No Reserve: 1973 Oldsmobile Cutlass S Coupe for sale on BaT Auctions - ending July 23 (Lot #79,468) | Bring a Trailer
Do we believe the 20,000 miles, or is 120,000? From the looks of the car, I could easily see 20,000. It's gorgeous inside and out. I like the driving video, too. Smooth and quiet at 70 mph.
Parts of the car just look restored to me. The listing says 'odometer shows 21k miles', as well as 'acquired by the selling dealer in June 2022, reportedly from the original owner.' Neither of which is a guarantee that the odometer hasn't rolled over. However, looking under the car, the undercoating looks too new compared to the rest of the componentry underneath: There are spots where the undercoating is literally shiny, yet everything else has aged and surface rusted? That doesn't seem characteristic of a 49 year old car. Same with the engine bay. It looks like a 121k engine and not a 21k one, and again, why would the engine bay age like that, yet the undercoating underneath is still shiny? I mean, all the other componentry is weathered and has road grim all over it, yet the undercoating is pristine? Something doesn't add up. Whenever different components and materials don't match the weathering of each other (especially for a 49 year old car), I get a little suspicious about any potential claims about it being an original 21k car. Furthermore, the listing doesn't play up the fact that it is 21k original miles at all. If it was a legit 21k car you would think the seller would want to mention that prominently in his listing, knowing that would bring even more money. He didn't. I also noticed that the car has a set of from-the-era Sears Road Handler tires on it. However, I find it a bit odd that if this really was a 21k car, why would the original tires get replaced so soon? The tires the car came with wouldn't have worn out in 21k, and most buyers typically aren't hasty about replacing the tires their new car came with, so why would they get replaced so soon? To me, it just seems like an NOS set was put on to make it look more period correct. Again, something just doesn't add up for me there. Also, I noticed the striker pin for the door mechanism is painted over. I don't know enough about these cars to know for sure, but shouldn't that be bare metal? When I saw that I just assumed the car had been repainted. Furthermore, the paint on the pin just looks too new and unweathered for such a high wear item. Even for a 21k car, but especially for supposedly 49 year old paint. It just looks too pristine to me. Like it has been recently painted. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely things about this car that say it very well plausibly could be a 21k car, but for me, there are some red flags that tell me that it isn't. I'm not saying this is a bad car at all - I actually like this car - but I just have my doubts about it being a true 21k car, and again, when I initially looked at the pics I just assumed it had been restored. Especially given that there were no claims of it being 21k original miles.
To my eye, that undercarriage could easily be a 20,000 mile car. Remember, we're not talking about 200 mile car here. A 20,000 mile car WILL show signs of use. There will be some wear underneath, and there will be surface rust on things like springs and exhaust pipes, which would get there even if the car were never driven but just exposed to the atmosphere for 50 years. The engine compartment will look at least somewhat used, as this one does. But the engine compartmentis still quite clean. I see that there are a couple of splits in the front seat, but that could be due to age as much as use. Vinyl can stiffen and crack over time. To my mind, that carpet just does not look like it has seen 100,000+ miles of people's feet. The dash is clean. The pedals look new. The doors and armrests have no wear. The steering wheel is pristine. No cracks. No discoloration from 100,000 miles of hands holding onto it. The back seat looks never used. That's not definitive, of course, as back seats often see much less use than front seats. But still. The seller makes no claim one way or the other, which is smart as he can likely not possibly know. I agree that it might very well be an extremely well preserved 120,000 mile car. I think the jury is out.
