the OE chrome Rallye wheels in decent shape that were included with the Radial Tire package for both trucks.
Overall it is far from the nicest one around but it wouldn’t diminish the fun of the unique driving experience of a mid of full size 60’s American car with the top down, at least not for me.
Other than making sure that the brakes, suspension ect were in proper working order the only things I think I would do is a little rust treatment on the spots where it is starting to take hold and give it either an Indian blanket or Beach Towl/T-shirt seat cover job and drive it every chance the weather cooperated.
I do like the logo side marker lights. Wish more automakers would try that eve today.
Yup those side marker lights as well as the other GM ones from the era that incorporated the logo were great. What a great response to a gov’t mandated change. I’m sure the designers were complaining that it would ruin the looks of the vehicles they designed so they turned those “eyesores” into lighted badges. I think the Rocket is the best but the Arrowhead is a very close 2nd and the Tri-shield in 3rd.
A ’69 would not normally be a top pick for me, but it is another car I like better now when it isn’t surrounded by the better looking versions that came before and after it.
In the mid ’80s i looked very closely at a ’72 Supreme convertible that was a beauty. AC and lots of options except power windows, which held me back. About $5,000. It was the one that got away due to my own foolishness. I’d probably still have it.
It’s not a jet plane, it supposed to be a rocket. Air cleaner would have had a ‘Rocket 350’ decal. Oldsmobiles were all about the rocket since the 50’s.
In appreciation, here are some photos from a San Luis Obispo car show two weeks ago. The wagon was for sale, and if I’d happened to have $20K burning a hole in my pocket …
Dash …
Big brother …
Interior …
That’s a great shot of a dash in nice shape. Dad had a 1970 Cutlass 4-door in Gobi Beige (a light yellow) with this exact same color dash.
Sweet looking car! Cute girl! Unusual outfit!
My sister had a blue ’68 Cutlass, it was a great car, but it rusted amazingly quickly. By the time it was 3 years old, it had holes in both doors where the paint had been chipped by other cars in parking lot “incidents”. Strangely, none of the neighbor’s Cutlasses had the same rust issues, even though they were bought about the same time. After 3 years, it got traded for an almost identically equipped ’71, which was my first car. I wrecked it 2 weeks or so after I got it. Sadly, my sister’s replacement car was a total POS, from the bad color (A weird new penny bronze with a crap brown vinyl top, the first of many bad color choices she has made) to the many problems it had, and as a final strike against it, the awful “Colonade” styling. Everytime she sees a Cutlass of the late 60’s to early 70’s now, she would love to buy it. The ’73 ’76 cars don’t have any appeal for her (or me) at all.
I really wish that horrible centerline wheel style would just die already. Ugly ugly wheels in every form(holeless, 5 hole, several holes ect) and make every car they’re on look like trailer trash. Stock or a period correct mag like a Torque thrust, cragar SS or anson sprint would be so much better.
+1 I never liked them on any car.Horrid looking things
Wonder how much Hondo up in there?
*Bondo*
Make mine a ’70-’72, thanks mostly to the more sculptured flanks which made it almost Jaguar-like. They also had better looking hood scoops, even if they didn’t work as well as the previous years’ under-bumper intakes (or the ungainly wart that sprouted from the hood of the first Hurst/Olds specials).
One thing I always thought curious was how the rooflines varied between the divisions from 1969 to the 1970 restyle. The Cutlass and LeMans seemed to only subtlety alter the quarter window arc, while the Regal and Chevelle got dramatic changes.
I don’t believe there was a Regal at the time, just Skylark.
Recovering a bench seat is not very hard, but why do people repaint their cars in those Hot Wheels car metallics? Around where I live, it’s that bright, awful medium blue…it just screams “pop rivets and bondo are under here!!!”
+1. The candy apple red is another perennial.
This is OK I suppose, but make my Cutlass a 1968 4-4-2 model, please; 2 door hardtop, red w/white stripes and interior.
I assume the 1969 in question is a work in progress, as the interior is pretty ratty.
I agree on that color green, it just screams “Theyre always after me lucky charms!” Those 10-hole wheels sure are getting a lot of hate. That style isn’t a ‘bad’ looking wheel…its just very generic. But Centerlines do give a ‘mid 80s performance’ vibe to whatever theyre on. Hey, he COULD be rolling on 22′ full chrome nastiness.
And the CC effect strikes again. I saw a Cutlass droptop out on the road on my way home from work. Kind of a tomato looking red/orange with white interior and on Magnum 500s. Im not much of an Olds fan but damn was it ever sweet!
Did Olds use a specific cam profile to get a particular sound from their V8s? As a kid back in the 70s I could always tell an Oldmobile V8 from a block away without looking due to the great mellow sound they made.
I had a Blue 68 Cutlass S convertible in high school that I put duals and “turbo flow” mufflers on. The car was pretty beat up, but made such a great sound on a summer day with the top down I really didn’t care.