wmachine

For those of you that don't know, the Olds FAQs have been copied to a "wiki" type site that allows for additions and changes. That's the good news. And the bad news.
Though the changes can be made by most anyone, the changes *are* tracked, so if someone in particular is causing trouble, they can be identified.
Though not a "perfect" (whatever that is) scenario, it is an improvement over the old FAQs, and certainly is a decent venue.

http://www.oldsmobilewiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Jamesbo

Question as a group. Do you think we should agree to post our "corrections" here for comment BEFORE making changes on the Wiki site.

Just a thought, that has a rather harmonous group we could make an " in house agreement" to say something like.

" I noticed on the Olds wiki isite this morning under W-codes it says "Some 69 W-30 were avalaible with A/C. I think this is incorrect. If I am correct I would like to change it to say NO 69 w-30's were avaliable with A/C"

Just and idea for a new forum page like "Considering changes to Wiki site"

Whatchathink?

citcapp

I think a general consenses would be good before posting corrections but this could lead to a lot of side issues. Not sure how to approch a solution to this...........needs some thought

joe_padavano

I think that's a good idea to vet proposed changes. Your info above is correct, by the way. In fact, NO 69 W-30s NOR W-32s were available with A/C.

joe_padavano

Hey, this is very cool. I'm a wiki illiterate (nor do I trust wikipedia, but that's another post). Hat's off to whoever did this. I've had a number of corrections for years. In particular, some of the tables need to be edited (ie, block casting numbers). How is this done?

wmachine

Joe, you have to register to have edit capabilities. This registration is how that the changes can be to be traced back to the "author". Once registered and you sign in, you'll see an "edit" link along the right side of each section. Click on the edit, and the rest should be self explanatory.
Have at it! You input will be appreciated.

J-(Chicago)

A great idea.

Jamesbo

I for one don't believe I would be comfortable making changes. But I think it would be interesting reading in a thread for some of the more learned Olds Gurus to post saying what errors they found and what corrections they made.

Oldsguy

I think this would be good and am going to PM Paul and ask him to add a forum for this purpose. Joe I would like for you to monitor this as I trust your experience and knowledge. So, as soon as Paul reads my PM and gets it set up we will have it. Good work guys and thanks for the heads up on this

joe_padavano

Great. I'm happy to do this. It's a long time coming. Again, thanks to all who are making this happen.

joe_padavano

Wow, yesterday I couldn't spell "Wiki editor" and now I are one...

I made some minor corrections to the Big Block ID table, I added the 260 block casting number to the Small Block ID table, and I changed the title and added a paragraph on Nickel Content and F-numbers. I welcome any feedback.

88 coupe

http://www.oldsmobilewiki.com/index....ne_Performance

'57-'58 engines: Tri-power should be changed to J-2.
'57 engine: J-2 compression ratio should be changed from 9.25:1 to 10:1.

You can post it in the "discussion" forum, to verify. While there, you might see some familiar names.

Norm

joe_padavano

Thanks Norm, changes incorporated.

Was the J-2 offered across the full range of models, or just in specific ones?

joe_padavano

How do I add topics at the "index" level? There's a bunch of reorganization that would make the FAQ/Wiki much more logical and easier to find info. Keep in mind that the original FAQ was created when David Brown extracted data from posts to the old Chubecto email list server in the mid-1990s.

wmachine

Joe, giving credit (and praise) where it is due, the site was started and translated from the FAQs by Jason Swan. I'm sure he'll give you all the info you need! jasones...@gmail.com
His words:
"I'm the person who made this new site oldsmobilewiki.com, firstly let
me apologize for not asking for the mailing lists permission, but
there was NO WHERE on the old FAQ that said anything about a Google
Group mailing list, everything on the site looked outdated, ALL the
emails I tried contacted were DEAD, and got returned to me. I am open
to suggestions, should I take it down? so far all the edits have been
good information, I have been watching all changes, and you too can
watch the changes, I have NO problem making any of the original
authors into admins on the wiki.
Please advise..Let me know what needs to be done, do I need to add
links to the google group, and original FAQ on the front page? etc.."

joe_padavano

That wasn't intended to be a criticism, just a statement of fact. My point was that the info in the original FAQ was created simply by one person extracting data from posts to an email list. There was no vetting of the info, which is why the FAQs contained some of the well-publicized errors. I greatly appreciate the work to get the Wiki site up and running. You can understand why I believe a reorganization would be a benefit.

