http://442.com/oldsfaq/oldsfaq.htm

Hope some of us can use this.
I do all the time when I can get
the site to come up.

 

I've used this info in the past, mostly a good resource.

 

Nice to see they've updated a lot of their material and are working on more! Kinda wish they would have a log to check what's been updated though. Thanks for the updated link!

 

No problem Allan. Glad to do it.
If you guys look close at some of the
authors, you can thank in part to Joe P. and Chris W.
for some of this great info. Thanks guys!

 

Thanks for posting the link....
Used it this AM...pretty slow coming up,but lots of good imfo

 

Your'e welcome Tedd.
I was browsing it earlier.
Go ahead and rate it if you like.
Not the thread itself persay, but
the info contained. I'm curious.

 

Most of you know about Wild About Cars and what we are doing there. What I don't understand is why anyone would want to spend any time and energy with the old outdated FAQa when what is being done at WAC is a far better (for many reasons) source of information. It does not make sense to have multiple sources of information scattered all over the place. I would think that should go without saying, but apparently not.
WAC's mission is not to just be another source of information. The mission is to do it, and do it right. Documents are being professionally digitized and professionally archived.
And the site will not be "down" tomorrow.
Anyone who is really serious about reference material is more than welcome to get involved with an organization that out there making a difference. And the information being archived is FREE TO EVERYONE, so why on earth would anyone not support that??
The following is what I posted on the "another" 442.com thread:

Guys, apparently I need to remind you that Wild About Cars is building a library of of information that transcends everything that is in the old (and outdated) Olds FAQs.
Straight original documentation ("primary" sources) is in the AHPS library there. Compiled information ("secondary" sources) is in the Tech section on the Wild About Cars side, look under "Techipedia". The Olds FAQs is entirely secondary information.
The Tech section is really robust because all information contained there can be, and is backed up by reference material complimented by pics and links directly to the reference material. For example, see how the '70-'71 Cutlass SX is done:
http://wildaboutcarsonline.com/cgi-b...aldisplayed=50
You don't have to "take the word" of the writer, because where the info comes from is referenced.

More content is being added to both the library and the Tech sections on a continual basis, and the amount of Olds content already far surpasses what is in the Olds FAQs.
And also unlike the Olds FAQs, all WAC content can be updated and provisions have been made to save and keep the content available so it won't be here today and gone tomorrow.

I also need to point out that WAC is a collaborative effort. The 200,000+ page views already on site didn't get there on their own or from some bankrolled corporation. It takes hard work from those that really care about preserving and making available this information.
So if anyone reading this is inclined to help out, or knows someone who may be interested, the door at Wild About Cars is always open.

 

I use WAC regularly, but also use other sources that I can't find info about on WAC. I think most of us understand your mission statement and applaud WAC's efforts. Keep up the good work. I will continue to use WAC, but surfing the web for info is so much easier now, and with so many hits on Google searches to queries I don't like to limit myself to just one source.

 

I'm a newbie here but have gotten a lot of info from all these sites. We are lucky to have access to the priceless knowledge and people found there. Most folks are just looking to learn,improve and enjoy their cars. It would not make sense to me to choose any one over the other. I say support them all.

 

Kurt, no reason to get your panties in a wad. There is a lot of info out there besides your site. It's like going to another doctor for a second opinion.

 

I think it is too bad you don't understand what I'm saying. But if you don't get it, you don't get. Doesn't mean it doesn't make sense and doesn't mean it bothers me either.

 

Kurt is making the point that the data available on WAC is derived from, and sourced back to, the original primary source documents, rather than being a list compiled many years ago by a bunch of guys who thought what they were writing down was correct "as far as they knew."

This is NOT to fault Joe's, Chris's, or anyone else's hard work and research, which was put in years before the internet made some of these things as easy as they are today, and represents a truly great body of work, but as Chris himself has noted elsewhere, over the twenty years or so since their work was started, it has been cut, pasted, and reposted innumerable times, usually with no regard for its continued accuracy, and no attention paid to lost characters, lines, etc.

I myself drop by the Tech FAQ on the ClassicOlds site, which is essentially the same set of files, to refresh my memory about one thing or another from time to time, but I am acutely aware of the fact that the information there is incomplete and occasionally inaccurate (Once again, through NO fault of Chris or Joe). I have not looked at the Tech section of WAC (I guess it's time that I did...), mostly because I always use their resources to look directly at the factory publications.

It's not a question of "getting a second opinion," unless by "getting a second opinion" you mean going from the office of the specialist to the office of the homeopathic herbalist down the street, and asking for their opinion between tokes on their giant bong.
The sources in question are of such vastly different quality (due in part, as I said, to reproduction errors, and also to lack of sourcing back to original documentation, which was technically impossible back when these databases were put together) that they really can't be compared.

At this point, it's basically a comparison of degrees of obsessive insanity - Chris and Joe were revved up and hypermotivated years ago when they put the original files together, but now have more important things to do (such as live their lives and work on their cars) and are not about to throw more time and energy into fixing and updating a bunch of stuff they put behind them years ago. Kurt is flat-out insane with this whole automotive history archive concept, and is rolling at a mile a minute on it, standing partly on their shoulders, to make the archive the most comprehensive and accurate it can be, and to set it up so that it will be a living and dynamic information source, which, unlike the others, can be quickly corrected whenever inaccuracies are discovered.

