[Taavetti]

Hi everyone!
I'm looking into the correct original paint color for my 69 GT. I've done a couple searches in the forums, and found some links for paint chip charts, but I'm not sure how to decypher the correct color from the id plate on the car. On the color line, it gives a code of "UU 741". One of the links that I found lists specific GT colors, but the images don't go back as far as 1969. I also read another post whereby the poster suggested looking behind the dash, as some people don't bother to paint that far. The radio is missing on the car, so it was easy enough to look through the hole; the paint could either be silver or it could be primer in there. At colorlibrary.com, I do see a silver color for 1969, is the UU the paint code, or is it the 741 number?

What's odd about this car too, is that at the OANA site, they have a section for identifying the car by various features and the vin. They list that the starting numbers for 1969 were 94-1535504. The number on my vin is 93-1802827. That said, as far as I know, the car doesn't have any of the other features described under the 68 list, however there is a squarish hole in the wooden spare panel towards the front vinyl cover. Would this possibly be the "access hole for the fuel gauge sending unit"?

In either case, what's important to me is finding the right color for the car. If the girlfriend has her way, it's Fireglow. Right now, it's close to Strato Blue.

 

[okieopel]

Taavetti- your GT with the vin starting with a 93 may be a grey market car. Brought over from Europe by a service man home to the US.

Your paint code looks to be UU135 Metalic Silver accourding to this web site.
http://www.buicks.net/years/69/69paint.html

The last number of 741 should be the red interior. If it were black it would of been 751.
I saw your car on the gallery, and it looks fantasic.

 

[Mach1Tom (R.I.P.)]

VIN # starting with 93 for the 69-70 GT's is for the 1.1 liter engines compared to 94 for the 1.9 liter. The UU paint is for Metallic Silver & your car was built at the Bochum assembly plant as these cars started with # - - 1535504 for 1969. 93 or 94 could be the first 2 digits depending on engine size. your car is a later 69 as the 1970 VIN #'s start at - - 1891174

Tom C.

 

[Taavetti]

Wow, thanks for the info guys! As it stands then, so much of the car has been changed from the day it rolled off of the assembly line, that I think it would cost me a small mint to get it back to the original parts. (not to mention that I probably wouldn't be happy with the performance of the 1.1l on California freeways.) The news doesn't dissuade me a bit though; I bought the car to have fun, and fun we'll have! Anyhow, I have another question, but I'm going to post it under a mechanical forum section, so if any more valuable information comes up, the post will be under the right directory. Thanks again!

 

[Taavetti]

Well, it's definately a 1.9 engine, but I don't know how much has changed throughout the rest of the drivetrain. The only driving I've done so far has been from the previous owner's home, to my house. I was going to put this in the drive train section, but are there any identifying features for the transmission and the differential? Is it possible that down the line someone changed the engine without changing those parts? I read that the early rear ends suffered problems with bearings, or that the bearings were hard to find. If they haven't changed the rear end out, will I have trouble down the road, with wrong gearing? In either case, the previous owner only had a spare wheel of the same type that are on the car, and an extra seat.

The back panel is black, which I know is popular with some folks, but it could be an indicator that it's been replaced. On the back panel, at this point, it has just O-P- -L.. and it doesn't look like there are holes for a 1900 or 1100 emblem. The odd thing too, is that I believe that it either has Manta tail lights, or later model lights, I'm not sure which at my early state of knowledge of the cars, but the outside lights are half and half yellow and red, and the inners are red with the reverse lights in the center. Makes me worried about the wiring to say the least.

I have some more pictures at the root of my website, which is at
http://www.blastnotes.com/rick
One at least shows the back of the car. Maybe it was put together with spare parts. "Opelstein!"

 

[PROPEL]

If the back panel has no other holes for insignia other than O-P-E-L, it is original for an 1100. Someone has indeed swapped the rear lights for later Manta ones. Can't tell from the pics whether you still have the reverse light assembly under the license plate. If not, somebody may have removed it and filled over the mounting holes. The wiring and lenses can be easily swapped back to stock if desired.

There is no way to solely swap the engines... they each bolt up to unique transmissions and rear axles (different driveshafts, too.) So it's all or nothing here with the drivetrain. Even the front suspension components are different between 1100s and 1900s. I believe the front brakes are identical, however, except for the caliper bore size. And you must have 1.9L rear brakes, too, since that changes along with the axle.

Probably some extra mounting holes in your engine compartment, too, which I could identify as being unique to a 1.1L.

Walter

 

[foomeister]

my 1970

My 1970 is in the body/paint shop now. I am going to the guys tomorrow to tell him the color i want ti painted.. I 'm going with Ferrari Nero(black) with california b edition front spoiler and side skirts i think the black would be nice

 

[opelgt73]

If the back panel has no other holes for insignia other than O-P-E-L, it is original for an 1100.

It this correct? I was lookint at buying a 1.1L and I noticed that there was no 1100 on the rear panel, I thought that it had been wrecked and filled. Which is why I didnt buy it cause the owner said it had never been repainted, and it was a little too expensive, I guess I will go look at it again.

 

[72opelguy]

thanks travis
i know i sounded disapointed in my opel in my last post but i still realize it is the sweetest car on the planet

 

[PROPEL]

Guess we need to split this thread, but I'm not sure how

It this correct? I was lookint at buying a 1.1L and I noticed that there was no 1100 on the rear panel, I thought that it had been wrecked and filled.

I have never seen a 1.1L GT with the 1100 emblem. (Does the 1100 emblem for a GT even exist?) Mine does not have it, and it's not been filled. Tom in Ohio has an original low mileage 1.1L GT that does not have it, either. Susselbeek in Holland only carries the 1900 badging for GTs. I think Opel used engine badging to emphasize their larger-engined vehicles... but perhaps some other Opel models with 1.1Ls have it?

you know the fact that a 1.1 liter is supposed to be faster than my 72 1.9 disturbs me but my car's not a dog so did they make the c/r range early,mid,or late production of these gts

Sorry, I forgot to mention that the 1100 GTs also have 4.11 rearend gears that contribute to their sprightly nature. But don't fret, 72opelguy... ANY stock 1.9L can outrun this car. The smaller displacement and gearing max this car at 85-90mph.

Walter

 

[BQS4]

the early GTs that had either the 1.1 0r the 1.9, 1.1 was the STANDARD motor, the 1.9 was OPTIONAL, thus the 1.9 motored cars got a badge stating so. Like a 69 Camaro vs. a 69 Z/28, or a 74 Chevy with a standard 350, but with an optional 454, they got a "454" badge for the front fender. My 69 GT has all the original badges on the outside, and one is a "1900" badge on the front 1/4s just under the "OPEL" and "GT"