The Chubecto listserver predated Google and Google mailing lists and has apparently transitioned to a Yahoo forum in the last few years. Since the original FAQ was created 15 years ago, I'm not surprised that the links are dead.

I do have one concern, however, which is the issue with copyrighted information. Since the original FAQ was pulled from listserver posts, there was no checking for copyrights. Some of the data in that FAQ (and now on the Wiki site) IS copyrighted data. One example that jumps out is the whole section on parts interchange. That info was lifted directly from the Hollander Interchange Manual, which is copyrighted. The seven digit identifiers used in that list are assigned by Hollander and have no relationship to anything ever done by Olds or GM. I flag this as something to consider.

88 coupe

All I can do is guess.

Using Chev and Pontiac for reference, it should have been available in all lines. 88 and Super 88, as a performance option, and 98 for those few who had to have “everything”. Possible they would make one buy the S88, and change the trim in order to “clone” an 88.

A “racer” would want a base (cheapest and lightest) 88 with no options. For street use, he might spring for the radio and heater.

Took another look, and found more errors. I'll make a list and post it later.

Norm

jasoneswan

Hey guys! I'm glad to see some of you are interested in the wiki At the time I made it I posted it on here and ROP and it didn't really take off, there is about 5 people who actually went in and made little changes, I told the Google Oldsmobile mailing list that if any of them wanted to be admins to moderate changes I am all for it, just drop me a line, and I extend the same thing here if you want admin just drop me a PM
here is also hot link to a very important page for tracking changes made it will tell you what was deleted what was added etc and by who

http://www.oldsmobilewiki.com/index....:RecentChanges

jasoneswan

Hey joe, shoot me a PM of how you want to redo the category list and I can change it

wmachine

You 'da man, Jason! Thanks for giving us this medium to work with. Sorely needed!!

mscofer

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The information is limitless.

Toro68

I have put this wki on my cardomain.com bookmarks links.

Toro68

I have put this wiki on my cardomain.com bookmarks links.

88 coupe

Got my '57 numbers verified.

J-2 could be ordered on any car or, as a package, over the parts counter. The solid lifter cam, adjustable rockers and covers, were only available from the dealer.

CR should have been changed to 9.5:1 for both 4 bbl and J-2 engines.

J-2 HP needs to be changed to 300 @ 4600 rpm and torque should be 410 @ 2800.

At the time the '57 manual was printed, J2 was still in development, and no commitment had been made. Explains why the correct numbers were hard to find.

Norm

smcurro

In the "best big block" category, under "What Should I Look For in a BB For My Performance Olds?" it says:

"Most of the 425's have the 45 degree lifter angle with .842" diameter lifters. The Toro blocks have a 39° lifter angle and .921" diameter lifters. The 1967 425's have the 39 ° lifter angle and .842" diameter lifters."

Later in the "best big block" category, under "Summary of Olds 400/425/455 Engines" it says:

"1967 425 engine. Common in 88, 98, wagons? "Best flowing" C heads, though not as good as big valve C's. Forged crank. Drawbacks: Non-Toronado 425 D-blocks with 0.842" lifters will have the older 45-degree cam bank angle; cam selection will depend on this feature."

I have a 1967 D block 425 from an olds 98. Which way is it, 39 degree lifter angle or 45 degree?

By looking at the pushrods my 425 appears to have a 39 degree lifter angle but I could be wrong. On a block with a 45 degree lifter angle, the pushrods are exactly parallel with the intake manifold gasket surface of the head correct? mine are not.

