When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Every time I thumb through a copy of Muscle Car Review at the grocery store, it just reinforces why I dropped my subscription years ago. The recent callout of a "1971 W-31" was bad enough, but I just looked at the Feb 2016 issue with the Oldsmobile spread. There's a photo of a VIN derivative stamp on an Olds block. The VIN derivative is 32Mxxxxxx. The caption points out that the "M" is the all-important indicator of a W-30 motor.
Can't these people EVER fact-check their articles?
Wow! I have a W30 engine in my plain ol' '68 4-4-2! How did I get so lucky? Do you think I'm the only one? I should be able to get any price now for my car!
Wow! I have a W30 engine in my plain ol' '68 4-4-2! How did I get so lucky? Do you think I'm the only one? I should be able to get any price now for my car!
Randy C.
Heck, every Toronado from 1968-1976 has a "W-30 motor"...
Mostly young Turks writing for these rags now who 1) weren't around when the cars were, 2) too lazy to do any serious research and 3) rely on a lot of internet hype.
At least we have one young automotive journalist here who strives to get his facts right and does good research- that is Diego.
Note the 68 442 in the article photos has the fender stripe in the wrong location.
I was going to point that out, but those are the pre-production factory photos that have been discussed previously, so not really the fault of the article on that one.
So many "experts" write all kinds of wrong things in these magazines that mislead many people. When Olds stopped production, a 4x4 mag I was getting stated that it was started and named for Barney Oldfield. I new very little about Olds at that time, but even I knew who R.E.Olds was. (and Barney)
The caption points out that the "M" is the all-important indicator of a W-30 motor.
I think you're being a bit hard, but I think I would be saying the same thing too.
They aren't saying an "M" would make it a W-30, but rather a W-30 needs the "M." Could be better worded, but we know what they're trying to say. I feel the intention to be correct was there but fell short.
Thanks for the kudos from my friend from the Shenandoah Valley!
What I'd suggest is to write a letter to the editor. I know they post reasonable letters from people. I ordinarily would suggest to post on Facebook but I would be willing to bet the editor doesn't curate the page.
They aren't saying an "M" would make it a W-30, but rather a W-30 needs the "M."
Sorry Diego, but this statement is pretty clear:
Originally Posted by MCR
Note the telltale M in the sequence, denoting a real-deal W-30.
I don't see any other way to interpret that.
The two things that obviously stand out are 1) there is NO indication in the VIN derivative stamp that can "denote" any Olds block is a W-30 motor, and 2) ironically, the motor in question came out of a 1972, where it is trivially easy to verify the car is a W-30.
What I'd suggest is to write a letter to the editor. I know they post reasonable letters from people. I ordinarily would suggest to post on Facebook but I would be willing to bet the editor doesn't curate the page.
I was going to do that yesterday, but there is no email link on their website for letters to the editor.
Here, again, is the VIN derivative in the magazine article that is allegedly a "real deal" W-30 motor:
This page is from the 1972 CSM. Pardon the water stains.
Note that the serial numbers for A-body cars ran 100001 through 400000. Full size cars were 400001 through 700000, and Toros were 700001 and up. Note that the block in question has a serial number of 540603.
This "real deal" W-motor came out of a FULL SIZE OLDSMOBILE!!!!
"Please include your name, address, and phone number" in case they wish to contact you.
Email letter sent:
First, let me say that Oldsmobile fans are always appreciative of the rare magazine articles about our cars. The lengthy spread in the Feb 2016 issue of MCR was a welcome surprise. In the interest of preventing "truth decay", however, I must point out an error in the article Oldsmobile W-30/W-31 Secrets Revealed by Expert Stephen J. Minore, written by Bob McClurg. The photo of the VIN derivative stamp on an Olds block shows a VIN derivative of 32M540603. The caption for the photo states This is the VIN stamp on a W-30 engine block. Note the telltale M in the sequence, denoting a real-deal W-30. Unfortunately, that statement is incorrect. The VIN derivative decodes as follows: 3=Oldsmobile division, 2=1972 model year, M=Lansing, MI assembly plant, and 540603=serial number of the car that motor was installed in. Nothing in the VIN derivative can "prove" that this (or any) block is from a W-30, and in fact, the serial number of this particular block proves that it came from a Delta 88 or Ninety Eight, not an A-body.
I suspect that the intent was to point out that all W-30s were built at the Lansing assembly plant, which would be correct, but those represent only a tiny fraction of the cars and motors built in Lansing, and every Lansing-built VIN derivative has the "M", not just W-cars. Ironically, the VIN derivative on this particular block must have come from a Delta 88, Ninety Eight, or Custom Cruiser built in Lansing in the 1972 model year. The attached photo from the 1972 Oldsmobile Chassis Service Manual (pardon the water stains on the pages) lists the starting serial numbers for the VINs and VIN derivatives for all Oldsmobile car lines that year. Note that for Lansing-built cars, the serial numbers for A-bodies started with 100001. Full size cars started with 4000001, and Toronados with 700001. Olds built fewer than 400,000 A-bodies in Lansing in the 1972 model year, so any block with a serial number between 400001 and 700000 came out of a full size car.
Ironically, the 1972 model year, which is when the block in question was built, was the first year that an engine code was included in the VIN, so it is trivially easy to verify that a 1972 car is a real W-30. Simply look for the letter "X" in the fifth position of the car's VIN. Unfortunately, that part of the VIN is not included in the VIN derivative stamp on the block.
Thanks for the Oldsmobile features and keep up the good work.
I think you're being a bit hard, but I think I would be saying the same thing too.
They aren't saying an "M" would make it a W-30, but rather a W-30 needs the "M." Could be better worded, but we know what they're trying to say. I feel the intention to be correct was there but fell short.
The first time I read it a week ago in the mag I thought the same thing. I just passed it over because I'm so used to reading mistakes about Oldsmobiles. However, I went back and read it again on line and I disagree, it is a blatant and significant mistake.
Last edited by Rocketguy; January 31st, 2016 at 11:01 AM.
The first time I read it I thought the same thing and passed it over, however, I went back and read it again and I disagree, it is a blatant and significant mistake.
Not Steve I don't think he wrote the article but the author of the Article and who ever posted the picture of the 72 M derivative engine stamp is def wrong and gave false info whether they knew it or not.
I think we should be clear to not suggest the gaffes were the fault of Steve, or at least to allow him to address them.
I don't know Steve and I don't think anything I've written blames him. I also realize that photo captions may have been written by someone else entirely. I've had this problem with proposals I've worked on, for example.
I don't know Steve and I don't think anything I've written blames him. I also realize that photo captions may have been written by someone else entirely. I've had this problem with proposals I've worked on, for example.
X2 Joe
Steve basically gets stuck in the middle because the article kind of revolves around him.
No, not suggestions anyone is blaming him, but I simply don't want a casual reader of this thread to think he's at fault for the article's sloppiness.
Your right Diego. The article was sloppy and that caption was totally off course. I think by the article being labeled or intended to be revealing secrets about W machines they jumped the gun and attempted to use the Vin deriv M as another secret to the Authentication of a w machine. Paperwork is always the smoking gun.
January 29th, 2016, 06:35 AM