You can use either source, but the two are not of equivalent value or accuracy.

- Eric

 

I agree, there's nothing like original sourced data.

 

As you may know, I basically leave the PR on WAC to Kurt, who does an excellent job of at least letting everyone know what we are up to.

I'd like to make a few points about WAC.

First, WAC isn't a personal thing by a bunch of us - it is a collaborative effort by many. We want it to be a reference "library" for all brands and enthusiasts and our only ego is the pride we have in what we've accomplished already.

Second, we want more people to become part of it - it can grow faster if we have your help. There are many small and large things that you can do to assist us and everyone is welcome to become part of the "ownership". Consider joining us and helping us improve it and grow it - not only in Olds but any other brand you have a liking to.

Third, we certainly think we have a "better mousetrap", but we also know it can be improved and we welcome suggestions. The intention is, however, to use our powerful software to expand our reach. And a word on that software - once one is educated as to how it works and had editing privileges, one can post material as easily as one can here.

So why don't you all consider helping make WAC as great as it can be? We do have some rules and regs, but they are centered around accuracy and quality, nothing more. You can always contact us about helping at librarian@wildaboutcars.com


Thanks, Bob

 

Kurt finds numerous ways to promote the site and takes many opportunities to do so. There is a lot of good information on some of the other sites, and yes, as Eric stated some of it may not be accurate. I find it offensive when WAC is promoted as the only site with good information. I also find it ethically wrong and a conflict of interest to be plugging your site continually trying to attract members from this site. Just my opinion.

 

Absolutely true, and I think we all agree on that.


I wouldn't say that Kurt is promoting it as the only site with good information, but I think it fair to say that he's promoting it as the best site for good information.
I have no opinion about that, as I am completely unqualified to offer one, but, as it is his site, I would expect him to do nothing less.


Fair enough, but I don't think he's promoting WAC in any way as a competitor to ClassicOlds (or to 442.com, or any other web forum).
ClassicOlds is a forum for discussion, opinion, and advice, while WAC is a data archive.
Two completely different things.

- Eric

 

Yep, "yooze" agin' "us". Sorry you don't get it - such a shame really. Keep repairing that buggy whip.

 

Do not think I will go there

 

I hear ya Ted. Iv'e read
through uglier threads though.

All I was trying to do was share
the love with my Oldsmobro's.

I understand what Kurt is doing with
his own site, but CO is Olds only, with
the exception of the 'non-olds' forum,
which is good. But I do agree with Eric,
He does need to take it down a notch.

I also have no clue what jerzybob
is trying to get across.

 

I do enjoy the wild site's resources. I'm in engineering, so I am partial to verified data, and appreciate the well cited nature of the plan there.

 

WAC is a free site and they make nothing from it as far as I know. They are doing it for the betterment of Olds and should be commended for it. If they want to promote it till the cows come home,absolutely nothing wrong with it. He was simply pointing out that the info on WAC is current and not some out of date website that may or may not correct. I think you calling him out for promoting WAC is out of line. How does WAC take members from this site? they are two different sites totally unrelated to each other in the content provided. This site as other Olds sites are predominately frequented by the same group of people day in and day out. You can just about tell who's going to chime in on each and every topic posted. That's fine but it doesn't make this or any other site better than the others. I am a member of numerous sites and I use them for what they are,nothing more and nothing less. There's some vast knowledge on these sites but you have to deduct for yourself what to use and not use.

 

That's an interesting comment. As mentioned I use WAC for references. In some posts last year I was chastised by another member for posting inaccurate information which I sourced from the WAC site. Kurt did jump into that thread and explained that the info was incorrect and asked the other member if they could assist with the update of material. I doubt they knowingly put wrong info on their site, but to say that their site is the BEST source of current and accurate information is a decision everyone who uses it will form their own thoughts on.

I could care less whether they promote it here or not. It's all part of the hobby and hopefully a source of good information to others. I should point out that CLASSIC OLDSMOBILE IS ALSO FREE TO JOIN.

jrzybob442 can repair his buggy whip all he wants, but should be careful how that post of his could be construed by others. To some it could be funny, to others it could be seen as intimidation. Just sayin....

 

Not to bust your chops, Allan, but how could Bob's post be construed as intimidating?

Looked compact but innocent to me.

- Eric

 

Did I say everything on WAC is correct? No I didn't,I said it was current and not years old info found on other sites. Yes this is site is free,they all are or there wouldn't be any. Car guys are the cheapest SOB's there is when it comes to paying. My point is calling out somebody for promoting their site,product or whatever is just wrong. Some here need to get a grip and quit taking this crap so serious.

 

years ago, I (along with others) tried numerous times with no success to get a lot of the incorrect info on 442.com FAQ corrected. it fell on deaf ears and a lot of people just realized that's how it was and the 442.com FAQ was incorrect/outdated. I gave up years ago and just realized take some of the items with a grain of salt.