Also, There are two different types of C heads, some with small valves and some with big valves-? is that correct?

thanks

Yellowstatue

'68 442's have big valve C heads...I almost lost a pair when I went to the machine shop they had rebuilt a different pair and I noticed that the valves had too large a space between them and then they had to rebuild my correct pair

88 coupe

https://classicoldsmobile.com/forums...ank-angle.html

The castings are the same. Some are machined for 2" intake valves, some for 2.07".

Norm

smcurro

Good point Norm...as soon as I get the chance I will measure the bank angle and correct the contradiction within the wiki site. (unless someone beats me to it). My point was to highlight the contradiction within the site. The bank angle of my engine is not of high concern to me at the moment and as Norm pointed out it can always be measured.

That is very interesting about the large and small valve C heads. I need to check out all my C head pairs and mark them large/small valves...

aliensatemybuick

Actually, Wikis can be quite reliable, and I use Wikipedia for example regularly for quick scientific queries (though I would NOT use them as an official source). The "self-policing" nature of these pages generally keeps mis-information from surviving; even if a few ignorant or malicious people post false info., as long as there is a vigilant group of people dedicated to the topic, corrections can and will be made. I am confident that the Olds Wiki WILL do much to promote Olds knowledge and to reduce the damage done by myths and mis-information.

aliensatemybuick

I would like to submit my first change to the Olds WIki (and ask that someone who is currently an editor make the change, assuming there is gebneral agreement that it is appropriate):

From the "Blocks" section (this error has been propagated from the original Olds FAQ):


Regarding that last bit of text (i.e., including STARFIRE engines), I do not think it is correct. For starters, Jetstar Is ceased production in 1965, and they came with the Starfire 425 engine option (A blocks), but in 1965 these were 45 degree motors with small lifters, so what's with the "maybe"?! And the the two 1966 Starfire (D block) engines I have personally seen disassembled were 45 degree engines with small lifters. Doesn't mean they ALL were, to be sure, but makes me question this section.

I have mentioned this on a less "kinder and gentler" Olds board, and did get some buy in:

http://72.22.90.30/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=24745&start=7

joe_padavano

Once again I need to remind everyone that the original Olds FAQ, from which the wiki was born, was originally created by David Brown who culled email posts on the old Chubecto Olds Email Listserver back in the 1990s. There was no overt fact checking and David served only as editor. Much of the casting number ID info came from posts authored by Chris Witt.

aliensatemybuick

I merely mentioned the other Olds board to link to a thread whereby my reservation about the use of 39 degree CBA / big valves in Starfire engines was seconded...if as someone suggested previously in THIS thread that we try to develop consensus before making changes to the Olds Wiki, it seemed logical to me that I demonstrate that I am not the only one with this reservation. From my perspective, who the source of the info. is not so important, as "peer review" is the key to making sure the Olds Wiki becomes a more reliable resource than the old Olds FAQ.

68conv455

I Liki the Wiki.
Thanks..

68conv455

When I read that it didn't look right. Let me try again.
I ment that I like the Wiki site.

442much

Just made a few changes to the 1976 442 info. I'll add more and will add some info to the 77 442 as well as time permits.

WhatIf

Does anyone know what's wrong with the Olds Wiki site? When you click the link, you get redirected to a totally different site.

http://www.oldsmobilewiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Has it been hacked?

citcapp

Some one has linked it. This is above my level of knowledge to fix. One of the other Mods or an admin guy will have to fix

Oldsguy

Trying to find the solution. Thanks for the heads up.

jasoneswan

Sorry about that guys, a subdomain of mine expired and the hosting company squated on it. Its back now

macrylinda

Hey, this is very cool. I'm a wiki illiterate (nor do I trust wikipedia, but that's another post). Hat's off to whoever did this. I've had a number of corrections for years. In particular, some of the tables need to be edited (ie, block casting numbers). How is this done?