You're making my point for me: of course there's going to be surface corrosion with any 49-year old car. I take no issue with that at all. My issue is with the undercoating and how incongruent it is with everything else. Even at 200 miles, the undercoating of a 49-year old car would not look shiny and brand new like that. As you said, a 21k mile car will show signs of use, so why is the undercoating so shiny and pristine looking when everything else has aged as it should? I'm sorry, but it doesn't add up. The undercarriage and engine bay components just don't match the (lack of) weathering of the undercoating, or even the paint for that matter. There's a lot more weathering and surface rust under the hood than I would associate with a body that looks that pristine. In order for the paint to look as pristine as it does, it would have to have been stored in excellent conditions for all 49 years of its life, so if that's the case, why would the engine bay in particular become as weathered as it is? I also wouldn't call it "quite clan" either. That just doesn't look like a 21k mile engine bay to me and it just seems out of place with the rest of the car. Like I said, there are aspects of this car that seem plausible with it being a 21k car, but my comments stand. There are still things about it that I feel are red flags, and I would never buy a supposed 21k car with any lingering doubts. But again, and I can't stress enough: one of the most glaring omissions is that the seller does not state this is a 21k "original miles" car. The listing simply says 'odometer shows 21k miles'. That does not guarantee it IS a 21k original mile car, nor did the seller make any attempts to say it is. Again, especially in an auction situation, you'd think the seller would mention it being 21k original miles if it actually was. What I think this car is, is a car that has had certain parts of it restored and/or refurbished at some point during its life. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I'd never buy this car without having the chance to see it myself, to talk with the current owner, request documentation proving it is a 21k car (even though he never stated it was), etc. I like this car for what it is, but I'd never make a purchase with questions in my mind as to its authenticity.
Looks like other people thought it wasn't 21k miles either. I think the last time I saw the listing it was sitting at $7,000 and it made me think other people were thinking the same thing. With that said, that's really nicely bought at that price. It sold for a lot lower than I thought it would. I'm sure the buyer is really happy with his or her purchase. Again, it's a nice car, regardless.
Sure, it's already sold, but yeah it's definitely +121k miles on the car. It's got an aftermarket cruise control (with magnet on the driveshaft!) installed, the driver's side carpet is worn near the pedal on the transmission hump, and the reason it's so shiny underneath is that the oil pan and tranny pan are leaking and spraying back - not a lot mind you, but definitely enough to keep that undercarriage looking nice. Regarding the striker bolt, I think that comes down to factory and era regarding the paint based on when the striker bolt was put in the car. If the car was a later body that got dipped, the striker bolts were added afterwards and not painted (black or silver, whatever the supplier color was). On the older era cars if the body got sprayed, by 1968-1970 that was generally done at Fisher after all the door hardware was put in - latches and bolts and strikers got painted "usually" as plants and rework were definitely not always the same between each other.
Oh, I took the oil leak into consideration, which is why I showed the rear underside of the car where you can see the undercoating is still shiny all the way up in the hump for the rear axle. It would be hard for engine oil to get up in there, not to mention the rear is clean and devoid of oil too. I just found it odd. As for the striker bolt, I guess we'd need a GM restoration expert with a knowledge base about the minutia of striker bolts to know for sure. lol I don't know enough about GM cars to know. Regardless, as mentioned, I feel this car was really well bought. If I was in the market for one of these I'd be very happy with that car for $14,000.
Honestly, for a SoCal car that was driven sporadically with a leaking rear main, I've had cars that were just that darn nice underneath even after +100k miles. Folks who live in the great white north and back east in the rust belt don't always understand how *nice* a car can look out here if it's covered from the sun and not allowed to sit near the coast. A 45-60 year old car can look like a 5-6 year old one, even if the miles have been racked up. Things just don't rust out here like they do back east, and when they do it's almost always from the top down and in weird places that east coasters don't always think to look for. And while I am definitely no expert on that level of minutiae about details, I do know from talking to folks who are and the things they post (plus my own experience having had a few "original paint" cars from this era) that the striker bolts and door latch hardware were not painted body color until around 1968, then were painted installed until the dip\etch paint processes started to come out in the '80s (dipping the body in paint with that stuff installed gums them up and makes them hard to adjust apparently). But, and this is a big but, they weren't specifically "on the list" of things that required you paint them and when your plant is running full bore, the guy just gets whatever he can in the 30-45s he has to spray his section - he's spraying what can be seen and trying not to make it run or get dinged by the QC inspector. If you factor in plants like the Fremont plant that were utterly terrible in quality control, you can easily find them not being sprayed fully and looking like a lazy resto overspray (I've had 4 cars from there). It got better once the machines started doing it, but there are loads of examples of '70s cars that had thin paint from the factory for a variety of reasons - and this is before we get to things like the underside of vinyl tops and how each side was sprayed by a different guy with different techniques and eyes for detail. Now that we've beaten this to death, I do agree that it was well-bought by someone and that the seller made out. Because colonnade body guys are notoriously cheap and frugal and hate paying any money for their cars, they're almost as bad as Corvair guys in the "I only want to pay $5 for this..." mentality regarding anything for their car.
